Are babies going to populate "hell"?

[ttruscott]

God pronounced a curse on the entire human race that would ever be born... that being a curse upon the earth and the curse of death. That isn't controversial (or shouldn't be) as this is spelled out in Genesis and confirmed in the New Testament, as well as being born out by personal experience.

If by the curse of death you refer to Genesis 2:17...but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." ...was the curse given to all who would be born as men or was it given to all sinners? Ie, are not angels under the same sentence of death whether they are born as human or not? The difference would be that a soul that never sinned in your theology becomes a sinner by being created as a man in Adam whereas in my theology the created person doesn't become a sinner under sentence of death unless they chose by their free will to be sinner. The difference in all men being sinners is that one theology says that all men are sinners because they were created (conceived or born) as men while the other says only sinners are born as men...the same end result but a vastly different approach of the GOD of love to HIS creation.

To accept your approach, one must accept that GOD had HIS Bride born evil for no reason, to experience sin and suffering for no reason, just to redeem her for no merit... If you can live with a God like that, many do...I think it vastly underrates GOD's loving kindness and HIS appreciation of HIS creation, HIS Bride.

I personally start with the perfection of HIS loving kindness, HIS righteousness and HIS patience and will not accept any doctrine that makes a mockery of them.

The infant of days may not have yet committed a sin, but could still die from a miscarriage or the death of its mother. That infant of days is still under the curse pronounced on the race of Adam. Did it die because it personally sinned in the womb? No, it died because mankind is under the curse pronounced upon sinful mankind.

The wages of sin is death equals death proves sinfulness. Only sinners die. Saying a non-sinner dies is a contradiction of doctrinal terms, accepted by many but not logical, just a part of the mess caused by the doctrines that 1. we are created on earth and 2. we are created as sinners in Adam.

I contend no one is under the curse of death if they have not chosen by their free will to be a sinner...mankind is subject to death because only sinners are conceived, born , that is SOWN (not created as the devil sows also) into the world by the Son of Man or the devil; Matt 13:36-39.

Therefore,

The infant child is sinful but has not yet sinned, yet it dies just the same.

contains such a mish mash of conflicting ideas, a sinless sinner, a death for a non-sinner, that it is hard to focus the hermeneutic....

For the record, I do not share your views of "sinful elect vs. eternally evil goats." Not only does it carry the scent of Calvinism and all of its implications, but there is no such thing as eternal evil.

Is there not an unforgivable sin? if it is not forgiven is it not eternal? If it is eternal and a little leaven (sin) leavens (corrupts) the whole lump (person or reality), must it not be banished from reality before it can contaminate the heavenly state?

In the beginning God pronounced his creation good and death had not yet entered the world through sin.

The serpent arrived in the garden evil and fallen...did he fall before the rest of creation or after the rest of creation? Remember, all the sons of God saw the creation of the physical universe with their own eyes Job 38:7 by the making of which YHWH proved HIS divinity and power to every creature under heaven so none has an excuse, Rom 1:20.

And as for those who are condemned already, it is because every child born of woman of the race of Adam is automatically under the curse of death. We start this life condemned unto death. It is that simple.

Simple? What is simple about being automatically condemned to death and to hell if HE doesn't give us grace, by no fault of our own, by no choice of our own, by no mens rea, ie, no guilty intent, just because HE made us man in Adam rather than as Martians or as a new new race like HE did with Adam???

What is simple about contradicting scripture: Ezekiel 18:20The one who sins is the one who will die. The child willnot share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. And Jeremiah 31:30 Instead, each will die for his own iniquity.

How can we then die for Adam's sin???

 

[Rosenritter]

If by the curse of death you refer to Genesis 2:17...but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." ...was the curse given to all who would be born as men or was it given to all sinners? Ie, are not angels under the same sentence of death whether they are born as human or not?

Spoiler

The difference would be that a soul that never sinned in your theology becomes a sinner by being created as a man in Adam whereas in my theology the created person doesn't become a sinner under sentence of death unless they chose by their free will to be sinner. The difference in all men being sinners is that one theology says that all men are sinners because they were created (conceived or born) as men while the other says only sinners are born as men...the same end result but a vastly different approach of the GOD of love to HIS creation.

Besides Genesis 2:17 I would also include Genesis 3:17-19, where Adam is told that his days will be numbered, that he shall return to the ground, and return unto dust. And while all of these pronouncements might seem like individual pronouncements, we have Paul's interpretation in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 "For since by man came death.... " and "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." As such I would say first recognize that the Bible says that all men die in Adam, and afterwards seek to reason why.

