wingnut- Posted August 2, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 39 Topic Count: 101 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 7,673 Content Per Day: 1.31 Reputation: 7,358 Days Won: 67 Joined: 04/22/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted August 2, 2020 22 minutes ago, Diaste said: Was she saying they didn't apply? Maybe I have wildly misunderstood. Yes, of course they applied to the 1st century church. I apologize if I got off at the wrong stop here. Of course I agree. What I didn't agree with, and what I may have misunderstood, is an allusion the 1st century is the end of the application. And why wouldn't the examples given apply to everyone down through the ages? That's not this discussion but I'm betting we need to be on guard for the same. The teachings of Balaam, the Nicolaitans, Jezebel, the cause of martyrs, Satan's seat, etc., are all spirit driven. I feel this is all relevant. Even if a specific event is ancient it's lesson is timeless. They, and we, are in the last days. We have not yet reached the end of the age. Again, I apologize for any misunderstanding. I do that sometimes. No worries brother, and honestly I am not sure if she meant it in the way that it is written, or if the original question just didn't lack clarity. Perhaps in my responses I lacked clarity as well in that I am not saying that the truth in those letters has no relevance beyond just those immediate churches. Only that they were most definitely relevant to those people who first received them. I also agree that many of those specific things mentioned in the letters are spirit driven and that they too could be a condition that has continued to exist through the present only existing in a more veiled appearance. There are many things for example that lead people into sexual immorality right now, internet porn is a great example of this, what spirit is behind that? But we do know, not only from the letters in Revelation, but also from Paul's epistles that the early church had issues with members that would fall back into former patterns involving the false gods of their times, the warnings against that and his encouragement to remove it from the church are evident throughout the New Testament, and in the same way God through the prophets in the Old Testament took issue with the same problems regarding the Israelites. There is nothing new under the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diaste Posted August 2, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 14 Topic Count: 67 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 6,629 Content Per Day: 1.99 Reputation: 2,368 Days Won: 2 Joined: 03/17/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted August 2, 2020 17 minutes ago, wingnut- said: I agree completely, and that is what I am saying, it is not limited to the future when we know it already happened and continues to happen and will happen again very similar to the manner in which it first happened. I agree. 17 minutes ago, wingnut- said: I agree with what you are saying, but at the end of verse 11 in Luke, would you agree that the terrors and great signs from heaven align with events we see in Revelation? Such as, the wormwood event, the signs in heaven at the sixth seal, two witnesses that can bring fire down from heaven and stop the rain from coming, a false prophet that can also bring fire down from heaven, etc. Did those type of events come before or after what Luke describes in verses 12-19? From a historical aspect, did those celestial events occur in the life of the disciples, or MUST they come after what we know did occur in their lives? I have looked at chronology for a few decades. It's really the lack that got me started when other were so sure of the chronology, especially in Revelation. It's a bit sticky as arguments can be made. I do think the Discourse aligns in total. A thought exercise leads me to the conclusion that anything in the Discourse is giant leap from anything from before. Since it's in the end of the age context, not the last days, it should be distinguishable from what came before; probably in terms of scale and severity. While I agree these things did occur in the lives of the disciples I'm not sure it can be said it's the fulfillment of verses 12-19. That being said the chronology here is murky. I would place verse 11 as closer to the return of Jesus and 12-19 as GT. A case can be made for the 'fearful sights and great signs from heaven.' as fitting the trumps. It would be quite a sight to see angels flying through the air makes their proclamations not to mention the other great signs and fearful sights of the trumps. To answer the last sentence; I don't see the relationship. Maybe I'm just missing it. I see the Discourse as end of the age, in the context of the Return of the King and the terminal generation. While persecution did occur in the 1st century it also has gone on for 2 millennia in equally savage fashion. Again I'm betting we are going to witness the prophecy of the Discourse as unprecedented. 17 minutes ago, wingnut- said: So for example from Matthew's account, he mentions the lightning in the sky from east to west and associates that with the Coming of the Son of Man, and this is said before the section regarding the AoD. We know that the AoD comes first, so the chronology aspect of the Olivet discourse is still dependent on the sequence of events. In other words, the Olivet discourse is not laid out chronologically either, we still have to use the verbal clues given throughout scripture that construct the sequence. About the only undisputed chronology I see in Matt 24 is the series of "Then..." or "And then...". Otherwise you are correct, it's not a strict chronology. 