[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #820
b-greek-digest Saturday, 12 August 1995 Volume 01 : Number 820
In this issue:
Re: Heb. 6:6, "impossible to renew"
...no subject...
Re: Heb. 6:6, "impossible to renew"
Help!
Re: Help!
Re: Heb. 6:6, "impossible to renew"
re: unsubscribe
Windows '95
Quoting postings to this List
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church <pauld@iclnet93.iclnet.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 23:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Heb. 6:6, "impossible to renew"
A Calvinistic interpretation, of course, sees Heb 6, Heb 10, 2
Peter 2 and Matt 12 as examples of the unforgiveable sin, and so that the
individuals spoken of as never really saved to start with. It is
interesting to note that Heb 6 says nothing about the individual's faith
or salvation.
If so, the passage is a strong warning against those who might
think themselves to be saved, who continue in sins once convicted of, and
are in imminent danger of certain irreversible doom. For such there "no
longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation
of judgment" (Heb 10:26-27). Such was the case with the Pharisees when
they committed the unpardonable sin.
P. Dixon
On Fri, 11 Aug 1995 DBWILLIS@aol.com wrote:
> David Willis here,
>
> Many of us, whether we have or have not accepted the Calvinistic concept of
> "impossibility of apostacy" have had some difficulty understanding what is
> meant by "it is impossible to renew them to repentance" in Heb. 6:6. Some
> may say that Heb. 6:6 is properly understood to say that a person who is
> saved and falls away can never be saved again, but I think that most would
> reject that implication. But I think that our common "explanation" of this
> passage might also be a bit off the mark. The "impossiblity" of a person's
> being renewed unto repentance after falling away, usually is explained by the
> distinction between one's "repenting himself" and someone _else_ renewing him
> to repentance. That is, it sort of implies that while the apostate may
> "pull himself up by the bootstraps" and "renew himself", no one can help
> bring this about.
>
> While reading these verses Sunday, I noticed something that might indicate a
> different understanding of them which at least for me, was one I hadn't
> considered before. The tense of the aorist participles "were enlightened",
> "tasted", "made partakers" and "fell away" changes to a present participle
> for "crucify afresh" and "put to an open shame". There is also the use of
> the adverb "once" along with the aorists which accentuates the purposeful
> time distinction being made. In Greek, the tense of the participle indicates
> the time of action of the participle in relation to the leading verb.
> Present participle means at the same time as, aorist means previous to the
> time of the leading verb, which here is ~adunaton~ "it is impossible." The
> impenitent HAD tasted... and fallen away etc. prior to this "becoming
> impossible", but their actions of crucifying afresh and shaming were still in
> an ongoing state. It was this continuing ongoing offense against Christ that
> is the cause of this impossibility. So long as that state continues, no one,
> not the impenitent himself nor anyone else can bring about a renewal. But
> this would not mean that either the impenitent or another could not help
> bring a cessation to the offense, so that the obstacle to "renewing" would be
> removed.
>
> The English "seeing" of the ASV and KJV and especially the "since" of the
> NASB suggests some explanitory or causal preposition here. But there is (as
> far as I could find in checking for variants) no preposition at all, just the
> juxtoposition of the time relationships of the aorist and present participles
> to serve as the basis for translating the word "since" here. The words
> "since" and "seeing" do imply some sense of causation rather than a temporal
> meaning. (The word "since" in English DOES have a time significance too,
> like "ever since", but we usually think of it as indicating a reason or
> cause.) This suggests to me that a better translation might be "SO LONG AS
> they crucify afresh..." which would imply that there is no permanence to the
> condition of "impossibility" but it remains only so long as they continue to
> "crucify and shame" Christ. Interestingly, the footnote for the ASV here
> confirms this "time rather than cause" indication. It suggests that instead
> of "seeing..." the translation could be "the while...", which is a little
> awkward, but conveys the time significance less ambiguously.
>
> I would suggest that with this meaning, we should be more resolute in never
> giving up on an effort to bring about the return to faithfulness of a fallen
> brother. It DOESN'T have to be all left up to them, because (as some have
> said) Heb. 6:6 tells us they can't be outwardly influenced. Instead, Heb.
