The Nature of Man

[DHK]

You mean St. isn't his first name?

No, it isn't.

Augustine of Hippo (354–430), bishop and Doctor of the Church. Born at Tagaste (Algeria) of a pagan father and a Christian mother, Monica, Augustine was brought up as a Christian but not baptized. He studied rhetoric at Carthage to become a lawyer, but gave this up and devoted himself instead to teaching and study. His study of philosophy (mainly Plato) and later of Manichaeism for nine years resulted in his virtual renunciation of the Christian faith; he also lived for fifteen years with a mistress, by whom he had a son, Adeodatus. He moved to Rome to teach rhetoric, then to Milan. By now he was dissatisfied with Manichaeism and came under the influence of Ambrose. After a long interior conflict, vividly described in his Confessions, Augustine was converted and baptized in 386–7. He returned to Africa in 388, established with some friends a quasi-monastic life (where study and conversation flourished as in his earlier ‘school’ at Cassiciacum), and was ordained priest in 391. Four years later he became coadjutor-bishop of Hippo; from 396 until his death he ruled the diocese alone.

http://www.answers.com/topic/st-augustine-of-hippo

He was converted to Catholicism. Whether or not he was ever converted to Christ is unknown, thus his status as a "saint" is questionable, to say the least.

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.

Every person on earth has a purpose. Why do you take Scripture out of context. Paul said the same thing about Pharaoh:

Romans 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
--Like the blind man in John 9, God raised up Pharaoh that He might show his power through him. What has that got to do with the sin nature of man? Nothing. Neither does the Scripture that you have presented.

Properly translated, Psalm 51:5 says he was brought forth under the punishment for sin, which is death.

And I should take your word for this, why?

"Behold I was shapen in iniquity; in sin did my mother conceive me."
It does not say: "he was brought forth under the punishment for sin which is death."
However, he is referring to his sin nature, and because of the context (his own repentance) we know it is an acknowledgment of his own sin, and sin nature--the root of his sin. Virtually every commentary I have read agrees with my position. I have never come across anyone who has put across anything like yours, except possibly for Charles Finney. But he was a heretic.

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.

Death does not come without sin. That is one of the strongest arguments against the Gap Theory. Because of their sin came death. Thus death was passed on all men. The sin is inferred. "The wages of sin is death." Paul also wrote that (Rom.6:23).
"And sin when it is finished bringeth forth death." (James 1:15)
In the garden death was a direct result of sin. If there was no sin; there would have been no death. It is the sin nature that is passed on, and consequently death. Death is simply the result of the sin. Yes, David and Paul agree. David didn't say anything about death. He stated sin specifically.

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.

Here you claim your gnostic abilities.
In your last statement you give a caveat that you don't have any greater ability to interpret the Scriptures than others, but you immediately nullify that statement in the second half of your statement when you say, if they will only listen to the spirit of God...
The inference here is that I and everyone else on the board (plus all scholars for 2,000 years previous to this time), have not the Spirit of God. You claim to be the only one saved. In the evidence that you present (2Cor.13:5) you infer that we have not examined ourselves and that we are all unsaved reprobates. This is a serious offense on your part.
If I am not mistaken, a person was recently banned for such serious accusations. Consider carefully what you are saying:
Are you the only saved person? Are you the only one with the ability to understand the Bible? This is the claim that you are making with these statements. They are not acceptable.
Are you better than great preachers such as Charles Spurgeon, all of the Reformers, who also believed that all mankind inherited a sin nature? Do you not think that there is the slightest possibility of you being wrong? Or do you just keep on clinging to this defense that the Spirit teaches you, but not others.

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.

I, as well as many others, have gone to the Hebrew. We all come to a different conclusion. What makes your conclusion right and ours wrong? In fact I quoted you the notes from the NET Bible which were the result of a serious study of the Hebrew Scriptures. Did you consider them?

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

That is only your understanding of the verse. The translations are literal. But your comprehension of them is wrong. It has nothing to do with David's mother's sin, nor does mention any such sin. The context of the passage excludes any such meaning.

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.

Rather it is something you cannot win. You fail to look at the findings of other scholars and rely only on your own opinion.
"There is wisdom in a multitude of counsellors."
"Lean not on thine own understanding."

 

[DHK]

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.

Yes, the Hebrew is right. Your understanding of the Hebrew is wrong. Read John Gill or Albert Barnes.

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.

I don't disagree with the translation, as they are largely the same with the KJV. I simply gave you a couple of translations that put the verse in a way that make it easier for you to understand. But you reject even that. It is your misunderstanding of what David is saying in Greek or English that is found wanting. Your comprehension is lacking. David refers to his sin and only his sin. It is a psalm of repentance; repentance of his own sin; not of the sin of his mother. Since when would a person confess his mother's sin when repenting of his own sin. That doesn't even make sense.

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?

In this verse David points right down to the very root of his sin; where it originates; right in the inward parts; when he was conceived. That is the reference, the point that he is making. There is no reference to any sin of his mother, nor should there be.

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.

I simply said that Christ is God. That being true Christ is sovereign. There is nothing in this world that can happen without Christ allowing it. He is sovereign. Do you not agree with that?

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.

This is a debate forum. Leave your psychoanalyses at home.

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?

I use the KJV almost exclusively. However I often refer to other versions for comparison. BTW, I don't think that I have once used the NIV. Again, your reading skills are lacking.

 

[Gup20]

Like the blind man in John 9, God raised up Pharaoh that He might show his power through him. What has that got to do with the sin nature of man? Nothing. Neither does the Scripture that you have presented.

I noticed you ignored the scripture in Psalm 22. Snce that directly refutes your mis-interpretaton, I think you should give it some time and consideration.

And I should take your word for this, why?

"Behold I was shapen in iniquity; in sin did my mother conceive me."
It does not say: "he was brought forth under the punishment for sin which is death."

It seems like if you were approaching this without trying desparately to make sure it said what you want it to say, you would be more openminded about this.

Lets look at Young's Literal Translation:

Psalms 51:5 Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me.

​

The Hebrew word for Iniquity in part A of the verse is NOT the normal word for sin. The word used is avon. The first time avon is used in scripture is a good example of what this word means:

Gen 4:13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment(avon) [is] greater than I can bear.
​

In part B of the verse, the word used for sin is chet. This is the normal word for sin. The Bible doesn't use chet for part A, it uses avon.

it is an acknowledgment of his own sin, and sin nature--the root of his sin. Virtually every commentary I have read agrees with my position. I have never come across anyone who has put across anything like yours, except possibly for Charles Finney. But he was a heretic.

