The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Poll: Are you a Trinitarian?

That has no bearing on the discussion really. It makes sense in Hebrew 11:11 itself, which is in all the manuscripts that contain Hebrews 11:11. What other manuscript bears enough weight to overrule the completely obvious implication within the verse itself? In other words, when the meaning in the thought is obscure for some reason, checking usage in other Greek manuscripts may provide some evidence or weight one way or the other. In this verse there is no obscurity.

Did Sarah have faith for the construction of seed in her womb? Or was it the conception of seed in her womb? Which would be more true to the writer’s thought?

Does some obscure particular usage outside the scripture negate the context of the sentence when there is abundant evidence within the verse itself for what the thought is?

It is clear that other respectable resources accept conception and foundation as primary meanings, but I don’t really need them to read the verse, check an interlinear and a couple of Lexicons and confirm the obvious conclusion, because the only legitimate purpose of translation is to communicate the thought of the writer, which is clear enough in Heb 11:11

Vines (2) The phrase eis katabolen, lit., “for a casting down, or in,” is used of conception in Hebrews 11:11.

Strong’s #2602: katabole (pronounced kat-ab-ol-ay’)

from 2598; a deposition, i.e. founding; figuratively, conception:–conceive, foundation.

“Sarah received power for the ‘establishment of posterity’”
(offered by Cremer’s Biblical and Theological Lexicon, p. 121; Vincent’s
Word Studies. Vol. 4, p. 520; Thayer’s Lexicon, p. 330).

NAS Lexicon:
Definition
a throwing or laying down
the injection or depositing of the virile semen in the womb
of the seed of plants and animals
a founding (laying down a foundation)
NAS Word Usage - Total: 11
conceive* 1, foundation 10

But really, none of these resources speak as loudly as the context of the verse itself- the thought being communicated must be inherently connected to the words spoken in it, and the ENTIRE thought is about Sarah’s faith empowering her to receive seed and conceive a child of promise in a “dead” womb.

I think that’s fair enough too. The bringing together of life, i.e., construction, is what conception is in that particular context… thus the legitimate rendering “conceive” etc. This is why in translation work nutting out meaning is so important other than just posing simple so called word-for-word translation.

Eaglesway, I can scarcely believe you said that. My point above has everything to do with the discussion as to whether or not καταβολη can ever mean “conception.” As I clearly pointed out in a previous post, “The best way to determine the meaning of a Greek word is to look at all the contexts in which it is used.” This is a far better indicator of the meaning than that given by all the lexicons combined. For a lexicographer of New Testament Greek words may approach his work with all the theological prejudices of his day, ringing in his mind. He may intend to be objective, but that may not be entirely possible for him.

Right. There is no obscurity in the Greek. The problem lies in assigning the meaning “conception” to the Greek word “καταβολη” because that meaning SEEMS to work in the context of Heb 11:11. If “καταβολη” had that meaning, we would find it so used in other passages that contain the word, either within the New Testament or in other Greek literature. The fact it NEVER has that meaning elsewhere, should clue us in to the probability that it doesn’t have that meaning in Heb 11:11 either.

A similar situation seems to apply to the Greek word “αιωνιος” (aiōnios). Lexicons have “eternal” as the meaning of “αιωνιος.” After all Heb 9:14 uses the word to describe the (Holy) Spirit. The Spirit is eternal isn’t He? Therefore the meaning of “αιωνιος” must be “eternal.” That reasoning sounds pretty good at first blush, but in fact it is unsound. The adjective “αιωνιος” NEVER means “eternal.” It means “lasting” or “durable”. There is no time frame in the meaning, neither short nor long nor everlasting. It can be applied to that which is eternal as in Heb 9:14, but the word doesn’t MEAN “eternal”. The word was used in koine Greek (the Greek spoken from 300 B.C. to 300 A.D.) to refer to anything which is enduring. The word was used by Diodorus Siculus to describe the stone used to build a wall. Josephus in “The Wars of the Jews” book 6, states that Jonathan was condemned to “αἰωνιος” imprisonment. Yet that prison sentence lasted only three years.

So it is indeed, not only relevant to the discussion of the meaning of “καταβολη” but also necessary to consult other contexts in which the Greek word is used in order to obtain its true meaning.

Perhaps your thought is that the “seed” is semen. That is not the usual meaning of “σπερματος” (spermatos) in the New Testament. Although the English word “sperm” is derived from this Greek word, the usual meaning of the Greek noun “σπερματος” is “offspring” or “progeny”.

I provided a reasonable translation of Heb 11:11 employing the usual meaning of “σπερματος”

I posted a word-for-word interlinear to show that this translation makes sense.

I agree that it also makes sense to translate it as
"

"

However, just because that makes sense, doesn’t imply that the meaning is “conception” just as the fact that translating “αιωνιος” (aiōnios) in Heb 9:14 makes sense when applied to the eternal Spirit of God, and yet the meaning of “αιωνιος” is not “eternal”.

Again, in order to truly discover the meaning of a Greek word, it is necessary to consult its use in many references.

In any case, I think you and I can agree that “καταβολη” does not mean “disruption”.

That’s not so watertight because that could simply mean the likes of Heb 11:11 is the ONLY knowable place “καταβολη” is used in that kind of context… being rare isn’t a case for mitigating against it, IMO.

If you conceive an idea, at its basic level of MEANING it indicates you have constructed something, or are in the process thereof… that’s the sense in which a given context can help in rendering a given translation etc; Heb 11:11 a case in point.

