Rapture Top Dogs Admit no Proof Exists

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,112
113
Or, maybe the upper case Antichrist isn't an individual but rather a political ideology that asks as an identity in itself. Like in America we have, Democrats, Republicans, Green Party, etc... What if the Antichrist is a political ideology that enters in and seduces the whole world like both a drug and a cult ideology, as well as being a political form that contains a people within its ideals.
I believe Revelation 13:1-7 PARALLELS Daniel 7:20b-25 (where it says "mouth" in EACH passage, this speaks of the "individual [/man/person]" i.e. "THE Antichrist"); so ...

whereas Rev13:1-7 (the first beast) I do believe is both an entity [/governmental-entity, broadly speaking] AND an individual person ['THE Antichrist'], I believe Daniel 7:20b actually provides a DESCRIPTION of the "individual [/man]," (i.e. the "mouth" of EACH passage), where it says, "whose look was more stout than his fellows"




I do not believe he has been here YET [in this role] ;) (2Th2:3-9a speaks of him as "the man of sin," I believe--and that passage provides the chronology/SEQUENCE, as I mentioned in my earlier posts of this thread)
 

Whispered

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2019
4,551
2,230
113
www.christiancourier.com
I believe Revelation 13:1-7 PARALLELS Daniel 7:20b-25 (where it says "mouth" in EACH passage, this speaks of the "individual [/man/person]" i.e. "THE Antichrist"); so ...

whereas Rev13:1-7 (the first beast) I do believe is both an entity [/governmental-entity, broadly speaking] AND an individual person ['THE Antichrist'], I believe Daniel 7:20b actually provides a DESCRIPTION of the "individual [/man]," (i.e. the "mouth" of EACH passage), where it says, "whose look was more stout than his fellows"




I do not believe he has been here YET [in this role] ;) (2Th2:3-9a speaks of him as "the man of sin," I believe--and that passage provides the chronology/SEQUENCE, as I mentioned in my earlier posts of this thread)
A spirit just like Lucifer/the Devil. Well put. I can see where that would be able to be defended using scripture. Thank you. :) I'm always happy to be proven wrong when God does the proving. ;)
Blessings.
 
Jul 23, 2018
12,199
2,775
113
There are many verses in the Bible telling you this will happen but you have to understand the Hebrew/Jewish way of getting engaged and getting married. All of this will make perfect sense then Dave. If you can't find decent material I am willing to e-mail it to you :)

I am not ignoring you... I am just going home now :) late afternoon in South Africa whoop whoop
Bingo
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,786
2,957
113
If a Christian believe in a pre-trib rapture, while another do not, are there any significance differences in how they will live their lives now on Earth?
Theoretically, there should be no difference. We are all waiting for the return of Christ, one way or another.

However, on a practical level, pre-trib rapture people get overly involved in interpreting signs. To the point of ridiculousness and obsession. Every astronomical phenomena is a sign, Every earthquake or flood! Every change in politics!

Today, I heard the rapture was going to be Nov. 3, 2020. Why? Because Donald Trump is going to be re-elected and that is the final Trump. Talk about taking an English name and interpreting it to be a totally different word in Greek! And who knows if Trump will win? Then we need to remember America is just another nation in a long chain of countries and empires who spread the gospel.

Amillennials do not look for signs. John Hagee predicted the blood moons in Sept, 2016 was the end of the world, and never apologized for his false prophecy. They would have stoned him to death for that false prophecy in the OT.

