The theological identity you're asserting isn't in any of your sources, it's GARBAGE you imported & then retro‑justified with linguistic footnotes.
Hebrews 3 text itself keeps the categories distinct: the root is unbelief (3:12 & 3:19) & the rebellion, provocation, sin & disobedience in Vs. 15–18 are its expressions. The inspired author gives the theological category, the grammars simply describe the syntax. Using grammars to override the author's own summary is not exegesis, it's category collapse GARBAGE.
My friend you are saying so without showing so.
In respect to the Greek word translated depart in the KJV. One can't depart unless one is in a place to depart from.
From Danker and Bauer:
... to distance oneself from some pers. or thing (mid. forms, and 2 aor., pf., and plupf. act.) intrans.
go away, withdraw τινός (Hdt. 3, 15; Epict. 2, 13, 26; 4, 5, 28; BGU 159, 4; Sir 38:12; En 14:23; Jos., Ant. 1, 14; Just., D. 106, 1) Lk 2:37. ἀπό τινος (PGM 4, 1244; Sir 23:11f; Jdth 13:19; 1 Macc 6:10, 36; Just., D. 6, 2) Lk 1:38 D; 13:27 (Ps 6:9); 24:51 D; Ac 12:10; 19:9; Hs 9, 15, 6. ἐκ τοῦ τόπου Hm 5, 1, 3. Abs. (Aesop, Fab. 194 H.=86 P.=H-H. 88; cp. Ch. 158; Just., A I, 50, 12) s 8, 8, 2. Desert ἀπό τινος someone (as Appian, Iber. 34 §137; cp. Jer 6:8) Ac 15:38; GJs 2:3.—Fall away (Hdt. et al.), become a backslider abs. (Appian, Iber. 38 §156 ἀφίστατο=he revolted; Jer 3:14; Da 9:9 Theod.; 1 Macc 11:43; En 5:4) Lk 8:13. ἀπό τινος (X., Cyr. 5, 4, 1; Polyb. 1, 16, 3; oft. LXX,
mostly of falling away fr. God) Hb 3:12;..
One can't depart
from, fall away
from unless one is a place to depart, fall away from.
As Cambridge Greek alludes to with it's use of the word apostasy:
ἐν τῷ ἀποστῆναι ἀπό, “in the apostatising from.” In that one word—Apostasy—the moral peril of his Hebrew readers was evidently summed up. To apostatise after believing is more dangerous than not to have believed at all.
Which William Robertson Nicol confirms in his work:
...What they are to be on their guard against is the emergence of καρδία πονηρὰ ἀπιστίας ἐν … ζῶντος, a wicked heart of unbelief manifesting itself in departing from Him who is a living God. ἀπιστίας is the genitive of quality = a bad, unbelieving heart; whether the wickedness proceeds from the unbelief, or the unbelief from the wickedness, is not determined. Although, from the next verse it might be gathered that unbelief is considered the result of allowed sin: i.e., it is when the heart is hardened through sin, it becomes unbelieving, so that the psychological order might be stated thus: sin, a deceived mind, a hardened heart, unbelief, apostasy. The main idea in the writer’s mind is that unbelief in God’s renewed offer of salvation is accompanied by and means
apostasy from the living God. In the O.T. Jehovah is called “the living God” in contrast to lifeless impotent idols, and the designation is suggestive of His power to observe, visit, judge and succour His people. In this Epistle it occurs, Heb 9:14, Heb 10:31, Heb 12:22. To object that the apostasy of Jews from Christianity could not be called “apostacy from God” is to mistake. The very point the writer wishes to make is just this: Remember that to apostatize from Christ in whom you have found God, is to
apostatize from God.
One can not
apostatize, depart from God, fall away from unless one is with God in the first place
Which A. T. Robertson confirms in his work:
In falling away from the living God (εν τω αποστηνα απο θεου ζωντος). "In the falling away" (locative case with εν of the second aorist active (intransitive) infinitive of αφιστημ, to stand off from, to step aside from (απο with the ablative case θεου) the living God...
One can't be removed unless one is in a placed to be removed from.
And if it is that one can't be removed or placed because of predestination, what is the point in beseeching them that they be not hardened through the deceitfulness of sin?
Obviously, there is a choice.
Heb 3:12 See, brethren, lest there shall be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in removing away from the living God.
Heb 3:13 But beseech one another according to each day, as far as the day is called; lest any of you be hardened by deceit of sin.
Typical, throw out a cluster of Greek terms & then smuggle in a ""grace through obedience"" conclusion that none of the grammars actually support. In Post #10,602 you described your method as shrinking the battlefield, isolating the hidden flaw, tracing upstream corruption & identifying the one point where GARBAGE enters the system so everything downstream becomes GARBAGE OUT. That's a very specific rhetorical posture: you cast yourself as the diagnostician, the root‑cause analyst, the one who sees what others miss & the one who decides what counts as valid data & what counts as GARBAGE.
The problem is that this posture is now being used to override the very grammars you cite. You didn't follow Votaw, Robertson, BDF, or Moulton‑Turner, YOU ""overrode them"". All 4 classify the infinitive in
Heb 3:12 as epexegetically, meaning it explains unbelief. None of them say unbelief is disobedience or that faith is obedience. Grammars describe syntax, not doctrine.
The context states it. Can I show you or do you want to show me it doesn't?