Psalms 89:48 KJV
(48) What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave? Selah.

To accept your approach, one must accept that GOD had HIS Bride born evil for no reason, to experience sin and suffering for no reason, just to redeem her for no merit... If you can live with a God like that, many do...I think it vastly underrates GOD's loving kindness and HIS appreciation of HIS creation, HIS Bride.

Man was given the opportunity for eternal life, which he rejected. The reason we experience sin and suffering is because that is the inherent meaning of the knowledge of good and evil which our ancestors chose to be our experience on our behalf. Mankind is such that he doesn't believe what he hasn't experienced for himself. Ever since Eden, we have gotten to experience both good and evil... and much of it is evil.

I personally start with the perfection of HIS loving kindness, HIS righteousness and HIS patience and will not accept any doctrine that makes a mockery of them.

Then perhaps you can consider the grace and kindness extended to the race of Adam, that in spite of our proven nature and capacity for sin, that God has planned for redemption for those who would be willing to be redeemed. The beast of the field also perishes without sin or transgression and is never offered immortality.

The wages of sin is death equals death proves sinfulness. Only sinners die. Saying a non-sinner dies is a contradiction of doctrinal terms, accepted by many but not logical, just a part of the mess caused by the doctrines that 1. we are created on earth and 2. we are created as sinners in Adam.

"The wages of sin is death" ultimately refers to the second death from which there is no resurrection. It is not a guarantee that an infant cannot be murdered or perish through natural means.

I contend no one is under the curse of death if they have not chosen by their free will to be a sinner...mankind is subject to death because only sinners are conceived, born , that is SOWN (not created as the devil sows also) into the world by the Son of Man or the devil; Matt 13:36-39.

So by that philosophy every infant that is murdered through an abortion was specifically sown by the devil?

Is there not an unforgivable sin? if it is not forgiven is it not eternal? If it is eternal and a little leaven (sin) leavens (corrupts) the whole lump (person or reality), must it not be banished from reality before it can contaminate the heavenly state?

No, a sin that has no forgiveness is not eternal. A sin that has no forgiveness merits death and eternal destruction, and with the destruction of the sinner there remains no more sin. Be it by salvation or destruction, all sin will be destroyed from existence.

The serpent arrived in the garden evil and fallen...did he fall before the rest of creation or after the rest of creation? Remember, all the sons of God saw the creation of the physical universe with their own eyes Job 38:7 by the making of which YHWH proved HIS divinity and power to every creature under heaven so none has an excuse, Rom 1:20.

Ezekiel 28:13 "Thou hast been in Eden" comes before "thou hast sinned" in Ezekiel 28:16 so I would say the indication is that the serpent sinned after it had been placed in the Garden.

Simple? What is simple about being automatically condemned to death and to hell if HE doesn't give us grace, by no fault of our own, by no choice of our own, by no mens rea, ie, no guilty intent, just because HE made us man in Adam rather than as Martians or as a new new race like HE did with Adam???

It is very simple: we don't start with eternal life, when we perish we return to the dust just like any other beast of the field. We don't deserve eternal life, nor do we have the power to give it to ourselves. God is willing to grant that life based on a condition, a condition which would be necessary for us to exist in in such a life without inflicting evil on ourselves and others.

What is simple about contradicting scripture: Ezekiel 18:20The one who sins is the one who will die. The child willnot share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. And Jeremiah 31:30 Instead, each will die for his own iniquity.

That still wouldn't make us born as an immortal creature, and the frame of your question has no answer for murder. By definition, murder takes the life of another, yet we know that there is no "innocence force field" that protects us from harm from another sinful person. Regardless, you are applying that passage in the wrong context. That death isn't about the first death from which we will all be raised, it concerns the death for which we will be sentenced in judgment. The "righteous man" in that passage isn't someone who never sinned, it is someone that turns from evil, yet we know that a righteous man that has turned from evil still perishes today. "He shall live" also refers to the judgment of the resurrection.

How can we then die for Adam's sin???

Because the reality is that everyone dies once. It's been appointed.

Hebrews 9:27-28 KJV
(27) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
(28) So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

 

[ttruscott]

Besides Genesis 2:17 I would also include Genesis 3:17-19, where Adam is told that his days will be numbered, that he shall return to the ground, and return unto dust. And while all of these pronouncements might seem like individual pronouncements, we have Paul's interpretation in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 "For since by man came death.... " and "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." As such I would say first recognize that the Bible says that all men die in Adam, and afterwards seek to reason why.

