2Thessalonians2:6-7 explained

[douggg]

5 minutes ago, BlindSeeker said:

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.

I will be more specific.   This may take a couple of posts, back and forth.    Overall what is the document you presented - purpose?

[BlindSeeker]

43 minutes ago, douggg said:

I will be more specific.   This may take a couple of posts, back and forth.    Overall what is the document you presented - purpose?

What is the OP about?

[douggg]

17 minutes ago, BlindSeeker said:

What is the OP about?

Did you not copy and paste that document from a website of yours?     What was your reason for you originally writing the document you presented ?    Overall what were you trying to convey?

Edited May 29, 2016 by douggg

[douggg]

7 hours ago, post said:

am sure there are other threads about this where this is more appropriate to talk about. but this whole forum is just not so active, and this thread here is the one where the subject is brought up, by the OP no less, so there you go. don't mean to derail. 

Don't worry about derailing.   At least not from me.   I don't know why the KJV translators chose letteth and let.   But what I can and did show from the KJV is that those two words mean allow basically, evidenced from other passages they are used in.

The problem with chasing who the alleged "restrainer" is - it is like chasing a phantom not in the text - because I didn't see "restrainer" in HCSB either.       It's creating , rationalizing, a person called the "restrainer" and acting as if the bible contains that term.     But the bible didn't call anyone the "restrainer".    And then after creating said "restrainer", everyone starts debating who that created titled person is.  So some new title has been created out of thin air.     And then to chase down who the "Restrainer" is - the question gets ask who is the "restrainer" to step out of the way.    When there is no-one stepping out of the way.    It is the church being removed which is the whole central theme that Paul was trying to convey to the Thessalonians, in their concern about being gathered unto Christ.

 

 

Edited May 29, 2016 by douggg

[post]

5 hours ago, douggg said:

I don't know why the KJV translators chose letteth and let.   But what I can and did show from the KJV is that those two words mean allow basically, evidenced from other passages they are used in.

why in this verse they chose to write 'he that letteth will let' and that phrasing is not found anywhere else in the Bible is probably as simple a matter as that the individual person who worked on this section of the scripture had a personal preference toward that usage, that others lacked, and that he did not have occasion in any other passage that he personally did translation work on to use the phrasing again.

in the preface to the 1611 version, the translators wrote that in the interest of beautiful prose, and in keeping with the diversity of God's own creation, wherever they could they often chose to use diverse language, translating the same original Greek or Hebrew into a variety of English words. that is the reasoning they used, and why in the 1560 Geneva Bible this verse reads: 

6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

7 For the mystery of iniquity doeth already work; only he which now withholdeth, shall let till he be taken out of the way.

see, to the Geneva translators, diversity of language wasn't important. they translated the same word as the same word for the most part -- 'he which withholdeth' -- but this also shows the same usage -- 'he which now withholdeth shall let until he be taken out of the way'

the usage in this passage shows that they understood "withholding" and "letting" to be the same thing. 



now, sure you can find other places in the Bible where the English word is used in a different way. here's a very relevant one -- 

The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water: therefore leave off contention, before it be meddled with.
(Proverbs 1:7)

this also points to why the word can be used to mean "restrain" -- the logic is like this: if you are the one who lets out water, who is the one who was holding the water back from pouring out? if you have power to enter into contention, you also have power to leave off of it.
if you are the one who has power to let your dog go outside, who is the one who also has power to choose otherwise and keep your dog inside? 
if you have your dog on a leash, you can either restrain him or release him -- you are the one who lets him; you hold the leash. 
likewise, as in 2 Kings 10:24, the one who has power to restrain a prisoner is the one who has power to release him. 

the examples given in Vincent's show that this is how the word was used and would have been understood by people at the time the KJV was first written. it's obvious in Chaucer & Shakespeare that the word does not have the completely opposite meaning that we constrain it to today. Shakespeare used the word to mean 'restrain' in his Gentlemen of Verona play -- and this was first printed in 1623, 12 years after the KJV Bible -- so the usage was still quite contemporary. and these few examples are by no means an exhaustive list of "let" being used with the meaning "restrain" 

