Documentary—7 Pretrib Problems and the Prewrath Rapture

  • 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
2,113
113
Keep in mind a few things (which I've pointed out before)...

Notice:

--in 1Th1:10 "the One delivering US out-from THE WRATH COMING"; and 1Th5:9 "For God hath not appointed US to WRATH, but to..."...NEITHER of these "specify" that it's only God's wrath being referred to
(IOW, this can ALSO be covering what you are considering "the wrath of Satan" ["having great wrath because he knoweth he hath but A SHORT TIME"--referring to the "1260 days" SECOND HALF of the future "7 yrs"] and what you are calling "the wrath of Antichrist" [I'm assuming you would place this within those same "42 mos" per Rev13:5-7,1 / Dan7:20-24,25--i.e. the SECOND HALF of those "7 yrs"]);

--those 2 verses I supplied above (with the "US" word I bolded) are in the context where the "US" refers solely to "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" (ALL those saved "in this present age [singular]")... it is not a blanket promise that covers all believers/saints of all OTHER time-periods (but solely pertaining to "US" / "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY," per context);

--I've shown in past posts the parallel language between 2Th2:7b-8a ("the One restraining at present, will restrain, UNTIL out of the midst he be come [/come to be]. AND THEN [kai tote] shall that Wicked be revealed...") to that of Lam2:3-4 (in the midst of "wrath" words in that context, where it also says [parallel language to the passage in 2Th ^ ], "...he hath drawn back his right hand from before the enemy...," i.e. lifting the restraint; letting "the enemy" be no longer restrained...); bearing in mind that this 2Th2 passage would be equivalent to Seal #1, aka the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3, Matt24:4/Mk13:5]" at the ARRIVAL / START of "the DOTL" time-period--aka the 7-yr TRIB aspect [/"IN THE NIGHT"] (as I've pointed out in the posts covering the "chronology issues" so I won't go into here in this post), where Rev1:1/1:19c/4:1 INCLUDES the Rev6 SEALS in its "things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" (not unfold over the course of some 2000 years);

--the SEALS being parallel to "the beginning of birth PANGS [PLURAL]" that Jesus spoke of [and Paul did too (in the SINGULAR), as I just pointed out, about 1Th5:2-3 re: the DOTL's "ARRIVAL" point in time (i.e. Matt24:4/Mk13:5 = SEAL #1)], shows that Seal #5 (trib saint martyrs) were basically told straight-up by Jesus (parallel SEAL #5) "[Matt24:9] Then shall they deliver YOU [tho being believers-in-Me] up to be afflicted, and shall KILL YOU [tho being believers-in-Me]; and YE [believers-in-Me] shall be hated of all the nations FOR MY NAME'S SAKE"--My view is, just because the SEALS are included in the time-period involving "wrath" does NOT mean that God's wrath is directly against ALL who will EXIST on the earth during that time-period (many people will be coming to faith FOLLOWING "our Rapture" [Lk21:36 applies directly TO THEM, being DURING those Trib yrs], and they will indeed "suffer" many things during that specific, future, LIMITED time-period); IOW, ALL of Matt24:3-Matt25 is covering what will occur FOLLOWING "our Rapture";

--the VIALS / BOWLS are said of them, "for IN THEM the wrath of God IS COMPLETED" (not "IS STARTED [at this point, only] and COMPLETED");
--I had one other point... but since I almost lost all of the content of this post, will send it off now and perhaps come back to that point at a later time... (hope the above points have sufficed to at least touch on what it is I hope to communicate... :D )
Oh yeah, I remember now...

--"wrath" also existed on the earth during the events surrounding 70ad, per Luke 21:23,20 ("and WRATH upon this people") and Matt22:7 ("but when the king heard thereof, he was WROTH: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city" [parallel to what Jesus had said on the very day the "69 Weeks [total]" had concluded: Lk19:41-44, plus in Mk13:2/Lk21:6, etc...])
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,113
113
^ EDIT TO ADD: [all of what I've covered (except the 70ad events) are in the CONTEXT of the future, specific, LIMITED time-period of the "7 yrs"; but "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" (of which we are "members"; made up of ALL those having coming to faith "in this present age [singular]") has experienced "persecutionS and tribulationS" and "suffering" ALL THROUGH its entire existence since the first century, nearly 2000 years-worth! We are not WAITING for the future, specific, LIMITED time-period [7 yrs] in order to experience it. No.]
 

