2 Thessalonians 2:6-7

[Justin Adams]

On 9/17/2017 at 4:05 PM, Abdicate said:

Amen! It's amazing how people won't read the scriptures in context and don't follow simple English grammatical rules.

Agreed. The Aramaic is quite clear.

3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. 5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? 6 And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; 9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, 10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

[OldCoot]

16 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

Agreed. The Aramaic is quite clear.

But what you posted is a translation also. It is what the translator imposed as what the text was saying in the original.   No more convincing than what a translator imposes on the text from Greek to English.  

[Justin Adams]

13 minutes ago, OldCoot said:

But what you posted is a translation also. It is what the translator imposed as what the text was saying in the original.   No more convincing than what a translator imposes on the text from Greek to English.  

Its origin was Aramaic.

[OldCoot]

23 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

Its origin was Aramaic.

There are good arguments for that, especially for some of the books, but probably not all.  Either way, what you posted was an English translation which does not make the case.  It is similar to using something like a Strong's concordance, which many do.  It is based on what James Strong determined the original Hebrew and Greek words meant.  

[Justin Adams]

10 minutes ago, OldCoot said:

There are good arguments for that, especially for some of the books, but probably not all.  Either way, what you posted was an English translation which does not make the case.  It is similar to using something like a Strong's concordance, which many do.  It is based on what James Strong determined the original Hebrew and Greek words meant.  

Oh I agree entirely. I think that there are many people now that are focusing on the poetic Aramaic texts. It is a language, not unlike Hebrew, that lends itself to puns and hyperbole. One person who speaks native Aramaic and English is working on it as we speak. Apparently, the idioms and meaning around Yeshua's Time are somewhat preserved in some eastern texts that supposedly hail from about 78 AD. It is interesting to note that there are Aramaic to Hebrew texts also as Hebrew was the 'forgotten tongue' and any reference (like Josephus) to 'our tongue' or 'our language' or 'Hebrew tongue' means Aramaic. Much of the OT scripts are in Aramaic as well originally, and some are co-extant with Hebraic texts. Sometimes badly written Syriac (Aramaic) texts are also found with the other texts.

Here is a fair example: the saying, "it is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle...etc." Well the Aramaic word for that is two-fold depending on context - it most likely means ROPE not CAMEL. A more reasonable hyperbole. 

P.s. I was 'force fed' Strong's as a youngster. I just do not like it because I do not like Strong's theological ideas any more than I like Pink's. Yes, I admit to personal preference. So I have to be careful I do not throw out the baby with the bath-water.

[Diaste]

1 hour ago, OldCoot said:

There are good arguments for that, especially for some of the books, but probably not all.  Either way, what you posted was an English translation which does not make the case.  It is similar to using something like a Strong's concordance, which many do.  It is based on what James Strong determined the original Hebrew and Greek words meant.  

Oh, really? Go to an English to Greek translator on the Net. Here's a link . Type in 'defection' and look at the Greek word. Go to Strong's and compare. It's the same word. Do you expect us to believe because James Strong complied and cataloged every word in the bible that he made up the Greek dictionary too? Or maybe you are saying that every existing internet based Greek translator has been tainted by Strong's diseased imagination? And what about all the Greek dictionaries in hard copy and the Net? Are they all a product of the Englishman's nefarious plot to overthrow the truth of the bible? Every English to Greek dictionary and translator all render 'defection' as "ἀποστασία" which when transliterated is 'apostasia' with the phonetic spelling: (ap-os-tas-ee'-ah). And from Greek to English the word is defined as: defection, desertion, withdrawal, skip, failure. 

It's not the rapture (doesn't exist except in the alternate reality of the weak and fearful), it's a revolt and a defection against God's authority both secular and heavenly. 

[Diaste]

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

We have to be careful because there are a lot of meanings to words and apostasy today has come to predominately mean "leave the truth" but it also just simply means "to depart".

2 Thessalonians 2:3 
Let no man deceive you by any means because except there come a departure first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἀποστασία

In fact, it comes from the word ἀποστάσιον meaning "something separated" which is what the rapture is all about. This meaning aligns much more with the rest of the chapter. The "He" is the Holy Spirit that keeps the Antichrist at bay until the appointed times. Since the Holy Spirit is the earnest of our salvation, when He's taken away, we go too, Eph 1:13-14.

When there is a controversy, we have to go to the originals with the help of the Holy Spirit (the Author) otherwise we're basing our theology on the biases of translators. When I started looking at the originals as best I could, I started finding that there are a slew of beliefs that just are not scriptural because of how many chose to translate a word or add punctuation, which neither Greek nor Hebrew have. I don't know Aramaic at all nor do I have multiple dictionaries to do my own homework. Even cultural meanings influence decisions. Think about the word "gay" it used to mean "happy, joyous" as in the Christmas song "gay apparel." Today it means something else, and that was done just in one generation.