> 6:6 teaches that this impossibility is ongoing "the while" there is this
> ongoing hindering state, and we may rightfully hope that our efforts can help
> to convince the impenitent to stop continuing in that state, so that their
> repentance and renewal is no longer "impossible."
>
>
> David Willis
> DBWILLIS@aol.com
> 6728 Silver Tree Dr.
> Indianapolis, IN 46236
> (317) 823-4858
>
>
------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 95 7:58:53 -24000
Subject: ...no subject...
unsubscribe
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 07:38:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Heb. 6:6, "impossible to renew"
>David Willis here,
>
>meant by "it is impossible to renew them to repentance" in Heb. 6:6. Some
>may say that Heb. 6:6 is properly understood to say that a person who is
>saved and falls away can never be saved again, but I think that most would
...
>being renewed unto repentance after falling away, usually is explained by the
>distinction between one's "repenting himself" and someone _else_ renewing him
...
>considered before. The tense of the aorist participles "were enlightened",
>"tasted", "made partakers" and "fell away" changes to a present participle
>for "crucify afresh" and "put to an open shame". There is also the use of
>the adverb "once" along with the aorists which accentuates the purposeful
>time distinction being made. In Greek, the tense of the participle indicates
>the time of action of the participle in relation to the leading verb.
...
>is the cause of this impossibility. So long as that state continues, no one,
>not the impenitent himself nor anyone else can bring about a renewal. But
...
>The English "seeing" of the ASV and KJV and especially the "since" of the
>NASB suggests some explanitory or causal preposition here. But there is (as
...
>cause.) This suggests to me that a better translation might be "SO LONG AS
>they crucify afresh..." which would imply that there is no permanence to the
>condition of "impossibility" but it remains only so long as they continue to
A few brief notes:
1. The relationship of the tense of a participle to the main verb is not so
clear cut. There are too many exceptions to the rule you specify (which is
a fairly common statement) to be exegetically determinative. Some (e.g.,
Stan Porter) have argued that word order is more useful, but I'm not
convinved that there is any greater consistency here.
2. The shift in form from aor. to present is prob. significant. Note that
the first group is linked by a 'kai...te...te' sequence. The ptcp. 'fall
away' is most directly affected by this link as it would argue that it is
parallel with the earlier ptcps. and is not conditional (as some Eng.
versions transl.). I think that the pres. ptcps. ff. can only make good
sense as causal and not temporal. (There would have to be some other
indication in the context to make them temporal, not just the pres. tense,
per. #1.)
3. Despite most opinions to the contrary, I'm not convinced that "falling
away" must refer to a soteriological fall. Placed in its historical context
(which I take to be Neronian persecution in Rome ca. 64-65), I would
suggest that it refers instead to a failure to go on to maturity,
particularly by denying one's faith to avoid persecution (_perhaps_ [but
not certainly] by a claim to Judaisn once again since the Jews were not the
focus of Nero's scapegoat tactics following the fire of Rome). This
approach makes good sense of all the warning passages in Hebrews.
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 95 8:46:02 -24000
Subject: Help!
Help! I've lost my instructions on how to un-subscribe (to b-greek; I'll
stay with b-greek.digest). Thanks!
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 09:05:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Help!
At 8:46 AM 8/11/95, Eric Weiss wrote:
>Help! I've lost my instructions on how to un-subscribe (to b-greek; I'll
>stay with b-greek.digest). Thanks!
For anyone else who wants to know (seems like 4 or 5 of these requests come
to the List every week, innocently but ignorantly, and serve no purpose.
Here's a copy of the original blurb:
6. GETTING OFF OF THE LIST
If you wish to get off the list follow these instructions:
(You don't need to send both the B-GREEK and the B-GREEK-DIGEST
versions unless you are subscribed to both.)
Try sending the following message to majordomo@virginia.edu
UNSUBSCRIBE B-GREEK
UNSUBSCRIBE B-GREEK-DIGEST
END
If this does not work, you are probably subscribed under
and address which is different than your return address.
send the following command to majordomo@virginia.edu
WHO B-GREEK
WHO B-GREEK-DIGEST
END
Find which address is yours, and then send the
following command to majordomo@virginia.edu
UNSUBSCRIBE B-GREEK <address>
UNSUBSCRIBE B-GREEK-DIGEST <address>
END
As a last resort, contact me at djm5g@virginia.edu, but
there isn't anything that I can do other than what is
listed here which you can do.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 11:25:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Heb. 6:6, "impossible to renew"
An interesting, and perhaps even enlightening, little book is
Barnabas Lindars' Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews. (I'm
not sure that's the exact title.)
