What does Paul mean by "sin?"

[Difflugia]

What does Paul mean by "sin," particularly as a noun in Romans? What does it mean to be "under sin" (3:9) or for sin to be "in the world," but not "reckoned" or "imputed" (5:13)? Is the sin that "reigned in death" (5:21) just a metaphorical description of personal sins that can be "covered" (4:7), or are they different things?

[DavidLeon]

What does Paul mean by "sin," particularly as a noun in Romans? What does it mean to be "under sin" (3:9) or for sin to be "in the world," but not "reckoned" or "imputed" (5:13)? Is the sin that "reigned in death" (5:21) just a metaphorical description of personal sins that can be "covered" (4:7), or are they different things?

Would you agree that sin means to miss the mark or target? To sin against one's employer, for example, would be to show up 5 minutes late for work. Or not complete some task the employer asked of you.

Adam sinned. We inherit that sin though we did not sin as Adam. We are under it's influence. The world began when Adam and Eve first conceived a child. That's when the end days began. The world will be destroyed along with sin and death.

In the verses you give Paul is talking about the law of God being written in our hearts, the Law of Moses which foreshadowed Christ as a tutor, measured their conduct to prepare them for the more perfect law of Christ. Prior to the Law of Moses and to the gentiles they didn't have that. They're not charged with the sin of Adam but they sin in that what they do reflects a lawlessness, law retarded, in effect.

Have you ever done any research on God's day of rest. The seventh day. David and Paul refer to it as going on in their day, as it does still in our day.

[1213]

What does Paul mean by "sin," particularly as a noun in Romans? What does it mean to be "under sin" (3:9) or for sin to be "in the world," but not "reckoned" or "imputed" (5:13)? Is the sin that "reigned in death" (5:21) just a metaphorical description of personal sins that can be "covered" (4:7), or are they different things?

Paul seems to mean with sin unlawful actions. But, sin can have two meanings, unlawful action, or to reject God, or to be without God. The opposite of sin is righteous. And according to the Bible, righteous lives, if he is loyal to God. Because of that, I think sin is actually not being loyal to God. And then, if person is under sin, it would mean person is unfaithful to God.

He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

Behold, his soul is puffed up. It is not upright in him, but the righteous will live by his faith.
Habakkuk 2:4

[Deeogee]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #2]

Sin cannot be inherited according to (Ezekiel 18:20).

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

[DavidLeon]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #2]

Sin cannot be inherited according to (Ezekiel 18:20).

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

I just happened to stumble on this. There isn't notification unless the response includes a quote.

There is a difference between sinning and inheriting sin. If a man commits a crime and is arrested and imprisoned for a fair length of time the man's son isn't punished for the crime but suffers as a result of it nevertheless. The results of the son's reaction to the harmful results of his father's crime would result in his own sins for which he then is accountable for.

[brunumb]

The results of the son's reaction to the harmful results of his father's crime would result in his own sins for which he then is accountable for.

That is an unjustified assumption and not necessarily true. It's just another vain attempt to make the absurd notion of inherited sin somehow credible.

Sin is an invented religious concept. How do you offer the cure for a disease when there is no disease? Tell people they have one that can't be verified. More importantly increase the pool of marks for this great con by giving everyone this imaginary disease through the inescapable method of inheritance. There will always be enough people on the appropriate side of the distribution curve to lap it up and willingly buy the cure for a mere ten percent of their income and regular attendance at reinforcement rituals.

[DavidLeon]

The results of the son's reaction to the harmful results of his father's crime would result in his own sins for which he then is accountable for.

That is an unjustified assumption and not necessarily true. It's just another vain attempt to make the absurd notion of inherited sin somehow credible.

Credible to who?

Sin is an invented religious concept.

No, it's a a word translated from the Hebrew chattath and Greek hamartia, both meaning to miss. (Judges 20:16; Job 5:24)

How do you offer the cure for a disease when there is no disease?

What? We've had this discussion before, haven't we. Who said anything about a disease? How do you offer a cure for a disease when there is a disease?

Tell people they have one that can't be verified.

Oh, it will be verified. If you don't believe in the disease or the cure you are completely free to ignore it all. But you can't verify that it won't be verified. So if you're wrong anyone who listens to you misses, pun intended, the possible cure.

More importantly increase the pool of marks for this great con by giving everyone this imaginary disease through the inescapable method of inheritance. There will always be enough people on the appropriate side of the distribution curve to lap it up and willingly buy the cure for a mere ten percent of their income and regular attendance at reinforcement rituals.

Personally, I wouldn't recommend they do that. The tithe is to promote the ministry. Necessary once but not so much now in most places. If you're paying 10% for Christians to molest your children, don't. If you have nothing as in other places, 10% of nothing is nothing. If you want to give 10% to a group that isn't so much into molesting children as they are ministering, you be the judge.

Only Jesus has the cure and he isn't mass marketing it.

[Deeogee]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #5]

So you agree with (Ezekiel 18:20).

Is that correct?

[brunumb]

Oh, it will be verified. If you don't believe in the disease or the cure you are completely free to ignore it all. But you can't verify that it won't be verified. So if you're wrong anyone who listens to you misses, pun intended, the possible cure.

And now we are on the verge of getting that rascal Pascal's very stale old chestnut. As usual, nothing there but "you better believe it .....just in case". Oh dear.

[DavidLeon]

Oh, it will be verified. If you don't believe in the disease or the cure you are completely free to ignore it all. But you can't verify that it won't be verified. So if you're wrong anyone who listens to you misses, pun intended, the possible cure.

And now we are on the verge of getting that rascal Pascal's very stale old chestnut. As usual, nothing there but "you better believe it .....just in case". Oh dear.

You don't have to believe it. You don't want it anyway. No, no, no. Nothing like that . . . more like, survival of the fittest.