The Coming Great Apostasy

[SovereignGrace]

I realize that most people can't/won't accept that
2 Thes. 2:8 is an insertion by the translators. I provided the means whereby one can search it for themselves. It's not "that Wicked" , but rather "the wicked" in the Textus Receptus Greek (KJV).
See my prev. Posts on that.
There no longer any need to stand in the dark and speak "religious church-anity's" foolishness.

Out of curiosity, where can I find 2 Thessalonians 2:8 is an assertion?

 

[Earburner]

Out of curiosity, where can I find 2 Thessalonians 2:8 is an assertion?

2 Thessalonians 2:8 Greek Text Analysis

 

[Earburner]

Even the word "one" is in brackets [one], which is showing that it is also an insertion.

 

[SovereignGrace]

2 Thessalonians 2:8 Greek Text Analysis

I can’t see that link is saying that verse was an insertion by translators. I read it twice and didn’t see it saying that.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Even the word "one" is in brackets [one], which is showing that it is also an insertion.

Oh, I see what you meant now. Sorry that I didn’t grasp your thought in this.

But in translation from one language to another, there is no way it can be word-for-word. Sometimes, words have to be added to express the thought from the language that is being translated into another.

 

[SovereignGrace]

2 Thessalonians 2:8 Greek Text Analysis

By adding “one” into the text does not alter the text, imo. The passage is referring to an individual who will be destroyed at the Christ’s second advent.

 

[Earburner]

I can’t see that link is saying that verse was an insertion by translators. I read it twice and didn’t see it saying that.

The CORRECT Greek word for "that" IS "the" .
The Greek word "wicked" has the word "one" under it in brackets- [ ].
Any word that is in brackets is an insertion.
Therefore, when correctly read, as the Textus Receptus Greek reveals, those words "that Wicked", as found in the KJV are erroneous, and should be correctly read as "the wicked", which fits 100% in the plural nature of the chapter.

 

[SovereignGrace]

The CORRECT Greek word for "that" IS "the" .
The Greek word "wicked" has the word "one" under it in brackets- [ ].
Any word that is in brackets is an insertion.
Therefore, when correctly read, as the Textus Receptus Greek reveals, those words "that Wicked", as found in the KJV are erroneous, and should be correctly read as "the wicked", which fits 100% in the plural nature of the chapter.

However, the context is referring to the lawless [one]. So, it seems that whether ‘that’ or ‘the’ doesnt do damage to the meaning of the passage.

1 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 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.[2 Thessalonians 2]

Look at all those personal, singular pronouns used. It means a person is being addressed, not a mass of wicked ppl. So, I don’t think inserting [one] into the text alters or harms the meaning of that passage.

 

[Earburner]

By adding “one” into the text does not alter the text, imo. The passage is referring to an individual who will be destroyed at the Christ’s second advent.

The INSERTED word "that", was purposely done, so that the reader would understand that the words are to be read in the singular.
However, in the Textus Receptus Greek, no such error, insertion or implication exists for the word
"that". Instead, the word "the" is used, and by that single correct word, the plural understanding of the meaning is understood.
However, because the translators wanted it to read in the singular, they inserted the word "one" with brackets, which means the word "one" WAS INSERTED.
So, to unravel the intentional error of the translators of writing: "that Wicked" , the true and factual understanding from the TR Greek is: "the wicked", of which blends in perfectly with the plural nature of all of chapter 2 in 2 Thes.

 

[SovereignGrace]

The INSERTED word "that", was purposely done, so that the reader would understand that the words are to be read in the singular.
However, in the Textus Receptus Greek, no such error, insertion or implication exists for the word
"that". Instead, the word "the" is used, and by that single correct word, the plural understanding of the meaning is understood.
However, because the translators wanted it to read in the singular, they inserted the word "one" with brackets, which means the word "one" WAS INSERTED.
So, to unravel the intentional error of the translators of writing: "that Wicked" , the true and factual understanding from the TR Greek is: "the wicked", of which blends in perfectly with the plural nature of all of chapter 2 in 2 Thes.

Well, we are at an impasse then. Thank you ever so much for your civil posts.

