DBC's Nick Morgan on Bible Languages

[Granite]

Why do so many non-Christians seem to think "original sin" and "collective guilt" go hand-in-hand? That isn't what the church teaches, so where do y'all get this idea?

One way to look at it: We are collectively guilty because of original sin.

 

[Stripe]

Here's an example for you. Earthquakes started because the Earth was knocked off its rocker - thus we are cursed with turmoil and upheaval. "Tainted" is the word you used, but it may not be the most apt description. But we are not sinners and deserving of damnation because there are earthquakes. People go to hell because they reject Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour.

 

[Frayed Knot]

You missed the part about people being responsible for their own actions, decisions and words. There's a big difference between what you choose to do and what you were born into.

But Christian theology is that a person is deserving of eternal damnation even if he's never done anything wrong, how is that being responsible for his own actions? He's given the responsibility for what Adam and Eve did wrong.

 

[Stripe]

But Christian theology is that a person is deserving of eternal damnation even if he's never done anything wrong, how is that being responsible for his own actions? He's given the responsibility for what Adam and Eve did wrong.

And now you're wrong. A perfect man is just in the eyes of God. How else do you think Jesus was able to sacrifice Himself and not do so in vain?

Bible says all have sinned and everyone needs a saviour. It does not say, at any stage, that you are damned because of someone else's rebellion.

 

[MaryContrary]

But Christian theology is that a person is deserving of eternal damnation even if he's never done anything wrong, how is that being responsible for his own actions? He's given the responsibility for what Adam and Eve did wrong.

I don't know of any Christian theologian that says this. Or any Christians that say it. Or...you know...any people that say it, that aren't loony. :idunno:

I don't know who told you that this is any kind of fundamental Christian truth, but you should go kick them in the butt for me. Seriously. I'll totally take the rap for it. Promise.

 

[Frayed Knot]

I guess now would be the time when most people would respond with your own view, and how it contrasts with what I said, and not just say that I'm wrong.

 

[Stripe]

I guess now would be the time when most people would respond with your own view, and how it contrasts with what I said, and not just say that I'm wrong.

:AMR:

Christian theology is not that a person is deserving of eternal damnation even if he's never done anything wrong. Christian theology is that people are responsible for their own actions.

Deuteronomy 24:16
“Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18
A False Proverb Refuted
1 The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, 2 “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:

‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?
3 “As I live,” says the Lord God, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.

4 “Behold, all souls are Mine;
The soul of the father
As well as the soul of the son is Mine;
The soul who sins shall die.
5 But if a man is just
And does what is lawful and right;
6 If he has not eaten on the mountains,
Nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,
Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife,
Nor approached a woman during her impurity;
7 If he has not oppressed anyone,
But has restored to the debtor his pledge;
Has robbed no one by violence,
But has given his bread to the hungry
And covered the naked with clothing;
8 If he has not exacted usury
Nor taken any increase,
But has withdrawn his hand from iniquity
And executed true judgment between man and man;
9 If he has walked in My statutes
And kept My judgments faithfully—
He is just;
He shall surely live!”
Says the Lord God.
10 “If he begets a son who is a robber
Or a shedder of blood,
Who does any of these things
11 And does none of those duties,
But has eaten on the mountains
Or defiled his neighbor’s wife;
12 If he has oppressed the poor and needy,
Robbed by violence,
Not restored the pledge,
Lifted his eyes to the idols,
Or committed abomination;
13 If he has exacted usury
Or taken increase—
Shall he then live?
He shall not live!
If he has done any of these abominations,
He shall surely die;
His blood shall be upon him.
14 “If, however, he begets a son
Who sees all the sins which his father has done,
And considers but does not do likewise;
15 Who has not eaten on the mountains,
Nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,
Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife;
16 Has not oppressed anyone,
Nor withheld a pledge,
Nor robbed by violence,
But has given his bread to the hungry
And covered the naked with clothing;
17 Who has withdrawn his hand from the poor
And not received usury or increase,
But has executed My judgments
And walked in My statutes—
He shall not die for the iniquity of his father;
He shall surely live!
18 “As for his father,
Because he cruelly oppressed,
Robbed his brother by violence,
And did what is not good among his people,
Behold, he shall die for his iniquity.

Turn and Live

19 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?

24 “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.

25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? 26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. 27 Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. 28 Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 29 Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair?

30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!”​

 

[Frayed Knot]

Thanks for the elaboration, Stripe. I guess I was thinking more of an explanation of Christian theology and not just quoting OT verses. Like the concept of "original sin" - I don't believe that's actually mentioned in the Bible, but is more of a big-picture explanation that theologians have put together. And it's the concept of original sin that I was specifically talking about.

I have no doubt that someone familiar with the code of Hammurabi or other ancient texts could find verses that support the view that people are responsible for their own actions. Conversely, it's very easy to find Bible verses that support the idea that children are responsible for their fathers' sins.

Exodus 20:5 , Deuteronomy 5:9
I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

Exodus 34:7
Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Numbers 14:18
Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

Deuteronomy 23:2
A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

1 Kings 2:33
Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Joab, and upon the head of his seed for ever.

Isaiah 14:21
Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers.

Jeremiah 29:32
Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will punish Shemaiah the Nehelamite, and his seed.

See, I can play that find-a-verse game too. But what's your explanation of original sin, and why is it not a case of current humans suffering for Adam's sin?

 

[Stripe]

Thanks for the elaboration, Stripe. I guess I was thinking more of an explanation of Christian theology and not just quoting OT verses. Like the concept of "original sin" - I don't believe that's actually mentioned in the Bible, but is more of a big-picture explanation that theologians have put together. And it's the concept of original sin that I was specifically talking about.

I have no doubt that someone familiar with the code of Hammurabi or other ancient texts could find verses that support the view that people are responsible for their own actions. Conversely, it's very easy to find Bible verses that support the idea that children are responsible for their fathers' sins.

Exodus 20:5 , Deuteronomy 5:9
I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

Exodus 34:7
Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Numbers 14:18
Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

Deuteronomy 23:2
A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

1 Kings 2:33
Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Joab, and upon the head of his seed for ever.

Isaiah 14:21
Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers.

Jeremiah 29:32
Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will punish Shemaiah the Nehelamite, and his seed.

See, I can play that find-a-verse game too.

Congratulations. :BRAVO:

Now perhaps you can explain to us why these verses would exist together when you think they directly contradict one another. Perhaps there's more to the story than your brief investigation has revealed. :thumb:

Or are you happy to believe that the authors of the bible did not know what others had written or did know and we're comfortable ignoring it?

Choose well.

But what's your explanation of original sin, and why is it not a case of current humans suffering for Adam's sin?

:doh:

1. We are troubled in that our society and planet have been exposed to rebellion, decay and death.

2. We are all responsible for our own actions.

Big difference between 1 and 2.

 

[Frayed Knot]

Now perhaps you can explain to us why these verses would exist together when you think they directly contradict one another.

Because it's a set of separate books written by fallible humans, capturing their primitive society's traditions but the authors putting their own take on things. That's the obvious answer. Is there any evidence that it's not the right one?

1. We are troubled in that our society and planet have been exposed to rebellion, decay and death.

But there's a lot more to the concept of original sin, than just we're bothered by bad stuff.

If we're all responsible for our own actions, then tell me again why Jesus needed to die? I thought it was something about substitutionary atonement.

 

[Stripe]

Because it's a set of separate books written by fallible humans, capturing their primitive society's traditions but the authors putting their own take on things. That's the obvious answer. Is there any evidence that it's not the right one?

Plenty.

It's perfectly obvious that the different passages might be referring to very different concepts.

Here's a clue. From my passages:

chet' חֵטְא 1) sin a) sin b) guilt for sin c) punishment for sin

...or...

chata' חָטָא 1) to sin, miss, miss the way, go wrong, incur guilt, forfeit, purify from uncleanness a) (Qal) 1) to miss 2) to sin, miss the goal or path of right and duty 3) to incur guilt, incur penalty by sin, forfeit b) (Piel) 1) to bear loss 2) to make a sin-offering 3) to purify from sin 4) to purify from uncleanness c) (Hiphil) 1) to miss the mark 2) to induce to sin, cause to sin 3) to bring into guilt or condemnation or punishment d) (Hithpael) 1) to miss oneself, lose oneself, wander from the way 2) to purify oneself from uncleanness

From yours:

`avon עָוֹן 1) perversity, depravity, iniquity, guilt or punishment of iniquity a) iniquity b) guilt of iniquity, guilt (as great), guilt (of condition) c) consequence of or punishment for iniquity

And your hermeneutic is appallingly naive. :shocked:

But there's a lot more to the concept of original sin, than just we're bothered by bad stuff.

:idunno:

I find it perfectly straightforward. But you don't seem to be willing to discuss what is in the bible. You seem to think any old opinion is of more relevance.

If we're all responsible for our own actions, then tell me again why Jesus needed to die? I thought it was something about substitutionary atonement.

:doh:

My understanding of Christian theology is that we are all deserving of eternal damnation, but Jesus took the punishment for those who accept him.

You're not very good at this, are you?

 

[Frayed Knot]

Stripe, I have to complain about something here. Most people on an Internet discussion board are here to have a discussion. It appears with every one of your posts that your intent is to put an end to any discussion. Just about all you do is post stupid icons and do a bunch of finger-pointing and name calling.