Evmur

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2021
5,219
2,618
113
London
christianchat.com
And this assumption has caused a multitude of saints to get off-track and go into error concerning the End Times Scenario.

I believe the Bible tells us clearly when the 'Great Tribulation' begins - and, when it ends.

I believe we have seen the beginning point in time but not the end point in time.

Therefore, we are in it now.

All of the "great tribulation" of the past ~2000 years - the Dark Ages, the World Wars, the other major wars, the holocaust, and all the rest - are all part of the 'Great Tribulation'. It began circa 70 A.D. and will end in the future.

All of the "you will suffer persecution" tribulation - collectively - is the 'Great Tribulation' - "never anything like it" before or after.

The worst is yet to come.

It is all part of the same [long] 'period'.

Has 'conflict', 'persecution', or 'tribulation' really ever stopped during the past ~2000 years?

Do you really think it will stop before Jesus returns?

People always want to say that the 'Great Tribulation' is a "special" time of tribulation that is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 times worse than anything that has ever happened before it.

And then most of them want to say:

"But we don't have to go through it."

But very precious few seem to realize that it is a long period of time rather than a short one.

Do you realize that Matthew 24:23-26 / Mark 13:21-23 is a description of things occurring during the 'Great Tribulation'?

Do you really think this is a short period of time?

Do you realize that Matthew 24:22 / Mark 13:20 is not talking about circa 70 A.D.?

Do you realize that Luke 21:24 is talking about a long period of time and not a short one?

It's in the details, folks.

It's all there.

You just have to give up on what you want it to be and decide that knowing the real actual truth is more important.
You are wrong. The Great tribulation is so called because it is 3 times spoken of as the time of trouble [tribulation] such has never been since the world began nor shall be again.

This scripture also shows that is different from the period of God's wrath.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,113
113
TDW: --I had one other point... but since I almost lost all of the content of this post, will send it off now and perhaps come back to that point at a later time... (hope the above points have sufficed to at least touch on what it is I hope to communicate... :D )
Oh yeah, I remember now...

--"wrath" also existed on the earth during the events surrounding 70ad, per Luke 21:23,20 ("and WRATH upon this people") and Matt22:7 ("but when the king heard thereof, he was WROTH: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city" [parallel to what Jesus had said on the very day the "69 Weeks [total]" had concluded: Lk19:41-44, plus in Mk13:2/Lk21:6, etc...])
[re: "wrath"] ... I guess there were TWO further points I wanted to bring forward again (the one, being shown in the quote above; the other will be in this post, below):

--the "wrath" words in Ezekiel 38:18-19 (Gog-Magog War) which I've said I believe is parallel to the "Second SEAL Wars" (Rev6:3-4, parallel Jesus' words in Matt24:6a in "the beginning of birth PANGS" section) fairly early in the trib yrs (COMPARE Ezek38:21 with the wording in Rev6:4), and how what is said of God in Ezekiel 39:7 PARALLELS what was said about Joseph in the 2nd year of his "seven year famine" (Gen45:1[6]), "And THERE STOOD NO MAN WITH him, while Joseph MADE HIMSELF KNOWN UNTO his brethren" (compare the wording in Ezek39:7 "So [/in this way] WILL I MAKE MY HOLY NAME KNOWN in the midst of MY PEOPLE ISRAEL" [note: again (at that time) calling them "My people"]);

... so the following was a post (excerpt from a post) I'd made on that, some time back:

"Then, I've mentioned how in the SECOND YR of Joseph's 7-yr famine (Gen45:1,6), was this done: "and there STOOD NO MAN WITH HIM, while Joseph MADE HIMSELF KNOWN UNTO his brethren" (similar to the wording found in Ezekiel 39:7's Gog-Magog War events, which I mentioned correlates with the future "SEAL 2 WARS" fairly early in the future 7-yr trib yrs (with Ezek being in order/sequence, and with "the dry bones prophecy" showing to take place in STAGES... so that the "time-prophecies" I pointed out also on Page 45 of this thread [EDIT: a different thread, not this present one], are simply the "stage-setting" aspect of the future stages yet to come, relating to Israel [where in 39:7 He again will call them "My people Israel"])"


