"He as God sitteth in the temple of God"

[watching]

Hi ampersand,

I admit that I did not phrase my comments correctly. Here is what I said:

However, what is INCONCEIVABLE is for "theon" to be referring to God specifically. Because, for one thing, "theon" does not even mean God. It can mean: like God, of God, a god, etc., but it definitely does not refer to God specifically. So you are right, it cannot carry out an action. So, my best guess is that the subject must ALWAYS be in the nominative case.

First of all, I admit that I was very wrong to phrase my words in that way, but if you will notice I said "a god" only as the third option.

What I meant is that it cannot refer to God as carrying out the action directly as you are claiming regarding 2Thessalonians 2:4.

I haven't reviewed all of your examples yet to see if any of those are an exception to the rule.

But I wanted to go ahead and reply as soon as I saw your post, because I really did not mean what I said, because obviously I know that Θεὸν is referring to God since it is a form of Θεὸς which means God, but I don't know of any instance where you can use the word Θεὸν when referring to God as carrying out an action.

But I will take a look at all of your examples. And again, I admit that I got carried away and did not explain myself very well. So I apologize for that.

edit: It may not be until tomorrow before I get a chance to look at all of your examples.

[ampersand]

Hi watching, a few observations:

1. Regarding the mood of 'sitteth':
   The mood, number, voice, and tense of a verb ('sitteth' in this case) is not determined by how it is translated but by it's actual form in the original text. The form of sitteth is the infinitive. It doesn't matter how it relates to the definition of the indicative mood. The conjugation dictates that it is a non-finite verb. So even though you pretend it is an issue of computer vs. common sense, it's really not. It's just how the verb is made from its root and its suffix. Therefore, 'sitteth' IS an infinitive in the aorist tense in the active voice, NOT because the BlueLetterBible computer made a mistake, but because of the parsing of the verb. By the way, this site http://gknt.org/cgi-bin/gnt?id=14020418#h also has it in the infinitive. Did both computers mess up?
   
   So to answer your question:
   

   ...So, I ask you, what are you more apt to believe, your common sense, or what the computer says?...

   
   My reply is "neither!" I believe the hard facts of how the verb is actually formed in the Greek text.
   
   It doesn't even matter if the infinitive form 'makes sense' when you translate it into another language. What matters is that it 'made sense' in the original, and it is our job to find out HOW it made sense in the original in its pure form. One has to examine this text with the fact that the verb is an infinitive. It's an objective fact. To be intellectually honest to the text, you have to admit what the form of the verb is and then see how it fits into the rest of the sentence.
   
   
2. Regarding 'theon' carrying out the action:
   One wouldn't necessarily have to find 'theon' performing out an action, but any noun/pronoun in the accusative case. If it's possible for any accusative case noun/pronoun in an adverbial clause to be the subject of the verb, then it would be possible for 'theon' as well, regardless if such a phrase with 'theon' exists.
   
   
3. Regarding 'modern Greek' vs 'Koine Greek' vs 'no Greek'!:
   However, I know I don't have enough knowledge of the ancient Greek to make that determination, so I'm just going to let it go. As they say, "a little Greek is a dangerous thing." It seems we've reached an impasse, because it's impossible for a discussion about an ancient language to progress between two people who know so little about the ancient language. While I respect your knowledge of modern Greek, it has become clear throughout this discussion and from other sources that you can't apply your understanding of today's language to the non-literary common Greek of the Apostolic age.
   
   
4. In conclusion:
   I have provided a 'theory' on the verb 'sitteth' of 2:4, and I have provided the strongest argument against that 'theory.' So I have been fair, balanced, and reasonable. However, the argument against it has not been proven yet in this discussion. (I should stress again that my understanding of 2Thess2 does not rest with that one subject/verb combination in 2:4). So, I'm just going to trust God on this one until He provides alternative understanding.
   
   
5. A request:
   I would be very interested to read about how you see all of the things in 2Thess2 fitting together. I have been able to sort of piece together what you understand about the passage from posts here and there, but I don't want to misunderstand you. So if you could provide some kind of synopsis of how the various elements of the passage (the man of sin/son of perdition, the Apostasy, the revelation of the man of sin, the man of sin's present actions, the coming of the Lord, them that perish, the strong delusion, the destruction of the son of perdition/them that perish, etc...) fit together in your view, I would be extremely interested.

in Christ,
&

[lamb7]

Ampersand,

Fine. Let's say you are on to something. What you need to do now is show what the implications of "your" beliefs are. If the scripture, in fact, means what you think it means...how does that belief affect the souls on this forum? How does it impact or change what we have believed for so long.

Does it help us?
Does it strengthen our walk with our Lord?
Does it help us understand the future Tribulation in a better way spiritually?
Does it require changes in how we are presently living our lives for Jesus?
And is there other scripture that backs up this idea, outside the grammar of the word "sitteth"? (For we all agree, that knowledge of the original language is indeed, helpful, but for the common man...is not necessary, for the Holy Spirit needs no help in His guiding to our Lord's Word.)
Lay it out in laments terms, as many are reading what you write here and if you are determined to become a "teacher" of sorts, then you are being held in a mighty important position and will be judged not only by us, but by God, Himself.


In Christ,
lamb


edit: "judged" in that we are "testing the spirits".

[watching]

Hi ampersand,

To borrow your expression, I agree with you 100%, except for the following comment:

As they say, "a little Greek is a dangerous thing."

Because, as I said before, I may not know all the rules, but having a basic foundation, I think, has helped me to at least get the gist of what is being said. Besides, not being an expert on any particular subject has never stopped me from commenting before. This is, after all, just a discussion forum on the internet, where we are all just basically sharing our views. I don't consider anyone here to be an expert, and I never claimed to be one myself.

Having said that, there are a few things that I had in mind to say before reading your last post.

The most important thing that I want to explain is my perception of the word θεὸν or θεός as opposed to o θεός and what I meant by θεὸν not referring to God specifically.

The best way I can describe it, not knowing all the rules, is that the word θεὸν, as well as θεός are basically nouns, which are first and foremost referring to God, but not necessarily exclusively to the one true God. But the word θεός, when preceded by the article "o" is actually referring to God by name. I think that is probably what is meant by the nominative case, that you mentioned earlier. And that is basically what I meant by saying that it is not referring to God specifically. As you can see, it is very hard to get this thought across because it is a complicated issue.

Another thing that I want to confess, is that I am, in fact, not familiar with the word θεὸν or it's uses because it is basically an extinct word, so I probably should not have commented on it before researching all the facts.

In any case, you may want to pat yourself on the back, because I think with your list of verses which use the word θεὸν in reference to God, that you may have happened upon an exception to your own rule which was the following:

I believe the most powerful argument against my interpretation is the fact that the form of the theos in question - specifically 'theon' - is in the accusative case. I didn't realize this before. I believe that for it to be a subject capable of carrying out an action it would have to be in the nominative case - namely theos - which it isn't. HOWEVER, I currently do not know the rules for subjects of dependent adverbial clauses (which I thought this phrase might be), so I am not sure if they must ALWAYS be in the nominative case or not. Do you know what the rule is? (in Koine Greek, not modern Greek of course)

Anyway, here it is:

Hebrews 6:18
ἵνα διὰ δύο πραγμάτων ἀμεταθέτων ἐν οἷς ἀδύνατον ψεύσασθαι θεόν ἰσχυρὰν παράκλησιν ἔχωμεν οἱ καταφυγόντες κρατῆσαι τῆς προκειμένης ἐλπίδος
That by two immutable things, in which [it was] impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cf ... JV#conc/18

Because, it appears to me that θεὸν, in this case, does appear to be connected with carrying out an action. And the action, btw, happens to be in the aorist tense.

So, it seems to me that you could probably use this example to make your case that what you are proposing may be possible, at least, grammatically. But that still does not take into account the context, which, in my opinion, indicates otherwise.

But, in any case, I'm more than happy to move on from the Greek at this point. But I do want to make one final comment.

In terms of "sitteth" being in the infinitive mood, that may be true as a technicality. But from the way it is worded and the way it sounds, I think, it is generally understood as past tense (at least according to the modern language, because that is how you would say it in the past tense today.) But in any case, I never had a problem with it being a non-finite verb, because my premise all along has been that it is, or it seems to me, anyway, to be a repeatable action.

