Who do you know?

I know a fair amount of Greek...I also know I don't know enough. Can someone tell me why the word "him" is inserted into this sentence in 2 Thes. 2? Since Lexham includes it but McReynolds doesn't include it I assume it is added for semantic reasons (to facilitate understanding, i.e. make (up?) sense in English). The LEB says it is a "supplied word". Most English bibles seem to include it. I just want to make sure there isn't a grammatical cause for it.

6 καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε

Lexham G/E Int. translates as: 6 and / now / -- / that which restrains [him] / you know

McReynolds translates as: 6 and / now / the / one holding down / you know

Is it a grammatical reason, or a semantic one? Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DMB

The translational issue is what to do with to', it being neuter and the verb offering no help. Absent the expected masculine gender as an object, the neuter suggests 'that' or NET's 'the thing'.

George Somsel

I know a fair amount of Greek...I also know I don't know enough. Can someone tell me why the word "him" is inserted into this sentence in 2 Thes. 2?

6 καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ.

If you take a look, you will note that αὐτὸν does appear though it is the subject of the infinitive. If αὐτὸν is the subject of the infinitive, it stands to reason that it is also the object of the transitive verb κατέχω. Since the verb is transitive, it really does require an object.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386126#Comment_386126

The translational issue is what to do with to', it being neuter and the verb offering no help. Absent the expected masculine gender as an object, the neuter suggests 'that' or NET's 'the thing'.

Again, I'm basing this observation on my not-fully-informed impression of Greek...but it seems that I've seen many places where to' isn't translated, along with many other prepositions and other odds and ends that seem to be peppered into Greek just for the fun of it. Nevertheless, I think it probably should be translated in this case. To me, "that" isn't satisfying. NET's "the thing" really isn't either, although it seems to be closer. I actually think McReynold's translation makes good sense. Using "the one" does satisfy the requirement of a neuter pronoun, correct? Since the agent is almost certainly sentient, it seems to be preferable to "the thing".

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386129#Comment_386129

6 καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ.

If you take a look, you will note that αὐτὸν does appear though it is the subject of the infinitive. If αὐτὸν is the subject of the infinitive, it stands to reason that it is also the object of the transitive verb κατέχω. Since the verb is transitive, it really does require an object.

I understand what you're saying, but it is based on an assumption that, while nearly universally accepted, I am quite certain is not true. Your use of the phrase "stands to reason" is a mechanism for morphing a semantic "need" into a grammatical requirement (although I am not suggesting you are doing this intentionally). Your summation does give what I think is the correct rationale for having "him" added in the first phrase of the sentence, a la Lexham.

The assumption I refer to is the idea that the "one" or "thing" (the subject) that is doing the restraining in the first part of the sentence is acting on the man of lawlessness...in other words "the man of lawlessness is the one being restrained". That is certainly not the case. Rather, the man of lawlessness IS the restrainer. That is why the "him" is not necessary in the first part of the sentence--because the antecedent is already there ("the one") and so "him" doesn't "need" to be supplied.

Yes, that is not the conventional wisdom (I don't know of anyone who has promoted that view), but it is a 100% certainty based on both the immediate context and the entire thrust of prophetic revelation regarding the man of lawlessness.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386326#Comment_386326

Using "the one" does satisfy the requirement of a neuter pronoun, correct?

No, not necessarily. Greek uses the neuter at times when we would think it should be gendered, but without more information that would be difficult to determine.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386328#Comment_386328

The assumption I refer to is the idea that the "one" or "thing" (the subject) that is doing the restraining in the first part of the sentence is acting on the man of lawlessness...in other words "the man of lawlessness is the one being restrained". That is certainly not the case. Rather, the man of lawlessness IS the restrainer. That is why the "him" is not necessary in the first part of the sentence--because the antecedent is already there ("the one") and so "him" doesn't "need" to be supplied.

So, what then is the object of κατέχω?

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386330#Comment_386330

The assumption I refer to is the idea that the "one" or "thing" (the subject) that is doing the restraining in the first part of the sentence is acting on the man of lawlessness...in other words "the man of lawlessness is the one being restrained". That is certainly not the case. Rather, the man of lawlessness IS the restrainer. That is why the "him" is not necessary in the first part of the sentence--because the antecedent is already there ("the one") and so "him" doesn't "need" to be supplied.

So, what then is the object of κατέχω?

Yes, Please; do tell.......

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386330#Comment_386330

So, what then is the object of κατέχω?

In the grammatic sense, nothing...the verb is not transitive in this sentence. In the semantic sense, the entire world...but primarily, as you would call it, the Church.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386339#Comment_386339

So, what then is the object of κατέχω?

In the grammatic sense, nothing...the verb is not transitive in this sentence. In the semantic sense, the entire world...but primarily, as you would call it, the Church.

So you are stating that "the lawless one" is restraining the church until he [the lawless one] is taken out of the way then the lawless one will be revealed? It would seem to me that in such circumstances one would expect a middle form of κατέχω since he would be restraining himself. Furthermore, how is he restraining himself, taken out of the way, and revealed?

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386341#Comment_386341

I said nothing at all about him restraining himself, George. The man of lawlessness isn't being restrained at all. He has free rein/reign. The answer to your question is right there in the context of the next couple of verses. He does his thing unhindered until he is revealed. IT SAYS EXPLICITLY in the next verse that the man of lawlessness ISN'T RESTRAINED because the mystery of lawlessness is actively working.

