Fallen Man

[DavidLeon]

What exactly is fallen man? What is sin? Sin is translated from the Hebrew chatath Greek hamartia and means to miss the mark. At Judges 20:16 chata is used with a negative indicating throwers of stones who missed the target. So, you can sin against your boss by not showing up for work on time, you can sin against the law by exceeding the speed limit, you can sin against God by failing to meet his requirements. The later was the case with Adam.

Fallen man existed as can be verified by Genesis 1:26-29; 2:15-17; 3:1-5; 1 Timothy 2:14.

Debate question: If fallen man didn't exist what need is there of a savior?

[Miles]

What exactly is fallen man? What is sin? Sin is translated from the Hebrew chatath Greek hamartia and means to miss the mark. At Judges 20:16 chata is used with a negative indicating throwers of stones who missed the target. So, you can sin against your boss by not showing up for work on time, you can sin against the law by exceeding the speed limit, you can sin against God by failing to meet his requirements. The later was the case with Adam.

Fallen man existed as can be verified by Genesis 1:26-29; 2:15-17; 3:1-5; 1 Timothy 2:14.

As described in Strong's H2403 "sin" derives from

"חַטָּאָה chaṭṭâʼâh, khat-taw-aw'; or חַטָּאת chaṭṭâʼth; from H2398; an offence (sometimes habitual sinfulness), and its penalty, occasion, sacrifice, or expiation; also (concretely) an offender:—punishment (of sin), purifying(-fication for sin), sin(-ner, offering)."

H2398 being:

"חָטָא châṭâʼ, khaw-taw'; a primitive root; properly, to miss; hence (figuratively and generally) to sin; by inference, to forfeit, lack, expiate, repent, (causatively) lead astray, condemn:—bear the blame, cleanse, commit (sin), by fault, harm he hath done, loss, miss, (make) offend(-er), offer for sin, purge, purify (self), make reconciliation, (cause, make) sin(-ful, -ness), trespass.

So "sin" can mean much more than "miss the mark." It can mean an "offense," which in the Abrahamic religions would be an offense against god.

"Debate question: If fallen man didn't exist what need is there of a savior?"

As I understand Judaism and Christianity, there is none. The whole of Christianity, for instance, revolves around the need to be saved from what god is going to do to you because you've offended him, and to be saved requires, depending on one's particular brand of Christianity, at least accepting Jesus as one's savior.

[Sojournerofthearth]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

As I understand Judaism and Christianity, there is none. The whole of Christianity, for instance, revolves around the need to be saved from what god is going to do to you because you've offended him, and to be saved requires, depending on one's particular brand of Christianity, at least accepting Jesus as one's savior.

In mainstream Christianity, it is a commonly accepted doctrine that God, in an attempt repair the damage brought on by Satan’s infliction of Original Sin, to redeem us back to the state where we are as good as Adam was before the so-called fall. The common belief is that God created Adam as an immortal, perfect spiritual character, with a body, a material covering he wears to house his immortal soul. Man was made complete, immortal, perfect in every way, a supreme masterpiece of God’s creation, but Satan came along and wrecked everything, thus forcing God into plan 2 mode.

The general false conception is that ever since the “fall of Adam,” poor God has been doing his level best to salvage as much of the world as he can to restore it back to its prior condition, before the fall. But because of this fierce competition between God and Satan, who is very cunningly thwarting God’s plan, only a very small percentage of mankind is actually being “saved.”

But what does the Bible really teach? It says that God made man in His own image but unlike God, man was made flesh and blood and subject to death. And yet, most every Christian church teaches that mankind is immortal. They teach that man has a soul that lives into eternity. But what does the Bible teach about this soul, this man called Adam?

The Hebrew word, we interpret as soul is Nephesh. It means the life or the “breath” or the breathing creature. God breathed life into man, and he became a “living soul” or a breathing creature. The same word is depicted many places referring to animals. Gen 1:20, 1:21, 1:24, 1:30 and it doesn’t refer to man being a living soul until Gen. 2:7. Later in the same chapter, Adam is given the chance to name every living soul. Gen 9 goes back and forth between man and beast as referring to them both as living souls, or breathing creatures.

