Original Sin

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Original Sin

Post #1

Post by Miles »

.



"Original sin is the Christian doctrine that humans inherit a tainted nature and a proclivity to sin through the fact of birth. Theologians have characterized this condition in many ways, seeing it as ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.

The doctrine of original sin began to emerge in the 3rd century but only became fully formed with the writings of Augustine of Hippo (354–430), who was the first author to use the phrase "original sin" (Latin: peccatum originale). Augustine's conception of original sin was based on a mistranslated passage in Paul the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans, and scholars have debated whether the passage supports Augustine's view.

Augustine's formulation of original sin became popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who equated original sin with concupiscence (or "hurtful desire"), affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom to do good and proposed that original sin involved a loss of free will except to sin.


Roman Catholicism
Catholic veiw: "Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.
By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans.
Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence")


Lutheranism
The Lutheran Churches teach that original sin "is a root and fountain-head of all actual sins.
Martin Luther (1483–1546) asserted that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception.


Jehovah's Witnesses
The consequences of the Fall spread to the whole of the human race . This is elucidated by St Paul: ‘Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin , and so death spread to all men because all men sinned’ (Rom.5:12).
This text, which formed the Church’s basis of her teaching on ‘ original sin ’, may be understood in a number of ways: the Greek words ef’ ho pantes hemarton may be translated not only as ‘because all men sinned’ but also ‘in whom [that is, in Adam] all men sinned’. Different readings of the text may produce different understandings of what ‘ original sin ’ means.
source


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
(Mormon)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) rejects the doctrine of original sin.

Methodism

Methodist theology teaches that a believer is made free from original sin when he/she is entirely sanctified.
(["entirely sanctified" or] Christian perfection is the name given to various teachings within Christianity that describe the process of achieving spiritual maturity or perfection. The ultimate goal of this process is union with God characterized by pure love of God and other people as well as personal holiness or sanctification.
source

Eastern Christianity
The Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholic Churches' version of original sin is the view that sin originates with the Devil, "for the devil sins from the beginning (1 John iii. 8)".[74] The Eastern Church never subscribed to Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt. The Church does not interpret "original sin" as having anything to do with transmitted guilt but with transmitted mortality. Because Adam sinned, all humanity shares not in his guilt but in the same punishment .
source unless otherwise indicated


So, what do think of original sin; a third century Christian doctrine created to invest salvation with greater significance, a concept of questionable value, or concocted hogwash?


.

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4196
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 459 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #51

Post by 2timothy316 »

Diagoras wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 8:13 pm
2timothy316 wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 11:15 am Wanting to have the power to determine good and bad like God had. Remember, that is what Satan was promising they would have. Mankind got that ability. How have we fared with it?
Pretty good, actually. Why not test yourself on a few things, here:?

https://www.gapminder.org/
LOL if you say so. I guess I live in different part of the world than you. That website doesn't address what I'm talking about, you're making a strawman. I'm talking about mankind's leadership over itself. Mankind making it's own laws. The harm that has come from mankind determining what is good for itself.

There are about a dozen wars happening right now, nations firing rockets at each other based on hatred of someone's nationality, mass migrations due to government corruption and war, I see people dying from overeating while another starves to death because of government corruption, state funded ransomware attacks, people in places of leadership spreading fear and lies to gain political power. Passing laws so that it will make it harder for some people to have a say in how they are governed. State funded assassinations. Government leaders sowing division in people like I've never seen before in politics and beliefs that have led to violence and death. State funded 'reeducation camps'. This list goes on and on. If a person is not aware of these things then they are living under a rock.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #52

Post by Diagoras »

Which translation are you getting ‘cautious’ from? I went looking and found ‘crafty’ in: ESV, NIV, NRSV, Lexham English, NASB95, and Derby translations; ‘clever’ in NCV, NIrV and Gods Word Translation versions, ‘cunning’ in the NKJV and Holman Christian Standard Bible, and ‘subtle/subtil’ in KJV and ASV translations. The only other word I could find was ‘shrewdest’ from the NLT.

Have they all misinterpreted the source Hebrew, or are you quoting something else?

