The Falling Away - pre-trib rapture or ???

You are automatically wrong. Of course especially means exclusive. You just claimed that ESP. did not mean "not exclusively so" but you are wrong, over and over again. Do you ever think you might want to get sick and tired of being so wrong? Yes? No?

[quoting]

Abbott-Smith Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament
† άποστασία , -ας , ἡ
(< ἀφίστημι ),
[...]
defection, apostasy, revolt; in late Gk. (MM, Exp., viii; Lft., Notes, 111; Cremer, 308) for cl. ἀπόστασις , freq. in sense of political revolt, in LXX (e.g. Joshua 22:22, 2 Chronicles 29:19, Jeremiah 2:19)

[end quoting; bold and underline mine]


____________

Are we going to insist it carries the meaning of "political revolt" here in 2Th2:3 (and a "DEFINITE" one ['THE']), just because it means that elsewhere in other contexts??

Things are getting worse now. No need to wait for a seven year tribulation to start or for 'Mr Sin' to show up. Many never appear to consider that they may have been mislead into believing a faulty position. They would rather stick to their comfort zone with their Le Haye Books and Charts than consider any alternative outcome. There are a number of alternative views including theirs. Each of them have both positive and negative details and I believe they all should be studied impartially in order to get a closer
understanding of a complex subject.

Someone somewhere on the web made a big ol' long argument surrounding the following idea (expressing their opinion)...
"For instance, if Paul meant a spatial departure, he would have used ἀπέρχομαι (aperchomai), which is a verb!"

HUH?!?!

Um, no... bad argument.



1) "departure" is a noun - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/departure;

2) there are also "nouns" used in both 2Th2:1 ("our episynagoges [NOUN] unto Him") and 1Th4:17 ("meeting [NOUN] of the Lord in the air"), which are ALSO associated with the very thing we are referencing (i.e. what Paul is referencing);

3) has this person never heard of things like: "what time is my plane flight's departure [NOUN]?" or "Your flight's departure [NOUN] is at 8:30 PM."





Totally lame argument, wasting a lot of space... only to prove their own misunderstanding of the points that some of the scholars, on this point, are actually presenting. Oh boy...



____________

One helpful thing to study is the THREE TIMES that the word "revealed" is used, and the words surrounding each (and how these three times relate):

3 shall have been revealed

6 being revealed

8 will be revealed

Just pointing out, for the benefit of the readers, that the "revolt" word (apostasia) ^ is used in "Josephus Vit.10 [Life 10]" ("J.Vit.10"), that Liddell and Scott Lexicon source it pointing out... which is found here (it did not "link" in ewq's post, so I'm just pointing it out here, for reference):

-- J.Vit.10 - http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0526,002:10&lang=original

[quoted below]

J.Vit.10 -

"10. 043 Such was the situation in Tiberias. At Gischala, matters were as follows: When John, the son of Levi, saw some of the citizens exulting at their revolt from the Romans, he tried to restrain them and implored them to maintain their allegiance to them."

[Grk]

"[43] Καὶ Τιβεριὰς μὲν ἐν τοιούτοις ἦν. Τὰ περὶ Γίσχαλα δὲ εἶχε τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον· Ἰωάννης ὁ τοῦ Ληουεῖ τῶν πολιτῶν τινας ὁρῶν διὰ τὴν ἀποστασίαν τὴν ἀπὸ Ῥωμαίων μέγα φρονοῦντας κατέχειν αὐτοὺς ἐπειρᾶτο καὶ τὴν πίστιν ἠξίου διαφυλάττειν."


[bold and underline mine]


____________


... a political revolt (... "from the Romans")


____________


However, that's not the CONTEXT of 2Th2:3...

How about this

Can you show anytime this word is used in any form other than a revolt?

Because if you can;t then your whole argument fall on its fact.

There will be a revolt in the last days. We see it happening today all over the world. The love of people is growing Cold. just like jesus said it would.

It seem salvation is aviable as long as we still a live for whoever believe in Him
Are there verses that say no more salvation after the first 3 1/2 gt?

Well, it never was a complex subject until carnal religious minds realized an opportunity to CA$H in on it.
Pre-trib rapture is the doctrine of the Laodecian church age, which has been for some time now.
There is not one scripture that contains a pre-trib rapture in it - not one, from Genesis to Revelation.
The Saints being delivered from God's wrath - absolutely - from Noah forward and promised by God to His Bride.
To establish their false doctrine they must violate the eternal commandment of God which satan did in the Garden.

“Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to observe, that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers is giving you. You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it....
Deut 4:1-2

Every word of God is flawless;
He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His words,
lest He rebuke you and prove you a liar. Proverbs 30: 5-6

I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and the holy city, which are described in this book. Revelation 22: 18-19

The word in biblical Greek means a religious falling away/departure. Your efforts to change the word's meaning are dishonest and is deceiving to those who are unaware.

https://archive.org/details/manualgreeklexic00abborich/page/54/mode/2up?q=revolt

Take note that TDW intentionally left out part of the Abbott-Smith definition of word Apostasia because it proves their argument to be false. They are intentionally deceptive. The red parts are what TDW purposely left out:


.


This is what TDW will post:



Abbott-Smith Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament

† άποστασία , -ας , ἡ

(< ἀφίστημι ),

[...]

defection, apostasy, revolt; in late Gk. (MM, Exp., viii; Lft., Notes, 111; Cremer, 308) for cl. ἀπόστασις , freq. in sense of political revolt, in LXX (e.g. Joshua 22:22, 2 Chronicles 29:19, Jeremiah 2:19) and NT always of religious apostasy: Ac21:21, II 2:3.

This is pure dishonesty!

...
...
[quoting the above in blocks so they each show up, hopefully... and using "color" (in ewq's post quoted AT TOP) to help illustrate what I'm going to explain below]



I wasn't "purposely" leaving things out (to be "intentionally dishonest," as you accuse me of).

The point of my post was to EXPLAIN to the readers the CONTENT of ewq's original post (quoted at top ^ )... and to explain how lexicons work...

...because what you had bolded in that post were TWO DISTINCT USAGES from DISTINCT SOURCES carrying distinct meanings (to the one word):

--one being "a political REVOLT" [a word you bolded in your post I responded to (quoted at top ^ )] (with the sources listed after it that correspond to that)...

--the other being "religious apostasy" (with the different sources listed after it that correspond to that usage)...

...that is, they are LISTING DISTINCT definitions and usages and pointing out WHERE those are USED (in what "sources," for each).


What your post made it seem like [and why I responded as I did!], is that it was A SINGULAR DEFINITION (at the lexicon quote you had provided, and bolded in places). I was endeavoring to point out that it's NOT showing merely A SINGULAR DEFINITION and USAGE... that the lexicon is providing a small listing of where one can find the sources USING that word, so one can see the distinct CONTEXTS (and often, as in this case, distinct meanings) of how it's used (in the listing of various sources).



A lexicon serves to show how a particular word is translated and used by various sources.


What I saw in your "bolding" of certain words in your quoting of that lexicon (shown at top ^ ) and by your words elsewhere, was not an acknowledgment of the purpose of lexicons and how they are listing various sources where the word is used (at times in very distinct ways..., as in the case with this word and that lexicon entry you posted).
But without pointing that out, one could easily be misled into thinking that what was provided (and highlighted via your bolding) WAS A SINGULAR DEFINITION. It isn't.

But keep thinking I'm endeavoring to be purposely deceptive, if you wish, and keep hurling those false accusations of "dishonesty" at me, if it makes you feel better. They simply are not true. I've explained my intentions. I can only hope the readers consider carefully what I've made a point to say, in this post.

Have a restful evening (or day, whatever the case may be in your area).

Since when did a newbie become an authority on Bible truth? You continue to promote your lies and nonsense in the face of Bible passages. You have called the Pre-Tribulation Rapture a heresy when everything that you post is heretical nonsense.

You intentionally posted PART of a definition to suggest it supported your opinion of word. That's not being honest and upfront is it? Whenever a person posts a definition it MUST be full and complete with nothing left out. That's ONLY way to post honestly.

Now, will you admit that the Abbott-Smith Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament says that word apostasia has the specific NT bible meaning, "always of religious apostasy"?

I'll even post their definition entry in case you want to review it before answering:


Abbott-Smith Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, apostasia:

defection, apostasy, revolt; in late Gk. (MM, Exp., viii; Lft., Notes, 111; Cremer, 308) for cl. ?p?stas?? , freq. in sense of political revolt, in LXX (e.g. Joshua 22:22, 2 Chronicles 29:19, Jeremiah 2:19) and NT always of religious apostasy: Ac21:21, II 2:3.

He was correct and I can tell from his posts that he is not a newbie in biblical understanding. Your post is just full of ad hominem fallacies attacking the person rather than the content of his posts which prove pretrib to be false.