My opinion is that Jesus will come when he is ready, not to fulfill insane predictions of the end by dispies. That is not to insult people, but to warn them not to be so superficial, and how much better Christianity would be if we followed Jesus last instructions for us to go into all the world and preach the Bible. Instead of wasting time idlely speculating about things we are not meant to know!
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,112
113
^ Generally speaking, pre-tribbers believe that there are no biblically-defined "SIGNS" that precede our Rapture, but that all of them FOLLOW our Rapture (all of them transpiring in the specific, limited time-period leading UP TO His Second Coming to the earth). So I'd say "nah" on that. Just my two cents. :)
 
Jan 25, 2015
9,216
3,194
113
Here is "short" summary of a Hebrew engagement and marriage I had to write for my studies. If you look at it the Bible verses will begin to jump out at you so I haven't inlcuded any Bible verses for now. If you can't figure it out I am more than willing to help you further Dave :)

The engagement process started when the bridegroom and his father took the marriage proposal or contract (Ketubah) to the home of the bride to be presented to her. They would then discuss the Ketubah at her house which consisted of three parts:

The price to be paid for the bride
The price the bridegroom paid for his bride was to indicate his love for her and it could be considered the most important part of the engagement. The bridegroom and his father negotiated the price for the bride but his father had the final say.

The promises the bridegroom made to his bride
The second part of the of the proposal consisted of the bridegroom promises, for example to support and honour his bride, to lead her in truth , provide food, clothing and protection.

What the bridegroom expected of his bride
The third part of the proposal was what the bridegroom expected of his bride like her absolute loyalty, to only love the bridegroom.

The contract would be presented and opened at the bride’s house and signed by both parties; first by the bridegroom and then by the bride in the presence of two witnesses.

The next step in the engagement was drinking from the cup of the covenant. The bride was given a cup with grape juice in it to drink from and if she rejected the cup she also rejected the proposal from the groom. She would push away the cup as sign of her rejection.

If the bride drank from the cup she accepted the groom’s proposal and she would then confirm that she accepted his proposal, and would become his bride. She should do this with a witness present.

The groom will then also drink from the cup and this will secure his bride and it was a sure thing that they would get married in future.

After the groom drank from the cup he will leave his bride with the words “I go to prepare a place for you”.

The groom will then leave to prepare a place for them and they would only drink from the cup again once the marriage is consummated after the groom fetched his bride.

Before the groom left the house of his bride he would leave her with gifts to remind her of him while she is waiting for him to prepare a place for her. She also had to use the gift to prepare herself for the groom when he returned. The bride did not know when the groom would return and had to be ready everyday with the expectation that the groom would return.

After a period of time (usually between one to two years) the groom will fetch his bride and take her to the place he prepared for them. The bride will be separated from the groom for the period of the engagement but she is set aside for him because of her promise.

While the bride waited for the groom she would serve her family in gratitude and love to thank them for everything they did for her while raising her. She also had time to restore broken relationships. She had to start her new life with no brokenness. She had to cleanse herself while she was at peace with her family. All relationships had to be restored. The bride also planned what she would wear and prepare and making her garments.

While the bride waited for the groom she did not eat certain things and also fasted to look her best when the groom returned to fetch her to get married. She also left behind her old live and prepared herself for the groom and the live she will be living with him after he fetched her. Whenever she left the house during this period she would put a vail on her face, and in doing this people would identify her as being set aside for her groom and that the price was paid for her.

The groom would also give the bride fabric to prepare her garment for their wedding day.

During their engagement the bridegroom would go to his father’s house to build a Chuppa or marriage chamber under which the marriage ceremony would take place. The father of the groom would determine the standard of the Chuppa being built and it was normally of a high standard. The groom did not know when his father would be satisfied with his work and as a result he did not know when he would fetch his bride to get married. Only the father knew when the marriage would take place. When his father approved of the Chuppa and marriage chamber the groom would go to fetch his bride even if it was at night. The bride’s father and brothers would turn a blind eye when they heard him coming. The groom would not enter the bride’s house again but she would rather run out to meet him. The bride would only have time to cover her face when she ran out towards the groom and she had to be ready. No one saw her face and she was veiled until they entered the marriage chambers.

The people outside did not know who was getting married as the bride was veiled. The bride and groom then went to the father’s house to prepare for the wedding ceremony under the Chuppa.

