Hebrews 6:4-6

hello? You still looking up the numbers Bob?

 

[SIZE=+0](Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) 1 Corinthians 7:28 ean <1437> de <1161> {BUT IF} kai <2532> {ALSO} ghmhV <1060> (5661) {THOU MAYEST HAVE MARRIED,} ouc <3756> hmarteV <264> (5627) {THOU DIDST NOT SIN;} kai <2532> {AND} ean <1437> {IF} ghmh <1060> (5661) {MAY HAVE MARRIED} h <3588> {THE} parqenoV <3933> {VIRGIN,} ouc <3756> {NOT} hmarten <264> (5627) {SHE DID SIN:} qliyin <2347> de <1161> {BUT TRIBULATION} th <3588> {IN THE} sarki <4561> {FLESH} exousin <2192> (5692) oi <3588> {SHALL HAVE} toioutoi <5108> {SUCH;} egw <1473> de <1161> {BUT I} umwn <5216> {YOU} feidomai <5339> (5736) {SPARE.} [/SIZE]
Different version

 

Use any version you want Bob. Its the TR...remember the TR????????????

Place the KJV words in there...it matters not.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=899161&postcount=208

 

Did you look up the strongs numbers? I made it easy for ya. Come now...what did you find??

 

1. 1437 1437. ean eh-an' from 1487 and 302; a conditional particle; in case that, provided, etc.; often used in connection with other particles to denote indefiniteness or uncertainty:--before, but, except, (and) if, (if) so, (what-, whither-)soever, though, when (-soever), whether (or), to whom, (who-)so(-ever). See 3361.
2.1611. ekstasis ek'-stas-is from 1839; a displacement of the mind, i.e. bewilderment, "ecstasy":--+ be amazed, amazement, astonishment, trance.

3. 2532 2532. kai kahee apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words:--and, also, both, but, even, for, if, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yet.

 

How do you figure out which one you going to use?

 

I have to write some real work now Bob. Play time has ran out. You may want to look into some classes on NT greek. Its well with it.

Have a good night.


In Christ...James

 

Context is king. Its like our word Bar. One can go to a bar and drink...or can behind bars..in jail....or a lawyer is a member of a bar.....etc


Night Bob.


In Christ...James

 

And we arguing over "if"

 

A.T. Robertson
Professor of New Testament Interpretation
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (1895-1934)
(God) gave a revelation to make it free from errors, I believe He first made it inerrant as He made nature so. Hence, I boldly hold that the analogy of nature is in favor of inerrancy of God's original scriptures. ...Why in the world is it that there is such a terrible contention by destructive higher critics? ...I think I can tell. The school wants to change the whole order... they wish to get an entering wedge by having it admit that there were inaccuracies... in order to shift and change the order of the Word to suit themselves.
--"The Relative Authority of Scripture and Reason"

If God permits." - eanper, "If indeed". The second particle used with the conditional particle emphasizes that the proposed action is in spite of opposition; i.e., "if in spite of his opposition God permits." "If indeed after all" (A. T. Robertson).


Apostasy, Falling Away from the Faith, Losing Salvation, Falling ...
A. T. Robertson

says that the preposition in compound adds to the force of the linear ... if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance;

 

Now how in the world does the "kai" (a conjunction") mean "if"?!

Now I said above that the conditionality, by the phraseology, is somewhat implicit. Is there something else in my post to which you object (or perhaps agree with), or are you going to circle the wagons around the idea of "kai" meaning "if"?

If you are, could you list a Greek grammar or scholar who has written to the effect that this could be true?

Thx,

FA

Bob,

What's the difference?

POIHSOMEN (1P Pl future act indic. of POIEW) - It's future tense. Some prefer to say "shall" while others use "will." What's the difference?

Uh, that quote of AT Robertson fis about Colossians 1:23a... not Hebrews 6. ??!! What does this have to do with Hebrews 6:4-6? And which preposition are you referencing? I don't see any there.

Bob,

I agree with that. Just where are you heading with this? And this has nothing to do with the conditionality of 6:6... or at least, I'm not following your logic here yet.

FA - Bob, OK, I agree with you that these 5 participial phrases, which I wrote about before - if you're interested, go back and read it please - are referring to saved individuals - not just those who almost believed. But where in the text does it even hint that the indwelling Spirit has been removed?!

