Hebrews 6:4-6

I was just wondering Brandon. You fellows have caused me to study and learn things I never knew. I am glad to compare them to see if the translators did have a "good" reason for their translations, and if so, then I will continue to use them as the true word.

Also, when do we just rely on our faith instead of "legalism"? I don't mean this in a harsh or mean way for I know we walk by faith and since coming on BB, I have seen a lot who question the KJV and other translations also. I personally use the KJVO. I don't mind looking at others but fall always back to the KJV.

To be as young as you are Brandon you are well informed.

 

I realize I am probably , but I shall answer, anyway, at least as to some things, here.

And I'll start with the TR and ask, which TR? [BTW, Bob, two of the 'Greek texts', I previously cited are "Textus Receptus", both TR1550 a.k.a. 'Stephanus', and TR1894, a.k.a. Scrivener, as that is what "TR" stands for, there, and the number is that of the year published. So when you or someone else is allegedly referring to the "TR", y'all might want to cite which one of the several (in the hundreds) editions y'all are supposedly quoting, as there are/were at least 5 editions of Erasmus, (1516, 1519, 1522 - the most famous, 1527, 1535), Manutius (1518), Colineaus (1534), Stephanus -four editions, the 1550 3rd being the most famous, Beza - 9 editions, Elzevirs 1624, 1633 (the 1633 being the one from which, their comments about, actually give us the derived name "Textus Receptus" some 115 years after the fact), 1641, and several lesser known others with varying 'revisions' through the Oxford edition of 1873, used as a basis for many modern 'collations'. In addition, there are the "reverse" TRs of Scrivener (1881, 1894), which may well be the best of all, as regards the KJV, for it is in fact, 'reversed' backwards from the KJV (I presume this is the KJV- 1769 edition) to a TR 'text'.]
Second - it is interesting you should refer to Eph. 1:13. This happens to be another verse where participles (and tenses) are involved. More accurate rendering are done by e.g., NKJV, HCSB, ESV, and YLT here. There is no 'time lapse' between "when you believed" and "when you were sealed by the Holy Spirit", contrary to what many Neo-Pentecostals teach.

The text(s) do(es) not in any way support a 'second', 'third', 'fourth', etc. "work of grace." When I believed, I was saved, I was sealed, I was indwelt with, I received the earnest, I was baptized in, and I was regenetrated -all by the Holy Spirit, among other things, as well - all simultaneously, and once and for all time.
I did perhaps misread one thing in one of your posts, the idea that Strong was a 'Bible translator', maybe. I am not sure if that is what you were saying or not. Maybe you could clarify.

And in fact, I did not and do not deviate, or suggest anything other than "OSAS", as you put it, nor does Hebrews 6. What Hebrews 6 does say, is that one does not "go back to square one", wipe everything that has occurred away, start all over, and get saved all over again, for that would be 'recrucifying' the Lord Jesus Christ, and in essence, shaming God.

What Heb. 6 does say is that there is, or may well be 'judgment' for the believer, up to and including the level of "sorer punishement", and as other places say, "be beaten with many stripes", "chastized", and "scourged".

What Hebrews 6 does not say is that one is in any peril of "potentially" losing what one has, or losing one's salvation, at all. I can no more "fall away" in that sense, hence 'lose my salvation', from God, than you can 'jerk me out of God's hand, and I am thrice held therein by the Triune God. But one can well 'apostasize', i.e. "fall away" from the truth, as I understand Scripture. It happened to Barnabas, it happened to Peter, and I believe it happened to Paul, all at one point. Three apostles; three departures at one time or another. If it can happen to them, I'm pretty sure I'm not as strong as they were, and hence it could happen to me

And what Hebrews 6 does not say is that these "were merely 'professors', and not really 'possessors'", either.

As to the 'age' of the version thing, the WYC (Wycliffe) got it right, by not rendering "kai" as "if" in 1380, the first of the English versions; the Darby (1890), YLT (1898), NASV (1963), and HCSB (2001) got it right. According to my math, that covers a range of over 620 years, so I'd suggest that is not "some new thing", at all, and WYC actually predates the later versions you cited, in fact, by well over 100 years, so who is actually "the new kid on the block" here? :tongue3:

Finally, if you actually look closely at the two dictionaries you cited, neither gives an instance where the KJV translated as you are claiming, but rather say that 'kai' is "often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words (such as) both, if, then, so, etc."

Jarthur's post # 70 is "dead on". Why not re-read it?

