2Thessalonians2:6-7 explained

[douggg]

1 hour ago, post said:

we're reading the same Bible, right?

No, we are not.   That is why I ask you to copy and paste the verse which you are finding the word "restrainer".

 

Quote

6 And you know what currently restrains him, so that he will be revealed in his time.

7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but the one now restraining will do so until he is out of the way, 

(HCSB)

 

The way the translators HCSB have formed verse 7 completely alters the meaning of the verse from how it is written in the KJV.

From Wikipedia:

"Holman Bible Publishers assembled an international, interdenominational team of 100 scholars and proofreaders, all of whom were committed to biblical inerrancy.^[3] The translation committee sought to strike a balance between the two prevailing philosophies of Bible translation: formal equivalence (literal, "word-for-word", etc.) and dynamic or functional equivalence ("thought-for-thought"). The translators called this balance "optimal equivalence." "

In other words, Post,  the HCSB is a compromise.    And when a person starts getting to discussion's like these - it's shortcomings show.    The KJV is a word for word translation.    Translations such a The Way, and the Living Bible are thought for thought bibles - and those have a place and are very good for someone just starting out and find the KJV difficult.    I know from personal experience.   And have been embarrassed on more than one occasion when I relied on my The Way bible at the time to make a point at discussion on the old Yahoo discussion boads, many, many years ago, back around 2000.

Edited May 28, 2016 by douggg

[angels4u]

I like to know "why" too?

[douggg]

1 hour ago, post said:

please describe what the phrase "the one now restraining" means  
 

3588 [e]	ho	ὁ	the [one]	Art-NMS
2722 [e]	katechōn	κατέχων	restraining [it]	V-PPA-NMS

this is all i'll say any further; i'm not here to quarrel over words.

we know what the scripture says about that kind of business: it is of no value and only ruins the listener. i've already put in enough time trying to have 'discussions' with Enoch; no need to go through that kind of mess ever again, or i would not have gained even wisdom from it! 

I don't know anything about the discussions you are having with Enoch.   But I am pretty sure that as the root of the discussion, debate, is the problem in large part is because you are using HCSB. 

I have had tens of thousands of discussions on bible topics, and a lot of times in the back and forth, it finally occurs to me - what translation are you using?    And a lot of times, the problem is that the other person is using something other than the KJV. 

Edited May 28, 2016 by douggg

[douggg]

2 hours ago, post said:

 

6 And you know what currently restrains him, so that he will be revealed in his time.

7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but the one now restraining will do so until he is out of the way, 

 

post, look at the way HCSB wrote in verse 7 "until he is out of the way".      There is nothing there to say that he is "taken" out of the way.     The way the HSDB could be interpreted is that the he, by his own perogative, steps aside.    Which the church doesn't have the prerogative to step aside or to be raptured of it's own accord.    So the HSCB eliminates the church being raptured in verse 7.    Whereas in the KJV version "taken" out of the way - is reflective of the rapture, the church taken out of the world.

KJV:

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

 

[post]

50 minutes ago, douggg said:

No, we are not.   That is why I ask you to copy and paste the verse which you are finding the word "restrainer".

 

The way the translators HCSB have formed verse 7 completely alters the meaning of the verse from how it is written in the KJV.

From Wikipedia:

"Holman Bible Publishers assembled an international, interdenominational team of 100 scholars and proofreaders, all of whom were committed to biblical inerrancy.^[3] The translation committee sought to strike a balance between the two prevailing philosophies of Bible translation: formal equivalence (literal, "word-for-word", etc.) and dynamic or functional equivalence ("thought-for-thought"). The translators called this balance "optimal equivalence." "

In other words, Post,  the HCSB is a compromise.    And when a person starts getting to discussion's like these - it's shortcomings show.    The KJV is a word for word translation.    Translations such a The Way, and the Living Bible are thought for thought bibles - and those have a place and are very good for someone just starting out and find the KJV difficult.    I know from personal experience.   And have been embarrassed on more than one occasion when I relied on my The Way bible at the time to make a point at discussion on the old Yahoo discussion boads, many, many years ago, back around 2000.

doug i regularly read from about a dozen translations both online & on my phone. i own paper copies in kjv and niv. sometimes i read in Spanish from one or two different available versions. i look up the Greek & Hebrew parsing of what i read very often even though i've never had formal education in either of these languages. 