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest Joint Doctoral Program
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Andover-Newton/Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 95 11:31:52 -24000
Subject: re: unsubscribe
Thank you all for help in "unsubscribing." I was sending my request to "b-
greek" instead of to "majordomo". It's okay now. See you later.
------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 95 15:06:04 -24000
Subject: Windows '95
Even though I recently un-subscribed to b-greek (I kept the digest, but my E-
mail mailbox at present can't handle the volume), I thought you might be
interested in these comments about Windows 95 by this biblical language
software producer --Silver Mountain Software -- since some of you may be
using biblical language software.
- ----------------------------
One perspective on Windows 95
Windows 95 (Win95) will be one of the most talked about topics in
computers for the next several months. Since we have already
received inquiries about our plans regarding Win95, I will try to
give you my personal opinion about it and also let you know
Silver Mountain Software's plans.
Win95 Ship Date
First, Win95 will be released in August. Honest. I think the
question is not if it will ship, but what will ship! Infoworld
reported recently that there are still some 10,000 defects of
which over 3,000 will not be corrected before the final release.
Does this mean that Win95 1.0 will be a piece of junk? No. Does
it mean that there will be problems and that some of them may
bite you? Yes. One columnist wrote this week that the reason
everyone should buy Win95 is to create a large enough group of
complainers so that Microsoft will correct the defects.
Win95 Compatibility
Win95 will run most DOS applications and it will run most Win 3.1
applications. While Microsoft boldly claimed that Win 3.1 would
run all Win 3.0 applications in their advertising, Win 3.1 came
with a help file, APPS.HLP which documented compability problems
with various applications. Most of the solutions in APPS.HLP
were, "You need to buy and upgrade of this application."
While Microsoft will likely claim once again that Win95 will work
with all Win 3.1 applications in their advertising, I would not
be surprised to find another APPS.HLP file. If there is no
APPS.HLP file, Microsoft will likely offer the blanket advice of
"Buy an upgrade." While I expect that all (or most) of the most
important applications (Lotus, Novel, Borland, Intuit, etc) will
run, some of the second and third tier applications will not.
Will our applications run under Win95? I do not know, but there
have been problems running our programs under some (all?) of the
betas. We will not patch our programs to work with Win95.If it
turns out that Bible Windows or TLG Workplace does not work under
Win95, we will not release a maintenance release which does. We
will tell you that Microsoft did not do their job. We will have
new versions of our programs, but they will not be patches, but
major new versions which will cost money. More below.
In order for you to get the maximum benefit from Win95, you will
need to update all of your applications to Win95 applications.
Almost all of those upgrades will cost money. Almost all of those
upgrades will cost more than what we will charge.
Win 95 Stability & Requirements
Win95 should prove to be more stable than Win 3.1 even with all
of the 3,000+ defects. I do not believe that it will be as stable
as WinNT, but it will not require as much RAM. The people at
PCWeek Labs report that Win95 will need 12 MB of RAM to work
well. That is, the benchmark times for their tests decreases
significantly until you get to 12 MB and then there is no
increase in speed.
However, Bill Gates has recommended to business users that if
they have 16 MB or more on their machines, that they should opt
for WinNT. I use WinNT with 16 MB and that is an adequate amount
of RAM. More would be nice sometimes, but 16 MB is adequate for
NT.
Win95's New VFAT File System
The nicest thing I can say about VFAT is that it is a clever hack
which exploits a defect (or more charitably a hole) in the design
of FAT. VFAT is basically the same old FAT file system which uses
additional bogus directory entries to store long file names. In
my opinion, there is no comparison between VFAT and NTFS. NTFS
wins hands down.
One of the major problems with FAT and VFAT (and there are
several), is that if you have a hard disk larger than 512MB, the
minimum allocation size is 16K. So, if you create a text file
with "Hi!," it will consume 16K of disk space. The larger the
drive, the larger the problem. With NTFS, the base allocation
unit is 1K. There are problems with FAT drives and fragmentation,
FAT and slow file opening, etc., etc. FAT is not a real file
system in the sense that HPFS or NTFS are.
