What Constitutes a Depraved Nature?

[Marcia]

The OT and NT deal with death as the death my children think of, that is physical death.

Gen. 3:19 God cursed Adam by saying he would return to the dust. That is a way of saying physical death.

Isaiah 25:8 "He will swallow up death in victory" We know this is speaking of physical death because of how Paul refers to it in I Cor. 15.

I Cor. 15:55 "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law."

I Tim 1:10 "But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:"

Death is not just physical death. Did you note my post on Rev. 20 and the second death?

There are 2 deaths - physical and spiritual.

If a sinful nature is our problem how does crucifixion take care of it. Paul in Romans makes it clear that physical death was the penalty and the Christ paid it on our behalf. How could Christs physical death be a substitute for our spiritual death?

Crucifixion takes care of it because Jesus paid the penalty for sin through taking on the sins of the world at his death. This was a propitiation which satisfied God's justice and his requirement that a penalty be paid. It was more than a physical death - sin was imputed to him as well.

James 1:13 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. "

James makes it clear that sin begins with his own lusts which clearly exist in the flesh. This is why we need to be crucified with Christ.

Lust is not always in the flesh. Lust is desire. One can lust after something with the mind. Greed for money is lust. One can lust after power.

We were baptized into Jesus' physical death and take part in his physical resurrection for a purpose. This purpose is the result stated in Romans 6:6-7 "that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin."

This is gnostic - that sin is only in the physical body.

Do you believe that sin is only in the physical body?

 

[Marcia]

Worth posting again. David wrote these words under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

NET ©Look, I was guilty of sin from birth, a sinner the moment my mother conceived me. 1
NIV ©
biblegateway Psa 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
NASB ©
biblegateway Psa 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
NLT ©
biblegateway Psa 51:5
For I was born a sinner––yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.
MSG ©
biblegateway Psa 51:5
I've been out of step with you for a long time, in the wrong since before I was born.
BBE ©
SABDAweb Psa 51:5
Truly, I was formed in evil, and in sin did my mother give me birth.
NRSV ©
bibleoremusPsa 51:5
Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me.
NKJV ©
biblegateway Psa 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
KJVBehold, I was shapen
<02342> (8797)
in iniquity
<05771>_;
and in sin
<02399>
did my mother
<0517>
conceive
<03179> (8765)
me. {conceive...: Heb. warm me}


NASB ©
biblegateway Psa 51:5
Behold
<02005>
, I was brought
<02342>
forth
<02342>
in iniquity
<05771>
, And in sin
<02399>
my mother
<0517>
conceived
<03179>
me.
HEBREWyma
<0517>
yntmxy
<03179>
ajxbw
<02399>
ytllwx
<02342>
Nwweb
<05771>
Nh
<02005>
(51:5)
<51:7>

LXXM(50:7) idou
<2400>
INJ
gar
<1063>
PRT
en
<1722>
PREP
anomiaiv
<458>
N-DPF
sunelhmfyhn
<4815>
V-API-1S
kai
<2532>
CONJ
en
<1722>
PREP
amartiaiv
<266>
N-DPF
ekisshsen {V-AAI-3S} me
<1473>
P-AS
h
<3588>
T-NSF
mhthr
<3384>
N-NSF
mou
<1473>
P-GS

NET © [draft] ITLLook
<02005>
, I was guilty of sin
<05771>
from birth
<02342>
, a sinner
<02399>
the moment my mother
<0517>
conceived
<03179>
me.
NET ©Look, I was guilty of sin from birth, a sinner the moment my mother conceived me. 1
NET © Notes1 tn 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.

 

[DHK]

Here is the other passage DHK seems to hear a response concerning.
Ps 58:1 ¶ <<To the chief Musician, Altaschith, Michtam of David.>> Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?
2 Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth.
3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.
6 ¶ Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.
7 Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.
8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.
9 Before your pots can feel the thorns, he shall take them away as with a whirlwind, both living, and in his wrath.
10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.