I don't mean this condescendingly, but you might find it interesting if you went back and read my original post, because I don't think you ever got the gist of what I was saying. Hey, who knows? You might even agree with some of it.

FA - Yes, we know that this means that they were genuine Christians.

FA - Agreed - again. You're basically repeating much of what I said in that post.

FA - Yes, but what does that mean? Does it mean that "once lost always lost?" I do not understand what point you're trying to make.

BTW, why do you say that a present active infinitive refers to "continuous or repeated action"? Zane Hodges says that present active infinitives refer to action which has stopped. "Continuous" action MUST be clearly indicated by the context. The gnomic present tense is extremely rare.

FA - Some read it that way, while others, (Wallace's grammar - p. 414 ) see it as "crucifying to themselves again" and since it's dative with a reflexive pronoun, that makes more sense, doesn't it?

FA - Who's the "he?" AT Robertson? Because he does not talk about it in his Word Pictures. ?? Dr. Wallace in his grammar says that there is no reason to view the participle as a conditional phrase (p. 633). This particular participle, he says, should not be taken adverbally, which is needed to supply the "if," unless we did the same thing with the previous participles - to be consistent. Some modern translations (certainly not all) follow the KJ tradition. Instead, this participle should be taken as adjectival, as the 5 before it. It further qualifies the entire group, he says. He says a better translation would be...

FA - ?? "changed the translation?" Are you referring to the textus receptus - the KJ-only thing? E-gads! There are mistakes in the KJV, of course, as well.

FA - So it has been revised? The NET, as an online Bible, is a bit unique.


Bob, please give me some Greek arguments - ones you have developed yourself would be nice - and then we can discuss it. May I ask where you got the stuff you posted? Is it original with you? What I posted earlier on Hebrews 6, though somewhat confusing I imagine and verbose, was my own rambling analysis. If you disagree with it, then let's discuss it. I make many mistakes - all the time. So let's just discuss them. But I'm kinda tired of the stuff on that participle being translated conditionally.

What do you think about the rest of my arguments? I'll post it again, snipping the stuff on "if" - so as not to sidetrack this thread

FA

 

I think it has been a difficult passage for many folks. I'll share a few comments - hope they are of some value to you:

1 - First, actually the Greek text does not say precisely "if they fall away." There are a series of participial phrases here. It is very difficult to interpret those phrases as referring to other than believers. It goes something like this...
"for impossible,
to those having been enlightened
[and] to those having tasted the heavenly gift
[and] to those having become partakers of the Holy Spirit
[and] to those having tasted the the good Word of God
[and] to those having tasted the powers of the age to come
[and] falling away
again to renew to repentance."

"and falling away" (KAI PARAPESONTAS) <snipped> yet it (conditionality) is somewhat implicit, which is why most Bibles have added it. Also note that the "falling away" is not a sure thing, but just a possibility.

2 - This is referring to genuine Jewish believers who were considering returning to their OT sacrificial practices due to the tremendous persecution they were facing. The warning does not refer to possibly losing their salvation, but to the steps that God would take if they persisted in the direction they were going. These were immature believers, it should be added.

3 - To "renew to repentance" is not referring to re-gaining eternal life. Unbelievers often need to repent as part of the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives convincing them of their need to deal with sin in their lives. But they are not saved by repenting, but by trusting in Christ. Believers also sometimes need to deal with sin.

4 - The "impossibility" to renew to repentance refers to a hardening of the heart. If we are not careful we can find ourselves in such a state - as believers. (Unbelievers are already in such a state.)

5 - To say that someone who fit the description of these Christians, whose hearts were so hardened, were impossible to renew to repentance is not to say that it is very hard to do this. It is impossible... for men to do so. And God would need to take them through some severe discipline before they might perhaps be ready to respond to the Lord. That fits in with verse 3 quite nicely... "And this we will do (proceed on to maturity), if God permits."

6 - Only God is possibily able to bring the hardened believer back into a vibrant walk with God... other Christians can only pray, for their hardened heart has made them "impossible to renew to repentance." IOW, other believers will not be able to exhort them such that they return to discipleship. Some of these Jewish believers were at a point that the writer of Hebrews (Barnabas?) could do nothing to draw them on to maturity... unless God were to change their heart. Some of these believers were at a point where Barnabas knew that he could do nothing - God would have to do it. And the process of God doing just that is then described. It's not very pretty. When we get to such a state God generally needs to take us through some trials.

7 - God may take them home (physical death) if they do not respond to the work of the Spirit in their life.

