Eschatology: The "Left Behind" narrative is unbiblical

[Jeffrey Bowden]

You keep stating this but they are different words so how can he demonstrate the second definition of apostasia when apostasia is not in that verse? It's aphantos which means non-manesfested/vanished out of sight which I already stated. That's the word that's in Luke 24:31, not apostasia.

For any kind of proof apostasia would have to be the word in Luke 24:31 and it's not. To even suggest the Lord has any part in apostasia is absurd to begin with.

Jesus demonstrated definition #2 of apostasia.

 

[JulieB67]

Apostasia has five definitions.

Apostasia’s second definition is “departure; disappearance.” Therefore, “departure” means “physical departure.”

But the word apostasia is not in Luke 24:31. So you can't use that verse as an example. Apostasia would have to be in that verse for you to use it as an example and it's not. Are you not understanding that? Just because the version you're reading reads "disappeared" does not mean that translates to apostasia. It does not. I along with others have pointed that out.

The word in Luke 24:31 is aphantos. You need to use have a version on hand that can be translated back to the Greek text to check things like this out at times.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Apostasia’s second definition is “departure; disappearance.” Therefore, “departure” means “physical departure.”

In Luke 24:31, Jesus demonstrated a physical departure.

That's not how this works.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jeffrey Bowden]

But the word apostasia is not in Luke 24:31. So you can't use that verse as an example. Apostasia would have to be in that verse for you to use it as an example and it's not. Are you not understanding that? Just because the version you're reading reads "disappeared" does not mean that translates to apostasia. It does not. I along with others have pointed that out.

The word in Luke 24:31 is aphantos. You need to use have a version on hand that can be translated back to the Greek text to check things like this out at times.

Julie, in all due respect, I am going by Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon. What appears in Luke 24:31 is “disappeared,” the past tense of the verb form of “disappearance” in apostasia’s definition.

But the word apostasia is not in Luke 24:31. So you can't use that verse as an example. Apostasia would have to be in that verse for you to use it as an example and it's not. Are you not understanding that? Just because the version you're reading reads "disappeared" does not mean that translates to apostasia. It does not. I along with others have pointed that out.

The word in Luke 24:31 is aphantos. You need to use have a version on hand that can be translated back to the Greek text to check things like this out at times.

Julie, the second definition of apostasia is in Luke 24:31, in past tense of its verb form:

Luke 24:31 (NIV): Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight.

 

[Jeffrey Bowden]

That's not how this works.

-CryptoLutheran

“Disappeared” is the past tense of the verb form of apostasia’s second definition.

 

[JulieB67]

“Disappeared” is the past tense of the verb form of apostasia’s second definition.

Again, the word is not in the Greek text. You are using the English translation from a newer version. It has nothing to do with Liddell and Scott' definition of apostasia. Which is is still not a physical departure.
But if you want to use Liddell and Scott -look up aphantos. That's the word in Luke 24:31.
Christ aphantos (vanished) out of their sight.

 

[ViaCrucis]

“Disappeared” is the past tense of the verb form of apostasia’s second definition.

Listen, it's very clear that you are unable to make a defensible argument. The sort of straw-grasping you are currently engaged in simply won't convince anyone with common sense, let alone anyone with a rudimentary understanding of things like textual analysis and how languages work.

You are digging yourself into a hole here, and it would be prudent to stop.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jeffrey Bowden]

Again, the word is not in the Greek text. You are using the English translation from a newer version. It has nothing to do with Liddell and Scott' definition of apostasia. Which is is still not a physical departure.
But if you want to use Liddell and Scott -look up aphantos. That's the word in Luke 24:31.
Christ aphantos (vanished) out of their sight.

Julie, apostasia is a noun, and disappear is a verb.

Additionally, Strong’s will never publish the second definition of apostasia (departure; disappearance). They only publish the first definition (defection; revolt) and thereby justify all their limitations on researching apostasia.