17 minutes ago, wingnut- said: I am not saying that they don't, what I am saying is the sequence still has to follow what is written. So here is my question, when the falling away that you see as future occurs, would you say it comes before or after the implementation of the mark of the beast? Will the mark of the beast have any effect on people departing from the faith? If you are referring to 2 Thess 2 here's my take on that: The two events are related as occurring in conjunction; the falling away and the revealing, and occurring before the Coming and the gathering. No doubt all will be witnessed by the population alive at the time. So the falling away will center around the time of the revealing. I have no idea what sort of time frame we would be looking at. How long does it take for there be a legitimate defection of this type? It is my understanding the defection will occur both before and after the mark is required. It will be quite different from a backsliding we see all the time. It should be in the form of mass defection. Whole denominations at once will declare allegiance to the beast. I would think the mark will have a great affect. Can't buy or sell and people find their bellies pretty important. How terrible for mothers in that day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingnut- Posted August 3, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 39 Topic Count: 101 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 7,673 Content Per Day: 1.31 Reputation: 7,358 Days Won: 67 Joined: 04/22/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted August 3, 2020 7 hours ago, Diaste said: I do think the Discourse aligns in total. A thought exercise leads me to the conclusion that anything in the Discourse is giant leap from anything from before. Since it's in the end of the age context, not the last days, it should be distinguishable from what came before; probably in terms of scale and severity. I agree with you in regards to the discourse aligning, where we begin to drift is in regards to your overall view, as far as it being end of age context. I would offer this for your consideration. Mark 13 And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” 2 And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” 3 And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?” From Luke Luke 21:5 And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, 6 “As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” 7 And they asked him, “Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?” So as you can see from these two accounts we get some information that Matthew does not include. The point is, they were not just asking about the sign of His coming and the end of the age, but their questions came about as a result of what would become of the temple and the buildings around it. So based on that, we should view all of this as beginning at that time because His answer includes the temple's destruction as well because it was part of their question. 7 hours ago, Diaste said: If you are referring to 2 Thess 2 here's my take on that: The two events are related as occurring in conjunction; the falling away and the revealing, and occurring before the Coming and the gathering. I agree, but would you say the falling away comes before the revealing since Paul says them in that order? I've always considered them to appear as listed, similar to how he always puts His coming before the gathering. 7 hours ago, Diaste said: So the falling away will center around the time of the revealing. I have no idea what sort of time frame we would be looking at. How long does it take for there be a legitimate defection of this type? It is my understanding the defection will occur both before and after the mark is required. It will be quite different from a backsliding we see all the time. It should be in the form of mass defection. Whole denominations at once will declare allegiance to the beast. Obviously I agree with your sentiment regarding defections prior to as I see them as having existed all along, so that would be nothing new. However, in regards to a mass defection or one more noticeable than the norm, to me it seems to point to that being a result of the mark of the beast, or at the very least the false prophet being on stage. I come to that conclusion from the passage in I Timothy. I Timothy 4 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, If this is the later times as it is said, then I would expect the deceitful spirits and doctrine of demons has something to do with the false prophet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diaste Posted August 3, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 14 Topic Count: 67 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 6,629 Content Per Day: 1.99 Reputation: 2,368 Days Won: 2 Joined: 03/17/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted August 3, 2020 7 hours ago, wingnut- said: I agree with you in regards to the discourse aligning, where we begin to drift is in regards to your overall view, as far as it being end of age context. I would offer this for your consideration. Mark 13 And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” 2 And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” 3 And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?” From Luke