Comments on: Personal Update & Exegetical Research on 2 Thessalonians 2 :1-12 Defending the Faith, Evangelizing the Eschaton Sun, 23 Apr 2017 18:13:56 +0000 hourly 1 By: GumBoocho Mon, 28 Jul 2014 05:27:36 +0000 Actually apostasia (found in 2 Th 2:3) is said to be equivalent to apostasis = departure in LSJ (big LIddell & Scott). And the Dormition of Mary (aka Assumption of the Virgin) written possibly c 400 AD (in what looks like koine Greek to me) calls a rapture of Mary & of apostles an apostasia. This is found at the bottom of p. 105 of Tischendorf’s NT apocrypha collection (if you want the Greek). The NewAdvent RCC site has an English translation. The English text is also at along with inserted Greek words. It is remarkable that this is not merely an instance of a physical departure, but of a Rapture of physical bodies! I think it safe to suppose that apostasia could mean physical departure or rapture in 2 Th 2:3 because the corresponding verb definitely has the meaning “depart” and the -ia suffix seems to be very productive (somewhat like -er in English for agent is productive).

By: Rob Keator Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:35:44 +0000 In regards (again) to the restrainer, I have to agree with the writings of many early church fathers. The restrainer was The Roman Kingdom. The RCC was born out of the ashes of Rome at the Justinian papacy. Once the Roman kingdom died, The beast and the whore (and her children) were almost unstoppable.

By: Cris Putnam Thu, 05 Jan 2012 23:34:04 +0000 Sorry Craig. but I just do not see a conspiracy at all. I don’t know of anyone reputable who believes 1 Jn 5:7 as it appears in the KJV was original. Monks altered the text to support their theology, even if the theology is good we should strive to preserve the text as it was written by the original authors. Perhaps consider:

By: craig doriot Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:59:59 +0000 Thanks for helping me get to my point about the sophistry of modern academia. First off, I do actually use the modern resources available to investigate Greek texts, but I also think the technology (and confidence in it) can be equally used to deceive people. I grew up on NIV, at a much later age got “born again”, spent considerable efforts examining the arguments and listening to God for guidance, and finally switched to KJV. You may find the Psalms pleasant for memorization, but I find them difficult compared to the fluidity of modern versions. Suggesting KJV for its flow as opposed to substance, is kind of like an atheist backhandedly crediting Jesus as a good person.

And putting of your faith in the supposedly oldest manuscripts available to determine accuracy is like me putting my faith in Darwinism because it is the best science supposedly available. You must ask yourself: where did these manuscripts come from? Who found them? Who created them? What other documents were they found with? Were they forged? Who stands to gain? Did God create this confusion? Did God allow His texts to go corrupted for centuries? Do you have confidence that God would protect His Word and supply His people with the right weapons? Our we putting “puffed up” with faith in ourselves or in God?

So with those questions in mind, let’s talk the supposed “gotcha” proof in favor of the older texts, 1 John 5:7, aka the Johannine Comma. I ask “who has the most to gain by the difference?”, while academia cries “overzealous”! We already know the lack of this verse in modern translations has been pivotal for the health and spread of cult knockoffs, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses; no other verse in the Bible so clearly demonstrates the doctrine of Trinity, and its corruption has allowed many heresies avoid being stamped out. I think establishing a motive for Satan here would be very easy. In fact, there are probably not many other verses he so craved to get his hands on, in a way that would be inconspicuous.

Another thing I am told, but don’t fully understand due to my lack of Greek, is the glaring weakness of those verses without the text. For example, the phrasing of the words makes it apparently clear that other words are being referenced and compared in the following verse. Simply put, the words cant stand on their own, without the missing phrase. Satan is crafty, God is craftier.

But the real proof lies in the writings of the early church leaders. People that drew praise from Paul in the Bible wrote about verses that are now considered modern forgeries of the Textus Receptus, due to their absence from the supposed “oldest and best manuscripts”. The oldest manuscripts we have are significantly pre-dated by the writings of the early church leaders. And so that is where we should go to determine whether these verses were tossed in during the 12th century, or if they existed long before. And in those writings, we find clear references to those missing words, currently as early as c200 AD by Tertullian, and c250 by Cyprian of Carthage… and we have many other early writings from various sources that also confirm these words of John.

By: Cris Putnam Thu, 05 Jan 2012 04:50:23 +0000 David, it never fails, thanks for catching it, I’ll fix and re-upload it.

By: Cris Putnam Thu, 05 Jan 2012 04:43:27 +0000 Craig,
For me its mostly a non issue because I will read more than one translation to see the differences and then look at the original language to think about why there are differences… its nearly always not anything conspiratorial or theological at all, it is about grammar issues, Greek is complex and Hebrew is even worse — no translation is perfect. KJV was great for the 17th century but is is demonstrably based on inferior 12th century manuscripts that we know to be corrupted by scribes who added their own theology to them, 1 John 5:7 is a famous example. I still like KJV for things like memorizing Psalms. But for doctrine, I want to read what the original authors wrote more than monastic editorializing. My NT professor from last term reads Koine Greek fluently and he helped me see that there are a lot of nuanced issues. The video series learn to use Greek and Hebrew with Logos Bible software really opened my eyes as well. I mostly rely on the reverse interlinear that come with logos bible software. I will be taking an intensive Greek track this spring semester to do 1 year of Greek in a semester so I am about to be up to my eyeballs in it. I recommend that you use all the awesome resources we have today and look at several versions when doing serious Bible study. NIV is a little too loose for me too. They tried to translate idea for idea more than word for word. I prefer the NASB and ESV as the most true to the best manuscripts. Its not a conspiracy — its academic — its mostly about grammar and linguistics, I just hate to see all of the fear mongering. It’s a waste of time.

By: craig doriot Wed, 04 Jan 2012 23:11:45 +0000 First off, I was raised on NIV and only in the past year or two, after listening to much on textual criticism, have gone to the KJV side of things. Here are a few sites that do a better job of examining the issues:

this one is particularly relevant:
– especially that first video that gets into textual criticism and the writings of the early church

By: David Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:04:06 +0000 Cris,

Page 1 states, “Founded by in 315 BC”

Typo? Think you need to delete the “by”. I’m currently reading the PDF.


By: Cris Putnam Sun, 01 Jan 2012 22:36:05 +0000

Are we denying the Power of God here? The translation was Our Lords who used men. Not the other way around. Remember the old ways that He gave us….it cannot be improved upon.

If by “The translation” you mean the KJV cannot be improved upon you need a reality check. Only the originals were inspired. Even the men who translated the KJV admitted they were unsure of how to translate certain words. It has many flaws. Be careful to not engage in bibliolatry, please do not make an idol out of a translation. We worship Jesus Christ not a Bible translation. It seems to me you are being misled.

which Bible should I believe?

There is only one Bible and it is written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, if you are really concerned with accuracy go to school and learn them. If you don’t have time for that, there are much better English translations than the KJV. I usually look at 4-5 different ones including the KJV, and then do word studies in the original languages, as no translation is perfect.


Its like a deaf music critic. Please explain how can someone one who does not read Greek can evaluate how well Greek is translated?

Do you believe in unicorns? The KJV does… or maybe it was a mistranslation


By: Tama Ferrell Sat, 31 Dec 2011 23:02:04 +0000 ” 4) People who have not studied Greek textual criticism really do not have an informed opinion.”


= BARBARIAN………….listen to the video above.