2 Thessalonians 2:3

[] 2 Thes 2:3a Mitch Larramore mitchlarramore at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 21 22:21:36 EDT 2004

[] Gak! [] 2 Thes 2:3a MH TIS hUMAS EXAPATHSHi KATA MHDENA TROPON; hOTI EANMH ELQHi hH APOSTASIA PRWTON KAI APOKALUFQHi…NET Bible has…2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that daywill not arrive until the rebellion comes6 and the manof lawlessness is revealed,Footnote 6tn Grk “for unless the rebellion comes first.” Theclause about “the day” is understood from v. 2. What is the grammatical principle that accounts forthe NET translators not Englishing “first” (PRWTON) intheir translation? What would be the temporal relationship between therebellion coming and the man of lawlessness beingrevealed? Are they both one and the same thing?=====Mitch LarramoreSpring Branch, TexasStudent/Memorial High School__________________________________Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete – You start. We finish.http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

[] Gak![] 2 Thes 2:3a

[] 2 Thes 2:3a Arie Dirkzwager dirkzwager at pandora.be
Thu Jul 22 03:18:06 EDT 2004

[] 2 Thes 2:3a [] 2 Thes 2:3a Mitch,> What is the grammatical principle that accounts for> the NET translators not Englishing “first” (PRWTON) in> their translation?I do not know. In the translation you quote “the day” will come at the sametime as the “rebellion”, whereas with “first” it can also come after therebellion and the man of lawlessness.> What would be the temporal relationship between the> rebellion coming and the man of lawlessness being> revealed? Are they both one and the same thing?KAI can connect two facts that come subsequently. It can also connect a factwith more details about it. So the answer to this question is not a matterof the Greek text, but of connecting this text with other eschatologicaltexts.ArieDr. A. DirkzwagerHoeselt, Belgiume-mail dirkzwager at pandora.be—– Oorspronkelijk bericht —–Van: “Mitch Larramore” <mitchlarramore at yahoo.com>Aan: “B Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Verzonden: donderdag 22 juli 2004 4:21Onderwerp: [] 2 Thes 2:3a> MH TIS hUMAS EXAPATHSHi KATA MHDENA TROPON; hOTI EAN> MH ELQHi hH APOSTASIA PRWTON KAI APOKALUFQHi…> > NET Bible has…> 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day> will not arrive until the rebellion comes6 and the man> of lawlessness is revealed,> > Footnote 6> tn Grk “for unless the rebellion comes first.” The> clause about “the day” is understood from v. 2.> > What is the grammatical principle that accounts for> the NET translators not Englishing “first” (PRWTON) in> their translation?> > What would be the temporal relationship between the> rebellion coming and the man of lawlessness being> revealed? Are they both one and the same thing?> > =====> Mitch Larramore> Spring Branch, Texas> Student/Memorial High School> > > > __________________________________> Do you Yahoo!?> Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete – You start. We finish.> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

[] 2 Thes 2:3a[] 2 Thes 2:3a

[] 2 Thes 2:3a cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jul 22 08:07:28 EDT 2004

[] 2 Thes 2:3a [] Second aorist passive At 7:21 PM -0700 7/21/04, Mitch Larramore wrote:>MH TIS hUMAS EXAPATHSHi KATA MHDENA TROPON; hOTI EAN>MH ELQHi hH APOSTASIA PRWTON KAI APOKALUFQHi…> >NET Bible has…>2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day>will not arrive until the rebellion comes6 and the man>of lawlessness is revealed,> >Footnote 6>tn Grk “for unless the rebellion comes first.” The>clause about “the day” is understood from v. 2. > >What is the grammatical principle that accounts for>the NET translators not Englishing “first” (PRWTON) in>their translation? There’s no grammatical principle of GREEK accounting for “omission” of PRWTON:the NET formulation is simply stating the content of the Greek statement in morenormal English idiom. >What would be the temporal relationship between the>rebellion coming and the man of lawlessness being>revealed? Are they both one and the same thing?I think that Arie has already given an adequate answer on the second question;it’s not a matter of identity of the two events (coming of the rebellion,revelation of of the man of lawlessness); rather these items, whether or not oneasssumes that they are related, are both events that must take place BEFORE thearrival of ‘that day.’Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad

[] 2 Thes 2:3a[] Second aorist passive

[] 2 Thes 2:3a Eddie Mishoe edmishoe at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 22 11:03:01 EDT 2004

[] 2 Thes 2:3a [] 2 Thes 2:3a > > What would be the temporal relationship between> the> > rebellion coming and the man of lawlessness being> > revealed? Are they both one and the same thing?> > > MH TIS hUMAS EXAPATHSHi KATA MHDENA TROPON; hOTI> EAN> > MH ELQHi hH APOSTASIA PRWTON KAI APOKALUFQHi…My understanding is that of the two events that willcome BEFORE the Day begins (the Rebellion/Departureand the revealing of this man), theRebellion/Departure will come BEFORE the revealing ofthis man, hence PRWTON is used to modify the coming ofthe Rebellion/Departure (not the revealing of thisman). The time that will elapse between theRebellion/Departure and the revealing of this man isonly limited to the time of the “beginning” of the Day(by the time the Day begins, BOTH events must haveoccurred). Grammatically, they could occursimultaneously or years apart. Both events must beobservable, but that is understood.=====Eddie MishoePastor__________________________________Do you Yahoo!?Vote for the stars of Yahoo!’s next ad campaign!http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/

[] 2 Thes 2:3a[] 2 Thes 2:3a

[] 2 Thes 2:3a Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Jul 22 14:43:00 EDT 2004

[] 2 Thes 2:3a [] 2 Thes 2:3a > MH TIS hUMAS EXAPATHSHi KATA MHDENA TROPON; hOTI EAN> MH ELQHi hH APOSTASIA PRWTON KAI APOKALUFQHi…> > NET Bible has…> 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day> will not arrive until the rebellion comes6 and the man> of lawlessness is revealed,> > Footnote 6> tn Grk “for unless the rebellion comes first.” The> clause about “the day” is understood from v. 2.> > What is the grammatical principle that accounts for> the NET translators not Englishing “first” (PRWTON) in> their translation?It is covered by “until” since the event of the coming of the Lord iscontextually implied, as the note says. Instead of saying “Unless A happensfirst, B will not happen” or “If A does not happen first, B will not happen”one can say “B will not happen until A has happened” or “before B is goingto happen, A must happen.” The meaning is the same. This is an interestingaspect of translation: You can express essentially the same meaning withquite different grammatical constructions. But some constructions are moreclear and natural in the receptor language than others. It is only the mostliteral versions like (N)RSV that keep the unnatural “unless – first”construction. Most modern versions have changed to “until”.It is not a grammatical principle, because translation is much more thangrammar. A proper translation has to take into account semantics andpragmatics, including contextual implications and relevance theory.> What would be the temporal relationship between the> rebellion coming and the man of lawlessness being> revealed? Are they both one and the same thing?Grammar doesn’t tell you, but contextually one would assume that therebellion occurs more or less at the same time as the leader of therebellion comes forth. But the rebellion is not the same thing as itsleader.Iver Larsen

[] 2 Thes 2:3a[] 2 Thes 2:3a

[] 2 Thes 2:3a Eddie Mishoe edmishoe at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 23 08:40:34 EDT 2004

