Documentary—7 Pretrib Problems and the Prewrath Rapture

[TheDivineWatermark]

@Runningman , yeah... we often call what is referred to by the VERB "harpazo / SNATCH / caught up," by the commonly-used term "THE RAPTURE [noun]". Big deal.



All I'm trying to do is show that the basic definition of "apostasia [/apostasis]" is "departure"... and that the CONTEXT is what determines just "WHAT KIND" of departure is intended (in any given context where it is used). And then to explain the "reasons" (or FUNCTION) of the "definite article ['the']" (used here in this verse 3 occurrence of the word), which ordinarily is not required with the word. WHY IS IT USED HERE? (is an important question to consider). [consider the two functions of the definite article, as explained in Wuest's article I posted]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

[ @rayzor 's Post #280] ... not sure what you are talking about, but I was referring to:

3588 [e]
hē
ἡ
the
Art-NFS

646 [e]
apostasia
ἀποστασία
apostasy
N-NFS


per the verse 3 found here: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_thessalonians/2-3.htm

 

[rayzor]

k understand.
falling away
PHRASE
g646
ἀποστασία ἀποστασίαapostasia:

 

[ResidentAlien]

[ @rayzor ] When used with the definite article (as it is in 2Th2:3) it points BACK to something PREVIOUSLY referred to in the text.

What would "the departure" [he apostasia] be referring to (having already been mentioned PREVIOUSLY in the text), in this case?

I'm sorry but in this case "the" does not refer back to v. 1. Let me repeat: It does not. All it does is define "departure" as a definite event: "the departure" as opposed to "a departure," for example.

Again, the meaning of opostasia is non-spatial. Therefore, any argument that it means rapture is ridiculous on the face of it. Unless you can come up with a way to change the meaning of apostasia in Koine Greek I'm afraid your out of gas.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ [ @rayzor 's Post #283 ] Yeah, I notice that BLB rarely (if ever, lol) shows the definite article [numbering, according to Strong's, as "G3588"] when they are indeed actually found/used in the text of scripture. I think because it would become too cumbersome, as many as there are.





[numbering... got it! Got that number! I do!! ding-a-ling!]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

[repeating my Post #264 for @ResidentAlien 's Post #284]

[quoting]

[quoting from Wuest's article in my Post #258]

"[...] We note the presence of the Greek definite article before apostasia, of which the translation takes no notice. A Greek word is definite in itself, and when the article is used the exegete must pay particular attention to it. "The basal function of the article is to point out individual identity. It does more than mark 'the object as definitely conceived,' for a substantive in Greek is definite without the article." This departure, whatever it is, is a particular one, one differentiated from all others. Another function of the article is "to denote previous reference." Here the article points out an object the identity of which is defined by some previous reference made to it in the context." Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 has just spoken of the coming of the Lord. This coming is defined by the words "our gathering together unto him, [...]"

[end quoting; bold and underline mine]




Where do you detect a problem with this ^ (especially the bold... and perhaps the underlined in view of the bold )?

[except the "underlining" did not transfer in the C&P... ugh]

EDIT: FIXED IT before the EDIT TIMED-OUT! Whew!



____________

[believe me... the tracer is ON IT!!]

 

[rayzor]

[ @rayzor ] When used with the definite article (as it is in 2Th2:3) it points BACK to something PREVIOUSLY referred to in the text.

What would "the departure" [he apostasia] be referring to (having already been mentioned PREVIOUSLY in the text), in this case?

[No the falling away in to sin in this case]Not the harpozo = rapture

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ The Greeks had a word for "fall / to fall"... "pipto"... and the word in v.3 is NOT that word.




[it is just your assumption that "he apostasia [noun]" does not legitimately translate to "THE DEPARTURE"... (referring BACK to what Subject was PREVIOUSLY referred to in the text--in v.1--"OUR episynagoges [noun] UNTO HIM"--when WE go "to the meeting [noun] of the Lord IN THE AIR")]

 

[ResidentAlien]

[repeating my post #264 for @ResidentAlien ]

[quoting]

[quoting from Wuest's article in my Post #258]

"[...] We note the presence of the Greek definite article before apostasia, of which the translation takes no notice. A Greek word is definite in itself, and when the article is used the exegete must pay particular attention to it. "The basal function of the article is to point out individual identity. It does more than mark 'the object as definitely conceived,' for a substantive in Greek is definite without the article." This departure, whatever it is, is a particular one, one differentiated from all others. Another function of the article is "to denote previous reference." Here the article points out an object the identity of which is defined by some previous reference made to it in the context." Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 has just spoken of the coming of the Lord. This coming is defined by the words "our gathering together unto him, [...]"

[end quoting; bold and underline mine]




Where do you detect a problem with this ^ (especially the bold... and perhaps the underlined in view of the bold )?

[except the "underlining" did not transfer in the C&P... ugh]

Yes, it can. But in this case it doesn't. That author makes it sound like that's the only function of the definite article which is misleading and untrue. In the context of this passage it cannot refer back to v. 1 because apostasia is non-spatial.

I'm afraid you've been taken in by someone who says what you want to hear. "Moody Bible Institute" after his name means nothing if he's lying.

 

[Jackson123]

I just want to remind every body about 10 plagues that happen in agypt. God waits to the last plagues or last wrath before let Israel rapture and God able to protect His people from His wrath. Why do we think we rapture before His wrath
We are spiritually Israel the pattern that was happen to Israel most likely will apply to us

 

[rayzor]

^ The Greeks had a word for "fall / to fall"... "pipto"... and the word in v.3 is NOT that word.