IF you can agree then I’d go with it… :mrgreen:

I agree that that translation makes sense, but I do not agree that it is correct, just as I agree that the Holy Spirit is eternal, while disagreeing that because “aionios” is used to describe the Spirit, therefore the adjective “aionios” means “eternal”.

The simple fact is that multiiple translators have assigned “conceive” to katabolen. In addition, it is confirmed in other ways. It is not as if context has no bearing on translation. The foundation is “laid down”. the seed is “cast down”. There is no inconsistency there. Construction, on the other hand, is what occurs after the foundation or the conception(interms of architectural plans)- “building up”- which has no etymological connection to katabolen, so it is as much an interpretation as a translation(imo). These same concepts(conceive/foundation/casting down/laying down/according to a blueprint or plan or seed) are repeatedly referenced throughout all the resources I have studied- but that in itself is not absolute confirmation, as with aion, which is really just “olam” rendered in Greek, so to understand aion one must reference “olam”, which is the thought of the writer. The absolute confirmation is the common sense understanding in the sentence itself, wherein Sarah receives power to conceive. The thought of the writer should not be obscured by the alternative writings of Greek philosophers, because the writer is the Holy Spirit, and the “foundation” and the “conception” is Hebrew.

Yes I am!

Are all three heads, so to speak, all equal?

They should be but your bible shows one higher or deserving of more respect than the other 2.

We can curse the Father and Son and be forgiven but cannot be forgiven for cursing the Holy Ghost.

Why/what is the difference and why is the Holy Ghost above the Father and Son while all Christians talk about is the Father and son?

Regards
DL

Eaglesway, let’s get real! The Holy Spirit did not write the book of Hebrews (or any other part of the Bible). Nor did God dictate the book of Hebrews to the writer. Rather, God inspired the writer. Yet the writer’s memory, thought, mode of expression, grammar, etc. was expressed in that writing.

Do you trust that writer in light of what the bibles says of them?

Isaiah 56:11) “They are shepherds who have no understanding; They have all turned to their own way, each on to his unjust gain, to the last one” But do not despair, for the day of judgment is at hand, for the day of judgment and the day of the LORD occupy the same time frame. All the dross will be burned away. (Zech 13:9) & (Malachi 3:3). In that day, “you will distinguish between the righteous and the wicked” (Malachi 3:18)

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Regards
DL

This is one of the only things that will cause me to deny that someone is my brother in Christ, if they deny trinitarianism.

Would you have denied a brother in say, the first 3 centuries AD, who had never heard of the Trinity? But still believed in The Father, his son the man Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit?

The only point I’m making is this: you are in essence saying, I think, that someone who believes in God who raised Jesus Christ from the dead, and who recognizes God’s faithfulness and responds in faithfulness, and is in fact filled with the Holy Spirit - is not a Christian, because he does not accept a ‘formulation’ from contested and often corrupt Church councils 1700 years ago.

Whether some form of Trin is ‘correct’ or not, I don’t think one’s opinion on it should break fellowship. God seems to honor the faith of many biblical unitarians, who bear fruit of the Holy Spirit and have scriptural beliefs.

$.02

Your statement is filled with a few unargued presuppositions:

  1. That you can believe in the Son, without believing He is God
  2. That a Christ who is not God, can be said to be the same Christ of the Bible
  3. That a unitarian is filled with the Spirit
  4. That the Trinity is merely a formulation
  5. That God honors the faith of unitarians
  6. That having some scriptural beliefs is enough to qualify you as a Christian

If I said I believed in you but professed that you were a 5" 2 muslim woman who adhered to a form of universalism there is no way one can argue that that is the same propisitional makeup as whoever you are. Likewise, in order to believe in the proposition of God, there are a few basic things that must be understood. This is a general rule.

What?? You cannot answer a simple question? I’m not going to battle here, is that your objective?
Let’s not get off on the wrong foot.

I answered your question by showing you that I think it is a loaded question. There was no animosity on my part towards you. I’m just not going to answer a question that pressuposes the answer in it. I don’t know where you got this idea that I was going to battle with you.

Okay, I see where this is heading. Been there, done that.

Blessings
Dave

Alright, whatever man. Anyway, though you are not able to discern my true intentions I’ll let you know that I am new to the forum and have followed your comments on other posts about Ultra-Universalism and enjoyed what you’ve had to say.

THAT is the statement that causes woe and the gritting of teeth. Because now, I am not your brother, right? Which means - what? Does that mean I’m not a christian? What is it to deny that someone is a brother in Christ?

Trins always think they are on the ‘high ground’ looking down at other pov’s. I dispute that, but I actually don’t care that much (because I don’t think it matters all that much), except when they say things like the above.

In any case, I’ll stay away from it. Dale Tuggy has an entire website concerning this and anyone interested can read to their heart’s content.

You and I will get along just fine.

I always stay away from the non-T topics/discussions (unless I should happen to get a complaint from one of them–which I can’t remember ever having gotten any). I love the people and do consider them my brothers and sisters in Christ, but I don’t want to argue the Trinity with them. I’m not the Holy Spirit and besides I’m not all that sure we disagree at the deepest levels. We just see things from a different perspective, Alexander. I haven’t discovered a way to explain how I view the Trinity so that they can see into my thought process, and I think they probably feel the same about me.

Okay, see? I didn’t know what in the world I said to bother you so much, because I clearly didn’t say anything with the intent to do that. Knowing now that you are a unitarian, that makes sense why you would be offended. Nevertheless, how you can deny that Christ is God baffles me.