The Nature of Man

[Marcia]

I believe that we all inherit death (as Romans 5:12 says) because of The Curse. I think we take on a sin nature because of our fear of death only after we have sinned.

Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Otherwise, Jesus would have inherited Sin and he would not have been sinless.

To say people do not inherit a sin nature goes against 2,000 years of Christian doctrine, as well as biblical doctrine.

If one can be born without a sin nature, that means the person could theoretically choose not to sin, and that's impossible. That person will sin because their sin nature is a desire to sin; all men are born with a desire to sin. It's innate.

{Why Jesus did not inherit a sin nature is a point of debate that has been discussed in this forum and other BB forums several times. I think that Jesus did not inherit a sin nature because he was God and he was conceived of the Holy Spirit, even though he had a human mother.}

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: To say people do not inherit a sin nature goes against 2,000 years of Christian doctrine, as well as biblical doctrine.

HP: Has it really been that long since Augustine arrived on the scene? My how time flies. Oh by the way, God has always has a remnant that did not follow Augustine and Calvin in their error. That remnant is still alive today. (PS: Original sin is not a biblical doctrine) :wavey:

 

[Marcia]

HP: Has it really been that long since Augustine arrived on the scene? My how time flies. Oh by the way, God has always has a remnant that did not follow Augustine and Calvin in their error. That remnant is still alive today. (PS: Original sin is not a biblical doctrine) :wavey:

I've never said I believe in original sin. I am talking about the sin nature - the fallen nature - this is addressed by Paul as the "flesh" in several passages of the Bible.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Maricia: I've never said I believe in original sin. I am talking about the sin nature - the fallen nature - this is addressed by Paul as the "flesh" in several passages of the Bible.

HP: Is the fallen nature, the sinful nature, the ’flesh’ “sinful?” If so has it been that way from birth?

 

[Marcia]

HP: Is the fallen nature, the sinful nature, the ’flesh’ “sinful?” If so has it been that way from birth?

It is not the physical flesh; "flesh" in Paul's terms often means the fallen/sinful nature. Yes, since birth - we are born with it.

But as I said earlier, I've already interacted with you on this and this is probably as far as I'll go unless I think you are mischaracterizing what I am saying.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: It is not the physical flesh; "flesh" in Paul's terms often means the fallen/sinful nature. Yes, since birth - we are born with it.

But as I said earlier, I've already interacted with you on this and this is probably as far as I'll go unless I think you are mischaracterizing what I am saying.

HP: Where does this fallen/sinful nature reside if not in the flesh? If not in the flesh then was Christ born with the same flesh we are?

I asked you if this fallen/sinful nature constitutes sin, whether it is in itself sinful? I missed your answer. If I am to understand your position and be able to articulate it correctly, I need to know.

How is this nature passed on? Does it necessitated what you see as sin?

 

[DHK]

HP: Where does this fallen/sinful nature reside if not in the flesh? If not in the flesh then was Christ born with the same flesh we are?

Human body

Main article: Chemical makeup of the human body
By mass, human cells consist of 65-90% water (H2O), and a significant portion is composed of carbon-containing organic molecules. Oxygen therefore contributes a majority of a human body's mass, followed by carbon. 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of the six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.
Element Percent by mass

Oxygen 65
Carbon 18
Hydrogen 10
Nitrogen 3
Calcium 1.5
Phosphorus 1.2
Potassium 0.2
Sulfur 0.2
Chlorine 0.2
Sodium 0.1
Magnesium 0.05
Iron, Cobalt, Copper, Zinc, Iodine <0.05 each
Selenium, Fluorine <0.01 each

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements

Do you really believe that a sin nature can reside in a bunch of chemicals such as sulfur, Potassium, Hydrogen, Oxygen, etc.? What sense does that make. I can find all those elements naturally in the earth. Does the sin nature reside in the ground I stand on; in the air I breathe? Does your theory make any sense at all?

 

[Gup20]

Human body
Do you really believe that a sin nature can reside in a bunch of chemicals such as sulfur, Potassium, Hydrogen, Oxygen, etc.? What sense does that make. I can find all those elements naturally in the earth. Does the sin nature reside in the ground I stand on; in the air I breathe? Does your theory make any sense at all?

Do you really believe that you can inherit genes from your parents so that you look like them? How do you inherit this information?

Romans 5:12 says we inherit death, not sin. Hebrews 2:15 says we are all our lives slaves to the devil through fear of death.

Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

It isn't that we are born with a sin nature. We are born spiritually dead, and through fear of death, we are in bondage to the one who has the power of death - that is the devil. It isn't that we are born with a sin nature, we aquire our sin nature through our fear of death.

If the devil has the power of death, and we fear death, then we do the devil's will because we fear death.

 

[DHK]

Do you really believe that you can inherit genes from your parents so that you look like them? How do you inherit this information?

The Bible teaches that a sin nature has been passed down from Adam from generation to generation. It is basic theology, and has been taught (as Marcia has already mentioned) by orthodox Christianity for more than 2000 years. Is it time now to entertain novel ideas put forth by the imaginations of a younger generation? I think not!
It is quite simple. Adam, in his innocence would have lived forever. His genetic make-up would have enabled him to live forever. He was also made in the image and likeness of God (as we all are to some extent). When Adam sinned, that image and likeness was marred. It was only partly renewed at the cross to them that believed.
When Adam sinned the genetic make-up of man was changed so that it would be impossible for him to live forever. As time went on his life span (according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics being set in motion), became shorter and shorter. Only recently has mankind been able to lengthen it a bit because of scientific advancement. "Knowledge shall increase." We are in the end times. Nevertheless a sin nature has been passed on through Adam from generation to generation because of the curse placed on Adam, on Eve, on the earth, on the Serpent, etc. Read carefully the account of the fall.

Romans 5:12 says we inherit death, not sin. Hebrews 2:15 says we are all our lives slaves to the devil through fear of death.