The Ketubah would be red at the wedding ceremony while the couple stands under the Chuppa. The would then enter the marriage ceremony and stay there for seven days to consummate the marriage. The groom would be received as a king with a crown of gold or twigs placed on his head. The bride and groom will also now drink again from the cup.

The groom had two friends who accompanied him in this journey. One of his friends would then accompany the bride to her new home when the groom came to take her away while his other friend accompanied the groom. The friend accompanying the groom would then go out before him and announce that he made certain decisions regarding the marriage. The groom would meet with his friends telling them about his plans for the marriage and the friends would also visit the bride while she waited for the groom.

The friend that accompanied the groom would wait outside when they entered the marriage chamber.

The couple spent seven days in the marriage chambers and will emerge for the first time on the seventh day. The bride will now no longer wear her veil and people will now no longer call her bride but wife.
 
Jan 25, 2015
9,216
3,194
113
^ Generally speaking, pre-tribbers believe that there are no biblically-defined "SIGNS" that precede our Rapture, but that all of them FOLLOW our Rapture (all of them transpiring in the specific, limited time-period leading UP TO His Second Coming to the earth). So I'd say "nah" on that. Just my two cents. :)
One of the reasons I think pre-trib is more accurate assumption is because we will spend the seven years with Jesus at the marriage feast before His return.
 

Alertandawake

Senior Member
Aug 20, 2017
436
94
28
I personally don't believe in this pre-tribulation rapture. Now as far I know about this pre-trib belief, the believers concerned believe they won't be present on earth when this beast system comes into force, which I take this to mean pre-trib believers won't have to worry or concern themselves about getting the mark of the beast (correct me if my understanding of pre-trib rapture is not accurate)

Now I personally find this pre-trib rapture belief so problematic. The reason I say this is because this type of belief can in my opinion set a individual up to actually get the mark of the beast.

So picture this scenario - People are waiting to be raptured, but in the mean time, such people get approached my men in white, informing everyone they need to get their compliance injections. Now if said believers have not been raptured, stands to reason they will get their compliance injection. Now what if this compliance injection was the mark of the beast?

See the problem with this pre-trib rapture.

Now let us use reason and logic and analyze this. If all the righteous people were to be raptured so they won't be present on earth, then who is left to be convinced to accept the mark of the beast? There is no point in convincing those who have already been conditioned to accept the mark of the beast, because such people have already been conditioned to accept. Why waste time convincing people to accept something they are already conditioned or prepared to accept?

To me personally, based on my understanding on the pre-trib teaching (once again, correct me should I be in error), is that this teaching does not prepare believers for the trials to come. This is my opinion based on what I know.
 
Jan 25, 2015
9,216
3,194
113
Very good points you are making Alert but I just want to say something here, if there are anybody alive today saying it is easy to follow God I will tell them in their face they are a liar. The world is a mess. Human rights are pushing our existence to a point where it is a free for all. My son grows up in a generation where I can't smack his bum if he was naughty, he can be gay, male, female or without gender for that matter. You don't have to get married to have sexual relations with a girl, you can have more than one sexual relationship and it will not be frowned upon... no wait if you don't have more than one it is frowned upon. We can carry on and on and on.

From the current world views and church deceptions very little Christians are going to make the rapture (post or pre). The stage is set for things to happen in the world. The end is close and we need to be ready.
 
Jan 25, 2015
9,216
3,194
113
Jonah's sermon was "repent for the kingdom of God is at hand" and with that thousands came to know God. We can only hope that in the last days we receive the same power from the Holy Spirit as there is no time left to argue anymore.
 

Alertandawake

Senior Member
Aug 20, 2017
436
94
28
Very good points you are making Alert but I just want to say something here, if there are anybody alive today saying it is easy to follow God I will tell them in their face they are a liar. The world is a mess. Human rights are pushing our existence to a point where it is a free for all. My son grows up in a generation where I can't smack his bum if he was naughty, he can be gay, male, female or without gender for that matter. You don't have to get married to have sexual relations with a girl, you can have more than one sexual relationship and it will not be frowned upon... no wait if you don't have more than one it is frowned upon. We can carry on and on and on.