Perhaps you rely too heavily on other men's interpretations. What did the Holy Spirit tell you about the verse when you asked him? Did you even ask?

Death does not come without sin.

This is true, but the curse is in the earth, regardless of the sin each of us do to perpetuate sin in the earth. The curse remains until God removes it... the curse is death. The curse came because of Adam's sin, and has been here ever since.

That is one of the strongest arguments against the Gap Theory. Because of their sin came death.

I agree 100%. Before Adam, there was no death, and therefore there couldn't be millions of years of fossils - since there was no death.

Thus death was passed on all men. The sin is inferred.

Are you saying that because death is passed, sin is also passed, and that sin being passed is assumed because the Bible says death is passed?

"The wages of sin is death." Paul also wrote that (Rom.6:23).
"And sin when it is finished bringeth forth death." (James 1:15)
In the garden death was a direct result of sin. If there was no sin; there would have been no death. It is the sin nature that is passed on, and consequently death.

Note that it says "all have sinned", and not "all are sinners" (credit webdog for pointing that out). If you say that death can only come by sin, you have made Christ into a sinner. He didn't sin, yet he experienced pain, and death. Neither of these were part of God's original design. If Jesus experienced them - according to you, he was sinner.

Death is simply the result of the sin.

Jesus' suffering prior to his death, and indeed his deat prove that assumtion wrong.

Yes, David and Paul agree.

Well according to your interpretatio of Psalms 51:5, David doesn't even agree with himself (Psalm22), so how can he agree with Paul?

Here you claim your gnostic abilities.
In your last statement you give a caveat that you don't have any greater ability to interpret the Scriptures than others, but you immediately nullify that statement in the second half of your statement when you say, if they will only listen to the spirit of God...
The inference here is that I and everyone else on the board (plus all scholars for 2,000 years previous to this time), have not the Spirit of God.

I think your biggest mistake is believing that everyone else on the board and all scholars for2000 years agree with your interpretation. So I would ask you again - when you prayed to God and asked him to reveal the meaning of this to you, what was His answer to you? I seriously want to know - because if I have missed it, and what I've heard from God on this verse wasn't from God, then you should tell me what God has told you about it.

You claim to be the only one saved. In the evidence that you present (2Cor.13:5) you infer that we have not examined ourselves and that we are all unsaved reprobates.

Only because you misinterpret that scripture as well. In the verse Paul says "you have the holy spirit living within you and can hear from GOD just as easily as I can. Check with the Holy Spirit to see if what I am saying is true. The only way this won't work is if you don't have the holy spirit within you, but I trust that isn't true".

Similarly, I would say you have just as much access to God as I do and the spirit within you will bear witness to what I have said if what I have said is true - so please don't hesitate to ask Him.

This is a serious offense on your part.
If I am not mistaken, a person was recently banned for such serious accusations.

Get down off your high horse of pride, my friend. This is foolishness. There is no offense is suggesting you have the Holy Spirit within you to guide you in knowng the truth.

Consider carefully what you are saying:
Are you the only saved person? Are you the only one with the ability to understand the Bible? This is the claim that you are making with these statements. They are not acceptable.

You don't read well, do you? In fact, what I am saying is that you are also saved, and you can go to God and ask him if what I'm saying is true. Have you done this? If not, why not? Why have you come here and argued this verse without asking God about it?

Are you better than great preachers such as Charles Spurgeon, all of the Reformers, who also believed that all mankind inherited a sin nature? Do you not think that there is the slightest possibility of you being wrong? Or do you just keep on clinging to this defense that the Spirit teaches you, but not others.

Are Spurgeon or any others better than me? Do they have fuller access to Jesus and the Father than you or I do? Are we not just as capable of hearing from God as they were? Why have you set up idols of men? Is God a respecter of persons?

Doesn't the Bible say that the Last shall be First, and the greatest will be the least? Why do you not apply this to famous (or infamous) preachers?

I, as well as many others, have gone to the Hebrew. We all come to a different conclusion. What makes your conclusion right and ours wrong? In fact I quoted you the notes from the NET Bible which were the result of a serious study of the Hebrew Scriptures. Did you consider them?

I guess I put a much lesser opinion on the word of men than you do.

That is only your understanding of the verse.

Apparently not, as 85% of all Bible translators have translated it the same as the King James version.

The translations are literal. But your comprehension of them is wrong. It has nothing to do with David's mother's sin, nor does mention any such sin. The context of the passage excludes any such meaning.
Rather it is something you cannot win. You fail to look at the findings of other scholars and rely only on your own opinion.
"There is wisdom in a multitude of counsellors."
"Lean not on thine own understanding."

So it is your assertion that David brought forth himself, and conceived himself, and the sin there is David's sin. Well good luck with that.

 

[Gup20]

Read John Gill or Albert Barnes.

Yet another appeal to man, rather than backing up you words with scripture. Instead of dealing with Psalm 22 and Romans 5, you try to appeal to human authority to trump the clearly intended meaning of scripture.

I don't disagree with the translation, as they are largely the same with the KJV. I simply gave you a couple of translations that put the verse in a way that make it easier for you to understand. But you reject even that.

The two you gave, the NIV and NLT are the ONLY two that say the verse in the way that you have accecpted. As I showed you, out of the 14 I looked up, these two were the only ones saying what you want the verse to mean. The vast majority - 85% - overwhelmingly disagree with that interpretation.

There is nothing in this world that can happen without Christ allowing it. He is sovereign. Do you not agree with that?

No, I agree with that statement. (and blast you for asking a negative. It makes it confusig. You should have said "do you agree with that") Do you agree that Christ has allowd death to remain in the earth ... even now?

Leave your psychoanalyses at home.

In any court case, establishing the reliability of the witnesses is essential to trusting their testimony. If you can be shown to be a raving lunatic, then you're arguments loose their credibility.

When you say that the Hebrew agrees with you, and I demonstrate than 3 of 33 meanings agree with you, while 15 of the 33 possible meanings agree with me.... when I show you that 0 of the 3 primary meanings agree with you, and 2 of the 3 primary meanings agree with me... And when you say that 2000 years of scholarship and all Biblical translations agree with the NIV and your translation ... and then I show you that 12 of 14 most common translations agree with my interpretation and disagree with your interpretation....

... well lets just say in the face of such overwhelming Biblical evidence, I have to assume that something else - be it your emotional state, your ability to use reason and logic, or even perhaps your ability to understand reality might neccessarily need to be examined. Now that I understand that you are an IFB, you stubborn unwillingness to listen to anyone but yourself makes sense, so I don't have to persue psychoanalyses. You IFB's founded a religion on stubborness, what more does one need to know?

