Search results for query: apostasy

[I changed the color, and bolded the words in v.2, to aid in making my point] Look how your red emphasis completely bypasses / ignores / overlooks the "DAY" that verse 2 refers to (in the false claim). THAT's what v.3's "not" is referring back to... an earthly-located time-period of much...

...sentence itself plainly reads. And again, there is no such biblical phrase (as you've used again, for the second time that I've noticed) as that of the made-up term "the great apostasy"... which term I see tends to confuse the matter, for people reading this text... rather than to...

One more thing... ... that I'd like to point out, if I may. :) The oft-repeated phrase (though not a biblical one) "The GREAT APOSTASY" (post #32) is one found nowhere in Scripture, though it is stated and written so many times that people tend to believe that it is. The word "great" is...

Sorry, I missed responding to your post, here. What I had meant was, that some, by [mis-]defining "the day of the Lord" as [commencing at] "His Second Coming [Rev19]"... and by relocating the word "FIRST" in verse 3 to the second clause (instead of where it IS, in the first clause), they can...

...that a part of some "bizarre" interpretation. I am... according to how the Greek puts it. For example, the sentence does NOT say, "the apostasy... and the man of sin BE REVEALED FIRST..." The word "first" goes with the former not the latter of these two. That's not "bizarre...

Since the "definite article ['the']" (which is not ordinarily necessary in the Greek) is used here (unlike in Acts 21:21) and serves the function of pointing BACK to something ALREADY having been spoken of in the text (which includes everything prior to v.3, even chpt 1), please point out to us...

Paul repeats the SEQUENCE 3x in this passage (IOW, the man of sin "BE REVEALED" does not occur at three different points in time just because this word ["revealed"] is used 3x in the passage, regarding him... Instead, Paul is repeating the SEQUENCE [the SAME SEQUENCE] 3x in this text, which...

How are you defining the term "Christians"?

..."leave, depart," which is derived from 575 /apó, "away from" and 2476 /histémi, "stand") – properly, departure (implying desertion); apostasy – literally, "a leaving, from a previous standing." -- https://biblehub.com/greek/646.htm [get it? "A LEAVING" / "DEPARTURE"... but in the case...

Would you agree that "A POLITICAL *REVOLT*" is not the same thing as (Acts 21:21) "a departure FROM MOSES"?? Acts 21:21 - Literal Standard Version and they are instructed concerning you, that you teach departure from Moses to all Jews among the nations, saying not to circumcise the children...

Winer literally states, " "d) Many words which had long been in use received a new form or pronunciation by which the older was in most cases superceded: as [...] apostasia (apostasis, Lob. p. 528), [...]" [found on pgs 24-25] --...

...the King James Bible came out, the translators changed the English translation tradition from “departure” to “falling away,” which implied “apostasy.” Such a change was a theological response to the Catholic notion that the Reformation was a revolt against the true church; instead...

...that from "Strong's"): Thayer's Greek Lexicon STRONGS NT 646: ἀποστασία ἀποστασία, ἀποστασιας, ἡ (ἀφισταμαι), a falling away, defection, apostasy; in the Bible namely, from the true religion: Acts 21:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; ((Joshua 22:22; 2 Chronicles 29:19; 2 Chronicles 33:19); Jeremiah...

Here's what I showed that "Winer's Grammar, 24 [page 24]" says: [quoting] "A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament: Regarded as a Sure Basis" by George Benedikt Winer (pgs 24-25): "d) Many words which had long been in use received a new form or pronunciation by which the older was in most...

We're fairly close in agreement, on that point (but not on the "definition" of the thing that the false conveyors were purporting was already present, v.2) Well, you're not "agreeing" with ME... coz I'm saying that is NOT what the TEXT tells us (in v.2). Rather, the false claimants were...

Consider also the article at the following Post / LINK: Post #258 (different thread) - https://christianchat.com/threads/documentary%E2%80%947-pretrib-problems-and-the-prewrath-rapture.200942/post-4637984

Check out one of my [many] past posts on this Subject: Post #3317 (about "Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (1871)" and its definition of this word under discussion [scroll down a bit to see this in my response to ewq's post, there] -...

Not what he said. He said "that day" (the one he JUST MENTIONED in v.2, which is an EARTHLY TIME PERIOD) "will not be present until..." [that is the GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT interpretation ^ ... whereas yours IGNORES v.2 (the EARTHLY TIME PERIOD the false claimants said "IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY...

Besides being reminiscent of this ^ , your post below saying this: ... makes me wonder why, when making your point, you did not emphasize the part of Winer's Grammar that says this: ... which is the same point that some editions of "Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon" ALSO say...

...not the only one to see it this way... [from that post I linked] [quoting Gaebelein - 2Chron21; taken from BibleHub] "3. Decline and Apostasy under Jehoram, Ahaziah and Athaliah CHAPTER 21 The Reign of Jehoram [...] "The writing which came to Jehoram from the prophet Elijah is...