This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I didn't read it before but I have read it now. It is saying the same as I have said, but it is only addressing the second half of the verse: "in sin did my mother conceive me". It does not address the first half: "in iniquity I was brought-forth".
There is a clear separation of concerns through the placement of the Hebrew letter vav, which is the symbol of a tent peg in the ancient Hebrew alphabet. The function of the vav in this context is to join things by way of saying "and". That is called a vav conjunctive. Therefore the two parts are clearly joined as separate concerns.
The only thing I disagree with in the article is the first and last sentence of his statement at point 5: "The event spoken of is the conception of David, not the birth of David." and "This passage is talking about the beginning of the pregnancy or the conception.". I say that those are not truthful statements because he appears to be only addressing the second half of Psalms 51:5, and yet it is clear to see that the first half of the verse does speak about the birth of King David (or in a more accurate rendering of the language, the "bringing-forth", as I described in my last post).
I agree with the next four sentences in that same point 5: "He is not saying that he was born a sinner. David is saying that his mother was in sin when she got pregnant. She was sinning when she conceived him. The conception is the beginning of the pregnancy. The birth is the end of the pregnancy.".
About the authorities getting involved...
I don't care for the state to get involved in the raising of children UNLESS there is abuse going on.
The problem with abuse is that those who witness it are not willing to get involved.
That is precisely because of the way the authorities respond, and that is precisely why abuses happen - because the children themselves are unable to trust the authorities. I have evidence of a very sad abuse of authority in that way, that a child traumatised by his father has been arrested by Police in school and led by Police into the custody of his father who was waiting outside and has never shown remorse for what he did to the child. The cause of it? The Police do not care about the sensitivities of children, calling them "whinging little things" and saying that they also would strangle their own children "depending what age he was, mate".
Do you not see that it is the evil inclinations of the authorites that empowers the bad behaviours of the parents? There is so much relevance in the Proverbs about these problems.
Anyone who does not act against the atrocities when it is in their power to do so, gives their strength in support of those atrocities - but why does a person do that? Proverbs 28:12 tells us. If the authorities knew how to do righteousness then the people would be afraid to do wickedness. As it is though, they have no interest in righteousness, because they want instead to be left in peace for their sinfulness.
1: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner
Compassion is when you feel sorry for someone and you might make some provision for that person.
Empathy is when you FEEL (however you want to understand that) the person's grief/pain, whatever.
: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it
And it explains the difference between empathy and sympathy - in being more like sympathy is the ability to reflect, or to take a representative position of, what a person is feeling (eg: in acoustics, we might say "the diaphragm resonates in sympathy with the sound") whereas empathy speaks more about the ability to intuitively know the way a person is feeling and what they are thinking. For example, it is written that Jesus had no need for anyone to testify to him about what was in a man's heart because He already knew. That comes through empathy, and it is a part of what is required for discernment (but discernment also requires good knowledge of truth).
So I would say as I have said above, that compassion depends on empathy, because one needs to understand how it might feel from the other person's perspective, in order that they can be compassionate. Otherwise compassion without empathy is most likely to be misplaced, being received as an insult etc, which then indicates that it is pity rather than compassion. That's the main problem that Job had in his friends' counsel - they were pitying him but not capable of understanding his point of view, and no matter how much he told them that they had him all wrong, they kept on trying to put their own views forward to console him. No doubt they too thought that they were being compassionate while neither Job nor God thought so (Job 13:4-6, Job 33:31-33, Job 42:7).
I really don't think a person can have compassion if they don't have empathy... and that's the problem. The only way a person cannot have empathy, is because they don't have any interest in understanding the others' point of view. And that's not fine. It is exactly the thing that makes the children cry.
That is not what it says. There is two parts to it: his conception and his bringing-forth (shaping/forming).
