Biblical Chastening

[TCGreek]

KJV, NKJV, Amplified, NIV, NASB, NLT, CEV, RSV, YLT, HCSB I guess there were 10.

How could the NIV, NLT, RSV, HCSB be in the company of "if" and not the NASB, when they read like the NASB at verse 7?

 

[J. Jump]

Because they are structured as a command. Endure chastening. That is an instruction or a command. Instructions and commands are something that should be followed, but the possibility exists that they will not be followed or carried out.

EDIT: Which I really don't understand why they would be structured like that since the verb is not a command, but there you go .

 

[DHK]

As to your child example there are children that grew up in homes where they received discipline and it did not stop their rebellion, so while they endured the pain of chastening they didn't actually endure the chastening, because the chastening didn't have it's desired impact on them.

Then go back to your OT example of chastening. It is the same thing. There may come a time when chastening doesn't work. In the OT, that rebellious child (probably an older teen) was taken out and stoned. In the NT, under God's chastening hand, death is the last and final step in his process of chastening. He has the option of taking a believer out of this world if he continues in his rebellion in spite of all the chastening that He has given him. This would be properly called "a sin unto death." It could be any sin. Only God knows. It is the final step in the process of God's chastening hand.

 

[npetreley]

Then go back to your OT example of chastening. It is the same thing. There may come a time when chastening doesn't work. In the OT, that rebellious child (probably an older teen) was taken out and stoned. In the NT, under God's chastening hand, death is the last and final step in his process of chastening. He has the option of taking a believer out of this world if he continues in his rebellion in spite of all the chastening that He has given him. This would be properly called "a sin unto death." It could be any sin. Only God knows. It is the final step in the process of God's chastening hand.

This is what happened to some of the Corinthians. They were chastened, some more severely than others. Some were sick and some fell asleep (died).

 

[J. Jump]

Then go back to your OT example of chastening. It is the same thing. There may come a time when chastening doesn't work. In the OT, that rebellious child (probably an older teen) was taken out and stoned. In the NT, under God's chastening hand, death is the last and final step in his process of chastening.

Death is the final step in the chastening in this life. So once again my point is proven that if chastening isn't working in this life God will remove you, however death is not the magical cure-all for rebellion.

And that simply does not address the Scripture that talk about us being paid a just and fair wage for what we have done good or bad at the JSOC which is AFTER this life.

There is simply no Biblical support that chastening stops after this life. And if you want to believe it does that's fine with me, because once again you can't escpate what will be handed out at the JSOC and it's not going to be paradise pie for all just in different sizes.

So call it what you like the negative consequences for one's behavior if not dealt with on this earth can extend into the next age.

If you leave this earth a rebel God's not going to just wink at your rebellion and give you an atta boy when you stand before The Judge. If anyone thinks that they do so to their own peril and more than likely to the peril of those they have influence over!

 

[Amy.G]

Does not the word "if" tell us that there is a condition? If you endure . . .

I looked at nine different translations and the only one that didn't look obvious that endurance was something could or could not be done was the NASB. All the others made it a matter condition.

NLT
Hbr 12:7 As you endure this divine discipline, remember that God is treating you as his own children. Who ever heard of a child who was never disciplined?

NIV
Hbr 12:7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?

ESV
7It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline?

Where are the conditions?

"As you endure", "endure", "have to endure".

 

[Amy.G]

Death is the final step in the chastening in this life. So once again my point is proven that if chastening isn't working in this life God will remove you, however death is not the magical cure-all for rebellion.

And that simply does not address the Scripture that talk about us being paid a just and fair wage for what we have done good or bad at the JSOC which is AFTER this life.

There is simply no Biblical support that chastening stops after this life. And if you want to believe it does that's fine with me, because once again you can't escpate what will be handed out at the JSOC and it's not going to be paradise pie for all just in different sizes.

So call it what you like the negative consequences for one's behavior if not dealt with on this earth can extend into the next age.

If you leave this earth a rebel God's not going to just wink at your rebellion and give you an atta boy when you stand before The Judge. If anyone thinks that they do so to their own peril and more than likely to the peril of those they have influence over!

