• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christians only: Original Sin and Christ's Atonement

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
A discussion on Original Sin on another thread prompted me to examine this concept in greater depth, particularly as it relates to the Atonement of Jesus Christ. All opinions -- from Christians only -- are welcome.

I have always been taught that Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of everyone who ever lived, provided they (1) repent and (2) accept Him as their Savior. To me, this means that Adam and Eve were forgiven for their transgression just as each of us can be forgiven for our transgressions. But if Adam and Eve really were forgiven, why is mankind still burdened by their sin? It seems to me that we can't really say that Jesus Christ atoned for Adam's sin if we're going to insist that we're still passing it on from one generation to the next. And why would God hold us responsible for something someone else did thousands of years ago anyway? The Atonement is supposed to be all about forgiveness. From my perspective, people who believe we're still tainted by Adam's sin don't genuinely believe Christ's sacrifice took care of it. Thoughts?
 

dawny0826

Mother Heathen
I believe that we are only accountable for our own sin, if we do not repent and ask for forgiveness. We're burdened by sin because we forget the price that has already been paid.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I believe that we are only accountable for our own sin, if we do not repent and ask for forgiveness. We're burdened by sin because we forget the price that has already been paid.
Thanks, Dawn! That's pretty much how I see it.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
We are not personally responsible for Adam's sin. What Original Sin is the flawed human nature we have inherited from Adam and Eve due to their sin, because they are the original parents of all humanity. No one is ever held responsible for sins of another. A good metaphorical way to look at it is a congenital disease that's passed down from the parents. It's a flaw in our nature. But Christians believe that the guilt Original Sin is removed at the Sacrament of Baptism, which confers sanctifying grace.

Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
This was one of the issues that lead to my foray into atheism. I incorrectly believed each person was held by God to be personally responsible for Original sin, which lead to a rather warped view of Christ's atonement making Christianity seem increasingly absurd to me.

In a sense, I was a Calvinist without realising it as I more or less held to total depravity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
A discussion on Original Sin on another thread prompted me to examine this concept in greater depth, particularly as it relates to the Atonement of Jesus Christ. All opinions -- from Christians only -- are welcome.

I have always been taught that Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of everyone who ever lived, provided they (1) repent and (2) accept Him as their Savior. To me, this means that Adam and Eve were forgiven for their transgression just as each of us can be forgiven for our transgressions. But if Adam and Eve really were forgiven, why is mankind still burdened by their sin? It seems to me that we can't really say that Jesus Christ atoned for Adam's sin if we're going to insist that we're still passing it on from one generation to the next. And why would God hold us responsible for something someone else did thousands of years ago anyway? The Atonement is supposed to be all about forgiveness. From my perspective, people who believe we're still tainted by Adam's sin don't genuinely believe Christ's sacrifice took care of it. Thoughts?
There is no "guilt" associated with original sin that gets passed onto successive generations as the Roman Catholics claim. That idea was invented by St. Augustine pulling things out of pagan Latin philosophy, since he was wholly untrained in Christian theology. Rather, it's as Ezekiel 18:20 says, a son shall not pay for his father's sins.

What Adam and Eve's sin did is deprive us of our communion with God, throwing us into the death and darkness of sin, which introduced mortality, sickness and suffering into human experience. And we were born into this life of death, sickness, pain and suffering, because that is what our first parents Adam and Eve lived in. It's not that we share their guilt--their guilt rests on them and them alone. It's that their actions had far-reaching consequences. A child born into a family of alcoholics is likely to become an alcoholic themselves. And so it is with sin--Adam and Eve sinned, and when they had children, they sinned due to the influence of their parents. And so it has been ever since then.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
There is no "guilt" associated with original sin that gets passed onto successive generations as the Roman Catholics claim. That idea was invented by St. Augustine pulling things out of pagan Latin philosophy, since he was wholly untrained in Christian theology. Rather, it's as Ezekiel 18:20 says, a son shall not pay for his father's sins.