Of his conception, he says that his mother was in sin when she conceived him. The word used in the Hebrew for conception is also used to describe when the animal is in heat. Furthermore, the pronominal suffix shows us that it is in context of his mother's heat, or more accurately, "the heat of my mother". So he is saying clearly about the moment(s) his mother conceived him, she was doing sin.
The bringing-forth, or shaping, is telling of the struggle to be delivered into the state of being (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2342.htm) and as such it does describe a long period of time, whether in context of being born through a womb or the childhood (which is more likely given that it is said to have been wrought in iniquity).
Therefore he says that the sin and iniquity are associated with the two distinct aspects of his being given the life he has: where his conception was done in sin and his bringing-forth was wrought in iniquity. I think if I was to write it in my own way in English, I would say that my mother conceived of me sinfully and I was shaped by injustice.
It therefore shows clearly that he appeals to God for mercy because of the harm done to him that has put him in a position of undeserved corruption, and thus he believes that his sin is the result of effectively having been robbed of his intrinsic nature. I think that the plea for mercy on those grounds is hands-down the most reasonable given that it is obvious in the facts that he is remorseful.
That is not what it says. There is two parts to it: his conception and his bringing-forth (shaping/forming).
Of his conception, he says that his mother was in sin when she conceived him. The word used in the Hebrew for conception is also used to describe when the animal is in heat. Furthermore, the pronominal suffix shows us that it is in context of his mother's heat, or more accurately, "the heat of my mother". So he is saying clearly about the moment(s) his mother conceived him, she was doing sin.
The bringing-forth, or shaping, is telling of the struggle to be delivered into the state of being (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2342.htm) and as such it does describe a long period of time, whether in context of being born through a womb or the childhood (which is more likely given that it is said to have been wrought in iniquity).
Therefore he says that the sin and iniquity are associated with the two distinct aspects of his being given the life he has: where his conception was done in sin and his bringing-forth was wrought in iniquity. I think if I was to write it in my own way in English, I would say that my mother conceived of me sinfully and I was shaped by injustice.
It therefore shows clearly that he appeals to God for mercy because of the harm done to him that has put him in a position of undeserved corruption, and thus he believes that his sin is the result of effectively having been robbed of his intrinsic nature. I think that the plea for mercy on those grounds is hands-down the most reasonable given that it is obvious in the facts that he is remorseful.
OK.
Here's what would clear this up because it seems like we're talking about something different....
WHAT is the sin that was involved with David's conception?
It's only because you haven't looked at the scripture I mentioned, in that context, before. When you do see what I am saying, that it is appointed to man that he shall die once and then face judgment,
This is referring to the Lake of FIre.
The evil will move from hell to the Lake of Fire.
The heaven-bound are already in heaven and their only judgement is for what they've earned...
we can say it is crowns...
The first death is then speaking of the end of life in such a way that some awareness of life remains in order to stand in the judgment. Naturally, we have to look at it as being the end of the physical body where the spiritual ego remains aware of it's existence. That is to describe death itself - the end of life as we know it.
OK.
Our body dies and goes into the ground.
Our soul and spirit remain alive and go where they have to be upon that immediate judgement at physical death.
(you call it the spiritual ego).
Yet there is an expression "second death" in the Revelation that tells us the dead were judged - all those in hades and in the sea, they were judged and condemned to a second death. They are not said to have been brought back to life first, so therefore what is there that remains to die if in that state they have already died? It's pretty obvious to me that we are looking at the end of all sin, the annihilation of the satan and the false prophet, and an everlasting world without sin. Therefore in that final judgment God is doing away with every cause for suffering, so that in the absence of suffering is also no memory of the things that caused the suffering and hence, there is nothing left of those who once caused the world to suffer.
By the above I think you're speaking of the Lake of Fire...
The White Throne Judgement -- the final judgement --
and the New Jerusalem where only the good will survive and earth will be the New Earth
as God meant it to be (in the Garden).