Post scripture to prove what you're saying in this post.

 

[TCGreek]

Because they are structured as a command. Endure chastening. That is an instruction or a command. Instructions and commands are something that should be followed, but the possibility exists that they will not be followed or carried out.

EDIT: Which I really don't understand why they would be structured like that since the verb is not a command, but there you go .

1. The Greek verb can either be considered in the imperative mood, therefore the command or in the indicative mood, a statement. The versions are divided at this point who followed the Eastern reading.

2. If we were to go with the possibility of rejecting the chastening, the consequences are only confined to this life, not beyond, and albeit, temporarily.

 

[J. Jump]

1. The Greek verb can either be considered in the imperative mood, therefore the command or in the indicative mood, a statement. The versions are divided at this point who followed the Eastern reading.

2. If we were to go with the possibility of rejecting the chastening, the consequences are only confined to this life, not beyond, and albeit, temporarily.

Please educate me how this can be seen as an imperitive, when everything that I see it is a present, active, indicitive. I'm sincerely asking as I am not a Greek expert, but am learning.

Once again though if in fact it can be seen as an imperitive, which at least some translation make that evident my point still stands.

The consequences of rejection are not limited to this life. Again there is a JSOC that awaits. That is AFTER this life and once again it's not all pieces of paradise pie that are going to be handed out.

There's no possible way you can say that all negative consequences end in this life. If that were so there would be no suffering at the JSOC. That would be an impossibility.

 

[npetreley]

I sense "arguing from silence". Yet another logical fallacy.

Scripture: Put up some, or shut up.

 

[J. Jump]

Post scripture to prove what you're saying in this post.

Because this time it will make a difference? Please Amy. These Scriptures have been posted countless times. Are you going to give the same lame line that you can't remember. You are going to reap what you sow. If you sow to the flesh you are going to reap corruption. That WILL happen. That's not talking about in this life, although that is a distinct possibility, but it's talking about the JSOC.

You keep asking for Scripture and at every turn you are given Scripture over and over and over and over and over again and you keep up this game playing.

 

[npetreley]

Post scripture to prove what you're saying in this post.

He can't. That's why he stopped at "there's no Biblical support for..." That's called arguing from silence. Because he can't find a verse that contradicts what he believes, he will believe it even if there is no scripture to support it. It's a common game-playing logical fallacy.

ME folks pull out all the stops when it comes to logical fallacies. One could teach a whole course on logical fallacies in debate from their arguments.

You can use "arguing from silence" to believe just about anything. The Bible doesn't say there aren't any purple unicorns, right? So I believe there are. You can't prove I'm wrong, because the Bible doesn't say they don't exist.
.

 

[Amy.G]

Because this time it will make a difference? Please Amy. These Scriptures have been posted countless times. Are you going to give the same lame line that you can't remember. You are going to reap what you sow. If you sow to the flesh you are going to reap corruption. That WILL happen. That's not talking about in this life, although that is a distinct possibility, but it's talking about the JSOC.

You keep asking for Scripture and at every turn you are given Scripture over and over and over and over and over again and you keep up this game playing.

Here is one of your statements.

There is simply no Biblical support that chastening stops after this life. And if you want to believe it does that's fine with me, because once again you can't escpate what will be handed out at the JSOC and it's not going to be paradise pie for all just in different sizes.

Post a scripture to support this.

 

[TCGreek]

Please educate me how this can be seen as an imperitive, when everything that I see it is a present, active, indicitive. I'm sincerely asking as I am not a Greek expert, but am learning.

Once again though if in fact it can be seen as an imperitive, which at least some translation make that evident my point still stands.

The consequences of rejection are not limited to this life. Again there is a JSOC that awaits. That is AFTER this life and once again it's not all pieces of paradise pie that are going to be handed out.

There's no possible way you can say that all negative consequences end in this life. If that were so there would be no suffering at the JSOC. That would be an impossibility.