What Adam and Eve's sin did is deprive us of our communion with God, throwing us into the death and darkness of sin, which introduced mortality, sickness and suffering into human experience. And we were born into this life of death, sickness, pain and suffering, because that is what our first parents Adam and Eve lived in. It's not that we share their guilt--their guilt rests on them and them alone. It's that their actions had far-reaching consequences. A child born into a family of alcoholics is likely to become an alcoholic themselves. And so it is with sin--Adam and Eve sinned, and when they had children, they sinned due to the influence of their parents. And so it has been ever since then.
I agree with all of that, but it does make me wonder why Catholics (and Orthodox Christians) practice infant baptism. It seems to someone like me, who believes that a person should only be baptized when they are old enough to become accountable for their own sins, that people who baptize their week-old infants are concerned that they may die unbaptized, resulting in some sort of condemnation.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
I agree with all of that, but it does make me wonder why Catholics (and Orthodox Christians) practice infant baptism. It seems to someone like me, who believes that a person should only be baptized when they are old enough to become accountable for their own sins, that people who baptize their week-old infants are concerned that they may die unbaptized, resulting in some sort of condemnation.
Catholics did believe in Limbo for the longest time. We Orthodox never held such a belief, but we do it because we want our children to grow up as full members of the Church--even infants receive the Eucharist in our churches, because we want them to be full participants in the Sacraments and to receive the graces from them from day 1, in order that they may grow up with all the graces of God and be raised the right way. Proverbs 22:16 says, "Raise up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

And actually, as a fun historical note, in the ancient Church, baptism, chrismation and communion were all done at the same time in the same service for all new converts and all infants born into the Faith. It was only in the time of the Reformation that the Roman Church separated confirmation from baptism, because the Church didn't want to go to the trouble of making children full members of the Church if they were just going to leave and become Protestants as teenagers. Withholding chrismation and communion from the children until their adolescence and early adulthood was basically an insurance policy to make sure that whoever communed in the Roman Church was going to be staying for life.
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Catholics did believe in Limbo for the longest time. We Orthodox never held such a belief, but we do it because we want our children to grow up as full members of the Church--even infants receive the Eucharist in our churches, because we want them to be full participants in the Sacraments and to receive the graces from them from day 1, in order that they may grow up with all the graces of God and be raised the right way. Proverbs 22:16 says, "Raise up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it."
We do christian children at the age of about one month, although it varies some. (We christened our son at four months because he had colic so bad until then that he wouldn't stop crying long enough for a christening to take place. :)) But the scriptures constantly refer "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins," implying that one must be able to repent and have something to repent of. And if you don't believe that babies are burdened by guilt (their own or Adam's), what's the point of baptizing them? It's definitely possible to raise a child the right way without a sacrament that I don't believe was ever intended to be performed for an infant. I see infants has being able to receive the graces of God without baptism, since I believe them to have been born pure and clean, without sin.

And actually, as a fun historical note, in the ancient Church, baptism, chrismation and communion were all done at the same time in the same service for all new converts and all infants born into the Faith. It was only in the time of the Reformation that the Roman Church separated confirmation from baptism, because the Church didn't want to go to the trouble of making children full members of the Church if they were just going to leave and become Protestants as teenagers. Withholding chrismation and communion from the children until their adolescence and early adulthood was basically an insurance policy to make sure that whoever communed in the Roman Church was going to be staying for life.
Well, we're kind of getting off topic, but since you brought it up, that's another reason why I don't believe in infant baptism. Why would any parent was to force their child to remain in a religion he/she didn't believe in any more as a teenager or young adult. The very idea gives baptism a purpose I don't believe it was ever intended to have.
 

bird

Member
1 Titus 2:14 says, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." Does this mean that Adam did not sin? I think so. The problem lies in how people read Genesis, which they read as a literal story. Rather, God gave us the Bible as a parable (Psalm 78:2). Adam is a picture of Christ who is without sin. However, Christ became sin for the sake of his bride Eve, who did sin. Eve is a picture of true believers, whose sin is paid for by Christ. God caused Adam to have a deep sleep, which in parable language means a judgement death. That's how he made Eve (Genesis 2:21). Jesus died a judgement death on the cross. That's how he made true believers born again to be his bride.
 
Last edited:

Kristopher

New Member
Romans 5:12-21 (NASB)
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—
13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
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.
15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Adam is the head of the human race. Therefore, when he sinned, that made all of his descendants part of a falling race of beings, even though we may not have "sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam". You may say that it is unfair that we are condemned through one mans transgression (Adam), but the flip side of this, and the good news, is that we are made righteous through one mans obedience (Jesus).

