Origin of Sin, Part Deux

[convicted1]

I was going to respond to Bro. GLF, but that thread was closed, so I wanted to start "part deux", to keep this thang rolling! :thumbs:

I want to use two verses of scripture to show EXACTLY who is responsible for sin:

Ezek. 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Now, let us take a deeper look at the two words I have bolded.

Hebrew word for perfect tamiym 8459 Strong's

1) complete, whole, entire, sound

a) complete, whole, entire

b) whole, sound, healthful

c) complete, entire (of time)

d) sound, wholesome, unimpaired, innocent, having integrity

e) what is complete or entirely in accord with truth and fact (neuter adj/subst)

So by using this word for perfect, apparently, Lucifer was "made" innocent, correct?

Notice in that verse until iniquity was "found" in thee. It doesn't say "until iniquity was placed in thee.

Hebrew word used for found in this same verse: matsa' 4672

1) to find, attain to

a) (Qal)

1) to find

a) to find, secure, acquire, get (thing sought)

b) to find (what is lost)

c) to meet, encounter

d) to find (a condition)

e) to learn, devise

2) to find out

a) to find out

b) to detect

c) to guess

3) to come upon, light upon

a) to happen upon, meet, fall in with

b) to hit

c) to befall

So in light of these two words used in this one verse, it is plain to see that sin falls squarely in the lap of Lucifer. I will use another verse in another post due to the length of this post.

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

[convicted1]

Now, on to the next verse:

Isa. 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Hebrew word for fallen: naphal 5307 Strong's

1) to fall, lie, be cast down, fail

a) (Qal)

1) to fall

2) to fall (of violent death)

3) to fall prostrate, prostrate oneself before

4) to fall upon, attack, desert, fall away to , go away to, fall into the hand of

5) to fall short, fail, fall out, turn out, result

6) to settle, waste away, be offered, be inferior to

7) to lie, lie prostrate

So by use of this one word, it's safe to say that Lucifer's fall was a "complete failure", that caused him to "fall away" and be "cast down"....in just one word...WOW!!

Hebrew word for exalt: ruwm 7311 Strong's

1) to rise, rise up, be high, be lofty, be exalted

a) (Qal)

1) to be high, be set on high

2) to be raised, be uplifted, be exalted

3) to be lifted, rise

2) (Qal) to be rotten, be wormy

He wanted to be exalted above the Most High, IMHO.


Hebrew word for ascend: `alah 5927 Strong's

1) to go up, ascend, climb

a) (Qal)

1) to go up, ascend

2) to meet, visit, follow, depart, withdraw, retreat

3) to go up, come up (of animals)

4) to spring up, grow, shoot forth (of vegetation)

5) to go up, go up over, rise (of natural phenomenon)

6) to come up (before God)

7) to go up, go up over, extend (of boundary)

8) to excel, be superior to

So this further cements Lucifer's intentions, to be higher than God, therefore placing Him under his authority, or that's what it looks like to me!!

Hebrew word for hell: shĕ'owl 7585 Strong's

1) sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit

a) the underworld

b) Sheol - the OT designation for the abode of the dead

1) place of no return

2) without praise of God

3) wicked sent there for punishment

4) righteous not abandoned to it

5) of the place of exile (fig)

6) of extreme degradation in sin

So by putting these words together, Lucifer was cast down because he wanted to exalt himself(ascend above the Most High), and was cast out of heaven because of his sins, which he committed, and was not coerced to do so, either!! Bolding is used for emphasis only, and not yelling at anyone. In summation, I think it is pretty safe to say that Lucifer was the one who originated sinning, and not God!! :thumbs: :thumbs:???

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

[The Archangel]

Notice in that verse until iniquity was "found" in thee. It doesn't say "until iniquity was placed in thee.

Hebrew word used for found in this same verse: matsa' 4672

1) to find, attain to

a) (Qal)

1) to find

a) to find, secure, acquire, get (thing sought)

b) to find (what is lost)

c) to meet, encounter

d) to find (a condition)

e) to learn, devise

2) to find out

a) to find out

b) to detect

c) to guess

3) to come upon, light upon

a) to happen upon, meet, fall in with

b) to hit

c) to befall

So in light of these two words used in this one verse, it is plain to see that sin falls squarely in the lap of Lucifer. I will use another verse in another post due to the length of this post.

i am I AM's!!

Willis

I hate to play the part of the "Hebrew Police," but I will anyway.

Unfortunately, Strongs is very much inadequate to find the true nuance of the words you are posting. Strongs seems to have no discernment between the Hebrew stems--Qal, piel, hifil, pual, hofal, nifal, hitpael (which is to say Strongs doesn't tell you what occurrence of what word is in what stem).