So, what separates man from the animal kingdome if they are both merely breathing creatures, subject to death? Man has been given the opportunity to put on immortality. (1Co 15:53)

But if not, then according to the Bible, if one is so inclined, Ezekiel 18:4 says, the soul that sins, it will die. And the wages of sin is death. Rom 6.23. So, if man were a perfect, creation, he would not have been subject to sin in the first place.

So where does the idea come from that man believes he is immortal? Satan told Eve, You will not Surely Die. I don’t know WHY God told you that. You don’t need God. You can make your own way. God doesn’t want you to eat from THIS tree, because when you do, you’ll be just like God. You’ll be your own master. You’ll decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong. You’ll be your own God. He redefined being made in the image of God, from being in the likeness with an incredible capacity to inherit the same nature and composition of our Creator and Father, to having already possessed it. And they bought the lie and gave up the opportunity to inherit immortality. They came to KNOW, to have taken to themselves the right to determine what is good and what is evil. They would no longer look to God for the definition of what that was. They would remake god in their own image.

Which leads to the definition of sin. Because sin is against God (Psa 21.4). Sin isn’t going against your better judgment. It isn’t in man to direct his steps. (Jer. 10.23) It isn’t going against your conscience, because our conscience is influenced by the world around us (Jer 17:9) after the imaginations of our hearts. (Jer 16:12; James 1:14-15). So what is sin? Sin is the Transgression of the Law. 1Jn 3:4

And the offense of sin is that it separates God and man from eternal habitations. God has a plan for mankind that brings him into the actual family of God, to become as He is. But sin, the idea that we make our own way, choose for ourselves what is acceptable, it separates us from the God who is Holy and requires those in His presence to also be Holy.

According to the Bible; if one is so inclined.

Soj

[DavidLeon]

As described in Strong's H2403 "sin" derives from

"חַטָּאָה chaṭṭâʼâh, khat-taw-aw'; or חַטָּאת chaṭṭâʼth; from H2398; an offence (sometimes habitual sinfulness), and its penalty, occasion, sacrifice, or expiation; also (concretely) an offender:—punishment (of sin), purifying(-fication for sin), sin(-ner, offering)."

H2398 being:

"חָטָא châṭâʼ, khaw-taw'; a primitive root; properly, to miss; hence (figuratively and generally) to sin; by inference, to forfeit, lack, expiate, repent, (causatively) lead astray, condemn:—bear the blame, cleanse, commit (sin), by fault, harm he hath done, loss, miss, (make) offend(-er), offer for sin, purge, purify (self), make reconciliation, (cause, make) sin(-ful, -ness), trespass.

Thanks, Miles, for that information. Regarding Strongs keep in mind that a concordance is nothing more than a comprehensive listing of all (or at least most) occurrences of a specific word. The usefulness of any concordance will depend upon the Bible translation that you use. The KJV isn't a very good translation.

However, I don't see much difference in the information you gave and my simple explanation of missing the mark.

So "sin" can mean much more than "miss the mark." It can mean an "offense," which in the Abrahamic religions would be an offense against god.

How can there be an offense without missing the mark?

As I understand Judaism and Christianity, there is none. The whole of Christianity, for instance, revolves around the need to be saved from what god is going to do to you because you've offended him, and to be saved requires, depending on one's particular brand of Christianity, at least accepting Jesus as one's savior.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not really focused on Judaism and Christianity because I think they are both apostate. I'm concerned with the Bible. The Biblical rather than the theological.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #2]

As I understand Judaism and Christianity, there is none. The whole of Christianity, for instance, revolves around the need to be saved from what god is going to do to you because you've offended him, and to be saved requires, depending on one's particular brand of Christianity, at least accepting Jesus as one's savior.

In mainstream Christianity, it is a commonly accepted doctrine that God, in an attempt repair the damage brought on by Satan’s infliction of Original Sin, to redeem us back to the state where we are as good as Adam was before the so-called fall. The common belief is that God created Adam as an immortal, perfect spiritual character, with a body, a material covering he wears to house his immortal soul. Man was made complete, immortal, perfect in every way, a supreme masterpiece of God’s creation, but Satan came along and wrecked everything, thus forcing God into plan 2 mode.