I guess you could think of Jesus as the head of a new race of beings. When we are born, we are born under Adam and we are condemned. That is why we need to be "born again" John 3:3, under Jesus and become "sons of God" John 1:11-13
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
We do christen children at the age of about one month, although it varies some. (We christened our son at four months because he had colic so bad until then that he wouldn't stop crying long enough for a christening to take place. :)) But the scriptures constantly refer "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins," implying that one must be able to repent and have something to repent of. And if you don't believe that babies are burdened by guilt (their own or Adam's), what's the point of baptizing them? It's definitely possible to raise a child the right way without a sacrament that I don't believe was ever intended to be performed for an infant. I see infants has being able to receive the graces of God without baptism, since I believe them to have been born pure and clean, without sin.

Well, we're kind of getting off topic, but since you brought it up, that's another reason why I don't believe in infant baptism. Why would any parent was to force their child to remain in a religion he/she didn't believe in any more as a teenager or young adult. The very idea gives baptism a purpose I don't believe it was ever intended to have.
Just fixed typo (third word of my first sentence). Sorry.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Adam is the head of the human race. Therefore, when he sinned, that made all of his descendants part of a falling race of beings, even though we may not have "sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam". You may say that it is unfair that we are condemned through one mans transgression (Adam), but the flip side of this, and the good news, is that we are made righteous through one mans obedience (Jesus).
I agree that, as Adam's descendents, we each have the mortal nature he passed on to us. It is this mortal nature that gives us the propensity to sin. If left to our own devices, not one of us would make it to adulthood without sinning.

My question to you would be this: If someone's one-month old baby dies of crib death, does he die "condemned"? If he dies condemned, condemned of what? Something he didn't do? If he is condemned of something someone else did 6000 years ago, it would appear to me that it was not only the propensity to sin that has been passed on by Adam but the sin itself. And no, that wouldn't be fair.
 

Kristopher

New Member
I agree that, as Adam's descendents, we each have the mortal nature he passed on to us. It is this mortal nature that gives us the propensity to sin. If left to our own devices, not one of us would make it to adulthood without sinning.

My question to you would be this: If someone's one-month old baby dies of crib death, does he die "condemned"? If he dies condemned, condemned of what? Something he didn't do? If he is condemned of something someone else did 6000 years ago, it would appear to me that it was not only the propensity to sin that has been passed on by Adam but the sin itself. And no, that wouldn't be fair.
I do believe we are born with "sin nature" or a "propensity" to sin. I believe human behavior early in life shows this. As soon as a child is old enough to speak, they are telling lies, and as soon as they can reach out their hands, they are taking things that are not theirs. They dont have to be taught this behavior.

But to your question....Does a baby die condemned?

Or is a baby guilty of its own sins or Adams sin? Can a baby sin?

Psalm 51:5 (KJV)
5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Psalm 51:5 (HCSB)
5 Indeed, I was guilty ⌊when I⌋ was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me.

We are guilty of our own sins but Adams sins surely have an impact on everyone. Whether guilty of Adams sin or of our own sin, we are indeed sinful and guilty right from the start.

I personally feel that God doesn't hold the transgressions of infants or young children against them until they reach the age of accountability. What is the age of accountability? I believe it depends on the individual. When a person reaches the age where they can make a mature decision about what they believe, then I feel thats the age of accountability. Some people may never reach that age because of severe mental illness or some type of mental disability.

The Bible is somewhat silent about what happens to young children when they die, but one thing I know is that God is fair and whatever he decides is exactly what should be.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I do believe we are born with "sin nature" or a "propensity" to sin. I believe human behavior early in life shows this. As soon as a child is old enough to speak, they are telling lies, and as soon as they can reach out their hands, they are taking things that are not theirs. They dont have to be taught this behavior.
Yes, they are doing these things, and these things are wrong. The thing is, the child doesn't know they are wrong. What I'm saying is that someone sins by willfully violating a religious law or moral principle. It's not just doing something that come naturally.

But to your question....Does a baby die condemned?

Or is a baby guilty of its own sins or Adams sin? Can a baby sin?