[lambslave]

The problem you are having is that you are using an inferior manuscript evidence, the TR, used in the KJV. Look at the diffference between the two texts:
the Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, [etc] used in more recent NASB, NIV, RSV
4ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν του̂ θεου̂ καθίσαι ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός.
Black, Matthew ; Martini, Carlo M. ; Metzger, Bruce M. ; Wikgren, Allen: The Greek New Testament. electronic ed. of the 3rd ed. (Corrected). Federal Republic of Germany : United Bible Societies, 1983; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996, S. 2 Th 2:4

the Textus Receptus, KJV
4 ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πα̂ν λεγόμενον Θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν του̂ Θεου̂ ὡς Θεὸν καθίσαι, ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστι Θεός.
Scrivener's 1881 Textus Receptus . electronic ed. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, 1995, S. 2 Th 2:4

This is why verse four in the KJV is a mess. It should say, so as to seat himself in the temple of God. Hoste plus infinitive. lambslave

[watching]

Hi lambslave,

After doing about 5 minutes worth of research, actually, less than 5 minutes, because I am really pressed for time today, (but, as I said before not knowing what I'm talking about has never stopped me from commenting before) it seems to me that the Sinaiticus version is less reliable than the Textus Receptus, because, from what I'm understanding, although the Sinaiticus may have used documents that were dated to be older than the documents used by Textus Receptus, they used documents that were not in agreement with hundreds of other documents that were in agreement. And in fact, allowed those documents that were not in agreement with any other documents to supersede over the documents that were all in agreement with each other. Whereas the Textus Receptus only used documents that were all in agreement with each other.

Furthermore, from what I have read, the Sinaiticus translation also happens to be the one that most newer versions of the Bible are based on. And with this most likely being the age of apostasy in the church, I personally do not trust the newer versions.

But, as I said, I don't know enough about this to debate on it, because I only looked into it for the first time, about 5 minutes ago. In any case, this is all beside the point, because, for one thing, if the Sinaiticus, for the sake of argument did happen to be the most correct version, then that would really blow ampersand's theory out of the water, because it only refers to God once in the clause regarding, "sitteth in the temple."

Here is a word for word translation of the version that you posted:

4ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν του̂ θεου̂ καθίσαι ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός.

4 ὁ (the) ἀντικείμενος (one who opposes) καὶ (and) ὑπεραιρόμενος (is self exalted) ἐπὶ (above) πάντα (everything) λεγόμενον (called ) θεὸν (God) ἢ (or) σέβασμα (worshiped), ὥστε (so that) αὐτὸν (he) εἰς (in) τὸν (the) ναὸν (temple) του̂ (of) θεου̂ (God) καθίσαι (sits/sat - aorist tense) ἀποδεικνύντα (showing) ἑαυτὸν (himself) ὅτι (that) ἔστιν (he is) θεός (God). [/quote]

Also, for it to be translated as "so as to seat himself," it would need to have an extra "ὥστε," because the "ὥστε" that is in there refers to "he" (αὐτὸν).

[ampersand]

Ampersand,

Fine. Let's say you are on to something. What you need to do now is show what the implications of "your" beliefs are. If the scripture, in fact, means what you think it means...how does that belief affect the souls on this forum? How does it impact or change what we have believed for so long.

Does it help us?
Does it strengthen our walk with our Lord?
Does it help us understand the future Tribulation in a better way spiritually?
Does it require changes in how we are presently living our lives for Jesus?

Hello again, lamb7. Those are all extremely good questions. All I can honestly say is that it is not my duty to dictate how God's Word will have its effect. When I read the 2nd chapter of 2 Thessalonians, I see several direct commands from our Father and it is my duty to obey them and to pass them on to others who profess to be His children:

1. 2:4: "Let no man deceive you by any means, for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first.."
   What is it saying? The day of Christ will not come until The Apostasy occurs, so DO NOT BE DECEIVED. I think the one who is deceived NOW will most definitely be deceived THEN and will be a part of The Apostasy.
   
   
2. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle"

These two commands sandwich what I believe to be a description of The Apostasy and who will be part of it and why. So the first explicit directive is to make sure that you and I are not deceived. Not by others and not by ourselves. It is possible to deceive ourselves, and frankly that deception is the one that is most frightening. The second directive tells us HOW it is that we are to make sure we are not deceived.

So, basically, those are the only explicit things that are commanded to you and I. Anything else that God wants to happen in your/my life as a result of this text, He will explain it with His Holy Spirit. I cannot presume upon His task in that.

(For we all agree, that knowledge of the original language is indeed, helpful, but for the common man...is not necessary, for the Holy Spirit needs no help in His guiding to our Lord's Word.)
Lay it out in laments terms, as many are reading what you write here and if you are determined to become a "teacher" of sorts, then you are being held in a mighty important position and will be judged not only by us, but by God, Himself.

Amen on the first part! As for laying it out in laymen's terms: I myself am a layman. I am so far behind the rest of the people on this board that it will take years of studying God's Word to catch up. So I don't know how to state these things other than how I have stated them. My ultimate goal is to be as clear and explicit as possible so that I don't misspeak, that's why sometimes I write so much, lest someone misunderstands and is led astray because of me. That's also why I keep telling you to ask for clarification before assuming something.

I think you may have misunderstood my goal in this thread. On the first page, in my 3rd post, I wrote "Let's learn together!" That's really been my goal all along. I am not trying to teach or force my understanding on anyone. I just don't have anyone in my area to discuss these things with. So I post what I learn, in the order that I learn it, on this board to discuss the Word with others. I'm not teaching. I am, above all, learning.

This is a forum - a place of discussion, where we are all equals.

I want to thank you and watching and others who have been so opposed to my viewpoint. I don't believe that I have an "inside track" to the truth. Thank you immensely for taking part in this discussion! Your counter-opinions help me (and others, I hope) delve deeper into the Word. It helps us study and trust GOD more! Iron truly sharpens iron. Cotton balls don't sharpen iron. So I don't expect everyone to agree with me and make the way soft and smooth. I expect you to question me in light of God's Word. It's hard work to study, and I'm glad for the strong stand some have taken in opposition, because it has really caused me to learn a lot!



I hope we can continue our discussion...

in Christ,
&

[lambslave]

Try again, you may want to spend more than five minutes becoming informed about the differences and their significance. But I will offer this fact. The men and women who have made decisions about teranslations and manuscripts are some of the finest people and saints you will ever meet. The "fact" you stated about the translation is simply in error. See discusssion by A.T. Robertson, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament. One of the foremost authorities on Greek in recent time.
The awkward and place conscious correct translation "so as him in the temple of God to seat"....OR
Cleaned up and corredt...................................... "so as to seat him(self) in the Temple of God..."

" lambslave

[watching]

Hi lambslave,

But I will offer this fact. The men and women who have made decisions about teranslations and manuscripts are some of the finest people and saints you will ever meet. The "fact" you stated about the translation is simply in error.

I don't know anything about the saints involved with any translation and I am not in a position to judge anyone's heart, anyway. So, that fact, in and of itself, is not particularly an issue with me. However, I did give a short explanation of why I feel the TX Receptus is more reliable based on my albeit 5 minute research. Why don't you give me a short explanation of why you feel the Sinaiticus is more reliable, other than by just defending the character of those who came up with the translation?

The awkward and place conscious correct translation "so as him in the temple of God to seat"....OR
Cleaned up and corredt...................................... "so as to seat him(self) in the Temple of God..."

I may not be an expert on the Greek language, by any stretch of the imagination, but I have been speaking Greek all my life. In fact, although I have lived here in the states for most of my life, I actually spoke Greek before I even learned English, and I can tell you for a fact that the word order that you are proposing, not only would sound awkward in the Greek, but it is not even the order of either of the Greek texts in question. So why would anyone take the liberty to change the word for word order which makes sense in both the Greek and the English, in this case, and change it to an order that does not match the order of the original Greek in either of the two texts, just so it can make better sense to them in English, when it would be completely incomprehensible to be worded that way in the Greek?