English many times uses the same word to have opposite meanings - sanction, oversight, cleave -- and probably at least a dozen others, are their own opposites. context tells us what they mean. 

sanction can mean to approve, or to express disapproval.

oversight can mean you watch something closely, or that you didn't watch closely enough.

cleave can mean stick together or break in half.

and likewise, let can mean restrain or release. at least, it used to mean either -- there are probably some people who are fans of old things that still speak this way, who also prefer to say thee & thou & m'lady & kind sir, but it's fallen out of common usage over the last couple centuries. 

so, it's established that "letteth" can equally mean "restraineth" or "withholdeth" just as well as it can mean "alloweth" 

to show that this is what it actually does mean in the specific text, it's the wrong approach to go to something like Genesis 1:3 and look at how the same English word is being used. remember, the scripture isn't written in English. it's written in Greek and Hebrew. Genesis is written in Hebrew -- that's not the same word as we have in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 at all; not even the same language. 
but we do have exactly the same word used in verse 6, and it means "withhold" or "restrain" without any dispute. 
we need to look at how the Greek word itself is used, how Paul uses it - not at English. this word κατέχων or a variant of it is used 18 times in the new testament, with the meaning restrain, occupy, possess or own, hold tightly, detain, keep. all of these usages have a common underlying meaning of 'flinging' or 'not letting go' -- and it's never used with exactly the opposite meaning, as you suggested it might be. you said that a variation in Greek can change the meaning, and that plus context certainly does, but that's not the case here - it doesn't radically change the meaning to the word's opposite; that happens when you specifically add a preface meaning not- or un- to a word, and that's not the construction here. the differences in the variants found in the rest of the new testament, plus context, keep relatively the same meaning. 
it's variations of the same word here: 

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
(Romans 1:18) 

and here: 

I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel
(Philemon 1:13)

and here: 

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you — unless you believed in vain.
(1 Corinthians 15:1-2)
 

and also here:

 . . we live; as punished, and yet not killed; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing everything.
(2 Corinthians 6:9-10) 

it never carries the sense of "releasing" -- always "retaining" or "preventing" 

you can see the full list of usages, and definition, and other info in this link to the usual KJV concordance: Strong's Greek: 2722 katechó

what we would want to do further is look at contemporary Greek texts outside of the Bible to verify how this word is used by other people, like Vincent's did for the archaic usage of "letteth" -- i'm afraid that i am not cool enough to know how to begin that search, though i guess with a couple days worth of plodding i am sure i could figure it out. 


i hope this is enough to convince you that in the particular verse, 2 Thessalonians 2:7, when the KJV reads 'he that letteth will let' that means the same thing as 'he that withholdeth will withhold' (Geneva) and 'he that is keeping down now will hinder' (Young's literal) and 'he who now holdeth do hold' (Douay -Rheims) and 'the one who now holds it back will continue to do so' (NIV) etc etc etc 

no translation i know of in any language at all gives an opposite meaning. the only reason that one might think the kjv is contrary to literally every other translation in any language, and also the original Greek, is a misunderstanding of the archaic dual-usage of the word 'let' 

[douggg]

2 hours ago, post said:

why in this verse they chose to write 'he that letteth will let' and that phrasing is not found anywhere else in the Bible is probably as simple a matter as that the individual person who worked on this section of the scripture had a personal preference toward that usage, that others lacked, and that he did not have occasion in any other passage that he personally did translation work on to use the phrasing again.

But both letteth and let are found elsewhere in the bible.   And in the context, neither of those mean prevents.    There is no reason to go to shakesphere and others for their use - because the use of the word in bible is clearly allows.

In verse 7, since the mystery of iniquity was already at work - if the translators of the KJV had chose prevent, it would have implied the person failed at "preventing" it.        So imo they chose letteth and let.

7  For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

My big objection is that people use verse 7 in other translations to create "the Restrainer", when the text does not call anyone "the Restrainer".