With each stem the nuance is quite different in many cases.

Now, not meaning to be "ugly," you probably have no idea the difference between qal and nifal. That's just a hunch...I may be wrong.

In your post above, you base a large part of your idea on the word "found" being a qal. It isn't qal, it is nifal. Therefore, the translations out of Strongs that you chose are not correct. Now, it is possible to translate this word--מצא--as a passive of the qal (the passive meaning that the subject is acted upon). But, as a nifal, it could be understood (in the nuance) to be "overpowered," "apprehended," or "captured."

So, in essence, your assumptions about this word are not really so cut and dry.

This is one of the dangers, especially in Hebrew, of using Strongs when one has no training in Hebrew.

So, I'm not writing this to offend you or to "slam dunk" you (after all, I think the nifal of מצא is best translated "was found"). This is meant as a word of caution that you might not be accurate if you are only trusting in Strongs without knowing that there are different stems and what those different stems mean. Using Strongs to discern Hebrew without training in Hebrew is like a four-year-old trying to drive a race car during the Daytona 500.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

Satan has not been cast out of heaven yet, he still has access. He appeared before God in Job.
Satan will not be cast out of heaven until Revelation 12 which is still future.
This is another misconception that is common and leads to false doctrine like the Gap Theory.

 

[convicted1]

I hate to play the part of the "Hebrew Police," but I will anyway.

That's fine, Brother. No offense taken!! :thumbs:

Unfortunately, Strongs is very much inadequate to find the true nuance of the words you are posting. Strongs seems to have no discernment between the Hebrew stems--Qal, piel, hifil, pual, hofal, nifal, hitpael (which is to say Strongs doesn't tell you what occurrence of what word is in what stem).

With no Hebrew training, Strong's is all I can use, Brother. I use Strong's, but most importantly, I pray to Him for His understanding....that's all I have!

Now, not meaning to be "ugly," you probably have no idea the difference between qal and nifal. That's just a hunch...I may be wrong.

Brother, you're never "ugly" when you speak the truth!! :thumbs: I have no Hebrew training, so I have to use the best thing that I can actually use. It may not be the best, as some think, but it is the "best" I can use.

In your post above, you base a large part of your idea on the word "found" being a qal. It isn't qal, it is nifal. Therefore, the translations out of Strongs that you chose are not correct. Now, it is possible to translate this word--מצא--as a passive of the qal (the passive meaning that the subject is acted upon). But, as a nifal, it could be understood (in the nuance) to be "overpowered," "apprehended," or "captured."

The way I broke these down, I do think I have shown where sin started at, Brother. There was no sin prior to Lucifer's rebellion against God. To the best of my knowledge, hell wasn't prepared until after Lucifer's rebellion, or I haven't heard where it(hell) existed before his rebellion....I could be wrong on this, however....I just haven't found it.

So, I'm not writing this to offend you or to "slam dunk" you (after all, I think the nifal of מצא is best translated "was found"). This is meant as a word of caution that you might not be accurate if you are only trusting in Strongs without knowing that there are different stems and what those different stems mean. Using Strongs to discern Hebrew without training in Hebrew is like a four-year-old trying to drive a race car during the Daytona 500.

I take no offense to what you have posted, Brother!! Like I stated earlier, I will have to use Strong's and pray to Him for His knowledge, and not mine. But to even insinuate(sp?), let alone lay it(sin) on Him, I find to be unfathomable.

i am I AM's!!

Willis

 

[The Archangel]

That's fine, Brother. No offense taken!! :thumbs:

With no Hebrew training, Strong's is all I can use, Brother. I use Strong's, but most importantly, I pray to Him for His understanding....that's all I have!

Brother, you're never "ugly" when you speak the truth!! :thumbs: I have no Hebrew training, so I have to use the best thing that I can actually use. It may not be the best, as some think, but it is the "best" I can use.

The way I broke these down, I do think I have shown where sin started at, Brother. There was no sin prior to Lucifer's rebellion against God. To the best of my knowledge, hell wasn't prepared until after Lucifer's rebellion, or I haven't heard where it(hell) existed before his rebellion....I could be wrong on this, however....I just haven't found it.

I take no offense to what you have posted, Brother!! Like I stated earlier, I will have to use Strong's and pray to Him for His knowledge, and not mine. But to even insinuate(sp?), let alone lay it(sin) on Him, I find to be unfathomable.

i am I AM's!!

