Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
17This therefore I say and testify in the Lord: You are no longer to walk as also the Gentiles are walking, in the futility of their mind, 18being darkened in the understanding, being alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance being in them on account of the hardness of their heart, 19who, having cast off all feeling, have given themselves up to sensuality for the working of all impurity, with greediness for more.
20But you have not learned Christ this way, 21if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him just as the truth is in Jesus. 22You are to have put off, concerning the former way of life, the old man, which is being corrupted according to its desires of deceit, 23and to be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24and to have put on the new man, having been created according to God in righteousness and holiness of truth.
That's nothing but baloney.
And this based on the NMB which hardly - anyone - ever quotes, let alone "the very best and most dependable Bible commentaries on the market."
Your post was good for one thing, though, a LOL.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the Matthew's Bible is the overall best English translation ever done--that and its sister version the 1539 Great Bible. Don't be quick to rush to conclusions because Ephesians 4:19 has me digging deep as well. But the commentaries are very clear that past repentance is the correct translation. The Matthew's Bible also scores big on other verse. There are many scholars now looking at the evidence and arriving to the same conclusion that William Tyndale was the best translator of all time. His friends Myles Coverdale, John Rogers and Thomas Cranmer were also a big help to his work. I encourage you to look deeper into this because I was even surprised when I realized the Matthew's Bible got this one right. At first I argued just like you did here. But after seeing how all my commentaries all agree with Tyndale's work I was completely convinced that the Matthew's Bible is the best, and I had already seen the Matthew's Bible score points on other major translations before I had came across the Ephesians 4:19 puzzle.
Here is the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary:
Quote:
19. past feeling--senseless, shameless, hopeless; the ultimate result of a long process of "hardening," or habit of sin ( Ephesians 4:18 ). "Being past hope," or despairing, is the reading of the Vulgate; though not so well supported as English Version reading, "past feeling," which includes the absence of hope ( Jeremiah 2:25 , 18:12 ).
given themselves over--In Romans 1:24 it is, "God gave them up to uncleanness." Their giving themselves to it was punished in kind, God giving them up to it by withdrawing His preventing grace; their sin thus was made their punishment. They gave themselves up of their own accord to the slavery of their lust, to do all its pleasure, as captives who have ceased to strive with the foe. God gave them up to it, but not against their will; for they give themselves up to it [ZANCHIUS].
lasciviousness--"wantonness" [ALFORD]. So it is translated in Romans 13:13 , 2 Peter 2:18 . It does not necessarily include lasciviousness; but it means intemperate, reckless readiness for it, and for every self-indulgence. "The first beginnings of unchastity" [GROTIUS]. "Lawless insolence, and wanton caprice" [TRENCH].
to work all uncleanness--The Greek implies, "with a deliberate view to the working (as if it were their work or business, not a mere accidental fall into sin) of uncleanness of every kind."
with greediness--Greek, "in greediness." Uncleanness and greediness of gain often go hand in hand ( Ephesians 5:3 Ephesians 5:5 , Colossians 3:5 ); though "greediness" here includes all kinds of self-seeking.
Now when reading this entire explanation of Ephesians 4:19 it is describing a person who is past-repentance. Therefore Tyndale's translation is better as it sums up all these other words on one short phrase which is what translators are supposed to do.
Here is the Matthew Henry Commentary:
Quote:
[2.] Their consciences were debauched and seared: Who being past feeling, v. 19. They had no sense of their sin, nor of the misery and danger of their case by means of it; whereupon they gave themselves over unto lasciviousness. They indulged themselves in their filthy lusts; and, yielding themselves up to the dominion of these, they became the slaves and drudges of sin and the devil, working all uncleanness with greediness. They made it their common practice to commit all sorts of uncleanness, and even the most unnatural and monstrous sins, and that with insatiable desires. Observe, When men’s consciences are once seared, there are no bounds to their sins. When they set their hearts upon the gratification of their lusts, what can be expected but the most abominable sensuality and lewdness, and that their horrid enormities will abound? This was the character of the Gentiles; but,(2.) These Christians must distinguish themselves from such Gentiles: You have not so learned Christ
What is being described here is a person who is past repentance. William Tyndale is correct and the Geneva scholars are the ones who messed it all up for every translation that came after it.
Don't get me wrong. The KJV is a fine and trusted translation. But it did follow too much after the Geneva Bible which was not a good thing. Granted, the Geneva Bible is better than some of these modern translations out there today. But there were some things removed from Tyndale by the Geneva scholars that has caused all kinds of problems in the Christian world ever since those words were removed from the Bible -- especially in light of the Hebrew word tebel which the lexicons all agree with Tyndale's translation over all others.
Romans 7 is Paul describing his struggle with sin under the Law, which was of the flesh. Romans 8 is Paul describing victory over sin through the Spirit, which is of grace.
Romans 8
[11] But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
[12] Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
[13] For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
[14] For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Actually if you read verse 1 of Chapter 8 he discovers that he is in Christ and in Christ is what he lives out of and whatsmore "knowing" you are "In Christ" there is no condemnation. So that begs the question, what is "In Christ" because obviously that is where we need to discover ourselves.
I know you do RM, but there are some on here who say the belief that God is(not poteniallly but is) Savior of all is evil. So, who is calling God evil?.
I personally believe what Jesus is saying in that scripture you are quoting is"you are already that which you want to be and the reason you do not see it is because you do not believe it". There is nothing to change but how we view ourselves...... and the good news is Jesus Christ is our true identity. Very hard to accept when we have been told Jesus Christ paid a price for us all for falling from the grace of God so we wouldn't be punished. The truth is he became us that we might find our true identity in him.