HP: DHK, would you be so kind as to tell us where in the world the righteous spoken of come from in this chapter, and why David would have desired his own teeth to be smashed in his mouth as an infant, and why he would have desired that he would have ‘passed away’ in a miscarriage due to the ‘original sin’ or sinful nature of himself as an infant? If all are born with a sinful nature or in original sin, and this passage is supporting that notion, where are the righteous hailing from that are rejoicing at the just desserts of every child ever born including themselves as God is called upon to smash their teeth in their mouths and destroy them??? Are we being careful and serious with the Word of God?

DHK, you owe this chapter a deeper study than that which you so far have given it. Tell us again that this chapter supports the notion of original sin or a sinful nature from birth. Show us one writing anywhere from any true Jew that holds to or held to any such Augustinian notion such as a sinful nature or original sin that you seem bent on injecting into Scripture at will.

You really should stop calling people names.
I have told you before: I am not a Calvinist, and when I became saved I had never even heard of Augustine, and even now certainly don't follow his views whatever they may be. I follow the Bible, not a man's views. Don't accuse me of following such. You should know better by now.
As for original sin; I believed that as a Catholic, but I don't now. I explained that to you already.

Psalm 58:3 is a general statement of truth for both righteous and unrighteous alike. All men are sinners from birth. That is what the verse teaches. As soon as they are born they are sinners. They come forth speaking lies (the most common sin of mankind).

The Psalm is an imprecatory psalm where David prays for the judgment of God to fall on the enemies of God. See Psalm 109 for an example another such psalm. We don't pray this way; but they did in the OT. First they found out the will of God, and then prayed the will of God as a judgment, the very judgment that God himself would pronounce on his enemies.
That doesn't make the theology of this Scripture of any less value.
Infants are still born with a sin nature--sinning as soon as they are born because they are born with a nature to do wrong. No man by nature does good.

P

ossibly you might have another passage you believe proves or supports your beliefs? I would be glad to look at it and give you a direct response.

Certainly. Go verse by verse through the full chapter of Romans chapter five. You can't miss it.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: What evidence do you have that David's mother was guilty of anything for conceiving David.

HP: I believe there is much evidence to suggest, as the Jews evidently have always believed, that David was indeed an illegitimate child. I have also heard that David’s mother is the only mother of a King of Israel whose mother is never mentioned by name. I have never personally checked that out, but I would be interested if there is proof to the contrary anyone knows about.
It would appear, according to Scripture, that David’s mother, and the mother of David’s two half sisters, was a former concubine of, or former wife of, Nahash. David’s mother clearly had conceived his two half sisters by Nahash. It would appear that David could have been only a half brother to his other brothers, and for this reason they had reason to despise him as they did. (1Chron. 2:13-16 and 2Samuel 17:25) It would also make sense as to why Nahash showed kindness to David. This could also have been the reason why Jesse did not bring him as the prophet had requested; in order to be one of the ones picked from to be the next King of Israel (1Sam.16:4-11) It clearly could have been the reason why David’s brothers looked down on him so.(1Sam.17:28-30) In the eyes of the Jewish law, David’s mother would have been seen as “defiled”, as a result of her former relationship with an Ammonite, namely Nahash. ( Related Scriptures: Nu.25 1-2, De7:3-4, 1Kings 11:2-4, Ez. 9:2, Ne. 13:23-25,11Cor. 6:14-17)
At any case, it is a total mistake to take a verse where David spoke of himself and his mother’s sin in the first person, and extrapolate that to include all mankind as being born under the same conditions. There is no limit to the amount of error in interpretation one would end up with, if every time one spoke in the first person, we would automatically assume that the same goes for the entire human race. For instance, are we also to assume that when David stated, “Ps 18:24 Therefore hath the LORD recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his eyesight” that it included all that were ever born as well?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: You really should stop calling people names.
I have told you before: I am not a Calvinist, and when I became saved I had never even heard of Augustine, and even now certainly don't follow his views whatever they may be. I follow the Bible, not a man's views. Don't accuse me of following such. You should know better by now.
As for original sin; I believed that as a Catholic, but I don't now. I explained that to you already.

