[Hebrews 6:4-6]

Hebrews 6:4-6
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.

This says that it is impossible for a person who walked away from the faith to come back.

James 5:19-20   
19  Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
20  Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

This says that if a person roams from the truth, but a brother brings him back, the person that roamed will not face death.

Although it appears like a contradiction, my take on it is this:

Hebrews 6:4-6 addresses a person that walked away from the faith completely, while James 5:19-20 adresses a person that stayed in the faith but have been doing things contrary to what a follower of the faith should do.

I'd like to hear your comments on this.

Thank you, Silver and sincereheart.  

Thank you very much to the both of you.

My favorite team--the sisters--have been eliminated.  

I'm trying to find verses that talk about the rich and the poor being equal in God's eyes. I know they're in the Bible somewhere, but I can't find them.

Please help me.

That's great insight, Brother Love.

Number one at the box office over the weekend with an estimated $40 million.

I saw it on the very first showing at my theater on opening day; I liked it.

Both a) and b).

[Daniel 9:24]

Here's my interpretation: ( Based on my research using several sites discussing the 70 weeks: )

Daniel 9:24   
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

God gave the Jewish people an ultimatum: They have seventy weeks (70 x 7 years = 490 years) "to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy."

Jesus Christ taught the Jewish people how to do these (i.e. how to finish the transgression, make an end of sins, etc.). If they had believed that Jesus was the Messiah, and followed his teachings, there would be no more sins and wickedness in the Holy City.

Daniel 9:25
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

From the decree to rebuild the City of Jerusalem and the temple up to the recognition of the Messiah as their prince, there shall pass seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks ({7 weeks + <[3 x 20] + 2> weeks = 69 weeks} x 7 years/week = 483 years).

The decree was made in 457 B.C.. Seven weeks (7 x 7 years = 49 years) later, at 408 B.C., the city was finally rebuilt. Threescore and two weeks ({[3 x 20] + 2} x 7 years = 434 years) later, we land on 27 A.D. (there was no 0 A.D.) which was the year of Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist; this was the point in time (i.e. his baptism) where Jesus finally became the prince of the Hebrew people.

Daniel 9:26-27
26  And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27  And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

After the threescore and two weeks, at the middle of the seventh week (1 week x 7 years/week = 7 years / 2 = 3 1/2 years later) at 30 A.D., Jesus was crucified. Three-and-a-half more years later, Stephen was stoned to death, and the new covenant was now also established among the Gentiles (remember, the new covenant was not only for the Hebrews, it was also meant for the Gentiles); the seventy weeks of Daniel's prophecy was now fulfilled.

Verse 27 sound like it was talking about Jesus Christ and his crucifixion. "...In the midst of the week, he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease..."; "he" refers to Jesus. The Hebrew word from which "oblation" was translated from means donation, or tribute (specifically, sacrificial offering). Jesus Christ was the ultimate sacrifice given to mankind for the cleansing of their sins; the sacrifice and oblation was ceased, because the living sacrifice died on the cross.

"...for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate."

• Overspreading -- The Hebrew word from which this was translated from also has wings as one of its definitions; so one can read the passage as "...on the 'wings' of abominations..." (crucifixion was an abomination; when Jesus was hung on the cross, he was on the "wings of abminations")
  
  Even if we keep the word overspreading in the translation, "overspread" means to spread or extend over the surface of; isn't this what happened to Jesus when he was crucified (i.e. he was spread out on the cross)?
  
  
• Desolate -- Same Hebrew word used to translate "astonied" in Isaiah 52:14; one of its definitions include to destroy--Jesus was destroying (a) the sacrifice and oblation practices of the Old Testament, when he was hanging on the cross, up to the completion; or (b) his body, since he was the sacrifice and oblation, up to the completion (i.e. up to the time he died on the cross)
  
  

  Isaiah 52:14
  As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

  
  
• Determined -- Literal definition of the Hebrew word is to point sharply (i.e. to wound); Jesus was wounded when he was crucified (not to mention, when he was on the cross, he was pierced on the side, and water and blood came out of the wound), thus, the wound was "poured upon the desolate" (the Hebrew word used for "desolate" in this part of the verse means ruined; so, the "wound was poured upon the [people that] ruined [themselves because of their sins]")--this was also prophecised in Isaiah 52:15.
  
  

  Isaiah 52:15
  So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

  
  Cross-references: ( Credit goes to http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/dan927.htm for these passages: )
  
  

  Matthew 26:28
  For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

  
  

  Mark 10:45
  For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

  
  

  Mark 14:24
  And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

  
  

  Romans 15:8
  Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

I always see this rule being broken many times.