Ed

 

I agree Ed; and I don't think I said anything different.

4: For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5: And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6: 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.

It says they crucify to themselves the Son of God "afresh", and put Him to an open shame and to renew them to repentance again is impossible. You don't believe this means they lost their Salvation?

Textus Receptus, or "Received Text," (abbreviated TR) is the name we use for the first published Greek text of the New Testament. For many centuries, it was the standard text of the Greek Bible. The name arose from the work of the kinsmen Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir, who said of their 1633 edition, "Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum" -- "So [the reader] has the text which all now receive

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+2]The 1599 Geneva Bible[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+1]The 1599 Geneva Bible Restoration Project...[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]

[/FONT]
6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they {d} crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]When the Pilgrims arrived in the New World in 1620, they brought along supplies, a consuming passion to advance the Kingdom of Christ, and the Word of God. Clearly, their most precious cargo was the Bible—specifically, the 1599 Geneva Bible. All but forgotten in our day, this version of the Bible was the most widely read and influential English Bible of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. A superb translation, it was the product of the best Protestant scholars of the day and became the Bible of choice for many of the greatest writers and thinkers of that time. Men such as William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, and John Milton used the Geneva Bible in their writings. William Bradford also cited the Geneva Bible in his famous book Of Plymouth Plantation.[/FONT]​

Someone is wrong. I have no doubt that we probably both are right. I believe the translators as a group considered the "context" of the passage and used "IF" as they felt it was accurate.​

Now to disregard this and accept that many scholars have interpted it to be "if", I would have to deny the shoulders we stand on so says Brandon to which I am not going to do Ed, I respect your view and can see your side, the only problem is there seem to be no acknowledgement from the others that it was indeed a translation using the "context" from the passage. peace,​

You have a url where I can find the older Textus Receptus at Ed?
You have an online bible of 1611 or one of the TR's?​

 

What limited studying I have done it has been noted that the orginal translations were done using an older Greek and the later ones were using a newer Greek. Today we have what they call the modern Greek. They also say that all the mistakes are not corrected in the NT as of yet and the OT. All down through the years and all the old Theologians you mention mostly used the bibles that had "if" in them. All the churches of today that use the KJV have the word "if" in them also. As far back as I could research the Textus Receptus had the word "if" in it. Also, Ed mentioned several translations did by Erasmus, (1516, 1519, 1522 - the most famous of the Texus Receptus and the record shows they were did in such haste that they are full of mistakes. The only reason I see for someone wanting the "if" out is to remove OSAS. I think I will do as all our precessors and follow the "if" and the KJV. I guess everyone will have to follow their own concious but I do not fault you for yours and don't expect you to fault me for mine. You have good arguments but so do I along with a several translations, several translators and many many old soldiers that have already passed this way.
So, May God continue to bless us all to live as close as we can so as to be a upbuilding to His church.

I don't care where you go online, even to where they have "sound" and play the scriptures and it still says "if they shall fall away". So, if I were to agree with you I would be in disagreement with at least as many more and probably more.

The true answer the way I see it is, how the word "kia" was used. If it was used, as a composition along with "if they shall fall away", then the word "if" is correct. If the passage was written, with "kia" standing alone, then the word "if" is wrong. I believe it was used in a composition, as does Strongs Dictionary, KJV, Geneva Study Bible, Texsus Rectus along with several other translations. If it was used as a composition, then I am right and you are wrong or visa versa.

 

Oh boy! There is much argue, argue, argue on Hebrews 6:4-6 because of word, 'IF'.

Early in this topic or at 'Baptist General Discussion' on the same topic, I agree with Robycop3, he said, the book of Hebrews was written for Christians. He's right. Of course, we notice word, 'Hebrews' means Jews. Many would saying it is for Jews only, not apply to Gentiles. Although, that book was written to early Jew Christians about laws and old economy of daily sacrifices were all done put away by Jesus Christ. But, it still apply to us as Christians. Some saying, word, 'if' was not find in Greek. Probably he's right.

But I can see lot of condition passages in book of Hebrews. Hebrews chapter 2 talks about salvation with condition. Verse 1 says, "Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, LEST at any time we should let them SLIP(falling away)." Notice next verse 3 says, "HOW shall we escape, IF we neglect so great salvation; which at the FIRST BEGAN to be spoken by the Lord, and was comfirmed unto us by them that heard him."

Obivous, it wanrs us, how can we escape from the wrath and everlasting fire, IF we neglect so GREAT SALVATION?