From the current world views and church deceptions very little Christians are going to make the rapture (post or pre). The stage is set for things to happen in the world. The end is close and we need to be ready.
Yes you are right, the world is a mess. But it is worse than that, the actual moral foundations are being shattered, perhaps to the point of crumbling completely.

Maybe the reason why we have to go through trials is to be a witness if that makes any sense?

We see laws in place now, where the end result is that we are seeing society turning their backs on The Supreme Being, or to put another way, they have rejected The Creator. I now am of the opinion, that society now is not only rejecting, but making war with The Creator.

Now this is my opinion, based on what I know to date, but maybe this mindset is the final stage in preparation for the beast system. People conditioned to the point that they have turned their backs on The Supreme Being, walked away from The Creator, and instead put their faith in a highly advanced technological society that doesn't need The Creator. Does this make sense?

Now it stands to reason that once society has turned their backs on The Creator, who are said people going to welcome into their lives with open arms?
 
Jul 23, 2018
12,199
2,775
113
Theoretically, there should be no difference. We are all waiting for the return of Christ, one way or another.

However, on a practical level, pre-trib rapture people get overly involved in interpreting signs. To the point of ridiculousness and obsession. Every astronomical phenomena is a sign, Every earthquake or flood! Every change in politics!

Today, I heard the rapture was going to be Nov. 3, 2020. Why? Because Donald Trump is going to be re-elected and that is the final Trump. Talk about taking an English name and interpreting it to be a totally different word in Greek! And who knows if Trump will win? Then we need to remember America is just another nation in a long chain of countries and empires who spread the gospel.

Amillennials do not look for signs. John Hagee predicted the blood moons in Sept, 2016 was the end of the world, and never apologized for his false prophecy. They would have stoned him to death for that false prophecy in the OT.

My opinion is that Jesus will come when he is ready, not to fulfill insane predictions of the end by dispies. That is not to insult people, but to warn them not to be so superficial, and how much better Christianity would be if we followed Jesus last instructions for us to go into all the world and preach the Bible. Instead of wasting time idlely speculating about things we are not meant to know!
I am a pretrib rapture adherent (solid bible beleif even a babe in Christ can defend)
I rub shoulders with many pretribs and read dozens of other pretrib posts on this board.
I further am connected via www to pretrib oriented minisrties.

Most of your post is false for myself and ALL those i mentioned.

Totally false and out in left field.

Btw, evangelism is 1 of 5 fold ministries and not the only worthwhile ministry.
 
Jul 23, 2018
12,199
2,775
113
I personally don't believe in this pre-tribulation rapture. Now as far I know about this pre-trib belief, the believers concerned believe they won't be present on earth when this beast system comes into force, which I take this to mean pre-trib believers won't have to worry or concern themselves about getting the mark of the beast (correct me if my understanding of pre-trib rapture is not accurate)

Now I personally find this pre-trib rapture belief so problematic. The reason I say this is because this type of belief can in my opinion set a individual up to actually get the mark of the beast.

So picture this scenario - People are waiting to be raptured, but in the mean time, such people get approached my men in white, informing everyone they need to get their compliance injections. Now if said believers have not been raptured, stands to reason they will get their compliance injection. Now what if this compliance injection was the mark of the beast?

See the problem with this pre-trib rapture.

Now let us use reason and logic and analyze this. If all the righteous people were to be raptured so they won't be present on earth, then who is left to be convinced to accept the mark of the beast? There is no point in convincing those who have already been conditioned to accept the mark of the beast, because such people have already been conditioned to accept. Why waste time convincing people to accept something they are already conditioned or prepared to accept?

To me personally, based on my understanding on the pre-trib teaching (once again, correct me should I be in error), is that this teaching does not prepare believers for the trials to come. This is my opinion based on what I know.
"Now I personally find this pre-trib rapture belief so problematic. The reason I say this is because this type of belief can in my opinion set a individual up to actually get the mark of the beast."