8 - In 6:8 it says that they are unfruitful (yielding thorns, etc.), and close to being cursed (note - "close" - but they are not cursed and can never be cursed since Christ was cursed in their behalf, I might add).

9 - In 6:8 still, it also says that their end is to be "burned." Now, this illustration is not referring to hell-fire - never says nor does it imply that. But think about it, what happens when you burn a field (representing the believer)? The crops/thorns on it are destroyed, and the soil is purged. It is then able to be used for useful crops again. In fact, in those days, that was what was done to purify the topsoil. This represents harsh treatment, IOT cause the believer to become useful soil again. The CROPS/THORNS are destroyed... not the soil. That was what was intended in the illustration.

10 - OK... need one more to make it 10... Think about it: if "impossible to renew to repentance" refers to losing your salvation, then we must take this precisely as it states it... "impossible to renew to repentance" would mean that if they lost their salvation, due to continued sin, they would be unable to ever gain it back again... even if they sought it later with tears... even if they prayed fervently, asking God to forgive them... even if they read their Bible every day and begged God to save them... No matter who sincerely the person comes to regret his earlier decision... regardless of the humble spirit... No matter how much God loves that person... Now, does that sound like how God works?

Ezek. 18:21-23 - But if a wicked man turns away from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness which he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live.

11 - Crud - need one more: These were Jewish Christians, and the writer of Hebrews was trying to remind them of the attitude of those Jews in the wilderness who refused to trust God in Kadesh-barnea and were told they would wander around for 40 years until that generation all died. These were saved individuals, yet because of their lack of trusting God they missed out on the opportunity to inherit the promises... to enter into the promised land. Now such entrance represents rewards for faithfulness - being joint-heirs of Christ. Now eternal life is a gift, but their additional rewards are to be given at the BEMA seat of Christ. (Romans 14:10-12 & 2 Corin. 5:10)

12 - OK, don't know how many this will be. Given the Jewish nature of the readers, the words "blessing" and "curse" would have particular significance to them. In Deuteronomy 28-30 thsee words are juxtapositioned in which blessing (rewards) was promised for obedience and cursing (IOW discipline) was promised for disobedience. (See Deut. 28:15, 45; 29:26; 3-:1, 19) The word "curse" should not then be taken as a reference to unbelievers - lost herew. In the OT this same word (in LXX) refers to God's discipline of His own children who were disobedient. I see no reason to treat this text any differently.

13 - "If it produces thorns and thistles, it is worthless"... The Greek adjective used here is ADOKIMOS - a word that Paul liked. He did not use it to refer to unbelievers. It means to not "stand the test, to be unqualified, worthless." This is reward language (blessing/cursing). It was used often to refer to the process of testing and examining metals (especially by fire - to purify them - see Prov. 8:10; 17:3; 25:4; Isa. 1:22). The apostle Paul used this term to refer to himself in 1 Corin. 9:27, "lest... I myself should be disqualified." His eternal salvation was obviously not the case (look at the context there) but instead the very real possibility of disqualification or disapproval at the BEMA seat of Christ - in terms of his ministry. The point of the metaphor was that Paul was concerned about possibily jeopardizing his eternal rewards. That was the main point that Paul was making there.

I see the author of Hebrews making essentially the same point.

The situation in view here is a serious one - perhaps even apostasy. The Jewish believers here IMO were considering the possibility of retruning to OT sacrifice (See chap. 2, 7 & 10 as well as 3:12) to including adherring to the law as well as trusting in Christ. They were probably experiencing intense pressure from fellow Jews into giving up believing that the death of Jesus was enough to cover their sins. (Judaizers)

Nuf said. I would be interested in comments regarding the points above. Does it make sense? But enough already on this "KAI means if stuff." Let's get back on track.

FA

 

"if" is not in the Greek. It is in the English.

Neither are our words the same as Greek words.