1. For death to be inherited sin must occur. Adam sinned. We all sin. Death takes place because of sin.
Hebrews 2:15 does not say all our lives are slaves to the devil through fear of death. Quote the verse. Show me where it says that. Stop misquoting Scripture, and taking it out of context. You are not being honest but dishonest with the Word of God.

Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

It isn't that we are born with a sin nature. We are born spiritually dead, and through fear of death, we are in bondage to the one who has the power of death - that is the devil. It isn't that we are born with a sin nature, we aquire our sin nature through our fear of death.

Satan does not have the power of death. The verse says "he HAD," and even then you are not understanding what that verse is saying. You are still taking it out of its context.

Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
--Christ alone has power over death. The devil can do nothing apart from Christ. The devil has no power over death; it is Christ that has that power. The Scriptures do not contradict themselves.

If the devil has the power of death, and we fear death, then we do the devil's will because we fear death.

Do we fear arachnids also? Do you have hydrophobia?
You greatly misunderstand that verse or deliberately take it out of context.

Hebrews 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
The believer has no fear of death, but looks forward to death with great anticipation knowing he will be with the Lord. This is in contrast to the unbeliever.
The phrase "subject to bondage" has nothing to do with the devil. It refers to being in bondage to sin, which we all were before we were saved.
It speaks of our sin nature, if anything at all. The reason we are in bondage to sin is because we have a nature that is sinful. Only Christ can set us free from that bondage.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Strangely enough DHK I agree with you on this one. We see the relationship between death and sin. That sin has brought death as DHK pointed out in Romans 5:12

Wherfore as by one ma synne entred into the worlde and deeth by the meanes of synne. And so deeth went over all men in somoche that all men synned.

 

[Gup20]

The Bible teaches that a sin nature has been passed down from Adam from generation to generation.

Show me where the Bible says "Sin is passed". Romans 5:12 says "Death is passed", it does not say sin is passed. It says all sinned, but it doesn't say sin is passed. It doesn't say all are dead because sin is passed, it says all have sinned because death is passed. Death - the result - is passed to all because of sin, the cause. If sin were passed because of death, Sin would be the result and death would be the cause.

Romans 5:12 (NKJV) Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--
​

Is it time now to entertain novel ideas put forth by the imaginations of a younger generation? I think not!

Agism? Really? Being a woman, I would think you would be sensative to bigotry because you would probably have experienced sexism. Very well... how old does one have to be before their opinions arnd interpretations of scripture are relevant? Jesus was teaching in the temple at age 12. He began his public ministry at age 30... I have reached both of these milestones.

It is quite simple. bla bla bla bla genetic bla bla bla bla 2nd Law of Thermodynamics bla bla bla bla bla.

Yeah, you picked a couple of really simple subjects there, I see.

1. For death to be inherited sin must occur. Adam sinned. We all sin. Death takes place because of sin.

Agreed.

Hebrews 2:15 does not say all our lives are slaves to the devil through fear of death. Quote the verse. Show me where it says that. Stop misquoting Scripture, and taking it out of context. You are not being honest but dishonest with the Word of God.

Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Satan does not have the power of death. The verse says "he HAD," and even then you are not understanding what that verse is saying. You are still taking it out of its context.

1Cr 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?

Phl 3:12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but [this] one thing [I do], forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,

Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
--Christ alone has power over death. The devil can do nothing apart from Christ. The devil has no power over death; it is Christ that has that power. The Scriptures do not contradict themselves.

Revelation is prophecy. Unless you believe that death has been destroyed already and once you get saved, you won't physically die.

Do we fear arachnids also? Do you have hydrophobia?

The hairy venomous ones, yes. The little harmless ones... yes, sometimes.

Hebrews 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

It speaks of our sin nature, if anything at all.

Wait... um... isn't that what I've been saying all along? That "through fear of death" we are "subject" to a sin nature?

Thinkingstuff -- deeth is passed... nay synne.

 

[DHK]

Show me where the Bible says "Sin is passed". Romans 5:12 says "Death is passed", it does not say sin is passed. It says all sinned, but it doesn't say sin is passed. It doesn't say all are dead because sin is passed, it says all have sinned because death is passed. Death - the result - is passed to all because of sin, the cause. If sin were passed because of death, Sin would be the result and death would be the cause.

Romans 5:12 (NKJV) Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--​

When Adam sinned the curse of sin was passed to all men. It was part of the curse for which Christ redeemed us. Christ did not satisfy the demands of God the Father by making an atonement for "death" but rather for "sin."

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Death is simply a result of sin. Christ died for out sin, not our deaLook, I was guth. It is a sin nature that is passed on from generation to generation. Even David knew this:

(Psa 51:5) Look, I was guilty of sin from birth,
a sinner the moment my mother conceived me. (NET)
--Look what David says:
1. I was guilty of sin from my birth--he had a sin nature, inherited.
2. The sin nature was inherited; he had it from the very moment that his mother conceived him.

Another translation:
(Psa 51:5) Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me.
1. David emphasizes that he was born a guilty sinner--one with a sin nature.
2. He was born that way when his mother conceived him. That is when he inherited his sin nature.

What meaning the KJV obscures other translations bring out very clearly.
Christ did not die for our death; he died for our sin.
We sin because we have a sin nature; however we still are responsible for our sin.

Agism? Really? Being a woman, I would think you would be sensative to bigotry because you would probably have experienced sexism. Very well... how old does one have to be before their opinions arnd interpretations of scripture are relevant? Jesus was teaching in the temple at age 12. He began his public ministry at age 30... I have reached both of these milestones.

Surely you jest?
1. From your moniker I had no idea you were a female. What does sexism have to do with this?
2. What does "agism" have to do with this? I speak from a point of relativity. Your puny 30-50 years is nothing in comparison to the 2000 years that this orthodox Christian doctrine has been taught since the time of Christ. Even if you are an octogenarian (which I doubt) that is nothing in the light of the time period from the time of the Apostles until now. The accusation of bigotry is false, and not warranted. Whatever possessed you to accuse me of that? Read what I say, and not what you think I say.
BTW you can notify me when you reach the age of 2000, then I will start taking your theory into consideration as opposed to what the Bible actually teaches. But even then, your novelty is nothing compared to Biblical teaching.
​

Yeah, you picked a couple of really simple subjects there, I see.