Other Options
The other options are Windows NT and OS/2 Warp. Of these two,
Warp will require the smallest amount of RAM and Warp probably
still has the best DOS support. OS/2 has truly been a better DOS
than DOS for some time. Our programs run under Warp without
problems. They will be somewhat slower, but if you want to get
something done while TLG Workplace is doing a search, Warp will
work much better than Win 3.1.
Windows NT is very stable. I have one program which kills NT
dead, dead, dead (a disk copying utility), but beyond that, the
system has never crashed. There are some problems with Bible
Windows and TLG Workplace under NT (locking and scrolling windows
and Goto Canon features, for example), but they do run.
Who is Win95 Really For?
New users. Win95 will be easier to learn than Win 3.1. However,
you probably already know how to use Win 3.1 well and it will
take you 2-3 hours of learning to use Win95 well.
Recommendations/Predictions
I am not recommending that users upgrade to Win95. It will cost
more than the cost of the upgrade. You will want to get the Win95
versions of all the applications you use a lot, and that may cost
you a significant amount of money. If you have less than 12 MB of
RAM, PCWeek Labs' tests indicate that your system may run
significantly slower sometimes. If you have 16 MB or more of
memory, you should seriously consider WinNT. If you have 8 MB of
RAM and you want a more stable Operating System, consider OS/2
Warp. If you have less than 8 MB of RAM, you should stay with Win
3.1.
I predict: Win95 will sell 10's of millions of copies but it will
be the shortest lived version of Windows. Not only will there be
major patches to Win95, but Win95 will not compete well against
WinNT for very long. WinNT is the "no compromise" version of
Windows. While the average new system does not have the necessary
power to run WinNT well today, they are close and the average new
system will run WinNT well within one year. Within a year, the
486 will be history and 16MB will be the standard configuration
for business machines. These machines will increasingly be
bundled with WinNT not Win95. The underlying technology and
stability of WinNT is so much superior that Win95 will quickly
fade from the business market. Where the business market is,
there the new and best software will be.
OS/2? As far as I can tell it has lost the war although it is
still in the battle and it will refuse to resign for the
foreseeable future. It will be there and it will be a wild card,
but I doubt that it will be able to attract the necessary
software development.
Silver Mountain Software and Win95
We are planning on supporting Win95 with new versions of our
products. We have not determined the pricing of upgrades for
Win95 versions of our products, but they will probably be
comparable to our normal price for major upgrades: $20-$50. We
will also support WinNT and have upgrades for WinNT. We will test
our programs with Win95 but we ourselves will use WinNT. Look for
announcements about our 32 bit version upgrades within about 30
days of the release of Win95. Silver Mountain Software produced
the first DOS programs with accented Greek and pointed Hebrew.
Silver Mountain Software produced the first Windows programs with
accented Greek and pointed Hebrew. We plan on being there with
Win95 and WinNT versions as well.
Silver Mountain Software
1029 Tanglewood
Cedar Hill, TX 75104-3019
(800) 214-2144 (214) 293-2920 Fax (214) 293-6641
John Baima jbaima@onramp.net
------------------------------
From: Edward Hobbs <EHOBBS@wellesley.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 17:33:26 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Quoting postings to this List
May I heartily second James Ernest's recommendation, that postings to
an unmoderated List should NEVER be cited in print, unless the author
has had a chance to refuse permission to quote or to revise for wider
publication. Ernest's reasons are quite valid. I myself have often
(on this List, too) stated things quite candidly, and sometimes
casually, that I would never commit to print, though I might well
state them among a group of scholars in the flesh. This is very
much a try-it-out, take-a-chance medium, where a reply I might
give over the phone can be posted; but what I say over the phone, thus
not edited, much less reflected on for 24 hours or six months, is NOT
the same as what I would be willing to commit to print.
I might add that several on this List have been good enough to ask my
permission to quote, and to offer a chance to revise if I do then grant
permission. I hope we can all observe these BASIC courtesies in
this fast-and-furious medium. [In my own case, I can't even edit
anything I write after I move on to the next line! At the minimum,
I would hope to proofread my own stuff!]
Many thanks to James Ernest for calling this to our attention.
Edward Hobbs
Wellesley College
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #820
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu