Paralambanetai

[marks]

And that’s “he who restrains” or “the one who is holding back” the man of perdition…?
And how is that “he who restrains” taken out of the way…?

I see God being the restrainer in the Holy Spirit Who guards us. He becomes out of the midst when that role is no longer needed, as I see it.

Much love!

 

[Hidden In Him]

The first thing is to shift the interpretations from the gentile church to Israel, and to keep in mind this is Israel in the Mosaic Covenant, and that this is to Israel who has not formally rejected their Messiah yet. To whom the kingdom could still come in their generation.

Does that make sense?

Much love!

Ok, spell it out. :) Who exactly are you saying are the taken, and in what context?

36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 40 Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left. 42 Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming. 43 But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into.44 Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

 

[marks]

Well, what I'm asking him to do is make a case on the basis of usage, having agreed with him that meanings can morph. But before he can establish his argument, He has to be able to prove with evidence that it morphed into what he is saying it did.

I know people could make a case from logic, but that's not what I'm asking for. Before you can make a case from logic, you need to first establish that the translation/ interpretation you are favoring is legitimate according to usage in the NT era.

Yeah, I've got all that. I've studied this a fair amount. And it goes a little further than just simple usage of the time, you've got to take into account how Paul wrote.

The word was used a lot for rebellion in the LXX, not even apostasy as we think of it, but the classical use was departure, and everywhere else in the Bible where the different forms are used, it means depart. The one other NT place is in the accusation that Paul taught "rebellion/departure" from Moses.

And in fact, it says, apostasia from Moses, that is, "departure from Moses", rather than apostasia against Moses", or, "rebellion against Moses".

And there is that place in "The Birds", from Aristophanes, I think it is, the apostasia when the two humans would fly away to the bird city in the sky.

That's kind of summary, anyway.

Much love!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I see God being the restrainer in the Holy Spirit Who guards us. He becomes out of the midst when that role is no longer needed, as I see it.

Much love!

Okay, I don’t know why all the finagling instead of just saying the restrainer is God or the Holy Spirit in the first place but…okay.

 

[marks]

Okay, I don’t know why all the finagling instead of just saying the restrainer is God or the Holy Spirit in the first place but…okay.

I'd like to think that you know better how I think on this, maybe not.

Much love!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I'd like to think that you know better how I think on this, maybe not.

Much love!

Hah! I wouldn’t dare try to crawl into your mind again. Even WITH a map!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Well, what I'm asking him to do is make a case on the basis of usage, having agreed with him that meanings can morph. But before he can establish his argument, He has to be able to prove with evidence that it morphed into what he is saying it did.

I know people could make a case from logic, but that's not what I'm asking for. Before you can make a case from logic, you need to first establish that the translation/ interpretation you are favoring is legitimate according to usage in the NT era.

……..?
He gave a fair case for usage…did you miss it?

 

[Hidden In Him]

Yeah, I've got all that. I've studied this a fair amount. And it goes a little further than just simple usage of the time, you've got to take into account how Paul wrote.

I'm not talking about on related topics, I'm talking about usage of the specific word. If Paul used it elsewhere, then that's what I am including as usage. If he is simply discussing related issues someplace else, that is not.

The word was used a lot for rebellion in the LXX, not even apostasy as we think of it, but the classical use was departure, and everywhere else in the Bible where the different forms are used, it means depart.

You need to actually provide this, LoL, not just tell me it's there. Are you referring to how Hebrew words that the LXX translated with apostasia were used, or what the word apostasia meant in certain cases in the LXX itself?

 

[Hidden In Him]

And in fact, it says, apostasia from Moses, that is, "departure from Moses", rather than apostasia against Moses", or, "rebellion against Moses".

Apostasy from Moses is the right way to translate it : ) Apostasy against Moses makes it sound almost like he was back in the wilderness with him, and trying to pull a Korah or something.

 

[Hidden In Him]

……..?
He gave a fair case for usage…did you miss it?

Who did? You mean Mark or Ronald Milam?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Who did? You mean Mark or Ronald Milam?

Ronald. Out of 15 times, only three were translated that way.

 

[marks]

Apostasy from Moses is the right way to translate it : )

I realize that. Luke used "apo", away from.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Ronald. Out of 15 times, only three were translated that way.

Apostasia? It only appears twice.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Hah! I wouldn’t dare try to crawl into your mind again. Even WITH a map!

Don't worry, it's not something you can actually do.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Ronald. Out of 15 times, only three were translated that way.

Oh, you mean this right here:

The word is used in verb form a total of 15 times in the New Testament, and only three of these have anything to do with a departure from the faith (Luke 8:13, 1 Timothy 4:1, and Hebrews 3:12). In other settings, the word is used for departing from iniquity (2 Timothy 2:19), departing from ungodly men (1 Timothy 6:5), departing from the temple (Luke 2:27), departing from the body (2 Corinthians 12:8), and departing from persons (Acts 12:10 and Luke 4:13).

He's talking about ἀφίστημι (aphistémi), which is not the verb form of apostasia, so I'm not sure what he was on about here. The verb form of apostasia is apostateo.