Yes they were simple. Basic genetics, and the simple basic laws of thermodynamics taught in grade eight or so. Elementary science is not difficult to understand, and is in harmony with the Bible. Every Christian should have some knowledge of science to understand the account of Creation, the Flood, the Fall, and such subjects. Perhaps that is why you are confused.
There is no excuse to make a mockery of knowlege. I pity you.

Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Here is what I originally said:
Hebrews 2:15 does not say all our lives are slaves to the devil through fear of death. Quote the verse. Show me where it says that. Stop misquoting Scripture, and taking it out of context. You are not being honest but dishonest with the Word of God.

--Your answer above includes both verse 14 and 15. Note that I was quoting verse 15 which does not say "all our lives are slaves to the devil through fear of death." It does not say that in verse 15. It says nothing of the devil in verse 15. You have to quote verse 14 to get any mention of the devil. So you are misconstruing my quote and deliberately being deceitful, aren't you?
The word "bondage" refers to sin, not the devil. I don't believe your interpretation is correct.

Romans 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
--Paul states quite clearly that we were the servants or slaves of sin; not necessarily of the devil. Compare Scripture with Scripture.

Revelation is prophecy. Unless you believe that death has been destroyed already and once you get saved, you won't physically die.

Now that is a novel idea. Revelation is prophecy; therefore cut it out of your Bible and throw it out. It is not inspired and doesn't apply to us. It has no truth relevant for us today. What wonderful ideas you have!
There is not one book in the Bible that is totally prophecy; not one.
We can learn from every book of the Bible. They are all there for our understanding.

Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
This is a timeless statement of truth. It is not speaking of who Christ will be; but who Christ is. It has nothing to do with prophecy; but with the nature of Christ. You cannot dismiss such a verse simply because it is written in the Book of Revelation. I would hope that you had better sense than that.

The hairy venomous ones, yes. The little harmless ones... yes, sometimes.

And why should you fear?
Prov. 29:25 The fear of man brings a snare, but whoso puts his trust in the Lord shall be safe.

Genesis 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
--Ever since the flood animals have feared man. God made it that way. All animals, including spiders have an innate fear of man.
Man ought to have fear of nothing. If God be with him, what has he to fear?

Man gives into fear because he has a sin nature. Man is given a new nature when he is saved. The new nature wars against the old nature (sin nature) as is described by Paul in Romans 7. Those who give into that sin nature will have fears. They will sin in various ways. Christians are not perfect; don't always follow the new nature that Christ has given them. An unsaved person sins naturally. One does not have to teach a child to sin. His nature compels him to sin. He lies, cheats, is selfish, because he has a sin nature.

 

[Gup20]

(Psa 51:5) Look, I was guilty of sin from birth,
a sinner the moment my mother conceived me. (NET)

You seem to have a short memory. http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1399019&postcount=215

I already explained - with substancial evidence - why your interpreation of this verse is incorrect.

What meaning the KJV obscures other translations bring out very clearly.

The original Hebrew being the best translation, and the most clear.

Surely you jest?
1. From your moniker I had no idea you were a female. What does sexism have to do with this?

I said "YOU" were female, not me. I am a male.

2. What does "agism" have to do with this? I speak from a point of relativity. Your puny 30-50 years is nothing in comparison to the 2000 years that this orthodox Christian doctrine has been taught since the time of Christ.

As HP pointed out, the doctrine of Original Sin didn't surface until St. Augustine (who was born in 354 AD). If it is a comparrison of time, I would say 4400 years of earth's history compared to 1700 years since Augustine introduced this doctrine balances the scales, once again, against "original sin".

Even if you are an octogenarian (which I doubt) that is nothing in the light of the time period from the time of the Apostles until now. The accusation of bigotry is false, and not warranted. Whatever possessed you to accuse me of that? Read what I say, and not what you think I say.

I interpreted your comment "...novel ideas put forth by a younger generation" as a literal statement.

BTW you can notify me when you reach the age of 2000, then I will start taking your theory into consideration as opposed to what the Bible actually teaches.

Since the Bible doesn't teach "original sin", your premise is refuted.

But even then, your novelty is nothing compared to Biblical teaching.
[/indent]Yes they were simple. Basic genetics, and the simple basic laws of thermodynamics taught in grade eight or so. Elementary science is not difficult to understand, and is in harmony with the Bible. Every Christian should have some knowledge of science to understand the account of Creation, the Flood, the Fall, and such subjects. Perhaps that is why you are confused.
There is no excuse to make a mockery of knowlege. I pity you.

Start a new thread on creation science.

So you are misconstruing my quote and deliberately being deceitful, aren't you?

No.

The word "bondage" refers to sin, not the devil. I don't believe your interpretation is correct.

You could say "bondage refers to Mickey Mouse", and I wouldn't believe you unless you could back up your statement with some evidence.

Romans 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
--Paul states quite clearly that we were the servants or slaves of sin; not necessarily of the devil. Compare Scripture with Scripture.

Now that is a novel idea. Revelation is prophecy; therefore cut it out of your Bible and throw it out. It is not inspired and doesn't apply to us. It has no truth relevant for us today. What wonderful ideas you have!

What a rediculous argument. Of course we shouldn't cut out any scripture, but it is incorrect doctrine to think that Christ has had his 2nd coming already, for example.

There is not one book in the Bible that is totally prophecy; not one.
We can learn from every book of the Bible. They are all there for our understanding.

Do you believe Jesus has already returned then?

Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
This is a timeless statement of truth. It is not speaking of who Christ will be; but who Christ is. It has nothing to do with prophecy; but with the nature of Christ. You cannot dismiss such a verse simply because it is written in the Book of Revelation. I would hope that you had better sense than that.