1. JJump, you say:

Because they are structured as a command. Endure chastening. That is an instruction or a command. Instructions and commands are something that should be followed, but the possibility exists that they will not be followed or carried out.

Emphasis mine.

2. In the Greek, commands and instruction are expressed mainly in the imperative mood, not the indicative mood.

3. If a version takes it as indicative and the commentator agrees, he will conjugate it accordingly.

4. But if the commentator decides from other factors in the text that it should be considered an imperative, then he conjugates it accordingly.

 

[DHK]

Because this time it will make a difference? Please Amy. These Scriptures have been posted countless times. Are you going to give the same lame line that you can't remember. You are going to reap what you sow. If you sow to the flesh you are going to reap corruption. That WILL happen. That's not talking about in this life, although that is a distinct possibility, but it's talking about the JSOC.

You keep asking for Scripture and at every turn you are given Scripture over and over and over and over and over again and you keep up this game playing.

Whose playing games? All of you (believers in ME) quote Scripture, albeit rarely, and when you do it is grossly out of context.

Galatians 6:7-10 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

The entire section is speaking of both giving and doing good in this lifetime. The conclusion of that particular passage is in verse ten which obviously is about doing good to those in the church. The chapter starts out by saying: "Bear ye one another burdens." The entire context is about doing good for one another; in other words not being selfish with your own goods and your own efforts. It has to do with what we do on this earth.

 

[Amy.G]

I asked for JJump to post scripture in 3 of my posts, #306, 307, and 313.

Waiting..........

 

[J. Jump]

4. But if the commentator decides from other factors in the text that it should be considered an imperative, then he conjugates it accordingly.

What I was asking for those is there a rule in the Greek language that says a present, active, indicitive might really be an imperative? Other wise if there is not then the "commentator" or translator in this instance is adding to Scripture that which they have no right to, correct?

Maybe I'm not asking my question in the right way.

 

[J. Jump]

I asked for JJump to post scripture in 3 of my posts, #306, 307, and 313.

Waiting..........

Amy since you are obviosly having problems tonight I'm going to repeat my post and bold the part you need to pay close attention to.

Because this time it will make a difference? Please Amy. These Scriptures have been posted countless times. Are you going to give the same lame line that you can't remember. You are going to reap what you sow. If you sow to the flesh you are going to reap corruption. That WILL happen. That's not talking about in this life, although that is a distinct possibility, but it's talking about the JSOC.

You keep asking for Scripture and at every turn you are given Scripture over and over and over and over and over again and you keep up this game playing.

This statement was made only a few posts after one of your requests. And I know you saw it because you even quoted it.

That bold part Amy . . . that's Scripture!

Now are you going to continue to make the same mistake that II Timothy made an falsely accuse me of not giving you Scripture when in fact I did?

 

[J. Jump]

All of you (believers in ME) quote Scripture, albeit rarely,

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
That deserved a four on the chuckle meter. Everytime one of you people ask for Scripture it is given to you. And when some of you come up with the lame excuse well I forgot what you said we give it to you again. That really deserved more than four, but that was my limit.

and when you do it is grossly out of context.

Funny that's the cry every time we bring up a Scripture, but you've not one time been able to show how we take it out of context. Man I wish I wasn't limited to four laughers.

It has to do with what we do on this earth.

EXACTLY! That's the WHOLE POINT! What you do here on this earth has consequences when you stand at the JSOC. Once again you try to prove us wrong, but all you do is further prove what we are trying to say.

 

[TCGreek]

What I was asking for those is there a rule in the Greek language that says a present, active, indicitive might really be an imperative? Other wise if there is not then the "commentator" or translator in this instance is adding to Scripture that which they have no right to, correct?

Maybe I'm not asking my question in the right way.

1. There are certain verbs in the indicative and the imperative that look the same as our verb under consideration hupomenete, from hupomeno.

a. In the Indicative it is: present, active, indicative, second person plural of hupomeno.

b. In the Imperative, the same form of the verb is: Present, active imperative, second person plural of hupomeno.

2. Both the translators and commentators have to decide which it is, indicative or imperative. Hope that helps.