 

[Earburner]

SG wrote:
However, the context is referring to the lawless [one]. So, it seems that whether ‘that’ or ‘the’ doesnt do damage to the meaning of the passage.
>
Well, you be the judge, by dropping the inserted word [one] And use the correct pronoun of "the", and then make the comparison yourself.
As written in the KJV: "that Wicked".
As it literally reads in TR Greek "the wicked".
Which selection would you choose for the correct reading?
Will your selection be according to your doctrinal stand, or for the truth of how it was originally written in the TR Greek?

 

[SovereignGrace]

SG wrote:
However, the context is referring to the lawless [one]. So, it seems that whether ‘that’ or ‘the’ doesnt do damage to the meaning of the passage.
>
Well, you be the judge, by dropping the inserted word [one] And use the correct pronoun of "the", and then make the comparison yourself.
As written in the KJV: "that Wicked".
As it literally reads in TR Greek "the wicked".
Which selection would you choose for the correct reading?
Will your selection be according to your doctrinal stand, or for the truth of how it was originally written in the TR Greek?

The wicked or that wicked doesn’t harm the text at all. Look at the passage my Brother. It is referring to one person, not a ppl group.

 

[Earburner]

Well, we are at an impasse then. Thank you ever so much for your civil posts.

Your welcome!
BTW, I study the KJV only. I already gave my testimony of why, here on this thread.
I also do understand why the KJV translators were persuaded to write 2 Thes. 2:8 in the manner they did. 1611 was not far from the Protestant Reformation.
Ahh...now we can see the bigger picture of their faulty reasoning.

 

[Earburner]

The wicked or that wicked doesn’t harm the text at all. Look at the passage my Brother. It is referring to one person, not a ppl group.

Yes!! That was clearly THEIR intention! Make SURE that it's read in the singular, and not the plural.
Yes they did "pin the tail on the donkey", but I have found out that WE are the donkey.
By the way I am a staunch Methodist, and NOT Catholic.

 

[Earburner]

The wicked or that wicked doesn’t harm the text at all. Look at the passage my Brother. It is referring to one person, not a ppl group.

According to the Textus Receptus Greek,.....
IT IS A GROUP of people, and one of a very large size,... as in MANY!!
Do associate that with Rom. 8:9
Rom.8[9] But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.
Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
And of course, all born again Christians know that "the natural man" is "wicked", and therefore is
"that man of sin, the son of perdition".
.
But as the scripture just said:
"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you."
.
If you are "born again by His Holy Spirit", you ARE IN the Spirit, being one of His!
So then who are they, that are "none His"?
Ans. All who "have not the Spirit of Christ".
They are "the wicked", they who live in the natural man of their flesh,....dwelling in the temple of God.

 

[Earburner]

again

 

[4Jesus]

A difficult subject, but disobedient Jews against The Gospel is not really who our Lord Jesus was pointing to with the "synagogue of Satan".

Satan's Canaanite workers began creeping in among Israel early on in Israel's history (see Judges 2 & 3; Joshua 9; 1 Kings 9:20-21). During the Babylon captivity of Judah, many of the house of Judah took wives of the Canaanites, and Ezra cried when he was told of this after their return to Jerusalem (Ezra 9). Per 1 Chronicles 2:55, the Kenites, a people from the lands of Canaan, became the scribes in Israel. When the nation of Edom fell by God's hand, many of those moved into Judea and became Jews (Herod who was an Idumean from Esau). These are the ones that wanted to murder our Lord Jesus. These make up the "mystery of iniquity" Paul spoke of, and the "many antichrists" of John. They are the ones of Jude 1 that crept in unawares ordained to work against God and His Son.

Hi Davy, how are you toay?

I disagree with your first paragraph. I don't deny the information in your second paragraph, and believe that those actions could be/are still ongoing today, even within Christian churches.

As to why I disagree with the first paragraph, it is only because of the time perspective. When Jesus spoke to John the Revelator in 90-95 AD, the book begins with the following verses, Revelation 1:1-2 "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw." The use of the phrase "shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass" indicates to me, the present -> future, not the present -> past/history.

