User Tag List

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: DBC's Nick Morgan on Bible Languages

  1. #31
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    14,289
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 5,632 Times in 4,656 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1515647
    Quote Originally Posted by Frayed Knot View Post
    Because it's a set of separate books written by fallible humans, capturing their primitive society's traditions but the authors putting their own take on things. That's the obvious answer. Is there any evidence that it's not the right one?
    Plenty.

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

    Here's a clue. From my passages:

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



    ...or...


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



    From yours:

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



    And your hermeneutic is appallingly naive.

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


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

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


    Quote Originally Posted by Frayed Knot View Post
    My understanding of Christian theology is that we are all deserving of eternal damnation, but Jesus took the punishment for those who accept him.
    You're not very good at this, are you?
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    Who holds your freedom?
    Who holds your liberty?

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

    Nominate POTYs. See this thread.

  2. #32
    Veteran Frayed Knot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    312
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    72
    Stripe, I have to complain about something here. Most people on an Internet discussion board are here to have a discussion. It appears with every one of your posts that your intent is to put an end to any discussion. Just about all you do is post stupid icons and do a bunch of finger-pointing and name calling.

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

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

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

    Use your big-boy words here, Stripe.

  3. #33
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    14,289
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 5,632 Times in 4,656 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1515647
    Quote Originally Posted by Frayed Knot View Post
    Stripe, I have to complain about something here. Most people on an Internet discussion board are here to have a discussion. It appears with every one of your posts that your intent is to put an end to any discussion. Just about all you do is post stupid icons and do a bunch of finger-pointing and name calling.
    I find the concepts under examination very simple and easy to communicate. It constantly astounds me how people are so resistant to such simple ideas.

    Getting back to where you posted translations of chet' and `avon, I gather from that that chet' is a lesser sin than `avon. Is that what your intent was in posting it? If that's the case, I don't see how it supports the position that Christianity holds everyone responsible for his own actions - I guess it holds everyone responsible, unless his father's or grandfather's actions were of the more severe variety?
    The clue was in the bolded text. That definition is only applicable to your verses. Thus the seeming contradiction is cleared up if you apply the bolded definition to your verses and the common definition to mine.

    And if I'm "not very good" at understanding original sin, perhaps you could enlighten me with your understanding? Here, I'll give you my take so you can explain where I'm off-base. Please no shrugging icons, just explain your view.
    My take is that the concept of original sin is pretty fundamental to Christianity, and especially those of the fundamentalist variety would subscribe to it. Do you? Is it actually mentioned in the Bible?
    We are troubled in that our society and planet have been exposed to rebellion, decay and death.
    And my take is that Jesus took the hit for our sins, for those who accept him, which is another way of saying substitutionary atonement. Would you agree with that? Apparently not, since your response was just a face-palming icon, but why is this wrong?
    It's not wrong. It's correct. As I'd already acknowledged the first time you said it.

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

    And He did all this even though He lived in the same fallen creation of decay and death that we are tested within.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    Who holds your freedom?
    Who holds your liberty?

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

    Nominate POTYs. See this thread.

  4. #34
    Veteran Frayed Knot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    312
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    The clue was in the bolded text. That definition is only applicable to your verses. Thus the seeming contradiction is cleared up if you apply the bolded definition to your verses and the common definition to mine.
    You're going to have to give a little more detail here. The definitions you quoted are very similar-sounding to me, but apparently you think they're quite distinct. My reading is that the `avon transgressions are more severe than the cheta' ones. Is that your point?




    We are troubled in that our society and planet have been exposed to rebellion, decay and death.
    That's your take on original sin? That the world's problems trouble you? Gee, sorry you're losing sleep. I just thought that "original sin" meant more than that. Again, if I've misunderstood your position, which I admit I may have done because you give me so little to go on, then please explain with detail.

  5. #35
    LIFETIME MEMBER Nick M's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    13,704
    Thanks
    317
    Thanked 3,281 Times in 2,272 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147745
    Interesting show. I hadn't thought about the certificate of divorce that way. Because of what the Lord Jesus Christ says about it. The certificate exhonerates her from his wrong doing.
    Jesus saves completely. http://www.climatedepot.com/ http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    Titus 1

    For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped

    Ephesians 5

    11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret

  6. #36
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    14,289
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 5,632 Times in 4,656 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1515647
    Quote Originally Posted by Frayed Knot View Post
    You're going to have to give a little more detail here. The definitions you quoted are very similar-sounding to me, but apparently you think they're quite distinct. My reading is that the `avon transgressions are more severe than the cheta' ones. Is that your point?
    Dang.

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

    That's your take on original sin?
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    Who holds your freedom?
    Who holds your liberty?

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

    Nominate POTYs. See this thread.

  7. #37
    Veteran Frayed Knot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    312
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    The bolded part was a unique definition between the words. Consequences of sin may affect a father's children without the children having done any wrong.
    And the consequences are punishment from God, right? Like when it says "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation."

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

  8. #38
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    14,289
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 5,632 Times in 4,656 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1515647
    Quote Originally Posted by Frayed Knot View Post
    And the consequences are punishment from God, right? Like when it says "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation."Children being punished for the transgressions of the fathers/grandfathers/etc.
    And how is this achieved? By the application of physical reality upon our lives and by the application of psychological and emotional realities upon our lives.

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

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

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

    Are you prepared to consider this explanation?
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    Who holds your freedom?
    Who holds your liberty?

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

    Nominate POTYs. See this thread.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us