Christ made Sin?

No.
The reference is from his Greek dictionary.

I believe you are in over your head and arguing against the posdibility of other interpretations out of ignorance (not malace). But I do not believe you are adequately equipped to deal with these languages.

I say this for two reasons. First, your critera seems to follow whoever agrees with your theories. Second, I have 2 yrs formal training in Greek and I know that onlybgives me enough skill to deal with the languages - not to make dogmatic statements denying the range of definitions provided by actual Greek scholors.

 

That is all you are trying to do - swap authorities. And it is rubbish.

We have Greek scholars who can provide us with reasonable meanings and ranges of meanings for words.

Translators typically consist of a comittee who discuss the best interpretation or word choice that best fits the context.

Theologians develop doctrine and theories based partly on this work. (And the lines between these disciplines often blur).

The reason no discussion is needed is that you are trying to regect all other posdible meanings of the word so t hr at ypu don't have to defend your position about Satan being a type of Christ.

It is rubbish because you ignotlre interpretation all together by declaring your theory the only possible meaning of the word.

When you can not see that there are other legitimate of the word "sin" (or even that yours is not exactly that "literal" interpretation) what more is there to discuss?

I can't argue which paint color matches to someone who refuses to open his eyes.

 

The copy I provided was out of the dictionary (as stated).

You are confusing things a bit. I am saying Bill Mounce and Gordon Fee have provided a range of meanings for a word you claim can mean only one thing. I do believe Mounce made the correct choice here ("sin offering"), but that is not the point. The point is you and @The Archangel have been going on and on with @Van that his use of "for sin" is impossible as it adds "gar". His interpretation is actually within the range of possible translations (gar is not needed)

This is a problem with "word studies" - not in what you affirm but in what you deny. That and they can make good people say stupid things.

 

You are wanting to argue the meaning of Greek word used in the 1st Century and you find it invidious to poat acedemic qualifications????

I hope you take your physical health a bit more seriously than your theology.

 

I think the issue is ofter this difference between "translation and meaning". The meaning of the word translated "sin" in the passage could be "sin" (an immoral act), "sin-offering", "imputed sin" or "expiatory sacrifice". Those are all possible meanings of the Greek word (which is my point to MartinM). Translation involves choosing which English word best represents the idea meant by the use of the Greek word (it involves some interpretation).

The reason I am arguing against @Martin Marprelate is that he erroneously based his interpretation of "sin" on the misunderstanding it can only carry one meaning. When people do this there is nothing to discuss except tell them they are wrong and point them to some experts in the language.

 

I would transkate it as "sin" as well. But I do not believe "sin" carries that meaning it had just carried in the text "an immoral act" as it does not fit the subject (it is impossible for a being...whether man, God, animal or plant) to "be made sin" in that context. So you opt for an entire theory (you don't even stop at a possible meaning....like"imputed sin") and still have not realized the fact.

 

God made Him who knew no [immoral act] to be [an immoral act] for us.

No. That does not work, but it may explain the heresy of believe Satan is a type of Christ because it would mean Christ was literally made evil.

The most biblical position you can take is "imputed sin" (John Gill's view).

 

It depends on one's philosophy of translation. For example - how do you render "Logos"? As "Word"? Does the English "word" accurately reflect the meaning of "Logos"?

I am OK with using "Word" because it is an English word. I would be OK with using "Logos" as well. Relate this to our point here:

Should hamartia be rendered "sin"? In the first part, yes, of course. Because it is "sin". But in the second part it does not make complete sense in the English language (no one can be "made sin" because sin is not such a thing....as @Martin Marprelate even acknowledged when agreeing that God cannot punish "sin" but punishes the "sinner".

So, are you suggesting that hamartia be translated "sinner"? That would make sense (the English words), but is it accurate?

By translating the second hamartia "sin" this allows the interpreter to interpret the passage through it's own context (like with "Word"). Does "sin" here mean "sin" as just stated in the passage (i.e., Christ literally made sin)? No, of course not, that would not only be nonsense but it would be heresy as God would literally become evil and unholy.

So does "sin" then mean "imputed sin"? It's possible. I think it is reading a little into the text, but I have to acknowledge it is a possible translation based on the actual range of meaning for the word. And it is essentially pointing to "sin" as a "sin offering" as well.

Does "sin" mean "sin-offering"? I believe so. This is the most popular translation as it points to the work of Christ as a whole. But it is not the only interpretation.

Does "sin" mean "expiatory sacrifice"? Again, I think it is adding a bit to the text, but it is possible. And again, it is still pointing to a sin offering.

Basically, @Martin Marprelate is wrong. Just as he insisted that God separated from Christ because "forsake" means to separate from, he is reading his theories into the text. I know that you share his theology. But I doubt that you share his reasoning. You know better. He doesn't.

My only intention with @Martin Marprelate was to point out that there are actually several legitimate interpretations of the text. He should therefore argue his interpretation to be correct. But he has failed to even see that the text itself can be legitimately interpreted (based on the text) differently. That is ignorance, plain and simple. And there is nothing that can be done about it - unless you are willing to explain it to him as you hold his view. My concern is I doubt that you will work with him because I believe you are looking to defend a "camp" rather than engage in dialogue of interpretation. But I may be wrong (I sincerely hope I am).

Once we are all on the same page regarding the range of meanings, translations, and what it is to interpret the text, then we can all see that there are several legitimate interpretations based on the text alone. From there we can discuss which one is correct and why. Until then, there is nothing that can be said.

 

A little correction here, as well. What you seem to be looking for is a "word for word" equivalent. While I prefer that translations worked this way, unfortunately this is not always possible. There are instances where a phrase more adequately defines a Greek word than the word translations like the NASB (my favorite) uses. I know that you know this, I'm stating it for clarity.

It would be just as legitimate to claim that the word be translated "sin offering" in every place and the reader can make out the proper meaning. Paraphrase is not a bad thing when the phrase best represents the actual meaning of the translated word.

The sad part is some do not take the time to study what the words mean. I don't mean a "word study", but I do mean looking up words that do not quite "fit" or only fit when exposed to a theory (like the second "sin" in the verse). When someone reads the verse they should think "wait...Jesus was without sin but made sin...."sin" can't mean the same thing each time unless we are saying Jesus was made a sinner, which contradicts Scripture" and then dive into the verse. This does not always happen. Sometimes, like with @Martin Marprelate , it leads one into serious error because of their traditions and they come out believing that Satan is a type of Christ.