 

[Phoneman777]

Some Christians live in "Religious Fantasy Land" all their lives, hurling "religious speak" back and forth, talking through the imagination of their minds, according to what the "religious, scholarly learned" says is so.

Agreed.

Fact #1- there is no "little horn" in Revelations, of whom the "religionists" all love to call "THE" Antichrist! There was only one "little horn" that was ever to be, and his name was Antiochus Epiphanes of the Seleucid empire (of the 3rd beast), one of the "four horns" in Daniel. Therefore, a singular man, that they call "THE Antichrist, is never going to happen, because it's NOT prophesied to happen!!

You may not accept that the Little Horn in both its phases is the Roman Empire/Papacy, but there's no way it's Antiochus the Chump. I've given you several solid reasons in post 439 for why he is disqualified.

Try to HEAR how the Holy Spirit speaks. "The natural man", "that man of sin, the son of perdtion", are all about specific group of people on the earth, and the Holy Spirit called ALL of such people to be "none of His". Rom. 8:9.

The Holy Spirit says, "Come now, let us reason together." There's nothing reasonable about insisting Antiochus the Chump is the Little Horn, as I've clearly delineated in post 439.

The context of 2 Thes. 2 speaks in the PLURAL!

Only when this singular symbolism is interpreted does plurality become evident, just like when Paul says "...that the man of God may be perfect...", it is singular symbolism which the interpretation of it makes a plurality.

Therefore the words "that Wicked" should be read as "the wicked", and when corrected, it can be read in the plural, being 100% in line with with the chapter.

Yes, that wicked kingdom that is the papacy which had slaughtered millions and millions of saints - did Antiochus kill millions and millions?

in the Textus Receptus Greek (KJV), there is no word "that" to be translated by the Strong's.

OK, "then shall the great Wicked (papacy) be revealed." You're all hat and no cattle here with this one.

However, the word "wicked" begs for a pronoun, and since the context IS PLURAL, a pronoun best suited for the plural, is the pronoun "the".

The context of the symbolic language is not plural, as evidenced by the words "man", "son", "himself", "he"...but "wicked" is all of a sudden plural? The "wicked" is the same entity which Paul begins telling us about when he brings up the soon to rise "man of sin" and after describing it, he tells us that's something (Roman Empire) is restraining its rise, but after that restrainer is taken out of the way, the same entity which he now calls "great wicked" commences its rise and continues until the end, just like in Daniel 7 when it says the Little Horn will continue to run its mouth until the Judgment.

 

[Phoneman777]

Ha well ty, symbolism is much better I guess

 

[Earburner]

Agreed.
You may not accept that the Little Horn in both its phases is the Roman Empire/Papacy, but there's no way it's Antiochus the Chump. I've given you several solid reasons in post 439 for why he is disqualified.
The Holy Spirit says, "Come now, let us reason together." There's nothing reasonable about insisting Antiochus the Chump is the Little Horn, as I've clearly delineated in post 439.
Only when this singular symbolism is interpreted does plurality become evident, just like when Paul says "...that the man of God may be perfect...", it is singular symbolism which the interpretation of it makes a plurality.
Yes, that wicked kingdom that is the papacy which had slaughtered millions and millions of saints - did Antiochus kill millions and millions?
OK, "then shall the great Wicked (papacy) be revealed." You're all hat and no cattle here with this one. The context of the symbolic language is not plural, as evidenced by the words "man", "son", "himself", "he"...but "wicked" is all of a sudden plural? The "wicked" is the same entity which Paul begins telling us about when he brings up the soon to rise "man of sin" and after describing it, he tells us that's something (Roman Empire) is restraining its rise, but after that restrainer is taken out of the way, the same entity which he now calls "great wicked" commences its rise and continues until the end, just like in Daniel 7 when it says the Little Horn will continue to run its mouth until the Judgment.

Question: what temple does the Lord desire to dwell in?
Ans. 1Cor. 3:16
.
What visible example did Jesus provide, of what the temple is?
Ans. John 2:21
.
If God is not Living/Dwelling within us, who is?
Ans. 1Cor. 2:14
.
What is the association that God/Jesus have, with those described in 1 Cor. 2:14?
Ans. Rom. 8:9