[lambslave]

watching, ampersand etal, Daniel B. Wallace's, Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics, discussion of pronouns, especially the intensive pronoun is helpful here in 2Thess 2:4 (p.348ff). You would also find of particular interest his discussion, Accusitive Subject of the Infinitive p. 192. Greek syntax and grammar is not as easy as a simple venture into a one semester course in basic Greek. Please, keep digging your zeal is needed. Don't just lay down for any one who says they know the language (like me)! And watching, word order in the Koine can be very challenging. we had a native Greek speaker in my first (five case) Greek class who nearly didn't make it because of of his knowledge. It was hard for him to see. But he got there. So will you. lambslave

[lambslave]

watching, I have some examples of word order problems in the NT. I would be glad to share in private mail if you wish.
P.S. I respect your native ability in modern Greek. One of my very good friends, a professor of New Testament (Greek) at a major University with whom I have often discussed this passage, Dr. Chris Vlachos, realizes the challenges here.
http://www.wheaton.edu/Theology/faculty ... index.html
lambslave

[LONGINGFORHOME]

The problem you are having is that you are using an inferior manuscript evidence, the TR, used in the KJV. Look at the diffference between the two texts:
the Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, [etc] used in more recent NASB, NIV, RSV
4ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν του̂ θεου̂ καθίσαι ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός.
Black, Matthew ; Martini, Carlo M. ; Metzger, Bruce M. ; Wikgren, Allen: The Greek New Testament. electronic ed. of the 3rd ed. (Corrected). Federal Republic of Germany : United Bible Societies, 1983; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996, S. 2 Th 2:4

the Textus Receptus, KJV
4 ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πα̂ν λεγόμενον Θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν του̂ Θεου̂ ὡς Θεὸν καθίσαι, ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστι Θεός.
Scrivener's 1881 Textus Receptus . electronic ed. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, 1995, S. 2 Th 2:4

This is why verse four in the KJV is a mess. It should say, so as to seat himself in the temple of God. Hoste plus infinitive. lambslave

It seems that the sinaiticus is by far the inferior and corrupted text. Unless proven otherwise. Please see link, though I am not a KJV only kinda guy, maybe I should be. http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/codex ... icus.html/

The Sinaiticus was written by three different scribes and was corrected later by several others. (This was the conclusion of an extensive investigation by H.J.M. Milne and T.C. Skeat of the British Museum, which was published in Scribes and Correctors of Codex Sinaiticus, London, 1938.) Tischendorf counted 14,800 corrections in this manuscript (David Brown, The Great Uncials, 2000). Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener, who published A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus in 1864 testified: "The Codex is covered with alterations of an obviously correctional character—brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional, or limited to separate portions of the manuscript, many of these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but for the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century." Thus, it is evident that scribes in bygone centuries did not consider the Sinaiticus to represent a pure text. Why it should be so revered by modern textual critics is a mystery.

A great amount of carelessness is exhibited in the copying and correction. "Codex Sinaiticus 'abounds with errors of the eye and pen to an extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance.' On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament." (John Burgon, The Revision Revised)It is clear that the scribes who copied the Codex Sinaiticus were not faithful men of God who treated the Scriptures with utmost reverence. The total number of words omitted in the Sinaiticus in the Gospels alone is 3,455 compared with the Greek Received Text (Burgon, p. 75).

Mark 16:9-20 is omitted in the Codex Sinaiticus, but it was originally there and has been erased.
Codex Sinaiticus includes the apocryphal books (Esdras, Tobit, Judith, I and IV Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus) plus two heretical writings, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas is filled with heresies and fanciful allegorizing, claiming, for example, that Abraham knew Greek and baptism is necessary for salvation. The Shepherd of Hermas is a gnostic writing that presents the heresy that the "Christ Spirit" came upon Jesus at his baptism.

Lastly, Codex Sinaiticus (along with Codex Vaticanus), exhibits clear gnostic influence. In John 1:18 "the only begotten Son" is changed to "the only begotten God," thus perpetuating the ancient Arian heresy that disassociates the Son Jesus Christ with God Himself by breaking the clear connection between "God" of John 1:1 with "the Son" of John 1:18. We know that God was not begotten; it was the Son who was begotten in the incarnation.



clearly the sinaiticus is heretical and should not be used for any purpose

sorry to hijack and sidetrack, but I cant stand to see garbage promoted


http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/textus_receptus.html/

Why did the early churches of the 2 nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the
15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Texts?

The answer is because of the following:

Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (over 95%) of the 5,300+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.

Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.

Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the Minority Texts (like Vatican and Sinai) favored by the Roman Catholic Church.

Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.

Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.

Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!

[ampersand]

The problem you are having is that you are using an inferior manuscript evidence, the TR, used in the KJV. Look at the diffference between the two texts:
...
This is why verse four in the KJV is a mess. It should say, so as to seat himself in the temple of God. Hoste plus infinitive. lambslave

The two readings in question:

4 ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν του̂ θεου̂ __________καθίσαι ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός.
{UBS}

4 ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πα̂ν__ λεγόμενον Θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν του̂ Θεου̂ ὡς Θεὸν καθίσαι, ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστι Θεός.
{Scrivener TR}

{"____" mine}

The only substantial difference between the two texts is the absence of 'ὡς Θεὸν' ('as God') in the UBS3; I think that the presence of it in the TR is hardly a cause for what you called 'a mess' in the KJV.

Whatever our beliefs on TR vs W/H texts, I think it is obvious that in this verse your real issue is with how αὐτὸν and καθίσαι are translated, not with the actual text in the TR. Is that correct?

in Christ,
&

ps: thanks much for those references you provided. I will take a look.

[lambslave]

ampersand, Quite an ineresting display of general statements and suggestions. I could grow to hate WH if I weren't familiar with some of the obviuos blunders of TR in Revelation (and 1 John and numerous other places) and correct readings preserved in WH. A lot of what we read today comes from repeated cross comparison of older and newer texts, copyist errors when moving from line to line, copyist's instructions about what to do with words written outside the textual line, cultural beliefs about what the text must say, or could not say, inner consistency of the document subject, style, word use. It is not an easy task to chose a reading. The friend I mentioned, Chris Vlchos, at Wheaton, was working together with Douglas Moo on a commentary on James, but Moo had to drop out because of the demands his work on the new NIV. The NIV is not a product of the TR. Douglas Moo, Wheaton College is not a reckless apostate who is trying to produce an updated bible version that denies the power of Jesus blood, the deity of the Lord Jesus, the virgin birth, the creation, or any of the other things I often see included on such attack lists. He is an honorable Christian christian scholar who deserves our respect. And yes my issue in the 2Thes 2:4 passage is the addition of the unnecessary words "as God."
lambslave

[watching]

Ampersand and LS,

Okay, let me try to figure this out.

First of all, if I'm understanding correctly, the purpose of this thread is to try and determine if verse 4 of 2 Thessalonians 2 is, in any way, an indication that there must be a temple on the Temple Mount when the AOD occurs or not. Or at least that's what I'm trying to figure out.

Now here are the supposed facts:

The word translated as "sitteth" is the word "καθισαι" in the Greek.

Apparently, this word is in the aorist tense, and because of it's ending, it is classified as an infinitive.

Here is the definition for an infinitive according to the Blue Letter Bible:

Infinitive
An infinitive is a verbal noun. Neither person nor number are found in the infinitive and it does not have mood designation. It is best translated, "to loose."

http://www.blueletterbible.org/help/greekverbs.cfm#infinitive

By definition, then, "καθισαι " must be a verbal noun, (at least by all appearances, so far, anyway).

However, the word "καθισαι " has not been translated as a verbal noun, by it's use, in the context of 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

The question is:

Is there any possible way to translate 2 Thessalonians 2:4, so that "καθισαι" is understood as a verbal noun in the aorist tense, and not just a verb in the aorist tense, without altering the format or the meaning of the original text?



I don't know if this is possible.

Then the other question is:

If "καθισαι" is, in fact, a verbal noun in the aorist tense, and not just a verb in the aorist tense, what implication does that have in terms of it's meaning?

And if "as God sitteth in the temple of God" is simply a characterization of the man of sin imitating "God sitting in the Temple of God", then how does the rest of the sentence, "[while] showing himself that he is God," fit into this premise.

It doesn't seem to me that this sentence would make any sense that way. Because any time you section of a part of a sentence with commas, the rest of the sentence should still make sense even if you were to remove that part of the sentence.

Here is what 2 Thessalonians 2:4 would sound like if we removed that part of the sentence:

But first, here is the verse in it's entirety:

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 (King James Version)

3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Now, here is what the sentence would sound like if you were to remove "as God sitteth in the temple of God":

3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

As I said before, I'm not an expert in grammar, but it seems to me that "shewing himself that he is God," would have to apply to a verb somewhere.