Repentance in my view is turning away from that which we are not to that that which we are(Jesus Christ). When we are enlightened and tasted this, it is impossible to fall away.
I hear you, pcamps. Very deep and thoughtful take on that passage. Thank you.
I know you do RM, but there are some on here who say the belief that God is(not poteniallly but is) Savior of all is evil. So, who is calling God evil?.
I personally believe what Jesus is saying in that scripture you are quoting is"you are already that which you want to be and the reason you do not see it is because you do not believe it". There is nothing to change but how we view ourselves...... and the good news is Jesus Christ is our true identity. Very hard to accept when we have been told Jesus Christ paid a price for us all for falling from the grace of God so we wouldn't be punished. The truth is he became us that we might find our true identity in him.
Repentance in my view is turning away from that which we are not to that that which we are(Jesus Christ). When we are enlightened and tasted this, it is impossible to fall away.
I hear you, pcamps. Very deep and thoughtful take on that passage. Thank you.
I began seeing things this way after pondering on the words of Jesus "consider the lilies field how they toil not or spin not". I was driving over a bridge called Mt Hope at the time of pondering on this, i thought to myself lilies are pretty awesome to look upon, and here is Jesus saying that he arrays us with far more splendour. To the natural man, Jesus is talking about a nice polo shirt and chino's or a lovely outfit for you ladies, but i am convinced he is talking of what he created in his own image. All the beauty around us is just a reflection of God's wonderful creative heart, and we are very much part of that whole thing that he called good.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the Matthew's Bible is the overall best English translation ever done--that and its sister version the 1539 Great Bible.
Says you. Are you a Greek scholar? Which Greek scholars agree with your opinion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fezzilla
But the commentaries are very clear that past repentance is the correct translation.
But the commentaries you posted aren't worth a piece of toilet paper. Try consulting the Greek scholar early church fathers whose native language was Greek. They disagree with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fezzilla
There are many scholars now looking at the evidence and arriving to the same conclusion that William Tyndale was the best translator of all time.
I'll call your bluff on that. Go ahead & let's see if you can provide any evidence to support what you just said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fezzilla
Here is the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary:
Nothing in that mentioned "being past repentance".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fezzilla
Here is the Matthew Henry Commentary:
Likewise, nothing in that mentioned "being past repentance", either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fezzilla
William Tyndale is correct and the Geneva scholars are the ones who messed it all up for every translation that came after it.
More unsubstantiated opinions. On the internet anyone can claim anything, they can say they are god. That doesn't make it so. Such unsubstantiated claims aren't worth a piece of toilet paper.
It's impossible for intelligent, empathetic people to read the bible and NOT come to that conclusion.
That's the problem tho, it's not about intelligence, it's about the heart. If a person is drawn by God then they will see all and understand, were those that are not drawn only stumble thru the scriptures.
No it isn't, Jesus said you could even speak against him and be forgiven.
Hebrews 6 only continues Hebrews 5
Hebrews 5
Warning Against Falling Away 11We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand. 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil
Hebrews 6 1Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,and of faith in God, 2instruction about cleansing rites,the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3And God permitting, we will do so.
^^^^^GOD PERMITTING IF THESE BABIES ON MILK CAN EVER GET PAST THE BASICS, AND THE ONLY WAY TO GET PAST THE BASICS IS TO STUDY JUDAISM LIKE YOUR LIFE DEPENDED ON IT, PAUL WANTED TO MOVE ON PAST ALL THE LAWS HE WAS ALREADY EXPLAINING.
THE ENTIRE POINT IS THAT YOU LEARN THE LAWS, YOU LEARN THE COMINGS AND GOINGS OF THE TEMPLE AND EVERY SINGLE LAW, YOU LEARN.
If you don't progress in the barley harvest of Passover, and if you don't progress to the wheat in Pentecost, then how in the world do you think you will come to the oil and the wine? What is being explained is the basic principles of Christ that they couldn't even get past because of ignorance.
Paul wanted to move on, but the lack of THEIR knowledge of the law and the comings and goings of the temple prevented him from giving them the meat of the word......If these people were so far behind in learning the 7 feasts, imagine how far behind a Christian is when he doesn't even have a beginning to learning the meat of the word?
These are people who are studying the law and the prophets IN ALL THE LAWS, and they could not move on BECAUSE they didn't know the law and the prophets well enough to understand the Temple, the religion and worship system of feasts. How can they expect the rain of Sukkot when they can't even get past the barley? They are all stuck in the barley.
Above, it continues talking about silly babies still on milk and uneducated in the law and prophets that they had been taught the ways of Judaism explaining each law and how each law pointed to Jesus, but these babies on milk still could not understand because they were not committed to studying and so Paul is freaking angry and perplexed at them all the time because of the fact that he has to go right back to the basic fundamentals that they have yet been able to understand, and although he wants to move past all the basic laws and what they mean, he has come up upon a wall of ignorance where he has to go right back to the basics of what the duties of the priests meant, of what the comings and goings of the temple meant and he wants to tell them extraordinary things, but this is impossible for babies.
Those disciples had to become farmers, they are the land, they have to work the barley and the wheat and the oil and the wine, and they can't get it into their head
4It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6and who have fallen[SIZE=2]c[/SIZE] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.
If someone is "lost forever" that is obviously opposed to UR.
Many verses are opposed to it. I have not heard people use this particular one to make arguments against it. If you have heard it, then so be it.
Quote:
The OP speaks of UR & defends it. The very first post after that argues against the OP. IOW it opposes UR.
The next post simply offers an opinion on what the verse means. No mention of UR.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 07-22-2018 at 03:41 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
