ghtan

If that is all you need to support your doctrine, then your faith and your understanding are shallow indeed. You provided some explanation of Shekinah but nothing that links it to the woman in Rev 12:1. Instead, the sun, moon and twelve stars link her directly to Gen 37:9 i.e. to Israel. Is it any wonder then that the latter view is accepted by many? No doubt a common view need not be correct but to overturn one you have to come up with a better view. Your view is unsupported by scripture, let alone better.

Trying to hide that you have no answer? Fully understand.

I still do not see any scriptural support for your Shekinah explanation. Not surprising if the truth is that there isn't any. What I do see is that a few others on this thread also recognise that the woman is probably Israel. Proves it IS intuitive. Good enough for me. Where in Dan 2 does it say the dream was about the present? Are you adding to scripture?

LOL. You have problems with Israel symbolised as a heavenly woman and yet you have no problem with the woman being a mysterious Shekinah whom you term as the feminine of God?! Seems like you have one standard for yourself and another for others. Besides, I did point out that this is a common view. Which means MANY find it intuitive enough. How many share your Shekinah explanation? I have not heard of it myself. Can't be more intuitive, can it then? As for John including things that happened in the recent past in his revelation of the end days, it is not a problem. Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar that his dream was about the future (Dan 2:45) yet the first part of the image depict Nebuchadnezzar himself. Same with Dan 7.

Earth? I don't read that anywhere. I think you mean the moon is under her feet in verse 1, correct? It alludes to Gen 37:9. Jacob understood the planetary bodies in Joseph's dream to refer to them i.e. the bible does use these symbols for Israel.

Well, you can stick to your view. But at the end of the day who should readers believe? You who has not provided a shred of evidence to back your understanding of the meaning of letteth, or all those translators, including those of the NKJV, who evidently understand it as restrain or equivalent? The choice is a no-brainer. I don't have anything else to add.

"Probably" isn't good enough. Since your understanding of letteth is at odds with virtually every other translation, the onus is on you to prove that the word means what you say it means. Btw, the NKJV translates the word in verse 7 as 'he who now restrains'. The NKJV set out to update the KJV. I believe the NKJV translators would have checked what letteth meant in the 17th century. The Holy Spirit gets out of the way simply by no longer restraining evil thus allowing the lawless one to do as he pleases. I like the way the NLT puts it as "steps out of the way." Why do you tie in the coming of the lawless one with the point of his entry into the 'temple'? Surely he can come onto the world stage first and then enter the temple later.

A common view is that the woman is Israel and the man-child is Jesus. I like this view; it is simple and intuitive.

I did not take your statement out of context. Besides, your statement is actually correct. Only God can restrain the devil. A concept cannot.

The problem is not with the translations. Post has made a good case to show that letteth meant restrain or equivalent in those days. As for the Holy Spirit, you will need to refer to the Greek text to appreciate the difference in gender. Also, the Greek text does not say the Holy Spirit will be removed from the earth. He just gets “out of the way.” See YLT or ESV. He will still operate on earth but he will no longer stand in the way of the coming of the lawless one.

In your own words (see bold), it is Jesus who controls when the lawless one can come; if you are right, the gender of “what” (literally it reads "that which withholds") in verse 6 should be masculine because Jesus is masculine in Greek. Instead, "that which withholds" is neuter in Greek and that is why the KJV translates it as "what." Your suggestion that Paul branches off to talk about a concept sounds like an attempt to get round this grammatical difficulty. I think readers will see through that. A more common view is that "that which withholds" is the Holy Spirit because spirit is neuter in Greek, hence verse 6. And in a few passages - this is admittedly debated - the masculine is also used of the Holy Spirit in recognition of him as a person in the Trinity. This then explains the switch to masculine in verse 7. It is by no means a consensus view but it has far less difficulty, esp grammatical, than the one you propose.

Don't those verses show that Paul equates the church with the body of Christ and not Christ himself? The "for" at the start of verse 13 connects it directly to the end of verse 12 and the message is something like: "Likewise in Christ we are baptised in one spirit into one body." The church is still being equated with the body. Since Paul consistently refers to the church as the body of Christ and not Christ himself, and body is neuter in Greek, he would have used a neuter form for "the one who now holds it back" in 2 Thess 2:7 if he were thinking of the church. Indeed, it was in a neuter form in verse 6 yet Paul deliberately changed it to a masculine form in verse 7. Therefore, he probably meant someone or something else.

I think scripture is consistent that he who will rule with an iron scepter is Jesus. The quote is from Ps 2:9 where God is talking to his Son. It also clearly refers to Jesus in Rev 19:15. In the case of Rev 2:27, it simply means that in the new world Jesus will give authority to some to rule with him and he is able to give that authority because he has already received it from the Father, supported by Ps 2:9 which John quotes and which his readers would know follows Ps 2:8. If you think the man-child is an end-time group, who then is the woman that gives birth to this end-time group? "They" in 12:11 refers to the brethren in 12:10. We do not have to search back to verse 5 to find the answer.

It seems to me that to support your thesis you need to show at least one passage where Paul unequivocally refers to the church as 'Jesus' or 'Christ' and not its usual long-form 'the body of Christ'? Is there such a passage?

all the more reason to agree with Sister.

The entire chapter could span centuries. If you think the man-child is not Jesus, who or what is he?

I don't think 2:26-27 refers to man-child. Do say plainly who or what you think is the man-child if not Jesus.

I would disagree with that since John was told that the things in Revelation are things that would come to pass..... and it was written many years after Jesus was resurrected. The vision in heaven that John saw has never been there and won't be until next fall, and will not be there again for at least 7,000 years unless the entire solar system's orbits are changed. I agree with Sister. Not everything in Rev refers to events after John wrote. The birth of the man-child in Rev 12 more naturally symbolises the birth of Jesus.

Dan 12:1 more likely refers to AD70. Josephus said the prolonged siege of Jerusalem led to tremendous suffering and some residents to commit atrocities e.g. mothers eating their young. Battles for cities today are usually over in a matter of weeks or at most months.

Ah...so you finally admit the KJV has added words to the text. It does not matter if it is for clarity - modern translations can claim that too - but the fact remains the KJV has done EXACTLY what you complain about modern translations. So, together with 1 John 5:7, that makes the KJV the main culprit. No spin in that.

Why then does the KJV put those words in italics? It is to indicate they have added those words. So now there are two things that KJV has clearly added - these words in 2 Sam and 1 John 5:7. So much for a 'perfect' translation. But to be fair to the KJV, it never claimed to be perfect. Only people like you claim that. You related politicians and used car salesmen to spinning; do you regard spinning as a compliment?

Why do you insult politicians and used car salesmen? Nothing wrong with either job if performed honestly. Strange logic you are using. There is then also no proof the modern translations have added or removed words from the text in use when the canon was closed. On the other hand, it is obvious the KJV added “the brother of” to 2 Sam 21:19.

2 Samuel was probably written around 1,000 BC. Readers were not confused for 2,600 years before the KJV came along. Why should they be confused now? I prefer my bible to tell me what the original text said and leave the resolving of difficulties to us. Thanks for bringing up this verse though; I was not aware of the difference. I now have more confidence in the modern translations. Oddly, there was someone on this thread who protested that modern translations have no business adding or removing words from the text. That principle is fair. Only thing is it now appears the main culprit is the KJV.

If that is the answer to my question, it misses the point. Maybe I phrased it poorly. Let me try again. Why then does the KJV put the words "the brother of" in italics?

Is this really a 'flaw' in the modern translations? Why then does the KJV have the words in italics?