So, in view of this, there are indeed "WRATH" words involved with this point (per Ezek38:18-19), which I believe corresponds with "SEAL #2" [compare Rev6:4 with Ezek38:21] ("wars"--this being only ONE among many that will be occurring, just as Jesus had stated would be "wars [plural]" in "the beginning of birth PANGS [PLURAL]" [which correspond to the "SEALS," INCLUDED in the "things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" (future, 7-yr) aspect of The Revelation, per 1:1/1:19c/4:1])
 

Rockson

Active member
Jul 24, 2021
217
84
28
These people would have missed the time of grace, therefore will go through tribulation till the time of martydom/beheading. The time of grace is for the world until x time. If you do not become saved before the time of grace is up and therefore do not get raptured , you will still go through x amount of tribulation. At least you get to spend eternity with Jesus.
No offence Ruby but have you really thought through on this?

What would this mean?

You're saying Period of Grace ='s No tribulation or persecution. That's what the greek word "thlipsis" used in Matt 24:29 means.

Transliteration: thlipsis
Phonetic Spelling: (thlip'-sis)
Definition: tribulation

Usage: persecution, affliction, distress, tribulation.

So if the period of grace guarantees one to escape persecution, distress, or tribulation what about all saints in the past and present who have and are now suffering such today? Would we say to such ones well at least you get to spend eternity with Jesus. You don't get the same grace we have in America why I don't know because the rapture hasn't happened yet.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,113
113
^ Personally, I think Ruby123 well knows that even the Thessalonians way back then had this said of them:

"so as for us ourselves to boast in you in the churches of God about your endurance and faith in all your persecutionS, and in the tribulationS [thlipsesin - plural] that you are bearing." - 2Th1:4





[just my take, on her viewpoint... fwiw]
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,312
3,618
113
That would be you, you are wrong on might never everything you utter. And you will answer to God for it. Nothing that happens in this world that God will not Judge. You aren't even close to having any type of Escholtolical understandings.

You run along now because you sure can't rebut anything I post, it's way above your level because I actually study and pray for answers I don't follow other men's understandings.
[ @ResidentAlien 's Post #195]... To try to answer your question, here's what I've put in other threads in the past:

[quoting from old posts]


From Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (1889) -

apostasia [says: "LATE FORM OF "apostasis" / "LATER FORM FOR apostasis (see below)] -

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0058:entry=a)postasi/a


[so THAT entry says...]

apostasis - http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0058:entry=a)po/stasis


--"ἀπόστασις [apostasis] ἀφίσταμαι

a standing away from, and so,

1.a defection, revolt, ἀπό τινος or τινος Hdt., Thuc.; πρός τινα Thuc.

2.departure from, βίου Eur.

3.distance, interval, Plat.

Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1889.



[note: "Strong's Concordance first published 1890."]


[end quoting from that particular old post]

____________



[the abbreviations (as in the above ^ ) of sources from this site are shown listed here: Greek and Roman Materials (tufts.edu) --so does that mean that "Eur" ^ (under 2, above) refers to "Euripides [480-406bc]"??? (speaking of the same [but "earlier"] word: "apostasis"--whereas "apostasia" is the "LATER FORM FOR apostasis," as the L&S entry states also, above)]


____________


Other posts would be here:

Page 1 of a different thread (several posts of mine there, but see especially Post #9 where I covered a quote saying this "apostasia [/apostasis]" word was used in that era to refer to "the departing [noun] of a boat from a dock" etc... ; and Post #8 where an important article on the same subject is provided) - Rapture Top Dogs Admit no Proof Exists - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums

[note: in my previous post here in this thread, I believe I was perhaps conflating how Josephus used the term, with how another used the term according to the above entry at Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon ^ (and not merely under number "2" which I bolded, above), as well as the phrasing (shown in Post #9 at link) about the boat/dock thing--Still, I think there is enough info provided in these various places/sources (including Posts #8 & #9 at link) to show how it was used in that general era]







