The definition of sin

ShamashUruk said:

The term "Angel" does not exist during the time of the early Israelite's (who are from Canaan) nor does it exist in Sumer. An Angel is generally a messenger of God, in the epic of Balaam God sends the Malak-Yahweh as his messenger, the Malak-Yahweh is seen as evil an evil spirit. An Angel is literally an errand spirit or errand boy/girl.

The term you use is vague and broad sweeping.

Click to expand...

OK.... stay on that log floating down the stream if you wish.

genez said:

Jesus died for the sins of the world. He did not die for evil. Evil, not sins is what sends people to the Lake of Fire.

Click to expand...

You seem lost on the topic of sin and evil and wickedness, in context they are all related.

genez said:

OK.... stay on that log floating down the stream if you wish.

Click to expand...

Not even sure what you mean here.

ShamashUruk said:

You seem lost on the topic of sin and evil and wickedness, in context they are all related.

Click to expand...

You cannot have wickedness without sin.

But, you can have sin without wickedness.

Being angry at the truth is a sin.

On the other hand, lying and creating counter realities to displace the truth, is evil.

I do not expect you to get it instantly....

genez said:

You cannot have wickedness without sin.

But, you can have sin without wickedness.

Being angry at the truth is a sin.

On the other hand, lying and creating counter realities to displace the truth, is evil.

I do not expect you to get it instantly....

Click to expand...

This is preaching, and no it is incorrect. Wickedness is sin, the Bible wasn't deriding explication. The language in Biblical texts to wickedness is an intensification of sin, either way the point is that God becomes upset with wickedness and seeks to destroy humankind, this happens in the earlier Babylonian epic of the flood.

Also, the Biblical Noah deluge is part of the fray of the other flood epics. It isn't some separate legend, it is all related.

ShamashUruk said:

This is preaching, and no it is incorrect. Wickedness is sin, the Bible wasn't deriding explication. The language in Biblical texts to wickedness is an intensification of sin, either way the point is that God becomes upset with wickedness and seeks to destroy humankind, this happens in the earlier Babylonian epic of the flood.

Click to expand...

I do not think you have the capacity to understand this...

Wickedness goes beyond sin.

Christians who have faith will sin from time to time. But, the rejection of faith produces wickedness. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Wickedness replaces God's truth with thoughts and concepts that are anti-faith.

Also, the Biblical Noah deluge is part of the fray of the other flood epics. It isn't some separate legend, it is all related.

Click to expand...

Yes.. Because it really happened!

genez said:

I do not think you have the capacity to understand this...

Wickedness goes beyond sin.

Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may run swiftly
and be glorified, just as it is with you, and that we may be delivered from
unreasonable and wicked men; for not all have faith." 2 Thes 3:1-2​

Christians who have faith will sin from time to time. But, the rejection of faith produces wickedness. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Wickedness replaces God's truth with thoughts and concepts that are anti-faith.

Click to expand...

I have no clue why you are giving this verse, per my earlier statement " The language in Biblical texts to wickedness is an intensification of sin, either way the point is that God becomes upset with wickedness and seeks to destroy humankind, this happens in the earlier Babylonian epic of the flood." So in Babylon an issue arises of wickedness and the God Enlil becomes displeased with the notion of wickedness and sets to destroy mankind, this is the same concept in the Biblical texts.

We are talking about a definition of wickedness in the Old Testament, Thessalonians being a New Testament book is talking about wicked men who have no faith. The context of this I believe is in transliteration from the Greek Strong's Greek: 4190. πονηρός (ponéros) -- toilsome, bad meaning:

evil, grievous

From a derivative of ponos; hurtful, i.e. Evil (properly, in effect or influence, and thus differing from kakos, which refers rather to essential character, as well as from sapros, which indicates degeneracy from original virtue); figuratively, calamitous; also (passively) ill, i.e. Diseased; but especially (morally) culpable, i.e. Derelict, vicious, facinorous; neuter (singular) mischief, malice, or (plural) guilt; masculine (singular) the devil, or (plural) sinners -- bad, evil, grievous, harm, lewd, malicious, wicked(-ness). See also poneroteros.