His work continues to restrain until he is revealed, but even at that time it won't be made to cease altogether. All peoples are restrained/deceived by him but only a few will be willing to acknowledge his identity and leave his influence. Most, as it says a few verses later, hate the truth and love the lie. They WANT to believe the man of lawlessness. Therefore, him being revealed will have a limited effect on "taking him out of the way" until he is ultimately and finally removed by the return of Yeishuu`a, which will eliminate the lawless one's influence for good (unless one considers the release of the devil at the end of the thousand years to be a continuation and last hurrah of his influence).

By the way, George, thanks for sending that tin foil hat in the mail. It was from you, wasn't it? I wear it everywhere I go...it's quite fetching. Everytime I put it on I think of you. [W]

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386347#Comment_386347

I said nothing at all about him restraining himself, George. The man of lawlessness isn't being restrained at all. He has free rein/reign. The answer to your question is right there in the context of the next couple of verses. He does his thing unhindered until he is revealed. IT SAYS EXPLICITLY in the next verse that the man of lawlessness ISN'T RESTRAINED because the mystery of lawlessness is actively working.

His work continues to restrain until he is revealed, but even at that time it won't be made to cease altogether. All peoples are restrained/deceived by him but only a few will be willing to acknowledge his identity and leave his influence. Most, as it says a few verses later, hate the truth and love the lie. They WANT to believe the man of lawlessness. Therefore, him being revealed will have a limited effect on "taking him out of the way" until he is ultimately and finally removed by the return of Yeishuu`a, which will eliminate the lawless one's influence for good (unless one considers the release of the devil at the end of the thousand years to be a continuation and last hurrah of his influence).

By the way, George, thanks for sending that tin foil hat in the mail. It was from you, wasn't it? I wear it everywhere I go...it's quite fetching. Everytime I put it on I think of you.

wait a sec., I thought the focus was on v6-?

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386347#Comment_386347

I said nothing at all about him restraining himself, George. The man of lawlessness isn't being restrained at all. He has free rein/reign. The answer to your question is right there in the context of the next couple of verses. He does his thing unhindered until he is revealed. IT SAYS EXPLICITLY in the next verse that the man of lawlessness ISN'T RESTRAINED because the mystery of lawlessness is actively working.

What then is he restraining? The sun moon and stars?

By the way, George, thanks for sending that tin foil hat in the mail. It was from you, wasn't it? I wear it everywhere I go...it's quite fetching. Everytime I put it on I think of you.

No, not my doing. Would you like another since you seem to appreciate it?

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386357#Comment_386357

I said nothing at all about him restraining himself, George. The man of lawlessness isn't being restrained at all. He has free rein/reign. The answer to your question is right there in the context of the next couple of verses. He does his thing unhindered until he is revealed. IT SAYS EXPLICITLY in the next verse that the man of lawlessness ISN'T RESTRAINED because the mystery of lawlessness is actively working.

If the 'man of lawlessness' isn't being restrained, then why the usage of:

6 καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε

Lexham G/E Int. translates as: 6 and / now / -- / that which restrains [him] / you know

{κατέχω katechō verb
Hold back, hinder, seize, prevent, restrain, hold fast, possess, occupy.}

-check BDAG, etc.-

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386363#Comment_386363

Seems to be a classic case of lifting a verse out of context and trying to establish a moot point…..

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386363#Comment_386363

I said nothing at all about him restraining himself, George. The man of lawlessness isn't being restrained at all. He has free rein/reign. The answer to your question is right there in the context of the next couple of verses. He does his thing unhindered until he is revealed. IT SAYS EXPLICITLY in the next verse that the man of lawlessness ISN'T RESTRAINED because the mystery of lawlessness is actively working.

If the 'man of lawlessness' isn't being restrained, then why the usage of:

6 καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε

Lexham G/E Int. translates as: 6 and / now / -- / that which restrains [him] / you know

{κατέχω katechō verb
Hold back, hinder, seize, prevent, restrain, hold fast, possess, occupy.}

-check BDAG, etc.-

I'm not sure which one of my above posts you didn't read, so about the only thing I can do here is repeat what I said above, since it explains it all rather plainly...

The assumption I refer to is the idea that the "one" or "thing" (the subject) that is doing the restraining in the first part of the sentence is acting on the man of lawlessness...in other words "the man of lawlessness is the one being restrained". That is certainly not the case. Rather, the man of lawlessness IS the restrainer. That is why the "him" is not necessary in the first part of the sentence--because the antecedent is already there ("the one") and so "him" doesn't "need" to be supplied.

McReynolds translates as: 6 and / now / the / one holding down / you know

As I said above, I think McReynold's translation is correct...and it is without the need for adding a "supplied word", as Lexham calls it. Therefore, the answer to your question is because the man of lawlessness is the one who is doing the restraining, and he is not being restrained from restraining. I think that common sense, logic, and Ockham's Razor support my conclusion.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386454#Comment_386454

It's a sad day when NOT adding extra words to a sentence is seen as taking a verse out of context.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386562#Comment_386562

As I said above, I think McReynold's translation is correct...and it is without the need for adding a "supplied word", as Lexham calls it. Therefore, the answer to your question is because the man of lawlessness is the one who is doing the restraining, and he is not being restrained from restraining. I think that common sense, logic, and Ockham's Razor support my conclusion.

Why is it that, if the man of lawlessness is doing the restraining, it is when the one who restrains is taken out of the way that the man of lawlessness is then revealed? That makes no sense. Note the gender of ὁ ἀνθρωπος and the gender of τὸ κατέχον—it agrees with πνεῦμα, -ατος, τό.

925. There are three concords in simple sentences:

1. A finite verb agrees with its subject in number and person (949).

2. A word in apposition with another word agrees with it in case (976).

3. An adjective agrees with its substantive in gender, number, and case (1020).

(For the concord of relative pronouns, see 2501.)