Yet you will still die on this earth if the Lord doesn't return before then.

And why should you fear?
Prov. 29:25 The fear of man brings a snare, but whoso puts his trust in the Lord shall be safe.

I was being facetious. It was answering according to your question. Or were you really interested in if I was actually afraid of spiders?

Man gives into fear because he has a sin nature. Man is given a new nature when he is saved. The new nature wars against the old nature (sin nature) as is described by Paul in Romans 7. Those who give into that sin nature will have fears. They will sin in various ways. Christians are not perfect; don't always follow the new nature that Christ has given them. An unsaved person sins naturally. One does not have to teach a child to sin. His nature compels him to sin. He lies, cheats, is selfish, because he has a sin nature.

That's all well and good, but it says nothing to where the sin nature comes from.

 

[webdog]

I think a better term for "sin nature" is the "law of sin and human nature"

 

[DHK]

You seem to have a short memory. http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1399019&postcount=215

I already explained - with substancial evidence - why your interpreation of this verse is incorrect.

No, you never gave substantial evidence. You gave your opinion and then tried to back it up with a skewed interpretation of so-called evidence. There was really nothing there at all.

1. I find it amusing that after 2000 years of believers teaching that man has a sin nature inherited by Adam throughout successive generations, that you come along, offer what you call "my opinion" try and teach it as fact, and as Biblical truth.
2. I find it amusing that the ideas you offer run contrary not only to the Baptists, but also against the Protestants, and Catholics for generations, even right back to the Apostles.
3. I find it amusing that in this case, it doesn't matter if one is a dispensationalist, or a Calvinist, both accept that man has a sin nature inherited from Adam, and have believed that doctrine for the last 2,000 years.
4. I find it amusing that when it comes to definition of words such as the expression used in the KJV: "in sin did my mother 'conceive' me," you resort to the most obscure definition to prove your point. Then you rationalize your position asserting that it is the primary definition when it is not. It is really ludicrous. 33 Definitions! And you pick the most obscure one.
5. I find it amusing that even when other translations go against what you are trying to affirm, you still affirm it to be so, in spite of the reliability of other translations.
6. I find it amusing that even when the context is very clear you go clearly against the context.
Example: David says: Against thee, and thee only have I sinned.
But your context would have David saying: Against thee, and thee only has my mother sinned.

This is the type of evidence you have given me. Shall I go on?

The original Hebrew being the best translation, and the most clear.

Oh, I agree. But you don't rightly divide the word of truth; not even in the original Hebrew. Like the cults; it is pick and choose; pick and choose; pick and choose whatever suits my ideas, my opinions, even if they don't fit Biblical teaching. 33 definitions and you pick the most obscure one!

Are you afraid to trust the interpretation of a more literal translation?

(Psa 51:5) Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me. (God's Word Translation)
--It makes it fairly clear doesn't it? Man has a sin nature, and David knew it. He admits it. He was born guilty. It had nothing to do with his mother sinning. To put the onus on his mother is ludicrous.

I said "YOU" were female, not me. I am a male.

Then you are mistaken.

As HP pointed out, the doctrine of Original Sin didn't surface until St. Augustine (who was born in 354 AD).

And that is why I prefer the term "sin nature." The Bible teaches that we all have a sin nature. That has been taught since the Apostles. It was taught by Paul throughout Romans 7, Romans 5:12,19; Genesis 3 in the Fall, Psalm 51:5; 58:3 and many other Scriptures.

If it is a comparrison of time, I would say 4400 years of earth's history compared to 1700 years since Augustine introduced this doctrine balances the scales, once again, against "original sin".

Augustine never introduced the doctrine of the depravity of man; the apostles did.

I interpreted your comment "...novel ideas put forth by a younger generation" as a literal statement.

In the light of 2,000 years it is quite literal.

Since the Bible doesn't teach "original sin", your premise is refuted.

I don't teach original sin either. So what premise is refuted. Original sin is a Catholic Doctrine. I do teach the depravity of man; that man has a sin nature; that that sin nature is inherited by through successive generations beginning with Adam because of the Fall.

You could say "bondage refers to Mickey Mouse", and I wouldn't believe you unless you could back up your statement with some evidence.

Romans 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
--Paul states quite clearly that we were the servants or slaves of sin; not necessarily of the devil. Compare Scripture with Scripture.

But I didn't say it refers to Mickey Mouse; you made that suggestion, and then you quoted the very Scripture I used to demonstrate to you that we are in bondage to sin, and not to death. Ironic isn't it? Better study your Bible better. Thanks for demonstrating my point.

What a rediculous argument. Of course we shouldn't cut out any scripture, but it is incorrect doctrine to think that Christ has had his 2nd coming already, for example.

We should rightly divide the word of truth. No Christ hasn't come. The verse teaches the character of Christ. It teaches that he has power over hell and death. If you don't believe that Christ is sovereign, you have a problem.

Do you believe Jesus has already returned then?

No, I believe as the Scripture in Revelation states that he has the power of hell and death; that he is an all-sovereign God. Do you have a problem with the omnipotence of Christ?

Yet you will still die on this earth if the Lord doesn't return before then.

I never said I would't. It appears that you have no answers for the arguments that I have set before you. You search in vain.

I was being facetious. It was answering according to your question. Or were you really interested in if I was actually afraid of spiders?

Why not just admit the truth.
1. You have no answers.
2. Man has a sin nature, and that fact can be demonstrated all throughout Scripture.
3. You have done nothing to disprove that fact.

That's all well and good, but it says nothing to where the sin nature comes from.

If those Scriptures don't then you are not studying them properly.
Study to show yourselves approved unto God...
You need to do that.

 

[Gup20]

No, you never gave substantial evidence. You gave your opinion and then tried to back it up with a skewed interpretation of so-called evidence. There was really nothing there at all.

So what you are saying is that you believe a particular way, and no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, you are sticking to your belief.