We see a number "uncountable" early on in the gt. They are saints beheaded for refusing the mark.

I find it odd that most postrib rapture adherents center their belifs on a notion.

It seems very common that that doctrine carries with it a "concern" for us weak and decieved ones.

But postribs claim "we must prepare to go through the trib".

There is a hint of truth there that some would center on a escape.

But lets get real. Those taken in mat 25 were wise due to INTIMACY.
ESCAPE was INDIRECT. But ,none the less,a major component.

There is a red flag in centering on motive.
Postribs pull the motive card like a gun slinger....with zero awareness of the red flag.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,112
113
One of the reasons I think pre-trib is more accurate assumption is because we will spend the seven years with Jesus at the marriage feast before His return.
I was going to respond to this yesterday, but I guess I forgot to, lol.

I think that the mistaken idea that "the wedding FEAST/SUPPER" is up in Heaven, taking place (up there) BEFORE His "return," is one [emphasis: just ONE] of the reasons people fail to recognize the actual SEQUENCE of events.

I do not believe "the wedding FEAST/SUPPER" is what will take place UP IN Heaven (following "our Rapture"); but is instead what will take place on the earth upon His "return" to the earth (and we "WITH [G4862] Him"--as already-wed).

I believe "the wedding FEAST/SUPPER" is synonymous with "the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom" (at least, its inauguration)… it takes place ON THE EARTH, upon His "return" there [see Lk12:36-37,38,40,42-44 "when he will RETURN FROM the wedding..." ...THEN the meal!!]

IOW, He is not returning/coming to MARRY the "10 Virgins [PLURAL]" (NOR even 5!) That is NOT what that parable is about (meaning, it's not about "the MARRIAGE [/UNION-G4862]" itself). Instead, they are said to "go in with [G3326 - meta - ACCOMPANYING] Him to the wedding FEAST/SUPPER, v.10.
These "10 Virgins" (and the "INVITED guests" in Matt22:8-14 / Rev19:9 [DISTINCT from "the Bride/Wife [SINGULAR]" in v.7]) NEVER LIFT OFF THE EARTH, but are there on the earth upon His "RETURN" there.

"The wedding FEAST/SUPPER [on the earth]" = "the kingdom OF THE heavenS [on the earth]" = "the age [singular] to come [Matt12:32; on the earth]" = "the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom" commencing upon His "RETURN" to the earth as an "ALREADY-WED Bridegroom"
(WITH-G4862 [/UNIONED-with] His "Bride/Wife [SINGULAR]" Rev19:7 [distinct from the "INVITED GUESTS [PLURALS]" in 19:9!])
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
22,826
8,306
113
Rapture Top Dogs Admit no Proof Exists.

Anyone looking for direct scripture support of the famed Pre-Trib Rapture will come up empty handed. Admits Rapture heavyweight John Walvoord in his book called The Rapture Question (Findlay, OH:1957, p.148). He agrees with G. E. Ladd saying;

"Ladd, in contrast to Jones, concedes that post-tribulalional rapture is an inference rather than an explicit revelation of Scripture in the following statement:

"Nor does the Word explicitly place the Rapture at the end of the Tribulation."

“The fact is that neither posttribulalionism nor pretribulationisim is an explicit teaching of Scripture. The Bible does not in so many words state either.”

“Pretribulationism is based on the fact that it allows a harmony of the Scriptures relating to the Second Advent.”

“The separation of the translation from the return of Christ to earth permits each of the two events so different in character, to have its own place.”

“It solves the problem of the confusing and contradictory details in the post-tribulational interpretation illustrated in the difficulty of the postribulationist's themselves to work out a harmony of prophecies related to the second advent."

Another Rapture heavy-weight, Tim LaHaye says the same:

"One objection to the pre-Tribulation Rapture is that not one passage of Scripture teaches the two aspects of His Second Coming separated by the Tribulation. This is true. But then, no one passage teaches a post-trib or mid-trib Rapture, either."