 

 

 

It was not the decision of an individual translator.   It was a process of review, on top of review, on top of review, on top of review, by committiees.

copy and paste -

54 scholars were appointed in 1604, and a few overseers were also present, who went from group to group. In time through death the number of translators diminished to 47. They were given three locations to work: Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster. And two groups worked at each location, making a total of six groups. The Bible was also divided up into six sections. Each group took one section, working on one book at a time.

First, each translator made his own translation of the book, which was reviewed by each other member of the group. Then the whole group reviewed the book. When they all agreed on the translation, they sent it to the other five groups for evaluation. Those groups then returned it to the original committee, marking anything they disagreed with. The original group would then go over the book again.

When all six committees finished with the book, it was sent, with any differences that were left, to a special committee made up of one leader from each of the six groups. They solved any remaining problems, and the book was sent to the printers.

 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2016 by douggg

[post]

from the preface to the 1611 KJV, written by the translators to the reader -- an excerpt explaining how & why they purposefully used a variety of English words to translate the self-same words in the orignal language: 


 An other thing we thinke good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that wee have not tyed our selves to an uniformitie of phrasing, or to an identitie of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men some where, have beene as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not varie from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there bee some wordes that bee not of the same sense every where) we were especially carefull, and made a conscience, according to our duetie. But, that we should expresse the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greeke word once by Purpose, never to call it Intent; if one where Journeying, never Traveiling; if one where Thinke, never Suppose; if one where Paine, never Ache; if one where Joy, never Gladnesse, &c. Thus to minse the matter, wee thought to savour more of curiositie then wisedome, and that rather it would breed scorne in the Atheist, then bring profite to the godly Reader. For is the kingdome of God become words or syllables? why should wee be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when wee may use another no lesse fit, as commodiously? A godly Father in the Primitive time shewed himselfe greatly moved, that one of the newfanglenes called , though the difference be little or none; and another reporteth, that he was much abused for turning Cucurbita (to which reading the people had beene used) into Hedera. Now if this happen in better times, and upon so small occasions, wee might justly feare hard censure, if generally wee should make verball and unnecessary changings. We might also be charged (by scoffers) with some unequall dealing towards a great number of good English wordes. For as it is written of a certaine great Philosopher, that he should say, that those logs were happie that were made images to be worshipped; for their fellowes, as good as they, lay for blockes behinde the fire: so if wee should say, as it were, unto certaine words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible alwayes, and to others of like qualitie, Get ye hence, be banished for ever, wee might be taxed peradventure with S. James his words, namely, To be partiall in our selves and judges of evill thoughts. Adde hereunto, that nicenesse in wordes was alwayes counted the next step to trifling, and so was to bee curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better patterne for elocution then God himselfe; therefore hee using divers words, in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: we, if wee will not be superstitious, may use the same libertie in our English versions out of Hebrew & Greeke, for that copie or store that he hath given us. Lastly, wee have on the one side avoided the scrupulositie of the Puritanes, who leave the olde Ecclesticall words, and betake them to other, as when they put washing for Baptisme, and Congregation in stead of Church: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscuritie of the Papists, in their Azimes, Tunike, Rational, Holocausts, Præpuce, Pasche, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sence, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may bee kept from being understood. But we desire that the Scripture may speake like it selfe, as in the language of Canaan, that it may bee understood even of the very vulgar.

[ARGOSY]

The context of 2 Thess 2 is primarily about the SUDDEN REVEALING of an evil secret that is being kept. Something was holding back this revealing, and keeping the evil secret. 

The withholder is suddenly removed, and then the evil is completely exposed in the evil signs and wonders and delusions of Satan and the antichrist.

The withholder is an evil entity that is currently HIDING the identity of the antichrist. The following verses indicate the context is a contrast between a secret withheld from exposure, and then a forced exposure/revealing of the evil when the evil comes out into the open:

that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed

 now you know what is holding him back

so that he may be revealed at the proper time

the secret power of lawlessness is already at work

 the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way

 then the lawless one will be revealed

[post]

another excerpt explaining that the translators believed a diversity of translations should be studied to ascertain the true meaning of the scripture, not a single work, and that their own work is expressly not to be considered "free from errour" or "inviolable" :



Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expresly forbiddeth, that any varietie of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margine, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we thinke he hath not all of his owne side his favourers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their hie Priest had all lawes shut up in his brest, as Paul the second bragged, and that he were as free from errour by speciall priviledge, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were an other matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have bene a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he prooveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.