Come on - DHK - lighten up. I'm just giving you a hard time here... I have the great respect for IFB. They are stubborn and misguided (unguided is more like it), but they were founded on exactly the principles that I am trying to pound into your head now -that they shouldn't rely on men or men's thinking, but on God's word and holding true to God's word. Somewhere along the way IFB's lost that and it became about do's and don'ts rather than standing firm on who they were in Christ.

 

[DHK]

In any court case, establishing the reliability of the witnesses is essential to trusting their testimony. If you can be shown to be a raving lunatic, then you're arguments loose their credibility.

This is an unnecessary personal attack. If you cannot enter into debate without resorting to such ad hominen's, then it would be better for you not to post at all. The rules are posted at the bottom of each page. I suggest you review them.

 

[webdog]

This is an unnecessary personal attack. If you cannot enter into debate without resorting to such ad hominen's, then it would be better for you not to post at all. The rules are posted at the bottom of each page. I suggest you review them.

I don't believe his use of "your" was singular, hence not a personal attack. Please re-read it.

 

[DHK]

I don't believe his use of "your" was singular, hence not a personal attack. Please re-read it.

I have. You haven't been following the discussion.
Here is part of it:

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.

This is a debate forum. Leave your psychoanalyses at home.

These personal attacks are not necessary. The post that you answered was the second or third warning.

 

[Gup20]

This is an unnecessary personal attack. If you cannot enter into debate without resorting to such ad hominen's, then it would be better for you not to post at all. The rules are posted at the bottom of each page. I suggest you review them.

You don't read well do you? I was speaking to the value of the credibility of a witness, I wasn't saying anything about you in particular.

Let me put to rest this nonsense by stating that it is not, and has not been my intention to raise any personal attacks, but simply seek to uderstand you and your arguments more thoroughly. If you were offended by any of my comments, I apologize. Please become aware that nothing I have said is meant as a personal attack towards you.

Clearly, you have been soundly refuted and so you have chosen to find offense, rather than deal with the issues here.

 

[DHK]

I noticed you ignored the scripture in Psalm 22. Snce that directly refutes your mis-interpretaton, I think you should give it some time and consideration.

Psalms 22:9-11 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.
11 Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.
--The context is the everlasting presence of God. From birth to death God is there. That is what David is expressing. God was there even when he was born. God is everywhere. This has nothing to do with the sin nature of man; does not negate the doctrine in any way. Just because man has a sin nature does not negate the fact of the presence of God. What is your point?

It seems like if you were approaching this without trying desparately to make sure it said what you want it to say, you would be more openminded about this.

Lets look at Young's Literal Translation:

Psalms 51:5 Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me.
​

The Hebrew word for Iniquity in part A of the verse is NOT the normal word for sin. The word used is avon. The first time avon is used in scripture is a good example of what this word means:

Gen 4:13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment(avon) [is] greater than I can bear.
​

In part B of the verse, the word used for sin is chet. This is the normal word for sin. The Bible doesn't use chet for part A, it uses avon.

Perhaps you rely too heavily on other men's interpretations. What did the Holy Spirit tell you about the verse when you asked him? Did you even ask?

Yes, perhaps many times more than you. The verse has a natural interpretation which you seem to ignore, and which you are afraid to check with the scholarship of others that are far more educated than you.

This is true, but the curse is in the earth, regardless of the sin each of us do to perpetuate sin in the earth. The curse remains until God removes it... the curse is death. The curse came because of Adam's sin, and has been here ever since.

Have you not read the entirety of the Fall in Genesis chapter 3?
The curse was upon man.
The curse was upon the woman.
The curse was upon the earth.
The curse was upon the serpent (satan).

There was not just one aspect to the curse. Man himself was cursed. The curse came because of Adam's sin. That sin nature was passed along to all men, for that all have sinned.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Are you saying that because death is passed, sin is also passed, and that sin being passed is assumed because the Bible says death is passed?

Death is the result of sin. It is the sin nature that is passed, and death is the natural result of sin. Even science bears this out. What does the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics teach?

Note that it says "all have sinned", and not "all are sinners" (credit webdog for pointing that out). If you say that death can only come by sin, you have made Christ into a sinner. He didn't sin, yet he experienced pain, and death. Neither of these were part of God's original design. If Jesus experienced them - according to you, he was sinner.

Christ escaped becoming a sinner by virtue of the virgin birth. The sin nature is passed down through man, (Adam). Thus the necessity of the virgin birth. Christ was sinless because he was born of a virgin

Jesus' suffering prior to his death, and indeed his deat prove that assumtion wrong.

The Bible states that death is a result of sin. So how would it prove it wrong. Did not Christ die. He died for our sins. He atoned for our sins. Without his death our sins could not be forgiven. The wages of sin is death. That verifies what I said. But the sinless Christ took our place. The just died for the unjust, is what the Bible says. His suffering proved that he was a man. But he was a sinless man.

Well according to your interpretatio of Psalms 51:5, David doesn't even agree with himself (Psalm22), so how can he agree with Paul?

You are confused. Psalm 51, David speaks of his own sinfulness.
Psalm 22, David speaks of the presence of God. How are they related?

I think your biggest mistake is believing that everyone else on the board and all scholars for2000 years agree with your interpretation. So I would ask you again - when you prayed to God and asked him to reveal the meaning of this to you, what was His answer to you? I seriously want to know - because if I have missed it, and what I've heard from God on this verse wasn't from God, then you should tell me what God has told you about it.

Let's put it this way.
I was saved, went to Bible College, graduated, was ordained into the ministry, and began to pastor before you were even born.
I have preached many sermons on the depravity of man, man's exceeding sinfulness, and man's sin nature (and in more than one language and in more than one nation). Every time I prepare a message, and preach a message I pray. There is not a message that goes by where I haven't prayed.
So in answer to your question, "Have you prayed about it?" Yes, many times, in fact probably many more times than you have. I doubt very much that I am wrong on this matter.

Only because you misinterpret that scripture as well. In the verse Paul says "you have the holy spirit living within you and can hear from GOD just as easily as I can. Check with the Holy Spirit to see if what I am saying is true. The only way this won't work is if you don't have the holy spirit within you, but I trust that isn't true".

I don't believe that I am the one misinterpreting the Scripture.
Paul writes "you have the Holy Spirit living within you..." to every Christian, not just you. You seem to be claiming the truth of that verse solely to yourself and implying that I and everyone else here do not have the Holy Spirit. That is an obnoxious inference.

Similarly, I would say you have just as much access to God as I do and the spirit within you will bear witness to what I have said if what I have said is true - so please don't hesitate to ask Him.