I read Joey Faust's book, and Whipple's book, both interpreting 'great salvation' speaks of millennial kingdom. Millennial kingdom?? It doesn't saying it. Both Faust and Whipple added it unto God's Word.

No excuse for Faust, Whipple, and Christians can understand what 'great salvation' is speaking of- eternal life. Nowhere in the book of Hebrews saying that 'great salvation' is so called, 'millennial kingdom'.

Notice Heb. 3:6 says, "But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, IF we HOLD FAST the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm UNTO THE END." We can be belong to God's family, un;ess IF we HOLD FAST the confidence and the rejoicing of the Hope(eternal life- Titus 1:2, 2:13; and 3:7).

It is very, very clear speak of conditional salvation! What IF we do not hold fast, endure our confidence till the end, then we shall not be saved accordeing to Matt. 10:22; and 24:13.

There are so much overwhelmed of conditional warnings in the book of Hebrews, but, also, not just only book of Hebrews, also, throughout whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation mentioned on conditions lot!

Yes, Heb. 6:4-6 warns us, if we falling away, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to be renew again, that means, we have to repent our sins back to the Lord again to be restoration of our salvation again.

There are too many Christians include baptists are already falling away, they are backslidders, we should be aware that we are no perfect, we are all humans. We can easily fall into sin. That why we are commanded to confess our sins to Christ daily - 1 John 1:9.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Bob,

Because the text does not have "if" does not mean the Bible does not support OSAS. I'm a Calvinist for crying out loud. :) Do you not think I believe in OSAS? You know Bob, if I really thought this passage had the word "if" in it, I would agree with you. Yet I cannot let my doctrine of OSAS blind me from the truth. This however does not mean this passage teaches one can lose their salvation. No one has said this on this thread. But, even if you do not agree with me when I say "if" is not there in the greek, would you not also agree that to build your doctrine on a word that SOME think is not there is shacky at best?

There are other ways to look at this text, where you can still hold to OSAS and not lay heavy or the word "if". I placed one view on the table. There are other views to look at as well. All that have posted on this matter agrees it does not teach we can lose our salvation.

You have posted the TR and also post it was the 1st greek published. It was the 1st to make it to press, but it was not the 1st greek NT that we had. I only bring this up, because you have told this many times. It really does not matter, as we shall see.

Now, I did study this years ago, but I'm about to make a fool of myself, for I cannot remember all of this. But as I remember.....

The old Byzantine...Majority text was the base of Elzevir text, Scrivener text, Stephen, which in the end made up the Textus Receptus. Tischendorf's Greek New Testament, and Westcott-Hort Greek came from another line. Now I may have mixed this all up, but others can help. :)

But....This is the point. In Heb 6 the passage we have looked at, all Greek text agree on this. That's right, each word is the same. This I am sure of.

So the problem is not in the Greek. It is in the translations. Why do some use the word "if"??

Bob...I do not know why they choose to use it. The Greek does not support "if" that I can see. Were some of the translators wrong? Well..it looks like it, but I will stop short of saying they were wrong. I'll say it this way...I can find no support for "if". Besides, we do not need the word, for it to carry the same message.

So....being that the word "if" is the main word of your view, do you see why others do not see it your way when they cannot find it in the greek?



In Christ..James

 

First of all, I don't think everyone on here disagrees with me but maybe but there is a whole world of translators that believe as I do, including KJV of the Bible, Geneva Bible Study and others. I am not just trying to protect OSAS, I am saying what Strongs said. If "kia" is used in connection with other words then it is a legeit Greek usage. Even Brandon agreed to that.

You have posted the TR and also post it was the 1st greek published. It was the 1st to make it to press, but it was not the 1st greek NT that we had. I only bring this up, because you have told this many times. It really does not matter, as we shall see.

I said it was the first Greek text published James, not the first published. You accuse me wrong.

Textus Receptus, or "Received Text," (abbreviated TR) is the name we use for the first published Greek text of the New Testament. For many centuries, it was the standard text of the Greek Bible. The name arose from the work of the kinsmen Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir, who said of their 1633 edition, "Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum" -- "So [the reader] has the text which all now receive


Jauthor:
Bob...I do not know why they choose to use it. The Greek does not support "if" that I can see. Were some of the translators wrong? Well..it looks like it, but I will stop short of saying they were wrong. I'll say it this way...I can find no support for "if". Besides, we do not need the word, for it to carry the same message.

