Hebrews 6:4-6

[Jarthur001]

I somehow knew from the start that this would end this way. I have laughed my self crazy reading this Greek debate. I needed this. Ha! Ha!

This was the post I like the most..

ean.de (but if) kai (and) gameo (thou marry) oux.hamartano(thou didst not sin) kai (and) ean (if) gameo (may have married) ..............


But and IF thou marry thou hast not sinned and if a virgin marry she hath not sinned Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh but I spare you

May be funny but why do you have to switch the words and and if around?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=899138&postcount=200

 

[Brother Bob]

I like it too Faith Alone;
Except ye repent, where I am ye cannot come.

So, are you now agreeing that A T Robertson did say the above?

 

[Jarthur001]

I like it too Faith Alone;
Except ye repent, where I am ye cannot come.

So, are you now agreeing that A T Robertson did say the above?

Robertson does not build his case around one word that is not there. It is one that can be placed on the table for debate.

So yes it is a good statement, but not sure I agree.

 

[Brother Bob]

Seems we finally agree on something James. At least A T Robertson did not remove "if" did he? I know I don't agree with his "falling away".

 

[Jarthur001]

Seems we finally agree on something James. At least A T Robertson did not remove "if" did he? I know I don't agree with his "falling away".

Yes..A.T. Robertson was using the KJV, so this is why you see the word there. But really he never talks about "the word", ( i hate to even say the word its been said so many times. ) only to read it. Its not a factor in his argument.

 

[David Michael Harris]

My bad,
the correct Latin phrase (adapted into the English) is:

reductio ad absurdum

meaning 'reduction to absurdity'

definition:
Logic the proof of a proposition by showing
its opposite to be an obvious falsity or self-contradiciton,
or
the disproof of a proposition by showing its consequesnces to be
impossible or absurd when carried to the logical conclusion

Heb 6:4-5 (KJV1611 Edition):
For it is impossible for
those who were once inlightned,
and
haue tasted of the heauenly gift,
and
The earth and everything in it is passing away, but the man who does the will of God Abides forever.
,
5 And
haue tasted the good word of God,
and
[have tasted] the powers of the world to come;

IMHO
SAVED = those who were once inlightned,
and
haue tasted of the heauenly gift,
and
were made partakers of the holy Ghost,
5 And
haue tasted the good word of God,
and
[have tasted] the powers of the world to come;

So we can read the whole argument somewhat easier
if we say:


Heb 6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who were SAVED;
6 If they shall fall away,
to renue them againe vnto repentance:
seeing they crucifie to themselues the Sonne of God
afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Easier to see is that those who were saved,
should they fall away from grace,
then they can't be resaved.


BTW, the Doctrine of Security of the Believer doesn't
hinge on the 'if' starting verse 6.

John 3:16 (KJV1611 Edition):
For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne:
that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish,
but haue euerlasting life.

Everlasting life that stops (i.e. gettin unsaved) does not
qualify as 'everlasting life'.

Does anybody want to have a topic on:
What should I be doing now that i'm saved
to show i've been saved? GOOD WORKS would make
a better title, for it is good works that is what
we should be doing now that we have been saved
and can be SURE WE REALLY ARE SAVED.

Nice one Ed, I must confess that because of the verse. Being partakers of the Holy Spirit, makes me a Calvinistic Methodist. I believe that you can be damned by God, although, I have thoughts about this too! Man it's complex.

God never wanted us to be Christians to worry about such stuff. It's a trick of the Devil, and it has a lot of us maybe?

David

 

[Brother Bob]

What was he talking about here James if it was not the word.

("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).)


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."

 

[Jarthur001]

What was he talking about here James if it was not the word.

("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).)


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."

Please give me the book where you found this, or if it is a link, give me the link. There seems to be something missing.

I can not find this in any of Robertson books.


Thanks

 

[Brother Bob]

http://www.orin.net/apostasy.html

 

[Jarthur001]

http://www.orin.net/apostasy.html

You got to be kidding....is this it? In other words you have been misleading the BB with this statement??

Whats the deal Bob?

 

[Brother Bob]

"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).

Can you prove that A. T. Robertson did not say this?

A. T. Robertson is someone who Faith Alone brought up and I found the above statement by him. I had already established my argument with you about the translation by the trust in the KJV translators, Geneva Bible and others. I have had Brandon Jones and others admit that there were cases that kai was used as if and after seeing how you translated one verse and the impossibility of reading it so you had to add what English Grammar you thought fit, then I knew how that much could be wrong in all the translations. We have to have faith in God that He was in the arrangements of the translations so we could get the word.
I can not see where it makes one bit of difference if the word is "if" or "and" in the verse. After studying the article I gave as A T Robertson, I can see where only a part of it was him, but the most important part on "if". But regardless, it makes no difference for I trust the KJV more than I do you.

 

[Jarthur001]

"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).

Can you prove that A. T. Robertson did not say this?

A. T. Robertson is someone who Faith Alone brought up and I found the above statement by him. I had already established my argument with you about the translation by the trust in the KJV translators, Geneva Bible and others. I have had Brandon Jones and others admit that there were cases that kai was used as if and after seeing how you translated one verse and the impossibility of reading it so you had to add what English Grammar you thought fit, then I knew how that much could be wrong in all the translations. We have to have faith in God that He was in the arrangements of the translations so we could get the word.
I can not see where it makes one bit of difference if the word is "if" or "and" in the verse. After studying the article I gave as A T Robertson, I can see where only a part of it was him, but the most important part on "if". But regardless, it makes no difference for I trust the KJV more than I do you.

Bob you have shown again, you cannot be trusted.

This is at least the 3rd time you have pulled this. I really see no need to mislead as you do. It is clear that this was not by A T Robertson, but someone else wrote it and quoted him. The quote you keep using is Orin L. Moses III, editor and translator of the Fifth Gospel and Romans from orin.net. Moses is quoting Robertson, but only in one line in which you posted. You can see the writers picture on the link below.

http://www.orin.net/


Yet many times over and over you claimed this was the words of A. T. Robertson. That is just misleading. This is not the 1st time you have pulled this.

This article is from A T Robertson and you asked for a quote from him supporting the "if", so I gave you this one. If you can't read it then I can't help that. I even highlighted where it is Hebrews and covers 6:6. After I give you what YOU said you needed to be convinced, then you talk down the article itself from A T Robertson and say now that you don't believe everything he wrote or stood for and you are the one who gave me his name. So, live with it!!!!.....((((snip))))

As seen below at this post link
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=900042&postcount=258

That was a lie Bob. Moses wrote this and quoted Robertson, but only one line is from Robertson, the rest is Moses. Why mislead??

You said again...

This whole article is by A. T. Roberson and the preposition is "if".

As seen below at this post link
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=899336&postcount=237
A flat out lie!!!

You said again...

He continues on to use the entire verse James.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=899159&postcount=207
He did not continued you mislead What you quoted next was someone elses word.

*****************

More then that….read what he says near the end….

The apostle Paul says, “I fight, but not as one shadow-boxing. I keep my body under subjection, lest that by any means, when after I have preached to others, I myself should be adokimos - a castaway - set on a shelf - unapproved - good for nothing - a cast-off.” I Corinthians 9:26-27.

Read again the following passages, and see if they don’t make new sense in the light of your more full understanding of the doctrine of falling away: Hebrews 2:1-4; 3; 4; 5:8-14; 6; 10:18-39 (here “sin” in verse 26 is unbelief due to the inclusive context of verse 22, “draw near,” and verse 39, “draw back”); Romans 8:1-13; 11:22; I Corinthians 10:1-14; 15:1-2; Galatians 6:7-8; I John 5:16; Revelation 2:9-11; 13:1-18; 14:6-16; 21:6-8; 22:16-20; Matthew 6:9-15; 7:21-27; 10:22, 28, 33-39; 12:31-37; 13:5-6; 20-21; 18:21-35; 24:45-51; 25:1-46; Luke 6:47-49; 8:6, 13; 12:35-48; 22:31-32; John 7:59-71; 8:31-51 (this sounds like many in religion today who would crucify Christ again, given the chance); 15:1-17; 17:12; Acts 8:17-24; 20:28-32.

****************


You need to come clean Bob and tell others why you keep doing this. and maybe regain some trust.

 

[Brother Bob]

This is not a lie!!!!! James. I did make a mistake.
The rest of the article was from this other fellow but I honestly did not know it. I jumped too fast and thought it was all from A. T. Robertson so I made a mistake to which I apoligize.
It was in no way a lie but a mistake. I resent you saying it was a lie. You don't know me and to just say I lie when I just made a mistake in reading the artilcle is just plain mean James.

Now, I don't think it changes the meaning of the Scripture to use "if" or "and" but I doubt if KJV will ever change it to "and" and I trust the translators of KJV.

I apoligize to all on BB who thought I deliberatly mislead them for I would not do that. I honestly made a mistake but still feel the context of the Scripture calls for an "if" to help explain, so gives a right in Greek to use "if" for kai.

