TheologyOnline, religion, politics, forum
Go Back   Theology Online | Christian Forums & More > Bob Enyart Live > Bob Enyart Live
Reload this Page DBC's Nick Morgan on Bible Languages
Bob Enyart Live Greetings to the brightest audience in the country. I am Bob Enyart...... discuss Bob's shows here! Bob's show is aired live on the radio and rebroadcast at: KGOV.com

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  (#31) Old
Stripe Stripe is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Stripe's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
March 19th, 2012, 10:23 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frayed Knot View Post
Because it's a set of separate books written by fallible humans, capturing their primitive society's traditions but the authors putting their own take on things. That's the obvious answer. Is there any evidence that it's not the right one?
Plenty.

It's perfectly obvious that the different passages might be referring to very different concepts.

Here's a clue. From my passages:

chet' חֵטְא
1) sin
a) sin b) guilt for sin c) punishment for sin



...or...


chata' חָטָא
1) to sin, miss, miss the way, go wrong, incur guilt, forfeit, purify from uncleanness
a) (Qal) 1) to miss 2) to sin, miss the goal or path of right and duty 3) to incur guilt, incur penalty by sin, forfeit
b) (Piel) 1) to bear loss 2) to make a sin-offering 3) to purify from sin 4) to purify from uncleanness
c) (Hiphil) 1) to miss the mark 2) to induce to sin, cause to sin 3) to bring into guilt or condemnation or punishment
d) (Hithpael) 1) to miss oneself, lose oneself, wander from the way 2) to purify oneself from uncleanness



From yours:

`avon עָוֹן
1) perversity, depravity, iniquity, guilt or punishment of iniquity
a) iniquity b) guilt of iniquity, guilt (as great), guilt (of condition) c) consequence of or punishment for iniquity



And your hermeneutic is appallingly naive.

Quote:
But there's a lot more to the concept of original sin, than just we're bothered by bad stuff.


I find it perfectly straightforward. But you don't seem to be willing to discuss what is in the bible. You seem to think any old opinion is of more relevance.

Quote:
If we're all responsible for our own actions, then tell me again why Jesus needed to die? I thought it was something about substitutionary atonement.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frayed Knot View Post
My understanding of Christian theology is that we are all deserving of eternal damnation, but Jesus took the punishment for those who accept him.
You're not very good at this, are you?





Where is the evidence for a global flood?
Why do my eyes hurt?
You've never used them.

"...the waters under the "expanse" were under the crust."
-Bob B.

Nominate POTYs. See this thread.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#32) Old
Frayed Knot Frayed Knot is offline
Veteran
 Frayed Knot's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Frayed Knot will become famous soon enoughFrayed Knot will become famous soon enoughFrayed Knot will become famous soon enoughFrayed Knot will become famous soon enough
March 19th, 2012, 12:14 PM

Stripe, I have to complain about something here. Most people on an Internet discussion board are here to have a discussion. It appears with every one of your posts that your intent is to put an end to any discussion. Just about all you do is post stupid icons and do a bunch of finger-pointing and name calling.

Getting back to where you posted translations of chet' and `avon, I gather from that that chet' is a lesser sin than `avon. Is that what your intent was in posting it? If that's the case, I don't see how it supports the position that Christianity holds everyone responsible for his own actions - I guess it holds everyone responsible, unless his father's or grandfather's actions were of the more severe variety?

And if I'm "not very good" at understanding original sin, perhaps you could enlighten me with your understanding? Here, I'll give you my take so you can explain where I'm off-base. Please no shrugging icons, just explain your view. My take is that the concept of original sin is pretty fundamental to Christianity, and especially those of the fundamentalist variety would subscribe to it. Do you? Is it actually mentioned in the Bible?

And my take is that Jesus took the hit for our sins, for those who accept him, which is another way of saying substitutionary atonement. Would you agree with that? Apparently not, since your response was just a face-palming icon, but why is this wrong?

Use your big-boy words here, Stripe.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#33) Old
Stripe Stripe is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Stripe's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
March 19th, 2012, 12:40 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frayed Knot View Post
Stripe, I have to complain about something here. Most people on an Internet discussion board are here to have a discussion. It appears with every one of your posts that your intent is to put an end to any discussion. Just about all you do is post stupid icons and do a bunch of finger-pointing and name calling.
I find the concepts under examination very simple and easy to communicate. It constantly astounds me how people are so resistant to such simple ideas.

Quote:
Getting back to where you posted translations of chet' and `avon, I gather from that that chet' is a lesser sin than `avon. Is that what your intent was in posting it? If that's the case, I don't see how it supports the position that Christianity holds everyone responsible for his own actions - I guess it holds everyone responsible, unless his father's or grandfather's actions were of the more severe variety?
The clue was in the bolded text. That definition is only applicable to your verses. Thus the seeming contradiction is cleared up if you apply the bolded definition to your verses and the common definition to mine.