1. I find it amusing that after 2000 years of believers teaching that man has a sin nature inherited by Adam throughout successive generations, that you come along, offer what you call "my opinion" try and teach it as fact, and as Biblical truth.

Islam has been around about the same length of time as the doctrine of "original Sin". Do you agree with Islam also?

2. I find it amusing that the ideas you offer run contrary not only to the Baptists, but also against the Protestants, and Catholics for generations, even right back to the Apostles.

St. Agustine anyway. If the Bible is my source, rather than the teachings of men, I can see where my views may not line up with whatever is popular.

Mat 7:14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

3. I find it amusing that in this case, it doesn't matter if one is a dispensationalist, or a Calvinist, both accept that man has a sin nature inherited from Adam, and have believed that doctrine for the last 2,000 years.

Yet, if one would go straight to the Word and read it for themselves, letting the Holy Spirit be their guide rather than Calvin, they would come to the same understanding as I have. And many have.

What you are doing is appealing to the authority of popularity, rather than the authority of God. Well, for thousands of years, people thought the sun revolved around the earth, but it didn't make that right. Truth is truth, no matter how many people believe it.

4. I find it amusing that when it comes to definition of words such as the expression used in the KJV: "in sin did my mother 'conceive' me," you resort to the most obscure definition to prove your point. Then you rationalize your position asserting that it is the primary definition when it is not. It is really ludicrous. 33 Definitions! And you pick the most obscure one.

If you had gone to the scriptures for yourself, researched the word, and applied that to the verse, you would have come to the same conclusion. But you came to the verse with a preconcieved notion that you imposed upon the verse. As I showed you, nearly half of those 33 definitions supported my interpretation (15) and just 3 of the 33 supported your interpretation. In fact, it is more chance that the verse means that David came out of the womb dancing then came out a sinner. Zero of the proper meanings of the word supported your interpretation and 2/3 of the proper meanings supported my interpretation.

Furthermore, you misapply the grammer of the verse entirely. For you to apply "sin" to David, you would also have to apply "conceived" to David... and there is no chance that David conceived himself. David is not the subject of the verse. David's mother is the subject.

5. I find it amusing that even when other translations go against what you are trying to affirm, you still affirm it to be so, in spite of the reliability of other translations.

If the translations are so reliable, how come they are rarely, if ever, unanimous on how to translate?

6. I find it amusing that even when the context is very clear you go clearly against the context.
Example: David says: Against thee, and thee only have I sinned.
But your context would have David saying: Against thee, and thee only has my mother sinned.

I would let the verse stand on it's own within the context. If David's sin is against God, and God alone, let David's mother's sin be against God and God alone as well, and do not extend or attribute her sin to David.

This is the type of evidence you have given me. Shall I go on?

You could go on, but - as we've seen from above - you are proving me the more correct.

Oh, I agree.

Whoa! Earlier in this thread you said that looking up the original Hebrew was (and I quote) "a fruitless excercise". Now, you've changed your mind?

But you don't rightly divide the word of truth; not even in the original Hebrew. Like the cults; it is pick and choose; pick and choose; pick and choose whatever suits my ideas, my opinions, even if they don't fit Biblical teaching. 33 definitions and you pick the most obscure one!

Actually, by definition, the interpretation you have selected is the most "obscure" and least likely of all the possible interpretations.

Are you afraid to trust the interpretation of a more literal translation?

Personally, I prefer the KJV because it leaves more open to interpretation, whereas many of the more modern translations settle on a specific interpretation based on the biases of the sponsors of that translation.

Like our DNA, language information is loosing volume and gaining specificity over time.

(Psa 51:5) Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me. (God's Word Translation)
--It makes it fairly clear doesn't it? Man has a sin nature, and David knew it. He admits it. He was born guilty. It had nothing to do with his mother sinning. To put the onus on his mother is ludicrous.

To put the onus on his great, great, great, great..... grandfather Adam is just as ludicrous. He is responsible for his own sin, just as his mother was responsible for her own sin.

A proper (and more probable) rendering of the verse would be:

"I was born under the punishment of sin, and my mother was a sinner when she conceived".

It may surprise you, but the last word "me" isn't in the Hebrew at all. The part where it says "in sin did my mother conceive me"... the word "me" at the end doesn't appear in the original Hebrew. It was added by the english translators.

Then you are mistaken.
And that is why I prefer the term "sin nature." The Bible teaches that we all have a sin nature. That has been taught since the Apostles. It was taught by Paul throughout Romans 7, Romans 5:12,19; Genesis 3 in the Fall, Psalm 51:5; 58:3 and many other Scriptures.
Augustine never introduced the doctrine of the depravity of man; the apostles did.

I do like how webdog puts it. But having the "law of sin and death" operating in our members doesn't speak to how it got there.

In the light of 2,000 years it is quite literal.
I don't teach original sin either. So what premise is refuted. Original sin is a Catholic Doctrine. I do teach the depravity of man; that man has a sin nature; that that sin nature is inherited by through successive generations beginning with Adam because of the Fall.

What you teach is indistinguishable from "original sin" that the catholics teach. You believe we inherit our sin nature through our biology.

But I didn't say it refers to Mickey Mouse; you made that suggestion, and then you quoted the very Scripture I used to demonstrate to you that we are in bondage to sin, and not to death. Ironic isn't it? Better study your Bible better. Thanks for demonstrating my point.

Well when your points validate my arguments and discredit your own, I am all the more happy to use them.

We should rightly divide the word of truth. No Christ hasn't come. The verse teaches the character of Christ. It teaches that he has power over hell and death. If you don't believe that Christ is sovereign, you have a problem.

Ah..... it's all so clear to me now. You are a Calvinist.

Calvin was a man. He wrote 0 books of the Bible, and his teachings are not inspired, God-breathed.

No, I believe as the Scripture in Revelation states that he has the power of hell and death; that he is an all-sovereign God. Do you have a problem with the omnipotence of Christ?