That is precisely because of the way the authorities respond, and that is precisely why abuses happen - because the children themselves are unable to trust the authorities. I have evidence of a very sad abuse of authority in that way, that a child traumatised by his father has been arrested by Police in school and led by Police into the custody of his father who was waiting outside and has never shown remorse for what he did to the child. The cause of it? The Police do not care about the sensitivities of children, calling them "whinging little things" and saying that they also would strangle their own children "depending what age he was, mate".
Do you not see that it is the evil inclinations of the authorites that empowers the bad behaviours of the parents? There is so much relevance in the Proverbs about these problems.
Anyone who does not act against the atrocities when it is in their power to do so, gives their strength in support of those atrocities - but why does a person do that? Proverbs 28:12 tells us. If the authorities knew how to do righteousness then the people would be afraid to do wickedness. As it is though, they have no interest in righteousness, because they want instead to be left in peace for their sinfulness.
1: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner
: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it
And it explains the difference between empathy and sympathy - in being more like sympathy is the ability to reflect, or to take a representative position of, what a person is feeling (eg: in acoustics, we might say "the diaphragm resonates in sympathy with the sound") whereas empathy speaks more about the ability to intuitively know the way a person is feeling and what they are thinking. For example, it is written that Jesus had no need for anyone to testify to him about what was in a man's heart because He already knew. That comes through empathy, and it is a part of what is required for discernment (but discernment also requires good knowledge of truth).
So I would say as I have said above, that compassion depends on empathy, because one needs to understand how it might feel from the other person's perspective, in order that they can be compassionate. Otherwise compassion without empathy is most likely to be misplaced, being received as an insult etc, which then indicates that it is pity rather than compassion. That's the main problem that Job had in his friends' counsel - they were pitying him but not capable of understanding his point of view, and no matter how much he told them that they had him all wrong, they kept on trying to put their own views forward to console him. No doubt they too thought that they were being compassionate while neither Job nor God thought so (Job 13:4-6, Job 33:31-33, Job 42:7).
I really don't think a person can have compassion if they don't have empathy... and that's the problem. The only way a person cannot have empathy, is because they don't have any interest in understanding the others' point of view. And that's not fine. It is exactly the thing that makes the children cry.
I can't argue this with you.
You can believe what you will.
I'll just end it with this:
Taking a sentence you wrote above:
Not too many people understand how another person might feel in any given circumstance...
let alone how they might feel.
That is precisely because of the way the authorities respond, and that is precisely why abuses happen - because the children themselves are unable to trust the authorities. I have evidence of a very sad abuse of authority in that way, that a child traumatised by his father has been arrested by Police in school and led by Police into the custody of his father who was waiting outside and has never shown remorse for what he did to the child. The cause of it? The Police do not care about the sensitivities of children, calling them "whinging little things" and saying that they also would strangle their own children "depending what age he was, mate".
Do you not see that it is the evil inclinations of the authorites that empowers the bad behaviours of the parents? There is so much relevance in the Proverbs about these problems.
Anyone who does not act against the atrocities when it is in their power to do so, gives their strength in support of those atrocities - but why does a person do that? Proverbs 28:12 tells us. If the authorities knew how to do righteousness then the people would be afraid to do wickedness. As it is though, they have no interest in righteousness, because they want instead to be left in peace for their sinfulness.
1: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner
: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it
And it explains the difference between empathy and sympathy - in being more like sympathy is the ability to reflect, or to take a representative position of, what a person is feeling (eg: in acoustics, we might say "the diaphragm resonates in sympathy with the sound") whereas empathy speaks more about the ability to intuitively know the way a person is feeling and what they are thinking. For example, it is written that Jesus had no need for anyone to testify to him about what was in a man's heart because He already knew. That comes through empathy, and it is a part of what is required for discernment (but discernment also requires good knowledge of truth).