But you won't stop short of telling me I am wrong will you? You say you can find no support but did agree if used in connection with other words, then according to Strongs it would be a correct usage of "if".

Greek

kai <2532>

kai kai

Pronunciation:kaheeOrigin:apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative forceReference:prtSpch:conjunctionIn Greek:kai 6856, [kai] 16, [kai 7, [[kai 5, kai] 1In NET:and 5402, Then 315, also 220, but 176, So 168, He 116, Now 72, too 62, When 62, Even 59, They 53, yet 41, or 33, 33, Both 20, Thus 8, along 5, The 4, nor 4, with 3, indeed 3, Furthermore 2, Though 2, forty-two 2, As 1, to 1, eighteen 1, forty-six 1, powerful 1, than 1, associated 1, by 1, else 1, Neither 1, without 1, thirty-eight 1, Consequently 1, answered 1, For 1, not 1, because 1, hence 1, Just 1, on 1In AV:and 8173, also 514, even 108, both 43, then 20, so 18,and 8173, also 514, even 108, both 43, then 20, so 18, likewise 13, not tr. 350, misc 31, vr and 1Count:9251Definition:1) and, also, even, indeed, but 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. You see where it says it is "often" used in connection?

Here you admit when it is used in connection with other words then it is used in the Strongs Dictionary as Greek.

Jauthor001; said:

Having fun yet?

Can you read??

Jauthor001 said:
When kai is used with the conjunction ei, "if," the phrase signifies "even if," or "if even. This is why you see it in strongs Bob. Now look at your greek again and tell me if you see it!!!! Its not there is it Bob? Now check out 1 peter 3:1 and you will find it.

hello??

Bob said:
So, if the word kia is used in Heb. 6:4-6 in connection with "if they shall fall away", then it would be legal Greek, would you not agree according to your own words agreeing with Strongs?

 

Bob,

I don't want to get into this discussion, but I want you to know that I am with you on "if". It is right there in the English. I don't know why people have to run to the Greek to look for it. Obviously you are not going to find the word "if" in the Greek. (It is an English word)

Questions for those who don't like the word "if" in the text:

- What other errors are there in our English Bibles?
- Are our English Bibles to be trusted?
- Should we throw out our English Bibles and learn Greek and Hebrew?
- Is there a perfect Greek NT?
- Should we who do not know Greek rely on our English Bibles or not?!!
- If we do not have a perfect Bible, what is our final authority? Scholars? (Man?)
- Those of you who don't like "if" in the text, do you consider yourselves to be more learned than the translators?

Don't answer any of these questions, they do not speak to the OP. I just had to get this off my chest.

 

I agree with Strongs. Strongs says it is not there.

 

James this is Strongs. If kia is used in connection with other words would you accept it as possibly being "if" and being legit Greek? If Strongs says so?

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

I am not trying to be different because its you but I have a legit argument and you should agree with what Strongs says.

 

:cool: :cool:

Indeed it is strongs but strongs says it is not supported in the greek.

 

How do you guys take a perfectly good discussion about falling away and turn it into a fight over the word 'if'? 'If' it were not possible for one to fall away, we would not be having this conversation. If is not the problem. The problem is falling away.

 

Us guys? Most of the world is on our side if kia is used in connection with other words.

 

I agree.:cool: :cool:

 

yeap...it is. and..the other word has to be there. Sadly it is not:cool: :cool:

 

Yes it is there.
Kia (if) they shall fall away. (end result) to renew
Connection

This is what all the translators saw and you can't see James.
You already admitted you don't know why they did it. Well, I just showed you.
And Strongs backs me up.

 

You said you trust strongs. You have said it many times and posted many more times.

would you agree with strongs?

 

I will if you show it in connection with kia they shall fall away.
Strongs tells me that just "if" is not there alone has to be connected to other words.

 

Yes..I understand. You want to make sure I use it the right way. I mean it has to be just like the passage in heb 6..right?

So...if I can show you in Strongs, would you believe? I mean...I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm crazy...you know that. But think of it...Strongs The Great Strongs. How about him? If Strongs says it is not suppouted..would you belive it?

 

Everyone knows a Greek word alone means one thing but in connection with other words it can mean something else. That is what is happening in this case according to Strong of which I have already shown you and you will not accept Strong and now you want me to accept him. Well, I will if you can show me "kia they shall fall away,"

Go ahead now and show me. You already admitted the word kia means "if" if connected to other words. I have shown you that it is connected and you won't have it. This argument is getting old James, but go ahead and show me.