[it is just your assumption that "he apostasia [noun]" does not legitimately translate to "THE DEPARTURE"... (referring BACK to what Subject was PREVIOUSLY referred to in the text--in v.1--"OUR episynagoges [noun] UNTO HIM"--when WE go "to the meeting [noun] of the Lord IN THE AIR")]

k lol peace

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

[ @ResidentAlien ' s Post #289] "apostasia is non-spatial"--RA



Disagree.

"the departing of a boat from a dock" (no, it wasn't Flavius Josephus who said this)

"the departing of a fever" (the "fever" has LEFT THE BUILDING!)



Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (1889) saying that "apostasia" is "LATER FORM FOR apostasis" (i.e. the SAME word... "potAto"... becomes "potAHto"... now that we've evolved. [It does not change that item into something else entirely! lol])



____________

I get it... some ppl do not believe that "caught up" ("to the meeting of the Lord IN THE AIR") means that we "leave" the earth at all. But, whatever...

 

[ResidentAlien]

"apostasia is non-spatial"



Disagree.

"the departing of a boat from a dock" (no, it wasn't Flavius Josephus who said this)

"the departing of a fever" (the "fever" has LEFT THE BUILDING!)



Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (1889) saying that "apostasia" is "LATER FORM FOR apostasis" (i.e. the SAME word... "potAto"... becomes "potAHto" now that we've evolved. )

I asked you to provide a reference where Josephus said this and I'm still waiting.

You know 2 Thessalonians 2:3 presents one of the biggest problems for the pre-trib rapture, that's why you're attacking it so fiercely. But you really have no argument. You're just throwing spaghetti and hoping something sticks.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

[BTW, I am among those who see the reference in Rev12:5 as referring to "the Church which is His body" (i.e. us)--"harpazo" in that verse "unto God, and to His throne"--not that it refers to a "MID-trib" event, even tho mentioned at such a context, i.e. Rev12]




____________

[ @ResidentAlien ... I'm sorry I did not direct your attention to the post where I CORRECTED MYSELF on that point (about Josephus), way back some pages...]


P.S. No, I see absolutely NO PROBLEM AT ALL in this passage. ZERO!

Verse 3 is CLEAR AS A BELL!

"3 that day ["the dotl" TIME-PERIOD just referred to in v.2] will not be present, if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE *FIRST*..." [<--v.1's Subject here!]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

P.S. No, I see absolutely NO PROBLEM AT ALL in this passage. ZERO!

Verse 3 is CLEAR AS A BELL!

"3 that day ["the dotl" TIME-PERIOD just referred to in v.2] will not be present, if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE *FIRST*..." [<--v.1's Subject here!]

There's no way this sentence [VERSE 3!] can be TWISTED into saying:

"the RAPTURE can't happen unless the RAPTURE comes first"


...as those who falsely accuse "pre-tribbers" of making it say such [OP vid] (tho we certainly DO NOT! THEY are the ones "making up" that nonsensical, and non-EXISTENT, sentence [saying "see how it's nonsense!"]! And then are accusing "pre-tribbers" of doing so! Wow. The oddest thing I've heard, really!)

 

[rayzor]

ResidentAlien data. b : Voice:does not understand speech: Nonspatial relating to or involved in the perception of relationships (as of objects) in space Hippocampal lesions … impair performance on a variety of spatial and Nonspratial memory tasks.

 

[ResidentAlien]

There's no way this sentence [VERSE 3!] can be TWISTED into saying:

"the RAPTURE can't happen unless the RAPTURE comes first"


...as those who falsely accuse "pre-tribbers" of making it say such [OP vid] (tho we certainly DO NOT! THEY are the ones "making up" that nonsensical, and non-EXISTENT, sentence [saying "see how it's nonsense!"]! And then are accusing "pre-tribbers" of doing so! Wow. The oddest thing I've heard, really!)

What should it say then? Is "our gathering together with him" (v.1) "can't happen unless the rapture comes first" (v.3) more acceptable?

 

[ResidentAlien]

ResidentAlien data. b : Voice:does not understand speech: Nonspatial relating to or involved in the perception of relationships (as of objects) in space Hippocampal lesions … impair performance on a variety of spatial and Nonspratial memory tasks.

I think you must be posting simply to hear yourself. You're not making any sense or contributing anything that helps your argument, you're just posting.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

[ @ResidentAlien ' Post #297] "What should it say then?"--RA




I just spelled it out, in both my Posts #294 (bottom sentence of post) and again (as quoted by me) Post #295.

Please read it there.


The SENTENCE OF VERSE 3

(not the "made up" smooshed-together-ness of random phrases they thought sounded good together [to make their point of the "nonsensical-ness" of it, so as to accuse "pre-tribbers" of idiocy!] but ISN'T THE SENTENCE IN VERSE 3 that we are talking about! LOL)

 

[ResidentAlien]

I'm sorr

[ @ResidentAlien ' Post #297] "What should it say then?"--RA




I just spelled it out, in both my Posts #294 and again (as quoted by me) Post #295.

Please read it there.


The SENTENCE OF VERSE 3

(not the "made up" smooshed-together-ness of random phrases they thought sounded good together [to make their point of the "nonsensical-ness" of it, so as to accuse "pre-tribbers" of idiocy!] but ISN'T THE SENTENCE IN VERSE 3 that we are talking about! LOL)

Okay, so it should say, "The day of the Lord cannot come unless the departure (rapture) comes first?"