Also at the time of Noah in Biblical literature there are no expiation rituals mentioned up until Leviticus and in Leviticus 16: 1-34 we find expiation rituals to rid the Israelite's of impurities committed, such as sacrificing children to Moloch on the altar of Yahweh, wherein the sins of the sacrifice are placed onto the goat who is sent to the wilderness. Hence, when the Judeo-Christian God sends a deluge, mankind cannot provide an expiation ritual. Obviously, these expiation rituals have been around in Sumer long before Israel adopts them.

Wickedness is seen as sinful in the eyes of the Sumerian God and in Biblical literature it is the same with the Judeo-Christian God.

In Sumer to offend your personal God was a sin, and with expiation rituals the sin was forgiven, we see this concept later on in Leviticus.

genez said:

Yes.. Because it really happened!

Click to expand...

I agree there was a flood in Sumer and the Bible copied the epic and adopted it into it's own version and called it Noah, when originally it was Ziusudra.

The reality however, is that Ice Ages caused flooding in ancient Iraq and in other parts of the world.

If you tell me at the time in early history that Iraq is a desert I have no choice but to laugh at you.

Nihilist Virus said:

Killing an infant after it is born is not an abortion. You're being irrelevant.

Regardless of who causes the miscarriage, an abortion is still being done in the case where a pregnant woman was adulterous. God is performing an abortion.

Click to expand...

genez said:

The baby would have miscarried and it would have been stillborn. No one would have killed the baby if born. It would have been a"act of God," not men.

Click to expand...

Kind of an interesting subject on abortion, just a few things to note. Abortion is seen in Mesopotamia (this includes the Israelite's) as violating divine law generally and is not punishable by divine law (in some cases), but also it pertains to the circumstances, making Israelite law confusing. Also, laws from the ancient and the classical world clearly assume the option of abortion or exposure. To make this even more confusing the Hebrew Bible (HB), or Christian Old Testament, is a collection of texts of different types, purposes, and perspectives, whose composition may span as much as a thousand years (older consensus) or as little as two to three centuries. Current debate concerning the period and nature of the writings makes historical reconstruction difficult, but certain general characteristics hold for any period. Also keep in mind that the terminology used to designate the prostitute in the HB provides important clues to Israel’s understanding of the practice/profession. Extensive metaphorical or figurative use, however, has generated confusion in the secondary literature. This confusion has been further complicated by three passages in which the term for “prostitute” appears in parallelism or interchange with a term for a religious devotee (“qedesah,” “consecrated woman”). Whereas the common term for a prostitute, and the only term generally recognized, is a feminine participle “zonah” of the verb “zanah,” whose basic meaning is “to engage in extramarital sexual relations.”

It would seem that the Babylonians had a deeper religious and moral view of abortion, more so than the Israelite's, in Babylon, prostitutes were to remain childless, as they were seen as shamefuel, there are however selfinduced abortions mentioned in MALA § 53 and generally the prostitute if she was pregnant had to be hidden as it was a crime to get a prostitue pregnant. In Babylonian law MALA §40, in which a man who does not turn in a veiled prostitute or slave woman to the authorities is subject to fifty blows and public humiliation which is related to concealment of an abortion. There is however a difference between a slave prostitute and a prostitute seen in the city. Something else to keep in mind that while a prostitute is not outlawed

Despite the differences between the Babylonians and the Israelite's, in Israel’s moral code, a woman’s sexuality belonged to her husband alone, for whom it was reserved both before marriage as well as after. Violation of a husband’s sexual rights, the most serious sexual offense, is signified by the verb “na’af,” “to commit adultery;” all other instances of sexual intercourse outside marriage are designated by “zanah.” These include premarital sex by a daughter, understood as an offense against her father and/or male kin, whose honor requires her chastity (Deuteronomy 22:13–21; Leviticus 21:9; cf. Genesis 34:31), or sex by a levirate-obligated widow (a woman promised or “betrothed” to her deceased husband’s brother [Genesis 38:6–11, 24–26]). It also includes the activity of the prostitute, the professional “fornicator,” who has no husband or sexual obligation to another male. Because her activity violates no man’s rights or honor, it is free from the sanctions imposed on casual fornication. Strictly speaking, her activity is not illicit and neither is her role. Despite frequent assumptions to the contrary, there is no evidence that prostitution was ever outlawed in ancient Israel or that the prostitute was ever punished simply for her activity as a prostitute. The denunciations and punishments recorded in the HB all pertain to metaphorical uses of ZNH3 for crimes of apostasy and/or breach of covenant. Nevertheless, although prostitution found a place within Israelite society as a marginal institution, the language used to describe the prostitute is not neutral, but carries a sense of opprobrium, since in all other uses the same language describes activity that is prohibited and subject to heavy sanctions.