Hebrews 6:4-6 adunaton gar touV apax jwtisqentaV geusamenouV te thV dwreaV thV epouraniou kai metocouV genhqentaV pneumatoV agiou kai kalon geusamenouV qeou rhma dunameiV te mellontoV aiwnoV kai parapesontaV palin anakainizein eiV metanoian anastaurountaV eautoiV ton uion tou qeou kai paradeigmatizontaV

There ya go, James. Would you like to translate that into Engish? No? Me neither. Good thing some very able gentlemen (All calvinist I heard somewhere) already translated it into English. They included the word "if" because they (47 of them I heard somewhere) thought it was the best translation into English. How many English words do you see in the above verses? I seriously doubt you have a better grasp of Greek than the men who did the translating. Incase you really don't know why Bob brought up Strongs, the Geneva Bible, and the KJV, it is because he is not putting his knowledge of Greek up against yours, he is putting their knowledge of Greek up against yours. Bob knows Geneva is a bible and Strong was not a translator, but that was a real cute debate trick you used to try making him look foolish. It did not work on me, and I trust it failed on others as well.

 

Guys,

Can we drop this "if" argument? I don't think it is critical to most of our arguments. Let's discuss Hebrews 6.

Hey Blammo, like my avitar?

This thread is getting too adversarial. Let's just discuss the possible meanings, acknowledging that we can be, and very likely are, wrong in many places. Perhaps we can learn a thing or two from one another.

FA

 

I agree. I don't think we need to correct the Bible in order to discuss it.

Your avitar is very familiar. (I think you had yours first, but mine is a Montana Grizzly returning another punt for a touchdown, and that is why it is much cooler )

:tongue3:

 

Ah, Montana. Well, I'm from SoCal, but living in the South now - they really love the SEC here. BTW, that's some UCLA defensive backs chasing Reggie Bush.

BTW, I take a somwhat different approach to the "security of the believer"... but I get to the same place.

FA

 

I think I move on to something else also, you fellows will not admit when I put the evidence in your face. The if was added in the translation but for good reasons as explained by your ex-friend A T Robertson.

Faith, You ask for a quote from A T Robertson on Hebrew 6: 4-6 and I give it to you and now you deny it and say it is talking about Col 1:23a. You also, bring in Wallace now as if AT Robertson is not good enough anymore being He didn't uphold your exergis. This whole article is by A. T. Roberson and the preposition is "if". Look at the context he was talking about when he explained the preposition. It don't only cover Hebrew 6:6 it covers Hebrews 5:11-6:12. Seems to me Faith you see your man quoting the scripture using "if" and giving reason why, you would be defending it, instead of turning to Wallace.

Apostasy, Falling Away from the Faith, Losing Salvation, Falling ...
A. T. Robertson

says that the preposition in compound adds to the force of the linear ... if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; ...

And James He was quoting the KJV and upholding it and gave the reason why. You supposed to be able to translate Greek but you don't comphrehend English.

Moving on to our last section of scripture we will see revealed the mechanics of falling away from the faith - Hebrews 5:11-6:12. Notice that these Christians start out being rebuked for their spiritual neglect and resultant immaturity - the precursor for falling away - and then are admonished about the danger of falling away and its consequences.

”Of whom we have many things to say, but will be hard to speak, seeing you are slow of hearing. For when you ought to now be teachers, you have need that one teach you again the basic principles of the truth of God; and are become such as have need of milk and not of strong meat. For everyone that uses milk is unskillful in the Word of righteousness: for he is a baby. But strong meat belongs to them that are of full age (mature), even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Therefore, leaving the rudiments of the doctrine of Christ, LET US GN TO MATURITY; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgement. And this we will do, IF GOD PERMITS.

”FOR IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THOSE WHO WERE ONCE AND FOR ALL ENLIGHTENED, AND HAVE TASTED OF THE HEAVENLY GIFT, AND WERE MADE PARTAKERS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND HAVE TASTED THE GOOD WORD OF GOD, AND THE POWERS OF THE AGE TO COME, IF THEY SHALL FALL AWAY, TO RENEW THEM AGAIN UNTO REPENTANCE, SEEING THEY CRUCIFY TO THEMSELVES THE SON OF GOD AFRESH, AND PUT HIM TO AN OPEN SHAME.

”For the earth which drinks in the rain that comes often upon it, and brings forth plants suitable for them by whom it is dressed, receives blessing from God: But that which bears thorns and briers is rejected (no useable fruit), and is near to being cursed; whose end is to be burned. But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, THINGS THAT BELONG TO SALVATION, though we speak like this. For God is not unrighteous that he would forget your work and labor of love, which you have showed towards his name, in that you have ministered to the saints, AND CONTINUE TO DO SO. AND WE DESIRE THAT EVERY ONE OF YOU DO SHOW THE SAME DILIGENCE TO THE FULL ASSURANCE OF HOPE UNTO THE END; THAT YE BE NOT SLOTHFUL, BUT FOLLOWERS OF THEM WHO THROUGH FAITH AND ENDURANCE INHERIT THE PROMISES.”