HP: That is a flat misrepresentation of anything that I have said. I have not called you any names. Show the list where I have. Quote me. Show me where I have called you a Calvinist. It is a historical fact, as I have shown before, that Augustine was indeed the father of the doctrine of original sin. That doctrine, in that man is born morally depraved or born with a sin nature, is precisely the doctrine you consistently support. What does it matter if you have not read history or if you believe all your doctrines are the product of hammering on your own anvil? Does that change historical facts?

The truth remains. We are all affected by men and doctrines taught in the church long before we entered the scene. That included you as well as myself. None of us are an island to ourselves.

Why do you not stop accusing me falsely? I would have hoped that you would have found enough Christian charity within yourself by now to afford a Christian brother that small courtesy. Either produce the evidence that I have called you a Calvinist or called you a name, or retract your false allegation.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: Worth posting again. David wrote these words under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

HP: Sorry Marcia. Because man interprets something in accordance to his dogmas, and publishes it under the guise of a version of Scripture, it does not necessitate it being the words of the Holy Spirit. It well may be in some cases and not in others. They simply cannot all be right when they say different things. God is not divided.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: This is gnostic - that sin is only in the physical body.

Please post to the OP

 

[DHK]

HP: Sorry Marcia. Because man interprets something in accordance to his dogmas, and publishes it under the guise of a version of Scripture, it does not necessitate it being the words of the Holy Spirit. It well may be in some cases and not in others. They simply cannot all be right when they say different things. God is not divided.

Amazing! You believe that your knowledge of the Bible is more than the sum total of all the translators of all the translations of all the Bibles that Marcia listed in her post (and that was quite a few translations)! Completely Amazing! I have never seen such arrogance.

You are right and the rest of the world is wrong.
You rationalize at every post. Consider the last three posts that you have made. No admission that you could be wrong on any point at all. God calls David a "Man after his own heart," and you are trying to tell us that he was born illegitimately or in some sinful way. Astonishing! David admits his sinful condition, and you can't accept it; thus you rationalize your way out of it; unbelievable!

 

[DHK]

double post

 

[Marcia]

HP: Sorry Marcia. Because man interprets something in accordance to his dogmas, and publishes it under the guise of a version of Scripture, it does not necessitate it being the words of the Holy Spirit. It well may be in some cases and not in others. They simply cannot all be right when they say different things. God is not divided.

This is not a matter of interpretation but of translation! You can look up the Hebrew yourself and see it. I do not think you are more qualified than all the translators who wrote out those English translations of this verse. Notice how similar they are.

What David is saying here is not against anything else in scripture.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: David admits his sinful condition, and you can't accept it

HP: David admits his sinful condition and I accept that just as he wrote it. What he did not indicate by any stretch of the imagination is that he was a sinner from birth, or that he was born with a sinful nature, or that he was born in sin or with original sin.

That is hardly not admitting his sinful condition DHK, it is just not admitting his sinful condition via the false notion of original sin.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia, pertaining to your list of ‘scriptures’ concerning Psalms 51:5:

There has been a never ending stream of versions subsequent to the discovery of the famous Westcot Hort text. I believe it can be said with fairness that practically every modern day version we have seen evolve is either as a direct result of that corrupt text or that ‘discoverers’ of that text had a misappropriate influence upon the other subsequent translations. It does not take a brain surgeon to see the influence of established dogma in their interpretation of that text. I wouldn’t give you a plug nickel for the whole lot of them. You can quote me on that. If you desire to believe them, so be it. I not only believe that the text that is used as a primary of influential source of their interpretations is not anything short of being corrupted, and for what it did not corrupt their modern day interpretations in accordance to their already established pet dogmas of original sin did. I am certain that I will not change your ideas concerning them and neither do you have a chance of altering what I believe is the truth of the matter either. We will have to agree to disagree on this point. :thumbsup:

Upward and onward! Show us the context in Psalms 58 that in any way establishes constitutional moral depravity, a universal sinful nature from birth, or original sin. Show us from any version, even the ones I say are not worthy of our admiration or trust, that the context of this Psalm, as DHK insinuates, supports any such notion of a universal inherited moral depravity or universal sinful nature from birth.