Tim LaHaye, No Fear of the Storm: Why Christians Will Escape All the Tribulation (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1992), 69. This book was later republished as Rapture Under Attack). “That’s Not in the Bible” Gary DeMar

So despite the fact millions of books claiming the rapture flew off the shelves in the face of the failed prophecies surrounding them, why do millions of Christians believe as scripture truth the claims put forth by these?

If you believe in the pre-trib rapture, how do you support it with scripture when these cannot?
A pre-trib rapture is boilerplate. If you have eyes to see and ears to hear. So obvious even the Geiko Caveman figured it out.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
22,826
8,306
113
Correct. Jesus comes back once, visibly, to everyone as described in Matthew 24 and Revelation 19. The two chapters describe the same event. This has been the historic confession of the church since basically the resurrection, and is still the belief of the overwhelming majority of Christians today.
Study harder and more. Christ comes twice, once for His Church, and then for Israel.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
22,826
8,306
113
[further quoting]

"Kenneth Wuest, a Greek scholar from Moody Bible Institute added the following contextual support to taking apostasia as a physical departure:

"But then hee apostasia of which Paul is speaking, precedes the revelation of Antichrist in his true identity, and is to katechon that which holds back his revelation (2:6). The hee apostasia, therefore, cannot be either a general apostasy in Christendom which does precede the coming of Antichrist, nor can it be the particular apostasy which is the result of his activities in making himself the alone object of worship. Furthermore, that which holds back his revelation (vs. 3) is vitally connected with hoo katechoon (vs. 7), He who holds back the same event. The latter is, in my opinion, the Holy Spirit and His activities in the Church. All of which means that I am driven to the inescapable conclusion that the hee apostasia (vs. 3) refers to the Rapture of the Church which precedes the Day of the Lord, and holds back the revelation of the Man of Sin who ushers in the world-aspect of that period."

[end quoting; bold and underline mine]


_______

This SEQUENCE is repeated 3x in 2Th2 and is the SAME SEQUENCE that 1Th4-5 had also provided! ;)


[bear in mind that "the DOTL" is an earthly time-period of long duration which INCLUDES the 7-yr trib, and STARTS with the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]". Very often the mis-defining of terms leads one "off course" of what is actually being conveyed]
Totally agree. Fits the context.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
22,826
8,306
113
In view of my posts above, here again is the article by Kenneth S Wuest:

[quoting my old post]


"[Kenneth S. Wuest is a member of the Faculty of the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois, and author of numerous books on New Testament Greek.]"

"The Rapture: Precisely When?" - Kenneth S Wuest

"The answer to these questions will only be convincing to the reader if it is based upon the rules of Biblical exegesis. [...<snip>...] That interpretation which is based upon the above rules is to be regarded as correct until it can be shown by the reapplication of the same rules that an error of human judgment has crept in.

"There is such a thing, therefore, as a scientific method of studying the Word. The student who follows the rules of an experiment in chemistry brings that experiment to a successful conclusion. The student who does not ends up with an explosion. Just so, the student who conducts his study of the Bible along the scientific lines noted above arrives at the correct interpretation, and the student who does not at the wrong one. The exegetical method the student uses in answering the question with reference to the time of the rapture will determine whether he believes in a pretribulational or a posttribulational rapture.
[...]