See the dilemma?

I haven't read lambslaves post yet. It seems someone is always posting while I'm in the process of composing my post.

[lambslave]

ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν του̂ θεου̂ καθίσαι ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός. Black, Matthew ; Martini, Carlo M. ; Metzger, Bruce M. ; Wikgren, Allen: The Greek New Testament. electronic ed. of the 3rd ed. (Corrected). Federal Republic of Germany : United Bible Societies, 1983; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996, S. 2 Th 2:4

With attention to the underlined text above:
"so as to seat himself in the temple of God displaying himself that he is God"

Does this help? lambslave

[Mrs. B]

He as God sitteth in the temple of God.....




John 6:69.....And we Believe and are sure that thou Art That Christ, the Son of the Living God.....

70.....Jesus answered them, Have Not I chosen you twelve,....and one of you is a Devil?

St. John 13:27...And after the sop Satan ENTERED INTO HIM...

The son of Perdition


Jesus prayer....

John 17:11....And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, And I come to thee.
Holy Father....Keep through thine own Name those whom thou hast given me...that they may be One,
as we are...
12....While I was with them in the world, I Kept them in thy name:
those that thou gavest me I have kept, and NONE of them is lost,
But the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.


II Thess. 2:3....Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come,
Except there come a Falling away first,
and that Man of Sin Be Revealed, The son of Perdition;
4....Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God,
or that is Worshipped;
so that he as God sitteth in the Temple (the body of Christ) of God, shewing himself that he is God....

3....Let No Man deceive you by any means:

The falling away.....let no man deceive you by any means:
Jesus said...If it were possible even the very elect would be deceived.....

This spirit, antichrist spirit is in the church today.....
deceiving if possible the very elect...


5....Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

6....And now ye know what with holdeth that he might be Revealed in his time...
7...For the Mystery of iniquity doth already work:
Only he who now letteth will let...until he be taken out of the way...

I John 2:18...Little Children, it is the last time:
and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come,
Even now there MANY Antichrists;
whereby we know that it is the last time...

19...They went Out from Us...
but they were not of us;
for if they had been of us,
they would no doubt have continued with us:
but they went out,
that they Might be Made Manifest that they were not all of us....

Antichrist...are in the Church....The body of Christ.....The Temple...in the body of the believer
they went out from us...the antichrist spirit.....the spirit against Christ...

But ye have an Unction from the Holy One, and Ye know all things....

I John 2:27.....But the Anointing which ye have received of Him Abideth in you,
and ye need not that any man teach you:
But as the Same Anointing teacheth you of all things, and is Truth, and is No lie,
and Even as it hath taught you,
Ye shall Abide in Him....

28....And now, Little Children, Abide in Him; that when He shall appear, we may have confidence,
and not be ashamed before Him at His Coming....


Satan seated in the Temple....the body of Christ....deceiving if possible the very elect.....
Jesus warned us....not to be deceived....


Mrs. B

[Shelby]

I'm simply keeping my mind open regarding the temple of God realizing that the New Testament teaches that the body of Christ is God's Temple.

[watching]

ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν του̂ θεου̂ καθίσαι ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός. Black, Matthew ; Martini, Carlo M. ; Metzger, Bruce M. ; Wikgren, Allen: The Greek New Testament. electronic ed. of the 3rd ed. (Corrected). Federal Republic of Germany : United Bible Societies, 1983; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996, S. 2 Th 2:4

With attention to the underlined text above:
"so as to seat himself in the temple of God displaying himself that he is God"

Does this help? lambslave

No, this doesn't really help, lambslave, because for it to say what you are saying it says, you would have to completely rearrange the original text.

For it to say what you are saying it says, here is how the words would have been arranged in the original text:

ὥστε καθίσαι αυτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν του̂ θεου̂ ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός

ὥστε (so that) καθίσαι (to sit -- aorist tense) αυτὸν (he) εἰς τὸν ναὸν του̂ θεου̂ (in the temple of God) ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός (showing himself that he is God)

Actually after looking at it this way (I'm typing this as I go along), this really does not impact the meaning whatsoever. Because "so that he in the temple of God sat (aorist tense) showing himself that he is God"(ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν του̂ θεου̂ καθίσαι ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός.) is interchangeable in the Greek, (according to my understanding), with "so that sat (aorist tense) he in the temple of God showing himself that he is God."ὥστε καθίσαι αυτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν του̂ θεου̂ ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός. Because in the Greek you can put the pronoun after the verb and it still makes sense.

This does not alter the meaning at all, from the way I am understanding it.

Besides that, what you are proposing still has the word translated as "sitteth" being used as verb, not a verbal noun.

Am I missing something?

[lambslave]

Here is what I have said 4the passage says;
1. "so AS to seat himself in the temple of God..." NOT 2."so THAT he seats himself in the temple of God...."
Number 1 honors the infinitive since of the infinitive, Number 2 does not.
Number 1 by honoring the infinitive mood following its use with hoste amounts to, or is the same as saying "the effect of his action is to take the place of God...."
Number 2 by substituting the idicative mood suggests his action results in a new action.

It is the same in Engish as saying "he ate so much that he became as large as a pig vs, he ate so much that he then became a pig.
lambslave

I have nowhere argued for a verbal noun here. That was someone else. As for the aorist tense my translation does no damage to the point action of aorist in this particular context. Am I clear yet?
lambslave

[watching]

ampersand, lambslave, et al, (lambslave, I was already working on this post before I saw your post)

I was just thinking about this verse this morning, and speaking of Greek, I think I may have had a eureka moment.

Let me explain, but first here is the verse again:

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 (King James Version)

3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Now here it is in the Greek:

ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ Β΄ 2:3-4 (1550 Stephanus New Testament)

3μη τις υμας εξαπατηση κατα μηδενα τροπον οτι εαν μη ελθη η αποστασια πρωτον και αποκαλυφθη ο ανθρωπος της αμαρτιας ο υιος της απωλειας

4ο αντικειμενος και υπεραιρομενος επι παντα λεγομενον θεον η σεβασμα ωστε αυτον εις τον ναον του θεου ως θεον καθισαι αποδεικνυντα εαυτον οτι εστιν θεος

But, first, let me explain that "ωστε" the word translated as (so that), actually really means, "soooooooooooo that". It also means, "insomuch that". See the Blue Letter Bible definition: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5620&t=KJV

Now if you recall, "καθισαι" (the word translated as sitteth) is in the aorist tense and is an infinitive, that means that it is a verbal noun, by definition. And the dilemma is, how can one translate this verse to express "sitteth" as a verbal noun and not just a verb.

I think I may have come up with an answer. As I said before, "ωστε" does not just mean: "so that." It actually means, "sooooooooooo that" or "insomuch that." edit: It can also mean "sooooooooooo as" or "insomuch as" (as lambslave pointed out).



Now look at verse 4 again. Here is a word for word translation:


4 ο(the) αντικειμενος (opposing one) και (and) υπεραιρομενος (self exalted one) επι (above) παντα (everything) λεγομενον (called) θεον (God) η (or) σεβασμα (an object of worship) ωστε ("sooooooooo that" or "soooooooooo as"/insomuch that or "insomuch as" --- in other words, meaning that, he would go so far as) αυτον (he) εις (in) τον (the) ναον (temple) του (of) θεου (God) ως (as) θεον (God) καθισαι (to sit) αποδεικνυντα (showing) εαυτον (himself) οτι (that) εστιν (he is) θεος (God)



In light of the above, here is how I, personally, would translate it, to best get this meaning across:


verse 4:

the one who opposes and the one who is self exalted above everything that is called God or that is to be worshiped, so that he would go so far as, in the temple of God, as God, to sit, showing himself that he is God.




I was also going to type in my conclusion at this point, but since I see that lambslave has posted I will end my post here and leave my conclusion for anther time.

edited for clarity, hopefully

[watching]

lambslave,

Do you see the difference between your translation and my translation?

In your translation "to seat" is still a verb. It also has a slightly different meaning, because "to seat" and the expression "to sit" are two different things, with two completely different meanings, when you think about it. Also for your translation to work, the original text would have had to have been in a different order.

Do you see what I'm saying?

edit

[lambslave]

No.

[watching]

lambslave,

First of all, let me say that , I appreciate the fact that you and ampersand helped me to realize that the word translated as "sitteth" in the KJV is in the aortist tense & infinitive mood. I didn't know what either of those terms meant before this thread.

