The KJV is weak in its translation here, and does not support your stand.
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.
No, a sinful nature passed to him by his father. For good reason it is called "the Adamic nature."
I can't find the phrase "the Adamic nature" in any of the translations of my Bible. Can you point out this scripture to me?
You are taking Scripture out of its context. This is Paul's personal testimony, as he describes his fight, his battle with sin. It is a battle with his own sin nature pitted against the new nature he received from Christ. This chapter in itself shows how each of us have a sin nature. Paul describes it.
This says nothing to how one becomes a sinner, which is the point being debated. (whether it is inherited biologically or attained at your first sin)
Your statement is absolutely wrong. Did Adam and Eve have law? Absolutely. They had the law of not eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. All men have law. All men have sin natures--natures that make us prone to sin, prone to break God's law. Even the Gentiles which have never heard of God's law break his law, for they have God's law written on their hearts, and their conscience bear testimony to it. (Romans 2:14,15)
Interesting. Yet - death reigned in those from Adam until Moses... even over those who did not eat the fruit of the garden of eden - that being the only law of God until the time of Moses (unless you count things like "be fruitful and multiply" or count God creating plants as food as an implied command not to eat animals).
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
So sin was not 'charged' (imputed) to those who were between Adam and Moses, because The Law had not yet entered. However, death
was 'imputed'... they did experience death even though they had not disobeyed any existing law (they didn't eat of the fruit from the tree of the knowlege of good and evil, for example).
Not Adam's specific sin; but Adam's sin nature. Adam was part of a curse, and that curse fell upon all mankind, not just upon Adam. Adam means man. All mankind was cursed, just as the earth forever would be cursed, not just the earth of Adam's time.
The curse of sin is death. You just made my argument for me again. You said the curse (which is death) fell upon all mankind.
Death reigned because sin reigned. The wages of sin is death. All have sinned. All die. All have a sin nature, and therefore all sin.
Sin didn't reign. Sin had no power until the law was given.
Rom 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin [was] dead.
Of course. If man was the father he would have a sin nature. If Joseph was the father he would inherit the cursed line of Jehoiachim, and not be eligible to sit on the throne of David. Paul in Gal.4:4 states that He was "made" of a woman, and came in the fulness of time. It was also the fulfillment of prophecy. The virgin birth fulfilled many purposes.
What scripture does the idea that the sin nature is passed on biologically contained? What scripture says that the male is the one who passes it on biologically? There is none.
In fact, Eve was decieved, but the sin was laid to Adam's charge because he is the head of the wife... meaning he had authority over the woman and therefore was legally responsible for her and her actions, just as Christ has authority over us and has taken responsibility for our sin.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
These verses show Christ's humanity. He was fully man and fully God at the same time. He came to die. He left his throne in heaven because of his love for mankind.
God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son....
That God was Christ. Christ is deity. God, manifest in the flesh died for our sins. The verses that you quoted demonstrate his humanity.
Well that's all well and good. However, this argument begs a question - DHK, are you a woman? This non-sensical "spider-webbing" link to a topic unrelated to the argument seems like it came from an estrogen cannon.
Here is the linear progression: YOU: Jesus wanted to die. ME: Jesus did not want to die... he begged the cup be passed from him. YOU: this just shows his humanity.
Well yes... it shows his humanity magnificently, but how does that in any way boulster your argument that he wanted to die? And how does wanting to die jive with "getting in touch with one's humanity"?
Do you believe that Christ is God?
Yes. I believe Jesus Christ is God. I also believe that Jesus Christ was 100% human being.
No, if he was not virgin born he could not have been fully man.
I wasn't virgin born, and I am fully man.
However, if you meant to say ".. if he was not virgin born he could not have been fully God", then that might be an argument worth making.
He was fully man because he, as a man, (or human) began life right from conception. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. In another place--conceived by Mary. Because of Mary he was totally man. Because of the Holy Spirit he was totally God. He was the God-man. He died a painful death, because he was man.
We are in 100% agreement.
Because he was God, he didn't have to die; he could have avoided it, but out of love he didn't.
Do you mean to say he could have lived on the earth eternally, or hung on the cross without dying indefinately? Or do you mean to say he could have stopped his execution by calling angels to defend him?
Yes, it is quite clear. It is clear in that it teaches that all mankind has a sin nature; a sin nature that brings death. If man was born innocent without sin, there would be no need for death. It is sin that produces death. The wages of sin is death.
DHK, if that were true, it would have said: "and so sin passed upon all men, and because of it death." But it didn't say that. It said "death passed upon all men because all are sinners". It was death that was passed or inherited. It is the curse that remains in the earth and in man, not the crime for which the curse was given.
Yes, all mankind deserves hell, including infants. It is only because of the mercy and grace of God that any of us will make it into heaven--infants included.
It may surprise you, but I do agree with you. But I have only a sliver of scriptural basis for doing so and it's so tenuous, I had really hoped someone here would be able to deliver concrete evidence from scripture.
2 Samuel 12:22-23 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?
23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
--David was assured that he would see his child in heaven. The dead infant could not return back to David, but someday David would die and be with the child.
Actually, David was assured that he would see his child in hell. Christ had not yet come, and there was no hope for life. Even Abraham - the first counted righteous for his faith in Jesus Christ - was in hell until after Jesus came.
Luk 16:23 And
in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Luke seems to indicate that Abraham and Lazarus were not, however, in torments. So it seems it was a swanky, posh part of hell. Still they were certainly not in heaven (they were separated from God - no man comes to the Father but by Jesus Christ), and David would not have been in heaven, nor would David's dead son - Christ had not come, and David definately sinned in his life.
Ah yes, but the heaven/hell that Abraham was in is an argument for a different thread.
I was quoting HP's theology. Check the GW's translation of Psalm 51:5 and note that that is an obvious mistaken theology.
As I have shown you, the interpretation I gave was by looking at the original Hebrew text and meanings. I would say the original language is probably the only fully accurate translation.
There is no such thing as an "innocent person." Again check Psalm 51:5. We are born sinners. We are not innocent. We are all sinners.
"All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
"There is none righteous, no not one."
I agree with you that one can be born a sinner. This isn't what David was saying, however. Additionally, being born a sinner is separate from inheriting the 'sins of our fathers'.
Deu 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