So I would say as I have said above, that compassion depends on empathy, because one needs to understand how it might feel from the other person's perspective, in order that they can be compassionate. Otherwise compassion without empathy is most likely to be misplaced, being received as an insult etc, which then indicates that it is pity rather than compassion. That's the main problem that Job had in his friends' counsel - they were pitying him but not capable of understanding his point of view, and no matter how much he told them that they had him all wrong, they kept on trying to put their own views forward to console him. No doubt they too thought that they were being compassionate while neither Job nor God thought so (Job 13:4-6, Job 33:31-33, Job 42:7).
I really don't think a person can have compassion if they don't have empathy... and that's the problem. The only way a person cannot have empathy, is because they don't have any interest in understanding the others' point of view. And that's not fine. It is exactly the thing that makes the children cry.
As to the authorities and children:
I agree with you as you've stated it above.
And why should authorities care?
They're infected with the sin nature and if they're not born again do not even understand what they're doing.
Many children are left with the very persons that harm them.
There must be a special place in hell for them.
Here's what would clear this up because it seems like we're talking about something different....
WHAT is the sin that was involved with David's conception?
The word וּ֝בְחֵ֗טְא "ooh-buh-het-ah" is comprised of three main elements: vav, bet and the root word "chet-ah", each of those has a function in it's being translated to say "and in sin". The vav is a conjunction that is used frequently in the Hebrew scriptures to join things, just as we would use the word "and" in the English language. So it actually doesn't add any meaning to the word, it just gives context for how the word fits into the sentence. The next letter is the Bet, which is used in a similar way to the vav but it does add meaning to the word. Any time a Bet is used as a prefix to a word, it means "in" or "with" or "by". You can read more about the three types of prefixes here at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefixes_in_Hebrew
So then we look at the root word, חֵטְא which is shown to be a masculine singular noun, and so first off we can see that because it is a noun, as we know, it is a thing. So it is a thing that, because it is singular, is an identified entity and not an exhibit (as for example, we might say "the sins he committed" which would be identifying single deeds collectively), and the sin is a thing, an entity, something that we can point to. Now, what is this thing?
חֵטְא is mentioned in Genesis 4:7, as God says to Cain "Sin is crouching at the door, desiring to have you, but you must master it and rule over it". In that example, sin is being shown as an adversary and not a deed, and so we can see that there is a way to regard sin as a noun in such a way that it is an entity - a thing that has a desire to rule over us, and a thing that is capable of enslaving us. So in that way it is probable to read that David is saying his mother was being compelled by sin when she conceived him, which would lead us to recognise that the importance of the statement is to say that her intentions were not coming from God, because God is love. Therefore he complains "my mother was sinning when she conceived me" rather than saying that her mother did a sin by conceiving him.
Now to understand the meaning of what is being conveyed by the spelling of the word, that really gives the insight to why he is pleading for mercy. Here I look at the pictographs for each letter: chet is the wall of a tent, tet is a basket and aleph is the ox. What that says in context of being sin, is that "I establish my place" (put up my walls) "to carry" (as the function of the basket is to carry things) "power" (just as a tractor or a motor is the power in the modern age, the ox was that motor). Putting that together, we can understand that if a person is in a state of sin, the things they do are of the mind that cuts out their zone for carrying out their power - and in terms of understanding how love is the opposite of sin, it describes quite well how the nature of sin was seen in the ancient times (long before David wrote, the language was constructed to convey these things), and whereas love makes a person put down their own interests in order to serve the needs of others, we know that sin compels a person to set things up in order to achieve what it is that they want to achieve, even though they use deceit in order to create the false reality that is needed for them. When David complains about his mother being in sin when she conceived him and being of injustice when he was shaped, he's really saying that he's been robbed because his mother was sinful and unjust.
That seems to be speaking of something different to the description in Revelation 20. How can you reconcile that, when it speaks about the Satan being bound for a time and then to be eventually condemned forever, and at that time the dead are judged?
Because they are appointed for that purpose. It's a fundamental requirement of their job. The world suffers because they don't care. What other reasons could be better than that?
They're infected with the sin nature and if they're not born again do not even understand what they're doing.