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #53

Post by Diagoras »

2timothy316 wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:32 am LOL if you say so. I guess I live in different part of the world than you.
We live in the same world.
That website doesn't address what I'm talking about, you're making a strawman. I'm talking about mankind's leadership over itself. Mankind making it's own laws. The harm that has come from mankind determining what is good for itself.
You claim that I’m making a straw man, but you go on to address my point as if it’s still valid with a counter-argument. Let’s see:
There are about a dozen wars happening right now
The ‘deaths in wars’ chart from my link puts your comment into proper perspective.
I see people dying from overeating while another starves to death
Go and look at the ‘World Health Chart’ feature on that website. Find out the true picture of improving global life expectancy, rather than relying on likely biased sources for your news and sermons.
If a person is not aware of these things then they are living under a rock.
Oh, I’m certainly aware of all those things; I watch the news. But they don’t present the full picture by a long stretch. I’ve argued against ‘the end of the world’ on this website using similar arguments.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #54

Post by Miles »

Diagoras wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 12:15 am Which translation are you getting ‘cautious’ from? I went looking and found ‘crafty’ in: ESV, NIV, NRSV, Lexham English, NASB95, and Derby translations; ‘clever’ in NCV, NIrV and Gods Word Translation versions, ‘cunning’ in the NKJV and Holman Christian Standard Bible, and ‘subtle/subtil’ in KJV and ASV translations. The only other word I could find was ‘shrewdest’ from the NLT.

Have they all misinterpreted the source Hebrew, or are you quoting something else?
It's the New World Translation. The JW bible. It also comes with the Footnote: "Or 'shrewdest; craftiest.'”

Kind of makes one wonder, why? Why choose a word that hardly comes close to "shrewdest," or "craftiest," or any of the other translation?


subtle
subtle, skilled in deceit
crafty
craftiest
subtle and crafty
cunning
intelligent
sneakier
clever
clever [shrewd, cunning, crafty]
astute
shrewder
shrewdest
able to fool others
arum (cunning, crafty, wiley)
feller (?)

.

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4196
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 459 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #55

Post by 2timothy316 »

Diagoras wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 12:36 am
2timothy316 wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:32 am LOL if you say so. I guess I live in different part of the world than you.
We live in the same world.
That website doesn't address what I'm talking about, you're making a strawman. I'm talking about mankind's leadership over itself. Mankind making it's own laws. The harm that has come from mankind determining what is good for itself.
You claim that I’m making a straw man, but you go on to address my point as if it’s still valid with a counter-argument. Let’s see:
There are about a dozen wars happening right now
The ‘deaths in wars’ chart from my link puts your comment into proper perspective.
...so you think the number of deaths is what is important. Allow me to put into perspective for you, to understand what it is like for people that live in these areas. Think of all the members of your family and friends, now for you what is acceptable number or percentage to be shot, gassed with nerve agent, starve to death, die from war caused disease, die from dehydration, or blown to bits? If your number is higher than zero, then just wow... Then this world with mankind's domination of it is certainly for you...and you can keep it.
I see people dying from overeating while another starves to death
Go and look at the ‘World Health Chart’ feature on that website. Find out the true picture of improving global life expectancy, rather than relying on likely biased sources for your news and sermons.
Another stawman. I'm not talking about life expectancy. I'm talking about the governments that based on their decision to war or their mismanagement of resources lead to famine and the deaths of millions. Ever hear of the Soviet famine of 1932? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_fa ... E2%80%9333 7 million died from mankind's choices. Because we think we know what is 'good and bad'. We think that WE know what is best for everyone. That is just one example out of dozens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines
If a person is not aware of these things then they are living under a rock.
Oh, I’m certainly aware of all those things; I watch the news. But they don’t present the full picture by a long stretch. I’ve argued against ‘the end of the world’ on this website using similar arguments.
Another strawman. I'm not talking about the end of the world. I'm talking about the original sin. The rebellion of A&E from God, in that they wanted to make their own choices as to what is good and bad. They didn't want anyone else making that choice for them. Mankind as shown over and over that in their domination over themselves has led to catastrophic harm in many cases. The blind leading the blind. From what I can tell, many are accepting of these choices and the consequences coming from these choices. Many seem to be people after Adam's own heart. 'So what if a few million die so that we can keep making our own laws. No big deal!"
Last edited by 2timothy316 on Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:54 am, edited 9 times in total.

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4196
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 459 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #56

Post by 2timothy316 »

[Replying to Miles in post #55]

What a strange thing to make a big deal about. No matter, you can write the publisher and ask.

Jehovah’s Witnesses
900 Red Mills Road
WALLKILL NY 12589-3223
UNITED STATES

I'm not sure crafty would be the right word as it would indicate a higher intelligence and make it seem like every snake in the world was, "clever at achieving one's aims by indirect or deceitful methods." Sensible or shrewd also seems to denote a higher intelligence of every snake in the world. Cautious behavior though while does show some intelligence in an animal, it's not limited to higher intelligence like that of a human. Which makes sense for an animal that slithers on the ground and must be cautious so as not to be stepped on. The snake was a prop. Perhaps because it was known for its cautious nature to be on the look out for something that could hurt it, for the snake to be near the tree or even on the tree and it not die appealed to Eve. Yet it had the intelligence of a ordinary snake. No idea what one tree was from another. Satan was the voice Eve heard, the snake was just a normal snake, not having any sort of higher intelligence to plot or understand complex situations. Though saying the snake was ON the tree is pure speculation as there nothing in the Bible to says it was on the tree. But it clearly it was near it and perhaps Eve might have thought, 'well the snake was (near or on the tree) and didn't die, maybe I will not either.' At anyrate, for the Bible to make note of how Eve viewed a snake seems to have some bearing on her choice and/or why Satan used a snake in his pitch to Eve to take fruit from the tree.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3046
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3276 times
Been thanked: 2023 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #57

Post by Difflugia »

Miles wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 12:50 amIt's the New World Translation. The JW bible. It also comes with the Footnote: "Or 'shrewdest; craftiest.'”