And now that I do, I realize that you were on the right track to question the King James translation in this case.

However, now that I know what those terms mean, I don't think the translation that you suggested completely satisfies the meaning of the word that has been translated as "sitteth." Because here is your translation:

"so as to seat himself in the temple of God displaying himself that he is God"

To me, this translation implies a future sitting, or should I say seating. And the word that was translated as "sitteth" is still being used as a verb in this case. So it really does not impact edit: or differ from, the meaning that comes across from reading the KJV other than the fact that instead of implying a sitting in the present tense, it seems to imply a seating in the future tense. So, I do not see any other difference in the translation that you gave from the one that is in the KJV.

However, through this discussion, I have come to realize that the word in question (translated as sitteth) is actually not a verb at all, but a verbal noun. And incorporating the phrase "to sit" rather than "to seat himself," I think, would more accurately translate this condition, because "to sit" does not make any implication in terms of past, present, or future.

Now do you see the difference?

edit: I just wanted to say that I did not mean to knock the KJV, in any way, by my comments. Because I think they did the best anyone could do to convey the meaning of the passage without having to add anything or take anything away from the scripture, and without having to teach everyone Koine Greek so that anyone reading the passage could fully understand it. And although I do not think that the KJV is perfect, I still trust it more than any other version.

Just wanted to make position on that clear, fwiw.

[ampersand]

...
First of all, let me say that , I appreciate the fact that you and ampersand helped me to realize that the word translated as "sitteth" in the KJV is in the aortist tense & infinitive mood. I didn't know what either of those terms meant before this thread.
...

Hi there, watching! I just want to say that I just recently learned those things as well. I knew nothing about this text before starting this thread, so everything I've learned about it has been a result of this discussion. That's why, for me at least, this forum is so great.

in Christ,
&

ps: I'm still working through the recent posts.

[Mrs. B]

He as God sitteth in the temple of God.......

Thank you Watching and Ampersand.........You made it sound so easy....
and I thank you....and in it sounds just like I believe......

Mrs. B

[watching]

lambslave,

I just want to say that you were right, in that "ωστε" (so as) does compliment "καθισαι" (to sit). I can definitely see that now.

The problem that I have with your translation, however, is that you translated it as "so as to seat himself" and not as "so as to sit" (which I think would be the more correct translation).

It doesn't matter if there are other thoughts or details given in between, just as it doesn't matter when we do that in English.

So, bearing in mind that "ωστε" means "insomuch as," here is how the translation would read word for word:

ο the αντικειμενος one who opposes και and υπεραιρομενος is self exalted επι above παντα everything λεγομενον called θεον God η or σεβασμα is worshipped ωστε so as αυτον he εις in τον the ναον temple του of θεου God ως as θεον God καθισαι to sit αποδεικνυνταshowing εαυτον himself οτι that εστιν he is θεος God

Now here it is just in English and with some commas to help it make more sense:


the one who opposes and is self exalted above everything called God or is worshiped, so as, he, in the temple of God, as God, to sit, showing himself that he is God


Just wanted to clarify.

[ampersand]

Watching, I think lambslave is getting the 'himself' in "so as to sit himself" from 'αυτον' which you translate as 'he.'

You are translating 'αυτον' into the nominative case as the subject of 'to sit". Lambslave is translating it in the accusative case as the object of 'to sit'.

It's like the second 'εαυτον' which is translated 'himself' -- so I think LS is trying to point out that that both structures are the same:

'showing himself'
'to sit himself'



Is that right, LS? I'm just trying to understand both of you.


in Christ,
&

[watching]

Hi ampersand,

You are translating 'αυτον' into the nominative case as the subject of 'to sit".

Sorry, my mistake.

Actually, I thought about whether it should be translated as "he" or "him" when I was doing my translation, but I wasn't sure. So I chose to leave it as "he" since that's how it was translated in the KJV, and also because it would have been even more difficult to understand my translation if I had translated it as "him," which I agree is probably how I should have translated it. So, I think you are right about that. Btw, you seem to be picking up on a lot, in terms of Koine Greek. I would be interested to know where you are getting your information from.

I'm not, however, sure if "αυτον" can be translated as "himself," because the word for "himself" would be the word "εαυτον" in the Greek, as you have pointed out. But that is not the issue with me. And I'm not sure how to explain the issue that I have with lambslaves translation, besides the fact that it rearranges the the word order, which I realize sometimes is necessary. But, it also seems to convey a slightly different meaning.

And what I am trying to do, now that I realize that "καθισαι" is an infinitive, which I have you and lambslave to thank for that, btw, is to properly use it in a sentence so that the concept of the fact that "καθισαι" is a verbal noun and not a verb is self evident. I'm not sure if lambslave's translation conveys that fact or not. I'm still trying to figure it out. I was never very good with grammar.

[ampersand]

Hi ampersand,

You are translating 'αυτον' into the nominative case as the subject of 'to sit".

Sorry, my mistake.
...

Watching, I'm actually not sure that you made a mistake. At this point, I don't know who is right and who is wrong. I was just trying to understand the differences between how you and lambslave translated the verse. I guess we'll have to wait for LS to confirm/explain what he means and how he came to that conclusion.

It seems that the only commonality among the four of us (Mrs. B, lambslave, you and me) is that we understand it to not actually mean a literal sitting in the temple of God (I think I might emphasize 'of God' in that phrase for the rest of my life ), but more of an 'extent' of the man of sin's opposition to 'everything called God or object of worship." That's what it seems like to me. Feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood any of you.
...

Also, I want to point out one other thing: I'm not certain that 'to sit' HAS to be a verbal noun. I never argued for its use as a noun in this sentence. I just wanted to make sure that we understood that it was an infinitive, not in the indicative mood.

From my research, it appears that an infinitive can be used in two major ways:

1. As a substantive, i.e. a noun.
2. As an adverb - showing why/how/etc of a verb.

{You may want to take a look at this handy reference for more info. The information contained therein is from Wallace's book which lambslave recommended earlier: http://www.ntgreek.org/pdf/infinitive_uses.pdf}

A couple of examples:

1. I want to live.
   Here "to live" is a noun and is the direct object of the verb 'want'. I want whom/what? I want "to live."
2. I eat to live.
   Here "to live" is not a noun, but it is still an infinitive. If it was a noun, I would be eating it. Here 'to live' gives extra information about the verb 'eat'. I eat. Why? I eat "to live." The infinitive shows the purpose of the verb. In this case it is used in an adverbial sense (i.e. modifying the verb).

{Not sure those are the best examples, but they are the first ones that came to mind. }

Hope this helps somehow.

in Christ,
&



edit: improved the 1st example

[ampersand]

Ok, so I was re-reading some of the posts, and it looks like lambslave already addressed this issue of "him" (αυτον) in an earlier post:

...
The awkward and place conscious correct translation "so as him in the temple of God to seat"....OR
Cleaned up and corredt...................................... "so as to seat him(self) in the Temple of God..."

" lambslave

He was also clear enough to put 'self' in parentheses to indicate that "himself" is not the direct translation from the Greek. Sorry for not seeing that earlier, LS! I think I am beginning to understand your point a little better now...


in Christ,
&

[watching]

Hi ampersand,

Also, I want to point out one other thing: I'm not certain that 'to sit' HAS to be a verbal noun. I never argued for its use as a noun in this sentence. I just wanted to make sure that we understood that it was an infinitive, not in the indicative mood.

From my research, it appears that an infinitive can be used in two major ways:

1. As a substantive, i.e. a noun.
2. As an adverb - showing why/how/etc of a verb.

{You may want to take a look at this handy reference for more info. The information contained therein is from Wallace's book which lambslave recommended earlier: http://www.ntgreek.org/pdf/infinitive_uses.pdf}

A couple of examples:

1. I want to live.
Here "to live" is a noun and is the direct object of the verb 'want'. I want whom/what? I want "to live."
2. I eat to live.
Here "to live" is not a noun, but it is still an infinitive. If it was a noun, I would be eating it. Here 'to live' gives extra information about the verb 'eat'. I eat. Why? I eat "to live." The infinitive shows the purpose of the verb. In this case it is used in an adverbial sense (i.e. modifying the verb).

It seems to me that "καθισαι" would have to be a verbal noun, because I don't see any other verb that it would be describing.