There has been a prohibition on giving apostasia its due in 2 Th 2:3, in particular, since the KJV, inexplicably, caused a sea change in 2 Th 2:3 by using the first definition of apostasia. Why won’t KJV answer as to why they made that super-significant change? They won’t answer to this day, and neither will Bible Gateway and Geneva Bible. They’re forced to remain silent. I have good reason to believe Roman Catholics were behind the arm twisting back in the late 1500’s and early 1600’s. They were actually the first to monkey with 2 Th 2:3 in their Douay–Rheims Bible starting in 1582. And, we all know, the Roman Catholics are vehemently against the pre-Trib rapture.

There’s evil lurking behind the scenes in Bible publishing and/or distribution, related specifically to keeping apostasia’s first definition in use, only.

This isn’t conspiracy theory. These are unfortunate facts of a steak of evil in Bible publishing and/or distribution.

 

[dzheremi]

Julie, in all due respect, I am going by Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon. What appears in Luke 24:31 is “disappeared,” the past tense of the verb form of “disappearance” in apostasia’s definition.

Have you ever done that thing using Google Translate or Babelfish or whatever where you type a word in one language and translate it into a second, then take that translation and put it back into the original language to see how close it was to what you originally wrote? You can get some pretty interesting results doing that. For instance, if I put in the English word "bare" into GT and translate it into Russian, the first definition that pops up is голый (goliy). Then, if I put голый into GT and translate back it into English, the definition I get is "naked". I'm pretty sure we can all see why you wouldn't want to treat "bare" and "naked" as 'the same word', since that's obviously not what they are, and doing so could result in some pretty odd misunderstandings ("Don't touch it! It's a naked wire!").

That's kind of what you're doing right now.

 

[JulieB67]

There has been a prohibition on giving apostasia its due in 2 Th 2:3, in particular, since the KJV, inexplicably, caused a sea change in 2 Th 2:3 by using the first definition of apostasia. Why won’t KJV answer as to why they made that super-significant change? They won’t answer to this day, and neither will Bible Gateway and Geneva Bible. They’re forced to remain silent. I have good reason to believe Roman Catholics were behind the arm twisting back in the late 1500’s and early 1600’s. They were actually the first to monkey with 2 Th 2:3 in their Douay–Rheims Bible starting in 1582. And, we all know, the Roman Catholics are vehemently against the pre-Trib rapture.

There’s evil lurking behind the scenes in Bible publishing and/or distribution, related specifically to keeping apostasia’s first definition in use, only.

This isn’t conspiracy theory. These are unfortunate facts of a steak of evil in Bible publishing and/or distribution.

How about this. Take the English versions out of it and whatever conspiracy theories you're thinking of and focus on the fact that apostasia itself is not in the actual Greek text in Luke 24:31. That is a fact. ἄφαντος -aphantos. Why do you keep ignoring this word?

 

[Jeffrey Bowden]

Have you ever done that thing using Google Translate or Babelfish or whatever where you type a word in one language and translate it into a second, then take that translation and put it back into the original language to see how close it was to what you originally wrote? You can get some pretty interesting results doing that. For instance, if I put in the English word "bare" into GT and translate it into Russian, the first definition that pops up is голый (goliy). Then, if I put голый into GT and translate back it into English, the definition I get is "naked". I'm pretty sure we can all see why you wouldn't want to treat "bare" and "naked" as 'the same word', since that's obviously not what they are, and doing so could result in some pretty odd misunderstandings ("Don't touch it! It's a naked wire!").

That's kind of what you're doing right now.

How about this. Take the English versions out of it and whatever conspiracy theories you're thinking of and focus on the fact that apostasia itself is not in the actual Greek text in Luke 24:31. That is a fact. ἄφαντος -aphantos. Why do you keep ignoring this word?

Disprove this definitive proof of the pre-Trib rapture:


God’s wrath in the Trib begins no later than the 2nd seal.

