Are Children born damned or saved?

[Serving Zion]

I don't know what I'm supposed to reconcile, but I probably can't.

I won't force you then, but it does undermine the credibility of your opinion.

(it was a rhetorical question - not a good idea at times).

A rhetorical question is only effective at conveying a point when the implied conclusion is mutual between the speaker and the hearer. In this case, the rhetorical question depends upon the acceptance of the premise that it is ok that they don't care (as you suggest because you make an excuse for them by the fact that they are unrepentant/not "born-again"), and yet I don't agree that it is ok. I have said that the world suffers because they don't care, and that it is "not fine" because it is exactly the thing that makes children cry. So it didn't serve effectively as a rhetorical question to me because I saw it as a question that deserves to be answered the way I did.

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.

Alright. Well, the decision as to whether it is just to torment someone forever because of the things they have done, doesn't belong to me. In my view it would seem to be excessive punishment for most cases, but not that it really matters. If it's outside of my realm of power then it's really not a decision that belongs to me. And so I will keep to the things that are solid and knowable truths, and insofaras understanding what scripture may be indicating through what it implies logically, there's really not much else that I can do with it.

 

[GodsGrace]

It would help if you can explain why, and let's see if the following doesn't provide that:



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.

Hi SZ....
You don't know me well enough to know that I think we use other languages only in very special circumstances and only if we know something about that language....like for instance OzSpen has taught Greek and I know a priest that has taught it and reads the bible in the original language - so if anything, I would refer to them.

IOW,,,I'm not saying you don't know it too because it sure sounds like you do.
What I'm saying is that I trust the translators of the bible...and I read different versions when necessary (like in this case).
I discovered that the KJV and the NASB have the correct translation.

That translation tells me, in simple English, that David was CONCEIVED IN SIN.
This means his mother or father were committing a sin when he was conceived.
Simple as that.

Now, if we want to explore further and find out how or why...then we refer to those that know more than we do.
A lot goes on in persons lives that are not spoken of or written of.
If David says he was conceived in sin...then that is what I have to believe.
I doubt he means the heat of the moment.
If some Jewish sects wish to understand it in that way, then so be it.
If you read Psalm 69:7 and onward...it seems that David has become "estranged from my brothers"
and "alien to my mother's sons". He says he is the song of the drunkards.
Do we know why?,,,,,I certainly don't, but there are those that have taken everything into account and believe it was
his mother that was sinning at his conception.

 

[GodsGrace]

I won't force you then, but it does undermine the credibility of your opinion.

That's OK.
I'm not here to teach you anything.
And I don't really have OPINIONS, unless I specifically say so,,,,
what I repeat here is what I've learned.

A rhetorical question is only effective at conveying a point when the implied conclusion is mutual between the speaker and the hearer. In this case, the rhetorical question depends upon the acceptance of the premise that it is ok that they don't care (as you suggest because you make an excuse for them by the fact that they are unrepentant/not "born-again"), and yet I don't agree that it is ok. I have said that the world suffers because they don't care, and that it is "not fine" because it is exactly the thing that makes children cry. So it didn't serve effectively as a rhetorical question to me because I saw it as a question that deserves to be answered the way I did.

Agreed. That's why I stated that I was sorry because what I wrote did not represent what I meant.

Alright. Well, the decision as to whether it is just to torment someone forever because of the things they have done, doesn't belong to me. In my view it would seem to be excessive punishment for most cases, but not that it really matters. If it's outside of my realm of power then it's really not a decision that belongs to me. And so I will keep to the things that are solid and knowable truths, and insofaras understanding what scripture may be indicating through what it implies logically, there's really not much else that I can do with it.

Sure. Some believe that DESTRUCTION means the end of the person....annihlaism.
To others it means the destruction of their soul because they'll be far from God.

I'm with the second....but it's a useless argument.
UNLESS someone is living a life of sin because they believe all will end in annihalism....
then I would try to dissuade them.

 

[Serving Zion]

Hi SZ....
You don't know me well enough to know that I think we use other languages only in very special circumstances and only if we know something about that language....like for instance OzSpen has taught Greek and I know a priest that has taught it and reads the bible in the original language - so if anything, I would refer to them.

IOW,,,I'm not saying you don't know it too because it sure sounds like you do.
What I'm saying is that I trust the translators of the bible...and I read different versions when necessary (like in this case).
I discovered that the KJV and the NASB have the correct translation.

That translation tells me, in simple English, that David was CONCEIVED IN SIN.
This means his mother or father were committing a sin when he was conceived.
Simple as that.

Now, if we want to explore further and find out how or why...then we refer to those that know more than we do.
A lot goes on in persons lives that are not spoken of or written of.
If David says he was conceived in sin...then that is what I have to believe.
I doubt he means the heat of the moment.
If some Jewish sects wish to understand it in that way, then so be it.
If you read Psalm 69:7 and onward...it seems that David has become "estranged from my brothers"
and "alien to my mother's sons". He says he is the song of the drunkards.
Do we know why?,,,,,I certainly don't, but there are those that have taken everything into account and believe it was
his mother that was sinning at his conception.

Yes you are right in understanding that I have studied the Hebrew language and I still do. I agree that the NASB and KJV are accurate translations of the verse in topic, and only have added an expose of the original Hebrew because there is lots of meaning in the original words that literally cannot be conveyed through the English language. The best we can do is describe what is being said through the original and in that way we build-up an understanding that reflects what is being said in the original. It is the understanding that you have that has a shortcoming and neither the original or the translations you refer to. That is why I gave patiently and in detail laid out the case for saying that David describes his mother as being in a state of sin, not that she was doing any specific sin, because that is the only information we are given. The fact of conceiving him was not said to be sin, but it is said that she was in sin when she did it (consider John 8:34-36).

Furthermore l have not said she was having sex in the "heat of the moment", as you have said, and I haven't read anyone who has said that either. What has been said is that the same word is used in other parts of the scripture and it is translated as "heat" so as to say, for example, that "the flock was in heat". It is the same root word used to say that his mother "conceived" him.

 

[Serving Zion]

I don't really have OPINIONS, unless I specifically say so,,,,
what I repeat here is what I've learned.

It is obvious that we used words differently. It's not worth the effort to argue about it.

That's why I stated that I was sorry because what I wrote did not represent what I meant.

No problem. Thanks for saying it!

Sure. Some believe that DESTRUCTION means the end of the person....annihlaism.
To others it means the destruction of their soul because they'll be far from God.

I'm with the second....but it's a useless argument.
UNLESS someone is living a life of sin because they believe all will end in annihalism....
then I would try to dissuade them.

I'm investigating the logical meaning of the language, and neither "destruction" or "annihilation" are the words I am looking at. I have told you that there is a "second death". The word "death" is used to indicate the end of life, and so I have said that we need to understand what it is that could possibly die in the second death, if it isn't the thing that has already died in the first.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes you are right in understanding that I have studied the Hebrew language and I still do. I agree that the NASB and KJV are accurate translations of the verse in topic, and only have added an expose of the original Hebrew because there is lots of meaning in the original words that literally cannot be conveyed through the English language.

I know this very well since I speak 3 languages, and a little of a 4th.

The best we can do is describe what is being said through the original and in that way we build-up an understanding that reflects what is being said in the original. It is the understanding that you have that has a shortcoming and neither the original or the translations you refer to. That is why I gave patiently and in detail laid out the case for saying that David describes his mother as being in a state of sin, not that she was doing any specific sin, because that is the only information we are given. The fact of conceiving him was not said to be sin, but it is said that she was in sin when she did it (consider John 8:34-36).

Again,,,the way you say this above I agree with.
David's mother was in a state of sin when she conceived him.
We can only speculate as to what the sin was....this has been done by scholars that have considered David's ancestrey,
his past and his present state of some type of distain from those around him.

Furthermore l have not said she was having sex in the "heat of the moment", as you have said, and I haven't read anyone who has said that either. What has been said is that the same word is used in other parts of the scripture and it is translated as "heat" so as to say, for example, that "the flock was in heat". It is the same root word used to say that his mother "conceived" him.

Another member brought up the idea that the actual act of intimacy when conceiving was believed to be a sin. (by the Hebrews/Jews).
You also mentioned in your Hebrew post that the idea of "heat" is included with the wording. The other member takes this to mean that the actual act was considered sinful if not done for procreative purposes. My point has been that I disagree with this being the sin the mother was committing.
(psalm 51:5).

 

[Serving Zion]

You also mentioned in your Hebrew post that the idea of "heat" is included with the wording. The other member takes this to mean that the actual act was considered sinful if not done for procreative purposes. My point has been that I disagree with this being the sin the mother was committing.
(psalm 51:5).

Oh, I understand how that happened ? no I didn't mean to say that it is always sinful to be in heat. Sometimes it might cause a person to do sin, or maybe a person will be in sin when they're in heat (just as the verse has said), but if we consider that animals can be in heat without being sinful then the same can be expected of humans. I have seen it too, though most of the time when humans are seen to be in heat it is in accordance with a sinful type of sexual lust because that's what they have learned to be normal in their culture.

David's mother was in a state of sin when she conceived him.
We can only speculate as to what the sin was.

That's not what I have said, so we have not agreed. If you read carefully what I have written, you will see that the sin is not a deed but an adversary. Sin is the thing that wants to control us, it takes over the Holy Spirit's place in us and takes over our faculties in order to do the deeds it desires of us (Romans 6:16). The psalmist, King David, says his mother was in the state of sin and it isn't about the particular manifestation of that sin in deed that he is referring to.

 

[GodsGrace]

Oh, I understand how that happened ? no I didn't mean to say that it is always sinful to be in heat. Sometimes it might cause a person to do sin, or maybe a person will be in sin when they're in heat (just as the verse has said), but if we consider that animals can be in heat without being sinful then the same can be expected of humans. I have seen it too, though most of the time when humans are seen to be in heat it is in accordance with a sinful type of sexual lust because that's what they have learned to be normal in their culture.



That's not what I have said, so we have not agreed. If you read carefully what I have written, you will see that the sin is not a deed but an adversary. Sin is the thing that wants to control us, it takes over the Holy Spirit's place in us and takes over our faculties in order to do the deeds it desires of us (Romans 6:16). The psalmist, King David, says his mother was in the state of sin and it isn't about the particular manifestation of that sin in deed that he is referring to.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
I believe David's mother was sinning when she conceived him and I've posted a lot on
why I believe this....

Now...

 

[GodsGrace]

The O.P. is about babies/children and if they are born damned or saved.

I thought the conversation might go toward the concept of Original Sin.

O.S. is the sin that Adam committed in the Garden.
It is a sin that is passed on to all humankind as a state and not as a personal sin.
This effect of Adam's sin is called by different names:
The Flesh
The Sin Nature
The Fallen State
Deprived Nature...etc.

It just means that we tend toward sin and have lost our original holiness
through our Federal Head...Adam.

Because O.S. is not a personal sin,,,I maintain that if a baby or child dies, they will go to heaven
until that point that they reach the age of accountability when their personal sins will be
counted against them because they will be personally responsible for them.

 

[Serving Zion]

O.S. is the sin that Adam committed in the Garden.
It is a sin that is passed on to all humankind as a state and not as a personal sin.
This effect of Adam's sin is called by different names:
The Flesh
The Sin Nature
The Fallen State
Deprived Nature...etc.

It just means that we tend toward sin and have lost our original holiness
through our Federal Head...Adam.

No, you are describing Inherited Sin, which is also related to Ancestral Sin (it's the same underlying concept). That's superstitious and is contrary to what is clearly observable about human nature, and what is logical. It has the effect of distracting from the true origin of sin in a person: that is spiritual rather than inherent.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

That's never acceptable IMO. Only one of us doesn't want to continue with the effort required in order to find agreement.

I believe David's mother was sinning when she conceived him and I've posted a lot on
why I believe this....

I have also posted a lot to show you why the scriptures don't say that she was doing a sin by conceiving him, but what it says is that she was in sin at the time. The difference is important to understand, because it's the key to the difference between someone who is born-again and someone who has been stung by the sting of death, that is to say, that they are in the clutches of sin. David says that his mother was in sin when she conceived him. That shows us that sin had her in it's grip at that time.

Now...

It's actually very central to the topic. You'd understand that if you had followed what I had already shown.

 

[GodsGrace]

No, you are describing Inherited Sin, which is also related to Ancestral Sin (it's the same underlying concept). That's superstitious and is contrary to what is clearly observable about human nature, and what is logical. It has the effect of distracting from the true origin of sin in a person: that is spiritual rather than inherent.

I don't know to what you're referring so I can't comment on it.
Is there a verse for inherited sin or ancestral sin?
Do you mean how the children of a sinner in the O.T. would be affected for 10 generations?

That's never acceptable IMO. Only one of us doesn't want to continue with the effort required in order to find agreement.

How long should we continue?
I'm not one to go on for pages about something that has nothing to do with soteriology.

I'm not going to convince you and V V.
Besides, I'm not sure if we're just speaking past each other....

I have also posted a lot to show you why the scriptures don't say that she was doing a sin by conceiving him, but what it says is that she was in sin at the time. The difference is important to understand, because it's the key to the difference between someone who is born-again and someone who has been stung by the sting of death, that is to say, that they are in the clutches of sin. David says that his mother was in sin when she conceived him. That shows us that sin had her in it's grip at that time.

You see SZ...I agree with what you've said above.
But then you seem to change and this gets me rather confused.

David's mother was in some kind of sin when she conceived him.
I NEVER said that she was doing a sin by conceiving him.
I understand the difference very well.

It's actually very central to the topic. You'd understand that if you had followed what I had already shown.

If you remember, at one point I had even said that we agreed....
but then you changed your wording and we were back where we started.

THE SIN WAS NOT IN CONCEPTION....
HIS MOTHER WAS SINNING SOMEHOW WHEN HE WAS CONCEIVED.
(like for instance...she might have been having an affair with a king).

 

[Serving Zion]

I don't know to what you're referring so I can't comment on it.

It's the idea that because of the sins of the fathers, the children are cursed. It leads to (but doesn't always result in) theories that children are possessed by demons because that is the punishment to the family line as a result of the fathers' sins, or even if someone has done some witchcraft against the family. It's all hocus-pocus superstition, but it's the same concept in what you describe by Inherited Sin: that all of Adam's offspring somehow have been penalised because of his sin. I see that as a false teaching, because scripture itself doesn't teach that. It all originates from the ones who don't understand the reason as to why we must be born-again. They suppose that because flesh gives birth to flesh and spirit to spirit, that the babies are not born with any inherent spiritual life until they are born-again. But of course that sort of teaching comes from those who themselves cannot see the spirit, otherwise they would see with their own eyes, and even hear with their own ears, the glory of God through the innocence of the children - the holy spirit in them.

Is there a verse for inherited sin or ancestral sin?

The most often used one is Exodus 34:6-7 (NKJV):

And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.​

​

Do you mean how the children of a sinner in the O.T. would be affected for 10 generations?

Hmmm! .. that verse doesn't come to mind for some reason, could you please show it to me?

How long should we continue?
I'm not one to go on for pages about something that has nothing to do with soteriology.

It's pointless to say any more, if what I have already said you have not listened to.

I'm not going to convince you and V V.

That's because you are not looking at the original text, and you are not even interested in seeing what I have explained about it.

David's mother was in some kind of sin when she conceived him.
I NEVER said that she was doing a sin by conceiving him.
I understand the difference very well.

You don't seem to see the difference between someone being in sin and someone who is doing sin. What you have said is that you think she was sinning when she conceived him, whereas the text doesn't say that she was sinning at the time. It says that she was in sin at the time, but to say that she was sinning at the time requires some specific manifestation of sin. A person who is in sin doesn't necessarily do sin all the time, it only means that their spirit is possessed and their flesh is in the control of the sin that has gained them. I would agree that the perspective of a sinner is always corrupted though, and so therefore they are inclined to do sin by nature. But we can't be sure that she was doing a sin at the time he was conceived, because there is nothing in the text that indicates a specific sin, nor does it say that she was doing a specific sin.

you changed your wording

I think you probably have got the wrong idea there. Could you show me the two differences in wording that you think I have used? I don't think it's likely. It's probably that you thought you understood me, and so you said you agreed, but I said that you are speaking in a way that shows we aren't in agreement and then you have realised that actually we don't agree. If you can show me where my words have changed, then I will see why you have said this, otherwise it's only because you have not understood me in the first place that you think what I am saying in the latter doesn't match what I have said in the former. My position hasn't changed, and my words have been consistent with that position from beginning to end, as far as I am aware.

THE SIN WAS NOT IN CONCEPTION....
HIS MOTHER WAS SINNING SOMEHOW WHEN HE WAS CONCEIVED.
(like for instance...she might have been having an affair with a king).

No. See this is the most clear example of the fact that you and I do not agree, and that you haven't understood the difference I have said. The sin of Psalms 51:5 is an entity, not a deed. A foe, not an action. David's mother was in the possession of the foe called sin, when she conceived him. He is not saying anything about a specific action of sin.

 

[GodsGrace]

It's the idea that because of the sins of the fathers, the children are cursed. It leads to (but doesn't always result in) theories that children are possessed by demons because that is the punishment to the family line as a result of the fathers' sins, or even if someone has done some witchcraft against the family. It's all hocus-pocus superstition, but it's the same concept in what you describe by Inherited Sin: that all of Adam's offspring somehow have been penalised because of his sin.

In the O.T. it was taught, yes, that the sins of the father would last for generations. In one place it says 3 or 4 and someplace else is says 10. I never heard that this meant that children were possessed by demons...it just means that the EFFECTS of the sin of the father could last for a few generations.

As to what I described as inherited sin....I don't use that vernacular.
However, yes, all of Adam's descendants have been penalized because of his sin of disobedience to God.
Adam broke his pure relationship with God,
With others,
With himself
and with nature.

Since Adam represented all mankind,,,all mankind suffered because of his sin.
He lost that pure relationship God meant us to have with Him.

If you don't agree with this you'll have to go back and study Adam and Eve because this is the accepted theology of the
Christian religion.

I see that as a false teaching, because scripture itself doesn't teach that. It all originates from the ones who don't understand the reason as to why we must be born-again.

Huh?

They suppose that because flesh gives birth to flesh and spirit to spirit, that the babies are not born with any inherent spiritual life until they are born-again. But of course that sort of teaching comes from those who themselves cannot see the spirit, otherwise they would see with their own eyes, and even hear with their own ears, the glory of God through the innocence of the children - the holy spirit in them.

This is normal theology.
A person has a "dormant" Holy Spirit within them.
It is activated at the time of receiving God and becoming born again.

Others believe the Holy Spirit enters a person ONLY at the time of salvation.
I can accept either since I wouldn't know how to confirm either idea.

The most often used one is Exodus 34:6-7 (NKJV):

And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.​

This is what I referred to above.
It does not say that the 3rd and 4th generation bears the responsibility of the father's sin...
but that the iniquity is VISITED upon the children.
The children are not responsible for the father's sin.

Ezekiel 18:2-4
2“What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying,
‘The fathers eat the sour grapes,
But the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

3“As I live,” declares the Lord GOD, “you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore.
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 will die.

It's pointless to say any more, if what I have already said you have not listened to.


That's because you are not looking at the original text, and you are not even interested in seeing what I have explained about it.

I've listened to you.
I understand the original text.
I think we're having a problem of communication.

You don't seem to see the difference between someone being in sin and someone who is doing sin. What you have said is that you think she was sinning when she conceived him, whereas the text doesn't say that she was sinning at the time.

The text says IN SIN DID MY MOTHER CONCEIVE ME.
David was conceived IN SIN....his mother was sinning when she conceived him.
What that sin was, we cannot know for sure since it is not stated.

Show me where it does not say the above...
that the text does NOT state that she was sinning at the time.

Psalm 51:5
5Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

How can we know for sure that David was not the son of another - and not his mother's husband?
How can we know for sure she wasn't committing adultery and maybe David was the son of her husband
but she was IN SIN at the time of the conception?

It says that she was in sin at the time, but to say that she was sinning at the time requires some specific manifestation of sin. A person who is in sin doesn't necessarily do sin all the time, it only means that their spirit is possessed and their flesh is in the control of the sin that has gained them. I would agree that the perspective of a sinner is always corrupted though, and so therefore they are inclined to do sin by nature. But we can't be sure that she was doing a sin at the time he was conceived, because there is nothing in the text that indicates a specific sin, nor does it say that she was doing a specific sin.

I think my above statement covers this.

I think you probably have got the wrong idea there. Could you show me the two differences in wording that you think I have used? I don't think it's likely. It's probably that you thought you understood me, and so you said you agreed, but I said that you are speaking in a way that shows we aren't in agreement and then you have realised that actually we don't agree. If you can show me where my words have changed, then I will see why you have said this, otherwise it's only because you have not understood me in the first place that you think what I am saying in the latter doesn't match what I have said in the former. My position hasn't changed, and my words have been consistent with that position from beginning to end, as far as I am aware.

This is possible.
I said I think there's a communication problem here.

No. See this is the most clear example of the fact that you and I do not agree, and that you haven't understood the difference I have said. The sin of Psalms 51:5 is an entity, not a deed. A foe, not an action. David's mother was in the possession of the foe called sin, when she conceived him. He is not saying anything about a specific action of sin.

I won't reply to the above because I'd like to keep things as clear as possible.

What have I stated above that you do not agree with?

 

[Serving Zion]

If you don't agree with this you'll have to go back and study Adam and Eve because this is the accepted theology of the
Christian religion.

You really don't know how controversial it is though. The majority's opinion is not the definition of truth, because the truth stands independently. Jesus Himself has said that the road to destruction is broad and many go that way.

I already understand what is being taught through Adam and Eve. It tells us that sin came into the world through one man, and thus death spread to all because all sinned. The very same thing was written of it by Paul, in Romans.

Huh?

Please, do not just keep going if you don't understand something. It's important to understand everything that a person is saying before you respond to them with disagreement.

Show me where it does not say the above...
that the text does NOT state that she was sinning at the time.

You might notice that you have put "ing" in the text where the text does not have it, and you have taken away the word "in". To say that she was "sinning", it says that she was "in sin". The difference is that she was enslaved (controlled/possessed/influenced/directed etc) by sin. Her mind was not in a place of sanctification, holiness, godliness. It is describing her spiritual condition, and it is not saying that she was doing anything specific that would be considered "lawlessness".

What that sin was, we cannot know for sure since it is not stated.

It is stated though, and I have explained it quite thoroughly for you at your request. Please go back to post #88 and read what I have written there. It's very important that you do that before continuing to say that what I think is wrong. You actually need to know what I think before you can do that. Here's part of it:

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.

How can we know for sure that David was not the son of another - and not his mother's husband?
How can we know for sure she wasn't committing adultery and maybe David was the son of her husband
but she was IN SIN at the time of the conception?

That's the way unbeliever's speak too. "How can we be sure that the bible's writer's aren't lying?".

Why are you inclined to believe that she has committed adultery when you have no evidence to suggest such a thing? Is it because you have listened to the rumours of the Jews who have also been unable to know what David was expressing?

This is possible.
I said I think there's a communication problem here.

I think I've seen it myself. I have in fact used the same expression as the one you have used and that I took issue with above:

Therefore he complains "my mother was sinning when she conceived me" rather than saying that her mother did a sin by conceiving him.

... although, what those words mean when you use them is different from what they mean when I have used them. So we are using the language differently. That's why Paul says that we shouldn't argue about words (2 Timothy 2:14), because it is the mind that is important (Romans 12:16). I am referring to the entity of sin manifesting through her, as the spirit in place of holiness... whereas you are speaking of an action or a deed that she is doing that is sinful. We are talking about two different things, and that's why it's important to stick with the original texts. Any alterations are inevitably introducing distortions to the meaning.

 

[GodsGrace]

You really don't know how controversial it is though. The majority's opinion is not the definition of truth, because the truth stands independently. Jesus Himself has said that the road to destruction is broad and many go that way.

I already understand what is being taught through Adam and Eve. It tells us that sin came into the world through one man, and thus death spread to all because all sinned. The very same thing was written of it by Paul, in Romans.

Right.
Sin came into the world through one man and because of him all have sinned
and all have sinned because Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good/evil, and so he released evil into the world.
Evil infests everything now....including us, but evil is a very strong word, so we like to use terms like the sin nature, or the flesh.

Please, do not just keep going if you don't understand something. It's important to understand everything that a person is saying before you respond to them with disagreement.

LOL
This is why I said "HUH?"
Because I didn't understand what you said !

You might notice that you have put "ing" in the text where the text does not have it, and you have taken away the word "in". To say that she was "sinning", it says that she was "in sin". The difference is that she was enslaved (controlled/possessed/influenced/directed etc) by sin. Her mind was not in a place of sanctification, holiness, godliness. It is describing her spiritual condition, and it is not saying that she was doing anything specific that would be considered "lawlessness".

But what I've linked does not say that she was in a state of sin....although that is true too.
It is clear that she was sinnING in some way when David was conceived.
I've linked Chabad...I can't do better than that.

Nitzevet, Mother of David - The bold voice of silence

He was Israel’s mightiest warrior, revered by friend and foe; yet for the first 28 years of his life he was a lowly outcast . . . The secret story behind the mysterious circumstances of King David’s birth.

www.chabad.org

It is stated though, and I have explained it quite thoroughly for you at your request. Please go back to post #88 and read what I have written there. It's very important that you do that before continuing to say that what I think is wrong. You actually need to know what I think before you can do that. Here's part of it:





That's the way unbeliever's speak too. "How can we be sure that the bible's writer's aren't lying?".

Are you saying that I said the bible is lying!!!!
NO WAY!
Please reply.

Why are you inclined to believe that she has committed adultery when you have no evidence to suggest such a thing? Is it because you have listened to the rumours of the Jews who have also been unable to know what David was expressing?


I think I've seen it myself. I have in fact used the same expression as the one you have used and that I took issue with above:



... although, what those words mean when you use them is different from what they mean when I have used them. So we are using the language differently. That's why Paul says that we shouldn't argue about words (2 Timothy 2:14), because it is the mind that is important (Romans 12:16). I am referring to the entity of sin manifesting through her, as the spirit in place of holiness... whereas you are speaking of an action or a deed that she is doing that is sinful. We are talking about two different things, and that's why it's important to stick with the original texts. Any alterations are inevitably introducing distortions to the meaning.

I'm going with the actual words.
David was conceived IN SIN.

Why mention IN SIN?

 

[Serving Zion]

Right.
Sin came into the world through one man and because of him all have sinned
and all have sinned because Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good/evil, and so he released evil into the world.
Evil infests everything now....including us, but evil is a very strong word, so we like to use terms like the sin nature, or the flesh.


LOL
This is why I said "HUH?"
Because I didn't understand what you said !



But what I've linked does not say that she was in a state of sin....although that is true too.
It is clear that she was sinnING in some way when David was conceived.
I've linked Chabad...I can't do better than that.

Nitzevet, Mother of David - The bold voice of silence

He was Israel’s mightiest warrior, revered by friend and foe; yet for the first 28 years of his life he was a lowly outcast . . . The secret story behind the mysterious circumstances of King David’s birth.

www.chabad.org

Are you saying that I said the bible is lying!!!!
NO WAY!
Please reply.


I'm going with the actual words.
David was conceived IN SIN.

Why mention IN SIN?

Wondering, why do you not put any effort into listening to what I have said? All you do is reply with an argument, but it is always an argument that already has been addressed. Even now you show that you haven't understood not even read what I gave to you in post 88. The post 88 is a real pearl on this topic. So the way you are behaving is just like someone who wants to trample those pearls into the mud.

 

[Serving Zion]

Are you saying that I said the bible is lying!!!!
NO WAY!
Please reply

If you read what I have said, you will see for yourself what I have said even before you asked:

You might notice that you have put "ing" in the text where the text does not have it, and you have taken away the word "in".

And

that's why it's important to stick with the original texts. Any alterations are inevitably introducing distortions to the meaning.

 

[GodsGrace]

Wondering, why do you not put any effort into listening to what I have said? All you do is reply with an argument, but it is always an argument that already has been addressed. Even now you show that you haven't understood not even read what I gave to you in post 88. The post 88 is a real pearl on this topic. So the way you are behaving is just like someone who wants to trample those pearls into the mud.

Here's your post no. 88 which is a Hebrew lesson.

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.

I don't trample on pearls or person's ideas.
Unless it's a calvinist idea...then I trample. (sorry 'bout that).

My reply to you was that it's not necessary to know Hebrew to understand Psalm 51:5

Because I don't agree with you or understand you does not make me wrong....
And it does not make you wrong.

This is why I said we should agree to disagree.

I am clearly stating, again, that Psalm 51:5 states that David's mother was IN SIN when he was conceived.
This could mean that she was sinning in some way
OR
That she actually conceived him WHILE sinning.
I don't know which and I don't think anyone could know...
but it does state this.

 

[GodsGrace]

If you read what I have said, you will see for yourself what I have said even before you asked:



And

YOUNG'S LITERAL TRANSLATION:
Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me.

New American Standard Bible
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

King James Bible
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

International Standard Version
Indeed, in iniquity I was brought forth; in sin my mother conceived me.

King James 2000 Bible
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

American King James Version
Behold, I was shaped in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

American Standard Version
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.

Douay-Rheims Bible
For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me.

Darby Bible Translation
Behold, in iniquity was I brought forth, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

English Revised Version
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Webster's Bible Translation
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

 

[Serving Zion]

This could mean that she was sinning in some way
OR
That she actually conceived him WHILE sinning.

Neither of those captures what it means to be IN sin. Sin is a thing that had her in it's possession, hence, she was in sin (not in godliness). You can either be in sin or in godliness.