Now you can believe what you want about me but I am not like you try to make me out to be. You say 3 times and maybe I have misquoted 3 times but if I did it was by mistake and never deliberate. I don't need your scriptures. If I need to look anything up I will do it on my own. If I make a mistake it won't be near the mistakes in the Wyncliff Bible you put on here.

Again, you have a lot of support on the translation of the Greek word "kai", but I still believe it to be if and that is that.

I noticed in the verse you translated on here from Greek to English, compared to the English version there were at least 10 words missing. Who has the right to decide what those words should be. Don't say Grammar, for someone has to decide what is good Grammar, so it still comes down to human fraility.

 

[Jarthur001]

I noticed in the verse you translated on here from Greek to English, compared to the English version there were at least 10 words missing. Who has the right to decide what those words should be. Don't say Grammar, for someone has to decide what is good Grammar, so it still comes down to human fraility.

Peace Bob....

I'll look at what you have ...if you do not mind posting what you would like for me to address. I should know what you are talking about, but I have been writing like tons of stuff (offline)..and my brain is fried. So help me out please.

 

[Brother Bob]

No, You called me a liar James and that is going too far.

You started this "if" thing to start with.

 

[Jarthur001]

No, You called me a liar James and that is going too far.

You started this "if" thing to start with.

If you are accusing me of standing for the truth, I'm afraid I am guilty. Any time someone post error I will do so. Never run from the truth.
Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

I close my debate with this post. Bob as always, you can have the last word.

 

[Faith alone]

Ugh, not good. This is not how Christians should "debate" on the Baptist board. I am also wondering why a moiderator did not step in here to cool things down a bit. Is this particular forum not moderated?

Anyway, Bob, no - I do not accuse you nor do I think you misquoted intentionally. FWIW, you had already quoted ATR and I went to that link and noticed that the quote was regarding Col. 1:23, not Hebrews 6. The author of that article is talking about apostasy in general, and certainly Hebrews 6:4-6 would apply. So I just noted that the quote by ATR did not apply to this particular discussion about conditional sentences ("if").

It actually came about when I pulled up the Greek and tried to follow what AT Robertson had supposedly said about Hebrews 6:4ff. You see, I've studied the Greek of this text before and I did not remember any prepositions there. It quickly became apparent that ATR's quote simply did not fit the text. So I Looked it up and read it more carefully. That was when I recognized that it was about Colossians.

Bottom line is: does making that series of participle phrases conditional affect how we read that text? Well, I think it does - but how? That's what we should be discussing; not the motives of someone who made a mistake. And we should not be blasting one another so quickly. Let's give one another the benefit of the doubt. We've all made mistakes. If done carefully, such interactions on a text like this one can bring about a more clear understanding about the text by each of us. We will not agree - very likely. But if we can each have a more accurate understanding about the text, that is huge.

Personally, I do not think that this text is talking about losing salvation or eternal judgment at all. I stated that clearly and in detail twice. Yet not one of you offered to critique or comment on my reasoning or grammatical statements.

I really was looking for some consideration of what I had posted. I think I did a fairly thorough and careful job of defending my position, though I'm sure there are some flaws in my approach. Yet it was ignored. I posted it a 2nd time IOT get a response to it. Ignored again.

I think it deserved better treatment that that. Why should I not just assume that you all agree with what I posted?

Forums like this one are not for the purpose of waging personal wars. I don't imagine too many people are paying attention to this thread. I think I'll start a new one IOT get some reaction to my comments.

And Bob: why take everything so personally and shoot down everyone as if you're being personally attacked? I do not want to be your enemy. My goal was not to tear you down. Can we be friends? I certainly hope so. Same with you, James.

Hey, maybe I got the last word... ??

FA

 

[Brother Bob]

I was personally attacked. I was called a liar. I don't know how much more you could be personally attacked than that. Also, the article you said was Col:, You needed to keep reading and it brought in Hebrew 6: also. The first part was about Col: but if you had of kept reading you would of run into Hebrew 6:
Peace,

 

[Ed Edwards]

Faith Alone: //I really was looking for some consideration of what I had posted. I think I did a fairly thorough and careful job of defending my position, though I'm sure there are some flaws in my approach. Yet it was ignored. I posted it a 2nd time IOT get a response to it. Ignored again.

Me too. What do you think of of my 'reductio ad absurdum'?

Faith Alone: //I think it deserved better treatment that that.//

Well, it seems a bit typical.

Faith Alone: //Why should I not just assume that you all agree with what I posted?//

Sounds like a safe assumption to me.

 

[saturneptune]

Moderators, since I started this thread, and am more confused now than before, I believe this has run its course, and ask that it be closed.