Luke 21:5 And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, 6 “As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” 7 And they asked him, “Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?” So as you can see from these two accounts we get some information that Matthew does not include. The point is, they were not just asking about the sign of His coming and the end of the age, but their questions came about as a result of what would become of the temple and the buildings around it. So based on that, we should view all of this as beginning at that time because His answer includes the temple's destruction as well because it was part of their question. I have always found eyewitness testimony interesting. There is a movie called 'Vantage Point' that really shows the differences in what people see depending on the particular person's focus. Investigators piece things together with the added facts, as you point out, and as long as there are no contradictions we can get a better grasp of the...whatever. I have discussed this once before. What you point out messed with me for a bit in the past, and again just now, because it indeed looks like the discussion as recorded in Mark and Luke is in regard to the Temple and it's destruction. I have always gone with the record in Matthew and based on a circumstance in Mark and Matthew I believe it is correct to conclude the Discourse parallels Revelation and only Revelation. As Jesus left the temple and was walking away, His disciples came up to Him to point out its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” He replied. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”" - Matt 24:1-3 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, “Teacher, look at the magnificent stones and buildings!” “Do you see all these great buildings?” Jesus replied. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately, “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to be fulfilled?”" - Mark 13:1-4 It's not terribly far from the Temple to the Mount of Olives. The map says it's about a 1/2 hour walk; maybe a little shorter if the Temple was in the city of David. Who knows how the conversation turned in 20-30 minutes? From what I see the Temple question was asked as Jesus was leaving the Temple, and the end of the age question was asked at least a 1/2 hour later, or more, when Jesus was seated on the Mount of Olives. We don't know how long it was between exiting the Temple and holding audience on the Mount. It could have been a day. Because the location changed and the time passed I can't see the question as related to the destruction of the Temple. 7 hours ago, wingnut- said: I agree, but would you say the falling away comes before the revealing since Paul says them in that order? I've always considered them to appear as listed, similar to how he always puts His coming before the gathering. That could be the case. If so then the mark of the beast may have less to do with the falling away then I previously considered. I'm of the mind there is going to be 7 years. Some think 3.5. If 7 then it seems the beast operates in the first half and gains support, "all the world wondered after the beast whose deadly head wound was healed.", and the falling away begins there. It may be incorrect but I have assumed the mark is required after the revealing as that is when, "He will oppose and exalt himself above every so-called god or object of worship. So he will seat himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God." Could the mark come before? Sure. Ostensibly it will be for rationing and with the previous calamities of the first half of the week it will make sense to conserve resources and as one attribute the mark may be presented similar to a ration card. I'm doing a lot of speculating of course but I don't see it as improbable, The mark ultimately is about as the oath of allegiance to the beast and might only appear once the people have been conditioned by the actions of the 1st and 2nd beast in the 1st half of the week. And also the torment of the 2 witnesses who not only oppose the beast and the pact with death between the beast and Israel, but strike the earth with plagues; which should serve to drive people away from the message of the witnesses and into the arms of the beast/s. "And those who dwell on the earth will gloat over them, and will celebrate and send one another gifts, because these two prophets had tormented them." I could be wrong here but it seems logical. 8 hours ago, wingnut- said: Obviously I agree with your sentiment regarding defections prior to as I see them as having existed all along, so that would be nothing new. However, in regards to a mass defection or one more noticeable than the norm, to me it seems to point to that being a result of the mark of the beast, or at the very least the false prophet being on stage. I come to that conclusion from the passage in I Timothy. I Timothy 4 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, If this is the later times as it is said, then I would expect the deceitful spirits and doctrine of demons has something to do with the false prophet. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Last Daze Posted August 3, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 9 Topic Count: 84 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,011 Content Per Day: 1.12 Reputation: 2,519 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/17/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted August 3, 2020 21 hours ago, Diaste said: I get it. I think we all have similar experiences when we choose to follow God's written word and ignore the word of mankind, when looking to understand God's word. Speaking of tells a big one is citing man's works of interpretation of God's word. Another is lack of all or most of relevant scripture: Pretrib, preterism, dispensationalism, amillennialism...you get the idea. This is where we get understanding of God's word: "Now if any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him." - James 1 "For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding. He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous:" - Proverbs 2 "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him." - Ephesians 1 "The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.' - Psalm 119 And on and on it goes proving God will send His Spirit of truth to give understanding to those who diligently seek His truth with pure hearts. Amazing! This is certainly worth reflecting on! But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. John 16:13 Goes hand-in-hand with: When he puts forth all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. A stranger they simply will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers.” John 10:4-5 Learn to hear the Spirit of truth. The "credentialed" of Jesus' day had Him crucified. Read the word of God, pray, and walk in the truth. These are days of deception. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamlamad Posted August 5, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 23 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 8,272 Content Per Day: 2.08 Reputation: 689 Days Won: 4 Joined: 06/09/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted August 5, 2020 On 8/3/2020 at 6:06 AM, Diaste said: I have always found eyewitness testimony interesting. There is a movie called 'Vantage Point' that really shows the differences in what people see depending on the particular person's focus. Investigators piece things together with the added facts, as you point out, and as long as there are no contradictions we can get a better grasp of the...whatever. I have discussed this once before. What you point out messed with me for a bit in the past, and again just now, because it indeed looks like the discussion as recorded in Mark and Luke is in regard to the Temple and it's destruction. I have always gone with the record in Matthew and based on a circumstance in Mark and Matthew I believe it is correct to conclude the Discourse parallels Revelation and only Revelation. As Jesus left the temple and was walking away, His disciples came up to Him to point out its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” He replied. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”" - Matt 24:1-3 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, “Teacher, look at the magnificent stones and buildings!” “Do you see all these great buildings?” Jesus replied. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately, “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to be fulfilled?”" - Mark 13:1-4 It's not terribly far from the Temple to the Mount of Olives. The map says it's about a 1/2 hour walk; maybe a little shorter if the Temple was in the city of David. Who knows how the conversation turned in 20-30 minutes? From what I see the Temple question was asked as Jesus was leaving the Temple, and the end of the age question was asked at least a 1/2 hour later, or more, when Jesus was seated on the Mount of Olives. We don't know how long it was between exiting the Temple and holding audience on the Mount. It could have been a day. Because the location changed and the time passed I can't see the question as related to the destruction of the Temple. That could be the case. If so then the mark of the beast may have less to do with the falling away then I previously considered. I'm of the mind there is going to be 7 years. Some think 3.5. If 7 then it seems the beast operates in the first half and gains support, "all the world wondered after the beast whose deadly head wound was healed.", and the falling away begins there. It may be incorrect but I have assumed the mark is required after the revealing as that is when, "He will oppose and exalt himself above every so-called god or object of worship. So he will seat himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God." Could the mark come before? Sure. Ostensibly it will be for rationing and with the previous calamities of the first half of the week it will make sense to conserve resources and as one attribute the mark may be presented similar to a ration card. I'm doing a lot of speculating of course but I don't see it as improbable, The mark ultimately is about as the oath of allegiance to the beast and might only appear once the people have been conditioned by the actions of the 1st and 2nd beast in the 1st half of the week. And also the torment of the 2 witnesses who not only oppose the beast and the pact with death between the beast and Israel, but strike the earth with plagues; which should serve to drive people away from the message of the witnesses and into the arms of the beast/s. "And those who dwell on the earth will gloat over them, and will celebrate and send one another gifts, because these two prophets had tormented them." I could be wrong here but it seems logical. Agreed. I think "falling away" is a bad translation. I don't think it fits the context of the passage. Why? Because whatever Paul meant by "apostasia" it also has to be the restrainer "taken out of the way." (the man of sin IS revealed at the end of verse 3). I therefore thing "departing" is a much better translation and that Paul is referring to the Holy Spirit (gone with the church) being taken out of the way. It has to be a VERY SIGNIFICANT "departing," one that all would recognize as: "Ah! So that is what Paul was talking about." If a falling away was Paul's intention, how would anyone know that "enough" had fallen away to be significant? I think it would have to be something sudden and significant. Anyway, Paul did not include what was being departed from what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENOCH2010 Posted August 5, 2020 Group: Senior Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 907 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 382 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/03/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/07/1866 Share Posted August 5, 2020 1 hour ago, iamlamad said: I think "falling away" is a bad translation. I don't think it fits the context of the passage. Why? Because whatever Paul meant by "apostasia" it also has to be the restrainer "taken out of the way." (the man of sin IS revealed at the end of verse 3). I therefore thing "departing" is a much better translation and that Paul is referring to the Holy Spirit (gone with the church) being taken out of the way. It has to be a VERY SIGNIFICANT "departing," one that all would recognize as: "Ah! So that is what Paul was talking about." If a falling away was Paul's intention, how would anyone know that "enough" had fallen away to be significant? I think it would have to be something sudden and significant. Anyway, Paul did not include what was being departed from what. Perhaps the falling away is a lot of pre-tribbers get discouraged when they see they are still here for the tribulation. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diaste Posted August 6, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 14 Topic Count: 67 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 6,629 Content Per Day: 1.99 Reputation: 2,368 Days Won: 2 Joined: 03/17/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted August 6, 2020 13 hours ago, iamlamad said: I think "falling away" is a bad translation. I don't think it fits the context of the passage. Why? Because whatever Paul meant by "apostasia" it also has to be the restrainer "taken out of the way." (the man of sin IS revealed at the end of verse 3). I therefore thing "departing" is a much better translation and that Paul is referring to the Holy Spirit (gone with the church) being taken out of the way. It has to be a VERY SIGNIFICANT "departing," one that all would recognize as: "Ah! So that is what Paul was talking about." If a falling away was Paul's intention, how would anyone know that "enough" had fallen away to be significant? I think it would have to be something sudden and significant. Anyway, Paul did not include what was being departed from what. Never mind that Paul has a good command of the language. It's not possible Paul meant what he said. Paul didn't know apostasia meant something other than how it's defined. Paul didn't know he meant to say the church is departing with the Holy Spirit. Paul didn't mean defection or revolt when he said apostasia; he meant 'being forcibly taken from one place and taken somewhere else'. New International Version Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. New Living Translation Don’t be fooled by what they say. For that day will not come until there is a great rebellion against God and the man of lawlessness is revealed—the one who brings destruction. English Standard Version Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, Berean Study Bible Let no one deceive you in any way, for it will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness—the son of destruction—is revealed. Berean Literal Bible No one should deceive you in any way, because it is not until the apostasy shall have come first, and the man of lawlessness shall have been revealed--the son of destruction, New American Standard Bible 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, New King James Version Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, King James Bible 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; Christian Standard Bible Don't let anyone deceive you in any way. For that day will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. Contemporary English Version But don't be fooled! People will rebel against God. Then before the Lord returns, the wicked one who is doomed to be destroyed will appear. Good News Translation Do not let anyone deceive you in any way. For the Day will not come until the final Rebellion takes place and the Wicked One appears, who is destined to hell. Holman Christian Standard Bible Don't let anyone deceive you in any way. For that day will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction. International Standard Version Do not let anyone deceive you in any way, for it will not come unless the rebellion takes place first and the man of sin, who is destined for destruction, is revealed. NET Bible Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not arrive until the rebellion comes and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction. New Heart English Bible Let no one deceive you in any way. For it will not be, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, Aramaic Bible in Plain English Let no man deceive you by any means, to the effect that