What makes you think that I or others haven't sought the Lord?
You have much study to do. You continue to take Scripture out of context to try and prove your point. Recently you tried to do that with:
Psalm 22:10 (the presence of God); Rom.8:16 (The Spirit bears witness that we are His children, 2Cor.13:5 (a verse directed at false prophets naming them reprobates). All of these you have taken out of context.

Get down off your high horse of pride, my friend. This is foolishness. There is no offense is suggesting you have the Holy Spirit within you to guide you in knowng the truth.

I give you a serious warning (and in gravity and humility) and you call it pride. I will give it again. A person was banned for having an attitude like yours--I am right and everyone else is wrong. That is how you have come across. You used 2Cor.13:5, inferring that all of the others here did not have the Holy Spirit and that we are all reprobates. Only you have the Holy Spirit. Only you can approach God. Only you have the truth. No one else either can do that, or has done that.
You have acted like a gnostic. This special revelation that you have concerning your position you have from God. You are right and every one else is wrong because God speaks to you, but not others. The heresy of gnosticism is not tolerated.

 

[DHK]

You don't read well, do you? In fact, what I am saying is that you are also saved, and you can go to God and ask him if what I'm saying is true. Have you done this? If not, why not? Why have you come here and argued this verse without asking God about it?

It is arrogant of you to think that others here do not go to the Lord; that you are the only one that does. You are the recent one here. Why have you come here with such presuppositions that you know nothing about? Why do you presume to know the state of the hearts of the others on this board. Why have you presumed to take the place of God?

Are Spurgeon or any others better than me? Do they have fuller access to Jesus and the Father than you or I do? Are we not just as capable of hearing from God as they were? Why have you set up idols of men? Is God a respecter of persons?

I would say that Spurgeon and these other great men of God are a better guide of the truth than you are. They have written good books, are well educated, and many (like Spurgeon) were spiritual giants in their day. Spurgeon preached to thousands. The Holy Spirit filled him and drew others to hear him. Many were saved as a result of him.

Doesn't the Bible say that the Last shall be First, and the greatest will be the least? Why do you not apply this to famous (or infamous) preachers?

Another example of Scripture being taken out of context.

I guess I put a much lesser opinion on the word of men than you do.

In Ephesians, the Bible gave the local church pastors, evangelists, and teachers for a reason. If you put a lesser opinion on the word of men, then you will never be taught as you ought. The Bible commands men to be taught of men. That is God's way of discipleship. He left no other way but what he described in the Great Commission. (Mat.28:19,20)
As well he said this:
2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

So it is your assertion that David brought forth himself, and conceived himself, and the sin there is David's sin. Well good luck with that.

That is what you say; that is not what I said.

 

[steaver]

You don't read well do you? I was speaking to the value of the credibility of a witness, I wasn't saying anything about you in particular.

Let me put to rest this nonsense by stating that it is not, and has not been my intention to raise any personal attacks, but simply seek to uderstand you and your arguments more thoroughly. If you were offended by any of my comments, I apologize. Please become aware that nothing I have said is meant as a personal attack towards you.

Clearly, you have been soundly refuted and so you have chosen to find offense, rather than deal with the issues here.

The way I see it, your comments were totally meant for personal insult. Your appology is a lie and only piles one sin on top of another. Only in your own mind you have "Clearly refuted" DHK's doctrinal position. It is you who has chosen to attack rather than deal with the issues here.

I have been reading the agruments and so far I see DHK's doctrinal point of view sound. I see you rewording scripture to make it fit your pov. Let the scripture say what it says. Why not let God be true? If God wanted to say it the way you have changed it then He would have done so to begin with.

raying:

 

[Gup20]

Steaver have you read every post in this thread by DHK and me?

Do you not see how DHK intentionally used the minority translation that supported his intended meaning of the verse? You can look at post #29 and see tht DHK brought up the verse as:

Look, I was guilty of sin from birth,
a sinner the moment my mother conceived me

He claims to be using the NET translation, and GW translation. According to Wikipedia, NET is GW after it was renamed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God's_Word

The GOD'S WORD Translation was released by World Publishing of Iowa Falls, Iowa in March 1995. The publishing rights were later acquired in June, 2003, by Green Key Books of Holiday, Florida, [1] and in 2008 rights to GOD'S WORD were acquired by Baker Publishing Group.[2]

GW uses a dynamic equivalence translation methodology it calls "Closest Natural Equivalence".[8]. Critics argue that the dynamic equivalence translation method forfeits translation in favor of interpretation and commentary, separating the reader from the actual words of the biblical author.[9]
Bible language researcher Michael Marlowe is critical of the translation techniques used in the GW, and feels it takes too much liberty in simplifying the original Greek and Hebrew texts. In so doing, argues Marlowe, the translators have deviated from the original emphasis of scripture.[10] They argue there is a place for translations that can simplify these terms, but GW is one of a growing number of new translations of the Bible that uses a paraphrasing method which goes beyond the aim of a pure (literal) translation, which may result in difficult, misunderstood terms and produces a translation that also interprets the scripture.
Marlowe more generally questions translation methods such as Closest Natural Equivalence when he writes:

"[The methodology's] pretensions to 'scientific' principles of linguistics are dubious, as has been pointed out by numerous linguists and biblical scholars. It results in a simplification of the text in which important features of the Bible are erased"[11]
​

Then, in post #156, DHK says:

The KJV is weak in its translation here, and does not support your stand.

To which I responded:

"All translations have biases. Only the original languages are without error, which is why I looked up the Hebrew and posted that for your reading. Accoring to the originally authored text in the orginal language, the rendering I gave you is correct."
​

To which DHK responded (post #206):

"I gave two translations which I believe were accurate in their rendering of this verse. If you want to talk about bias, your bias was "outstanding" to the point of ridiculous. You looked up the Hebrew (a fruitless exercise) and chose one meaning out of many to suit your pre-determined idea. That is bias. "
​

First, how anyone can say looking up the original Hebrew is a "fuitless excercise" should call somone's judgement and willingness to understand the scripture into question. Secondly, he accuses me of bias for doing so.

He then lists 33 possible meanings of the Hebrew word chuwl, and accuses me of choosing only one of these meanings. He then directly accuses me of deciet.

In post #215, I call DHK on accusing me of deciet and I got through the 33 meanings that he himself posted, showing how 15 of the 33 meanings corroborate my interpretation, and just 3 of the 33 can be stretched (they are debateable) to corroborate his intepretation. I also pointed out that 2 of the 3 proper meanings corroborrate my intepretation, and 0 of 3 proper meanngs corroborate his misinterpretation.