In Israel another Deuteronomic law provides a common law tradition entitled a husband to 'chastize' his wife (i.e. to beat her), to rape her, and to keep her in his home by force. As biblical law (en)genders violence, and per the Deuteronomic laws governing warfare and sexual assault (Deut. 20.1-20; 21.10-14; 22.23-29) as an assertion of male power. This law will be seen as a right among Israelite women:

"I love my husband as he beats me per God's divine law".

ShamashUruk said:

I have no clue why you are giving this verse, per my earlier statement

Click to expand...

It was given to make you see something you are overlooking with what seems to be a bad case of theological tunnel vision. The complete Bible is a context in itself. Its not consisting of fragmented isolated parts like you seem to take pleasure in attempting to do. You can always set up a scenario and win an argument if you can limit what is to be discussed.

I was trying to show you the difference between men being sinners... and some men being sinners and are also evil. God destroys evil. King David was a sinner. Pharaoh was a sinner and evil.


Believers are sinners by nature who have faith. Evil men are sinners by nature who reject faith. Both are sinners. God does not destroy men simply because they are sinners. God did not destroy man in the flood simply because they were sinners. Noah and his family (of sinners) had faith and lived by what faith they were given by God.

Nihilist Virus said:

My best guess is that he's saying that it's not abortion if God does it.

The extent to which this reasoning goes is limited. Sure, God cannot murder anyone any more than a wild animal could. Murder is man killing man, not an accident killing a man nor an animal killing a man nor a god killing a man. But when God kills, it's still called killing. And when God kills a fetus, it's still an abortion.

Click to expand...

I agree there is no clarity concerning the posting. Generally, accidents can be seen as an act of God. If a baby suffers SIDS while outside the womb, this is considered an act of God. If the baby is seen as a host virus and is killing the mother, and the mother and baby will both die, this could also be construed as an act of God. All of these aforementioned are an "act of God", mankind was created in the image of God, if mankind kills this could also be construed as an "act of God" depending on how it is argued.

Biblical law is often confusing concerning its own topics, and has to be harshly criticized this is due to the Yahwehist who attempted separate themselves from Mesopotamian law, while still including it in their doctrines.

The Christian struggles to answer these questions with clarity, this is why Apologetic's has short answers for their contentions, generally based on a few Bible verses with no clarification.

Nihilist Virus said:

My best guess is that he's saying that it's not abortion if God does it.

Click to expand...

And, its not murder when someone dies in an accident not deliberately arranged by another person.

God has all the facts. Man does not. Only God can rightly decide who is to live and who is to die.

And, unless God imputes a soul to a fetus being born? There is no human life. Until a soul is given the fetus/embryo is only biological life. So, in the case of a miscarriage/stillbirth? God is not taking a life in that case. He is only refusing to begin a life.

But now we are getting into the area of God imputing human life (soul) to the body. The body that is only biological life until God puts a soul (that He creates, not the parents) into the human body.

Our parents only produced our human body... not our souls. Likewise.. it is stated that Jesus saves the soul, not the body.

Lot's a confusion in fundamentalism today because they do not understand what the Hebrew and Greek texts both tell us in the same way about human life and birth.

But... we are digressing with this point.

ShamashUruk said:

Biblical law is often confusing concerning its own topics, and has to be harshly criticized this is due to the Yahwehist who attempted separate themselves from Mesopotamian law, while still including it in their doctrines.