Indeed God does have that power, but he won't excercise his authority until his return. Until then, the sinner lives in fear of death. The believer doesn't need to fear, but he takes this by faith.

I never said I would't. It appears that you have no answers for the arguments that I have set before you. You search in vain.
Why not just admit the truth.
1. You have no answers.
2. Man has a sin nature, and that fact can be demonstrated all throughout Scripture.
3. You have done nothing to disprove that fact.
If those Scriptures don't then you are not studying them properly.
Study to show yourselves approved unto God...
You need to do that.

1. I have given you an answer for every argument.
2. If we were arguing whether or not man has a sinful nature, this would be a relevant point. The fact of the matter is we are discussing how one obtains a sinful nature. I say it is by experiencing pain, and fearing death, you say one inherits it biologically through their mother's DNA. You have yet to provide a single shred of Biblical evidence for this, however.
3. I have disproven every argument you've made, but you are not defending your faith in scripture, you're defending your faith in Calvin. This means the only way I would win an argument with you on this would be to FORGET about scripture and argue over Calvinism - but I am unwilling to turn to that Humanism (Calvinism) instead of going directly to the Source - the Word of God itself.

I said "YOU" were female, not me. I am a male.

Then you are mistaken.

Are you saying I am not a male, or that you are one? You just have so much conjecture and unreasonable emotional outburstings in your posts, I assumed you were female.

 

[DHK]

So what you are saying is that you believe a particular way, and no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, you are sticking to your belief.

Your "evidence" is skewed. Anyone can play the game of semantics, or the twisting of Scripture.

Islam has been around about the same length of time as the doctrine of "original Sin". Do you agree with Islam also?

No, Islam started near the beginning of the 7th century, and compared to Christianity is relatively new. Mohamed traveled by camel, with his uncle, a merchant selling his wares in various places. He made it a habit to go to the town centers and listen to Jews and/or Christians tell the stories of the Bible. What he heard he remembered. He had an excellent memory. He then plagiarized the Bible (or parts of it), and put much of it into the Koran, albeit with some mistakes. The Muslim believes that our Bible is so changed and corrupted that the true Bible is found only in the Koran. They believe, as most religions do, that man is basically good, and Allah will give the pronouncement at the last day of whether they can enter paradise or not. The only sure way to know is to be a martyr, dying in some sort of Jihad or cause for Allah. Their view of paradise is vastly different from the Biblical view of heaven. You are speaking of a Satan inspired religion. I can't believe that you would even attempt to draw a comparison.

St. Agustine anyway. If the Bible is my source, rather than the teachings of men, I can see where my views may not line up with whatever is popular.

St. Augustine probably was not a saint IMO. Just because the Catholic Church calls him that doesn't make him one. I have already told you that I don't believe in Original Sin. But I suppose you are without understanding. I believe that man has a sin nature inherited from Adam from generation to generation. Original Sin is a Catholic term.
However your position is novel, and goes against Biblical orthodox Christianity of the last 2,000 years. And you have the audacity to say that you are right and all the other Christians in the world for the last 2,000 years are wrong. The only one that I can think of that had a view similar to your is Charles Finney. He too was a heretic in his theology. He may have been a good evangelist in some ways, but his theology was heretical.

The Bible is not your source as you claim; it is your imagination; your opinion. You go against Biblical scholarship which have time and again have disproved you. You should do some more study on this subject.

Yet, if one would go straight to the Word and read it for themselves, letting the Holy Spirit be their guide rather than Calvin, they would come to the same understanding as I have. And many have.

I have done that. I am not a Calvinist, nor an Arminian, and yet I believe that man has inherited a sin nature from Adam. I have four children. I had to teach each one of them to tell the truth. But I never had to teach them how to tell a lie. There was a reason for that. It is explained in Scripture:

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
--As soon as each of them were born they were separated from God, and had a sin nature causing them to lie, to deceive, to be selfish, immediately. All children are like that. They are born with a sin nature that they inherit from Adam.
Apparently you have not gone to the Bible yet.

What you are doing is appealing to the authority of popularity, rather than the authority of God. Well, for thousands of years, people thought the sun revolved around the earth, but it didn't make that right. Truth is truth, no matter how many people believe it.

Popularity? So you stand alone in the face of 2,000 years of history and say that you alone have the truth, and we are to believe you have the truth because you say you have the truth. That is gnosticism, not truth. You claim to have this inward knowledge that no one else who studies the Bible or has studied the Bible for the last 2,000 years has. That is gnosticism. It is a well known heresy.

If you had gone to the scriptures for yourself, researched the word, and applied that to the verse, you would have come to the same conclusion. But you came to the verse with a preconcieved notion that you imposed upon the verse. As I showed you, nearly half of those 33 definitions supported my interpretation (15) and just 3 of the 33 supported your interpretation. In fact, it is more chance that the verse means that David came out of the womb dancing then came out a sinner. Zero of the proper meanings of the word supported your interpretation and 2/3 of the proper meanings supported my interpretation.

You make me laugh. I witnessed the birth of my children. They don't come out of the womb dancing. They come out of the womb somewhat blue and bloody and in need of air. They are helpless. They need a small slap to get them breathing. They do not come out of the womb dancing. Your posts betray your ignorance.
Because you are confused with the King James English you are hung up on your one interpretation. Why do you refuse to see the clear meaning in other translations?

(Psa 51:5) Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me.
--There is nothing about David's mother being sinful. This all about David's sin; David's guilt; David being a sinner from birth; David's sin nature from the day he was born. The meaning is clear; but you are blind to it.

Furthermore, you misapply the grammer of the verse entirely. For you to apply "sin" to David, you would also have to apply "conceived" to David... and there is no chance that David conceived himself. David is not the subject of the verse. David's mother is the subject.

I don't misapply anything. If you check other translations you would see how wrong you are. But then you claim you are the only one that is right; the Hebrew is wrong; other scholars are wrong; other translations are wrong; only you are right. You have this gnosticism that claims that you alone are right.