In post #229, DHK says:

"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!"
​

Here DHK appeals to his 'being older' as a reason for his authority. He attacks my post as "imaginations of a younger generation". Ironically, he also calls my interpretation a "novel" interpretation. This is ironic because his interpretation is from the NET bible, which is the most novel translation in existence (it was first printed in 2005), and he claims I am offering deciet when I quote the King James Version, which is one of the oldest translations. When I called him on his bigoted (agism) comments, he said his statements were in reference to the relativity of orthodox ideas supporting his interpretation compared to mine.

DHK continues his hostility towards me in post #232 when he says:

"Perhaps that is why you are confused.
There is no excuse to make a mockery of knowlege. I pity you. "
​

He also accuses me of being "dishonest with the Word of God".

I had said that "the Hebrew was the best translaion, and most clear". To this, DHK responded (in post #235)

"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! "
​

Here, DHK is continues his hostility towards me by accusing me of being "like the cults', and picking one out of 33 possible definitions that suit my interpretation. This, after I had already pointed out that 15 of the 33 definiions he provided agreed with my interpretation, while only 3 of the 33 agreed with his. Additionally, 2 of the 3 proper meanings agreed with me, while 0 of 3 agreed with him.

In post #237, DHK continues his hostility - even in the face of 90% of the 33 meanings contradicting him - and accuses me of "twisting of scripture". He goes on in Post #237 to directly call me a heretic:

"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. "

​

He goes on to substanciate his previous biggoted agism statement (imagintions of a younger generation):

"The Bible is not your source as you claim; it is your imagination; your opinion."
​

DHK continues his personal attacking in this post of accusing me of Gnosticism next:

"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. "
​

DHK continues his hostility a few lines later when he says:

"Your posts betray your ignorance. "
​

This is where DHK starts a new mantra - that I am ignoring all other translations except for the King James version, and the implication is that all other tanslations agree with him:

"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?"
​

"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. "

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

Then DHK changes his tactic and tries to convince me that the KJV agrees with him too (post #238):

"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. "
​

Then DHK proceeds to accuse me of being a Jehovah's Witness:

"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?"
​

DHK continues his hostility by saying: "You don't read well do you?". I have used this exact phrase in response to DHK. If he thinks this is offensive, I would ask why he (first) said it to me.

 

[Gup20]

Then DHK makes a startling statement:

"I am an IFB pastor/missionary and have been for over 20 years. "

Wow! In all my life I've never met a more insulting, hostile pastor. Quick to anger, quick to offend. He's definately in the wrong line of work. One wonders if he would be nicer to me if I were a tithig member of his congregation.

In post #240 I give him 14 Biblican translations of the verse in question. The fact of the matter is that only 2 of the 14 translations support the NET Bible's interpretation. Additionally, I use Blueletterbible.og an Biblegateway.org for study and translations. Neither of these sites have the NET bible translation or the God's Word bible translations he was presenting. Probably because they are not widely accepted. In fact, most are critical of them because they use dynamic equivalence methodology translation.

Then in post #242, DHK does more backtracking:

"I don't disagree with the translation, as they are largely the same with the KJV. I simply gave you a couple of translations that put the verse in a way that make it easier for you to understand. But you reject even that. It is your misunderstanding of what David is saying in Greek or English that is found wanting. Your comprehension is lacking."

"I use the KJV almost exclusively. However I often refer to other versions for comparison. BTW, I don't think that I have once used the NIV. Again, your reading skills are lacking. "
​

So, steaver, I would ask you which argument by DHK is "doctrinaly sound"? The part where he says looking up the original Hebrew is a "fruitless excercse" or the part where he says the Hebrew is clear? The part where he says I picked one out of 33 meanings, or the part where I showed how 15 of the 33 agreed with me, and only 3 agreed with him? The part where he says the KJV is weak, or the part where he says it agrees with him? The part where he says all translations agree with him, or the part where I showed how only 2 of 14 agreed with him? The part where he calls my intepretation "novel" or the part where the sole basis for his interpretation is the two MOST novel translations in existence - so unaccepted, in fact, that the two most popular online Bibles don't even offer those translations.

And steaver, what do you call a personal attack? Was it when DHK accused me of being biased? Was it when DHK accused me of being decietful? Was it when he called my post the "imaginations of a younger generation"? Was it when he accused me of being dishonest with the Word of God? Was it when he said I didn't rightly divide the word of truth? Was it when he accused me of being "like the cults"? Was it when he accuses me of twisting scripture? Was it when he accuses me of being a heretic? Was it when he accuses me of gnosticism? Was it when he called me ignorant? Was it when he accuses me of being a Jehovah's witness? Was it when he said that I don't read very well and have low comprehension?

Yet when I say he is irrational and prone to outbursts, it is a personal attack?

​

 

[Gup20]

Have you not read the entirety of the Fall in Genesis chapter 3?
The curse was upon man.
The curse was upon the woman.
The curse was upon the earth.
The curse was upon the serpent (satan).

Let me ask you, then, what sin did the earth commit that death (the curse) should be passed to it?

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Death is the result of sin. It is the sin nature that is passed, and death is the natural result of sin. Even science bears this out. What does the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics teach?

The second law of thermodynamics says that, in a closed system entropy increases. However, the supernatual exists in this world, so to assume a closed system is debatable.

Look DHK - I don't disagree with you that a sin nature exists. I also agree with you that all have sinned. I even agree with you that all are born wth a propensity for sin. But it is scripturally incorrect to say that all are born sinners. We are sinners because we have sinned, not the other way around. Because death is passed because of the curse, and we all fear death, we are all slaves to sin. We sin because we fear death, not because we are sinners before we sin.

When a baby is born, and it feels hunger - it feels the effect of death - and it responds by crying for mother's milk. What sins has the Baby commtted in the womb that it comes out a sinner?

Christ escaped becoming a sinner by virtue of the virgin birth. The sin nature is passed down through man, (Adam). Thus the necessity of the virgin birth.

This makes all kinds of assumptions. First, all women have Adam's DNA in them. Secondly, this woud mean that all women do not have a sin nature to pass on - which is to say that women are not sinners. Thirdly, you already stated that the woman was cursed for sin, just like Adam was.

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

I was saved, went to Bible College, graduated, was ordained into the ministry, and began to pastor before you were even born.
I have preached many sermons on the depravity of man, man's exceeding sinfulness, and man's sin nature (and in more than one language and in more than one nation). Every time I prepare a message, and preach a message I pray. There is not a message that goes by where I haven't prayed.

I see, so it is a matter of pride. You preached the sermons, so now it must be true.

So in answer to your question, "Have you prayed about it?" Yes, many times, in fact probably many more times than you have. I doubt very much that I am wrong on this matter.

