In reading the Bible this morning, I read this verse, and now
have a question...to me this is saying that if we deliberately sin
after knowing Yahweh, that there is no more sacrifices to take away
our sin...does this mean that if we sin deliberately on something
after knowing Yahweh, that we will lose our redemption??
For example,
Susie is a Christian who kept Sunday as Sabbath, she learned that Sat
is the true Sabbath as spoken of in the Bible, but she continues to
look at Sabbath as Sunday because she doesn't want people to look at
her strange, or change her life or what have you...since she is
sinning because she knows that Saturday is the Sabbath spoken of in
the Bible, but she is refusing to keep it will she no longer have
redeption/eternal life because she essentially turned her back on the
last/only sacrifice necessary for eternal life?

That question was asked on a group I'm on.  It's mainly regarding trying to understand Hebrews 10:26
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

Here is Gill's Commentary --
Heb 10:26  For if we sin wilfully,.... Which is not to be understood of a single act of sin, but rather of a course of sinning; nor of sins of infirmity through temptation, or even of grosser acts of sin, but of voluntary ones; and not of all voluntary ones, or in which the will is engaged and concerned, but of such which are done on set purpose, resolutely and obstinately; and not of immoral practices, but of corrupt principles, and acting according to them; it intends a total apostasy from the truth, against light and evidence, joined with obstinacy.

After that we have received the knowledge of the truth; either of Jesus Christ, or of the Scriptures, or of the Gospel, or of some particular doctrine, especially the principal one, salvation by Christ; of which there may be a notional knowledge, when there is no experimental knowledge; and which is received not into the heart, but into the head: and whereas the apostle speaks in the first person plural, we, this is used not so much with regard to himself, but others; that so what he delivered might come with greater weight upon them, and be more readily received by them; when they observed he entertained no hard thoughts or jealousies of them, which would greatly distress the minds of those that were truly gracious. Moreover, the apostles use this way of speaking, when they do not design themselves at all, but others, under the same visible profession of religion, and who belonged to the same community of believers; see 1Pe_4:3 compared with  Act_22:3. Besides, these words are only hypothetical, and do not prove that true believers could, or should, or do sin in this manner: to which may be added, that true believers are manifestly distinguished from these persons, Heb_10:38,

there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins; meaning, not typical sacrifice; for though the daily sacrifice ought to have ceased at the death of Christ, yet it did not in fact until the destruction of Jerusalem; but the sacrifice of Christ, which will never be repeated; Christ will die no more; his blood will not be shed again, nor his sacrifice reiterated; nor will any other sacrifice be offered; there will be no other Saviour; there is no salvation in any other, nor any other name whereby we must be saved. These words have been wrongly made use of to prove that persons sinning after baptism are not to be restored to communion again upon repentance; and being understood of immoral actions wilfully committed, have given great distress to consciences burdened with the guilt of sin, committed after a profession of religion; but the true sense of the whole is this, that after men have embraced and professed the truths of the Gospel, and particularly this great truth of it, that Jesus Christ is the only Saviour of men by his blood and sacrifice; and yet after this, against all evidence, all the light and convictions of their own consciences, they wilfully deny this truth, and obstinately persist in the denial of it; seeing there is no more, no other sacrifice for sin, no other Saviour, nor any salvation in any other way, the case of these men must be desperate; there is no help for them, nor hope of them; for by this their sin they shut up against themselves, in principle and practice, the way of salvation, as follows.

Thoughts?

WASHINGTON – You've heard of making cheese from goats' milk, but prescription drugs? In what would be a scientific first, an anti-clotting drug made from the milk of genetically engineered goats moved closer to government approval Wednesday after experts at the Food and Drug Administration reported that the medication works and its safety is acceptable.

Called ATryn, the drug is intended to help people with a rare hereditary disorder that makes them vulnerable to life-threatening blood clots.

Its approval would be a major step toward new kinds of medications made not from chemicals, but from living organisms genetically manipulated by scientists. Similar drugs could be available in the next few years for a range of human ailments, including hemophilia.

Ok, I'm always on the rather outside of popular thought here I know, but am I seriously one of only a few who think this is just a bit beyond normal?  I understand the medical ramifications here, and of course I'm not saying allow folks to suffer when a potential 'help' is out there.  But this GMO craze the government is on is so obviously NWO.

I'm not even going to debate anything, I'm just making an observation.

We are being given Hell in a handbasket and accepting it with not only willing, but grabbing hands.