Psalms 89:48 KJV
(48) What man is he that liveth, and shall not see death? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave? Selah.

Oh I understand that sinners in HIS creation are born as men so they can die and that the sinful elect are put into Adam's death so Christ needed to only die once for Adam and every sinful elect, not once for each and every person
...
but I reject that "because all sinned" means in Adam but rather, leaving the bias of our being created on earth, I contend it means because we had all sinned already previous to our being put in Adam.

 

[Rosenritter]

Oh I understand that sinners in HIS creation are born as men so they can die and that the sinful elect are put into Adam's death so Christ needed to only die once for Adam and every sinful elect, not once for each and every person
...
but I reject that "because all sinned" means in Adam but rather, leaving the bias of our being created on earth, I contend it means because we had all sinned already previous to our being put in Adam.

Before we go any further in this, I would ask, do you recognize that believing that we always existed (even before we were conceived) is also a Platonic concept found in Greek philosophy?

... and also for clarification, are you suggesting that we were created before our conception (and thus sinned) or that we have always existed?

 

[ttruscott]

The beast of the field also perishes without sin or transgression and is never offered immortality.

Interesting...

Do you see no relevance to the fact that the beasts were less crafty than serpent and that the beasts were cursed a little less than he was??? Does that not seem to imply that they were sinful lite so to speak but not as experienced in sin as the serpent? Is this condemnation of the beasts carried through in the flood story in which GOD's anger over the violence on the earth extended to the animals as wrong so they suffered the same fate as violent men?

Whether we have violent sinful animals in the garden before Adam ate or not, we do have a sinful serpent with evil intent in the garden before he ate and we have Eve sinning up to three times before he ate so...how did he bring sin into the world by eating when he was the third to sin UNLESS he was a sinner when he was sowed (Matt 13:36-39) onto the garden as the first person and brought his sinfulness with him?

 

[ttruscott]

...in reply to:

The wages of sin is death equals death proves sinfulness. Only sinners die. Saying a non-sinner dies is a contradiction of doctrinal terms, accepted by many but not logical, just a part of the mess caused by the doctrines that 1. we are created on earth and 2. we are created as sinners in Adam.

"The wages of sin is death" ultimately refers to the second death from which there is no resurrection. It is not a guarantee that an infant cannot be murdered or perish through natural means.

Whether death is ultimately found in the second death, the wages of death also has application to the first death and what I claim still stands: death is proof of sin. The death of a fetus proves its sinfulness.

 

[Rosenritter]

Interesting...

Do you see no relevance to the fact that the beasts were less crafty than serpent and that the beasts were cursed a little less than he was??? Does that not seem to imply that they were sinful lite so to speak but not as experienced in sin as the serpent? Is this condemnation of the beasts carried through in the flood story in which GOD's anger over the violence on the earth extended to the animals as wrong so they suffered the same fate as violent men?

Whether we have violent sinful animals in the garden before Adam ate or not, we do have a sinful serpent with evil intent in the garden before he ate and we have Eve sinning up to three times before he ate so...how did he bring sin into the world by eating when he was the third to sin UNLESS he was a sinner when he was sowed (Matt 13:36-39) onto the garden as the first person and brought his sinfulness with him?

I see no such connection. Beasts are simply beasts and they are given to the earth and man. The serpent was not a mere beast... this reference is either symbolic or alluding that this covering cherub made its physical manifestation like a serpent.

 

[Rosenritter]

Whether death is ultimately found in the second death, the wages of death also has application to the first death and what I claim still stands: death is proof of sin. The death of a fetus proves its sinfulness.

I am suggesting that it doesn't: the first death can arise because of someone else's sin... or even from circumstance.

Joh 9:1-3 KJV
(1) And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.
(2) And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
(3) Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

Jesus does not mean that these people were perfect and without sin, but that it was no fault of the man or his parents that he was blind from birth. The same logic and reasoning would apply here. It is no proof of sin of the fetus that it can be murdered before it is born.

 

[ttruscott]

So by that philosophy every infant that is murdered through an abortion was specifically sown by the devil?

No no, that is a leap too far for me! Both reprobate sinners and elect sinners are conceived as human and both (probably) may die in the womb..