But it's possible, isn't it? Or are you saying "thus says the Lord" when you say your interpretation is correct?

I don't believe that I am the one misinterpreting the Scripture.
Paul writes "you have the Holy Spirit living within you..." to every Christian, not just you. You seem to be claiming the truth of that verse solely to yourself and implying that I and everyone else here do not have the Holy Spirit. That is an obnoxious inference.

Then you have completey misinterpreted what I have said. I said that all of us have the Holy Spirit and are able to have that inner witness of truth. You claim that my interprtation is novel, which means you have never heard it. If you've never heard it, how can you have prayed about it?

What makes you think that I or others haven't sought the Lord?

I believe I asked you this in the form of a question, which put forth the presumption that I don't know - which is the reason I asked.

You have much study to do. You continue to take Scripture out of context to try and prove your point. Recently you tried to do that with:
Psalm 22:10 (the presence of God); Rom.8:16 (The Spirit bears witness that we are His children, 2Cor.13:5 (a verse directed at false prophets naming them reprobates). All of these you have taken out of context.
I give you a serious warning (and in gravity and humility) and you call it pride. I will give it again. A person was banned for having an attitude like yours--I am right and everyone else is wrong. That is how you have come across. You used 2Cor.13:5, inferring that all of the others here did not have the Holy Spirit and that we are all reprobates.

That is simply false. You are perpetuating a lie. I directly stated my interpretation of 2Cor 13 and it stands directly opposed to what you state here.

Only you have the Holy Spirit. Only you can approach God. Only you have the truth. No one else either can do that, or has done that.
You have acted like a gnostic.

Again, this is a lie. I have set the record straight on this, but you continue to proclaim this lie.

This special revelation that you have concerning your position you have from God. You are right and every one else is wrong because God speaks to you, but not others. The heresy of gnosticism is not tolerated.

Everyone isn't wrong, just you, DHK. Your continued mischaracterization of me and my arguments is despicable.

 

[Gup20]

It is arrogant of you to think that others here do not go to the Lord;

At the time of writing this, had you taken my interpretation (which you said was new to you) to the Lord and asked him about it?

I would say that Spurgeon and these other great men of God are a better guide of the truth than you are. They have written good books, are well educated, and many (like Spurgeon) were spiritual giants in their day. Spurgeon preached to thousands. The Holy Spirit filled him and drew others to hear him. Many were saved as a result of him.

That wasn't what I asked. I asked if Spurgeon had better access to God that we do.

Another example of Scripture being taken out of context.
In Ephesians, the Bible gave the local church pastors, evangelists, and teachers for a reason. If you put a lesser opinion on the word of men, then you will never be taught as you ought. The Bible commands men to be taught of men. That is God's way of discipleship. He left no other way but what he described in the Great Commission. (Mat.28:19,20)

Are you espousing shephearding?[/quote]

 

[webdog]

The way I see it, your comments were totally meant for personal insult. Your appology is a lie and only piles one sin on top of another. Only in your own mind you have "Clearly refuted" DHK's doctrinal position. It is you who has chosen to attack rather than deal with the issues here.

I have been reading the agruments and so far I see DHK's doctrinal point of view sound. I see you rewording scripture to make it fit your pov. Let the scripture say what it says. Why not let God be true? If God wanted to say it the way you have changed it then He would have done so to begin with.

raying:

How dare you accuse his apology of being a lie? I mean, you can be president of the DHK fanclub...buy please don't stoop to such lows!

 

[DHK]

He then lists 33 possible meanings of the Hebrew word chuwl, and accuses me of choosing only one of these meanings. He then directly accuses me of deciet.

In post #215, I call DHK on accusing me of deciet and I got through the 33 meanings that he himself posted, showing how 15 of the 33 meanings corroborate my interpretation, and just 3 of the 33 can be stretched (they are debateable) to corroborate his intepretation. I also pointed out that 2 of the 3 proper meanings corroborrate my intepretation, and 0 of 3 proper meanngs corroborate his misinterpretation.

You keep repeating this, and it is dishonest and deceitful for you to do so.
Let's look at a couple of the original quotes and the reader can decide for himself.

Post #155

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

The scripture doesn't say David was conceived by a sin, it says "in" sin; his mother being an unredeemed sinner when she conceived.

In Pslam 51, the word "shapen" - the Hebrew word chuwl - means to "travail in pain and bring forth". The word "iniquity" is the Hebrew word avon which means "punishment of iniquity".

So the literal translation would be: "Behold I was brought forth in pain under the punishment for sin (which is death)." The whole verse is probably a reference to Genesis 3:16, as it artisticly echos the verse:

Gen 3:16a Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;

Shapen = "travail in pain and bring forth"
Iniquity = "punishment of iniquity"
--Those are your definitions along with your translation of the verse given above.



Now look at Post #215

Now what does the Hebrew really say concerning "shapen"
lwx chuwl khool

or chiyl {kheel}; a primitive root; properly, to twist or whirl (in a circular or spiral
manner), i.e. (specifically) to dance, to writhe in pain (especially of parturition) or
fear; figuratively, to wait, to pervert:--bear, (make to) bring forth, (make to) calve,
dance, drive away, fall grievously (with pain), fear, form, great, grieve, (be)
grievous, hope, look, make, be in pain, be much (sore) pained, rest, shake,
shapen, (be) sorrow(-ful), stay, tarry, travail (with pain), tremble, trust, wait carefully
(patiently), be wounded.
Out of about 35 meanings of this word, you chose one that would suit your cause. That is bias; or perhaps deceit would even be better.
Then, you use your one-definition-word and apply it symbolically or allegorically to the curse in Genesis 3 to which Psalm 51:5 has no relevance at all.

I bolded the two definitions out of the 35 or so meanings of the word that are given. Why do you claim that so many more meanings fit your interpretation? You are being dishonest aren't you? You have claimed that two obscure meanings of this word fit your obscure interpretation of the verse which does not in any way fit the context of David's Psalm of repentance (Psalm 51). The verse in no way speaks of David's mother's sin.

You also accused David's mother of being unredeemed.

Where do you get that from?

 

[Gup20]

You keep repeating this, and it is dishonest and deceitful for you to do so.
Let's look at a couple of the original quotes and the reader can decide for himself.

Ah... the pride resurfaces. I can see you are indeed posting here to be 'seen of men'.

In Pslam 51, the word "shapen" - the Hebrew word chuwl - means to "travail in pain and bring forth". The word "iniquity" is the Hebrew word avon which means "punishment of iniquity".