We are guilty of our own sins but Adams sins surely have an impact on everyone. Whether guilty of Adams sin or of our own sin, we are indeed sinful and guilty right from the start.
Yes, Adam's sin definitely has an effect upon everybody. Because we are all his descenents, we have all inherited his sinful nature. But I don't believe God considers a person to be a sinner until he has sinned. No one would call someone a murderer or a rapist before they ever committed those acts. And I don't believe children who do things we call "wrong" are "sinning" until they are able to recognize that their actions are wrong.

I personally feel that God doesn't hold the transgressions of infants or young children against them until they reach the age of accountability. What is the age of accountability? I believe it depends on the individual. When a person reaches the age where they can make a mature decision about what they believe, then I feel thats the age of accountability. Some people may never reach that age because of severe mental illness or some type of mental disability.
Okay, well I agree with you on this.

The Bible is somewhat silent about what happens to young children when they die, but one thing I know is that God is fair and whatever he decides is exactly what should be.
I also agree with you on this.

I guess my only disagreement (if I'm understanding you correctly) is that I believe Jesus actually atoned for Adam's sin (eating the forbidden fruit), and that once Adam was forgiven for that sin, which I believe he was, no one else will ever be held accountable for it again. If anyone is still being held accountable for Adam's sin or will be punished for it, then Jesus evidently didn't atone for it after all.
 

Thesavorofpan

Is not going to save you.
I've never believed that we are held responsible for Adam and Eve's sin, but instead we have inherited their fall from grace. In other words the innate desire in all of us to do wrong. While in some it is more stronger in others and some is barely noticeable. That's why Jesus was needed. Someone who could utterly defeat that nature and then take the blame that we should bare it on himself.
 

jtartar

Well-Known Member
A discussion on Original Sin on another thread prompted me to examine this concept in greater depth, particularly as it relates to the Atonement of Jesus Christ. All opinions -- from Christians only -- are welcome.

I have always been taught that Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of everyone who ever lived, provided they (1) repent and (2) accept Him as their Savior. To me, this means that Adam and Eve were forgiven for their transgression just as each of us can be forgiven for our transgressions. But if Adam and Eve really were forgiven, why is mankind still burdened by their sin? It seems to me that we can't really say that Jesus Christ atoned for Adam's sin if we're going to insist that we're still passing it on from one generation to the next. And why would God hold us responsible for something someone else did thousands of years ago anyway? The Atonement is supposed to be all about forgiveness. From my perspective, people who believe we're still tainted by Adam's sin don't genuinely believe Christ's sacrifice took care of it. Thoughts?

Katzpur,
Adam and Eve were perfect, when they were created. If they had obeyed God they would still be alive today. It was not God's purpose for them ever to die, gen 1:26-28. A term, Concursus, means that God would protect them from any hurt, as long as they obeyed Him.
They were perfect, when they rebelled against God, and sinned, they were then imperfect. The perfection would have passed along to their offspring perfection. By sinning they became imperfect, and this imperfection they passed on to all their descendants, Rom 5:12.
Another term, Covenant Theology, or Federal Theology, comes into play, very soon after Lapse, God gave the first prophecy recorded in the Bible, Gen 3:15. Within this prophecy is contain the idea of Covenant Theology, that everything that God had meant for Adam and Eve, God, would give to any of mankind who followed His son, The Messiah.
This means that God will Cause His purpose to be fulfilled, just as He originally purposed, but most of mankind will have a chance for these blessings through a resurrection,instead of living on and never dying.
All the terms; infralapsarianism, supralapsarianism, sublapsarianism, are all untrue, for the reason that God made man a free moral agent, and God did not plan for man to lapse, or fall. The Bible tells us that God was hurt on His heart because of mans rebellion, and the following of Satan instead of God, Himself, Gen 6:5,6,7, 13.
The great Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus provided the forgiveness for every person who would believe and follow Jesus, Matt 20:28, John 3:16.
Today, true Christians do not die because of sin, but we die because of our inherited sin, from Adam. Jesus put an end to sin, meaning that no sin that a true Christian commits is charged to him because Jesus died for all men, so they are perpetually perfect in God's sight, Heb 10:14 ,17.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
[FONT=&quot]POST ONE OF TWO
Regarding the Christian theory that infants are born full of sin (i.e. “sinful”)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Hi Katzpur; there was a similar discussion in another thread where posters claimed that “babies sin constantly” and that infants were morally “depraved” (the later in the context of TULIP). I don’t have any interest in this theory but rather my interest lies in the earlier Christian interpretation where infants are innocent. However, I thought enough about this point to simply cut and paste from my posts from that thread. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
For example, the 4-5th c.e. New Testament (sinaiticus) includes Hermas in it’s canon and hermas comments : All of you, therefore, who continue,” he said, “ and will be as infants, with no wickedness, will be more glorious than all those who have been mentioned previously, for all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him. Blessed are you, therefore, who have cast aside evil from yourselves and clothed yourselves in innocence; you will live to God first of all.” Hermas 106:3

Hermas’ sentiment that infants have “no wickedness” and that they are “more glorious than all those who have been mentioned previously” and that “all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him” needs no “re-interpretation”. I think forum members can read this verse and come to their own conclusion as to whether Herm is indicating that Christians of his time thought infants were morally “depraved” or morally clean, innocent and without wickedness.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A poster in that thread offered Psalms 51:5 and 58:3 to support his theory that infants are morally "depraved". 51:5 is easily dismisses in it’s point that the mother may have sinned and this did not reflect upon the infant. Also, an infant being born INTO ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]εισελθεν[/FONT][FONT=&quot]) sin (or into a “sinful” world) is not applicable.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

However, just as 51:5 was misused, 58:3 was also not applicable in the same way in modern theory and did not mean the same thing. It DID have important meaning inside of “pre-existence” theology that it does not have outside of it. [/FONT]
clear said:
[FONT=&quot]“As long as we are going down this route of criticism, I might as well point out that the scripture upon which you base your premise is incorrectly translated and thus, does NOT support your premise that infants are morally “depraved”.

For example, you said that infants were morally “depraved” and offered forum members a version of Psalm 58:3 to support this premise :

The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

I understand that you don’t read greek, but your reliance upon an incorrect English translation of a text does not support your premise that infants are morally “depraved”.

Let me explain. The LXX greek in this verse is

“vs 3 : ”απηλλοτριωθησαν οιαμαρτωλοι απομητρασ επλανηθησαν απο γαστροσ ελαλησαν ψευδη.”

I have divided this sentence into two clauses in different colors below into two Blue and Red..

Psalms[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 58:3 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]απηλλοτριωθησαν οι αμαρτωλοι απο μητρασ[/FONT][FONT=&quot] επλανηθησαν απο γαστροσ ελαλησαν ψευδη.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]


[/FONT][FONT=&quot]REGARDING THE FIRST CLAUSE IN BLUE [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

The greek verse introduces as the subject-noun, a class of individuals called “οι αμαρτωλοι” (“the “sinners”). It is speaking in the plural rather than a single class. It is not just “sinners”, but, with the article present, it is speaking of THE sinners, as a specific class of individuals who are the main subject of the entire sentence. The subject is NOT “infants” and there is no word implying infants are in the class spoken of.

“απηλλοτριωθησαν” is a verb in past tense that tells us that this class of individuals were previously “distinguished” or “rejected” or “estranged” due to their “difference”, or “separateness” or “strangeness” / (estranged) from another class as a group.” (the verb itself implies a separation from another group) This is the context of this clause in Koine. It is not a transitional verb that one can apply to present and future infants, but is, indeed, in the past tense.

In actual ancient usage for example, the word is used as a way to differentiate something. In Koine Greek from P Oxy VII 1067.6 (iii/a.d.) the word is used an adjective differentiating a “strange woman” who is made an heir. This adjective form was common in its use of differentiating someone belonging to “others”, that is, “another class” of people. The great linguist Wilcken explained that “τους αλλοτριους” meant “outsiders”, using as an example from P Tebt II 285.8. Similarly, Moulton renders the Koine “το γαρ αλλ[οτ]ριο νεποιησα “ as “I did what was “foreign to me”. This context of being “different” or “foreign” can even mean a “change of mind” as it’s used in BGU II 1121.22 (5 b.c.).

A similar usage in differentiation occurs when Christ is rejected by the Jews as a stone that was inspected and therefore, rejected through “judgment “, απ-εδοκιμασεν (mtt 21:42). These sinners similarly are rejected through “difference” απ-ηλλοτριωθησαν (estranged) based on their differences from another class of individuals.

Because this is past tense, this is speaking of a specific group of sinners who WERE already differentiated not from Birth, but from the womb.

“απο μητρας” does NOT mean “from birth” (i.e. it is does not mean an infant), but the words mean “from the womb”, that is, from before birth.

Such euphamisms had entirely different meanings for pre-creation spirits Christian theology than for the later evolving Christian theologies. Thus, such comments have a different, and clearer sense in early Christian theology than for later, and different, Christian movements.

I realize that you neither read greek nor are you a historian, but these texts do not mean what you said they mean and you cannot apply them to your premise. You are simply and ignorantly repeating a usage you were taught or that seemed to apply to your use.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]REGARDING THE CLAUSE IN RED[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
(επλανηθησαν απο γαστροσ ελαλησαν ψευδη)

Επλανηθησαν
– This is again, a verb used NOT in a transitional or future tense which one could apply to infants as a class. It is instead, used in past tense and the metaphorical usage of πλαναω as to “lead astray” or “deceive” is well known from much of the early koine papyri (e.g. P Par 47.25 (152 b.c.). The P Oxy VI 898.8 (123 a.d.) text examples a man who claims that another was “injuring me much and ending by deceiving me” (πολλα μ[εα] διακουσα ετι και πλανησασα με...” or ibid I. 119.12 (of ii/iii a.d.) says “they deceived us there…” “…πεπλανηκαν η μω(=α)σ εκε[ι]...”.

Meander gives us multiple examples of the usage of this term, e.g. “επλανηθη…” She strayed away,…”

πλανη is not only used in the sense of “deceit” of people, but was also a term used by hunters when describing their stratagem used against wild beasts. Even the ordinary use of “πλανητης” / ”planetes” for a “planet” was used as a metaphorical reference to “wandering stars” (i.e. stars that had left their appointed orbits). This is the context underlying New Testament Judes use of it in vs. 13 (imagery he derived from Enoch) This is also why Benton in his LXX renders the clause “ …they wander from the belly” (though the verb is past tense and should be rendered “wandered from the belly”).

All of these synonyms in the verse, whether one renders the word as “lead astray”, “deceived”, or “wandered” still are past tense and thus are events that happened in the past. Even the final portion of the second clause “ελαλησαν ψευδη” is NOT present tense, but it is past tense . Thus the word is NOT about [/FONT][FONT=&quot]lies a group is speaking or will speak (as could possibly apply to infants), but it refers to lies SPOKEN in the past. It is not talking about one month-old infants who “speaks lies” or are morally “depraved”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[FONT=&quot]POST TWO FOLLOWS

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]POST TWO [FONT=&quot]OF TWO[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
clear said:
Though one cannot tell how the words are chosen to be accompanied by by the harp and musical needs of the psalm, still a more correct rendering is :

The sinners were separated from the womb: they were deceived (wandered) from conception (literally “from the belly”) they spoke lies.. (psalms 58:3)

SO, even the scriptures you, yourself used to create and support your premise that infants are morally “depraved” do not support your own theology. You just didn’t know it.

If you did not understand anything I said I can elucidate or if you DO read greek and for some reason used a faulty text then lets discuss the text in more detail. In any case, the text does not support your premise that infants are morally “depraved”.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It is clear however that the early Judeo-Christians placed infants and young children into a different moral category than those who were both mature and morally competent.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thus it was that Joshua and the young child “whoever does not yet know good and evil” were allowed into the new land, but not those who were morally mature and did not qualify morally to enter : “[/FONT][FONT=&quot]And every new (young) child, whoever does not (yet - today σημερον) know good and evil, these shall go into this (place) and to such shall I give it, and to them shall they inherit it.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Deut 1:39[/FONT]


As one moves away from the early periods where it was clear that the fall of Adam was God's plan from the beginning into the later period of the theologians, the theory that Adams "fall" was a terrible accident, instead of happening according to God's plan, the theories multiply regarding what happened in the garden. I think this is one advantage of restorational theology and or simply returning to the earliest versions of these events (which I think are more rational, more logical and more correct than later Christian worldviews).

In any case, Good luck in your spiritual journey Katzpur


[FONT=&quot]Clear
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]φιτωδρ[FONT=&quot]ω[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]
 
Top