If the translations are so reliable, how come they are rarely, if ever, unanimous on how to translate?

Why don't you take the time to carefully study them. They are not that different in their renderings. You just think they are.

I would let the verse stand on it's own within the context. If David's sin is against God, and God alone, let David's mother's sin be against God and God alone as well, and do not extend or attribute her sin to David.

The context is about David's sin; David's repentance of his own sin. The verses before and after verse five speak of David's sin, and yet you want to make verse five speak about David's mother's sin. You are way off base.

 

[DHK]

You could go on, but - as we've seen from above - you are proving me the more correct.

Yes, I could go on giving more and more evidence. You keep on dismissing it putting yourself above 2,000 years of Biblical scholarship and claiming that you alone are the only one that is right. I will believe the Bible, not you.

Actually, by definition, the interpretation you have selected is the most "obscure" and least likely of all the possible interpretations.

The KJV translators did not think so; neither did the NET Bible translators, neither the ISV, GW, ASV, Darby, etc. In fact I didn't find a single translation that agreed with your obscure translation of the word. But then you claim that you alone have the truth. Everyone else is wrong.

Personally, I prefer the KJV because it leaves more open to interpretation, whereas many of the more modern translations settle on a specific interpretation based on the biases of the sponsors of that translation.

More accurately put, it leaves it open to your interpretation.
Other translations do give a more literal translation, where it is impossible for you to fit your obscure meaning into the translation. Therefore you just dismiss them. You are your own authority.

To put the onus on his great, great, great, great..... grandfather Adam is just as ludicrous. He is responsible for his own sin, just as his mother was responsible for her own sin.

No, he was responsible for the fall of the entire human race. That is why it is called the "Adamic race." There is only one race: "the Adamic race." There is a reason for that. As the McGuffey readers put it: "In Adam's fall; we sinned all."

A proper (and more probable) rendering of the verse would be:

"I was born under the punishment of sin, and my mother was a sinner when she conceived".

It may surprise you, but the last word "me" isn't in the Hebrew at all. The part where it says "in sin did my mother conceive me"... the word "me" at the end doesn't appear in the original Hebrew. It was added by the english translators.

Again you set yourself up as your own authority.

(Psa 51:5) Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me. (GW)

NET Bible® - Psalms 5151:5 Look, I was guilty of sin from birth,

a sinner the moment my mother conceived me. (NET)
What the Net Bible says about their own translation:

​

NET Bible® - Psalms 51
14tn Heb “Look, in wrongdoing I was brought forth, and in sin my mother conceived me.” The prefixed verbal form in the second line is probably a preterite (without vav [ו] consecutive), stating a simple historical fact. The psalmist is not suggesting that he was conceived through an inappropriate sexual relationship (although the verse has sometimes been understood to mean that, or even that all sexual relationships are sinful). The psalmist’s point is that he has been a sinner from the very moment his personal existence began. By going back beyond the time of birth to the moment of conception, the psalmist makes his point more emphatically in the second line than in the first.


I trust their explanation (from the Hebrew), more than yours.

What you teach is indistinguishable from "original sin" that the catholics teach. You believe we inherit our sin nature through our biology.

Study more about Catholic theology.

Well when your points validate my arguments and discredit your own, I am all the more happy to use them.

You are very confused. I gave you Scripture, and you used the very Scripture I gave you to prove my point, and didn't even realize it.

Ah..... it's all so clear to me now. You are a Calvinist.

Wrong again.
Are you a Jehovah's Witness? I just thought I would ask because you are so adept at giving me names without asking. At least I asked. No, I forgot; you are a gnostic, aren't you?

Calvin was a man. He wrote 0 books of the Bible, and his teachings are not inspired, God-breathed.

Couldn't agree more.

Indeed God does have that power, but he won't excercise his authority until his return. Until then, the sinner lives in fear of death. The believer doesn't need to fear, but he takes this by faith.

Maybe you are that J.W. Are you saying that you don't believe that Jesus Christ is not God, and therefore is not sovereign, and does not exercise sovereign control over this world? Really?

1. I have given you an answer for every argument.

No you haven't.

2. If we were arguing whether or not man has a sinful nature, this would be a relevant point. The fact of the matter is we are discussing how one obtains a sinful nature. I say it is by experiencing pain, and fearing death, you say one inherits it biologically through their mother's DNA. You have yet to provide a single shred of Biblical evidence for this, however.

Your right, there is not a shred of evidence for it, because that is not what I claimed. You don't read well do you? The Adamic race is here because of Adam. Through Adam comes the sin nature. Adam is a man, not a female. The sin nature is passed down through man, not a female. I gave you plenty of Scripture, but you are your own authority and dismiss whatever Scripture I give.

3. I have disproven every argument you've made, but you are not defending your faith in scripture, you're defending your faith in Calvin.

That of course is not true; in fact a false accusation. I am not a Calvinist, so indeed it cannot be true. Why the false accusations? Or does it prove that you just don't read my posts? You have not "disproven" anything. And yes, I have given you plenty of Scripture, plenty of Scripture that you have ignored.

This means the only way I would win an argument with you on this would be to FORGET about scripture and argue over Calvinism - but I am unwilling to turn to that Humanism (Calvinism) instead of going directly to the Source - the Word of God itself.
More false accusation. Why are you hung up on Calvin. I am not a Calvinist; never have been. I give you Scripture and you ignore it in favour of your own gnostic arguments.

Are you saying I am not a male, or that you are one? You just have so much conjecture and unreasonable emotional outburstings in your posts, I assumed you were female.

I have been called many things, but never a woman! :laugh:

And you can stop playing Freud, and psychoanalyzing me. I will take that as a personal insult or personal attack, which are not allowed here.

I am an IFB pastor/missionary and have been for over 20 years.
You would know at least part of that information if you looked at my profile. If you had read any of my other posts you would probably know quite a bit more. But I have only been posting here since the year 2,000, and my posts aren't that many, just slightly over 17,000, so you might have a hard time finding some of them.
I don't know of any IFB churches that have a woman as a pastor.