So the literal translation would be: "Behold I was brought forth in pain under the punishment for sin (which is death)." The whole verse is probably a reference to Genesis 3:16, as it artisticly echos the verse:

So my stated definitions are: travail in pain and bring forth, and brought forth in pan.

Your stated definition is sexual conception.

from post #215:
lwx chuwl khool
Properly; to twist or whirl (in a circular or spiral manner), i.e. (specifically) to dance, to writhe in pain (especially of parturition) or fear;

Figuratively; to wait, to pervert:--bear, (make to) bring forth, (make to) calve,dance, drive away, fall grievously (with pain), fear, form, great, grieve, (be) grievous, hope, look, make, be in pain, be much (sore) pained, rest, shake,
shapen, (be) sorrow(-ful), stay, tarry, travail (with pain), tremble, trust, wait carefully (patiently), be wounded.

I've boldened the definitions that agree with my definitions, and italicized the ones that agree with your definion. Note that the 3 that "agree" with your interpretation are quite a stretch: form, make, and shapen are tenuously associated with sexual conception, and do not definitively support your position. I have given you the benefit of the doubt and said that 3 of the 33 agree with you... but it may actuallly be 0 of the meanings agree with your definition.

Clearly, you are the dishonest one, DHK.

The verse in no way speaks of David's mother's sin.

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

As I pointed out, the final word in the verse- the word "me" is not present in the Hebrew. Therefore, at minimum the verse should say "Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive."

In the verse, David's mother is the subject. If David is the subject, then he shaped himself and concieved himself. This, of course, makes no sense, so it is clear that David's mother is the subject. Therefore, "in sin" is a modifier of "David's mother", not David.

Furthermore, contextually we see that David is saying that no one else is to blame for his sin, but himself. It opposes the context to suddenly extend the meaning of this verse to say that David's sin was anyone's fault but his own.

You also accused David's mother of being unredeemed.

Where do you get that from?

Not sure what you are referring to. I have never used the word unredeemed. But you do seem pretty keen on changing things after the fact, don't you. First you say that looking a verse up in the original Hebrew is a "fuitless excercise", then later when I continue to assert that the Hebrew is the best translation, and most clear you suddenly agree with me. You purport the NET translation - the most novel and inaccurate of all the translations- then criticize me for quoting the KJV as "weak", and saying my interpretation based on the KJV is novel. Then later you say you use almost exclusively the KJV. You are double minded. How can anything you say be trusted, when you say one thing, then say the oppsite. You accuse me of picking the single translation that agreed with my interpretation, when 12 of the 14 most accepted translations agree with me, and only 2 - the NIV and NLT - agree with your interpretation. You are too inconsistent. In any court, they call inconsistencies "lies".

I've taken your insults without complaint. I've put up with your inconsistencies and given you the benefit of the doubt when you clearly don't deserve it. I've shown you respect and honor when it is abundantly clear that you are disrespectful and dishonorable. If you would put away your selfish pride for one moment, you might realize we are on the same side here. It seems like you are reacting far too emotionally, and certainly not in love. Take a step back... take a deep breath... and consider what I said to steaver:

And steaver, what do you call a personal attack? Was it when DHK accused me of being biased? Was it when DHK accused me of being decietful? Was it when he called my post the "imaginations of a younger generation"? Was it when he accused me of being dishonest with the Word of God? Was it when he said I didn't rightly divide the word of truth? Was it when he accused me of being "like the cults"? Was it when he accuses me of twisting scripture? Was it when he accuses me of being a heretic? Was it when he accuses me of gnosticism? Was it when he called me ignorant? Was it when he accuses me of being a Jehovah's witness? Was it when he said that I don't read very well and have low comprehension?

These are your actions towards me in this one thread. Would you say this is the earmarks of acting in love?

1Cr 13:4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Jhn 13:35 By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

1Jo 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

 

[DHK]

Then DHK makes a startling statement:

"I am an IFB pastor/missionary and have been for over 20 years. "

I would not have divulged this information except for the fact that you had accused me of being an emotional woman. Please re-read this post of yours and ask yourself who is the one that is being emotional?

Wow! In all my life I've never met a more insulting, hostile pastor. Quick to anger, quick to offend. He's definately in the wrong line of work. One wonders if he would be nicer to me if I were a tithig member of his congregation.

Again, I ask who is the one being emotional, and why the personal attacks?​

In post #240 I give him 14 Biblican translations of the verse in question. The fact of the matter is that only 2 of the 14 translations support the NET Bible's interpretation. Additionally, I use Blueletterbible.og an Biblegateway.org for study and translations. Neither of these sites have the NET bible translation or the God's Word bible translations he was presenting. Probably because they are not widely accepted. In fact, most are critical of them because they use dynamic equivalence methodology translation.

And your point is? I have access to just as many translations as you do, if not more. That isn’t the problem is it?

Then in post #242, DHK does more backtracking:

"I don't disagree with the translation, as they are largely the same with the KJV. I simply gave you a couple of translations that put the verse in a way that make it easier for you to understand. But you reject even that. It is your misunderstanding of what David is saying in Greek or English that is found wanting. Your comprehension is lacking."​

​

No backtracking here. I stand by what I say. Your comprehension is lacking.

"I use the KJV almost exclusively. However I often refer to other versions for comparison. BTW, I don't think that I have once used the NIV. Again, your reading skills are lacking. "

So, steaver, I would ask you which argument by DHK is "doctrinaly sound"? The part where he says looking up the original Hebrew is a "fruitless excercse" or the part where he says the Hebrew is clear?​

​

Are you putting words into my mouth? Where did I ever say that looking up the original Hebrew was a fruitless exercise? Are those my exact words? Is the Hebrew clear? Not always. Whether the language is English, Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, it is the context that determines the meaning of the word. Without context the word is meaningless. If you want an example, without using the Bible, give me the one singular definition of the word “church”. Only the context will give you the definition of that word as it is used in the English language.​

The part where he says I picked one out of 33 meanings, or the part where I showed how 15 of the 33 agreed with me, and only 3 agreed with him?

I have already shown you that out of the 33 meanings there are two that agree with you and only two. So please stop with this endless diatribe. It does you no good.​

The part where he calls my intepretation "novel" or the part where the sole basis for his interpretation is the two MOST novel translations in existence - so unaccepted, in fact, that the two most popular online Bibles don't even offer those translations.

Here is your interpretation as you have posted it:​

So the literal translation would be: "Behold I was brought forth in pain under the punishment for sin (which is death)."

http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1390065&postcount=155​

Your interpretation is novel. It doesn’t even come close to any translation that I have seen, and I have read many. In fact it is totally different from all the translations that you posted. So you should have no argument.

