(Defection From Truth)
Stop trying to bend and twist the Greek Word Apostasia to suit your teaching, it's the same Greek word used in translations prior to the 1611 KJV
Your claim that Strong's hasnt interpreted (Departure/Falling Away) is a complete pinocchio's nose is growing again
Apostasia: (Defection From Truth)(Apostasy) (Falling Away) (Forsake) Who You Trying To Fool (Yourself)
Will you continue in rebellion of the presented truth?
Lexicon :: Strong's G646 - apostasia
Strong’s Definitions
ἀποστασία apostasía, ap-os-tas-ee'-ah; feminine of the same as
G647; defection from truth (properly, the state) ("apostasy"):—falling away, forsake.
KJV Translation Count — Total: 2x
The KJV translates Strong's G646 in the following manner: to forsake (with G575) (1x),
falling away (1x).
Why not dig deeper and get Strong's answer for BOTH WORDS of this compound word?
The question is, CAN this word mean something else? It is a compound word - "apo" and "stasia."
Here is what STrong's says about "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
At the rapture, will some part of the entire population be taken? You know the answer is YES.
Will those taken be separated by DISTANCE? Again the answer is YES.
The other part of the compound word 'stasia" is where we get "stationary" or "not moving" from.
Putting these two words together then can certainly mean a part of a whole group suddenly moved from where they were to a new location, and it happen so fast, the rest of the whole group seems stationary - not moving.
We must consider the entire passage to determine Paul's meaning, else we pull a word or a verse out of its context.
Because in 3b Paul wrote that the man of sin IS REVEALED, then somewhere in 3a the power restraining the main of sin had to be taken out of the way.
If you choose to believe a "falling away" (from what Paul did not specify) fits Paul's "taken out of the way," it is your choice.
If you think Paul wrote "and now you know what restrains" just to fill in space, it is your choice.
If you choose the Day of Christ over the Day of the Lord which Paul used in His first letter, again it is your choice.
If words mean anything, Paul explains exactly what must take place before the man of sin can be revealed, yet we find he IS revealed in 3b, showing us that the restraining force had to have been taken out of the way in 3a.
Questions you might ask yourself: WHY did Paul write "and now you know... in verse 6? Do you now know?
Why did Paul explain the power restraining the man of sin, preventing him from being revealed before His time?
Why did Paul tell us the man of sin "is revealed" in 3b?
Paul COULD have just written that they were mistaken, they were not in the day of the Lord. Instead he chose to explain how people can know for sure when they are IN the Day of the Lord: they have to see a very significant departing FIRST, then they have to see the man of sin revealed. When people see these two things, it is proof positive the DAY has started and they are IN IT.
I might add, is this not the exact pattern we find in Revelation? We see the start of the Day at the 6th seal, but right after that, John saw the raptured church in heaven, as the great crowd too large to number.
This is also the same pattern Paul gave us in his first letter: rapture first, wrath next.