Which amounted to god inflicting Original Sin on everyone who came after A&E. It wasn't Satan who did the inflicting, but god.

Genesis 3:17-19
17 Then God said to the man,
“I commanded you not to eat from that tree.
But you listened to your wife and ate from it.
So I will curse the ground because of you.
You will have to work hard all your life for the food the ground produces.
18 The ground will grow thorns and weeds for you.
And you will have to eat the plants that grow wild in the fields.
19 You will work hard for your food,
until your face is covered with sweat.
You will work hard until the day you die,
and then you will become dust again.
I used dust to make you,
and when you die, you will become dust again.”

This is confirmed in Romans 5:12–19, which ends with "18 So that one sin of Adam brought the punishment of death to all people. But in the same way, Christ did something so good that it makes all people right with God. And that brings them true life. 19 One man disobeyed God and many became sinners. But in the same way, one man obeyed God and many will be made right. ."

But what does the Bible really teach? It says that God made man in His own image but unlike God, man was made flesh and blood and subject to death. And yet, most every Christian church teaches that mankind is immortal. They teach that man has a soul that lives into eternity. But what does the Bible teach about this soul, this man called Adam?

The Hebrew word, we interpret as soul is Nephesh. It means the life or the “breath” or the breathing creature. God breathed life into man, and he became a “living soul” or a breathing creature. The same word is depicted many places referring to animals. Gen 1:20, 1:21, 1:24, 1:30 and it doesn’t refer to man being a living soul until Gen. 2:7. Later in the same chapter, Adam is given the chance to name every living soul. Gen 9 goes back and forth between man and beast as referring to them both as living souls, or breathing creatures.

So, what separates man from the animal kingdome if they are both merely breathing creatures, subject to death? Man has been given the opportunity to put on immortality. (1Co 15:53)

But man already has immortality. After death some will play theirs out in Heaven while others will spend their immortal lives in Hell.

Which leads to the definition of sin. Because sin is against God (Psa 21.4). Sin isn’t going against your better judgment. It isn’t in man to direct his steps. (Jer. 10.23) It isn’t going against your conscience, because our conscience is influenced by the world around us (Jer 17:9) after the imaginations of our hearts. (Jer 16:12; James 1:14-15). So what is sin? Sin is the Transgression of the Law. 1Jn 3:4

Okay, but this is pretty much the same as what I said before about sin. It's that "which in the Abrahamic religions would be an offense against god." An offense having to be against a law of god.

And the offense of sin is that it separates God and man from eternal habitations.

I'd say that's the consequence.

God has a plan for mankind that brings him into the actual family of God, to become as He is.

If so, then why has he not provided everyone on earth with this Get-With-God card? There have been millions upon millions who have never heard of such an option and had to go to Hell after death.

But sin, the idea that we make our own way, choose for ourselves what is acceptable, it separates us from the God who is Holy and requires those in His presence to also be Holy.

So this is your definition of sin then: "the idea that we make our own way, choose for ourselves what is acceptable,"? How very odd.

[Miles]

As described in Strong's H2403 "sin" derives from

"חַטָּאָה chaṭṭâʼâh, khat-taw-aw'; or חַטָּאת chaṭṭâʼth; from H2398; an offence (sometimes habitual sinfulness), and its penalty, occasion, sacrifice, or expiation; also (concretely) an offender:—punishment (of sin), purifying(-fication for sin), sin(-ner, offering)."

H2398 being:

"חָטָא châṭâʼ, khaw-taw'; a primitive root; properly, to miss; hence (figuratively and generally) to sin; by inference, to forfeit, lack, expiate, repent, (causatively) lead astray, condemn:—bear the blame, cleanse, commit (sin), by fault, harm he hath done, loss, miss, (make) offend(-er), offer for sin, purge, purify (self), make reconciliation, (cause, make) sin(-ful, -ness), trespass.

Thanks, Miles, for that information. Regarding Strongs keep in mind that a concordance is nothing more than a comprehensive listing of all (or at least most) occurrences of a specific word. The usefulness of any concordance will depend upon the Bible translation that you use. The KJV isn't a very good translation.

