ECT William Tyndale's 1534 translation of II Thessalonians 2: 3-8:

[northwye]

Here is William Tyndale's 1534 translation of II Thessalonians 2: 3-8:

"Let no man deceive you by any means, for the Lord comes not, unless there come
a departing first, and that sinful man be revealed,
the son of perdition which is an
adversary, and is exalted above all that is called
God, or that is worshipped: so that
he shall sit as God in the temple of God, and show
himself as God. Remember ye
not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these
things?

And now you know what withholds, that he might be revealed at his time.
For the mystery of that iniquity
does he already work, which only locks until it be
taken out of the way. And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the appearance of
his coming..."

Here is the King James Version for II Thessalonians 2: 3-8:

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day
shall not come, unless there
come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped;
so that he as God sits in the temple of God, showing
himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that when I was yet with you, I told
you these things?

And now you know what withholds, that he might be revealed
in his time. For the mystery of iniquity does already work: only he who now lets
will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord
shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy
with the brightness of his coming..."

II Thessalonians 2: 7 is translated differently in the King James Version than in Tyndale's 1534 New Testament. Tyndale says "For the mystery of that iniquity
does he already work, which only locks until it be
taken out of the way."

But the King James says "For the mystery of iniquity does already work: only he who now lets
will let, until he be taken out of the way."

Tyndale translates μονον ο κατεχων αρτι εως εκ μεσου γενηται as "which only locks until it be
taken out of the way."

The King James says "only he who now lets will let, until he be taken out of the way." This is where the idea of the restrainer comes from. But in Tyndale's translation of II Thessalonians 2: 7 there is no restrainer. The takeover of the temple of God, which is the believer (I Corinthians 3: 16-16, I Corinthians 6: 16), is locked in place until that takeover is removed.

"Letteth" is from The Greek kateko, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Number 2722, "to hold down, withhold..." Letteth can mean to restrain. But Tyndale translates it as "locks," meaning to lock in place that takeover of the temple of God in the believer by the sinful man.

In his writings Tyndale explains that the anti-Christ is not a single individual but is a present danger to Christians, since it is not something that is always in the future. The dispensationalist one man anti-Christ is to come in the future.

Lets see what the Geneva Bible says for II Thessalonians 2: 7, "For the mysterie of iniquitie doeth already worke: onely he which nowe withholdeth, shall let till he be taken out of the way."

The Geneva Bible translation group changed Tyndale's translation of II Thessalonians 2: 7 and the King James Committee followed the Geneva Bible.

See: http://genevabible.com/history.php

"The Geneva translators produced a revised New Testament in English in 1557 that was essentially a revision of Tyndale's revised and corrected 1534 edition. Much of the work was done by William Whittingham, the brother-in-law of John Calvin. The Geneva New Testament was barely off the press when work began on a revision of the entire Bible, a process that took more than two years. The new translation was checked with Theodore Beza's earlier work and the Greek text."

Theodore Beza published his own Greek and Latin versions of the New Testament.

S. L. Greenslade The Cambridge History of the Bible, Volume 3: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day 1975 p.62 “Calvin's successor at Geneva, Théodore de Bèze (Beza), was the editor of the next important edition of the Greek New Testament, which appeared in 1565 (his own Latin version had been printed in 1557).

Here is Theodore Beza's Latin version (1557) of II Thessalonians 2: 7: Jam enim peragitur mysterium
impietatis hu^us ; tantum qui nunc
obstat, obstabit usquedum e medio
sublatus fuerit.

7 Now we have the mystery
impiety hu ^ us; only now
an obstacle, an obstacle until the middle

The Calvinist Theodore Beza's 1557 translation of II Thessalonians 2: 7 differs radically from the 1534 translation of Tyndale. Remember that it was also Beza who changed Tyndale's consistent translation of ekklesia as congregation to church.

In the King James for II Thessalonians 2: 7 the man of sin, who many in the churches say is the one man anti-Christ, is being held back by something or someone restraining or holding him back at present, until the restrainer is taken out of the way in the future. The dispensationalist view that the anti-Christ as a one man figure is to appear in the future - probably during the tribulation - when the anti-Christ sits in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem - is easier to arrive at from the King James Version than from the Tyndale translation.. In the King James the man of sin is being held back now but he will be released to appear later. And the restrainer is said to be the Church or the Holy Spirit.

But William Tyndale taught that the man of sin is at work now and will be locked in place until he or it will be taken away.

Tyndale saw that the Jews missed the Messiah when he came, and they are still looking for him to come later. In like manner, Christians fail to correctly identify the man of sin o II Thessalonians 2 because they are looking for him to come later, and "he" is not one man as is taught by the huge number of false prophets (Matthew 24: 11, II Peter 2: 1-3).