Kind of makes one wonder, why? Why choose a word that hardly comes close to "shrewdest," or "craftiest," or any of the other translation?
I hadn't noticed that in the NWT, but the more I look at it, the weirder it is.

The Hebrew word is actually a pretty broad one that more-or-less maps onto the English word "clever." When it's meant as a positive or complimentary attribute, it means something like "wise" or "prudent." If the context is negative, it means something more akin to "cunning," "shrewd," or "conniving." It seems odd that such a fluid adjective for the serpent would be translated narrowly as "cautious" when in the next sentence (the same one in Hebrew) it tries to trick the couple into disobeying God.

I thought maybe the NWT translators were making an attempt to translate the word the same way every time it appears, but that's not it, either. Proverbs 12:16 translates the word as "shrewd" when "wise" or even "cautious" would probably be a better translation:
A fool immediately shows his annoyance,

But the shrewd man overlooks an insult.
Another strange thing, though, is that they translated Matthew 10:16 to include the phrase "cautious as serpents" when it's equally out of place there. In a very similar way, the Greek means "thoughtful" or "sensible" rather than the more narrow "cautious." It's like there's some theological reason that serpents should be "cautious" rather than "cunning" or "wise," but unless they really are hung up on the idea proposed by 2timothy316 that animal "wisdom" is too anthropomorphic, I can't think of a reason important enough for that kind of mistranslation.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21141
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 794 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Re: Original Sin

Post #58

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Difflugia wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 11:20 am It seems odd that such a fluid adjective for the serpent would be translated narrowly as "cautious" when in the next sentence (the same one in Hebrew) it tries to trick the couple into disobeying God.
Are you suggesting the NWT choice is inappropiriate ? If so could you explains why? You point out that The "when in the next sentence (the same one in Hebrew) it tries to trick the couple into disobeying God." Could you explain WHY this would be problematic if indeed that is what you are trying to suggest.
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3046
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3276 times
Been thanked: 2023 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #59

Post by Difflugia »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 11:56 amAre you suggesting the NWT choice is inappropiriate ?
Yes.
JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 11:56 amIf so could you explains why?
The NWT actively claims to not be a paraphrase:
A translator who liberally paraphrases the Bible according to how he interprets the overall idea could distort the meaning of the text. How so? The translator may erroneously insert his opinion of what the original text means or may omit important details contained in the original text.
As stated in the foreword to the original English edition of the New World Translation: “We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures. Our endeavor all through has been to give as literal a translation as possible, where the modern English idiom allows and where a literal rendition does not for any clumsiness hide the thought.”
The NWT translates neither עָר֔וּם nor its root עָרַמ as "cautious" anywhere else in the Bible. Neither lexicon that I routinely use (Davidson and Brown-Driver-Briggs) offers "cautious" as even a possible meaning, the closest being "sensible" or "prudent." Even those meanings aren't justified in Genesis 3:1, because the only contextual reason for narrowing the meaning beyond "clever" is that the serpent is described as being a trickster. "Clever" fits the broadest possible meaning of the Hebrew. "Cunning" fits the contextual meaning. "Cautious" fits neither and seems to be a case of a translator "erroneously insert[ing] his opinion" with neither textual nor linguistic justification.
JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 11:56 amYou point out that The "when in the next sentence (the same one in Hebrew) it tries to trick the couple into disobeying God." Could you explains who this would be problematic if indeed that is what you are trying to suggest.
The idea of a "cunning trickster" fits the context. A "cautious trickster" is a non sequitur.

Now that your ax is sufficiently ground, do you have an actual counterclaim to make and evidence with which to support it?
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21141
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 794 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Re: Original Sin

Post #60

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Difflugia wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:06 pm
JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 11:56 amAre you suggesting the NWT choice is inappropiriate ?
Yes.
JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 11:56 amIf so could you explains why?


The NWT translates neither עָר֔וּם nor its root עָרַמ as "cautious" anywhere else in the Bible.
So are you suggesting that the word, like a proper noun, should be translated in the same way throughout scripture regardless of context?


JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Post Reply