Getting back to where you posted translations of chet' and `avon, I gather from that that chet' is a lesser sin than `avon. Is that what your intent was in posting it? If that's the case, I don't see how it supports the position that Christianity holds everyone responsible for his own actions - I guess it holds everyone responsible, unless his father's or grandfather's actions were of the more severe variety?

And if I'm "not very good" at understanding original sin, perhaps you could enlighten me with your understanding? Here, I'll give you my take so you can explain where I'm off-base. Please no shrugging icons, just explain your view. My take is that the concept of original sin is pretty fundamental to Christianity, and especially those of the fundamentalist variety would subscribe to it. Do you? Is it actually mentioned in the Bible?

And my take is that Jesus took the hit for our sins, for those who accept him, which is another way of saying substitutionary atonement. Would you agree with that? Apparently not, since your response was just a face-palming icon, but why is this wrong?

Use your big-boy words here, Stripe.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe, I have to complain about something here. Most people on an Internet discussion board are here to have a discussion. It appears with every one of your posts that your intent is to put an end to any discussion. Just about all you do is post stupid icons and do a bunch of finger-pointing and name calling.

I find the concepts under examination very simple and easy to communicate. It constantly astounds me how people are so resistant to such simple ideas.

Getting back to where you posted translations of chet' and `avon, I gather from that that chet' is a lesser sin than `avon. Is that what your intent was in posting it? If that's the case, I don't see how it supports the position that Christianity holds everyone responsible for his own actions - I guess it holds everyone responsible, unless his father's or grandfather's actions were of the more severe variety?

The clue was in the bolded text. That definition is only applicable to your verses. Thus the seeming contradiction is cleared up if you apply the bolded definition to your verses and the common definition to mine.

And if I'm "not very good" at understanding original sin, perhaps you could enlighten me with your understanding? Here, I'll give you my take so you can explain where I'm off-base. Please no shrugging icons, just explain your view.

My take is that the concept of original sin is pretty fundamental to Christianity, and especially those of the fundamentalist variety would subscribe to it. Do you? Is it actually mentioned in the Bible?

We are troubled in that our society and planet have been exposed to rebellion, decay and death.

And my take is that Jesus took the hit for our sins, for those who accept him, which is another way of saying substitutionary atonement. Would you agree with that? Apparently not, since your response was just a face-palming icon, but why is this wrong?

:doh: It's not wrong. It's correct. As I'd already acknowledged the first time you said it.

Jesus suffered and died so that He might answer the judge on our behalf. And He rose again so that our faith in Him is not in vain. He is righteous and He can save us from the destruction we have brought upon ourselves.

And He did all this even though He lived in the same fallen creation of decay and death that we are tested within.

 

[Frayed Knot]

The clue was in the bolded text. That definition is only applicable to your verses. Thus the seeming contradiction is cleared up if you apply the bolded definition to your verses and the common definition to mine.

You're going to have to give a little more detail here. The definitions you quoted are very similar-sounding to me, but apparently you think they're quite distinct. My reading is that the `avon transgressions are more severe than the cheta' ones. Is that your point?

We are troubled in that our society and planet have been exposed to rebellion, decay and death.

That's your take on original sin? That the world's problems trouble you? Gee, sorry you're losing sleep. I just thought that "original sin" meant more than that. Again, if I've misunderstood your position, which I admit I may have done because you give me so little to go on, then please explain with detail.

 

[Nick M]

Interesting show. I hadn't thought about the certificate of divorce that way. Because of what the Lord Jesus Christ says about it. The certificate exhonerates her from his wrong doing.

 

[Stripe]

You're going to have to give a little more detail here. The definitions you quoted are very similar-sounding to me, but apparently you think they're quite distinct. My reading is that the `avon transgressions are more severe than the cheta' ones. Is that your point?

Dang. lain:

The bolded part was a unique definition between the words. Consequences of sin may affect a father's children without the children having done any wrong.

That's your take on original sin?

:thumb:

 

[Frayed Knot]

The bolded part was a unique definition between the words. Consequences of sin may affect a father's children without the children having done any wrong.

And the consequences are punishment from God, right? Like when it says "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation."

Children being punished for the transgressions of the fathers/grandfathers/etc.

 

[Stripe]

And the consequences are punishment from God, right? Like when it says "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation."Children being punished for the transgressions of the fathers/grandfathers/etc.

And how is this achieved? By the application of physical reality upon our lives and by the application of psychological and emotional realities upon our lives.

When a father commits a crime, he goes to jail - consequences flow onto his family. When a father abandons his family, the emotional and psychological strain can endure through generations.

Now it is justified that God would claim these effects as part of His plan, and He outlined these things a number of times (Genesis 3:16-19, 1 Samuel 8). But He also makes it very clear that we are not justified in doing similarly with our laws.

Thus the seeming contradiction you naively chalk up to ignorance is easily explained by accepting God at His word.

Are you prepared to consider this explanation?