[post]

3 hours ago, douggg said:

But both letteth and let are found elsewhere in the bible.   And in the context, neither of those mean prevents.    There is no reason to go to shakesphere and others for their use - because the use of the word in bible is clearly allows.

this, and the rest of the post i'm quoting short for the sake of not requiring too much scrolling, is moot. 
it doesn't matter, as i took care to explain, what English words may be used with several meanings. the English language has a large number of words that can have various meanings, and no less than a dozen that can have meanings specifically opposite of themselves. so showing that an English word is used in one place one way does not by any means whatsoever provide sufficient evidence that it should always be understood the same way everywhere. 

and the principle reason why none of what you wrote there matters a single whit, is that Paul's letter to the Thessalonians was not written in English at all. it was written in Greek. 
therefore the source to examine to determine what a word means is most definitely not the KJV. it is in the actual Greek manuscripts themselves -- and every single one of them has exactly the same word κατέχων meaning "restrain" in verse 6 as in verse 7, so arguments about which manuscript the KJV used or didn't use are completely inconsequential and meaningless here:
 

Greek Texts

Nestle GNT 1904
καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε, εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ καιρῷ.

Westcott and Hort 1881
καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε, εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ καιρῷ·

Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε, εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ / ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ·

RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε, εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ.

Greek Orthodox Church 1904
καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε, εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ·

Tischendorf 8th Edition
καί νῦν ὁ κατέχω εἴδω εἰς ὁ ἀποκαλύπτω αὐτός ἐν ὁ αὐτός καιρός

Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε, εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ.

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ

above is verse 6. they all say "τὸ κατέχον" -- the restrainer.
here is verse 7: 
 

Greek Texts

Nestle GNT 1904
τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας· μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται.

Westcott and Hort 1881
τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας· μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται.

Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας· μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται.

RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Tὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας· μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι, ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται,

Greek Orthodox Church 1904
τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας, μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται·

Tischendorf 8th Edition
ὁ γάρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργέω ὁ ἀνομία μόνον ὁ κατέχω ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσος γίνομαι

Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας· μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι, ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται,

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας· μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται

they all agree -- they all say "ὁ κατέχων" -- "the one restraining" 


literally every other English translation and every other translation into any language on earth of this verse gives no doubt that the thought in verse 7 is that there is one who restrains the Son of Iniquity, until such time as that one who restrains is taken out of the way. there is simply no way to twist the word κατέχων to make it mean "allow" -- it does not mean that at all. it means "suppress" or "restrain" or "withhold" or "keep" -- and we don't even have to appeal to the immediate context of the preceding verse, where exactly the same word is used to mean "restrain" to establish that. 

it is conclusively established that the word "let" in the English of the day the KJV was written has a dual meaning that can also mean "restrain" as well as "allow" depending on context. 
it is conclusively established that the Greek word Paul actually wrote down cannot possibly mean "allow." 
it is conclusively established that the KJV purposefully uses a diversity of English words to translate the same Greek words.
it is conclusively established that no translator at any time ever decided that κατέχων should be translated "allow" in any language. 
it is conclusively established that 2 Thessalonians 2:7 agrees with 2 Thessalonians 2:6 -- there is a "restrainer" who "restrains" the Evil One until the proper time for that restrainer to be taken out of the way, and that lawless one to be revealed. the Lord Himself will at that time destroy him with the brightness of His coming. 


i don't have a clue how to make this any more clear to you. 
the only way you can show that the when the KJV has "he that letteth will let" should mean in modern English, 'he that allows will continue to allow' is by showing that somewhere else in the Bible, or somewhere else in Greek manuscripts contemporary to 1st century AD, "κατέχων" is used to mean "allowing " or "releasing" -- directly opposite of its normal meaning, "restraining" or "suppressing" or "withholding" or "keeping"