 

[sag38]

I've seen DHK's picture. I don't think he could be mistaken for a woman. No offense DHK but you would be one ugly woman.

 

[Gup20]

St. Augustine probably was not a saint IMO. Just because the Catholic Church calls him that doesn't make him one.

You mean St. isn't his first name?

I have done that. I am not a Calvinist, nor an Arminian, and yet I believe that man has inherited a sin nature from Adam. I have four children. I had to teach each one of them to tell the truth. But I never had to teach them how to tell a lie. There was a reason for that. It is explained in Scripture:

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Apparently you have not gone to the Bible yet.

Psa 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou [art] my God from my mother's belly.
​

Well here we have two verses which seeminly say the opposite thing. But consider:

Jhn 9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
​

Jesus' answer was neither - but the purpose of the blindness was not any specific person's sin, but rather God used the curse in him for His own Glory.

Popularity? So you stand alone in the face of 2,000 years of history and say that you alone have the truth, and we are to believe you have the truth because you say you have the truth.

Properly translated, Psalm 51:5 says he was brought forth under the punishment for sin, which is death. Romans 5:12 says death is passed because of sin, not sin passed because of death. Therefore your assumption that what I am proposing is novel is refuted. It is clear both David and Paul taught exactly that.

That is gnosticism, not truth. You claim to have this inward knowledge that no one else who studies the Bible or has studied the Bible for the last 2,000 years has. That is gnosticism. It is a well known heresy.

Jhn 14:17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

2Cr 13:3 Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, which to you-ward is not weak, but is mighty in you.
2Cr 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

​

I don't have any greater ability to interpret the scriptures than any other believer already has within them, if they will only listen to the spirit of God when reading the Bible.

You make me laugh. Because you are confused with the King James English you are hung up on your one interpretation. Why do you refuse to see the clear meaning in other translations?

And why won't you go to the original Hebrew translation - which is the only one that was inspired by God - to study the meaning? The meaning you are trying to impose on the verse is simply not possible once one looks at the Hebrew.

(Psa 51:5) Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me.
--There is nothing about David's mother being sinful. This all about David's sin; David's guilt; David being a sinner from birth; David's sin nature from the day he was born. The meaning is clear; but you are blind to it.

I hate doing this, but lets review the verse in as many translations as I can find:

AMP - Behold, I was brought forth in [a state of] iniquity; my mother was sinful who conceived me [and I too am sinful].
YLT - Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me.
KJV - Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
NKJV - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
NLT - For I was born a sinner-- yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.
NIV - Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
ESV - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
RVR - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
NASB - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
RSV - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
ASV - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.
DBY - Behold, in iniquity was I brought forth, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
WEB - Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
HNV - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity. In sin my mother conceived me.
​

So it appears that the NLV and NIV is the ONLY translation that changes the meaning of the verse to attribute the sin in part B to David. All of the other translations correctly attribute the sin in part B to David's mother. This makes sense, considering both "bringing forth" and "conceiving" were David's mother as well. But once again, the vast preponderance of the evidence weighs heavily against your interpretation. Give it up... it is a point you cannot win.

I don't misapply anything. If you check other translations you would see how wrong you are. But then you claim you are the only one that is right; the Hebrew is wrong; other scholars are wrong; other translations are wrong; only you are right. You have this gnosticism that claims that you alone are right.

The Hebrew is right and agrees with me, as do 12 of the 14 translations I looked up. Only 2 of the 14 translations support your misinterpretation.

Why don't you take the time to carefully study them. They are not that different in their renderings. You just think they are.

If only you would take the time to study these things for yourself, I wouldn't have to embarrass you like this. You were overwhelmingly wrong on the Hebrew with 91% of the meanings disagreeing with you, and laughably wrong on the translations, with over 85% of the translations disagreeing with you.

The context is about David's sin; David's repentance of his own sin. The verses before and after verse five speak of David's sin, and yet you want to make verse five speak about David's mother's sin. You are way off base.

The context IS indeed "one's own sin", and taking ownership of one's own sin, and not blaming anyone else for one's own sin, but one's self. How then has this meaning escaped you so that you would ignore the clear context and assign Adam's sin to David?

You are very confused. I gave you Scripture, and you used the very Scripture I gave you to prove my point, and didn't even realize it.

Actually, if you take another look, it was a simple typographical error. I forgot to put what you said in a quote block, and so it appeared that what you had said was part of what I was saying. This was unintended, and was a simple mistake. I apologize for my typographical mistake.

Calvin was a man. He wrote 0 books of the Bible, and his teachings are not inspired, God-breathed.

Couldn't agree more.

Fantastic! I knew we would find unity eventually.

Maybe you are that J.W. Are you saying that you don't believe that Jesus Christ is not God, and therefore is not sovereign, and does not exercise sovereign control over this world? Really?

Are you saying that God's choice not to return yet proves God is not sovereign? That - along with the idea that I espouse any JW doctrines - is a rediculous notion.

You don't read well do you? The Adamic race is here because of Adam. Through Adam comes the sin nature. Adam is a man, not a female. The sin nature is passed down through man, not a female.

No, I don't read good. Sorry for the mischaracterization of your argument. I went back and re-read it, and I did mis-read it the first time.

Actually, I read ok... on standardized testing throughout school (I was home school, so I was required to take them every year) my reading comprehension was in the 98th or 99th percentile every year. But I did misread that paragraph, so ... my apologies.

I have been called many things, but never a woman! And you can stop playing Freud, and psychoanalyzing me.

My wife and I discussed your posts and both agreed you "seemed" more like a woman because of you emotional outbursts and illogical stubbornness to listen to reason. Now I see you are an IFB, so things are starting to make more sense.

Speaking of which, what is a good, upstanding IFB like you doing wielding a post-modern - dare I say "novel" - Bible translation like NIV? Arn't good IFB's supposed to use the KJV only and eschew the modern translations?