It isn't the translation into English that's important as much as the original word(s) it was translated from, and in almost all cases it's the same word(s).

However, I don't see much difference in the information you gave and my simple explanation of missing the mark.

So "sin" can mean much more than "miss the mark." It can mean an "offense," which in the Abrahamic religions would be an offense against god. How can there be an offense without missing the mark?

Although "missing the mark" could be an offense, it could be a lot of other things that don't amount to an offense. So I believe "offense" is a far better word.

As I understand Judaism and Christianity, there is none. The whole of Christianity, for instance, revolves around the need to be saved from what god is going to do to you because you've offended him, and to be saved requires, depending on one's particular brand of Christianity, at least accepting Jesus as one's savior.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not really focused on Judaism and Christianity because I think they are both apostate. I'm concerned with the Bible. The Biblical rather than the theological.

Then what are you referring to when you use the term "fallen man"?

[DavidLeon]

"חַטָּאָה chaṭṭâʼâh, khat-taw-aw'; or חַטָּאת chaṭṭâʼth; from H2398; an offence (sometimes habitual sinfulness), and its penalty, occasion, sacrifice, or expiation; also (concretely) an offender:—punishment (of sin), purifying(-fication for sin), sin(-ner, offering)."

H2398 being:

"חָטָא châṭâʼ, khaw-taw'; a primitive root; properly, to miss; hence (figuratively and generally) to sin; by inference, to forfeit, lack, expiate, repent, (causatively) lead astray, condemn:—bear the blame, cleanse, commit (sin), by fault, harm he hath done, loss, miss, (make) offend(-er), offer for sin, purge, purify (self), make reconciliation, (cause, make) sin(-ful, -ness), trespass.

It isn't the translation into English that's important as much as the original word(s) it was translated from, and in almost all cases it's the same word(s). [/quote]

I don't think so. How is it that sin is the offense and the penalty, sacrifice, punishment, expiation, purifying for the offense as well? And to miss mean forfeit, expiate, repent, lead astray, condemn, bear the blame, cleanse, etc.

Although "missing the mark" could be an offense, it could be a lot of other things that don't amount to an offense. So I believe "offense" is a far better word.

Why would you think that if it could be other things than offense that that would be a far better word?

Then what are you referring to when you use the term "fallen man"?

Strictly what the Bible says without reference to how Judaism and Christianity interprets it.

[Miles]

"חַטָּאָה chaṭṭâʼâh, khat-taw-aw'; or חַטָּאת chaṭṭâʼth; from H2398; an offence (sometimes habitual sinfulness), and its penalty, occasion, sacrifice, or expiation; also (concretely) an offender:—punishment (of sin), purifying(-fication for sin), sin(-ner, offering)."

H2398 being:

"חָטָא châṭâʼ, khaw-taw'; a primitive root; properly, to miss; hence (figuratively and generally) to sin; by inference, to forfeit, lack, expiate, repent, (causatively) lead astray, condemn:—bear the blame, cleanse, commit (sin), by fault, harm he hath done, loss, miss, (make) offend(-er), offer for sin, purge, purify (self), make reconciliation, (cause, make) sin(-ful, -ness), trespass.

It isn't the translation into English that's important as much as the original word(s) it was translated from, and in almost all cases it's the same word(s).

I don't think so. How is it that sin is the offense and the penalty, sacrifice, punishment, expiation, purifying for the offense as well? And to miss mean forfeit, expiate, repent, lead astray, condemn, bear the blame, cleanse, etc.

In as much as "chaṭṭâʼâh," has several meanings, how have you most frequently heard it used?
When it's said in the Bible that someone has committed a sin and must suffer some dire consequence do you feel it's because they "missed the mark" or committed an "offense"? Personally, I don't see god sending people to burn in hell because they "missed the mark" but more likely because they committed an "offense." But that's just me. Maybe missing the mark is good enough reason in your ethical system.

Although "missing the mark" could be an offense, it could be a lot of other things that don't amount to an offense. So I believe "offense" is a far better word.

Why would you think that if it could be other things than offense that that would be a far better word?

Consider: "They fled the scene in a car" and "They fled the scene in a green four-door sedan." Both say they fled the scene in a vehicle, but one is much more precise than the other. The term "car" can encompass all kinds of vehicles other than a green four-door sedan.