Hope that helps you see my perspective, somewhat. = )
Yeah, clear as mud. It seems to me you have no point and want to make it look like you do with a lot of words.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,113
113
^ You had said you believe "apostasia" NEVER was used to refer to a "departure" in a "spatial, geographical sense" (echoing what the OP video speakers had stated). I disagree and supplied a number of links to posts with sources stating otherwise. We'll have to agree to continue disagreeing on his one. = )





[again, for the readers: "the definite article" ('the') used with this word in the 2Th2:3 verse has as its FUNCTION to point BACK to something PREVIOUSLY STATED in the text... I believe verse 1 is that very thing it is pointing BACK to, when it comes to the word "departure / apostasia / apo stasis" in v.3 ("THE DEPARTURE"--the one Paul had JUST MENTIONED! ;) )]
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,113
113
[Strong's] "G646 - apostasia - 'from feminine of the same as G647 [apostasion - neuter] ;

"G647 - apostasion [neuter] - 'properly, something separative'" - Strong's





Cambridge Dictionary -

"divorce [noun]" -

[ C ] formal

a separation:

Why is there such a divorce between the arts and the sciences in this country's schools?





[there's no "act of rebellion," or "sin" involved in the above definition... but very simply: a SEPARATION]
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,691
113
^ You had said you believe "apostasia" NEVER was used to refer to a "departure" in a "spatial, geographical sense" (echoing what the OP video speakers had stated). I disagree and supplied a number of links to posts with sources stating otherwise. We'll have to agree to continue disagreeing on his one. = )





[again, for the readers: "the definite article" ('the') used with this word in the 2Th2:3 verse has as its FUNCTION to point BACK to something PREVIOUSLY STATED in the text... I believe verse 1 is that very thing it is pointing BACK to, when it comes to the word "departure / apostasia / apo stasis" in v.3 ("THE DEPARTURE"--the one Paul had JUST MENTIONED! ;) )]
If you want departure to mean moving from one physical location to another then you're looking for an entirely different word. The word departure used in reference to moving to a new geographical location is used often in the Bible. They don't use apostasia for this purpose.

It's clear that you have a vested interest in fiddling with 2 Thessalonians 2 in order to make it fit a pre-trib rapture theology. Unfortunately, that's just not how it works. Anyone can study this and see that what you're saying is not accurate.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,113
113
note to self: OP Video 2 HOURS and 16 MINUTES-worth of WORDINESS, but still they cannot express what VERSE 3 is saying, in 2Th2:3,

...but instead go to great efforts to make up their own sentence out of (and incorrectly piecing together) three distinct phrases, or "IDEAS" rather, from 3 verses (so as to avoid what v.3's sentence is actually stating), which makes the entire 3-verse context TWISTED away from what it actually conveys.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,113
113
If you want departure to mean moving from one physical location to another then you're looking for an entirely different word. The word departure used in reference to moving to a new geographical location is used often in the Bible. They don't use apostasia for this purpose.

It's clear that you have a vested interest in fiddling with 2 Thessalonians 2 in order to make it fit a pre-trib rapture theology. Unfortunately, that's just not how it works. Anyone can study this and see that what you're saying is not accurate.
Some people attempt to say that Paul only wrote of our "Rapture" event in ONE VERSE (1Th4:17)... well, sure he only used the "caught up / SNATCH" word here (this once) to refer to it... But he speaks of the event OF our Rapture something like 8-10 TIMES in these two Thessalonians letters, using A VARIETY of terms and phrases... Verses 1 and 3, here, are simply TWO of those MANY REFERENCES he speaks of it.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,113
113
note to self: OP Video 2 HOURS and 16 MINUTES-worth of WORDINESS, but still they cannot express what VERSE 3 is saying, in 2Th2:3,

...but instead go to great efforts to make up their own sentence out of (and incorrectly piecing together) three distinct phrases, or "IDEAS" rather, from 3 verses (so as to avoid what v.3's sentence is actually stating), which makes the entire 3-verse context TWISTED away from what it actually conveys.
... I mean, even THEY THEMSELVES do not "define" the phrase "the day of the Lord" as "RAPTURE," as they are wanting to imply that the "pre-tribbers" are saying "by using 'departure' in place of 'apostasia'" [v.3]; but notice they are NOT repeating back WHAT WE'VE POINTED OUT *about VERSE 3*, but rather their own convoluted reasoning with their smooshing together 3 "ideas" from THREE VERSES. Why??
And then, why say that is what WE "PRE-tribbers" are suggesting of it... When we absolutely are NOT! o_O
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,113
113
From Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (1889) -

apostasia [says: "LATE FORM OF "apostasis" / "LATER FORM FOR apostasis (see below)] -