 

[Danoh]

What did the men who the KJV is the result of hold as their view on this issue, northwye?

You forgot that.

And at best, most of them had held a form of Reformed and or Amillennial understanding.

Besides, I, myself, do not go by any of that.

Language does not work from within the vacuum of one Greek sense or another.

Rather, from within the whole of any language's particular culture and beliefs.

The language of Scripture is no different - the root of any of its' words intended sense is...the whole of Its' culture - the whole of Scripture itself.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Daniel 9:2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

Daniel 10:21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

2 Corinthians 4:13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

In short...

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

All you did is what most do - go by a passage or two and "the Greek."

You proved nothing.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

What did Holford say about this?

 

[Danoh]

What did Holford say about this?

"Rollin, rollin, rollin"?

"Keep them dough-gees movin"?

"Though they're disaproven"?

 

[northwye]

John Wycliffe in his 1382 English translation of the Latin ecclesia used chirche. For example, Wycliffe says for Acts 6: 1, "But Saul was consentynge to his deth. And greet persecucioun was maad that dai in the chirche, that was in Jerusalem."

William Tyndale did not follow Wycliffe in using chirche, which would have been conistent with the Catholic meaning of Church, but instead used congregation for ekklesia consistently except for two verses in Acts wgere he used churche to mean a pagan place of worship. For example, Tyndale's translation for Acts 8: 1 says "Saul had pleasure in his deeth. And at yt tyme there was a great persecucion agaynst the congregacion which was at Ierusalem."

Theodore Beza in 1556 returned to the use of church to translate ekklesia - and the Geneva Bible followed him, using church instead of congregation.

Did the same thing happen with the translation of II Thessalonians 2: 7? Did Tyndale break wih the Roman Catholic translation of II Thessalonians and then Theodore Beza, the Calvinist, returned II Thessalonians 2: 7 to the older Catholic version?

Jerome's Latgin Vulgate for II Thessalonians 2: 7 says nam mysterium iam operatur iniquitatis tantum ut qui tenet nunc donec de medio fiat

See the Douay-Rheims for an English translation of the Latin: "For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. "

But Tyndale does not follow the Catholic version of II Thessalonians 2: 7 and instead writes, "For the mystery of that iniquity does he already work, which only locks until it be taken out of the way."

Here is Theodore Beza's Latin version (1557) of II Thessalonians 2: 7:
"Jam enim peragitur mysterium
impietatis hu^us ; tantum qui nunc
obstat, obstabit usquedum e medio
sublatus fuerit."

7 Now we have the mystery
impiety hu ^ us; only now
an obstacle, an obstacle until the middle

The Calvinist Theodore Beza's 1557 translation of II Thessalonians 2: 7 differs from the 1534 translation of Tyndale, and returns to the meqaning of the Catholic Vulgate version.

Jihn Wycliff New Testament for II Thessalonians 2: 3-7;

http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/impo...cliffe/2th.txt

"No man disseyue you in ony manere. For but dissencioun come first, and the man of synne be schewid, the sonne of perdicioun,
4 that is aduersarie, and is enhaunsid ouer `al thing that is seid God, or that is worschipid, so that he sitte in the temple of God, and schewe hym silf as if he were God.
5 Whether ye holden not, that yit whanne Y was at you, Y seide these thingis to you?
6 And now what withholdith, ye witen, that he be schewid in his tyme.
7 For the priuete of wickidnesse worchith now; oneli that he that holdith now, holde, til he be do awe."

I have not been able to find out what the word priuete means in verse 7. I am not sure that Wycliffe is following Jerome's version of II Thessalonians 2: 7.

But it looks like the Catholic version of II Thessalonians 2: 7 makes it easier to arrive at the dispensationalist teaching that the man of sin, as literally one individual, is held back by a restrainer, the Church of the Holy Spirit, until the time of the tribulation, when the dispensationalist scenario will begin and the one man anti-Christ sits in a literal rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.

 

[Danoh]

By the way, northwye, many a MAD outside of TOL (if not also the MADs on TOL) does not hold that the Spirit is the restrainer.

Again, you are largely barking up the wrong tree; most Dispys on here are MADS.

Some, if not all, of which, do not hold to that, anyway.

You'll have to ask each MAD.

 

[northwye]

Latin: Nova Vulgata for Romans 13: 1: Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit. Non est enim potestas nisi a Deo; quae autem sunt, a Deo ordinatae sunt.

English, Douay-Rheims for Romans 13: 1: Let every soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power but from God: and those that are ordained of God.

https://www.google.com/#q=translation+of+Douay-Rheims+

"The Douay–Rheims Bible,,,,is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English."