Then what are you referring to when you use the term "fallen man"?

Strictly what the Bible says without reference to how Judaism and Christianity interprets it.

But the only people caring to interpret it are Jews and Christians (and perhaps Muslims) who do so within the constructs of their respective religions.

[DavidLeon]

In as much as "chaṭṭâʼâh," has several meanings, how have you most frequently heard it used?
When it's said in the Bible that someone has committed a sin and must suffer some dire consequence do you feel it's because they "missed the mark" or committed an "offense"? Personally, I don't see god sending people to burn in hell because they "missed the mark" but more likely because they committed an "offense." But that's just me. Maybe missing the mark is good enough reason in your ethical system.

Consider: "They fled the scene in a car" and "They fled the scene in a green four-door sedan." Both say they fled the scene in a vehicle, but one is much more precise than the other. The term "car" can encompass all kinds of vehicles other than a green four-door sedan.

But the only people caring to interpret it are Jews and Christians (and perhaps Muslims) who do so within the constructs of their respective religions.

I usually use the word sin, but offense is fine, I was just curious as to why you would use it. It's more the other definitions like punishment, purify, expiate, etc. which I object to. By the way hell isn't a bible teaching, it's a pagan teaching adopted by apostate Christianity long after Christ. See my post here if interested.

[Miles]

I usually use the word sin, but offense is fine, I was just curious as to why you would use it. It's more the other definitions like punishment, purify, expiate, etc. which I object to.

I usually use the word sin as well, but not meaning "to miss the mark" as you indicated in post #1. I use it more in keeping with its definition as "offense."

By the way hell isn't a bible teaching, it's a pagan teaching adopted by apostate Christianity long after Christ. See my post here if interested.

You are aware, are you not, that "Hell" is simply the English term for the Hebrew "Sheol," Greek "Hades" and "Ghenna."

Psalm 30:3
Jehovah, thou hast brought up my soul from Sheol, thou hast quickened me from among those that go down to the pit.

Numbers 16:30
but if Jehovah make a new thing, and the ground open its mouth, and swallow them up, and all that they have, and they go down alive into Sheol, then ye shall know that these men have despised Jehovah.

Luke 10:15
And *thou*, Capernaum, who hast been raised up to heaven, shalt be brought down even to hades.

Mark 9:42-48 ( (NABRE)
JESUS SPEAKING
42 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe [in me] to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go into Ghenna, into the unquenchable fire. [44] 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life crippled than with two feet to be thrown into Ghenna. [46 ] 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Ghenna, 48 where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’


Oh yes, "Hell" does appear in several Bibles, including:

Deuteronomy 32:22 (KJV)
For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

Matthew 5:29 (NASB)
If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

Matthew 16:18(ESV)
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

James 3:6 (NLT)
And among all the parts of the body, the tongue is a flame of fire. It is a whole world of wickedness, corrupting your entire body. It can set your whole life on fire, for it is set on fire by hell itself.

2 Peter 2:4 (NIV)
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;


Hell (n.)

also Hell, Old English hel, helle, "nether world, abode of the dead, infernal regions, place of torment for the wicked after death," from Proto-Germanic *haljō "the underworld" (source also of Old Frisian helle, Old Saxon hellia, Dutch hel, Old Norse hel, German Hölle, Gothic halja "hell"). Literally "concealed place" (compare Old Norse hellir "cave, cavern"), from PIE root *kel- (1) "to cover, conceal, save."

The English word may be in part from Old Norse mythological Hel (from Proto-Germanic *halija "one who covers up or hides something"), in Norse mythology the name of Loki's daughter who rules over the evil dead in Niflheim, the lowest of all worlds (nifl "mist"). A pagan concept and word fitted to a Christian idiom. In Middle English, also of the Limbus Patrum, place where the Patriarchs, Prophets, etc. awaited the Atonement. Used in the KJV for Old Testament Hebrew Sheol and New Testament Greek Hades, Gehenna. Used figuratively for "state of misery, any bad experience" at least since late 14c. As an expression of disgust, etc., first recorded 1670s.
Source:Online Etymology Dictionary.