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0058:entry=a)postasi/a
[so THAT entry says...]
apostasis - http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0058:entry=a)po/stasis
--"ἀπόστασις [apostasis] ἀφίσταμαι
a standing away from, and so,
1.a defection, revolt, ἀπό τινος or τινος Hdt., Thuc.; πρός τινα Thuc.
2.departure from, βίου Eur.
3.distance, interval, Plat.

Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1889.

[note: "Strong's Concordance first published 1890."]
And, actually, I wanted to point out that my hard copy of Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (1889) ^ has it as (under #2):

"2. departure or removal from"




____________

[add to that the definite article ('the') that we know is used in the text here in v.3 [tho NOT in Acts 21:21] and consider its FUNCTION, and it's really just hard to miss...]
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,113
113
^ ... and I had forgotten that I'd posted this before, also:


[quoting from old post]

https://www.wordnik.com/words/apostasis

apostasis

Definitions

from The Century Dictionary.

noun In old medicine: The termination or crisis of a disease by some secretion or critical discharge, in opposition to metastasis, or the termination by transfer to some other part. An apostem or abscess. The throwing off or separation of exfoliated or fractured bones.

noun In botany, a term proposed by Engelmann for the separation of floral whorls or of parts from each other by the unusual elongation of the internodes.


Examples

[...]
This is borne out by the frequency with which apostasis, or the separation of the floral whorls one from another, to a greater degree than usual, is met with in prolified flowers.

--Vegetable Teratology An Account of the Principal Deviations from the Usual Construction of Plants

[...]

In these instances the lobes or leaflets become separated one from another by a kind of apostasis.

--Vegetable Teratology An Account of the Principal Deviations from the Usual Construction of Plants


[end quoting; bold, color, and underline mine]
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,113
113
Here's one example where Kurschner ['pre-wrath' viewpoint; and one of the men in the OP video] misses the mark regarding the exegesis of this passage:

[quoting Kurschner]

"Pretribulational interpreters attempt to argue that Paul in 2 Thess 2:3 teaches that the “apostasy” and “the revelation of the man of lawlessness” will happen “during” the day of the Lord and not before it. But the Greek does not support such an interpretation. Rather, we shall see it clearly supports the pre-wrath interpretation that those two events will occur first, before the day of the Lord.

“Let no one deceive you in any way; for the day of the Lord will not come unless [ean mē] the apostasy comes first [prōton] and the lawless one is revealed, the one destined for destruction.” (2 Thess 2:3)

"A couple of simple cross-references of the same Greek construction in 2 Thess 2:3 to other biblical examples will demonstrate that the pretribulational view skews Paul’s message. The Greek is constructed with the conditional “unless” (ean mē) coupled with the adverb “first” (prōton), which results in placing the conditional events sequentially before the main event."


[then he provides an example from Scripture elsewhere where these two words are used together]

[end quoting]

____________

Here are some of the problems I see with the above quote:

Kurschner: "Pretribulational interpreters attempt to argue that Paul in 2 Thess 2:3 teaches that the “apostasy” and “the revelation of the man of lawlessness” will happen “during” the day of the Lord and not before it. But the Greek does not support such an interpretation.
That's not true.

I'm continually pointing out that the text STATES... ONE THING *FIRST* (ONE THING MUST happen *FIRST*--BEFORE the DOTL can commence to unfold upon the earth--BEFORE it can be true "that the day of the Lord IS PRESENT"--It wasn't, and Paul goes on to tell "WHY").