Quote:
And if I'm "not very good" at understanding original sin, perhaps you could enlighten me with your understanding? Here, I'll give you my take so you can explain where I'm off-base. Please no shrugging icons, just explain your view.
Quote:
My take is that the concept of original sin is pretty fundamental to Christianity, and especially those of the fundamentalist variety would subscribe to it. Do you? Is it actually mentioned in the Bible?
We are troubled in that our society and planet have been exposed to rebellion, decay and death.
Quote:
And my take is that Jesus took the hit for our sins, for those who accept him, which is another way of saying substitutionary atonement. Would you agree with that? Apparently not, since your response was just a face-palming icon, but why is this wrong?
It's not wrong. It's correct. As I'd already acknowledged the first time you said it.

Jesus suffered and died so that He might answer the judge on our behalf. And He rose again so that our faith in Him is not in vain. He is righteous and He can save us from the destruction we have brought upon ourselves.

And He did all this even though He lived in the same fallen creation of decay and death that we are tested within.





Where is the evidence for a global flood?
Why do my eyes hurt?
You've never used them.

"...the waters under the "expanse" were under the crust."
-Bob B.

Nominate POTYs. See this thread.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#34) Old
Frayed Knot Frayed Knot is offline
Veteran
 Frayed Knot's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Frayed Knot will become famous soon enoughFrayed Knot will become famous soon enoughFrayed Knot will become famous soon enoughFrayed Knot will become famous soon enough
March 19th, 2012, 02:30 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
The clue was in the bolded text. That definition is only applicable to your verses. Thus the seeming contradiction is cleared up if you apply the bolded definition to your verses and the common definition to mine.
You're going to have to give a little more detail here. The definitions you quoted are very similar-sounding to me, but apparently you think they're quite distinct. My reading is that the `avon transgressions are more severe than the cheta' ones. Is that your point?




Quote:
We are troubled in that our society and planet have been exposed to rebellion, decay and death.
That's your take on original sin? That the world's problems trouble you? Gee, sorry you're losing sleep. I just thought that "original sin" meant more than that. Again, if I've misunderstood your position, which I admit I may have done because you give me so little to go on, then please explain with detail.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#35) Old
Nick M Nick M is online now
Smoke' em All
 Nick M's Avatar

 



Reputation:
Nick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peers
Nick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peers
March 20th, 2012, 05:07 AM

Interesting show. I hadn't thought about the certificate of divorce that way. Because of what the Lord Jesus Christ says about it. The certificate exhonerates her from his wrong doing.





Jesus saves completely.

Titus 1:10-11

For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

http://www.climatedepot.com/
   
Reply With Quote
  (#36) Old
Stripe Stripe is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Stripe's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
March 20th, 2012, 06:58 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frayed Knot View Post
You're going to have to give a little more detail here. The definitions you quoted are very similar-sounding to me, but apparently you think they're quite distinct. My reading is that the `avon transgressions are more severe than the cheta' ones. Is that your point?
Dang.

The bolded part was a unique definition between the words. Consequences of sin may affect a father's children without the children having done any wrong.

Quote:
That's your take on original sin?





Where is the evidence for a global flood?
Why do my eyes hurt?
You've never used them.

"...the waters under the "expanse" were under the crust."
-Bob B.

Nominate POTYs. See this thread.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#37) Old
Frayed Knot Frayed Knot is offline
Veteran
 Frayed Knot's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Frayed Knot will become famous soon enoughFrayed Knot will become famous soon enoughFrayed Knot will become famous soon enoughFrayed Knot will become famous soon enough
March 20th, 2012, 07:48 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
The bolded part was a unique definition between the words. Consequences of sin may affect a father's children without the children having done any wrong.
And the consequences are punishment from God, right? Like when it says "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation."

Children being punished for the transgressions of the fathers/grandfathers/etc.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#38) Old
Stripe Stripe is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 Stripe's Avatar

 




Reputation:
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
Stripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peersStripe is well respected by his peers
March 20th, 2012, 08:02 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frayed Knot View Post
And the consequences are punishment from God, right? Like when it says "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation."Children being punished for the transgressions of the fathers/grandfathers/etc.
And how is this achieved? By the application of physical reality upon our lives and by the application of psychological and emotional realities upon our lives.

When a father commits a crime, he goes to jail - consequences flow onto his family. When a father abandons his family, the emotional and psychological strain can endure through generations.

Now it is justified that God would claim these effects as part of His plan, and He outlined these things a number of times (Genesis 3:16-19, 1 Samuel 8). But He also makes it very clear that we are not justified in doing similarly with our laws.

Thus the seeming contradiction you naively chalk up to ignorance is easily explained by accepting God at His word.

Are you prepared to consider this explanation?





Where is the evidence for a global flood?
Why do my eyes hurt?
You've never used them.

"...the waters under the "expanse" were under the crust."
-Bob B.

Nominate POTYs. See this thread.
   
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright ©1997-2014 TheologyOnLine



Logos Bible Study Software Up to 15% OFF FOR THEOLOGYONLINE MEMBERS! Study twice, post once.
Logos Bible Software —take your Bible study to the next level.