Do you?

Here are the verses again:

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 (King James Version)

3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

From the way I'm understanding the verse, "shewing himself that he is God" is modifying "καθισαι" (to sit), there is no other verb, as far as I can see for "καθισαι" to be modifying. In fact, the entire phrase, "so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God" has been sectioned off by a semicolon. So, there shouldn't be any confusion as to whether these two phrases compliment each other, imo.

Ok, so I was re-reading some of the posts, and it looks like lambslave already addressed this issue of "him" (αυτον) in an earlier post:

lambslave wrote:...
The awkward and place conscious correct translation "so as him in the temple of God to seat"....OR
Cleaned up and corredt...................................... "so as to seat him(self) in the Temple of God..."

I think lambslave was right to substitute "him" for "αυτον," since that is what "αυτον" means, and it is in the accusative form, as you say. But "himself" would be an entirely different word, just as it is in English. So, I, personally, would not take the liberty to make that change. I also would not take the liberty to change the word order. Because, in this case, I think changing the word order, might have the effect of changing the meaning. I realize that sometimes a sentence is not impacted when the word order is changed. But then again, in some cases it is. And I think that in this case it might impact the meaning.

But I don't mean to criticize lambslave's translation. In fact, now that I have become familiar with the terms "aorist" and "infinitive," I am beginning to see his point as well. Sometimes I have to see something for myself before I can understand it.

However, I still think his translation is a little off. As I said before, I think it conveys a slightly different meaning, than what may have been intended.

Here is how I think I would translate the verse at this point. But first let me explain that I think there has to be at least one small change for verse 4 of the original text to make sense in the English. And that would be to add one small preposition. So I will put it in brackets.

"Who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so as [for] him, in the temple of God, as God, to sit, showing himself that he is God.

I think this honors the infinitive form of "καθισαι" as lambslave pointed out it should do. And it also honors the accusative form of "he" which would be "αυτον" (him) as both you and lambslave have pointed out. And I like the fact that this translation does not change the word order, but still makes sense, to me, in the English. The only change, however, was to add the preposition "for," which I think was required in order for it to make sense in the English.

What do you think?

It seems that the only commonality among the four of us (Mrs. B, lambslave, you and me) is that we understand it to not actually mean a literal sitting in the temple of God (I think I might emphasize 'of God' in that phrase for the rest of my life ), but more of an 'extent' of the man of sin's opposition to 'everything called God or object of worship."

I agree, I think this particular verse seems to be in the context of describing the "man of sin" and to what level he is liable to exalt himself.

I also agree, that I don't think this verse can be used to prove a literal, humanly built Jewish temple on the Temple Mount at the time of the AOD. But, I also do not think this verse, disproves that possibility either.

I'm not sure exactly what will take place at the time of the AOD. But I most certainly believe it will be something we can see with our eyes, because here is what the Lord said in Matthew 24:

Matthew 24:15-16 (King James Version)

15When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

16Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

emphasis added mine

[Abiding in His Word]

I'm not sure exactly what will take place at the time of the AOD. But I most certainly believe it will be something we can see with our eyes, because here is what the Lord said in Matthew 24:

Good point, watching!

[Hisown]

I'm not sure exactly what will take place at the time of the AOD. But I most certainly believe it will be something we can see with our eyes, because here is what the Lord said in Matthew 24:

Good point, watching!

guys!


And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Luke 21 :20

I must confess I've only just now had the opportunity to read this discussion and believe the Lord has used this to affirm a few nagging quesitons I asked of Him a few days ago.I e-logged the scriptures I needed Him to affirm and have been overwhelmed of how these were confirmed.

Yesterday I believe I just got my answer for Matt 24:4- Eph 5: 6- Col 2: 8, 18 - 2 Thess 2:3 - 1John 4:1( the scriptures the Holy Spirit laid on my heart) when I inquired of Him to show me my struggle with 2 Thess 2 /the " building of a 3rd temple and the possibility of us being in the 70th week already.It was clear - let no man DECEIVE you with church taught doctrines and man made PHILOSOPHIES.

This thread has been a huge blessing thank-you all for the depth and searching out of God's word.

[Wickus]

Agreed Hisown. Here is the Scriptures regarding the AoD:

The original prophecy

Dan 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Jesus explaining the prophecy

Mat 24:15-16 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Mar 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

The AoD according to Jesus

Luk 21:20-21 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains;

It is very interesting that Luke does not include the words "let the reader understand". I think the answer to the AoD might just be in Luke's version; Jerusalem (holy place) surrounded by armies.

[lambslave]

Sorry I've been slow to respond. I must admit that when it comes to translating autov and eautov it is easy to come up with a lot of variations. That is why I referred to Beyond The Basics and Robertson. I spent over a year of my life in intense study of just TO KATEXOV in preparation to write my commentary on Revelation. I wrote to and visited and called a good number of recognized scholars to get some depth on the meanings in some of these key passages and I must say I still believe that bouncing our questions off of the Lord, being delient in study of those who have researched, and then just meditating on the passage in question, thinking about the whole context, admitting what you don't know, and then having confidence that the Lord just might bring something that has been buried for a while back into view has really been rewarding. This I can promise you, the harder you work, and the more you learn, the fewer people you'll find who agree with you. But the sense of nearness and worship of God will abound. I no longer want to win an argument. I simply want to share truth, so that others can appreciate the rich beauty of the wonderful God we worship. We are made in His image. What an excellent gift. When I look at the book of Revelation of 2Thess or Matt 24, now I see passages where our God is revealing the details of His program to defeat false worship and bring us into fellowship with the God who is our Creator (Rev 4), Redeemer(Rev 5), Provider (Rev 6), King (Rev 11), Sanctifier (Rev 14), Righteous Saviour of ALL Nations (Rev 15), The Just One, who rejects the rejects the harlot and marries His Church (Rev 19). I believe Revelation 5:6 to be the most profound verse in the Bible, stating more about God and His rule over His creation than all else. I'll get back on track next time. Thanks, lambslave.

[watching]

Hi lambslave,

It's good to hear from you. I was wondering if you were reading our posts.

I no longer want to win an argument. I simply want to share truth, so that others can appreciate the rich beauty of the wonderful God we worship.

I agree.


and

[watching]

Hi Wickus,

Matthew 24:15-16 (King James Version)

15When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

16Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

I think the Lord may have been referring to Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11.

Btw, here is what comes up on Bible Gateway when you do a search in the KJV of the words "abomination" and "desolate."

I will highlight the differences and let you draw your own conclusion.

Search for abomination desolate in Topical Index | Dictionary
Display : Sort by

1. Ezekiel 33:29
Then shall they know that I am the LORD, when I have laid the land most desolate because of all their abominations which they have committed.

2. Daniel 9:27
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

3. Daniel 11:31
And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

4. Daniel 12:11
And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

You may want to notice whose abomination (singular) makes desolate, and who makes desolate because of abominations (plural).

[Wickus]

Interesting, thanks Watching.

My cross reference Bible does link all 3 verses in Dan to Matt 24. I just used the Dan 9:27 one because it tells us when to expect the AoD (middle of the week). I think it will be difficult to say exactly what verse was in the mind of Jesus when He quoted Daniel.

I am trying to get a name (Antioch or something) who slaughtered the pig in the temple. This was also a type of an AoD. I also believe that there were many types of abominations that makes desolate, but there will only be one in the middle of a 7 year treaty with many. That will be the one that Jesus referred to.

[watching]

Hi Wickus,

I am trying to get a name (Antioch or something) who slaughtered the pig in the temple. This was also a type of an AoD.

That would be Antiochus Epiphanes. And Daniel 11 does appear to be a description of occurrences leading up to and following that event. However, the scripture seems to have future application, as well, as you suggest, especially from verse 29 onward.

Daniel 11:29-45 (King James Version)

29At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.

30For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

31And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

32And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.

33And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.

34Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.

35And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.

36And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

37Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

38But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

39Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.

40And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

41He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.

42He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.

43But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

44But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.

45And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

emphasis added mine


As for Daniel 9:27, it has been presumed to be referring to the anti-Christ because it has similar language, in that it mentions the words "abominations" and "desolate."

It has also been presumed that the confirming of the covenant for one seven, (which would be one of the seventy sevens of the prophecy), is referring to a seven year "treaty" of some sort made by the anti-Christ.

But as I said, those are the presumptions that have been made.