I suggest the elect who sinned did so in rebellion the call to “come to from among the reprobate” so they could be judged. Some elect rejected this call quickly and some took a long time to finally rebel against HIM…creating a situation where some sinful elect could be easier to bring to redemption and repentance than other sinful elect.

Then the teaching of Psalm 51:6 Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb; you taught me wisdom in that secret place. tells us that these people can learn the truth and wisdom in the womb which I relate to the 'easy to convince sinful elect' who only need to fulfill their death to be finished with earthly life and so skip a full life of suffering as the more rebellious elect need.

 

[Rosenritter]

No no, that is a leap too far for me! Both reprobate sinners and elect sinners are conceived as human and both (probably) may die in the womb..

I suggest the elect who sinned did so in rebellion the call to “come to from among the reprobate” so they could be judged. Some elect rejected this call quickly and some took a long time to finally rebel against HIM…creating a situation where some sinful elect could be easier to bring to redemption and repentance than other sinful elect.

Then the teaching of Psalm 51:6 Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb; you taught me wisdom in that secret place. tells us that these people can learn the truth and wisdom in the womb which I relate to the 'easy to convince sinful elect' who only need to fulfill their death to be finished with earthly life and so skip a full life of suffering as the more rebellious elect need.

Hold on there. There's something suspect about your translation of that passage - what did you use there?

Psa 51:6 KJV
(6) Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.

The Hebrew word for "Inward parts" is from an entirely different word that is translated as "womb" in the Old Testament... and the same for the latter phrase "in the hidden part." When using a better translation there doesn't seem to be any support for learning God's truth in the womb.

 

[ttruscott]

Before we go any further in this, I would ask, do you recognize that believing that we always existed (even before we were conceived) is also a Platonic concept found in Greek philosophy?

I know but the biblical formation of PCE theology is quite different from the Greek as well as far different from the Mormon or Far Eastern theological concepts.

... and also for clarification, are you suggesting that we were created before our conception (and thus sinned) or that we have always existed?

Our spirits were created before anything physical, then the physical universe was created which we saw, Job 38:7 and Rom 1:20, and then all who had chosen to be sinners were swept or flung to Sheol in the earth from where we are sown into the world.

PCE contends everyone in GOD's image was created and and all who chose to rebel against HIM by their free will did so and became sinners before the creation of the physical universe.

 

[ttruscott]

I see no such connection. Beasts are simply beasts and they are given to the earth and man. The serpent was not a mere beast... this reference is either symbolic or alluding that this covering cherub made its physical manifestation like a serpent.

You may have noticed that I made no special reference to the type of being the serpent might be but only to Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was MORE CRAFTY, SUBTLE than any of the wild animals implying they were crafty but less than him and to Gen 3:14 Cursed are you ABOVE all livestockand all wild animals! which implies the animals were given a lesser curse.

Did you even look at Gen 6 about why he flooded the earth, especially verses 5-7 about why the animals were all slaughtered also???

 

[Rosenritter]

Our spirits were created before anything physical, then the physical universe was created which we saw, Job 38:7 and Rom 1:20, and then all who had chosen to be sinners were swept or flung to Sheol in the earth from where we are sown into the world.

PCE contends everyone in GOD's image was created and and all who chose to rebel against HIM by their free will did so and became sinners before the creation of the physical universe.

How come no one remembers any of this? It would seem to be an awfully significant thing to have happened.

 

[Rosenritter]

You may have noticed that I made no special reference to the type of being the serpent might be but only to Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was MORE CRAFTY, SUBTLE than any of the wild animals implying they were crafty but less than him and to Gen 3:14 Cursed are you ABOVE all livestockand all wild animals! which implies the animals were given a lesser curse.

Did you even look at Gen 6 about why he flooded the earth, especially verses 5-7 about why the animals were all slaughtered also???

The deaths of the animals are of no consequence. The serpent is cursed above all the beasts of the field because unlike the beasts, it was created perfect and full of wisdom and beauty, whereas now it is fallen and enmity is between it and the woman... and that the seed of the woman will bruise its head. It is now the enemy of mankind... whereas the beasts are not.

 

[ttruscott]

Hold on there. There's something suspect about your translation of that passage - what did you use there?

Ps 51:6 KJV
(6) Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.

These two interpretations caught my eye but I used all of the various bible interpretations to find my way to see if I trusted them. I don't trust them perfectly but enough to make suggestions...