do you only read from the kjv? 

the kjv is not "word for word" in every case as you say. it's generally a good translation, into a language that was used 500 years ago, but it has its shortcomings. 
it doesn't say anything functionally different in verse 7 - 

he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

it speaks of one who letteth (restrains) -- speaking as though it is a "who" -- one that will be taken out of the way. the hcsb does not 'completely alter the meaning of the verse from the kjv' - it's fundamentally exactly the same, just written in clearer language to 20th & 21st century ears - and even if it did, that would not matter. what would matter is if it altered the meaning of the actual scripture which doesn't happen to be in English at all; it's koine Greek. both versions are more or less faithful to the original language here.

if hcsb is a compromise, kjv is a compromise too. they are both trying to relay the information in a Greek text into English, and both in some places are literal word-for word and in others thought-for-thought -- and the fundamental problem with every English translation is that the written Greek word ((and the written Hebrew word)) contain information that is inexpressible in the English language. gender. tense. mood. subtleties of the original languages that are inexpressible in the target language. it's an issue with any translation of any text from language to language. 

'the living bible' is an interpretive paraphrase. it isn't even a thought-for-thought translation. it's comparable to 'the message' and in my opinion, you & everyone else should stay far away from things like that. in the very least, you shouldn't consider them "Bibles" in the slightest. 
i don't know what 'the way' is -- if it's a translation. i know it's the title of a popular printing of 'the living bible' paraphrase; at least the author had the good sense not to call it 'the Bible' since that's not what it is. it's a re-telling in Kenneth Taylor's words what Kenneth Taylor thinks the scripture means. 
it's no surprise to me whatsoever that you've been embarrassed multiple times if you were relying on what Kenneth Taylor thinks of the actual Bible. 

i don't think you should rely on what the kjv translators thought the right English translation of the Hebrew & Greek should be either -- and neither did those translators themselves. read the introduction to the 1611 version -- the translators specifically wrote that they encourage revision to their work and that they by no means whatsoever consider it to be perfect in any way. 

[post]

37 minutes ago, douggg said:

I don't know anything about the discussions you are having with Enoch.   But I am pretty sure that as the root of the discussion, debate, is the problem in large part is because you are using HCSB. 

I have had tens of thousands of discussions on bible topics, and a lot of times in the back and forth, it finally occurs to me - what translation are you using?    And a lot of times, the problem is that the other person is using something other than the KJV. 

this is all off-topic; my apologies to anyone else reading, but to honor the comment & the commenter i'll be happy to address it . . 


i'm not having any discussions with Enoch. i tried, but all he wanted to do was stage arguments. mostly about words and his personal definitions of them. 
and it wasn't about the Bible at all. i've actually never seen him talk about the Bible at all. every time i brought up the Bible, He showed disdain for it, calling the scriptures i quoted 'fallacies' and 'nonsense' or he completely ignored them. he had an agenda that had nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible, much less any particular translation of it.
i gave him all kinds of opportunities to address that impression of contempt for the scripture he gave -- and he never took me up on them. so this is how he apparently is comfortable with it being described.
when Enoch can talk about Christ, i'll be glad to talk to him again, but for now it's clear that it's a waste of time. mostly because everything his interaction with me amounted to was 'quarreling over words' - and it was literally of zero value. i'd just be enabling him to continue in sin, and he'd just be tempting me to do the same. 

so it has nothing to do with hcsb. more often than not, i read kjv and niv and young's literal. i only started reading hcsb in the last 2 years because i liked how it used language similar to the kjv's beautiful prose, was equally literal, but was in an English that was overall more clear. this year i decided to read the whole Bible in the esv, because many people i respect have recommended it. the only paper copies i own are kjv & niv; the oldest is niv because it was a gift from my church when i was 8 years old, and i bought a kjv a couple years ago when Jeremiah fell out of my old niv. if i ever buy another one, it'll probably be an interlinear, and i wouldn't buy it until i have the occasion to actually have some formal education in Hebrew and Greek. 

kjv is what i carry to church with me. kjv or the 1984 niv are what every scripture that i have ever memorized is in. but i wouldn't ever take the position that kjv is the only appropriate English translation or that it's even the best one. there are plenty of flaws in it, and no one who speaks a language other than English has ever had to worry about their salvation because they heard and believed the gospel as written in a translation other than kjv, so why should anyone who does speak English? no one before 1611 had that problem. 
so i respect the kjv, i love it, it's a beautiful work of translation. but people make an idol out of it, and are very cult-like in their adherence to it. i've heard people making ridiculous attacks on people who do not use it, questioning their relationship with God solely on the basis of whether or not they use it to the exclusion of all other translations. i hope you're not so wrapped up in this as so many other people are! 