"Let us go on to maturity” - pherometha, present passive subjunctive of phero, meaning to carry, and in the passive, to be carried. The subjunctive is cohortative, e.g. “let us be carried,” and the passive gives the thought of personal surrender to an active influence (Westcott). It is not a matter of the learners being carried by their instructors, but of both being carried forward together by God. It is a “divine pass” implying the agency of God (Hughes). Better rendered, “Let us be carried on to maturity.”

"If God permits.” - eanper, “If indeed”. The second particle used with the conditional particle emphasizes that the proposed action is in spite of opposition; i.e., “if in spite of his opposition God permits.” “If indeed after all” (A. T. Robertson).

The writer of this letter to the Hebrews desires the spiritual health of the recipients of his letter (this also includes us, now that we have it in our possession), and he is willing to reinculcate the badly neglected souls of Christians with truths that will bring them to a state of spiritual maturity. Here the addressed believer’s association with the things of God is experiential. The general thought of these emphasized portions of scripture is that the believer in a deteriorated state of spirituality, if he is willing, may be allowed to be carried forth to spiritual maturity by him, others, and God, in spite of his own past irresponsible neglect of spiritual matters; but this would only be possible without the opposition of God; for only God knows for sure if their deteriorated state is due to falling away into unbelief. “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” “And to him who has will more be given, but to him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” That is why the following scripture begins with “For”, for it connects the condition which follows under which God would oppose the reinculcation of those who have displayed spiritual deterioration with spiritual truths; for if they had fallen away into unbelief, it would be throwing Christian pearls before swine.

The justice of God would oppose the reinstatement of anyone who has fallen away into unbelief, for that would be to insult and humiliate the One who died in his place. He paid for us with his life once, and he is not able to, nor can he do it, again. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” Believe again on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved again? I think not! It would be like drinking a soda pop. Once you have consumed it you can’t consume it a second time because it has already been consumed. Swallowing implies commitment.

apax means “once for all”. The verb for “enlightened” means to illuminate. In other words, God has once and for all enlightened the eyes and spiritual understanding of this person, and it was a completed transaction. There is no doubt about it that this person was a saved individual.

The verb “tasting” of the heavenly gift expresses a real and conscious enjoyment of the blessings apprehended in its true character (Westcott).

metouxos, “partaker”, means a sharer, or a participant. genethentas, “and were made,” means to come into existence, to be created, to exist by creation, established, to come into a particular state or condition, be changed or converted, to be born. In other words, this person was a new creation in Christ, was born again, and had the indwelling Holy Spirit - and here I emphasize the word "had," meaning that it has departed from him due to his change of heart towards his God.

He “tasted” the good word of God and the powerful deeds of the age which is to come. Again as above, a real and conscious enjoyment of the blessings apprehended in its true character.

”Falling away”, parapesontas, means to fall by the side of, to fall off or away from, or make defection from. Again, one can’t fall away or defect from a place he has never been; so I don’t care what kind of theological gymnastics any Bible scholar may go through to make the point of his doctrine of eternal security, this passage, and others like it clearly teach that believers can and do defect from the faith, and in doing so, throw away their salvation to their own irremedial loss.

palin anakainidzein, a present active infinitive, means to renew again, to make new again, referring to continuous or repeated action. These words refer back to the words, “For it is impossible.” It is impossible for such a person to be again renewed unto repentance.

anastaurountas, present active participle accusative plural masculine, eautois, dative of advantage, “crucifying again for themselves.” The participle is causal showing why it is impossible for such people to be brought to a place of repentance and begin anew for their own advantage.

Let us now read this passage of scripture again with an informed understanding: “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good Word of God, and the powers of the age to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”

This is an article from A T Robertson. :BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead:

Also, if we have Christ we never walk alone.

 

I think the people in question were just not born again.

It's a difficult one for sure.

David

 

Passages like this and He 10:26 scare the doodoo out of us who think we cannot lose our salvation but persist in willful sin, and to that I say such is precisely their design. Not to heed these warnings is to scoff at the Designer of their words.

 

Actually, I think there is no mystery here, we have just lost it's meaning.

It's facinating.

Anyone who fears they are numbered amongst those who commit this sin have for sure not done so, for the above have no fear and are not God's.