What Kurschner says, however, is that TWO conditions must occur "BEFORE" the Day of the Lord occurs! The text does NOT say TWO THINGS must be "FIRST" but ONE THING ("THE DEPARTURE *FIRST*" [ONE THING is said to be "FIRST"]... and [DISTINCTLY] the man of sin be revealed"

--the "man of sin" is "revealed" at the START of "the day of the Lord" time-period (i.e. at its "ARRIVAL" point in time), so the text is not saying:

"the departure AND the man of sin be revealed *FIRST* [that's OUT OF ORDER!] (before the day of the Lord can OCCUR, NO! ONE THING is said to be "FIRST": "THE DEPARTURE FIRST")

Sure, there are these TWO CONDITIONS that must be in evidence *in order* for it to be TRUTHFULLY stated "that the day of the Lord IS PRESENT" (like the false conveyors were [/could ever be] PURPORTING was true, per v.2);
but this does NOT mean that BOTH occur "BEFORE" it ARRIVES (only ONE THING is stated to be *FIRST* ['THE DEPARTURE [/Rapture] FIRST'], whereas the OTHER thing is what KICKS OFF the time-period and so exists at the START of "the DOTL" time-period and WITHIN it ['and the man of sin be revealed'] thus AT THAT POINT making it a TRUE statement that "the day of the Lord IS PRESENT" [1Th5:2-3, Matt24:4/Mk13:5, Rev6:2])

Kurschner: Rather, we shall see it clearly supports the pre-wrath interpretation that those two events will occur first, before the day of the Lord.
Again, here is is attempting to say that v.3 states TWO THINGS *FIRST* (his point about the word "first" meaning "BEFORE"), whereas the text itself only states ONE THING FIRST (ONE THING is stated as must taking place *FIRST*--the OTHER [second "condition"] is at the START of the Trib / DOTL time-period, as the KICK-OFF to its unfolding upon the earth, so is WITHIN it)




[something suddenly came up and I must close... for now...]
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,312
3,618
113
^ You had said you believe "apostasia" NEVER was used to refer to a "departure" in a "spatial, geographical sense" (echoing what the OP video speakers had stated). I disagree and supplied a number of links to posts with sources stating otherwise. We'll have to agree to continue disagreeing on his one. = )





[again, for the readers: "the definite article" ('the') used with this word in the 2Th2:3 verse has as its FUNCTION to point BACK to something PREVIOUSLY STATED in the text... I believe verse 1 is that very thing it is pointing BACK to, when it comes to the word "departure / apostasia / apo stasis" in v.3 ("THE DEPARTURE"--the one Paul had JUST MENTIONED! ;) )]
Why do you want to make my life more difficult? I don't have time to chase down links in your old posts. If there's something you want me to see just post it here. Thanks.

For whatever it's worth, you'll never find a reference to apostasia in Koine Greek that's used in a spatial sense, unless it has been used incorrectly. In Classical Greek, maybe, as a secondary meaning. Classical Greek went out two or three centuries before Christ, and the New Testament is in Koine.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,113
113
[from one of the links I referenced earlier in this thread]

"[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 [TDW: 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, though I find that most ppl mis-label this also)]. And we have answered our questions again."

--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; bold mine]
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,113
113
[quoting from another old post]

Dr David Hocking showed Marv Rosenthal (I believe it was) about the manuscript evidence (re: Rev5:9-10; with v.9 saying "US" ['hast redeemed US']) had to acknowledge "agreement" [that David Hocking was right and Scripture does say that, per the manuscript evidence Hocking pointed out], but then Rosenthal proceeded to publish his already-written "pre-wrath book" anyway, despite being informed of these facts:


[see @ this vid (approx 9-min vid total):





--note also in this video that he mentions something Geo E. Ladd [...] had said about this passage/esp verse 9]



(I think the reference to "Rosenthal" is in the extended version of this video... the above video is simply a shortened CLIP of the overall longer message)
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,113
113
The word departure used in reference to moving to a new geographical location is used often in the Bible. They don't use apostasia for this purpose.
I looked up on BLB the word "departure [noun]" (as this word in v.3 is a noun) and I only see that word occurring one time (though the word "departure" shows up TWO times in the Bible, once as a "verb" [in the OT]); of course, it is not the word "apostasia" (in either of these two cases).

So much for the word "departure" being "used often in the Bible". My search does not show that to be the case, actually. :D





Besides that... we are discussing the meaning of the word "apostasia [/apostasis - noun]," rather than some other Greek word that might happen to be translated "departure" (which word shows up 1x, in the NT, that I can see).