Here is what the text actually says in context:

Daniel 9:24-27 (King James Version)

24Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

25Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

27And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

In any case, the point that I was trying to make is that the Lord mentioned an abomination (singular), as does Daniel 11, and Daniel 12.

However Daniel 9 mentions abominations (plural). So, to me, this does not appear to be a match.

I just wanted to point that out.

I also believe that there were many types of abominations that makes desolate, but there will only be one in the middle of a 7 year treaty with many. That will be the one that Jesus referred to.

I would also like to point out that Jesus never refered to a "seven year treaty."



(It may sound like I'm trying to start another debate, but I really am not. I feel like I've been in enough debates already. But I did just want to, at least, point these two things out fwiw.)

I'm done now.

[lambslave]

Watching, I must say, my research into the reading of Daniel 9:27b causes me to favor those translations which see a different one who comes and makes desolate such as the NAS and others. It took a while, but I just don't buy the KJV of verse 27 any more. it does not agree with the Aramic (and believe me I am very weak in Aramaic). lambslave

[watching]

Hi lambslave,

I don't want to derail this thread, but I'm just curious. What do you mean by the Aramaic? Wasn't Daniel 9 written in Hebrew?

[ampersand]

Greetings, watching!

...
I don't want to derail this thread...
...

...sure you don't, that's why the last several posts were about the AoD... {no worries, I'm kidding}
Anyway, I hope you don't mind if I come back to the topic for a little while:

...
It seems to me that "καθισαι" would have to be a verbal noun, because I don't see any other verb that it would be describing.

Do you?
...

I do, but more on that later...

...
I, personally, would not take the liberty to make that change. I also would not take the liberty to change the word order.
...
However, I still think his translation is a little off. As I said before, I think it conveys a slightly different meaning, than what may have been intended.
...
But first let me explain that I think there has to be at least one small change for verse 4 of the original text to make sense in the English. And that would be to add one small preposition.
...

I think there is quite a difference between changing the word order and adding a "small preposition." See, the English/American language is based in large part on word order. Koine Greek isn't. In order to demonstrate the relationships between certain words in the Greek, changing the word order is often necessary in the English. In fact, it was quite surprising to me how many Greek phrases in the Bible have been rearranged in the translations in order for the English/American mind to understand it. That is the work of translation. In short, I do not see how lambslave's changing the word order at all affects the meaning of the passage. To you apparently, it does. Could you try to put into words what the exact difference is in the placement of the prepositional phrase "in the temple of God" and "auton" between the two translations.

To answer your question about your translation:

What do you think?

1. I don't understand what the addition of the preposition 'for' does to enhance the meaning of the passage.
2. "To sit" is still an adverb (infinitive or result, see below) in your translation, even though you adamantly write that it should be a verbal noun. There is no way that I see to make this a verbal noun...that's why you haven't been able to do so.
...

Now, back to your first question. While that reference chart I linked earlier about infinitives is not a replacement for studying Greek in a formal way, I think there is quite a bit of info in it to work with. Specifically, hoste+infinitive is a common way for an "infinitive of result" to be structured. So I am warming quite nicely to lambslave's translation, and I cannot see how this sentence could be understood any other way. The infinitive "to sit" along with "so as" is modifying the verbs "opposing" and "exalting." It is acting as an adverb not a noun. It is an infinitive of result that shows the effect of the preceding action(s). It may also be an "infinitive of purpose," meaning that the subject (man of sin/son of perdition) may intentionally be doing the preceding actions (opposing & exalting) so as "to sit" in the temple of God. Whether it is an infinitive of purpose or an infinitive of result, the RESULT or EFFECT of the actions is the same. No words need to be added or taken away to support this understanding. It's right there in the language:

"opposing and exalting...so as....to sit"

Now I repeat: I am not a Greek scholar, but I have spent a significant chunk of my time trying to learn it recently. I am not pretending to be teaching Greek here, because I am still learning. So it is everyone's duty to verify these things for themselves. However, with what I have learned so far I am fully on-board with lambslave's translation. So, I need to first say that my previous explanation wherein "God" was the subject of "to sit" was INCORRECT. It made perfect sense in the English, but I see now that it is not strongly substantiated by the Greek.

In short, here I will restate what the man of sin is doing:

He is opposing (active) and indirectly (passive voice) is being exalted above everything called God or object of worship. The effect: so as {in the temple of God} {as God} to sit himself shewing himself that he is God.

Whether you put {in the temple of God} {as God} before or after "to sit" does not impact the meaning. Both are still adverbial phrases modifying "to sit."

This is not a statement that says the man of sin actually sits in the temple of God. Not at all. By opposing and self-exalting, the effect is as if to sit in the temple of God as God. God sits in His heavenly temple and by opposition and self-exaltation (not overt direct 'claims of deity' as is often suggested, but by opposing and exalting), the man of sin seemingly or effectively places himself in God's seat, so as to sit in the temple of God.


I wrote of this in one of my earlier posts on page 2, but now I see how it is supported by the grammar:

...
[*] I realized that a lot of present tense verbs were used (some are "descriptive" as Watching said earlier). These give a characterization of the man of sin. In addition, all are linked in a "causative" manner; meaning, there is a logical sequence of thought whereby the next statement is implied by the preceding statement:

1. The man of sin "opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God."
   His character is specified by rebellion against God and self-promotion above God. These are really referring to the same thing: there cannot be a rebellion against some entity without an implicit or explicit promotion of the rebel above the "rebelee" (the entity being rebelled against).
   But how does the man of sin exalt himself above God? By not believing the Truth and by obeying not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (1:8,2:10,2:12). By rejecting God, the man of sin exalts himself above God.
2. By the preceding (by exalting himself above God), the man of sin as "God sitteth in the temple of God." In what capacity does God "sit in the temple of God?" He always sits in His temple as God. That means that He is above all in every way. Whether that temple is the body of the believer, the body of Jesus Christ, or the heavenly temple, all are equal "temples of God" because of God's presence. But by self-exaltation, by self-promotion above God, the man of sin does something that would seemingly "eliminate" the true God, and make him (the man of sin) to be as God, so as to seat himself as God in the temple of God (as lambslave pointed out earlier).
3. By the preceding (by being as "God sitteth in the temple of God"), the man of sin shows "himself that he is 'God'." Since God is above everything, if the man of sin promotes himself above God, he effectively proclaims himself to be 'God'.

...

lambslave also pointed out the EFFECT of the man of sin's actions in an earlier post:

Here is what I have said 4the passage says;
1. "so AS to seat himself in the temple of God..." NOT 2."so THAT he seats himself in the temple of God...."
Number 1 honors the infinitive since of the infinitive, Number 2 does not.
Number 1 by honoring the infinitive mood following its use with hoste amounts to, or is the same as saying "the effect of his action is to take the place of God...."
...

As I wrote above, I am now entirely on-board with lambslave's translation. I just needed to work through the grammar myself.

in Christ,
&

[watching]

I think there is quite a difference between changing the word order and adding a "small preposition."

I only put the preposition in so it would make sense in the English. You could leave it out and it still makes sense.

ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ Β΄ 2:4 (1550 Stephanus New Testament)

4ο αντικειμενος και υπεραιρομενος επι παντα λεγομενον θεον η σεβασμα ωστε αυτον εις τον ναον του θεου ως θεον καθισαι αποδεικνυντα εαυτον οτι εστιν θεος

ο the αντικειμενος one who opposes και and υπεραιρομενος one who is self exalted επι above παντα everything λεγομενον called θεον God η or σεβασμα object of worship ωστε so as αυτον him εις in τον the ναον temple του of θεου God ως as θεον God καθισαι to sit αποδεικνυντα showing εαυτον himself οτι that εστιν he is θεος God

So here is the literal word for word translation without out any words added and without any changes to the word order:

The opposing one and one who is self exalted above everything called God or that is worshiped so as him in the temple of God as God to sit showing himself that he is God.

The infinitive "to sit" along with "so as" is modifying the verbs "opposing" and "exalting."

ο the αντικειμενος one who opposes

and

υπεραιρομενος one who is self exalted

are not verbs.

Verbs are not preceded by the article "ο" the

edit: I've looked into this a little bit since I first typed this post and I believe the above words are considered to be participles (that means having both the properties of a verb and a noun). And although they are being used in an adjectival sense, I guess they still count as verbs when being modified by an adverbial infinitive.