 

[DHK]

HP: I believe there is much evidence to suggest, as the Jews evidently have always believed, that David was indeed an illegitimate child.

1. Without producing such evidence it is just:
a. your opinion.
b. hearsay.
c. an urban legend.

I have also heard that David’s mother is the only mother of a King of Israel whose mother is never mentioned by name. I have never personally checked that out

And therein lies the problem. You state your opinions, your made-up stories, not bothering to check things out. At least now you have admitted to it.

It would appear, according to Scripture, that David’s mother, and the mother of David’s two half sisters, was a former concubine of, or former wife of, Nahash. David’s mother clearly had conceived his two half sisters by Nahash. It would appear that David could have been only a half brother to his other brothers, and for this reason they had reason to despise him as they did. (1Chron. 2:13-16 and 2Samuel 17:25)

To you--it would appear; it would appear; it would appear.... Plenty of opinion but no real facts to back it up.
The American Tract Society Dictionary states:
" The father of Zeruiah and Abigail, David's half-sisters,

2Sa 17:25; 1Ch 2:13-16. Nahash, however, may have been another name for
Jesse; or possibly the name of his wife."

ISBE states:
"The text in 2 S, where this reference is made, is hopelessly corrupt; for that
reason there are various explanations. The rabbis maintain that Nahash is another
name for Jesse, David's father. Others think that Nahash was the name of Jesse's
wife; but it is not probable that Nahash could have been the name of a woman.
Others explain the passage by making Nahash the first husband of Jesse's wife,
so that Abigail and Zeruiah were half-sisters to King David."

It would also make sense as to why Nahash showed kindness to David. This could also have been the reason why Jesse did not bring him as the prophet had requested; in order to be one of the ones picked from to be the next King of Israel (1Sam.16:4-11)

Jesse did not bring him when Samuel came because his brothers were much older; he was just a teen-ager (about 15 at that time), a youth tending the sheep, and all in the family thought that that honor would surely go to one of the elder brothers--not the youngest (which is against their culture.)

It clearly could have been the reason why David’s brothers looked down on him so.(1Sam.17:28-30)

David's brothers looked down upon him for much the same reasons that Joseph's brothers looked down upon Joseph. Both were the youngest, loved of their father, Godly humble men. The brothers were all proud and envious.

In the eyes of the Jewish law, David’s mother would have been seen as “defiled”, as a result of her former relationship with an Ammonite, namely Nahash. ( Related Scriptures: Nu.25 1-2, De7:3-4, 1Kings 11:2-4, Ez. 9:2, Ne. 13:23-25,11Cor. 6:14-17)

You have to prove your fables true first.
You have no credible evidence.

At any case, it is a total mistake to take a verse where David spoke of himself and his mother’s sin

An assumption that is wrong. Stop here. David never spoke of his mother's sin. See your prejudice before even examining the verse.

in the first person, and extrapolate that to include all mankind as being born under the same conditions.

What you mean is simply this: If there is good solid evidence that David declares that he was born with a sin nature, then there is good solid evidence that we all have a sin nature. Yes that is true. For the same truth is taught consistently throughout the whole of Scripture, starting with the Fall of Adam. It is the Adamic nature that we are considering.

There is no limit to the amount of error in interpretation one would end up with, if every time one spoke in the first person, we would automatically assume that the same goes for the entire human race. For instance, are we also to assume that when David stated, “Ps 18:24 Therefore hath the LORD recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his eyesight” that it included all that were ever born as well?

What does the verse say, and have you forgotten about context?
He said "The Lord hath recompensed me according to my righteousness."
That is the truth in that verse. It was true for David and it is true for every believer today. Yes, it is a universal truth, just as it is a universal truth that all men are born with a sin nature. Good verse. Good example.

 

[trustitl]

Thank you for your concern regarding context. Please show it equally to all.

BTW the name I go by here is TRUSTITL: a take on Trust In The Lord and based on my favorite verse, Proverbs 3:5-6. You and others often misspell it.

I have no reluctance in discussing these verses.
Below are the verses in question. I included the GWT to show how modern translations impose their own ideas into the text. I do like reading the GWT and often email it to people who are unfamiliar with the Bible but it is full of poor interpretations.

