THERE IS ONLY ONE DEFINITION FOR SIN!!!

[Eccl12and13]

I have asked for a long time for another definition of sin other than this one:

1John 3[4] Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Alot of people have said Paul meant one thing concerning sin, or Peter said this about sin, or John must have been talking about that concerning sin. Well the bottom line is; unless there is another definition for sin to be found in the Holy Scriptures, we ONLY have ONE to ride with.

If there was not a law of any kind put in place by God from the time of Adam till to day, how could death have entered into the world? How can the following statement by Paul be true?

Rom.5
[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Not only was the penalty of death upon ALL MEN from that point on, but the ONLY way for the penalty of death to be removed was started at that same moment; the shedding of blood.

I know there is this thinking that there was no law before Moses, but does that make sense?

We KNOW that sin for man started with Adam!
We KNOW that sinned continued with Cain!
We KNOW that God flooded the earth because Man did not OBEY God!
We KNOW that Sodom and Gomorrha were destroyed because of their sin: Gen.18[20] And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

Take note who was speaking in the above verse. It was God that said 'THEIR SIN'!

For some reason people seem to think that because Gods Laws were not written in the bible before the book of Exodus they could not be in place. But just from the few scriptures above, commom sense should tell you otherwise. If nothing else, Pauls statement alone, should tell you otherwise:

Rom.5
[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

So again, unless someone can come up with another biblical definition of sin, sin can ONLY be one thing and ONE thing ONLY:

1John 3[4] Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

So....are you guys going to go with common sense or with MAN?

 

[Drew]

I have asked for a long time for another definition of sin other than this one:

1John 3[4] Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Alot of people have said Paul meant one thing concerning sin, or Peter said this about sin, or John must have been talking about that concerning sin. Well the bottom line is; unless there is another definition for sin to be found in the Holy Scriptures, we ONLY have ONE to ride with.

Not at all. There is no "rule" that writers of Scripture must codify their concept of sin, or anything else for that matter, in some terse "definition".

We have no "definition" of the Trinity, but it is there in the Bible as a clear concept.

We know that sin cannot simply be the judicial determination of a broken law. We know this not least from Romans 8:3 where Paul declares that sin is condemned at the Cross:

3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in sinful man,....

Can one condemn "the breaking of the law". Is "breaking the law" the kind of entity that can be condemned? Of course not!

To say that sin must always means "breaking the law", we have Paul saying in Romans 8:3 that "the judicial determination that a law has broken.....that determination, is condemned at the Cross." That makes no sense.

That would be like saying that the "determination that OJ stole at gunpoint" was sentenced to 8 years in jail. How can a judgement about the fact of a law being broken be condemned. People, or perhaps evil forces, can be condemned, not determinations about law-breaking.

 

[Drew]

If there was not a law of any kind put in place by God from the time of Adam till to day, how could death have entered into the world? How can the following statement by Paul be true?

Rom.5
[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

This is no mystery. Adam sins and damages the fundamental constitution of the world. Men born after Adam inherit his sin nature and therefore sin and die, since the result of sin is death. There is no necessity for a law to exist to make men die from sin. When someone inherits a terrible genetic disease, they will die of it regardless of any law.

Not only was the penalty of death upon ALL MEN from that point on, but the ONLY way for the penalty of death to be removed was started at that same moment; the shedding of blood.

I know there is this thinking that there was no law before Moses, but does that make sense?

We KNOW that sin for man started with Adam!

Agree

We KNOW that sinned continued with Cain!

Agree

We KNOW that God flooded the earth because Man did not OBEY God!

No. The author of Genesis gives this reason for the flood:

The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

There is no specific reference to disobedience of any codified set of laws.

We KNOW that Sodom and Gomorrha were destroyed because of their sin: Gen.18[20] And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

Agree - they were destroyed because of their sin. But, again, no mention of lawbreaking. You seem to be closed to the possibility that sin is anything other than breaking a law. But for many reasons, some not even presented yet, we know that Paul (for example) sees sin as something more than simply "breaking a law". In Romans 7, Paul describes how the Law revealed his sin to him - but his sin was there all along, waiting to be "exposed".

So....are you guys going to go with common sense or with MAN?

I will go with common sense, but my common sense leads me to a different conclusion than yours does.

 

[Eccl12and13]

If there was not a law of any kind put in place by God from the time of Adam till to day, how could death have entered into the world? How can the following statement by Paul be true?

Rom.5
[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

This is no mystery. Adam sins and damages the fundamental constitution of the world. Men born after Adam inherit his sin nature and therefore sin and die, since the result of sin is death. There is no necessity for a law to exist to make men die from sin. When someone inherits a terrible genetic disease, they will die of it regardless of any law.

Not only was the penalty of death upon ALL MEN from that point on, but the ONLY way for the penalty of death to be removed was started at that same moment; the shedding of blood.

I know there is this thinking that there was no law before Moses, but does that make sense?

We KNOW that sin for man started with Adam!

Agree

We KNOW that sinned continued with Cain!

Agree

We KNOW that God flooded the earth because Man did not OBEY God!

No. The author of Genesis gives this reason for the flood:

The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

There is no specific reference to disobedience of any codified set of laws.

We KNOW that Sodom and Gomorrha were destroyed because of their sin: Gen.18[20] And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

Agree - they were destroyed because of their sin. But, again, no mention of lawbreaking. You seem to be closed to the possibility that sin is anything other than breaking a law. But for many reasons, some not even presented yet, we know that Paul (for example) sees sin as something more than simply "breaking a law". In Romans 7, Paul describes how the Law revealed his sin to him - but his sin was there all along, waiting to be "exposed".

So....are you guys going to go with common sense or with MAN?

I will go with common sense, but my common sense leads me to a different conclusion than yours does.

Drew...here is what GOD SAID:

Lev.5
[14] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
[17] And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

And we find the same in the NT:

1John.3
[4] Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Drew.....can you give me ANOTHER DEFINITION FROM THE BIBLE OF SIN???

Because if you can not why would I go with ANYTHING ELSE? After all:

2Peter.1
[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The writers of the bible did NOT have a choice in what they wrote. The holy spirit gave them the message. Now if you want to go with what you THINK Paul is saying that's your right.

But I'm going with the ONLY ONE THAT CAN PUT ME IN HIS KINGDOM! And He said:

Lev.5
[17] And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

Now Christ has already died for me. His blood has already been shed. So in order to stay under the blood that has been shed,I'm going to KEEP GODS COMMANDMENTS. Why? Because of these two scriptures right here:

Heb.10
[26] For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
[27] But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Now since the ONLY definition we have for sin is, (1John 3[4] Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.), that means that to break the law wilfully, means there is nothing to look forward to but judgement and fiery indignation.

So as Sponge Bob would say....................'Good luck with that.'

 

[mechanicdb]

Drew...here is what GOD SAID:

Lev.5
[14] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
[17] And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

Don't read any further until you assess this verse. :naughty

"forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord"

there are 66 books that comprise my Bible that hold commandments of the Lord.
...by your quotations, breaking ANY commandment of the Lord's is sin. Agreed? :amen

 

[Drew]

Drew...here is what GOD SAID:

Lev.5
[14] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
[17] And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

You are, I hope, aware that this material describes the state of affairs after Moses. I have never disputed the existence of law after Moses. But the issue here is whether there was law between Adam and Moses.

I have never, repeat never, stated that the definition "sin is lawlessness" is not partly true. Of course it is partly true. But as we see in Romans 7 and 8, Paul uses the term "sin" in ways that go beyond the "sin = lawbreaking" definition.

Drew.....can you give me ANOTHER DEFINITION FROM THE BIBLE OF SIN???

Because if you can not why would I go with ANYTHING ELSE? After all:

2Peter.1
[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The writers of the bible did NOT have a choice in what they wrote. The holy spirit gave them the message. Now if you want to go with what you THINK Paul is saying that's your right.

We are going in circles. You seem to believe that the writers of the Bible are obliged to express their concepts in the form of definitions. So, in the context of the present discussion, you seem to think that writers are not allowed to express their concept of the nature of sin in anything other than a formal definition. And so, you seem to think that because we have "sin = lawlessness", it cannot be anything else.

I have already shown that Paul uses the term "sin" in a manner that cannot work with the "sin = lawbreaking" definition. For example, in Romans 8:3, sin is condemned at the Cross.

Let's be clear - the text from 2 Peter 1 does not say "all revelation from God will take the form of formal, concise definitions". If it did, then you would have a point.

So as Sponge Bob would say....................'Good luck with that.'

Can Sponge Bob explain to us why Paul is obliged to expess his concept of sin in a single terse definition. I have looked through the scriptures for such a rule with no success.

 

[lovely]

Mark 7 always comes to my when I think about the definition of sin. Laws, or traditions of men, that make void God's laws, especially those of love and mercy. He uses the example of the Pharisees using their contributions to the temple as an excuse to not care for their parents in need.

In Matthew 5, starting at the 21st verse, Jesus says that man's sin goes beyond the acts of breaking God's written laws, but that things that are in the inner man, like lust and hatred, are the same as adultery and murder. It seems like sin would be motive and action, just as faith is motive and action. Hatred is, and leads to, evil done toward others...even murder. Love is, and leads to, charity done toward others...even life being laid down so that others may have it.

If we read 1 John 2:1-14, we see that if we keep His Word God's love is perfected in us. I think it's because good works are an exercise in love...and love building for the believer. He is our example of Love, He is love.

In Romans 3:19-20, we see that the Law was given so that those who are under the law are held accountable for their sin that the law reveals. We also see later in the chapter that by our faith obedience to the law...written or written on our hearts...we establish the law. Our justification is based in our faith, an action of trusting God at His Word. James says that we are justified by our works, and so we should realize that it's those works of love, mercy, and kindness that are born from God's love in us that will be rewarded...that remain when the chaff is consumed.

Sin, or lawlessness, would be no regard for God's laws, but also an inability to obey them apart from pride. The lawless have no law in their hearts, and can not have the motive of love that leads to acts of love and obedience. It is a state of unbelief, no faith.

My thoughts on the topic, the Lord bless all of you.

 

[Drew]

Here is the first of what I expect are several arguments as to why we cannot understand that "sin" is merely law-breaking. This particular argument relates to the implication of having a "sin nature".

Paul characterizes man as having a sinful nature here in Romans 7:

For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death

Consider the implications accepting that we have a sinful nature and yet also believing that sin can only denote the breaking of a law:

1. Man has a sinful nature – from Romans 7;

2. Sin only exist when laws are broken (working hypothesis);

3. Therefore to have a sinful nature must means to have a nature that inclines one to break laws;

4. It is possible that no laws exist (common sense + Romans 5);

5. In the absence of law, man cannot have a sinful nature since it is only meaningful to assert the existence of a sinful nature when there are laws to break;

6. Imagine a scenario where there is no law – man has no sinful nature (already established by (5));

7. Now imagine that law is then introduced. Man transitions from having no sinful nature to having a sinful nature, since there are now laws for him to break;

8. The introduction of law has fully caused man to have a sinful nature;

9. This is incoherent – God’s giving of law cannot be understood as giving us a sinful nature, since we know that it was Adam’s action, not the giving of the command “thou shalt not eatâ€Â, that introduced sin into the world.

 

[Eccl12and13]

Drew...here is what GOD SAID:

Lev.5
[14] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
[17] And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

Don't read any further until you assess this verse. :naughty

"forbidden to be done by the commandments of the Lord"

there are 66 books that comprise my Bible that hold commandments of the Lord.
...by your quotations, breaking ANY commandment of the Lord's is sin. Agreed? :amen

If you do the those things that God tells you not to do you have sinned! If you do not do the things God tells you to do you have sinned!!

 

[Eccl12and13]

Drew...here is what GOD SAID:

Lev.5
[14] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
[17] And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

You are, I hope, aware that this material describes the state of affairs after Moses. I have never disputed the existence of law after Moses. But the issue here is whether there was law between Adam and Moses.

I have never, repeat never, stated that the definition "sin is lawlessness" is not partly true. Of course it is partly true. But as we see in Romans 7 and 8, Paul uses the term "sin" in ways that go beyond the "sin = lawbreaking" definition.

Drew.....can you give me ANOTHER DEFINITION FROM THE BIBLE OF SIN???

Because if you can not why would I go with ANYTHING ELSE? After all:

2Peter.1
[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The writers of the bible did NOT have a choice in what they wrote. The holy spirit gave them the message. Now if you want to go with what you THINK Paul is saying that's your right.

We are going in circles. You seem to believe that the writers of the Bible are obliged to express their concepts in the form of definitions. So, in the context of the present discussion, you seem to think that writers are not allowed to express their concept of the nature of sin in anything other than a formal definition. And so, you seem to think that because we have "sin = lawlessness", it cannot be anything else.



I have already shown that Paul uses the term "sin" in a manner that cannot work with the "sin = lawbreaking" definition. For example, in Romans 8:3, sin is condemned at the Cross.

Let's be clear - the text from 2 Peter 1 does not say "all revelation from God will take the form of formal, concise definitions". If it did, then you would have a point.

Drew, do you think the NT writer were given a different spirit than the OT writers? Do you think that the Holy Spirit that guided the OT writers, guided the NT writers down a different path?

So as Sponge Bob would say....................'Good luck with that.'

Can Sponge Bob explain to us why Paul is obliged to expess his concept of sin in a single terse definition. I have looked through the scriptures for such a rule with no success.

If they wrote what THEY wanted it would not have been the Holy Spirit. And don't you think God is powerful enough to make sure that if we needed another definition for sin He would have given it to us? I really don't think it would have been too hard for Him to say, 'And you know that definition I gave you for sin.....well it could also mean this too?

Do you really think He would leave it up to us to try to figure it out? God gave us the ONLY definition of sin there is in the bible, why don't you want to accept it Drew?

Drew...Who will you listen to God or Man?

Lev.5
[14] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
[17] And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

So are you really willing to risk your life on what MAN says.

 

[Eccl12and13]

I have already shown that Paul uses the term "sin" in a manner that cannot work with the "sin = lawbreaking" definition. For example, in Romans 8:3, sin is condemned at the Cross.
quote]

Yes, you are right? The only problem you have Drew is that you don't understand that the ONLY law that was done away with at the cross was God's Sacrificial Laws. Not anything else. How could Paul know what sin is if the Law is gone. How can ANYBODY sin if there is no law?

Rom.5
[13] (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

For until the (law) scacrificial law, (sin) the breaking of Gods commandments was still being done: but (sin) breaking Gods commandments is not pardoned, when the (law) sacrificial law is gone.

I understand that, for whatever reason, God has given you a delusion.

2 Thes.2
[11] And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

And ONLY GOD can remove it.

So.......Good luck with that!

 

[Drew]

If they wrote what THEY wanted it would not have been the Holy Spirit. And don't you think God is powerful enough to make sure that if we needed another definition for sin He would have given it to us?

This is besides the point. It is fairly obvious that God communicates his truth to us in Scripture in modes other than "definitions". The concept of the Trinity is a valid scriptural truth even though it is never "defined".

Do you really think He would leave it up to us to try to figure it out? God gave us the ONLY definition of sin there is in the bible, why don't you want to accept it Drew?

Where does God provide us with a terse definition of the Trinity - I cannot find that definition in my Bible.

We have been down this road before. You know that I do not deny that the concept "sin = law-breaking" is part of the picture. I have shown how Paul uses the term "sin" in other ways than this. I suggest that you critique those arguments rather than cling to an otherwise unjustified insistence that God is somehow forced to communicate to us only through "definitions".

The Bible is not a list of mathematical definitions - its truth is communicated in many ways, through metaphor, "story", etc.

 

[Drew]

The only problem you have Drew is that you don't understand that the ONLY law that was done away with at the cross was God's Sacrificial Laws. Not anything else.

Your statement is demonstrably incorrect. God did aware with much more than the sacrificial laws. For example, Jesus overturns the food purity laws of Leviticus 11.

In Mark 7, Jesus does indeed repudiate human add-ons to Torah. But Jesus clearly goes beyond this and overturns some of the Levitical food laws:

15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16["If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."] 17When he had left the crowd and entered (P)the house, (Q)His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

Jesus really cannot be misunderstood here - he clearly states that all foods are clean. This cannot be reconciled with the Levitical food laws which clearly state some foods are unclean.

So the fact that Jesus also repudiates man-made additions to Torah must not be seen as His only point here. It clearly is not - in addition to repudiating such add-ons, He also declares all foods clean. And that is at variance with Torah itself, not man's distortions of it.

Jesus declares the end of the Levtical food purity laws.

 

[Drew]

How could Paul know what sin is if the Law is gone. How can ANYBODY sin if there is no law?

To know what sin is does require the Law, but this does not mean that sin does not exist in the absence of Law. I need a telescope to see a distint galaxy, but the galaxy exists whether I have a telescope or not. The Law "shines a light on sin", but our sinful natures exist whether or not there is a law, as I believe I have shown in a relatively detailed argument already given today.

I understand that, for whatever reason, God has given you a delusion.

Well if I have a delusion, then lets fold up shop and sit at your feet......

My arguments are what they are. They appeal to the scriptures and do not involve personal attacks.

Do you really think other readers are going to ignore the force of my scriptural arguments because you declare that I am under delusion?

Is Paul under delusion as well, since he clearly sees sin as something beyond mere law-breaking?

I plan to shortly post another scriptural argument as to why sin has to be understood as encompassing more than "law-breaking".

 

[Drew]

Romans 5 also makes it clear that sin exists independent of law:

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

Have all men, at all times, sinned? Obviously Paul thinks so: "death came to all men, because all sinned". And Paul makes an even more focused statement about the time before the Torah: "before the law was given, sin was in the world". So there has never been a time when sin was not in the world.

Now let's look at verse 14: We have the interval from Adam to Moses. We already know that all people in that interval have sinned. Let's suppose that 1000 people lived during that time interval, including Adam himself (I know that's too low, but that's beside the point).

Did they all sin? Obviously yes, Paul has already made this crystal clear.

Did some of them sin in a manner where no command was broken? Yes. And this is the clincher. Paul says that some of these 1000 people have the characteristic that they "did not sin by breaking a command" But we know that they sinned.

So what is the conclusion? While all 1000 sinned, some did so in a manner where no command was broken.

I really hope this puts to an end this unscriptural notion that sin can only exist through law-breaking.

 

[Eccl12and13]

Romans 5 also makes it clear that sin exists independent of law:

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

Have all men, at all times, sinned? Obviously Paul thinks so: "death came to all men, because all sinned". And Paul makes an even more focused statement about the time before the Torah: "before the law was given, sin was in the world". So there has never been a time when sin was not in the world.

Now let's look at verse 14: We have the interval from Adam to Moses. We already know that all people in that interval have sinned. Let's suppose that 1000 people lived during that time interval, including Adam himself (I know that's too low, but that's beside the point).

Did they all sin? Obviously yes, Paul has already made this crystal clear.

Did some of them sin in a manner where no command was broken? Yes. And this is the clincher. Paul says that some of these 1000 people have the characteristic that they "did not sin by breaking a command" But we know that they sinned.

So what is the conclusion? While all 1000 sinned, some did so in a manner where no command was broken.

I really hope this puts to an end this unscriptural notion that sin can only exist through law-breaking.

The scriptures states the following:

Rom.5
[14] Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Now death was from Adam to Moses. And it was even over them that did not sin in the SAME WAY as Adam sinned. The verse does NOT say what you say. It does not say, "in a manner where no command was broken. It only says, "they had not sinned after the similitude of Adam...".

Similitude - condition of being similar: likeness or resemblance.

So the verse is not saying that they did not sin, once again. It is ONLY saying that they did it in a way that WAS NOT like Adam.

So yes, sin was at the beginning, meaning one of Gods commands was broken at the beginning. It is the ONLY way death entered into the world, through sin.

 

[Drew]

[Rom.5
[14] Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Now death was from Adam to Moses. And it was even over them that did not sin in the SAME WAY as Adam sinned. The verse does NOT say what you say.

In the translation that you have used, the verse indeed does not say what is said in the version that I have used.

Here is the NIV and other translations that indeed render this text in the manner that I have used to make my argument:

Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

they all died anyway––even though they did not disobey an explicit commandment of God, as Adam did. What a contrast between Adam and Christ, who was yet to come!

Even those who didn't sin precisely as Adam did by disobeying a specific command of God still had to experience this termination of life, this separation from God. But Adam, who got us into this, also points ahead to the One who will get us out of it.

....and, of course, other translations do not specifically assert that the people from Adam to Moses sinned in a manner other than breaking a command.

But even these texts are at least consistent with such a reading.

So the evidence here is not clear at all, either way.

 

[Drew]

It may indeed be true that there is some ambiguity in Romans 5:14 as to the specific nature of the sin of those from Adam to Moses. Some translations describe their sin as not involving the breaking of a command, others are more open-ended. But, to be fair, those other translations are at consistent with the reading that I have arguing for - they could legitimately be read that way, although they need not be.

However, here is an argument from Romans 3:20 to the effect that Paul sometimes used the word "sin" to denote something other than law-breaking:

Here is Romans 3:20 in the NIV:

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

I take it as self-evident that the reference to “law†here is a reference to the Torah. Although it may not be obvious at a superficial reading, I suggest this text shows that Paul cannot have believed that “sin†was simply “law-breakingâ€Â.

Everyone agrees that sin existed prior to Torah. If sin is only law-breaking, then some law, call it “Law Aâ€Â, must have been in place prior to delivery of Torah.

Substituting “breaking of Law A†for sin into the latter half of Romans 3:20, we get:

through the Torah we become conscious of the breaking of Law A.

The problem should already be clear. What is Law A? It must be a set of commands comprehensible to human beings – we need to understand the law in order for it to be “law†in any reasonable sense. So Law A must have the property that it allows us to identify that Law A has been broken. But what is Paul saying about Torah, if indeed “sin = lawbreaking� He is saying that it is the Torah, not Law A, that makes us conscious of breaking Law A. But if that is so, we were not conscious of breaking Law A when we were under Law A.

How can Law A then be a law, if we need some other law to make us conscious of breaking Law A?

 

[Eccl12and13]

It may indeed be true that there is some ambiguity in Romans 5:14 as to the specific nature of the sin of those from Adam to Moses. Some translations describe their sin as not involving the breaking of a command, others are more open-ended. But, to be fair, those other translations are at consistent with the reading that I have arguing for - they could legitimately be read that way, although they need not be.

However, here is an argument from Romans 3:20 to the effect that Paul sometimes used the word "sin" to denote something other than law-breaking:

Here is Romans 3:20 in the NIV:

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

I take it as self-evident that the reference to “law†here is a reference to the Torah. Although it may not be obvious at a superficial reading, I suggest this text shows that Paul cannot have believed that “sin†was simply “law-breakingâ€Â.

Rom.3
[20] Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

When Paul speaks about 'the deeds of the Law', he is only talking about the Deeds of the Sacrificial Law, sometimes know as the Levitical Priesthood Law, for only those of the tribe of Levi could perform sacrifices.

So in the first part of the sentence Paul is talking about (1) law; the sacrificial law. And in the other part Paul is talking about ALL of Gods other laws like this one:

Rom.7
[7] What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Sin is still breaking Gods laws and ONLY breaking Gods laws!

 

[Vic C.]

Drew, I just have to say this:

The NIV passage you quoted is more a paraphrase than a literal interpretation. It's a thought for thought reading more than it is word for word and honestly, it's a very poor interpretation. They did an injustice to the interpretation of this passage and as a result, to it's true scriptural meaning.

They did more than just break a command, they broke a covenant with God! In Romans 5:14 is a reference to this:

Hosea 6:7 But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.

The Greek word is oJmoivwma (transliterated Homoioma). That particular Greek word is used six times in the NT.

King James Word Usage - Total: 6
likeness 3, made like to 1, similitude 1, shape 1

It's definition is:
1. that which has been made after the likeness of something
a. a figure, image, likeness, representation
b. likeness i.e. resemblance, such as amounts almost to equality or identity

I don't know what the NIV translators were thinking! Even the NASB got it right.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Get rid of the Nearly Inspired Version and use the KJV, NKJV or even the NASB. :amen