Click to expand...

(hint).... Satan is always trying to counterfeit and compete against God.

Of course there will be similarities... And, gross neglect with the Satanic versions. Human sacrifice was prevalent in the ancient pagan cultures.

genez said:

It was given to make you see something you are overlooking with what seems to be a bad case of theological tunnel vision. The complete Bible is a context in itself. Its not consisting of fragmented isolated parts like you seem to take pleasure in attempting to do. You can always set up a scenario and win an argument if you can limit what is to be discussed.

Click to expand...

You didn't read my previous posting, and here is the issue. The Hebrew Bible (HB), or Christian Old Testament, is a collection of texts of different types, purposes, and perspectives, whose composition may span as much as a thousand years (older consensus) or as little as two to three centuries. Current debate concerning the period and nature of the writings makes historical reconstruction difficult, but certain general characteristics hold for any period.

genez said:

I was trying to show you the difference between men being sinners... and some men being sinners and are also evil. God destroys evil. King David was a sinner. Pharaoh was a sinner and evil.

Click to expand...

This makes no sense, either mankind is sinners, sinful, evil, wicked which one is it? If it is all of them, then my point stands. "and some men being sinners and are also evil. God destroys evil." this is a contradiction, some men being sinners and are also evil, God destroys evil, but not the sinner? You just confused your own words.

Expiation rituals are used in the Old Testament to appease God in his infinite search for human blood. God in the New Testament gets a taste of his child's blood and no more expiation rites are required. Salvation only guarantees a ticket to Heaven in Christian mythology, sin is a different issue as no one can ever be holy or pure, to even say so is sinful, corrupt, wicked, so on and so on. This is all part of Biblical theology. You seem to miss the point of expiation rites in the Old Testament, also in
Bereishit 6:5 And the Lord saw that the evil of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of his heart was only evil all the time, in Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

The untranslated version of GENESIS/BEREISHIT 6:5 is:

הוַיַּ֣רְא יְהֹוָ֔ה כִּ֥י רַבָּ֛ה רָעַ֥ת הָֽאָדָ֖ם בָּאָ֑רֶץ וְכָל־יֵ֨צֶר֙ מַחְשְׁבֹ֣ת לִבּ֔וֹ רַ֥ק רַ֖ע כָּל־הַיּֽוֹם

And the LORD, the LORD, is the LORD, the LORD, the Lord, the Lord, the Lord, the Lord, the Lord, the Lord, the Lord, the Lord, the Lord, the Most High, the Most High, the Most High, the Most High, and the Most High.

The word evil is used in the original Tanach while in the KJV wickedness is used, in the original there is no word used, it is just a repeating of the terms LORD, MOST HIGH, etc...you also totally ignored that in transliteration wicked, sin, crime, evil are all the same, or did you think the Bible was written in English?

Your Bible fails from translation.

genez said:

Believers are sinners by nature who have faith. Evil men are sinners by nature who reject faith. Both are sinners. God does not destroy men simply because they are sinners. God did not destroy man in the flood simply because they were sinners. Noah and his family (of sinners) had faith and lived by what faith they were given by God.

Click to expand...

As I pointed out earlier, there is no difference between evil, sin, wicked as they are related Semitic root words and synonymous of each other.

You are trying to make a definition out of one word being separated from another word, when it is not. Not even by a Biblical standard does this happen, yet you amazingly are attempting to do this.

ShamashUruk said:

As I pointed out earlier, there is no difference between evil, sin, wicked as they are related Semitic root words and synonymous of each other.

Click to expand...

I never liked the song "Bad" by Michael Jackson. Did you? Three thousand years from now when scholars will use ancient English concordances, the future generation students will get long winded explanations and rationalizations (with many foot notes) to explain how Michael could sing those words about himself...

The root word had one meaning... Yet, word usage at different times in history will change the meaning and emphasis of certain words. You are stuck in a world that is oversimplified and locked down...

genez said:

I never liked the song "Bad" by Michael Jackson. Did you? Three thousand years from now when scholars will use ancient English concordances, the future generation students will get long winded explanations and rationalizations (with many foot notes) to explain how Michael could sing those words about himself...