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

Psalm 58:3 "[Even] inside the womb wicked people are strangers [to God]. From their birth liars go astray." GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)


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

Psalm 51:5 "Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me." GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)

I will address 58:3 first. Clearly he is not talking about original sin or some form of depravity imposed on humanity. The sin is after birth and deals with speaking, something a newborn is incapable of. Furthermore, being estranged is not a form of guilt. An estranged child is not in a relationship with their parent. I believe this is a good description of how we are born. Because of this we inevitably fulfill the lusts of their flesh and become guilty before God. The point at which one is guilty of sin is debatable and not the focus of this discussion. If it were I would admit to not having the answer.

Regarding 51:5 the sin is clearly not attributed to David. His conception was in a fallen world full of iniquity and sin. The preposition could either be relating to his mother or the world in which his mother conceived him. This verse could be used to support some form of corruption that effected David, such as semi-Pelagianism, but not guilt as is taught by many.

I didn't know if this was seen since it was not commented on. A storm of emotions blew in and made it hard to see. I am sure DHK will be impressed to see that these verses can be seen in a different light that his.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: 1. Without producing such evidence it is just:
a. your opinion.
b. hearsay.
c. an urban legend.
DHK: The American Tract Society Dictionary states:
" The father of Zeruiah and Abigail, David's half-sisters,

2Sa 17:25; 1Ch 2:13-16. Nahash, however, may have been another name for
Jesse; or possibly the name of his wife."

HP: Is this an opinion, hearsay, or an urban legand? Do you have any facts to back up their ‘possibilities, or have you simply accepted what they say as fact?

The rest of your post is filled with the same ‘possibilities, suggestions, and maybe so’s' so I will just leave it at that and let the reader to decide just what pot is calling the kettle black. (An old urban saying worth consideration in light of your post) :thumbsup:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: I didn't know if this was seen since it was not commented on. A storm of emotions blew in and made it hard to see. I am sure DHK will be impressed to see that these verses can be seen in a different light that his.

HP: Good points TrustitL.:thumbsup:

I am amazed at how some believe that a Jew, that had absolutely no place in their theology for any such notion as constitutional depravity or original sin, can be read to be seen as supporting that which they did not believe in. I also cannot believe that with all the cry’s of “Context Context!”, they ignore their own advice particularly in light of Psalms 58. Is Psalm 58 a doctrinal treatise on constitutional depravity? I hardly think so, especially in light of the 'context' we all should be looking closely at.

Besides, I wonder if DHK is certain that the Psalms should be used as a proper source for such deep theological notions such as original sin? Are the Psalms on the same order as he places Romans? If not why would one go to the Psalms to establish dogma, especially dogma that had no place in the theology held by the Jews in general, including the writer of the Psalms in question?

 

[DHK]

Thank you for your concern regarding context. Please show it equally to all.

BTW the name I go by here is TRUSTITL: a take on Trust In The Lord and based on my favorite verse, Proverbs 3:5-6. You and others often misspell it.

Sorry for the oversight.

I have no reluctance in discussing these verses.
Below are the verses in question. I included the GWT to show how modern translations impose their own ideas into the text. I do like reading the GWT and often email it to people who are unfamiliar with the Bible but it is full of poor interpretations.

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

Psalm 58:3 "[Even] inside the womb wicked people are strangers [to God]. From their birth liars go astray." GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)


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

Psalm 51:5 "Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me." GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)

I will address 58:3 first. Clearly he is not talking about original sin or some form of depravity imposed on humanity. The sin is after birth and deals with speaking, something a newborn is incapable of. Furthermore, being estranged is not a form of guilt. An estranged child is not in a relationship with their parent. I believe this is a good description of how we are born. Because of this we inevitably fulfill the lusts of their flesh and become guilty before God. The point at which one is guilty of sin is debatable and not the focus of this discussion. If it were I would admit to not having the answer.