2501. A relative pronoun agrees with its antecedent in gender, number, and person; its case is determined by the construction of the clause in which it stands.

οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀνὴρ ὃς ἦλθε

this is the man who came, αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ γυνὴ ἣν ἐζητοῦμεν this is the woman whom we were looking for, λαβὼν τοὺς ἱππέᾱς οἳ ἦσαν αὐτῷ taking the cavalry which he had, ἔχων τοὺς ὁπλῑ́τᾱς ὧν ἐστρατήγει having the hoplites which he commanded, τριῶν θυρῶν οὐσῶν, ᾱ̔̀ς ἔδει με διελθεῖν
there being three doors through which I had to go.

a. If the main clause as a whole is regarded as the antecedent, the relative stands in the neuter singular with or without a demonstrative. Thus,

πλεῖν ἐπὶ Σελῑνοῦντα πᾱ́σῃ τῇ στρατιᾷ, ἐφʼ ὅπερ μάλιστα ἐπέμφθησαν
to sail for Selinus with all their force, for which purpose especially they had been sent T. 6. 47.b. The person of the verb in a relative clause, in which the relative pronoun is the subject, is regularly determined by the person of the antecedent pronoun expressed or implied. Thus,
οὐκ οἶδʼ ὅστις ἄνθρωπος γεγένημαι I do not know what sort of a person I have become X. C. 1. 4. 12, καὶ οἰκίᾱ γε πολὺ μείζων ἡ ῡ̔μετέρᾱ τῆς ἐμῆς, οἵ γε οἰκίᾳ χρῆσθε γῇ τε καὶ οὐρανῷ

and your habitation is much larger than mine since you occupy both heaven and earth as a habitation 5. 2. 15. The third person rarely follows a vocative (P 248).

Smyth, Herbert Weir. A Greek Grammar for Colleges. New York; Cincinnati; Chicago; Boston; Atlanta: American Book Company, 1920.
You need to throw away that interlinear. It's not much wonder that you make such mistakes when you use one.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386664#Comment_386664

As I said above, I think McReynold's translation is correct...and it is without the need for adding a "supplied word", as Lexham calls it. Therefore, the answer to your question is because the man of lawlessness is the one who is doing the restraining, and he is not being restrained from restraining. I think that common sense, logic, and Ockham's Razor support my conclusion.

Why is it that, if the man of lawlessness is doing the restraining, it is when the one who restrains is taken out of the way that the man of lawlessness is then revealed? That makes no sense. Note the gender of ὁ ἀνθρωπος and the gender of τὸ κατέχον—it agrees with πνεῦμα, -ατος, τό.

Of course it makes sense, George. You just like being oppositional...and you don't seem to have ears or eyes for the prophetic. The man of lawlessness is the restrainer. It is by his restraining that the mystery of lawlessness is now at work (2 Thes 2:7). Just to bring you up to speed, "the restraining" isn't the MOL being kept from doing his job (it says clearly he IS doing his job)--rather, the restraining (which the MOL performs) is akin to Mt. 23:13. He keeps people from entering the kingdom of heaven through lies and deceit (Jer. 5:30-31) and, being deceived, the people love it. He restrains until he is taken out of the way, which happens in what amounts to a two-part process. When he is revealed, some will respond by repenting and following the truth. Most though, as I said before, because they (2 Thes. 2:11-12) take pleasure in wickedness because they love the lie and hate the truth, refuse to repent. The ones who refuse to repent when the man of lawlessness is first revealed will join the MOL in destruction when Yeishuu`a returns and brings him (and them) to an end with the appearance of His coming (2 Thes. 2:8).

Of course, I don't expect you to ever accept this. And that's the great thing about being free of the law...you don't have to!!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386768#Comment_386768

Okay, George and David, I want to see the discussion reframed (pun intended) in terms of core and non-core frame entities. I want to know what is required and what is optional in Greek.[:P][8-|]

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386768#Comment_386768

Hmmm, interesting.

I wonder if Paul was anticipating that the confusing convolution(-n) would be part of the delusion? (v11)

*******

MJ, we must always be careful of implied addition of text when we loosely read a lucid interpretation, or in this case interlinears.........

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386771#Comment_386771

Well, that was, of course, my original intent as per the OP. I think we have secured that...and George was good enough to establish the point. The [him] added to v. 6a is "supplied" as Lexham puts it because of the prevailing semantic ASSUMPTION that the man of lawlessness is the one being restrained. If the MOL is instead the one restraining, there is no need for the supplied word. McReynold's clearly doesn't feel compelled to insert the supplied [him] in his translation. I strongly doubt that it is required, most especially because the prophecy related to this circumstance points to the MOL being the restrainer.

Room4more

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386777#Comment_386777

Well, that was, of course, my original intent as per the OP. I think we have secured that...and George was good enough to establish the point. The [him] added to v. 6a is "supplied" as Lexham puts it because of the prevailing semantic ASSUMPTION that the man of lawlessness is the one being restrained. If the MOL is instead the one restraining, there is no need for the supplied word. McReynold's clearly doesn't feel compelled to insert the supplied [him] in his translation. I strongly doubt that it is required, most especially because the prophecy related to this circumstance points to the MOL being the restrainer.

I believe George has a better grasp than you may think…..don’t under-estimate his vast knowledge…..[:#] [:D]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386777#Comment_386777

Well, that was, of course, my original intent as per the OP. I think we have secured that...and George was good enough to establish the point. The [him] added to v. 6a is "supplied" as Lexham puts it because of the prevailing semantic ASSUMPTION that the man of lawlessness is the one being restrained. If the MOL is instead the one restraining, there is no need for the supplied word. McReynold's clearly doesn't feel compelled to insert the supplied [him] in his translation. I strongly doubt that it is required, most especially because the prophecy related to this circumstance points to the MOL being the restrainer.

Since you are intent on being wrong, you may be wrong.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386781#Comment_386781

In agreement with whoever sent you one before, I hereby award you a second tin foil hat. Anyone who relies on an interlinear (and misinterprets it in addition) deserves one. You are a perfect example of what I have said previously on numerous occasions that interlinears are for those who don't know Greek but like to pretend they do.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386772#Comment_386772

Hmmm, interesting.

I wonder if Paul was anticipating that the confusing convolution(-n) would be part of the delusion? (v11)

Whether Paul was or not, I certainly think that YHWH, in His providence, certainly did.

MJ, we must always be careful of implied addition of text when we loosely read a lucid interpretation, or in this case interlinears.........

Like the earlier post I made about Carson's Exegetical Fallacies, where I showed that Carson both overlooked and perpetrated a fallacy I call the "Fallacy fallacy"...i.e. calling something a fallacy when it demonstrably isn't a fallacy...well-educated Bible readers in general are guilty of taking things off the table because they assume, or rather presume, that they are not "acceptable" options in terms of exegesis. Reading the Bible prophetically is precisely one of those methods. The reasoning behind this prejudice is that it violates the sanctity of immediate context, and additionally leaves open the possibility of "fruit loop" interpretation. Unfortunately (or fortunately, if you are YHWH and intent on perpetrating something called the "famine of the word"), having so-called Bible authorities proclaim the only proper sense-making procedure for Bible interpretation as being anathema creates a blind spot that is impossible for Bible students to overcome. Sure, prophecy loons might take unacceptable liberties in their interpretive explanations, but so be it. What Bible scholars need to be able to answer is how the book of Daniel (and the entire Bible, as well) can be "sealed" until the end time when the entire book is right there for everyone and his neighbor to scour to their heart's content. Part (though not all) of the reason is that the only way to unlock the books is by using a method, prophetic interpretation, that has been almost entirely drummed out of the discussion as being wholly unacceptable. Again, so be it. That, also, is part of the strong delusion that is mentioned in 2 Thes. 2.

Snide remarks are not refutations. Nothing I said in the summary of Carson's Exegetical Fallacies was refuted, particularly the primary point of the OP about the Hebrew root ל ח ם of the words for both "war" and "bread". Carson and Barr together said there was no connection between the two concepts, thus proving (in their minds) the concept of the so-called "root fallacy". What they were both guilty of is the "Fallacy fallacy". Carson, being a Greek man and not a Hebrew man, may have a case in establishing a root fallacy case for the Greek language, but he AND Hebrew scholar Barr are treading quicksand if they try to claim no connection for words with common roots in Hebrew, since the language is constructed on the very concept of root relationships. I knew that there was a connection between "war" and "bread" as soon as Carson and Barr said there wasn't, even though I had never made that connection myself. It took me about 3-4 minutes to find and establish that connection...

War consumes. Eating consumes. What is consumed is most often referred to as bread. These are all the same Hebrew root.

...and about an hour to find a couple dozen scriptures to bolster and prove the connection/relationship between the two words that is fundamental in the common root. Nevertheless, the "root fallacy" has now become a favored whipping boy for high brow Bible scholars who take joy in bursting so-called "folk etymologies". The joke is on them.

You can imply that I am implying additions to the text...but I am guilty of no such thing. Scripture makes the implications...and you simply cannot see the forest for the trees.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386787#Comment_386787

Is that McReynolds, the Greek scholar, in that picture, George? I'm just wondering, since you aren't in fact directing your salvos at me, but at him, since he is the one with whom you disagree.

Or is that you? I kind of always pictured you wagging your finger in that way...

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386795#Comment_386795

Is that McReynolds, the Greek scholar, in that picture, George? I'm just wondering, since you aren't in fact directing your salvos at me, but at him, since he is the one with whom you disagree.

Or is that you? I kind of always pictured you wagging your finger in that way...

No, I'm not directing my comments at McReynolds since you have misinterpreted him. You not only can't read Greek, but you can't even read English (as much as an interlinear translation can be considered to be English).

P.S.: No, that isn't me. I got that off the internet by googling "images" and "tin foil hat." You can find it for yourself.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386796#Comment_386796

No, I'm not directing my comments at McReynolds since you have misinterpreted him. You not only can't read Greek, but you can't even read English (as much as an interlinear translation can be considered to be English).

You make me smile, George. I think what you mean is that I can't copy and then paste, since that is essentially all I did, and then said that I agreed with what McReynolds says. Perhaps you are correct...because the fingers tapping the keyboard are mine, the moments between clicking copy and paste became infected with misinterpretation. You should consider a career as a CIA analyst--you can certainly read between the lines...er, clicks.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386800#Comment_386800

You should consider a career as a CIA analyst--you can certainly read between the lines...er, clicks.

I'm glad to hear that you recognize that. [8-|]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386792#Comment_386792

Snide remarks are not refutations. Nothing I said in the summary of Carson's Exegetical Fallacies was refuted, particularly the primary point of the OP about the Hebrew root ל ח ם of the words for both "war" and "bread". Carson and Barr together said there was no connection between the two concepts, thus proving (in their minds) the concept of the so-called "root fallacy". What they were both guilty of is the "Fallacy fallacy". Carson, being a Greek man and not a Hebrew man, may have a case in establishing a root fallacy case for the Greek language, but he AND Hebrew scholar Barr are treading quicksand if they try to claim no connection for words with common roots in Hebrew, since the language is constructed on the very concept of root relationships. I knew that there was a connection between "war" and "bread" as soon as Carson and Barr said there wasn't, even though I had never made that connection myself. It took me about 3-4 minutes to find and establish that connection...

War consumes. Eating consumes. What is consumed is most often referred to as bread. These are all the same Hebrew root.

That is an exegetical fallacy. You can attempt to twist things so that they might (in some tin-foil-hat nightmare) have some relationship, but that doesn't mean that they do. What if I were to call you a "brat"? Would you assume that I was making a snide comment regarding you? Probably so, but in Russian it is "brother." Words have more than one meaning—sometimes totally unrelated since they come from different sources.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386804#Comment_386804

Actually, George, YOUR response is an exegetical fallacy...the one Carson calls the Cavalier Dismissal. Others tend to call it name-calling. When Hitler and his pals used it, they added the part about saying something often enough that people will believe it, even the ones who know it isn't true. You may want to contact Rabbi Matityahu Clark (author of the Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew) and let him know that the millenia-old method of understanding the Hebrew language used by actual Jewish Hebrew scholars is just wrong, according the the esteemed and learned Hebrew scholar...you.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386805#Comment_386805

Actually, George, YOUR response is an exegetical fallacy...the one Carson calls the Cavalier Dismissal. Others tend to call it name-calling. When Hitler and his pals used it, they added the part about saying something often enough that people will believe it, even the ones who know it isn't true. You may want to contact Rabbi Matityahu Clark (author of the Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew) and let him know that the millenia-old method of understanding the Hebrew language used by actual Jewish Hebrew scholars is just wrong, according the the esteemed and learned Hebrew scholar...you.

The problem is that the etymology of a word is not determinative for its meaning. Otherwise, I doubt that we would call many women "ladies" since it was originally a kneader or bread. Some seem to think that the etymology is determinative—of which I suspect you are one.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386804#Comment_386804

Snide remarks are not refutations. Nothing I said in the summary of Carson's Exegetical Fallacies was refuted, particularly the primary point of the OP about the Hebrew root ל ח ם of the words for both "war" and "bread". Carson and Barr together said there was no connection between the two concepts, thus proving (in their minds) the concept of the so-called "root fallacy". What they were both guilty of is the "Fallacy fallacy". Carson, being a Greek man and not a Hebrew man, may have a case in establishing a root fallacy case for the Greek language, but he AND Hebrew scholar Barr are treading quicksand if they try to claim no connection for words with common roots in Hebrew, since the language is constructed on the very concept of root relationships. I knew that there was a connection between "war" and "bread" as soon as Carson and Barr said there wasn't, even though I had never made that connection myself. It took me about 3-4 minutes to find and establish that connection...

War consumes. Eating consumes. What is consumed is most often referred to as bread. These are all the same Hebrew root.

Words have more than one meaning—sometimes totally unrelated since they come from different sources.

Of course, George...except that milhhaamaah (war) and laahham (to fight / to eat) and lehhem (bread / food) ARE NOT UNRELATED--which is precisely why Carson and Barr attempted to pooh-pooh the idea of a semantic connection. They acknowledge the common source, ל ח ם, and thus their insistance that there is a root fallacy at work...BECAUSE THE HAVE A COMMON ROOT. But war still consumes, and eating still consumes...and that will never change--at least not until Yeishuu`a returns and "the restrainer" (aka the man of lawlessness) is brought to an end and the implements of war are beaten into implements of bread (Isa. 2:4). Oh, wow...look at that...another completely RANDOM coincidence...how thoroughly (un)expected!!

Good try, though.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386810#Comment_386810

Of course, George...except that milhhaamaah (war) and laahham (to fight / to eat) and lehhem (bread / food) ARE NOT UNRELATED--which is precisely why Carson and Barr attempted to pooh-pooh the idea of a semantic connection. They acknowledge the common source, ל ח ם, and thus their insistance that there is a root fallacy at work...BECAUSE THE HAVE A COMMON ROOT. But war still consumes, and eating still consumes...and that will never change--at least not until Yeishuu`a returns and "the restrainer" (aka the man of lawlessness) is brought to an end and the implements of war are beaten into implements of bread (Isa. 2:4). Oh, wow...look at that...another completely RANDOM coincidence...how thoroughly (un)expected!!

Things are not always as they seem;
Skim milk oft masquerades as cream.

Sometimes words appear to share the same root, but they really do not since they have different origins. I'm not one to deliberately bang my head repeatedly into a brick wall so I'll stop.

BTW: Didn't you have a web site with an URL something like "gospelinthestars.com/org"? Either I misremember or you must have taken it down.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386809#Comment_386809

Actually, George, YOUR response is an exegetical fallacy...the one Carson calls the Cavalier Dismissal. Others tend to call it name-calling. When Hitler and his pals used it, they added the part about saying something often enough that people will believe it, even the ones who know it isn't true. You may want to contact Rabbi Matityahu Clark (author of the Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew) and let him know that the millenia-old method of understanding the Hebrew language used by actual Jewish Hebrew scholars is just wrong, according the the esteemed and learned Hebrew scholar...you.

The problem is that the etymology of a word is not determinative for its meaning. Otherwise, I doubt that we would call many women "ladies" since it was originally a kneader or bread. Some seem to think that the etymology is determinative—of which I suspect you are one.

LOLOLOL George...maybe, eventually, you will get the point. [+o(] But don't turn green on us, okay? What you don't get is that IN HEBREW IT IS DETERMINATIVE. The language IS DESIGNED THAT WAY by a DESIGNER. If the word "ladies" was a Hebrew word, you could bet the whole farm that it was sematically related to its root and other words derived from that root. I'm not saying that WAR means BREAD...just that they both are related by the idea of consuming. Your approach to the Bible and my approach to the Bible are completely different. Dozens and dozens and dozens of times I have predicted from the momentum of prophetic interpretive analysis and Hebrew root analysis that a word in English was not the literal translation from the Hebrew (and occasionally Greek too) and have found that my hunches were correct. Using the same hunches I have guessed that certain words were translated as plurals when the original was singular and vice versa. I've done it numerous times in the presence of other people during bible studies. You and every other person on the planet can come up with examples of root fallacies from other languages and it won't have a pea's worth of impact on the reality of the Hebrew language.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386812#Comment_386812

BTW: Didn't you have a web site with an URL something like "gospelinthestars.com/org"? Either I misremember or you must have taken it down.

It's down. I didn't have time to devote to that...I'm working on other projects. I will put it up again at some point.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386814#Comment_386814

LOLOLOL George...maybe, eventually, you will get the point. But don't turn green on us, okay? What you don't get is that IN HEBREW IT IS DETERMINATIVE. The language IS DESIGNED THAT WAY by a DESIGNER. If the word "ladies" was a Hebrew word, you could bet the whole farm that it was sematically related to its root and other words derived from that root. I'm not saying that WAR means BREAD...just that they both are related by the idea of consuming. Your approach to the Bible and my approach to the Bible are completely different. Dozens and dozens and dozens of times I have predicted from the momentum of prophetic interpretive analysis and Hebrew root analysis that a word in English was not the literal translation from the Hebrew (and occasionally Greek too) and have found that my hunches were correct. Using the same hunches I have guessed that certain words were translated as plurals when the original was singular and vice versa. I've done it numerous times in the presence of other people during bible studies. You and every other person on the planet can come up with examples of root fallacies from other languages and it won't have a pea's worth of impact on the reality of the Hebrew language.

If that were true of Hebrew it would be the only language in the history of the world that is that way. But we know it isn't so. Go learn Hebrew [While you're at it, study Greek too].

BKMitchell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386328#Comment_386328

6 καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ.

If you take a look, you will note that αὐτὸν does appear though it is the subject of the infinitive. If αὐτὸν is the subject of the infinitive, it stands to reason that it is also the object of the transitive verb κατέχω. Since the verb is transitive, it really does require an object.

I understand what you're saying, but it is based on an assumption that, while nearly universally accepted, I am quite certain is not true...

The assumption I refer to is the idea that the "one" or "thing" (the subject) that is doing the restraining in the first part of the sentence is acting on the man of lawlessness...in other words "the man of lawlessness is the one being restrained". That is certainly not the case. Rather, the man of lawlessness IS the restrainer. That is why the "him" is not necessary in the first part of the sentence--because the antecedent is already there ("the one") and so "him" doesn't "need" to be supplied.

David, If don't mind my asking. It appears to me that you already had an answer you concluded to be accurate, right?

Now, if that was the case (and it may not have been??) then what was your reason for posting your query on the forums?

Where, you:

(a) trying to take a survey of various opinions on grammatical issues held by Logos Forum users?

(b) seeking validation for your conclusions?

(d) attempting to indirectly challenge or instruct others with your point view?

(e) leaving no stone unturned in your pursuit of evidence and empirical data?

(f) a reason different from any of the above?

Grace and Peace,

Brian

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386853#Comment_386853

6 καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ.

If you take a look, you will note that αὐτὸν does appear though it is the subject of the infinitive. If αὐτὸν is the subject of the infinitive, it stands to reason that it is also the object of the transitive verb κατέχω. Since the verb is transitive, it really does require an object.

I understand what you're saying, but it is based on an assumption that, while nearly universally accepted, I am quite certain is not true...

The assumption I refer to is the idea that the "one" or "thing" (the subject) that is doing the restraining in the first part of the sentence is acting on the man of lawlessness...in other words "the man of lawlessness is the one being restrained". That is certainly not the case. Rather, the man of lawlessness IS the restrainer. That is why the "him" is not necessary in the first part of the sentence--because the antecedent is already there ("the one") and so "him" doesn't "need" to be supplied.

David, If don't mind my asking. It appears to me that you already had an answer you concluded to be accurate, right?

Now, if that was the case (and it may not have been??) then what was your reason for posting your query on the forums?

(a) trying to take a survey of various opinions on grammatical issues held by Logos Forum users?

(b) seeking validation for your conclusions?

(e) leaving no stone unturned in your pursuit of evidence and empirical data?

The above seem to constitute my purpose. I stated as much right at the start. As I mentioned at least twice up to this point, I perceive that George provided the answer to my question in his very first reply. Semantic expectation is the reason for the perceived "need" for the [him] in v. 6a. Yes, I anticipated that my understanding of the verse was correct, but I wasn't sure and wanted input. George provided that input, though he did so while in the process of trying to shoot down my...uh, presence (?)...on the forums. He's always done that, pretty much since I first started using the forums back when he was still a Neanderthal. George likes to be a gadfly...a role he seems to cherish. It doesn't bother me, really. He's quite dependable in that respect. And I'm certainly not the only person he goads. I've noticed him do it with people who were making their very first comment on the forum.

If someone has additional information about the grammatic issue, I'm willing to listen. But I think the point has been made...a very common assumption is what drives the presence of the [him] in 6a...but it is an inaccurate assumption. Someone posited that it might be part of the strong delusion mentioned later in the verse. I think that is almost certainly the case. YHWH and Yeishuu`a use sleight of expression often in order to obfuscate their intentions. A good example is Yeishuu`a's "many will come in my name, saying I am the Messiah". Does He mean that the people will say that they, themselves, are the Messiah? Or does He mean that they will assert that He, Yeishuu`a, is the Messiah? The phrase is usually taken to mean the former, while I am certain that He primarily intended the latter. It can, of course, be understood and have application in both ways, and I'm sure it does. There are many other such examples, and the sense of His intentional misdirecting of assumptions is usually present in the nebulousness of the expression. YHWH makes it very clear that He does this because most of those who call on His name don't want what He has to offer (or more to the point, don't want to give what He requires). Rather, they want a watered-down, easy to swallow, "smooth" God. He complies with that wish by giving the people what they want. He does it in many ways, such as sending false prophets. He also does it by literally phrasing things in such a way that people are able to take what is being said in a false way if that is the direction their heart leads them.

In the case of this verse, 2 Thes. 2:6, as well as vv. 7-8, the assumption of most people is that the work of the man of lawlessness is being "restrained", thus giving the impression that there is nothing to be concerned about at this time...they just need to prepare for some future "delusion". Only, verses 7 and 11 explicitly say that assumption is false...the delusion has been active from the time the letter was written. God isn't just "okay" with that misunderstanding...it is His entire purpose...as 2 Thes. 2:11 makes abundantly clear. The reason? People love the lie and hate the truth. These same people, who think the delusion is a future event, read Matt. 13:15-16 and assume that the second person pronoun in verse 16 is being directed at them, when for most folks it is verse 15 that applies. How many read verse 16 and assume He ISN'T directing that to them? They DO see and they DO hear...He said so! He also "is going" to send strong delusion one of these days...and they, being both seeing and hearing, will be ready for it! [:S]

I will end this post by pointing out that I was personally content to walk away from this thread after my 3rd or 4th comment.

Pastor Dave Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386886#Comment_386886

I will end this post by pointing out that I was personally content to walk away from this thread after my 3rd or 4th comment.

[Y] This would have been a (in my opinion) a wise move on your part.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386896#Comment_386896

I will end this post by pointing out that I was personally content to walk away from this thread after my 3rd or 4th comment.

This would have been a (in my opinion) a wise move on your part.

You folks could make a great comedy team. Once again, completely out-of-the-blue and with not a shred of reason or evidence to back up your comment/assertion/opinion, a peanut gallery statement that amounts to little more than heckling. Is there anything wise about that? Why not pick the point in my previous comments about which you have doubts/concerns/disagreements and lay out an argument for why you feel that way? Convince me.

Not willing to? Or is the random pot shot because you don't like what I'm saying but simply can't refute it?

That's what I gather from your comment--you are uncomfortable with what I said, but being unable to formulate a logical refutation, you rather concoct a dismissal (of the Cavalier kind, as Carson would say) that allows you move forward while operating under the delusion of having "responded" in a satisfactory manner.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386853#Comment_386853

6 καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ.

If you take a look, you will note that αὐτὸν does appear though it is the subject of the infinitive. If αὐτὸν is the subject of the infinitive, it stands to reason that it is also the object of the transitive verb κατέχω. Since the verb is transitive, it really does require an object.

I understand what you're saying, but it is based on an assumption that, while nearly universally accepted, I am quite certain is not true...

The assumption I refer to is the idea that the "one" or "thing" (the subject) that is doing the restraining in the first part of the sentence is acting on the man of lawlessness...in other words "the man of lawlessness is the one being restrained". That is certainly not the case. Rather, the man of lawlessness IS the restrainer. That is why the "him" is not necessary in the first part of the sentence--because the antecedent is already there ("the one") and so "him" doesn't "need" to be supplied.

I just noticed that you edited my comments in the above, removing the part where I expressed the rationale for drawing my conclusion, where I said:

"Your use of the phrase "stands to reason" is a mechanism for morphing a semantic "need" into a grammatical requirement (although I am not suggesting you are doing this intentionally). Your summation does give what I think is the correct rationale for having "him" added in the first phrase of the sentence, a la Lexham."

George's use of "stands to reason" indicates the impetus for the presence of [him]. He said that the verb "to restrain" is transitive, but it isn't.

Pastor Dave Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386903#Comment_386903

the random pot shot because you don't like what I'm saying but simply can't refute it?

You posted to a public forum, and while you started from a position of apparent humility. After your 3rd or 4th post the posture appears to have changed to one where you state with certainty that you are right and everybody else is wrong.

My intent was not to take a pot shot at your character, I simply wanted to share one person's opinion that you should have listened to YOUR OWN inclination to drop this after the 3rd or 4th post. Since then this thread has spiraled downward, in my opinion.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386909#Comment_386909

George's use of "stands to reason" indicates the impetus for the presence of [him]. He said that the verb "to restrain" is transitive, but it isn't.

Obviously you have a problem with language.

restrain (rɪˈstreɪn) vb tr 1 to hold (someone) back from some action, esp by force 2 to deprive (someone) of liberty, as by imprisonment 3 to limit or restrict [c14 restreyne, from Old French

Collins English Dictionary. 8th ed., Complete & unabridged ed. Glasgow: HarperCollins, 2006.

But I don't want to argue from English since what we are dealing with is Greek.

κατέχω

impf. κατεῖχον; fut. καθέξω LXX, 3 pl. κατασχήσουσι (JosAs 16 [p. 64, 18 Bat. and cod. A]); 2 aor. κατέσχον. Pass.: fut. 2 pl. κατασχεθήσεσθε Ruth 1:13; aor. 3 sg. κατεσχέθη LXX (s. ἔχω; Hom.+). Trans. in all mngs. below, except 7.

Arndt, William, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

What is 7? It's the nautical usage meaning "hold the course." So now I suppose you think you know more about Greek that the compilers of the BDAG lexicon, and you know you know more Greek than they because you consulted an interlinear. LOL !! [N]

You well deserve the tinfoil hat I awarded you. In fact, I'm tempted to give you another.

Keep it up and you'll be a five star tinfoil hat recipient.

Oldnewbie

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386804#Comment_386804

George,

Would you please give me your opinion on usefulness/usage of the Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament Series offering (http://www.logos.com/product/15977/baylor-handbook-on-the-greek-new-testament-series) and the UBS Handbook series? Because of something you wrote in a thread some time back (and the strong recommendation in introductions to various NT Greek grammars I have) I'm looking to start the study of ancient Greek (Attic) next year. At what point do these resources come into play in terms of NT Greek study. Or should they? Thanks in advance for your help.

Note: I've not had any formal study of NT Greek yet. I've started Bill Found's book Basic Greek in 30 Minutes a Day as an easy intro.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386911#Comment_386911

My intent was not to take a pot shot at your character, I simply wanted to share one person's opinion that you should have listened to YOUR OWN inclination to drop this after the 3rd or 4th post. Since then this thread has spiraled downward, in my opinion.

Fair enough, I suppose...except for the supposition that I am the one who motivated the continuation of the thread. I have merely responded to constant and evidence-lacking comments, asserting or implying that I have played fast-and-loose with the facts in an effort to gain my preordained conclusion. I NEVER DO THAT...but if someone wants to suggest I have...PROVE IT. I really do want you to. If I am wrong, I want to know. Anywhere along the line, if I said something inaccurate, CONVINCE ME. Please.

Or say nothing at all. But making oblique or overt comments and then feigning offense because I respond to them is hypocritical.

I'm not directing these comments directly at you...I just get these kinds of responses all the time. Like the comment above that questioned my motivation after (deliberately?) excising the statement I made that ennunciated my rationale. Such assertions ultimately do question my character, and I respond to them in force unless something more immediately pressing intervenes. Someone (or everyone) may disagree with the conclusions I draw after I've weighed the evidence, and that's fine. But I don't leave unanswered any suggestion that I deliberately tip the scale or pad the evidence to suit my fancy. I consider that to be just about the worst insult anyone could make toward me. YHWH concurs. Prov. 11:1

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386919#Comment_386919

George, in the great wide cosmos a verb may indeed be transitive, but that doesn't mean it is transitive in a grammatical sense in a given sentence. What makes it transitive isn't ultimate intent or ontological condition, but the presence of a direct object. You want to ADD a direct object where one doesn't exist.

Johnny draws pictures of trains. Johnny draws to please his mother. Johnny draws.

Anytime someone draws, they are drawing something...drawing is always transitive in that sense. But only the first sentence above is transitive grammatically.

The word "restrain" is no different than "draw". There is NOTHING about the word that requires that the word TAKE a direct object within a given sentence, even though something will obviously be restrained. The word is always ontologically transitive, but only occasionally grammatically transitive.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386924#Comment_386924

George, in the great wide cosmos a verb may indeed be transitive, but that doesn't mean it is transitive in a grammatical sense in a given sentence. What makes it transitive isn't ultimate intent or ontological condition, but the presence of a direct object. You want to ADD a direct object where one doesn't exist.

Johnny draws pictures of trains. Johnny draws to please his mother. Johnny draws.

Anytime someone draws, they are drawing something...drawing is always transitive in that sense. But only the first sentence above is transitive grammatically.

The word "restrain" is no different than "draw". There is NOTHING about the word that requires that the word TAKE a direct object within a given sentence, even though something will obviously be restrained. The word is always ontologically transitive, but only occasionally grammatically transitive.

The problem with your example is that "draw" is not always used transitively. Even in your example of "draw" there is always something which is drawn—a picture (a house, a mountain, a person, etc). The object in these cases is understood (just as "him" is understood in the passage you are misconstruing). Κατέχω is with the single exception of the nautical use. If you wish to maintain that it has other intransitive uses, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386922#Comment_386922

George,

Would you please give me your opinion on usefulness/usage of the Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament Series offering (http://www.logos.com/product/15977/baylor-handbook-on-the-greek-new-testament-series) and the UBS Handbook series? Because of something you wrote in a thread some time back (and the strong recommendation in introductions to various NT Greek grammars I have) I'm looking to start the study of ancient Greek (Attic) next year. At what point do these resources come into play in terms of NT Greek study. Or should they? Thanks in advance for your help.

Note: I've not had any formal study of NT Greek yet. I've started Bill Found's book Basic Greek in 30 Minutes a Day as an easy intro.

I can't help you there since I don't have either of these. I do my own work rather that glean predigested results. I don't even use commentaries very often for that purpose (they're helpful in pointing out other connections).

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/386923#Comment_386923

I'm not directing these comments directly at you...I just get these kinds of responses all the time. Like the comment above that questioned my motivation after (deliberately?) excising the statement I made that ennunciated my rationale. Such assertions ultimately do question my character, and I respond to them in force unless something more immediately pressing intervenes. Someone (or everyone) may disagree with the conclusions I draw after I've weighed the evidence, and that's fine. But I don't leave unanswered any suggestion that I deliberately tip the scale or pad the evidence to suit my fancy. I consider that to be just about the worst insult anyone could make toward me. YHWH concurs. Prov. 11:1

I will question your motivation. You deliberately set out to select the one interlinear which would give you the result you wanted. I guess it must be something genetic in the Paul family—Ron Paul is also a nut (fortunately, Rand Paul doesn't seem to have inherited that defective gene).