1 Th 1:10 (NKJV): and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

"Delivers us" in this context, means we are snatched away (raptured): "The second usage of deliverance refers to the Acts of God whereby he rescues his people from danger. The key words nasal [l;v"n] ("draw out, snatched away")," --- Source: Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology.

God's wrath begins in the Trib no later than the 2nd seal. Here's the 2nd seal: Rev 6:4 (TLB): This time a red horse rode out. Its rider was given a long sword and the authority to banish peace and bring anarchy to the earth; war and killing broke out everywhere.

Wars are a form of God's wrath: Ezekiel 14:21 (NLT): “Now this is what the Sovereign Lord says: How terrible it will be when all four of these dreadful punishments fall upon Jerusalem—war, famine, wild animals, and disease—destroying all her people and animals.

What Paul was saying in 1 Th 1:10 is we will be raptured before the Trib, because God's wrath starts on day 1.

 

[JulieB67]

Disprove this definitive proof of the pre-Trib rapture:

We were talking about Luke 24:31.

Why are you ignoring the word aphantos?

 

[Jeffrey Bowden]

We were talking about Luke 24:31.

Why are you ignoring the word aphantos?

I’m done with the “apostasia” talk.

 

[Jeffrey Bowden]

We were talking about Luke 24:31.

Why are you ignoring the word aphantos?

The pre-Trib rapture is the next prophesied event in the Bible. 1 Th 1:10, Rev 6:4 and Ezekiel:14:21, prove it.

 

[NeoWatchman]

You're 100% right it's unbiblical. Here's a blog post that goes verse by verse and talks about how everything was taken out of context and what the verses actually mean when they're viewed in context.

Why Do Pastors Keep Taking THESE Verses Out Of Context?!

Hebrews 5:12-13 (Majority Text/Byzantine Text Version)12 For indeed, although you ought to be teachers by this time, again you have need [for someone] to teach you what are the elements of the begi…

nowistheend.wordpress.com

Backup link in case the original gets taken down:

https://archive.ph/i6JHD

 

[PrincetonGuy]

There is one instance in the Bible where definition #2 (departure; disappearance) was done by Jesus. Luke 24:30-31 (CEV): After Jesus sat down to eat, he took some bread. He blessed it and broke it. Then he gave it to them. 31 At once they knew who he was, but he disappeared. ----- Jesus demonstrated definition #2 of apostasia. This example is proof that a sudden physical departure (disappearance) as apostasia's defintion #2, is in Scripture.

The verb used in Luke 24:31 is ἄφαντος—a totally different, unrelated verb! Moreover, your “definition #2 (departure; disappearance)” has no basis of fact but is entirely delusional!

As has been accurately posted, the actual meaning of each and every word in the Greek New Testament was learned by studying it in each and every case in which it is used in the New Testament and other early Christian literature. This was an immensely time consuming process that took many years to complete with very numerous scholars participating. The data gleaned from this research was entered into very sophisticated databases with highly advanced search capabilities giving us the BDAG lexicon in 2020.

However, in your posts you have chosen to not only ignore this invaluable tool for New Testament studies but to post information that that is proven by this tool to be absolutely false; and you have done so by appealing to an extremely out dated lexicon of classical Greek (Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon) that has little relevance to the New Testament which was given to us in a very different dialect. Furthermore, as though that was not bad enough, you have grossly abused the contents of that lexicon by misrepresenting a meaning that it gives for the Greek word ἀποστασία, that meaning being “departure” and most ridiculously claiming that this word speaks of the rapture of the church when in classical Greek that departure refers to forsaking of one’s allegiance to their people and their beliefs.

Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon is NOT a lexicon of the New Testament—or even of Koine Greek! It is a lexicon of classical Greek literature—a very different dialect that is never used in the New Testament. Moreover, the meaning “departure; disappearance” is NEVER used in the New Testament! The only meanings found in the New Testament are, “defiance of established system or authority,” that is “rebellion, abandonment, breach of faith” (BDAG, p. 121). Furthermore, Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon was originally published in 1843 and the most recent edition was published in 1940. It has since then been virtually replaced by The Cambridge Greek Lexicon published on April 22, 2021 by Cambridge University Press.

I have never seen on any message board a more severely dishonest misrepresentation of the truth than is found over and over again in many of your posts! Your “definition #2 (departure; disappearance)” has no basis of fact but is entirely contrary to the truth!

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Julie, apostasia is a noun, and disappear is a verb.

Additionally, Strong’s will never publish the second definition of apostasia (departure; disappearance). They only publish the first definition (defection; revolt) and thereby justify all their limitations on researching apostasia.

There has been a prohibition on giving apostasia its due in 2 Th 2:3, in particular, since the KJV, inexplicably, caused a sea change in 2 Th 2:3 by using the first definition of apostasia. Why won’t KJV answer as to why they made that super-significant change? They won’t answer to this day, and neither will Bible Gateway and Geneva Bible. They’re forced to remain silent. I have good reason to believe Roman Catholics were behind the arm twisting back in the late 1500’s and early 1600’s. They were actually the first to monkey with 2 Th 2:3 in their Douay–Rheims Bible starting in 1582. And, we all know, the Roman Catholics are vehemently against the pre-Trib rapture.

There’s evil lurking behind the scenes in Bible publishing and/or distribution, related specifically to keeping apostasia’s first definition in use, only.

This isn’t conspiracy theory. These are unfortunate facts of a steak of evil in Bible publishing and/or distribution.

There is no truth in any of this! The only meanings found in the New Testament are, “defiance of established system or authority,” that is “rebellion, abandonment, breach of faith” (BDAG Greek-English Lexicon, p. 120).

I had a 90 minute one-on-one talk with the rector of one of the largest Roman Catholic cathedrals in the United States and we talked about the Roman Catholic Church’s position on this issue and he told me that his church has no position on the issue other than the historical interpretation of the verses in the epistles to the Thessalonians—the interpretation that is held by the rest of the catholic churches, the Orthodox Churches, the Anglican Churches, the Episcopal Churches, the Lutheran Churches, the Presbyterian Churches, the Methodist Churches, many Baptist churches—and was held by the ante-Nicene Churches and other ancient churches.

 

[Clare73]

Listen, it's very clear that you are unable to make a defensible argument. The sort of straw-grasping you are currently engaged in simply won't convince anyone with common sense, let alone anyone with a rudimentary understanding of things like textual analysis and how languages work.

You are digging yourself into a hole here, and it would be prudent to stop.

First rule of holes: When you find yourself in one, stop digging.

 

[WilliamLhk]

Disprove this definitive proof of the pre-Trib rapture:


God’s wrath in the Trib begins no later than the 2nd seal.

1 Th 1:10 (NKJV): and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

As is the standard pre-trib narrative, you equate "the wrath" with "the tribulation." But not a single biblical verse equates the two things. Pure presumption.

 

[Jeffrey Bowden]

As is the standard pre-trib narrative, you equate "the wrath" with "the tribulation." But not a single biblical verse equates the two things. Pure presumption.

As is the standard pre-trib narrative, you equate "the wrath" with "the tribulation." But not a single biblical verse equates the two things. Pure presumption.

I am quoting God in Ezekiel 14:21 (NLT): “Now this is what the Sovereign Lord says: How terrible it will be when all four of these dreadful punishments fall upon Jerusalem—war, famine, wild animals, and disease—destroying all her people and animals.

God says “wars” are used as God’s wrath (“dreadful punishments”).

The 2nd seal: Rev 6:4 (NLT): Then another horse appeared, a red one. Its rider was given a mighty sword and the authority to take peace from the earth. And there was war and slaughter everywhere.

God’s wrath starts in the Trib in the 2nd seal.