ἀφίστημι, though a cognate and related, is from a completely different word group, so he is making his argument based on the usage of a different word.

 

[marks]

I'm not talking about on related topics, I'm talking about usage of the specific word. If Paul used it elsewhere, then that's what I am including as usage. If he is simply discussing related issues someplace else, that is not.


You need to actually provide this, LoL, not just tell me it's there. Are you referring to how Hebrew words that the LXX translated with apostasia were used, or what the word apostasia meant in certain cases in the LXX itself?

I think there are, if memory serves, 8 or 9 places apostasia appears in the LXX, however many, I forget exactly, only that they show a strong pattern of usage meaning rebellion, in context.

But I don't really feel like looking them all up again right now, sorry!

Much love!

 

[Hidden In Him]

I think there are, if memory serves, 8 or 9 places apostasia appears in the LXX, however many, I forget exactly, only that they show a strong pattern of usage meaning rebellion, in context.

But I don't really feel like looking them all up again right now, sorry!

Much love!

I believe you are correct, and I don't either, Lol.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I’m going to repost what I’m referring to again. Noun form twice, verb form 15 times:

Nice to meet you sister, I will make it easy on you I have a sorta blog I did on this a few years ago, but its basically just touching on Dr. Tommy Ice's teaching on this. (American Theologian)

Is the Falling Away a False Teaching?

I have evolved with much study on this. I used to argue to all that there had to be this great Falling Away also. All because of this one passage. 2 Thessalonians 2:3. I do agree that the world gets far more evil towards the (now) end, as foretold in Romans chapter 1, and as Peter said, there will be scoffers in the last days etc. etc. But I do not think the True Church can “Fall Away”, either you are of Christ/God or you are not, and will get left behind by the Bridegroom. Anyway, here is my understanding of 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

“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…” – 2 Thessalonians 2:3 (NASB) This verse is used by many and they say it implies a “Falling Away” from the faith. But a guy named Tommy Ice has shed some exceptional light on this passage.

Mr. Ice has pointed out that the Greek noun, apostasia, is used only twice in the New Testament. The other occurrence is in Acts 21:21 where it states that an accusation was made against Paul that he was “teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake [apostasia] Moses.”

The word is used in verb form a total of 15 times in the New Testament, and only three of these have anything to do with a departure from the faith (Luke 8:13, 1 Timothy 4:1, and Hebrews 3:12). In other settings, the word is used for departing from iniquity (2 Timothy 2:19), departing from ungodly men (1 Timothy 6:5), departing from the temple (Luke 2:27), departing from the body (2 Corinthians 12:8), and departing from persons (Acts 12:10 and Luke 4:13).

This insight about the use and meaning of the word was certainly compelling, but the argument Mr. Ice presented that was most convicting was his revelation that the first seven English translations of the Bible rendered the noun, apostasia, as either “departure” or “departing.”

They were as follows:

1.The Wycliffe Bible (1384)

2.The Tyndale Bible (1526)

3. The Coverdale Bible (1535)

4. The Cranmer Bible (1539)

5. The Great Bible (1540)

6. The Beeches Bible (1576)

7. The Geneva Bible (1608)

Mr. Ice also noted that the Bible used by the Western world from 400 AD to the 1500s — Jerome’s Latin translation known as “The Vulgate” — rendered apostasia with the Latin word, discessio, which means “departure.” The first translation of the word to mean apostasy in an English Bible did not occur until 1611 when the King James Version was issued. So, why did the King James translators introduce a completely new rendering of the word as “falling away”? The best guess is that they were taking a stab at what they thought were the "false teachings of Catholicism".

One other point Mr. Ice made that I think is significant is that Paul used a definite article with the word apostasia. The significance of this is emphasized by Daniel Davey in a thesis he wrote for the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary:

Since the Greek language does not need an article to make the noun definite, it becomes clear that with the usage of the article, reference is being made to something in particular. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 the word apostasia is prefaced by the definite article which means that Paul is pointing to a particular type of departure clearly known to the Thessalonian church.

In light of this grammatical point, Tommy observed that “the use of the definite article would support the notion that Paul spoke of a clear, discernible notion.” And that notion he had already identified in verse 1 when he stated that he was writing about “our gathering together to Him [Jesus].” This interpretation also corresponds to the point that Paul makes in verses 6 and 7 where he states that the man of lawlessness will not come until what “restrains” him “is taken out of the way.”

And what it is that restrains evil in the world today? The Holy Spirit working through the Church. I think when the Church departs, the Anti-Christ will be free to come to power.

I do not think this has anything to do with a Falling Away from the faith. It is the Church Departing before the Anti-Christ is brought forth. The King James Bible changed the known understanding that has been around for 1500 some odd years.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Okay oh my gosh I give up. It’s enough for me to be convinced. That’s enough.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Okay oh my gosh I give up. It’s enough for me to be convinced. That’s enough.

Well I'm glad you brought it to my attention cuz I never noticed what he was saying in that paragraph. But, yeah, you can't always assume that someone is 100% correct in what they are saying, even when they are discussing the original languages. I think what I was saying in Post #115 is where he likely made his mistake.