"In sin my mother conceived me"

But the first line of Psalm 51:5 says, "I was born in sin." Does this mean that the sin of adultery carried on to his birth? No, it means that he was born in the state of sin.

Besides, Psalm 51 is not a recounting of David's family history. It is a detailing of his lament over his own sin. He is weeping over his sin and is saying he was a sinner from birth. What sense would it make for him to be weeping and repenting over his sin and in the middle of it say, "By the way, my mother was an adulterer?"

 

I'm not getting that. To me it looks more like rampant re-use of names in these families. From the NASB compiling all this together I get:

Abigail daughter of Jesse, who married Jether the Ishmaelite and had a son named Amasa

Abigail daughter of Eliab who married Jerimoth and had a daughter named Mahalath

Abigail daughter of Nahash, daughter of Jesse, who married Ithra the Israelite and had a son named Amasa

So I'm guessing that Nahash is Abigail, Jesse's daughter, by another name. Abigail had a daughter (father unknown) named Abigail, who had a son whom she named Amasa after his uncle (Jether's son Amasa). Meanwhile Abigail's brother Eliab also had a daughter named Abigail after his sister, and his daughter Abigail married her cousin Jerimoth, David's son.

I just re-read the NKJV and it doesn't seem to contradict. I'm not seeing David's mother come up anywhere here. What am I missing??

 

I think I see something--the II Sam. one may mean Abigail, daughter of Nahash and sister of Zuriah. But that just reconciles Amasa's identity (one person, Jesse's grandson), but messes things up because Abigail couldn't have been married to both Jether the Ishmaelite and Ithra the Israelite. . . If it were just the name I'd think they might be the same person, but the nationality is wrong.

Plus I'm looking up Nahash and it seems in general a man's name.

 

She made you look!

 

No need to look for loopholes, Helen. Just use the new "FGT" (Feel Good Translation) of the Bible:

Romans

“There is none righteous, no, not one, except babies; There is none who understands except babies; There is none except babies who seeks after God."

Ecclesiastes

For there is not a just man on earth who does good And does not sin. But babies aren't men, so they don't count.

Galatians

But the Scripture has confined all except babies under sin

 

Well it could be hyperbole as David describing the reach of sin in his life extends it to his very conception. Hyperbole or not, it can be understood in the ways described in this string. "In sin" could be a reference to original sin, his mother, as all mothers are, existing in a state of sin as children of Adam are. Now whether David's mother was regenerate or not, and does that state of sin perpetuate into her regenerate life, might be questions for another day.

 

The Hebrew word in the first phrase is holalti, which means "to be born." It most definitely is referring to his birth and not just whether his mother was a harlot or not.

 

Before Adam/Eve sinned, they were kept alive by "God's SPIRIT", not "BLOOD", after sin Blood became the medium which sustained the life of the "FLESH".

Scripture says, without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, if we sow to the spirit, (expect spirit keep us alive) we reap "eternal life", sow to the flesh, death.

Jesus shed all his blood on the cross, when he was "resurrected", he was kept alive by "SPIRIT", not Blood".

Flesh and blood can't inherit heaven, however flesh and bone can, as Jesus said "touch me" for a spirit doesn't have flesh and bone as me, no mention of Blood.


When we are resurrected, we'll be "like Jesus", no blood, but kept alive by "SPIRIT" as Adam/Eve were prior to the fall.

We're born into a body of flesh sustained by "BLOOD", that the "SIN" we're born into, but the "SOUL" isn't charged with sin until the "age of accountability", knowing good/evil, with the knowledge of the law and knowingly violating it, sin is "revived", that's what Paul meant.

Ro 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Jesus came to "RESTORE" the "WHOLE WORLD" back to the state of Adam/Eve before their fall, kept alive by "Spirit", he didn't come to condemn Adam/Eve, who by "rights" should receive the "greater condemnation", or anyone since, Satan stole man's soul, but Jesus made it "possible" to "REDEEM" every soul lost, on the one condition, "IF" they believed.

We have a "saved soul" in a "body of death" (sin) and so does an innocent Baby, but few seem to understand the differences.

Ro 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver "ME" (saved soul) from the "body of this death"? (Flesh)

 

Scriptural support for this?

What does the shedding of blood have to do with us sowing to the spirit or to the flesh?

Are you sure that every single drop of blood was shed? Not one drop was left in Him? You are making a ridiculous statement that has no point.

The point of "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven" has nothing to do with the point you are trying to make about blood. Did you notice that one of the things Paul said could not inherit the kingdom of heaven was flesh? His point was that the body has to be changed. He was not trying to make whatever point you are trying to make about blood.

Pure conjecture and assumption about blood.

Scriptural support for this?

And yet Paul had clearly said that sin was in the world before the law. Do you think Paul forgot that he wrote Romans 5 by the time he got to Romans 7?

Did Jesus fail in His mission? If His mission is to restore the whole world back to the state of Adam and Eve before the fall, then He most certainly did fail. Maybe that was not His mission...

I really don't have a problem with this statement, except for your incessant misuse of quotation marks. Jesus' first advent did not involve judgment and condemnation. Although, if you read Luke 12:49, it is obvious that he wanted to. His second coming will involve judgment.

 

CalviBaptist

You don't understand the above, yet certain Calvin is right??????


That's as likely as a "first grader" teaching a "Physic's major" calculus to obtain his PHD.

In "Redneck" terms, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

God is a "SPIRIT" and the spirit that gave birth to Jesus was "God's Spirit",

And like Jesus, we need a "birth", conceived by the spirit which enables us to "crucify the old man",(shed his blood) and have life by the "Spirit", not blood.

Sowing to the spirit, means we serve the spirit and the spirit will serve us, give life, and like Jesus, we will "SHINE" like the SUN, from the light of that spirit inside.

Mt 13:43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.

Mt 17:2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

Mt 5:16 Let your light so shine before men,

BTW, Adam/Eve shined that way before they sinned.

 

Is that implying that a child born to two unsaved parents is unholy? That does go with the concept that children born to believers are secure, which I've heard taught.

Anyhow, it seems as if this verse takes the air out of the idea that all children are born without guilt, if they are considered unholy if neither of their parents are born.

1 Cor. 7:14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

There has to be an explanation.

 

NP, if I'd known I'd have come over instead of watching Jesse from Full House do his Elvis impersonations. LOL

Ok, next question. What is the definition of sanctified there?

And...next comment. The verses preceding 14 are concerns for the children in a marriage where one partner is saved and the other is not. Obviously there was a concern for the children, but being "pruned" doesn't make sense. It does as far as the saved person being reassured that the child will still learn the scriptures from just one saved parent, but the verse is saying that because the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing one, the children will be holy.

1 Cor. 7:14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children untrained; but now are they trained.

The first and second part aren't making sense. Why would an unbeliever being sanctified result in the children being trained?

 

I think I misworded that.

Let me try again.

The verse seems to imply that the children will be holy because the unbelieving spouse is sanctified because of the believer.

When you substitute the word trained it means...

The children will be trained because the unbelieving spouse was sanctified because of the believer.

I understand there is influence. That's clear.

I'm not getting the relationship between sanctification of unbeliever and holiness of child.

I'll read it again in the morning, maybe I need some sleep first.