What is Sin?

[Amy.G]

Ro*3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

"sinned"
Strong's Greek Dictionary
264. hamartano
amartanw hamartano ham-ar-tan'-o
perhaps from 1 (as a negative particle) and the base of 3313; properly, to miss the mark (and so not share in the prize), i.e. (figuratively) to err, especially (morally) to sin:--for your faults, offend, sin, trespass.


Ro*3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

"come short"
Strong's Greek Dictionary
5302. hustereo
usterew hustereo hoos-ter-eh'-o
from 5306; to be later, i.e. (by implication) to be inferior; generally, to fall short (be deficient):--come behind (short), be destitute, fail, lack, suffer need, (be in) want, be the worse.



This is a perfect verse to use to define sin, just as DHK has said.

I do not understand your argument, HP. Do you just like to disagree?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: This is a perfect verse to use to define sin, just as DHK has said.

HP: You may not understand the implications of what you are saying, but in essence you are placing Strong’s on the same level as Scripture itself. Think about what you are saying carefully. Strongs nor any other man written dictionary or lexicon is God-inspired. I will say it again. The verse in question does not define sin in the least.

 

[Amy.G]

HP: You may not understand the implications of what you are saying, but in essence you are placing Strong’s on the same level as Scripture itself. Think about what you are saying carefully. Strongs nor any other man written dictionary or lexicon is God-inspired. I will say it again. The verse in question does not define sin in the least.

Is that your best argument? :laugh:

Of course Strong's isn't on the same level as scripture. It is simply a dictionary of Greek words. It tells me exactly what "sin" meant in the original language of the NT. It's a great tool to help understand the meanings of words, which helps to understand scripture. It is certainly not wrong to use a dictionary when dealing with the translation of one language to another.


So, since you do not approve of dictionaries, just what is YOUR definition of sin?

 

[DHK]

Is that your best argument? :laugh:

Sadly I just think he put his authority above the authority of God and Scripture.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Let me ask you DHK. Do you put Strongs or any other lexicon on the same level as Scripture? Are they inspired? Does the Scripture by itself define sin in the verse mentioned? If I mention the word 'sin' in a sentence, have I necessarily defined it?

 

[DHK]

Let me ask you DHK. Do you put Strongs or any other lexicon on the same level as Scripture? Are they inspired? Does the Scripture by itself define sin in the verse mentioned? If I mention the word 'sin' in a sentence, have I necessarily defined it?

The Bible has spoken. You say no it hasn't. It means something else. That is denial, putting your authority above God.
Since there is a question in your mind as to its meaning (for the Bible was written in Greek), a Greek lexicon is consulted to check on the exact meaning of the word in question. It is verified. You deny it still. You again put your philosophy, your authority above God and the Scriptures.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, are Greek lexicon's the inspired Word of God? Do you just suppose some might differ with others? Even if they did not, again, are they the Inspired Word of God?

 

[DHK]

DHK, are Greek lexicon's the inspired Word of God? Do you just suppose some might differ with others? Even if they did not, again, are they the Inspired Word of God?

No translation is inspired. Only the original MSS are inspired. The Bible is preserved for us in the original languages--the Greek and the Hebrew. In answer to your question, then, the Greek lexicon will be far more accurate to the inspired MSS than a translation. For there is always meaning that is lost in a translation.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: No translation is inspired. Only the original MSS are inspired. The Bible is preserved for us in the original languages--the Greek and the Hebrew. In answer to your question, then, the Greek lexicon will be far more accurate to the inspired MSS than a translation. For there is always meaning that is lost in a translation.

HP: Consider carefully your position. Uninspired men write lexicons and uninspired men, according to you, write translations. Why would one be subject to possible error that the other would not? Could not a particular bias drive a lexicon as well as a translation? If not why not?

 

[annsni]

HP: Consider carefully your position. Uninspired men write lexicons and uninspired men, according to you, write translations. Why would one be subject to possible error that the other would not? Could not a particular bias drive a lexicon as well as a translation? If not why not?

A language has a meaning. Translators translate the words in that language. Additionally, dictionaries and lexicons are written to show the translations.