Many children are left with the very persons that harm them.
There must be a special place in hell for them.
Post #88 goes into detail of what the language is saying, and how being in sin causes one to not be doing what is good and proper and just. As to the details of any specific actions coming as a result of her sin, that isn't disclosed in the text.
So it is a thing that, because it is singular, is an identified entity and not an exhibit (as for example, we might say "the sins he committed" which would be identifying single deeds collectively), and the sin is a thing, an entity, something that we can point to. Now, what is this thing?
חֵטְא is mentioned in Genesis 4:7, as God says to Cain "Sin is crouching at the door, desiring to have you, but you must master it and rule over it". In that example, sin is being shown as an adversary and not a deed, and so we can see that there is a way to regard sin as a noun in such a way that it is an entity - a thing that has a desire to rule over us, and a thing that is capable of enslaving us. So in that way it is probable to read that David is saying his mother was being compelled by sin when she conceived him, which would lead us to recognise that the importance of the statement is to say that her intentions were not coming from God, because God is love. Therefore he complains "my mother was sinning when she conceived me" rather than saying that her mother did a sin by conceiving him.
I can't agree with the above.
David's PARENTS...probably the mother....was sinning when David was conceived.
Psalm 51:5 clearly states that he was conceived IN SIN....there was sin happening when David was conceived.
Married persons do not sin when they conceive a person...heat is not a sin...
Did you read this article and why don't you agree with it?
Does Ps. 51:5 Teach Original Sin? Was David Born A Sinner Or Was His Mother Sinning When She Got Pregnant? By Jesse Morrell [An excerpt from the book “Does Man Inherit A Sinful Nature? By Je…
Was there some kind of sinful way in which David was conceived and brought forth....or....is David making a reference to her sinful nature, which we all have? I don't have an answer. The question just came to mind.
Was there some kind of sinful way in which David was conceived and brought forth....or....is David making a reference to her sinful nature, which we all have? I don't have an answer. The question just came to mind.
That seems to be speaking of something different to the description in Revelation 20. How can you reconcile that, when it speaks about the Satan being bound for a time and then to be eventually condemned forever, and at that time the dead are judged?
Oops. This goes into escatology. I don't know too much about this.
What I do know is that Jesus is coming back at the end and we all get taken up and that's the end of everything here on earth.
I don't know what I'm supposed to reconcile, but I probably can't.
Was there some kind of sinful way in which David was conceived and brought forth....or....is David making a reference to her sinful nature, which we all have? I don't have an answer. The question just came to mind.
I believe, from what I've read, that David was brought forth in a sinful way.
It is not referring to the sinful nature of anyone present at the time of conception,,,including him.
I believe the KJV and the NASB versions are correct in how they have translated from the Hebrew and/or Greek Septuagent.
The wording leaves no doubt, in my mind.
I trust those that wrote the following article and one doctor of theology that Morrell mentions, which would be
Winkie Pratney.
Does Ps. 51:5 Teach Original Sin? Was David Born A Sinner Or Was His Mother Sinning When She Got Pregnant? By Jesse Morrell [An excerpt from the book “Does Man Inherit A Sinful Nature? By Je…
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me (Ps. 51:5) This verse concerns two people – King David and his mother*). No one else is spoken about so we can’t a…
Because they are appointed for that purpose. It's a fundamental requirement of their job. The world suffers because they don't care. What other reasons could be better than that?
Sorry SZ....I said "and why should authorities care?"
I didn't mean it the way it sounded when I just read it again.
I mean that they SHOULD CARE....but they don't because of the sin nature within them and how a lot is shrugged off.
I too am very concerned about this.
(it was a rhetorical question - not a good idea at times).
The N.T. speaks of ETERNAL torment.
Eternal means forever....
I don't believe in annihilation.
Jude 1:7
Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Mattthew 25:46 Jesus Said:
"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Matthew 18:8 Jesus Said:
And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
