2Thessalonians2:6-7 explained

[post]

2 hours ago, douggg said:

 "letteh" does not mean "restrains".  
. . .
KJV
. . . 
KJV
. . . 
KJV

. . .
KJV
. . .
KJV

. . .
KJV
. . .
I don't know what else to say.

look at the actual scripture - written in Greek. exactly the same word, κατέχων, is being used in verse 6 and verse 7. 
the kjv in verse 6 translates this as "withholding" -- and you earlier said that you have no problem accepting that this is the same as restraining. 
the kjv then in verse 7 translates exactly the same word as "letteth" 

now you've got two possible choices here for what is true:
(1) either you are incorrect, and in the olde anglish, "letteth" means the same thing as "doth withhold" and "restraineth" - so your understanding can't be trusted . .
or, 
(2) you are correct; they are opposite meanings, and the kjv for whatever reason purposefully translates the same word in two completely different ways, in consecutive sentences, so it cannot be trusted.

either you are quite wrong about how English was used some 400 years ago, so that perhaps there's a very good reason for you to consider using a different translation, 
or the kjv is an obviously deceitful and wrong translation that cannot be trusted, so that there is also a very good reason for you to consider using a different translation. 

in either possible case -- without even touching the subject of which is actually the truth here -- the kjv may be leading you to some very wrong theology and interpretation, either because you don't really understand the language, or because the translation is unfaithful to the text! 

thanks and praise be to God!
He has provided for you such a clear ensample not to idolize this translation! 


 

[post]

 . .  but now i will show you that the first option is the correct one, and vindicate your precious kjv

from Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament - a well-respected resource for understanding keywords in the kjv: 

 

Letteth ( κατέχων )

The same word as restraineth, 2 Thessalonians 2:6. Let is old English for hinder, prevent. Often in Chaucer.

“May I him lette of that?” (prevent him from it).

Troil. and Cress. ii. 732.

“And bothe in love y-like sore they brente (burned)

That noon or alle hir (their) frendes might hit lette.”

Legend of Good Women, 731.

So Shakespeare:

“What lets but one may enter?”

Two Gentlemen of Verona, iii. 1.

“I'll make a ghost of him that lets me.”

Hamlet i. 4.

“The flesh resisteth the work of the Holy Ghost in our hearts, and lets it.” - Latimer, Serm.

 

[post]

so, seriously -- if you cannot understand the English of 500 years ago, it's a good idea to get a Bible that is a translation - not a paraphrase like 'the living bible' or 'the message' or even the 'new living translation' -- but one like the niv, esv, hcsb, asv, etc. that as much as possible, while retaining readability in the English language, translates word-for word. read the Bible in some translation like these -

- or please, augment what you read in the kjv with something like this, not with the thought in mind that they are wicked delusions sent by the devil to twist what the pure kjv says - but with the understanding that they are from God, and are equally renditions of His Word to us, written in a way to help you to comprehend what you are reading . . . and that they are above all, all mere translations of a scripture that was given in Greek and Hebrew, not English !! so if they differ in what you thought you understood, check into it and you'll probably see that you just didn't understand the kjv. 

we've all got to read something we can understand properly or we're all going to end up in a very weird place by private interpretation. 

if anyone insists on using the kjv, i strongly recommend that they spend some spare time reading things like Shakespeare and Chaucer, which use the same archaic form of the language - so you can familiarize yourself with how these words are used and the implications of the vocabulary. just realizing that 'thee and thou' means 'you' and that a lot of words have '-eth' appended to them is not sufficient to comprehend the differences in the usage of the English. this business of "letteth" is a perfect example -- or in ye olde tongue, 'a goode ensample'



i ain't picking on you. i'm just shining some light

[BlindSeeker]

2 hours ago, angels4u said:

Where in your article do you say that Jesus is God?

Sorry but I didn't see it.?

Can you just say "yes" or "No" ?

Angels4u, I must say it’s really hard to believe you are asking me this question when the whole article is a reinforcement of the Doctrine of Christ, i.e., the deity of Jesus Christ as God manifested in the flesh… hence the title, “The Lord's Christ is Christ the Lord.”

My son was here when I got the email about your post and he too was totally amazed that anyone could read that article and then ask such a question.

So, uh, yepper, that would be a "yes" - Jesus is God.

Ephesians 4:4 - There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 and Father of all One God, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

[ENOCH2010]

I'm going with choice #1, I think he is wrong and the Bible is right. letteth means to hinder or restrain

[BlindSeeker]

2 hours ago, douggg said:

The papacy, the Vatican were not around at the time of the first century - for it's teachings, or it's hierarchy , to be the mystery of iniquity already at work.     ..... if I have understood you correctly.

 

Correct, because Rome had not fallen so as to give place for it to rise. If you missed that, then clearly you did not understand my post correctly.

[douggg]

1 hour ago, post said:

look at the actual scripture - written in Greek. exactly the same word, κατέχων, is being used in verse 6 and verse 7. 
the kjv in verse 6 translates this as "withholding" -- and you earlier said that you have no problem accepting that this is the same as restraining. 
the kjv then in verse 7 translates exactly the same word as "letteth" 

now you've got two possible choices here for what is true:
(1) either you are incorrect, and in the olde anglish, "letteth" means the same thing as "doth withhold" and "restraineth" - so your understanding can't be trusted . .
or, 
(2) you are correct; they are opposite meanings, and the kjv for whatever reason purposefully translates the same word in two completely different ways, in consecutive sentences, so it cannot be trusted.

either you are quite wrong about how English was used some 400 years ago, so that perhaps there's a very good reason for you to consider using a different translation, 
or the kjv is an obviously deceitful and wrong translation that cannot be trusted, so that there is also a very good reason for you to consider using a different translation. 

in either possible case -- without even touching the subject of which is actually the truth here -- the kjv may be leading you to some very wrong theology and interpretation, either because you don't really understand the language, or because the translation is unfaithful to the text! 

thanks and praise be to God!
He has provided for you such a clear ensample not to idolize this translation! 


 

There is a third choice.   That the base greek language document(s) that the KJV translators were using is not the same base document you are looking up definitions to.

There is a fourth choice    That there are nuances in the Greek that the same Greek word under different conditions can take on a completely different meaning.

I am not idolizing any translation.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2016 by douggg

[douggg]

1 hour ago, BlindSeeker said:

Correct, because Rome had not fallen so as to give place for it to rise. If you missed that, then clearly you did not understand my post correctly.

I am sure that I am not getting any of it.    I couldn't understand what direction you were going in your document.     You didn't state to the reader where you were heading.  

 

Edited May 29, 2016 by douggg

[douggg]

2 hours ago, post said:

 . .  but now i will show you that the first option is the correct one, and vindicate your precious kjv

from Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament - a well-respected resource for understanding keywords in the kjv: 

 

Letteth ( κατέχων )

The same word as restraineth, 2 Thessalonians 2:6. Let is old English for hinder, prevent. Often in Chaucer.

“May I him lette of that?” (prevent him from it).

Troil. and Cress. ii. 732.

“And bothe in love y-like sore they brente (burned)

That noon or alle hir (their) frendes might hit lette.”

Legend of Good Women, 731.

So Shakespeare:

“What lets but one may enter?”

Two Gentlemen of Verona, iii. 1.

“I'll make a ghost of him that lets me.”

Hamlet i. 4.

“The flesh resisteth the work of the Holy Ghost in our hearts, and lets it.” - Latimer, Serm.

 

  The Old English period is followed by Middle English (12th to 15th century), Early Modern English (c. 1480 to 1650) and finally Modern English (after 1650).  (from wikipedia on old english)

In the King James Version:

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

According to you, God was restraining, preventing, hindering - light.

__________________________________________________________________

2Kings10:24 And when they went in to offer sacrifices and burnt offerings, Jehu appointed fourscore men without, and said, If any of the men whom I have brought into your hands escape, he that letteth him go, his life shall be for the life of him.

According to you - the prisoners, if anyone prevents him going,  that person shall pay for it with his life.

letteth in the KJV doesn't mean prevents.   It mean allows.    If anyone "allows" him to go, escape, that person shall pay for it with his life.    That's what is being said in that verse.    

Edited May 29, 2016 by douggg

[BlindSeeker]

30 minutes ago, douggg said:

I am sure that I am not getting any of it.    I couldn't understand what direction you were going in your document.     You didn't state to the reader where you were heading. 

Well, I am not sure what to tell you...

It has been written for over a year now and has been read and easily understood by many with whom I have spoken who understood the progression of thought with no difficulty and agreed.