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. 

[post]

7 minutes ago, BlindSeeker said:

you've only dropped your bitter fruit on the ground here for others to see what manner of tree you are...

uh huh

goodness, let's all be sure that our posts amount to more than that ! 

instead, 

Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:                                                                              and be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.
(Ephesians 4:31-32 AKJV) 

[angels4u]

21 hours ago, BlindSeeker said:

Hello Angels4u, I'm not really sure how that is part of the OP or how it would have any bearing on what I've said so far...

But since I have taken the time to articulated my beliefs in this link on how The Lord's Christ is Christ the Lord, the only "ONE LORD" of Scripture I'll share it with you if you care to take the time to read. But apart from my sharing this out of respect to you and your question, I would rather not discuss any this further on this particular thread out fo respect to Douggg.

Perhaps another thread if you started one and if I have time to properly participate in it.

 

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" ?

[douggg]

1 hour ago, post said:

it doesn't say anything functionally different in verse 7 - 

he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

it speaks of one who letteth (restrains) -

No, the two translations are completely different in what is being said.   "letteh" does not mean "restrains".   The two words are opposite in meaning from each other.    If I were to say to you "I let my neighbor's dog into my backyard.     compared to.....    "I restrained my neighbor's from my backyard."       Where is the neighbor's dog?    In one sentence, he is in my backyard.    In the other sentence, he is kept out of my backyard.

What is being letteth in the KJV verse 7 ?    The mystery of inquity already at work.     The he is allowing the mystery of iniquity to work, until such time "he" is taken out of the way.      So the "he" doing the letting is not the Church, nor Michael.     The difficulty in the verse is that same "he" is taken out of the way, yet he will let the man of sin be revealed.   

In the verses that follow concerning that Jesus is letting, allowing, the mystery of iniquity to work all these years, the rejection of the truth,  is found culminating in the deceptive signs and lying wonders of the man of sin,

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

 

In verse 7, which is what i have explained that the "he" is the Lord Jesus Christ, and it is Jesus who is taken out of the way, but not actually he himself, but his mystical body - which is the body of Christ here on earth.    Once that is done, then the man of sin will be revealed.   

The whole business about "the restrainer" is not even a KJV bible issue, because there is no restrainer in the KJV.    There is no with-holder in the KJV, either.    

The HCSB is translated with some preconceived notions of the translators built into the translation.      If the two translations are saying basically the same thing - then set aside your HCSB and prove a restrainer is found in the KJV.    But it's not there because the two translations are different, and the one you are using the HCSB admits it is a comprise between word for word and thought for thought.

I am never changing or using the HCSB, nor accept it.     And I don't think it is reasonable for you to think others should accept it as an equivalent to the KJV because you use it.  I don't know what else to say.

Edited May 29, 2016 by douggg

[douggg]

On 5/27/2016 at 0:17 AM, BlindSeeker said:

In this light, it should be easy to see why it was wisdom for Paul to be elusive and not to write in his Epistle to the Thessalonians that Rome was going to have to fall first in order to make way for this great apostasy and the son of perdition. Furthermore, the phrase “son of perdition” is only used twice in scripture, once by Jesus in reference to Judas who ended up being a false apostle, and here again used by Paul in reference to the Papacy which by Catholicism is said to be overseen by a continuation of apostles now referred to as popes. However, in the eyes of true Protestants, the popes have all been false apostles and betrayers of truth just as surely as Judas was. So perhaps all this lends us cause to understand Paul this way...

II Thessalonians 2:3 - Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? [How that God will judge His people, and afterwards will likewise judge those nations whereby He chastised those who are called by His name, causing those nations to fall?] 6 And now ye know what withholdeth [Rome] that he [the false apostle] might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he [Rome] who now letteth will let [prevent his rise ], until he [Rome] be taken out of the way [falls]. 8 And then shall that Wicked [lawless one] be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

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.

 

Edited May 29, 2016 by douggg