Ps 51:6 NIV: Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb; you taught me wisdom in that secret place.
NLT: But you desire honesty from the womb, teaching me wisdom even there.

The Hebrew word for "Inward parts" is from an entirely different word that is translated as "womb" in the Old Testament... and the same for the latter phrase "in the hidden part." When using a better translation there doesn't seem to be any support for learning God's truth in the womb.

No it is not a direct translation because directly is ambiguous:

Psalm 51:6 Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb; you taught me wisdom in that secret place.

HEB: אֱ֭מֶת חָפַ֣צְתָּ בַטֻּח֑וֹת וּ֝בְסָתֻ֗ם חָכְמָ֥ה
NAS: truth in the innermost being, And in the hidden part (that secret place.)
KJV: truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden (secret)
INT: truth desire the innermost the hidden wisdom


inward parts
From tachah (or tuwach) in the sense of overlaying; (in the plural only) the kidneys (as being covered); hence (figuratively) the inmost thought -- inward parts.

Psalm 139:13 - inmost parts, 3629. kilyah, is here related to what happened in his mother’s womb:
Psalm 51:6 Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb; you taught me wisdom in that secret place.
HEB: אַ֭תָּה קָנִ֣יתָ כִלְיֹתָ֑י תְּ֝סֻכֵּ֗נִי בְּבֶ֣טֶן
NAS: For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb.
KJV: For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
INT: You formed my inward my internal organs, fashioning me within my mother's womb.


Inward part
NASB Translation
feelings (1), finest* (1), heart (1), inmost being (1), inward parts (2), kidneys (reins) (18), mind (5), minds (1), within (1)


Womb:
Word Origin
from an unused word
Definition
belly, body, womb
NASB Translation
abdomen (3), being (1), belly (8), birth (4), body (11), brothers* (1), depth (1), himself (1), infancy* (1), inward parts (1), mind (1), parts (1), pregnancy (1), rounded projection (1), stomach (3), within (3), womb (32).

A comparison of these two psalms shows us that both the different words for inward parts is ambiguous and CAN refer to heart, mind, kidneys, loins AND ALSO, what happens in the womb

Psalm 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.Therefore I believe that there is good enough reason (thought is not a proof verse as no doctrine has a proof verse) to suggest that the hidden inward parts of Ps 51:6 refers to the same place ie the womb, the inward part, the hidden place.

IF Jacob and Esau can be trying to crush each other to pieces in the womb and John the baptiser can have the Holy Spirit in the womb, why cannot someone else find wisdom in the womb?? Babies are obviously much more than the tabula rasa as you want to believe given Jacob and Esau and John's awareness of Mary's voice.

 

[ttruscott]

How come no one remembers any of this? It would seem to be an awfully significant thing to have happened.

Oh yes indeed but it is explained in terms of those under HIS wrath even though the sinful elect (not under HIS wrath) experience the same thing as our own hearts do attest...

Though no one has an excuse of not worshipping YHWH, Romans 1 tells us that sinners who saw HIS divinity and power proven repress that knowledge and go back to the lie and the idolatries they believed before, loving their sin more than the truth.

Rom 1:
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, [ie quit believing the proof they saw and returned to their idolatry]

28Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. [they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God refers to the repression / suppression of the memory of the proof in v 1:20]

 

[ttruscott]

The deaths of the animals are of no consequence.

Of consequence only as one of the hints that there was sinfulness in the garden before Adam ate...

 

[genuineoriginal]

When the New Testament was written in the first century CE, the concept of an immortal soul did not exist.

Here is an excerpt from a very long article that traces how Greek Philosophers are responsible for the change in Western civilization's belief in a mortal soul to a belief in an immortal soul that has a separate existence outside of a living body.