What hypocrisy! It boggles the mind, truly. One the one hand you admonish another to tread carefull with word meanings as cultural changes can affect meanings, something I fully agree with. Then you say you go back to the original text to find the truth. Laudable but false. You have ignored the word from the original that appears in 2 Thess 2:3, ἀποστασία, and replaced it with what seems to be incorrect spelling or the entirely nonexistent,  ἀποστάσιον, as I cannot find the definition, or even the word, in any of the online Greek to English translators. Your hypothetical replacement for the original term only returns "ἀpostasion" as the result which as far as I can tell is not a word.

In fact, ἀποστασία,  the word that does appear in the original Greek texts translates to the English 'apostasy' and is defined as "the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief."  ἀποστασία in reality originates from two words, 'apo' and 'histemi' which formed 'aphistemi' from which ἀποστασία is derived. ἀποστασία is by far the most stringent term for what is occurring in the Christian belief system and has no relation to the terms from which it derives. Meaning that even if the ideas of apo, histemi, and aphistemi were carried forward to apostasia; apostasia is defined as defection and revolt. If Almighty God wanted the Holy Spirit to tell us this was a departure from one place to another, instead of a revolt, then he would have used words that carry the meaning of 'departure from one place to another' such as: metabainó, apochóreó, ekchóreó , aphistémi, apeimi, metairó, or any of the other dozen or so terms that actually mean 'departure from one place to another'.  Why instead use a word that means defection, desertion or revolt? Because that is exactly what the Spirit is telling us; a defection from God and a revolt against Him are going to occur before Jesus returns and before the gathering of the elect. 

[Daniel 11:36]

Revelation 6:16-17

Edited October 8, 2017 by Daniel 11:36

[OldCoot]

2 hours ago, Diaste said:

It's not the rapture (doesn't exist except in the alternate reality of the weak and fearful), it's a revolt and a defection against God's authority both secular and heavenly. 

As has been pointed out by others, it simply means departure.  Every English translation  before the KJV used departure, the departure, separation, etc for apostasia.  Even the Latin Vulgate did the very same thing by using dicessio for apostasia.   Apostasia can mean a falling away or apostasy if there is context in the passage to what is being fallen away from or separated from.  Like in Acts 21:21 where apostasia, combined with Moshe (symbolic of the Torah), the translation of forsaking Moshe or a falling away from Moshe is a proper translation, though separating or departing from Moshe would be more accurate.  

While 2 Thes 2:3 does not say it is a rapture, it does say departure.  And without a reference to what is being departed from, it simply stands on its own as departure.  Falling away is the translator adding their own perspective to the word, which is condemned by John in Revelation and elsewhere in scripture.

And rapture is in the Bible.  Maybe not in an english translation, but it is in the Latin Vulgate.  And given that Jerome (4th century) was closer to the original writings and was influenced by those that had been influenced by those that had contact with students of the apostles themselves, I would tend to take his translating the word properly with more credibility than folks that are dozens of centuries removed from the originals with some sort of theological axe to grind.

Edited October 8, 2017 by OldCoot

[Diaste]

22 hours ago, OldCoot said:

As has been pointed out by others, it simply means departure.  Every English translation  before the KJV used departure, the departure, separation, etc for apostasia.  Even the Latin Vulgate did the very same thing by using dicessio for apostasia.   Apostasia can mean a falling away or apostasy if there is context in the passage to what is being fallen away from or separated from.  Like in Acts 21:21 where apostasia, combined with Moshe (symbolic of the Torah), the translation of forsaking Moshe or a falling away from Moshe is a proper translation, though separating or departing from Moshe would be more accurate.  

While 2 Thes 2:3 does not say it is a rapture, it does say departure.  And without a reference to what is being departed from, it simply stands on its own as departure.  Falling away is the translator adding their own perspective to the word, which is condemned by John in Revelation and elsewhere in scripture.

And rapture is in the Bible.  Maybe not in an english translation, but it is in the Latin Vulgate.  And given that Jerome (4th century) was closer to the original writings and was influenced by those that had been influenced by those that had contact with students of the apostles themselves, I would tend to take his translating the word properly with more credibility than folks that are dozens of centuries removed from the originals with some sort of theological axe to grind.

Yes. As I have said before it is a departure; from an ideology, not from one place to another. 

It is a departure by revolt as is clear from the definitions. So that the early texts contained the word 'departure' is not some how contradictory to the truth of departure implying defection. 

But in reality the weak refuse to define the term used in the Greek as it's anathema to their dogma. Apostasia is the word, not aphistemi. Apostasia means defection or revolt. Aphistemi does not appear in the verse in question.

Apostasia appears in the Greek text and is defined exactly the same way in every Greek dictionary and translator I have searched: defection. 

What story remains the same in the retelling? Through a half dozen iterations the meaning is lost. Only in the original text do we find truth and consistency. We have those original words evidenced by the many exact copies unearthed over the centuries. I wonder if ancient peoples had an axe to grind? Or is only angst ridden theological contemporaries wielding dull axes?

If such an idea can stand on its own,as there is no clear indication of what is being departed from, then why latch on to a departure from the ground? Since, as you say, we don't  know what is being departed from, how can you be dogmatic about your feet leaving the ground? Why is not a departure from poverty? Sickness? A terrible wife? Going to the store? With a plethora of departures to choose from, why that one?