iamlamad
Lamad
- Jun 8, 2013
- 9,649
- 744
- 79
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
Lamad said:
OK, so I left out the word first.
In verse three Paul tells us that something must happen FIRST and then the man of sin is revealed. That something is the apostasia.
New American Standard Bible
Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
“It” in this sentence cannot refer to the apostasy, “it” refers to something previous like maybe verse 1 & 2. I am not an English professor but it appears you are not either. You should concern yourself with the “it will not come” portion of the verse.
Lamads enhanced version:
New American Standard Bible
Let no one in any way deceive you, for it (apostasy, gathering) will not come unless the apostasy (gathering) comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
You misquoted me!
Let no one in any way deceive you, for it [the Day] will not come unless the apostasy [the restrainer taken out of the way] comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
This is the way I wrote it. I did not do this verse ANY misjustice. Of course "it" refers back to "THE DAY" of the previous verse. We agree there. Why then did you murder the verse as you did?
You always find a way out!Can we agree now?
Why do I feel like I am being led into a maze of confusion with no way out?
I believe the more accurate way of rendering this would be to say that both the apostasy and the man of sin being revealed will come first . First referring back to the coming and gathering which will happen after first the apostasy and man of sin is revealed. Did I make that clear so no we cannot agree yet.
Except that is not the way Paul wrote it, so it is NOT "more accurate." Perhaps it is easier to understand? I even doubt that.
As he wrote it, the SIGN of "the day" is the man of sin being revealed. He is telling them how they can know for SURE when "the day" comes: has the man of sin been revealed? If it has, you can KNOW "the Day" has come and you are in it.
But there is one caveat: before the sign of the man of sin revealed, something else must come first. (only one thing here comes "first.") The apostasia must happen before the sign can happen.
Could this be equated as two signs before one can recognize "THE DAY" has come? I will give you that much. Perhaps it could: just not the way he wrote it. It seems Paul did not equate the apostasia as a sign of "the day." It seems positive that Paul KNEW the man if sin being revealed would come after the start of "THE DAY." Therefore he chose it as the sign "the day" had started.
Does "first" refer back to His coming and the gathering as you suggest? ONLY if you equate "THE DAY" with the rapture. If indeed Paul wrote "the day of Christ," would that be a possible meaning. If Paul really wrote "the Day of the Lord," it would not be possible. So we are back to what the original letter said - which we just don't know.
Make no mistake, the apostasia MUST COME FIRST. Then, AFTER the apostasia, the man of sin is revealed.
Agree or not?
No, not much agreement here , that is how you choose to see it, the apostasia could start first and continue during and after the man of sin is revealed. We are simply not given those details. I assure you both the apostasia and the man of sin will be revealed FIRST before the coming of the Lord in which He will gather. Not even gonna ask if you agree.
Is that a cause and effect relationship?
No we disagree on that point.
you are not very agreeable! But yet, that is EXACTLY how Paul wrote it (apostasia first - then the revealing)! If you cannot agree on that, we might as well quit!
Since you see apostasia as a falling away, yes, that could continue on. If it is referring to the departing of the church, that is one instant and significant departure and is over in a second.
You will note that Paul did not say the apostasia would BEGIN first, but that it would take place first.
ANY verse must be left in its before and after context if we are to understand it properly! I don't see how we will ever agree on much here if you wish to find the meaning of one verse out of its context!Most certainly it is by verses 6-8. You wish for verse 3 to stand alone,
It does stand alone.
No, not until we can get to some small agreement here first!but it MUST BE left in its context.
The context of 3 belongs with verse 1 &2 because those 2 things will happen first before the coming and gathering. This is a good place for you to answer one of those 9 questions.
How do you make a feminine noun “apostasia” in verse 3 the same as a he in verse 7?
Simple: the church is femine (the Bride of Christ) while the holy Spirit is masculine. Both are involved in the departure, but only HE has the power to restrain, working through the church. (He has no authority to work on His own because this world belongs to the devil at present.)
Of course. Many people have tried to translate before us.Now let's write it again and include some of the context:
Lamad's enhanced version:
Let no one in any way deceive you, for it [the Day] will not come unless the apostasy [the restrainer taken out of the way] comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
Will you let me get away with rewriting scripture like that?
Upvote
0