[] 2 Thes 2:3a [] 2 Thes 2:3a Mitch asked> > What would be the temporal relationship between> the> > rebellion coming and the man of lawlessness being> > revealed? Are they both one and the same thing?Iver replied > Grammar doesn’t tell you, but contextually one would> assume that the> rebellion occurs more or less at the same time as> the leader of the> rebellion comes forth. But the rebellion is not the> same thing as its> leader.This is what I was trying to counter; this kind ofremark. I’m not saying on a theological level Iver isincorrect. What I am saying is that on a grammaticallevel there need be no relationship between theRebellion/Departure and the revealing of this man.They many have absolutely nothing in common or inrelationship. I have noticed a strong theological benttoward this position, and again, I am not counteringthis theological persuasion. I just simply want toremind us that on a grammatical/semantic/pragmaticlevel(s), no relationship exists between theRebellion/Departure and the revealing of this man.An English example should be all that is necessary todemonstrate this. In this statement:The year 2010 will not arrive until President Bushfirst completes his term in office and anotherPresident occupies the Oval office. There could conceivably be two Presidents that occupythe Oval office after Bush completes his term. Andwhen you deal with prophetic material, as here in 2Thess, you have to allow for variables, some of whichare unimplied. It is very dangerous to connect thedots when dealing with prophetic material.=====Eddie MishoePastor__________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

[] 2 Thes 2:3a[] 2 Thes 2:3a

[] 2 Thes 2:3a Arie Dirkzwager dirkzwager at pandora.be
Fri Jul 23 12:17:56 EDT 2004

[] 2 Thes 2:3a [] 2 Thes 2:3a I know that this text is theologically “hot”.But we have to see what we can do with KAI.As I wrote before, KAI can connect facts that are different or occursubsequently.But there is also explicative KAI. That KAI connects a fact and its details.So we can understand that the apostasy and the man of lawlessness aredifferent and subsequent facts – of course being part of the same spriritualclimate.We can also understand (with explicative KAI) that the man of lawlessness isa prominent factor *in* the apostasy.If you would like to choose, you have to compare our verse with other versesabout the same period.ArieDr. A. DirkzwagerHoeselt, Belgiume-mail dirkzwager at pandora.be—– Oorspronkelijk bericht —–Van: “Eddie Mishoe” <edmishoe at yahoo.com>Aan: <iver_larsen at sil.org>; “Mitch Larramore” <mitchlarramore at yahoo.com>; “BGreek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Verzonden: vrijdag 23 juli 2004 14:40Onderwerp: RE: [] 2 Thes 2:3a> Mitch asked> > > > What would be the temporal relationship between> > the> > > rebellion coming and the man of lawlessness being> > > revealed? Are they both one and the same thing?> > Iver replied> > > Grammar doesn’t tell you, but contextually one would> > assume that the> > rebellion occurs more or less at the same time as> > the leader of the> > rebellion comes forth. But the rebellion is not the> > same thing as its> > leader.> > This is what I was trying to counter; this kind of> remark. I’m not saying on a theological level Iver is> incorrect. What I am saying is that on a grammatical> level there need be no relationship between the> Rebellion/Departure and the revealing of this man.> They many have absolutely nothing in common or in> relationship. I have noticed a strong theological bent> toward this position, and again, I am not countering> this theological persuasion. I just simply want to> remind us that on a grammatical/semantic/pragmatic> level(s), no relationship exists between the> Rebellion/Departure and the revealing of this man.> > An English example should be all that is necessary to> demonstrate this. In this statement:> > The year 2010 will not arrive until President Bush> first completes his term in office and another> President occupies the Oval office.> > There could conceivably be two Presidents that occupy> the Oval office after Bush completes his term. And> when you deal with prophetic material, as here in 2> Thess, you have to allow for variables, some of which> are unimplied. It is very dangerous to connect the> dots when dealing with prophetic material.> > > =====> Eddie Mishoe> Pastor> > __________________________________________________> Do You Yahoo!?> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around> http://mail.yahoo.com> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/>

[] 2 Thes 2:3a[] 2 Thes 2:3a

[] 2 Thes 2:3a Eddie Mishoe edmishoe at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 23 14:16:37 EDT 2004