If a person is accused of doing something wrong, people are quick to believe it--especially if the person is someone that really stands out (e.g. the person is very thin/fat, very dark-skinned, very asian-looking, very unattractive, etc.). When the person being accused defends himself and says that he didn't do it, people that are quick to believe the accusation will often times ask that person, "Can you prove that?" (i.e. prove that he's innocent--the opposite of "innocent until proven guilty").

People that ask a person to prove he didn't do what someone said he did seem to have gotten the impression that it's easy to prove one's innocence. Proof arises from analyzing the consequence of a particular action; e.g. we can prove that a murder has been committed when we have a dead body and we see stab wounds on that body--that dead body is the consequence of murder, and our analysis of the body will reveal stab wounds; this analysis will enable us to prove that a murder has been committed.

It's hard to prove innocence, because there is no consequence to not doing anything. When you haven't done anything because you're innocent, then there is no consequence, which makes it hard to prove that you're innocent.

When I ask them why they immediately believe the accusation, their reason is always "People can still be trusted, right?" (i.e. when people say something bad about somebody, it must be true). Yes, people can still be trusted. That's why I immediately don't go believing every accusation I hear. People can still be trusted not to commit wrong-doings to other people; therefore, if a person is accused of doing something wrong, he should be deemed innocent until it can be proven that he is guilty.

Can people be trusted to always tell the truth, thus making every accusation true? No. People are frequent liars. People will lie to get whatever they want. If they don't like a particular person and they want to ruin that person's life, one way to do this would be through a false accusation. When I tell these people that one cannot be trusted to always tell the truth, they then say "People should be believed until it can be proven that their lying, right?" My response to them: WRONG! Not if there always exist the potential of an innocent person getting punished. Even if the accuser is telling the truth, the accuser could've mistaken the accused individual for somebody else (i.e. mistaken identity). "People should be believed until there's proof that there's a mistaken identity, right?" No, not if there always exist the potential of an innocent person getting punished.

If the accuser has witnesses to back up his claim, he should still not be believed without proof. Because, for all you know, the witnesses could be in cahoots with the accuser, and the witnesses are being false witnesses. "We should believe the witnesses until it can be proven that they're lying, right?" No.

Some people say that if a person is not punished for the accusation against him, then there is no justice. The thing is, justice is only served if the accusation is true AND the right person is punished. If the accusation is true but there is a mistaken identity, then justice is NOT served. Punishing an innocent person actually creates an INJUSTICE. Punishing a person that looks like the guilty person is NOT justice.

If we go believing every accusation we hear, this just leaves the door open for people to come in and make all sorts of false accusations; if that happens, there WILL be innocent people that will be punished for things they didn't do--this is INVITABLE. By not believing an accusation until it is proven, this ensures that no innocent person will ever get punished; it also makes a great deterrent for people not to make false accusations--if they make a false accusation, nobody will believe them unless they can prove it.

If the accusation turns out to be true but it cannot be proven, then the accuser will have to learn to forgive; this is what God wants from us anyway:

Matthew 6:14-15
14  For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:  15  But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.  


So, the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" has two benefits: (1) It ensures that no innocent person suffers, and (2) It forces the accuser to forgive if he cannot prove his accusation. Punishing an innocent person is wrong, and forgiving a person by not punishing him is NOT wrong. Sure, no justice was served, but there's nothing wrong with letting a person off the hook. (God will eventually provide the justice anyway.)

For those people that believe in the opposite, "guilty until proven innocent", I wish that these people would someday find themselves on the receiving end of a false accusation and they get punished for it. That way, they'll find out why to be deemed "innocent until proven guilty" is the most important right we have.

tqpix.

ditto Seen it twice. Have you seen the 1st one.

Yes, I have.  I liked it so much, I bought the DVD twice (the only title where I double-dipped).  So I now own two versions of this movie--the regular two-disc, and the SUPERBIT.

Right now, it's Family Guy.

What a great movie.  A must-buy for me when it comes out on DVD.

Thank you, Wykliff.

Saw The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament, by George Ricker Berry (Zondervan, 1976) in a Christian bookstore.  The print is too small, and the paper quality is not that good.

I did manage to buy The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament:  Third Edition by Jay P. Green.  The printing is a bit bigger than berry's and the paper quality is better too.

Added the Literal Translations (Electronic and Hardcover) to my list of owned Bible/Bible Accessories.