And steaver, what do you call a personal attack? Was it when DHK accused me of being biased? Was it when DHK accused me of being decietful? Was it when he called my post the "imaginations of a younger generation"?

Biased as to your own pre-conceived ideas, even to the extent of sticking to the most obscure definition of a Hebrew word to bolster your case.​

Deceitful—in constantly taking Scripture out of context trying to make them say what they do not say.​

Of a younger generation—You are 30 right? Is that not young in comparison to 2,000 years??​

Was it when he accused me of being dishonest with the Word of God? Was it when he said I didn't rightly divide the word of truth? Was it when he accused me of being "like the cults"? Was it when he accuses me of twisting scripture? Was it when he accuses me of being a heretic? Was it when he accuses me of gnosticism?

I tell you the truth. Continually taking Scripture out of context is being dishonest with the Word of God. You have done it many times. In that respect it is characteristic of the cults.​

You have claimed that your position is right to the extent that all else is wrong. That position is not only arrogant; it speaks of Gnosticism because of the way that you arrived at it. You keep on saying that the Holy Spirit told you, bore witness to you, and infer that the Holy Spirit did not bear witness to anyone else here. Thus you are saved and the Holy Spirit speaks to you (having special knowledge from God), and we are not. This is the essence of Gnosticism.​

Yet when I say he is irrational and prone to outbursts, it is a personal attack?

Again re-read your post. It is very emotional. It is one big emotional outburst, full of personal attacks. Are you not able to post to the OP?​

 

[DHK]

Ah... the pride resurfaces. I can see you are indeed posting here to be 'seen of men'.

A very nice compliment. This is the type of diatribe that people post when they are unable to debate. It is a good example.

So my stated definitions are: travail in pain and bring forth, and brought forth in pan.

Yes, note well that those specific definitions are only given twice. Will you be honest about that this time?

Your stated definition is sexual conception.

You said that; I never said that. I never revealed to you what meaning I chose out of that list. This is another demonstration of your deceitfulness. Why do you do this?

I've boldened the definitions that agree with my definitions, and italicized the ones that agree with your definion. Note that the 3 that "agree" with your interpretation are quite a stretch: form, make, and shapen are tenuously associated with sexual conception, and do not definitively support your position. I have given you the benefit of the doubt and said that 3 of the 33 agree with you... but it may actuallly be 0 of the meanings agree with your definition.

All the one's in italics are questionable, since I never chose any.
Many of the one's that are boldened are not according to the definition that you gave, but something entirely different. Thus more deception.
For example: "to pervert, to fall grievously, to tremble, to be wounded." These are not even remotely connected with the definition that you gave.

Clearly, you are the dishonest one, DHK.

Not according to the above.

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

As I pointed out, the final word in the verse- the word "me" is not present in the Hebrew. Therefore, at minimum the verse should say "Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive."

The word "me" was put there so the statement would make sense. It seems at that point all the translators agree with each other, and not with you. Perhaps you should listen to them.
Usually words that are added are put in italics, but often they are not. Absolute word for word translation is impossible between any two languages.

In the verse, David's mother is the subject. If David is the subject, then he shaped himself and concieved himself. This, of course, makes no sense, so it is clear that David's mother is the subject. Therefore, "in sin" is a modifier of "David's mother", not David.

David is repenting of his sin. That is the context. Don't take things of their context.

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity--David is the subject, as he is describing how as a sinner he was born. He came out of the womb that way, a sinner. David is the subject. He is describing his own sinfulness.

in sin did my mother conceive me.
--David continues to speak of himself. The me is understood (in the Hebrew). The subject is still David, and his sinful self. He is speaking of his innermost being when his life was first conceived. Even then he was sinful with a sin nature--from his very conception onward.

Furthermore, contextually we see that David is saying that no one else is to blame for his sin, but himself. It opposes the context to suddenly extend the meaning of this verse to say that David's sin was anyone's fault but his own.

Correct. David takes full responsibility for his sin. In doing so he confesses that he has been a sinner from his birth onward. He recognizes that he has always been that way. He is not blaming his condition for his sin, but acknowledging his sinful self, acknowledging that he is worthless in the sight of God, except it were for the mercy of God. He is a very humble man.

Not sure what you are referring to. I have never used the word unredeemed.

Never??

The scripture doesn't say David was conceived by a sin, it says "in" sin; his mother being an unredeemed sinner when she conceived.

http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1390065&postcount=155

But you do seem pretty keen on changing things after the fact, don't you. First you say that looking a verse up in the original Hebrew is a "fuitless excercise", then later when I continue to assert that the Hebrew is the best translation, and most clear you suddenly agree with me.

The Hebrew is good if you don't deliberately misuse it. But as we have seen you have deliberately misused the Hebrew for your own purposes.

You purport the NET translation - the most novel and inaccurate of all the translations- then criticize me for quoting the KJV as "weak", and saying my interpretation based on the KJV is novel. Then later you say you use almost exclusively the KJV. You are double minded.

Do you frequently take bits and pieces of what I say out of various posts and string them together out of their original contexts as to make them appear to contradict each other. That in itself is deceitfulness, isn't it?
I gave you the NET translation so you could see from another point of view what the verse says. Other translations sometimes help to clarify things (but only when we have open minds to learning). Instead of being open-minded you were critical. Your interpretation was not based on the KJV. It was not based on any translation, on the Hebrew, on anything that we have seen thus far. We have already determined that. I have posted your translation. It is an absurd translation.

Yes, I use the KJV almost exclusively. I refer to other translations for comparison sake. I have not contradicted myself. Now why do you say I am double minded? Why the false accusations. As I previously said, a person that can only post this kind of diatribe has lost the debate; for he has nothing left to say.

How can anything you say be trusted, when you say one thing, then say the oppsite.

More needless accusations and diatribe.

You accuse me of picking the single translation that agreed with my interpretation, when 12 of the 14 most accepted translations agree with me, and only 2 - the NIV and NLT - agree with your interpretation. You are too inconsistent. In any court, they call inconsistencies "lies".

"Your" translation that you actually posted, did not agree with any translation. You interpretation does not agree with anyone that I have read, except perhaps Charles Finney, and even then it is only close to what he believes.

I've taken your insults without complaint. I've put up with your inconsistencies and given you the benefit of the doubt when you clearly don't deserve it. I've shown you respect and honor when it is abundantly clear that you are disrespectful and dishonorable. If you would put away your selfish pride for one moment, you might realize we are on the same side here. It seems like you are reacting far too emotionally, and certainly not in love. Take a step back... take a deep breath...

Better read that again, and ask yourself why are you so emotional?
You allow your emotions to get in the way?