Thanks for joining the discussion, but we had already discussed what you
brought up. This was included in my first response to Roger.
By the way, you got things backwards here. Roger was wondering if there
was any basis for taking the clause with v. 3. I was arguing for taking
it with v. 2 (because of the use of hWS hOTI elsewhere, and had pointed
out that scholars throughout history have all taken it that way, as
evidenced in the punctuation variations).
I can see, however, why you got things backwards. Roger signed it "RH"
and by it meant he was the one doing the talking in what follows, not
what precedes. Guess he is really stuck on the "taking things with the
following" as per his inquiry.
Paul Dixon
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 11:50:55 -0600 (CST) "F. Holly Mitchell"
<mitchell@dobson.ozarks.edu> writes:
>Roger & Paul,
>
>> >No, I personally favor the ASV and KJV renderings. In fact, it
>makes
>> >good sense to see that the Thessalonian error was that they
>believed in
>> >imminency, that is, the belief that the next prophetic event to be
>> >fulfilled was the coming of the day of the Lord, which is started
>by the
>> >coming of the Lord and our gathering together unto HIm (v. 1).
>
>I always thought the big concern for the church at Thessolonica that
>Paul
>addresses here is the fear that what if Christ has already returned,
>and those who've already died flat out missed it?
>
>The word ENESTWTA is used in Rom 8:38 and ICor 3:22 in contrast with
>MELLONTA and seems to mean 'things already present' contrasted with
>'things to come'.
>
>> RH
>> No problem as far as you go. However, why would the Thessalonians
>be alarmed
>> or troubled over a prophecy that the Day of the Lord was imminent.
>If they
>> anticipated a rapture, it would seem that they would be excited...I
>do not
>> understand the cause for the agitation over the prospect of Christ
>soon
>> returning to get them. Would you get upset if you were convinced
>that Christ
>> was to return in a short time for you?
>
>> Do you see the problem I am having here?
>
>Actually, I *would* be shaken up to realize Christ was returning in a
>short time. There are too many folks on my prayer list who don't yet
>know
>the grace of God through Jesus Christ.
>
>> The ending phrase in v 2 does not seem to fit there but seems to fit
>> very well as the intro to v 3 (yet this apparently is not allowed by
>the
>> Greek).
>
>In my text (Aland, Black, Martini, Metzger & Wikgren, 1975), this
>passage
>has a footnote about punctuation. They list 12 different editions of
>the Greek and modern language translations which have major
>punctuation,
>or a period, at the end of v 2, and only 3 which have either a dash or
>comma. Nobody puts a period *before* the phrase hWS hOTI ENESTHKEN hH
>hHMERA TOU KURIOU.
>
>So, I think you're right, Roger. The text seems to demand that we
>interpret this phrase as part of v 2.
>
>God Bless,
>Ginger (assistant to Holly)
>
>