So, I need to first say that my previous explanation wherein "God" was the subject of "to sit" was INCORRECT. It made perfect sense in the English, but I see now that it is not strongly substantiated by the Greek.

I'm glad you see that now.


edit: I don't know if there is effectively any difference between lambslave's translation and the word for word translation.

I'm just glad that I finally figured out what the word for word translation is and how the word "καθισαι" fits in.

Oh, and thanks to both of you for helping me to see that.

[lambslave]

Concerning Daniel 9. It is written in Hebrew. I wLanguages. The Book of Daniel is unusual in that it is written in two languages: 1:1-2:4a and chapters 8-12 are in Hebrew, and 2:4b-7:28 is in Aramaic, the lingua franca of the prophet’s day. Hebrew was the language of God’s covenant people Israel, and Aramaic was the language of the Gentile world.
Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-). Vol. 1: The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (1324). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.as thinking of a Daniel 7 passage.

Thanks for catching my mistake. The second one this week!

However. I still have the same conclusion regarding 9:27b!
lambslave

[watching]

Hi ampersand,

I just looked at the chart and I see what you mean about it being an infinitive of result rather than a substantive infinitive. But I'm just wondering can the same word sometimes be used as a verbal noun (substantive infinitive) and at other times be used as an adverb (infinitive of result, etc.)?

[ampersand]

Hi ampersand,

I just looked at the chart and I see what you mean about it being an infinitive of result rather than a substantive infinitive. But I'm just wondering can the same word sometimes be used as a verbal noun (substantive infinitive) and at other times be used as an adverb (infinitive of result, etc.)?

It certainly can be used in different ways. Let's quickly take a look at how this particular inflection of kathizo is used in the GNT. There are 6 instances; 3 substantive uses and 3 adverbial uses (as I see it):


I. Substantive uses:

1. Matthew 20:23
   καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς Τὸ μὲν ποτήριόν μου πίεσθε καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθήσεσθε Τὸ δὲ καθίσαι ἐκ δεξιῶν μου καὶ ἐξ εὐωνύμων μου οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμὸν δοῦναι ἀλλ᾽ οἷς ἡτοίμασται ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός μου
   
   And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared of my Father.
   
   
2. Mark 10:40
   τὸ δὲ καθίσαι ἐκ δεξιῶν μου καὶ ἐξ εὐωνύμων μου οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμὸν δοῦναι ἀλλ᾽ οἷς ἡτοίμασται
   
   But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared.
   
   
3. Revelation 3:21
   ὁ νικῶν δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ μου ὡς κἀγὼ ἐνίκησα καὶ ἐκάθισα μετὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ
   
   To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
   {this one is interesting because it has two inflections of kathizo in the same sentence. The first, καθίσαι, is aorist active infinitive. The second, ἐκάθισα, is aorist active indicative.}
   
   
   In the preceding 3 verses, "to sit" is functioning as a substantive. It is "something" that is to be given by God to a specific person. In the first two instances, it functions as a subject. In the last instance it is the direct object of the verb "grant."

II. Adverbial uses:
(I will also highlight the verb that is being modified by καθίσαι functioning as an adverb)

1. Acts 2:30: infinitive of purpose
   προφήτης οὖν ὑπάρχων καὶ εἰδὼς ὅτι ὅρκῳ ὤμοσεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ἀναστήσειν τὸν Χριστὸν, καθίσαι ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ
   
   Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
   
   
2. Acts 8:31: infinitive of purpose
   ὁ δὲ εἶπεν Πῶς γὰρ ἂν δυναίμην ἐὰν μή τις ὁδήγησῃ με παρεκάλεσέν τε τὸν Φίλιππον ἀναβάντα καθίσαι σὺν αὐτῷ
   
   And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
   {I think it should be "come up to sit." i.e. "come up for the purpose of sitting." There is no "and" in the Greek here.}
   
   
3. 2 Thessalonians 2:4: infinitive of result
   ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ὡς Θεὸν καθίσαι ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός
   
   Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
   {"sitteth" should be "to sit" as we have been discussing}

That's the way I see it. Hope this helps our discussion.

in Christ,
&

References:
1. http://blueletterbible.org (All English translation from KJV; All Greek quotes from Stephanus 1550 TR)
2. http://gknt.org/greek/gntp/ (for locating particular inflections of Greek words in the NA26 text)

edit: I just found this site: http://lexicon.katabiblon.com/. It uses the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform 2005 derived from the NA27/UBS4 text. It is phenomenal for searching for particular inflections/declensions of words in the NT and LXX. I'm sure you will find it useful.

[watching]

Hi ampersand,

I've got to hand it to you. You've really done your homework. Thanks for the resources. They're great. I'll definitely have to bookmark them.

In short, I do not see how lambslave's changing the word order at all affects the meaning of the passage. To you apparently, it does. Could you try to put into words what the exact difference is in the placement of the prepositional phrase "in the temple of God" and "auton" between the two translations.

First of all, the issue is not so much the word order. What I'm not sure of is whether the base word "kathizo" which means "I seat," changes to "to sit," when it becomes inflected as an adverbial infinitive or to "to seat?"

Or does it not make a difference?

Because there is obviously a difference between the expressions "to seat" and "to sit" in English, as well as in Greek, even though both of those expressions are derived from the same base word.

Do you see what I'm saying?

I've tried to think of another example to help me determine if there is a difference or not.

And I'm still not sure if there is a difference. But, in any case, this may sound silly, but here is my example.

The one kid that no one wanted to invite to their birthday party was, Sid, the school yard bully, who opposes, and exalts himself over everyone, so as, [for] him, at the birthday party, in the birthday child's chair, to sit, showing himself that he is the guest of honor.

Or

The one kid that no one wanted to invite to their birthday party was, Sid, the school yard bully, who opposes, and exalts himself over everyone, so as to seat himself in the birthday child's chair, at the birthday party, showing himself that he is the guest of honor.

Is there any difference between these two statements?

I really do not know if there is or not.

But, in any case, my point is, why change the word order, or any of the words, if you don't have to?

[ampersand]

... Thanks for the resources. They're great. I'll definitely have to bookmark them. ...

You are very welcome. I thought you might like them. Just be careful with the katabiblon site. It's a "publically editable dictionary," so who knows...you may find somebody defining πίστις as "pistachios" { }. Its usefulness is in locating many, if not all, inflections of any word in the NT. Unparalleled as far as free tools go...

&

[ampersand]

...
First of all, the issue is not so much the word order. What I'm not sure of is whether the base word "kathizo" which means "I seat," changes to "to sit," when it becomes inflected as an adverbial infinitive or to "to seat?"

Or does it not make a difference?

Because there is obviously a difference between the expressions "to seat" and "to sit" in English, as well as in Greek, even though both of those expressions are derived from the same base word.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Yes, I do. I would just stick with "sit" as that is what good ol' Strong's says and others.

...
I've tried to think of another example to help me determine if there is a difference or not.

And I'm still not sure if there is a difference. But, in any case, this may sound silly, but here is my example.

The one kid that no one wanted to invite to their birthday party was, Sid, the school yard bully, who opposes, and exalts himself over everyone, so as, [for] him, at the birthday party, in the birthday child's chair, to sit, showing himself that he is the guest of honor.

Or

The one kid that no one wanted to invite to their birthday party was, Sid, the school yard bully, who opposes, and exalts himself over everyone, so as to seat himself in the birthday child's chair, at the birthday party, showing himself that he is the guest of honor.

Is there any difference between these two statements?

I like your example
First of all, the birthday child's parents should take care of the Sid problem...

Secondly, I really don't see any difference in meaning between the two. The first example, however, doesn't quite roll off the tongue as easily as the second example. There just seems to be something about the English language that favors placing the adverbial preposition after the verb. I don't know. I don't feel motivated to look up English grammar rules right now, but I don't see any difference in meaning.

But, in any case, my point is, why change the word order, or any of the words, if you don't have to?

I guess I've explained why I would do it. It's just more natural to say it that way in the American language. HOWEVER: I AM NOT A BIBLE TRANLATOR. There is SO much that goes into translation, and I'm convinced that I am a LONG WAY OFF from understanding all the nuances of translating anything this way or that. I'm just keeping in mind that word order is not the primary determinant of function in Greek grammar. Form is.

(Perhaps you could tell us if that is the case in Modern Greek as well?)

FWIW

&