[] 2 Thes 2:3a [] 2 Thes 2:3a Arie:Yes. You are right on the money with your comments.What I didn’t want to raise was the implications of hHAPOSTASIA, which many translate as “the rebellion.” Asyou know, this word covers multiple semantic domains.Wuest I think taught it, but many others havefollowed, and have concluded that hH APOSTASIA mustrefer to a previous mentioned event and ties it intothe gathering together (the “departure”) to be withthe Lord (what some call the Rapture). Often timespeople say that this hH APOSTASIA cannot refer to the”Rapture” on grammatical or syntactical grounds, buton purely grammatical grounds it actually can. Aspreposterous as it is that this could refer to aRapture, I would not eliminate it on the basis of theGreek text. As you have suggested, this would betterbe eliminated on the basis of other eschatologicalpassages. Taking hH APOSTASIA as referring tosomething completely disjointed from the Day, such asthe Rapture, is permissible on grammatical grounds butdismissed on eschatological grounds, IMHO.=====Eddie MishoePastor__________________________________Do you Yahoo!?New and Improved Yahoo! Mail – Send 10MB messages!http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

[] 2 Thes 2:3a[] 2 Thes 2:3a

[] 2 Thes 2:3a Arie Dirkzwager dirkzwager at pandora.be
Fri Jul 23 16:18:47 EDT 2004

[] 2 Thes 2:3a [] 2 Thes 2:3a Eddie,We have to be careful to distinguish between theological positions andpossibilities of the Greek text.Let me state at first that I do not believe in a rapture before the greattribulation. My father allways said you have to know the theologicalposition of a theologian before you read his book or article. So I want tobe clear.But I still have to see if our text as seen from the Greek text can beinterpretated as teaching a theological position I do not held.I do not think you can interprete hH APOSTASIA as referring to the rapture.APOSTASIA normally means defection, revolt, esp. in religious sense.According to LScJ there is however a Greek text (Olympiodorus, inAristotelis Meteora commentaria 320.2) where it means “departure,disappearance”. I cannot check the text for I do not possess it anduniversity libraries do not exist in the neighbourhood.But the problem in 2 Tm 2 is “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and ourbeing gathered to him” (verse 1) and that verse is referring to the raptureaccording to theologians of all positions who have an opinion about the timeof the rapture.In my opinion Paul cannot have said that “the coming of our Lord JesusChrist and our being gathered to him” (verse 1) occurs *after* hH APOSTASIA,if you see in hH APOSTASIA the same rapture.ArieDr. A. DirkzwagerHoeselt, Belgiume-mail dirkzwager at pandora.be—– Oorspronkelijk bericht —–Van: “Eddie Mishoe” <edmishoe at yahoo.com>Aan: “Arie Dirkzwager” <dirkzwager at pandora.be>; “B Greek”< at lists.ibiblio.org>Verzonden: vrijdag 23 juli 2004 20:16Onderwerp: Re: [] 2 Thes 2:3a> Arie:> > Yes. You are right on the money with your comments.> What I didn’t want to raise was the implications of hH> APOSTASIA, which many translate as “the rebellion.” As> you know, this word covers multiple semantic domains.> Wuest I think taught it, but many others have> followed, and have concluded that hH APOSTASIA must> refer to a previous mentioned event and ties it into> the gathering together (the “departure”) to be with> the Lord (what some call the Rapture). Often times> people say that this hH APOSTASIA cannot refer to the> “Rapture” on grammatical or syntactical grounds, but> on purely grammatical grounds it actually can. As> preposterous as it is that this could refer to a> Rapture, I would not eliminate it on the basis of the> Greek text. As you have suggested, this would better> be eliminated on the basis of other eschatological> passages. Taking hH APOSTASIA as referring to> something completely disjointed from the Day, such as> the Rapture, is permissible on grammatical grounds but> dismissed on eschatological grounds, IMHO.> > =====> Eddie Mishoe> Pastor> > > > __________________________________> Do you Yahoo!?> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail – Send 10MB messages!> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail>

[] 2 Thes 2:3a[] 2 Thes 2:3a