The root word had one meaning... Yet, word usage at different times in history will change the meaning and emphasis of certain words. You are stuck in a world that is oversimplified and locked down...

Click to expand...

The original word for sin is found in Sumerian polytheism, it is a personal offense against one's God. In Israelite Monotheism when the word is adopted it is a sin "to miss the mark" or the word appropriately is chata. You have a few issues here:

1. Sin is originally a polytheistic word and theme or as you say "pagan" it is adopted into monotheistic culture.
2. Sin means in the Hebrew "chata" or to go wrong, to sin.
3. Wicked means in the Hebrew "rasha" wicked criminal
4. Guilty of sin, against either God or man, wicked: האנשׁים הרשׁעים Numbers 16:26
5. In Numbers 16:26 the word is shown as a sin and as wicked similarly, hence, no distinction is made between sin and wicked.
   
6. Your conclusion of in the future scholars using English concordances is off, due to the fact that sin and wicked are already established similarly in the Old Testament. Unless you think that the word "sin" and the word "wicked" will change, and if this is so, then the Bible will reflect that change. If the Bible cannot reflect that change, then those words remain the same. Let's assume 3000 years from now the word "sin" means Good and the word "wicked" means Jesus, in this instance the Bible would have to adopt these terms to reflect originally what was written. The Bible's usage of terms and themes generally do not change and concordance's have already been established to reflect so, these are the same concordance's I am asserting to show that your definition of "sin" and "wicked" are the same.

Clear example, the word 'tevah' means Ark and is in the book of Genesis. However, the word 'tevah' doesn't mean Ark, it means to be started or alarmed. Yet the Bible includes it in its language, and no one knows what the word means. The Bible is seen attempting to borrow languages from Babylon yet it fails in this aspect.

ShamashUruk said:

The original word for sin is found in Sumerian polytheism,

Click to expand...

They did not understand what sin was. They had a relative understanding which was according to their own values that we would find very sinful to begin with.

genez said:

They did not understand what sin was. They had a relative understanding which was according to their own values that we would find very sinful to begin with.

Click to expand...

the Sumerians predate the israelites by at least 2000 years. So I don't know what you mean by relative? Israelites don't even exist at the time of the Sumerian people so by relative, relative to what??? Their own values are reflected later on in Israelite theology, simply put the Israelites adopt Sumerian theology.

The root words in the Hebrew had many stem modifiers that transformed the word's meaning in very interesting ways.

If you are interested in going beyond the meaning of only the root word? For the root word in Hebrew can hold ten different meanings.

Here is one good reference. I have this set. Looks like a more compact edition is now being offered for a lower price if you do a search for it.

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. https://www.amazon.com/Theological-Wordbook-Old-Testament-II/dp/B000UDEJ2W

ShamashUruk said:

the Sumerians predate the israelites by at least 2000 years. So I don't know what you mean by relative? Israelites don't even exist at the time of the Sumerian people so by relative, relative to what??? Their own values are reflected later on in Israelite theology, simply put the Israelites adopt Sumerian theology.

Click to expand...

Far from it. Again,. Satan introduces religions to pagan peoples... In hopes of counterfeiting a target for man's desire to find God. Those ancient people were brutal and harsh. Child sacrifice amongst the ancient pagan cultures was not surprising to find. Fertility rites and sex orgies as a form of worship was also common. Like I said> It was relative. It was simply their concepts of morality and sin. Just like the Mafia has certain expectations that they consider a sin to break. Meaning? Its all relative. You are not seeing that factor. You're looking through "idealistic" tinted lenses and are oblivious to how degenerate many of those pagan religions were.

Paul stole terminology from the Stoics. Terminology that they desired but never knew how to fulfill. The term "virtue" began with the stoics. To them it was an unattainable state which to them remained a philosophical idealistic concept. Paul used the same term to show how it was fulfilled by Christians being controlled by the Holy Spirit. God gives the power (grace). In contrast to those who originated the word.. the Stoics tried to force this idealized behavior by will power and stern self denial alone, and failed miserably.