As I said, my intention was to POINT OUT what YOU had posted... and thus I wanted to use THE PERTINENT part, so I could point out what I saw as a FLAW in your post... where your bolding (and words in others posts) gave the wrong impression that the words you were bolding MEANT THE SAME THING as each other (but without your acknowledging the SOURCE LISTED that proves otherwise!)


What YOU had posted conveyed an inaccurate sense (that the DISTINCT items LISTED in your quoted lexicon entry) were ONE and the SAME DEFINITION / USAGE... by your bolding the word "revolt" and then skipping past the SOURCES LISTED, disregarding them without so much as a nod to the fact that the sources themselves show differing usages...

(example from your post / lexicon: "revolt...J.Vit.10" where this listing refers to "Josephus - Vit. [/Life] 10" the SOURCE which shows Josephus's usage of this word to refer to "a POLITICAL revolt" [i.e. not "FROM THE FAITH"... but a completely DISTINCT usage from such... but which your POSTING did not reflect, and even seemed contrary to what I'm endeavoring to point out in these posts... THAT, to me, is NOT being "dishonest," on my part, as you accuse me of being...])

This is wrong. YOU posted the PARTIAL definition of apostasia from Abbott-Smith BEFORE I ever posted anything from them. YOU intentionally posted PART of that definition so you could try to support your view of the word's definition. Leaving out the part that proved you wrong was the dishonest part of what you did and no amount of dodging is going to make that go away. You are very deceptive when you post from old sources of information because you type it out and no one can see the original unless they track it down and double check your claims as I have done. You present yourself as some type of bible teacher which means it is appropriate for others to fact check your work and confront you when something this is evident. This I have done and let readers decide what is true or not true.

That is not at all what I just said.


I said THE LEXICON *YOU* POSTED, is what I was RESPONDING TO, by my posting something ELSE to SHOW an example OF ONE PART OF IT (the part PERTINENT to what you had posted with your bolding TWO DISTINCT ISSUES and claiming they are A SINGULAR DEFINITION, all the while ignoring the SOURCE MATERIAL LISTED in your lexicon which shows that NOT TO BE THE CASE, as you've been repeatedly presenting it to be)

But believe what you will, ewq.

Here's the facts:

https://christianchat.com/threads/the-falling-away-pre-trib-rapture-or.201577/post-4662075

I posted from Liddell and Scott because you posted something that misrepresented their definition of apostasia (this is a bad habit of yours which you do a lot)

You responded here:

https://christianchat.com/threads/the-falling-away-pre-trib-rapture-or.201577/post-4662087

Now, YOU posted the first reference to Abbott-Smith' s definition of apostasia and YOU LEFT OUT part of the definition which is very dishonest! YOU misrepresented what that lexicon said about that word.

https://christianchat.com/threads/the-falling-away-pre-trib-rapture-or.201577/post-4662625

And here I responded to that partial definition by showing the full definition which shows Abbott-Smith agrees that apostasia has specific meaning in bible as being, "always of religious apostasy". YOU left that out in your original post from that lexicon! Shame on you!

All of this shows desperation and dishonesty in a bad defense of a bad doctrine, pretrib. These are warning signs to rest of us to AVOID your teachings because they are wrong and full of misrepresentations of various dictionaries and lexicons.

[ ^ I was referring specifically to the lexicon your own post was quoting (L&S's)... whereas the one I was quoting from was a different one, so I could point out the PART ABOUT "revolt"... because that's one of the words you had bolded in your posting of L&S's]




Then I had concluded my post by asking the question PERTINENT to the PURPOSE of my post (which was ZEROING IN on a particular thing... not endeavoring to cover OTHER points which could also be covered, but that I wasn't covering in that particular POST'S POINT...):

You are still avoiding to explain why you posted a partial definition from Abbott-Smith. YOU were the first one to cite from Abbott-Smith and you partially cited from it.

Again...
... by saying "(shown at top ^ )"...

[ ^ I was referring specifically to the lexicon your own post was quoting (L&S's)... whereas the one I was quoting from was a different one, so I could point out the PART ABOUT "revolt"... because that's one of the words you had bolded in your posting of L&S's]




Then I had concluded my post by asking the question PERTINENT to the PURPOSE of my post (which was ZEROING IN on a particular thing... not endeavoring to cover OTHER points which could also be covered, but that I wasn't covering in that particular POST'S POINT...):