The verse teaches that we are "estranged from God" that is separated from God, the minute we are born. The definition of death in the Bible is "separation"--all the time. It has no other meaning. An infant is born spiritually dead. Therefore he must be born again. He is born with a depraved nature or a sinful nature, dead in sin, dead and separated from God. He is not innocent. He is guilty before God. And when he comes to an age of accountability he must be born again. He was born outside of God's family. Jesus said to the Pharisees: "You are of your father, the devil." News Flash: We are all born into the devil's family. Read Eph.2:1-3. We were never born in an innocent state. If that were so, then Jesus words: "You must be born again" would be totally meaningless. You must be born again, because you were born into the family of the god of this world. Now you must be born into the family of God, that you might rightly pray: "Our Father who is in Heaven." You had no right to pray that prayer beforehand. Your depraved nature and death or separation from God prevented you from doing so.

Regarding 51:5 the sin is clearly not attributed to David. His conception was in a fallen world full of iniquity and sin. The preposition could either be relating to his mother or the world in which his mother conceived him. This verse could be used to support some form of corruption that effected David, such as semi-Pelianism, but not guilt as is taught by many.

The view is plain unscriptural and that is all. Give evidence from the Bible that any sin can be attached to the mother, when God blesses the marriage union. Your point there is ludicrous. God chose David, not because he was an illegitimate child (born in sin), but because he was a Godly man, and a suitable heir to throne of David, the ancestor of Christ. Being an illegitimate child would have disqualified him from that high and exalted place. There was no sin attached to his mother. David could not have inherited the throne if that was so--not with the blessing of Samuel and the anointing of God. Such a view is completely untenable. The verse plainly teaches that David, after having sinned, looks back upon his own sinfulness, yea even his own depraved sinful nature. He was born in sin, that is with a sin nature.

Take a look at what the Psalms say about David:
Psalms 89:20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:
--This psalm is not written by David, but by Ethan. The verses following speak of David's realation to the Lord. Verse 20 gives the context.
Now look farther down:
Psalms 89:27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
--The Lord says that I will make David my firstborn. What does that mean? David was the lasborn, the youngest in the family.
The word "firstborn" has the meaning of "pre-eminence," rank, authority. David would become the greatest in rank and authority in his family. He would become higher than the kings of the earth. This verse is a double prophecy. It refers both to David as the context shows, and it is also a prophecy that pertains to Christ. But it does pertain to David.
--If the sin pertained to David's mother, this passage could never have been written, could never have been true. He had to have had a noble birth.

 

[DHK]

Besides, I wonder if DHK is certain that the Psalms should be used as a proper source for such deep theological notions such as original sin? Are the Psalms on the same order as he places Romans? If not why would one go to the Psalms to establish dogma, especially dogma that had no place in the theology held by the Jews in general, including the writer of the Psalms in question?

You continue to strain at gnats.
Sometime I think that you are a long-time troll at the BB to come up with such arguments.

The Book of Psalms contains many truths that are used over and over again by most Bible-believing Christians.
Here is one example:

Psalms 66:18 If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:
--If there is sin in your heart the Lord will not hear your prayers. It is a simple truth; a statement of fact. The fact that it is stated in the book of Psalms has no bearing on its universal veracity.

 

[DHK]

HP: Is this an opinion, hearsay, or an urban legand? Do you have any facts to back up their ‘possibilities, or have you simply accepted what they say as fact?

The rest of your post is filled with the same ‘possibilities, suggestions, and maybe so’s' so I will just leave it at that and let the reader to decide just what pot is calling the kettle black. (An old urban saying worth consideration in light of your post)

The difference between your post and mine is that I quoted from two reliable sources: The American Tract Society Dictionary and ISBE, which is the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

You quoted from nothing but your fanciful imagination and nothing more. What do you think has more credibility in the eyes of the readers of this board?

 

[BD17]

The difference between your post and mine is that I quoted from two reliable sources: The American Tract Society Dictionary and ISBE, which is the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

You quoted from nothing but your fanciful imagination and nothing more. What do you think has more credibility in the eyes of the readers of this board?
[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

DHK this is tries and true HP tactics, tried to show him some truths in the lineage of Jesus all I used was scripture and he still quote himself as the final authority. Even after he had no ground to stand on.