You're saying that Strongs and anyone else who translates language is lying?

 

[Amy.G]

I suppose HP is opposed to using a Webster's dictionary to define an English word.



And this is just another rabbit trail that HP is famous for rather than actually engaging in a discussion.

I will ask you again HP. What is YOUR definition of sin?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: Is that your best argument?

HP: It is not that I do not believe in dictionaries. I use them everyday……..with the help of the Holy Spirit to hopefully keep me from either my error or the error of another. Let me say this. I am a tradesman. I have been asked before by a customer if I do a perfect job. I have replied that if I had perfect walls, and perfect materials, I 'might', I said 'might' be able to do a perfect job, but I am still not certain that you, the customer, could be a perfect judge of the final product.

I am just saying none of us are free from the possibility of error, even in understanding the dictionary dealing with spiritual matters.

Oh, I almost forgot. You asked for my definition of sin. I personally like the one Wesley used : “nothing is sin, strictly speaking, but a voluntary transgression of the known will of God”.

 

[Amy.G]

Oh, I almost forgot. You asked for my definition of sin. I personally like the one Wesley used : “nothing is sin, strictly speaking, but a voluntary transgression of the known will of God”.

Would you agree that transgressing the known will of God is "missing the mark"?

 

[annsni]

HP: It is not that I do not believe in dictionaries. I use them everyday……..with the help of the Holy Spirit to hopefully keep me from either my error or the error of another. Let me say this. I am a tradesman. I have been asked before by a customer if I do a perfect job. I have replied that if I had perfect walls, and perfect materials, I 'might', I said 'might' be able to do a perfect job, but I am still not certain that you, the customer, could be a perfect judge of the final product.

I am just saying none of us are free from the possibility of error, even in understanding the dictionary dealing with spiritual matters.

Oh, I almost forgot. You asked for my definition of sin. I personally like the one Wesley used : “nothing is sin, strictly speaking, but a voluntary transgression of the known will of God”.

But God says "For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." Is that only "voluntary transgressions of the known will of God"? I'll go with the Bible on this one rather than Wesley.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: Would you agree that transgressing the known will of God is "missing the mark"?

HP: Absolutely, in light of your clarification.:thumbs:

I do not use that definition but rarely due to the vast number of individuals that would add, nor understand such a clarification.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann: But God says "For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." Is that only "voluntary transgressions of the known will of God"? I'll go with the Bible on this one rather than Wesley.

HP: Why is Wesley’s definition contrary to the passage of ‘anything not of faith is sin?” Lets see. I wake up in the morning without faith in doing so, to Ann it might be sin? Only kidding, but I am trying to illustrate the point that God desires us to consider what sin entails and not simply apply a Scripture to anything that is not of faith necessarily. I stll like Wesley's definition. :thumbs:

 

[annsni]

HP: Why is Wesley’s definition contrary to the passage of ‘anything not of faith is sin?” Lets see. I wake up in the morning without faith in doing so, to Ann it might be sin? Only kidding, but I am trying to illustrate the point that God desires us to consider what sin entails and not simply apply a Scripture to anything that is not of faith necessarily. I stll like Wesley's definition. :thumbs:

So we can ignore what God said in that verse? He really doesn't meant that anything not of faith is sin? He really meant something else?

 

[Amy.G]

Actually I think things not done in faith is referring to doing things which go against our conscience, or things which we know are contrary to God.

 

[steaver]

HP, I've been following along and it is page four now. What is your point with this thread? You don't like the commonly agreed to definitions of sin so what would you like Christians to learn from this thread?

What is it you see Christians doing wrong that is a result of these common defintions of sin you don't like?

:jesus:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: Actually I think things not done in faith is referring to doing things which go against our conscience, or things which we know are contrary to God.

HP: Excellent insight Amy.:thumbsup:

I might enlarge if I may on what you have said. I would add things that might appear to be even questionable according to our conscience as well. If we cannot come to a place of clarity that a certain intent is right, we should refrain until God makes it clear to us vis our conscience in light of everything we know to the point that we indeed can proceed in faith.