John Wycliffe Translation to English From the Latin Vulgate:

Euery soule be suget to heiyere powers.
For ther is no power
but of God, and tho thingis that ben of God,
ben ordeyned.

Then, William Tyndale translated the Greek word
εξουσιαις not as power or powers, as in the
Catholic Latin Vulgate, translated into English in the
Douay-Rheims, but as authority. Authority
is of God, not of man, or the Catholic Church..

εξουσιαις, exousia, Strong's number 1849, "authority,
jurisdiction, liberty, right, strength."

And again, Theodore Beza, the Calvinist, who went
back to the Catholic version of Romans 13: 1 and in his
Latin New Testament of 1557 said:

"OMNIS anima potestatibus supereminentibus subjecta esto ;
non enim est potestas nisi a Deo j et quae sunt potestates, sunt a IJeo or-
dinatae. "

The Geneva Bible for Romans 13: 1 says "Let
euery soule be subiect vnto the higher powers:
for there is no power but of God: and the powers
that be, are ordeined of God"

The King James Version followed the Geneva Bible and used powers
instead of Tyndale's authority, apparently returning to the Catholic Vulgate-Douay-Rheims.

And again, was Theodore Beza the one who returned the Catholic use of powers to Romans 13: 1, as he returned the Catholic translation of ekklesia to church from Tyndale's congregation, and returned the translation of II Thessalonians 2: 7 to the Catholic "only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way?" Tyndale used "doeth he allready work which only looketh untill it be taken out of ye way."

For those who have a love of the truth (II Thedssalonians 2: 10-11), Tyndale's use of authority in II Thessalonians 2: 7 can help them avoid supporting and always obeying a dictator who has become a tyrant and traitor, either as a Marxist or Fascist. God is the authority, not men.

Theodore Beza in his "On the Rights of Magistrates," of 1574 says "Must the authority of the supreme rulers who have become undisguised tyrants remain so sacred and inviolate that the subjects are obliged in all circumstances to endure it so that they can in no way offer resistance to it? Or if indeed resistance is in some way allowable, may they go so far as to seize arms?"........."I maintain that no one in private station is allowed to set himself in open violence against a tyrant to whose domination the people of its own free will previously consented;"

John Knox and Samuel Rutherford were Calvinists, but of Scotland rather than France, Switzerland or Germany, who used scripture to create a theology of resistance to ruling tyrants and traitors different from that of Beza.

Isaiah 10: 1-2: "Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed. To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right of the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless."

There are some other verses in the Old Testament about the right of the people.

The concept of the right of the people comes from God.

These ideas of Knox and Rutherford were secularized by John Locke and Thomas Jefferson made them into the Declaration of Independence, one of our founding documents which does briefly state a political ideology.

Did Tyndale's translation of exousia as authority in Romans 13: 1 rather than as power have an influence on the thinking of Knox and Rutherford? Maybe.

And the question of to what extent the views on scripture of William Tyndale were different from those of Calvin and Beza is very interesting, and especially so in our era of apostasy and the beginnings of a remnant outside the churches, outside the camp of Hebrews 13: 13, and following the call of Revelation 18: 4 to come out of her..

Tyndale's use of congregation for ekklesia, his translation of II Thessalonians 2: 7 as suggesting the man of sin existed in the churches all along until "it," the takeover by the "man of sin" of the temple of God, which is the believer himself, is taken out of the way, and his use of authority in Romans 13: 1 rather than power points to a following of I Peter 5: 2-4. Tyndale is an inspiration for the remnant of our era, the age of deception.

"Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3. Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
4. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." I Peter 5: 2-4

The Catholic Church - the original Capital C Church - redefined the ekklesia. The doctrine of what the Church is, with its clergy who rule over the beliefs and sometimes the behavior of the church members, was changed as the word used for the assembly of believers began to be called the church. Beza's Calvinist Church was also a Capital C Church, not a little c ekklesia meeting of congregation, following I Peter 5: 2-4.

When Theodore Beza, an early Calvinist, supported the burning of the anti-Trinitarian Michael Servetus (died 1553), he showed his view that the Church should be an organization which rules over its members.. Beza, contrary to I Peter 5: 2-3, had the Calvinist Church rule by constraint and to lord it over the people, contrary to scripture (I Peter 5: 2-3)..

 

[Danoh]

Sheesh, northwye, you're as bad off as the fools you rightly accuse in your post right above this one.

Powers and authorities is the same sense.

"By what power" is the same as asking "by what authority."

All you are doing is proving your own incompetence at your obviously self-appointed task...continually so :chuckle: