Author Topic: 2 thess 1:9 ( the correct one is away from the presence or from the presnece) ?  (Read 5215 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline walter1234

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 928
Quote
New International Version (©1984)
They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power
New Living Translation (©2007)
They will be punished with eternal destruction, forever separated from the Lord and from his glorious power.

English Standard Version (©2001)
They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,

Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction from the Lord's presence and from His glorious strength

International Standard Version (©2012)
Such people will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction by being separated from the Lord's presence and from his glorious power

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
For they will be paid in judgment: eternal destruction from the face of our Lord and from the glory of his power,

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
They will pay the penalty by being destroyed forever, by being separated from the Lord's presence and from his glorious power.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

American King James Version
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

American Standard Version
who shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

Douay-Rheims Bible
Who shall suffer eternal punishment in destruction, from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his power:

Darby Bible Translation
who shall pay the penalty of everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his might,

English Revised Version
who shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

Webster's Bible Translation
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Weymouth New Testament
They will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, being banished from the presence of the Lord and from His glorious majesty,

World English Bible
who will pay the penalty: eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

Young's Literal Translation
who shall suffer justice -- destruction age-during -- from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his strength,
 
 
2 thess 1:9 is one of the most controversial and blurred translation text in New testament. Some English bible version translate 2 thess 1:9 as ' eternal destruction From the face/ presence of Lord', while some bible version translate this verse as ' shut out / away / separated from the presence of Lord'.

Orthodox Christians who is from Greek Orthodox Church in Greece should use Greek language bible. It should be more accurated and  closer to the original text and they can tell us that what is 2 thess 1:9 in the original context / Greek language bible.

Can some Orthodox Christians who is from Greek Orthodox Church in Greece help me to check what 2 thess 1:9 truely is and what it mean in Greek language bible or in orginal text ? 2 thess 1:9 means that the sinners will suffer eternal destruction from the Presence / face of Lord ?Or it means the sinner will eternal destruction away from, separated from, shut out from the Presence / face of Lord?

« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 12:57:32 PM by walter1234 »

Offline jmbejdl

  • Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,480
  • Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava
2 thess 1:9 is one of the most controversial and blurred translation text in New testament. Some English bible version translate 2 thess 1:9 as ' eternal destruction From the face/ presence of Lord', while some bible version translate this verse as ' shut out / away / separated from the presence of Lord'.

Orthodox Christians who is from Greek Orthodox Church in Greece should use Greek language bible. It should be more accurated and  closer to the original text and they can tell us that what is 2 thess 1:9 in the original context / Greek language bible.

Can some Orthodox Christians who is from Greek Orthodox Church in Greece help me to check what 2 thess 1:9 truely is and what it mean in Greek language bible or in orginal text ? 2 thess 1:9 means that the sinners will suffer eternal destruction from the Presence / face of Lord ?Or it means the sinner will eternal destruction away from, separated from, shut out from the Presence / face of Lord?

I can't speak for the Greek, unfortunately. Hopefully someone else can. But in the meantime the official Romanian Orthodox version of the Bible reads as (as close as I can render it in English) 'They will take as punishment eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and the glory of His power'. I see no suggestion of separation from God at all there.

James
« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 01:00:23 PM by jmbejdl »
We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Offline walter1234

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 928
Quote
New International Version (©1984)
They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power

New Living Translation (©2007)
They will be punished with eternal destruction, forever separated from the Lord and from his glorious power.

English Standard Version (©2001)
They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,


International Standard Version (©2012)
Such people will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction by being separated from the Lord's presence and from his glorious power


GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
They will pay the penalty by being destroyed forever, by being separated from the Lord's presence and from his glorious power.

The Scriptures which interpret 2 thess 1:9 as ' away/ shut out / separated from God's presence' are all modern English bible version and formed in or after 1984.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 01:05:58 PM by walter1234 »

Offline Cavaradossi

  • 法網恢恢,疏而不漏
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,736
St. John Chrysostom seems to interpret that verse as meaning that the presence of God will be punishment to sinners and glory to the saved. I think I would take that as support for the earlier translations which read "from the presence."
Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Offline Romaios

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,933
2 thess 1:9 means that the sinners will suffer eternal destruction from the Presence / face of Lord ?Or it means the sinner will eternal destruction away from, separated from, shut out from the Presence / face of Lord?

The Greek allows both interpretations of olethron aionion apo prosopou tou Kyriou ('eternal destruction from the face of the Lord'):

1) separative Genitive: "away from the face of the Lord".

2) as a Genitive of agent: it is the very 'face of the Lord' and 'the glory of his might' that cause the 'eternal destruction' (Heb. abadon 'olam).

This is clearly Semitic thought in Greek expression: when they spoke of God, they used such traditional anthropomorphic expressions like "face", "hand/arm" or "mouth" of Yahweh. Also, the image of God's glorious warrior-like appearance (doxa/parousia/epiphaneia) in the "Day of the Lord"  is attributed to Christ.  

I'd go for the second interpretation, especially since in the next chapter, there's an analogous passage about the destruction of the Antichrist with almost the same parallelism. Compare:

2 Thess. 1, 9: hoitines diken tisousin olethron aionion apo prosopou Kyriou                    
                   "who will undergo as punishment eternal destruction from (by) the face of the Lord"  
                    
                                                                   kai apo tes doxes tes ischyos autou
                                                                   "and from (by) the glory of his might, [when he (Jesus) will come to be glorified...]"        

to:

2 Thess. 2, 8: hon ho Kyrios (Iesous) aneilei to pneumati tou stomatos autou                    
                    "whom the Lord (Jesus) will slay with the breath of his mouth"

2 Thess. 2, 9: kai katargesei te epiphaneia tes parousias autou                  
                    "and destroy by the appearance of his coming (presence)".      

The Genitive of agent in the first instance would thus appear as equivalent to the instrumental Dative in the second.
      
« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 02:53:58 PM by Romaios »

Offline Romaios

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,933
« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 02:53:07 PM by Romaios »

Online Justin Kissel

  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 32,530
-

Board policy requires posts to be at least 5 characters in length. Please add 4 characters. Thank you for your compliance in this matter.

Offline Romaios

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,933
-

Board policy requires posts to be at least 5 characters in length. Please add 4 characters. Thank you for your compliance in this matter.

I am sorry - I was trying to amend something in the previous post, but ended up quoting it by mistake. I wish there was a way to delete such posts.

Online Justin Kissel

  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 32,530
Don't worry, I was just joking around. :) They do like you to have at least five characters, but you're not going to get in trouble for it or anything like that.

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,082
  • don't even go there!
Asterikos, I thought of four characters I would have added: Moe, Larry, Curley and Shemp. ;-)
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline Romaios

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,933
It's interesting to compare the above to Psalm 67 (68), which dwells on the same eschatological theme (God dealing with his enemies on the 'Day of the Lord'):

1 Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered:
   let those who hate him flee before him (literally "from his face" - mippanaw/apo prosopou autou).
2 As smoke is driven away, so drive them away:
  as wax melts before the fire ("from the face of fire" - mippene-esh/apo prosopou pyros),
  let the wicked perish before God ("from the face of God" - mippene elohim/apo prosopou Theou).

Hence the image of God as a "consuming fire".
« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 05:31:33 PM by Romaios »

Offline xariskai

  • юродивый/yurodivy
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,578
  • יהוה עזי ומגני
  • Faith: Orthodox

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,300
www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,42398.msg695775.html#msg695775

Quote
The notion of ontological separation from an omnipresent God is, of course, something of an oxymoron. Phenomenological separation, less so.[1]

Great post for this alone.

If people would only get the difference between the ontological and phenomenological, it would much easier to discuss nearly everything.

Also if nearly everyone who uses the term existential would realize they mean phenomenological that would be awesome as well.
If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Offline Schultz

  • Christian. Guitarist. Scooterist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,542
  • Scion of the McKeesport Becks.
www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,42398.msg695775.html#msg695775

Quote
The notion of ontological separation from an omnipresent God is, of course, something of an oxymoron. Phenomenological separation, less so.[1]

Great post for this alone.

If people would only get the difference between the ontological and phenomenological, it would much easier to discuss nearly everything.

Also if nearly everyone who uses the term existential would realize they mean phenomenological that would be awesome as well.

I suddenly want to give you a cigar.
"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,332
Words like "ontomological" and "phenomenological" make me want to punch someone in the face.

This is one of the many reasons I don't read philosophy. Nobody talks like that.

Online Justin Kissel

  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 32,530
Words like "ontomological" and "phenomenological" make me want to punch someone in the face.

This is one of the many reasons I don't read philosophy. Nobody talks like that.

You're betraying very specific meta-epistemological pre-suppositions when you say that.

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,332
Words like "ontomological" and "phenomenological" make me want to punch someone in the face.

This is one of the many reasons I don't read philosophy. Nobody talks like that.

You're betraying very specific meta-epistemological pre-suppositions when you say that.

I need a drink.  :-[

Offline xariskai

  • юродивый/yurodivy
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,578
  • יהוה עזי ומגני
  • Faith: Orthodox
Words like "ontomological" and "phenomenological" make me want to punch someone in the face.
May the fleas of a thousand camels infest one of your erogenous zones before you go that far.

Words like "ontomological" and "phenomenological" make me want to punch someone in the face.

This is one of the many reasons I don't read philosophy. Nobody talks like that.


You're betraying very specific meta-epistemological pre-suppositions when you say that.
"Nobody talks like that" is entirely credible, because biro's "ontomological" is not a word.

He is half right because he is half-wrong (albeit unintentionally). Give a guy some credit.




« Last Edit: January 11, 2013, 10:43:30 PM by xariskai »

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,332
I meant ontological. Sorry.  :-[

Offline Cyrillic

  • The Laughing Cavalier
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,033
  • Φέρ' ὕδωρ φέρ' οἶνον, ὦ παῖ!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Words like "ontomological" and "phenomenological" make me want to punch someone in the face.

This is one of the many reasons I don't read philosophy. Nobody talks like that.

You're betraying very specific meta-epistemological pre-suppositions when you say that.

Wait, you can't have meta-epistemological pre-suppositions. Meta-epistemological implies that you already know, since it is meta epistèmè. One cannot have much pre-suppositions meta-epistemologically, that'd be silly.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 12:37:58 PM by Cyrillic »
At nunc desertis cessant sacraria lucis:
aurum omnes victa iam pietate colunt.
-Propertius, Elegies III.XIII:47-48

νίκας τοῖς Βασιλεῦσι κατὰ βαρβάρων δωρούμενος

Offline qawe

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 344
    • Return to Orthodoxy
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Words like "ontomological" and "phenomenological" make me want to punch someone in the face.

This is one of the many reasons I don't read philosophy. Nobody talks like that.

You're betraying very specific meta-epistemological pre-suppositions when you say that.

Wait, you can't have meta-epistemological pre-suppositions. Meta-epistemological implies that you already know, since it is meta epistèmè. One cannot have much pre-suppositions meta-epistemologically, that'd be silly.

One cannot have many pre-suppositions...
Worship is theology, so a church which brings Evangelical and Charismatic "praise & worship" into its corporate life is no longer Orthodox.  It is, by definition, heterodox.  Those "Orthodox" leaders who make theological arguments for the incorporation of heteropraxis into the life of the Church are heretics.

http://returntoorthodoxy.com/

Online Justin Kissel

  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 32,530

Offline Shanghaiski

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,978
  • Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia
I wish this thread were more onomatopological.
Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,300
I wish this thread were more onomatopological.

Huh?
If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Offline qawe

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 344
    • Return to Orthodoxy
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Metatextuality?
« Reply #24 on: February 22, 2013, 05:26:35 AM »
Words like "ontomological" and "phenomenological" make me want to punch someone in the face.

This is one of the many reasons I don't read philosophy. Nobody talks like that.

You're betraying very specific meta-epistemological pre-suppositions when you say that.

Wait, you can't have meta-epistemological pre-suppositions. Meta-epistemological implies that you already know, since it is meta epistèmè. One cannot have much pre-suppositions meta-epistemologically, that'd be silly.

May I ask a related question please?
I know that a play which refers to itself is a 'metadrama'.
A film which refers to itself is a 'metafilm'.
But what about a metafilm which includes sections of a metadrama?
Would it be correct to say that it 'contains several layers of metatextuality'?
I looked up the definition of 'metatextuality', and, in light of this, the above sentence doesn't make much sense.
Does anyone have any suggestions for me to articulate what I am trying to say?
Worship is theology, so a church which brings Evangelical and Charismatic "praise & worship" into its corporate life is no longer Orthodox.  It is, by definition, heterodox.  Those "Orthodox" leaders who make theological arguments for the incorporation of heteropraxis into the life of the Church are heretics.

http://returntoorthodoxy.com/