Ancient Theories of Soul It is probably true that in mainstream fifth century Greek culture, belief in an afterlife of the soul was weak and unclear (Claus 1981, 68; Burnet 1916, 248-9). If so, it is fitting that Socrates' arguments for the immortality of the soul, most prominently in the Phaedo, are offered to interlocutors who, at the outset of the discussion, are by no means convinced of the idea. (In fact, in the Apology, 40c, Socrates himself is presented as being noncommittal about what happens to the soul at death, and even about whether it survives at all.) “Men find it very hard to believe”, Cebes says at Phaedo 70a, “what you said about the soul. They think that after it has left the body it no longer exists anywhere, but that it is destroyed and dissolved on the day the man dies.” This view is restated by Simmias (at 77b) as the opinion of the majority (cf. 80d); note that the view includes the idea that the soul is a material thing, and is destroyed by being dispersed, “like breath or smoke” (70a). Glaucon, in the last book of the Republic (608d), is taken aback by Socrates' question, “Haven't you realized that our soul is immortal and never destroyed?” He looked at me with wonder and said: “No, by god, I haven't. Are you really in a position to assert that?”​ Moreover, apart from the question of immortality or otherwise, there is the further question whether the soul, if it does have some form of existence after the person has died, “still possesses some power and wisdom” (Phaedo, 70b; cf. 76c). Answering both questions, Socrates says not only that the soul is immortal, but also that it contemplates truths after its separation from the body at the time of death. Needless to say, none of the four main lines of argument that Socrates avails himself of succeeds in establishing the immortality of the soul, or in demonstrating that disembodied souls enjoy lives of thought and intelligence.

​

 

[Rosenritter]

These two interpretations caught my eye but I used all of the various bible interpretations to find my way to see if I trusted them. I don't trust them perfectly but enough to make suggestions...

Ps 51:6 NIV: Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb; you taught me wisdom in that secret place.
NLT: But you desire honesty from the womb, teaching me wisdom even there.



No it is not a direct translation because directly is ambiguous:

Psalm 51:6 Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb; you taught me wisdom in that secret place.

HEB: אֱ֭מֶת חָפַ֣צְתָּ בַטֻּח֑וֹת וּ֝בְסָתֻ֗ם חָכְמָ֥ה
NAS: truth in the innermost being, And in the hidden part (that secret place.)
KJV: truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden (secret)
INT: truth desire the innermost the hidden wisdom


inward parts
From tachah (or tuwach) in the sense of overlaying; (in the plural only) the kidneys (as being covered); hence (figuratively) the inmost thought -- inward parts.

Psalm 139:13 - inmost parts, 3629. kilyah, is here related to what happened in his mother’s womb:
Psalm 51:6 Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb; you taught me wisdom in that secret place.
HEB: אַ֭תָּה קָנִ֣יתָ כִלְיֹתָ֑י תְּ֝סֻכֵּ֗נִי בְּבֶ֣טֶן
NAS: For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb.
KJV: For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
INT: You formed my inward my internal organs, fashioning me within my mother's womb.


Inward part
NASB Translation
feelings (1), finest* (1), heart (1), inmost being (1), inward parts (2), kidneys (reins) (18), mind (5), minds (1), within (1)


Womb:
Word Origin
from an unused word
Definition
belly, body, womb
NASB Translation
abdomen (3), being (1), belly (8), birth (4), body (11), brothers* (1), depth (1), himself (1), infancy* (1), inward parts (1), mind (1), parts (1), pregnancy (1), rounded projection (1), stomach (3), within (3), womb (32).

A comparison of these two psalms shows us that both the different words for inward parts is ambiguous and CAN refer to heart, mind, kidneys, loins AND ALSO, what happens in the womb

Psalm 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.Therefore I believe that there is good enough reason (thought is not a proof verse as no doctrine has a proof verse) to suggest that the hidden inward parts of Ps 51:6 refers to the same place ie the womb, the inward part, the hidden place.

IF Jacob and Esau can be trying to crush each other to pieces in the womb and John the baptiser can have the Holy Spirit in the womb, why cannot someone else find wisdom in the womb?? Babies are obviously much more than the tabula rasa as you want to believe given Jacob and Esau and John's awareness of Mary's voice.

OK, so if we accept your assertion that the Hebrew word is ambiguous, I am still not ready to accept an ambiguous verse as proof that we existed and sinned before we were conceived. That is a very strange idea that would need a solid confirmation. Besides, if such were the case, why would we be told multiple times that God formed us from the womb and before we came out of the womb, when it would have been more accurate to have said that God formed us before the womb?

Isa 44:2 KJV
(2) Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.

Isa 44:24 KJV
(24) Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Jer 1:5 KJV
(5) Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Even the in last passage, note that "before I formed thee in the belly" is used in parallel with "before thou camest forth out of the womb" ... which usually indicates parallel equivalence. "Formed" is what happens after the forming, and it does not say "before thou wast conceived."

I might see some merit that a baby could be more than a blank slate, but the infant at conception would be completely a blank slate.. Modified that the blank slate that all humanity starts with is prone to sin, as we are allowed to choose both good and evil. I would want to see a really solid evidence to think otherwise.