Willis

I think my point was that you need to be careful with Strongs when you have no training in Hebrew. To use Strongs without knowing what stem a verb is can lead you into error. My suggestion is to get a copy of every translation available (or find them on the internet) and read them to see how the different translation committees have translated certain passages. There is far less opportunity for error in that than in using Strongs when it isn't discernible what the underlying Hebrew form is.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[quantumfaith]

I hate to play the part of the "Hebrew Police," but I will anyway.

Unfortunately, Strongs is very much inadequate to find the true nuance of the words you are posting. Strongs seems to have no discernment between the Hebrew stems--Qal, piel, hifil, pual, hofal, nifal, hitpael (which is to say Strongs doesn't tell you what occurrence of what word is in what stem).

With each stem the nuance is quite different in many cases.

Now, not meaning to be "ugly," you probably have no idea the difference between qal and nifal. That's just a hunch...I may be wrong.

In your post above, you base a large part of your idea on the word "found" being a qal. It isn't qal, it is nifal. Therefore, the translations out of Strongs that you chose are not correct. Now, it is possible to translate this word--מצא--as a passive of the qal (the passive meaning that the subject is acted upon). But, as a nifal, it could be understood (in the nuance) to be "overpowered," "apprehended," or "captured."

So, in essence, your assumptions about this word are not really so cut and dry.

This is one of the dangers, especially in Hebrew, of using Strongs when one has no training in Hebrew.

So, I'm not writing this to offend you or to "slam dunk" you (after all, I think the nifal of מצא is best translated "was found"). This is meant as a word of caution that you might not be accurate if you are only trusting in Strongs without knowing that there are different stems and what those different stems mean. Using Strongs to discern Hebrew without training in Hebrew is like a four-year-old trying to drive a race car during the Daytona 500.

Blessings,

The Archangel

First of all in the interest of full disclousre, I too am no hebrew scholar. Perhaps, (I dont know for certain) Willis may be using the incorrect hebrew stem, however, he still arrives at "found", and I checked multitudes of translations as you suggested, and everyone of them translated to "found". I know that you are quite aware of Willis's point, the simple fact that Willis does not believe that God "installed" evil into Satan or any aspect of His creation. I don't think You think that either. Most of us (non-cals) as you are quite aware of, are convinced that God designed things (us) with the ability to choose and thus the possibility and potentiality of rebellion, and boy have we done a great job with that.

 

[kyredneck]

Satan has not been cast out of heaven yet, he still has access. He appeared before God in Job.

A lot of people seem to ignore this passage from when the apostles returned victorious from their commission of Mt/Lu 10. I take this to mean that there was war going on in heaven at that time, and this war was mirrored here on earth:

17 And the seventy returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject unto us in thy name.
18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven. Lu 10

Satan will not be cast out of heaven until Revelation 12 which is still future.

So says some, but definitely not most. Revelation was written during the sixth head (Roman Empire) of the dragon. Satan was loose to roam and deceive the Gentiles (to idolatry and apostate Judaism) during the Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman Empires but then was bound so that he could no longer deceive the Gentiles any more from the wonderful truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is MHO that he may well have already been loosed from his prison today, at this time. (incidently, I am NOT pre-mil).

This is another misconception that is common and leads to false doctrine like the Gap Theory.

So says Winman. Many do not believe this.

 

[HankD]

There are more than just 7 forms of verb stems. i.e. pael, paol, poel, pilel, pilal, palal
pilpel, tafel, safel, hothpal, hithpoel... the seven are the basic categories.

They function as adding voice, degree and manner to verb usage.
Some forms add letters and grammatical particles (shewa, dagesh) to the stem, some do not.

Some forms are discerned by vowel points (nikkud) which is problematic because the Masoretes added these in the ninth-tenth centuries and not part of the inspired text.

Vowel points are added beneath the text leaving the Hebrew words intact.

Reference: Biblical Hebrew, TW Nakarai, pgs. 28-35.

Also problematic is that generally, English translations are not consistent in assigning the form which is evident by the English translation.
That is not to say that the inconsistency is always unwarranted.

Ezekiel 28:15 masa seems most certainly niphal.

The most common categories of the Niphal are the middle or the quasi-ergative and the passive which developed from the middle. The middle is not neccessarily the most common kind of Niphal, it is rather the most general.

An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Bruce K. Waltke, pg.381.

In any case, whoever the person is (presumably the devil) in Ezekiel 28:15, inquity being found in him is passive. it was discovered in him.

The cause and how it got there does not seem to be the issue.

John of Japan might be willing to comment on the Niphal and its usage here.

HankD

 

[DHK]

When speaking of the origin of sin are we speaking of the earth or the universe? If a time line is needed then Adam was created on the sixth day, definitely after the angels. Thus Lucifer fell being lifted up with pride. Pride first, and then rebellion against God.

But on the earth, tempting is not sin. Giving into temptation is. One could make a case for Eve sinning, but Adam was responsible for Eve. The Bible indicates it was Adam's sin that caused the fall.
The old adage: "In Adam's fall, we sinned all."
All sin can be traced back to the first sin, that of Adam.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

When speaking of the origin of sin are we speaking of the earth or the universe? If a time line is needed then Adam was created on the sixth day, definitely after the angels. Thus Lucifer fell being lifted up with pride. Pride first, and then rebellion against God.

But on the earth, tempting is not sin. Giving into temptation is. One could make a case for Eve sinning, but Adam was responsible for Eve. The Bible indicates it was Adam's sin that caused the fall.
The old adage: "In Adam's fall, we sinned all."
All sin can be traced back to the first sin, that of Adam.

And Eve was not complicit in that sin?

 

[DHK]

And Eve was not complicit in that sin?

She was part of the curse as is explained in Genesis 3, because of her part.
She would be in pain in childbirth. She would be subservient to her husband all the days of her life.
And yet the promise was addressed to her also in verse 15. From the seed of the woman would come the Messiah.

 

[Skandelon]

I'd like to request Luke to respond to this last post in the other thread.

Specifically, I want Luke to address these questions:

From Luke: Not ONLY did God permit it but ultimately he caused it

By "cause" do you mean (1) foreknew and permitted so that it would certainly come to pass (as Edwards explained), or do you mean (2) that he originated or authored it?

Please answer 1 or 2 and explain why.

Quote: From Luke
Not ONLY did God KNOW it was going to happen, but God also ordained that it would happen.

When you say "ordain" do you mean (1) foreknew and permitted so that it would certainly come to pass (as Edwards explained), or do you mean (2) that he originated or authored it?

Please answer 1 or 2 and explain why.

Thanks

 

[The Archangel]

First of all in the interest of full disclousre, I too am no hebrew scholar. Perhaps, (I dont know for certain) Willis may be using the incorrect hebrew stem, however, he still arrives at "found", and I checked multitudes of translations as you suggested, and everyone of them translated to "found". I know that you are quite aware of Willis's point, the simple fact that Willis does not believe that God "installed" evil into Satan or any aspect of His creation. I don't think You think that either. Most of us (non-cals) as you are quite aware of, are convinced that God designed things (us) with the ability to choose and thus the possibility and potentiality of rebellion, and boy have we done a great job with that.

Quantum,

I think you are correct and I agree--God didn't "install" evil or rebellion into Satan.

The word "found" is probably better translated "was found," considering the passive nature of the stem. But, I'd venture to say that's the translation most of your translations have.

We truly have done a "great" job with our rebellion. Why God puts up with us and showers us with His grace--both common and specific--I will never know. We are rebels and we are infinitely undeserving.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Luke2427]

I'd like to request Luke to respond to this last post in the other thread.

Specifically, I want Luke to address these questions:



By "cause" do you mean (1) foreknew and permitted so that it would certainly come to pass (as Edwards explained), or do you mean (2) that he originated or authored it?

Please answer 1 or 2 and explain why.



When you say "ordain" do you mean (1) foreknew and permitted so that it would certainly come to pass (as Edwards explained), or do you mean (2) that he originated or authored it?

Please answer 1 or 2 and explain why.

Thanks

I have already shown you very clearly that Edwards did not JUST believe that God "permitted" it.

I have been VERY clear on this matter as to what I believe the Bible teaches concerning the origin of evil.

The last post that you responded to in the previous thread dealt with it thoroughly, but you missed it.

I encourage you to go back and reread that post more thoroughly.

I will be glad to clarify anything that you do not understand.

But I am not going to keep writing lengthy detailed posts to have you skim them over so quickly and completely miss the essence of them repeatedly.

God bless!

 

[kyredneck]

.....Willis's point, the simple fact that Willis does not believe that God "installed" evil into Satan or any aspect of His creation.....

I agree that God did not install evil into Satan. But I do believe God did 'provoke' Satan to jealousy with the 'installation' of Adam into Eden.

 

[quantumfaith]

Quantum,

I think you are correct and I agree--God didn't "install" evil or rebellion into Satan.

The word "found" is probably better translated "was found," considering the passive nature of the stem. But, I'd venture to say that's the translation most of your translations have.

We truly have done a "great" job with our rebellion. Why God puts up with us and showers us with His grace--both common and specific--I will never know. We are rebels and we are infinitely undeserving.

Blessings,

The Archangel

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs: (I now have two people counting, cannot let them down.)

Mercy, peace and love in abundance.

 

[Skandelon]

I have already shown you very clearly that Edwards did not JUST believe that God "permitted" it.

I have been VERY clear on this matter as to what I believe the Bible teaches concerning the origin of evil.

The last post that you responded to in the previous thread dealt with it thoroughly, but you missed it.

I'm sorry, but Luke, I've been very cordial and patient with you throughout this discussion. I simply asked for you to define a couple of terms, because they seemed to be used interchangeably. That is a VERY typical request in a discussion of this nature in order to better understand each other's perspective. You are correct that I have "missed" your position, but is that really my fault if you refuse to simply define the basic terms that you continually interchange such as "ordain, cause, permit, decree, dispose, determine" etc?

I encourage you to go back and reread that post more thoroughly

.

I have done as you have requested and I still would like to know:

By "cause" do you mean (1) foreknew and permitted so that it would certainly come to pass, or do you mean (2) that he originated or authored it?

Please answer 1 or 2 or both and explain why.

When you say "ordain" do you mean (1) foreknew and permitted so that it would certainly come to pass, or do you mean (2) that he originated or authored it?

Please answer 1 or 2 or both and explain why.

I will be glad to clarify anything that you do not understand.

Oh, good, so you will clarify the questions above?

But I am not going to keep writing lengthy detailed posts to have you skim them over so quickly and completely miss the essence of them repeatedly.

God bless!

It may appear that I have done that, but I assure you I have thoroughly read your posts and have sought diligently to understand your perspective, otherwise I wouldn't have taken the time to ask for clarity regarding the use of your various terms.

Your answer should be very short and simple, it doesn't have to be lengthy if you don't want it to be. You might just be able to put down two numbers, unless you choose to give further explanation. Thanks

 

[quantumfaith]

Quantum,

I think you are correct and I agree--God didn't "install" evil or rebellion into Satan.

The word "found" is probably better translated "was found," considering the passive nature of the stem. But, I'd venture to say that's the translation most of your translations have.

We truly have done a "great" job with our rebellion. Why God puts up with us and showers us with His grace--both common and specific--I will never know. We are rebels and we are infinitely undeserving.

Blessings,

The Archangel

I would argue that it is because he LOVES us, as to Why, well that is a question for greater minds than mine. I must choose to just "rest" with that understanding that He LOVES us.

 

[Luke2427]

I'm sorry, but Luke, I've been very cordial and patient with you throughout this discussion. I simply asked for you to define a couple of terms, because they seemed to be used interchangeably. That is a VERY typical request in a discussion of this nature in order to better understand each other's perspective. You are correct that I have "missed" your position, but is that really my fault if you refuse to simply define the basic terms that you continually interchange such as "ordain, cause, permit, decree, dispose, determine" etc?

.

I have done as you have requested and I still would like to know:

By "cause" do you mean (1) foreknew and permitted so that it would certainly come to pass, or do you mean (2) that he originated or authored it?

Please answer 1 or 2 or both and explain why.

When you say "ordain" do you mean (1) foreknew and permitted so that it would certainly come to pass, or do you mean (2) that he originated or authored it?

Please answer 1 or 2 or both and explain why.


Oh, good, so you will clarify the questions above?

It may appear that I have done that, but I assure you I have thoroughly read your posts and have sought diligently to understand your perspective, otherwise I wouldn't have taken the time to ask for clarity regarding the use of your various terms.

Your answer should be very short and simple, it doesn't have to be lengthy if you don't want it to be. You might just be able to put down two numbers, unless you choose to give further explanation. Thanks

You might as well ask me to lay out the full foundation of Neoplatonism in two words.

I do not mean to be insulting here- I really do not- but perhaps that is why you are off in this area: you wish to make a masively complex issue, perhaps the most complex issue in the universe, a simple one.

You nor I nor any man living is going to get down to the lowest common denominator concerning the origin of sin.

The best I can tell you is all that the Bible tells us:

Romans 11:36 "For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things."

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all My purpose,’

God willed for evil to be and he made sure that it came to be by doing two things:

1. He ordered events so that when he removed his goodness from Lucifer and Adam that the chain of events which followed would most certainly and infallibly come to pass according to his will.

2. He removed his goodness, his aid, from them so that they could do those things that he willed for them to do.

Now, that is both clear and thoroughly biblical.

Some will respond with a flood of irrational emotional remarks, but none of them will change the truth that is clear in the Word of God.