"The words "a falling away" are the Authorized Version rendering of apostasia. The verbal form afistamai from which it comes is present middle of afisthmi, the root verb, which we will study. The simple verb Jisthmi [histemi] in its intransitive sense means "to stand," the prefixed preposition means "off, away from," and the compound verb, "to stand off from." The word does not mean "to fall." The Greeks had a word for that, piptw. Afisthmi, in its various uses, is reported by Thayer as follows: "to make stand off, cause to withdraw, to stand off, stand aloof, to desert, to withdraw from one"; in contexts where a defection from the faith is in view, it means "to fall away, become faithless." The verb is rendered by the translators of the Authorized Version "to depart," in Luke 2:32; Luke 4:13; Luke 13:27; Acts 12:10; Acts 15:38; Acts 19:9; Acts 22:29; 2 Corinthians 12:8; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 2:19; Hebrews 3:12. In Luke 8:13 it is translated "fall away," in Acts 5:37, "drew away," and in Acts 5:38, "refrain." Had they translated the word here instead of interpreting it, they would have rendered it by the word "departure." The reader will observe that the predominant translation of the verbal form is "to depart," also, that where it is translated "fall away," the context adds the idea of "falling away" to the verb, which action is still a departure.
E. Schuyler English, to whom this present writer is deeply indebted for calling his attention to the word "departure" as the correct rendering of apostasia in this context, also informs us that the following translators understood the Greek word to mean "a departure" in this context: Tyndale (1534), Coverdale (1535), the Geneva Bible (1537), Cranmer (1539), and Beza (1565), and so used it in their translations. Apostasia is used once more in the New Testament and is translated "to forsake" (AV), signifying a departure. The neuter noun apostasion in Matthew 5:31; Matthew 19:7; and Mark 10:4 is rendered by the Authorized Version, "divorcement," which word also signifies a departure, here, from antecedent relations.

"The writer is well aware of the fact that apostasia was used at times both in classical and koine Greek in the sense of a defection, a revolt in a religious sense, a rebellion against God, and of the act of apostasy. Liddell and Scott in their classical lexicon give the above as the first definition of the word. Moulton and Milligan quote a papyrus fragment where the word means "a rebel." But these are acquired meanings of the word gotten from the context in which it is used, not the original, basic, literal meaning, and should not be imposed upon the word when the context does not qualify the word by these meanings, as in the case of our Thessalonians passage, where the context in which apostasia is embedded does not refer to a defection from the truth but to the rapture of the church. The fact that our word "apostasy" means a defection from the truth is entirely beside the point since we do not interpret Scripture upon the basis of a transliterated word to which a certain meaning has been given, but upon the basis of what the Greek word mean to the first century reader. The fact that Paul in 1 Timothy 4:1 uses this verb in the words "some shall depart from the faith" and finds it necessary to qualify its meaning by the phrase "from the faith" indicates that the word itself has no such connotation. The translators of the Authorized Version did not translate the word, but offered their interpretation of it. They should have translated it and allowed the student to interpret it in its context.
With the translation of the word before us, the next step is to ascertain from the context that to which this departure refers. 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," not as the second advent, but as the rapture. The Greek word rendered "and" can also be translated "even," and the translation reads, "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, even our gathering together unto him."

"The article before apostasia defines that word by pointing to "the gathering together unto him" as that departure. This article determines the context which defines apostasia. The translators took the context of 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 as deciding the significance of the word, but they went too far afield, not grasping the function of the definite article preceding apostasia which points back to the rapture of 2 Thessalonians 2:1, not ahead to the refusal to believe the truth of 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12. The article is all-important here, as in many instances of its use in the Greek New Testament. In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, Paul had given these saints teaching on the rapture, and the Greek article here points to that which was well known to both the reader and the writer, which is another use of the Greek definite article. Thus, the departure of the church from earth to heaven must precede the great tribulation period [I would say, "must precede the [7-yr] tribulation period" to be more specific (for 'GREAT tribulation' refers only to the latter half of it)]. And we have answered our questions again. It might be added that the reason why Paul merely speaks of a pretribulation rather than a preseventieth week rapture is that he is addressing himself to the needs of the Thessalonian saints and is not explaining the particular place of the rapture in the prophetic program of God."

--Kenneth S Wuest, "The Rapture--Precisely When?", Bibliotheca Sacra, BSac 114:453 (Jan 57), p.60

[ www. galaxie . com/article/bsac114-453-05 ]

[end quoting that post]
Absolutely correct.