surely no revolt will first come and The Man of Sin, The Son of Destruction, be revealed, GOD'S WORD® Translation Don't let anyone deceive you about this in any way. [That day cannot come unless] a revolt takes place first, and the man of sin, the man of destruction, is revealed. New American Standard 1977 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, King James 2000 Bible Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come the falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; American King James Version 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; American Standard Version let no man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, Douay-Rheims Bible Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, Darby Bible Translation Let not any one deceive you in any manner, because [it will not be] unless the apostasy have first come, and the man of sin have been revealed, the son of perdition; English Revised Version let no man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, Webster's Bible Translation 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; Weymouth New Testament Let no one in any way deceive you, for that day cannot come without the coming of the apostasy first, and the appearing of the man of sin, the son of perdition, who sets himself against, World English Bible Let no one deceive you in any way. For it will not be, unless the departure comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of destruction, Young's Literal Translation let not any one deceive you in any manner, because -- if the falling away may not come first, and the man of sin be revealed -- the son of the destruction, You certainly have a lot of evidence to back up your claim. Even the Darby translation agrees with you. Wait.... The World English bible does. So you have that. The others...?? '. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamlamad Posted August 6, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 23 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 8,272 Content Per Day: 2.08 Reputation: 689 Days Won: 4 Joined: 06/09/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted August 6, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Diaste said: Never mind that Paul has a good command of the language. It's not possible Paul meant what he said. Paul didn't know apostasia meant something other than how it's defined. Paul didn't know he meant to say the church is departing with the Holy Spirit. Paul didn't mean defection or revolt when he said apostasia; he meant 'being forcibly taken from one place and taken somewhere else'. You certainly have a lot of evidence to back up your claim. Even the Darby translation agrees with you. Wait.... The World English bible does. So you have that. The others...?? '. How many times must you see something before you understand it? Strong's: ä-po-stä-se'-ä (Key) Error! Filename not specified. Part of Speech feminine noun Root Word (Etymology) Feminine of the same as ἀποστάσιον (G647) ä-po-stä'-se-on (Key) Part of Speech neuter noun Root Word (Etymology) Neuter of a (presumed) adj. from a derivative of ἀφίστημι (G868) ä-fe'-sta-me (Key) Part of Speech verb Root Word (Etymology) From ἀπό (G575) and ἵστημι (G2476) IT IS A COMPOUND WORD. ä-po' (Key) Part of Speech preposition Root Word (Etymology) A primary particle Strong's definition of Apo: of separation of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing,... of separation of a part from the whole where of a whole some part is taken of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed of a state of separation, that is of distance physical, of distance of place temporal, of distance of time The other half of the compound word: Stasis (from Greek στάσις "a standing still") Put them together and you have a departing of a PART of a whole (group) while the rest of the group is left standing. It seems you just never seem to take Apostasia in its context: Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. So is he revealed, or is he NOT revealed? Every verse you posted tells us he IS revealed. Yet, when we understand verses 6-8 we know he CANNOT be revealed until the one restraining him is taken out of the way. My friend, there is only ONE CONCLUSION one can draw from this passage: Paul had to mean in his use of the word apostasia that the one restraining is taken out of the way. It is the ONLY WAY Paul could then have written, IS REVEALED." So there can be only one conclusion: something in verse 3a that was the restraining force preventing the man of sin from being revealed until the proper time (when some power takes Him or it out of the way). I believe Paul's meaning is that the CHURCH has departed and/or taken out of the way. If you wish to believe other people departed (not the church) (and we don't know what they departed from) then we are at a stalemate. Edited August 6, 2020 by iamlamad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamlamad Posted August 6, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 23 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 8,272 Content Per Day: 2.08 Reputation: 689 Days Won: 4 Joined: 06/09/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted August 6, 2020 15 hours ago, ENOCH2010 said: Perhaps the falling away is a lot of pre-tribbers get discouraged when they see they are still here for the tribulation. NOT! Anyway, a "departing" it is better translation - used before KJV came up with "falling away." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts