I just re read Dan's post claiming a "biblical" take on sin. What I'd missed the first time I read it was that his "biblical" case didn't actually contain any actual "biblical" references. There were claims about what the Bible "says" and paraphrases of Dan's eisegesis of certain things, but nothing that one could actually find specifically in the "biblical" record. Maybe it's just me, but if I was making a "biblical" take on a subject I think that I would focus on the specific texts that bear on the topic. I'd also not shy away from texts that might seem to run counter to my personal hunches.
But that's just me.
11 comments:
It appears you missed the point. First, I dealt with the word translated as sin IN THE BIBLE. (Ie, the biblical/Greek meaning of the word found IN THE BIBLE. By definition, then, that is biblical. Way more biblical than your inerrancy theories. ) I noted:
Sin,
the word typically used
in the New Testament...
the word used by Jesus...
is literally translated as
missing the mark
as in shooting for a target and coming up short.
Not being perfect.
Not achieving perfection.
Well, of course, humanity is not perfect. No one who is human and self-aware suggests that.
Is that NOT the biblical/New Testament take on sin?
I further noted that I'm much less interested in what is "biblical "
(After all, enslaving people
How to sell your children
Killing children...
These are all "biblical," but they're not all good, Godly or morally rational.
The point being, let's worry less about what is "biblical" and more about what is good and Godly.
What is "biblical" might be and has been a horror show.
Missing the mark is one thing. Mere human imperfection. But embracing love and grace... THAT'S the point of the sum of biblical teaching, and thus, is precisely and specifically, literally biblical.
Dan
Craig complained:
Maybe it's just me, but if I was making a "biblical" take on a subject I think that I would focus on the specific texts that bear on the topic.
The main word for sin in the NT is hamartia. It occurs roughly 250 times in the NT. Pick one. It just means falling short, as an arrow shot and not quite reaching the target. It is imperfection. And indeed, humans are imperfect.
https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-concepts-of-sin-in-the-new-testament
Do you think the "crime" of an imperfect human being, well, imperfect is somehow righteously punished by an eternity of torture?
And since it's mentioned 250 times in the NT, I am speaking of biblical concepts. I just didn't quote them, figuring you're familiar. But I can hold your hand and show them to you if you'd like.
I just had confidence in you that you were already as familiar with the topic as me. At least. Maybe I had too much confidence in how familiar you were with the Bible?
"Do you think the "crime" of an imperfect human being, well, imperfect is somehow righteously punished by an eternity of torture?"
Since I'm not the one with the authority to make that particular decision, I guess my opinion isn't really the issue. I would hazard a guess that volume might play a role in the outcome as well.
"And since it's mentioned 250 times in the NT, I am speaking of biblical concepts. I just didn't quote them, figuring you're familiar. But I can hold your hand and show them to you if you'd like."
Thank you for making my point. You cherry picked someone else's analysis of the meaning, decided for yourself that it was the only possible meaning, and assumed that your hunches about all of those references were 100% accurate, and didn't actually mention anything from the actual Bible.
"I just had confidence in you that you were already as familiar with the topic as me. At least. Maybe I had too much confidence in how familiar you were with the Bible?"
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, the snarky personal attack, when things get too uncomfortable for you. Perhaps I have too much confidence in you in assuming that you can read my post, and respond to what I actually said, not something else. The point of my post still stands, in your post about what's Biblical, you never once mentioned what the Bible specifically says.
"Is that NOT the biblical/New Testament take on sin?"
How is taking one word out of context, relying on one source for one possible definition, and eisegeting from there Biblical?
Just curious, wouldn't knowing what the "mark" is be a valuable part of your eisegesis?
I'm not interested in your subjective, biased, imperfect hunches about what might be.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh, the snarky personal attack
You KNOW that your post is you literally going OUT of your way to make a snarky attack on a post that I made? You could have ignored it. You could have recognized that, for those of us familiar with the Bible and biblical definitions, that I AM talking about biblical opinions/texts. But instead, you're trying to demonize me and, in the process, making yourself look like a self-righteous boob, the type of person Paul critiques as just being divisive and unloving. Here, you want a Bible passage quoted:
I urge you, brothers and sisters, to
watch out for those who cause divisions and
put obstacles in your way that are
contrary to the teaching you have learned.
Keep away from them.
For such people are not serving our Lord Christ,
but their own appetites.
By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.
Be better.
For now, I'll heed Paul's advice.
"You KNOW that your post is you literally going OUT of your way to make a snarky attack on a post that I made?"
No. My post was making a reasonable and valid point. That I tried to do so in an amusing, maybe slightly snarky way instead of a more serious way is immaterial.
" You could have ignored it. You could have recognized that, for those of us familiar with the Bible and biblical definitions, that I AM talking about biblical opinions/texts."
I did recognize that very thing. I simply pointed out that you were talking about your personal, subjective, biased, imperfect hunches and opinions about what you believe the Bible authors really meant instead of looking at the specific Biblical texts.
"But instead, you're trying to demonize me and, in the process, making yourself look like a self-righteous boob, the type of person Paul critiques as just being divisive and unloving."
If pointing out the clear, unambiguous, and obvious Truth is "demonizing" in your little world, then I guess I'm guilty. I have to note that you choosing to attack me personally is an ad hom, something of which you are very critical of in others.
The fact that you only see others when you proof text, never yourself, indicates a possible eye/log issue.
What's hilarious is that all you had to do to avoid this constructive criticism was to have titled your post in a more accurate way. Instead you choose this snarky attack avenue.
Dan,
One problem that crops up with your limited focus on only one word only in the NT is that it lacks context.
For example, one other related term that is used to describe YHWH is holy. It seems incomplete to separate YHWH's goodness from His holiness. Further, as Jesus repeatedly referred to the Hebrew scriptures and affirmed them, it seems incomplete to ignore similar terms in the Hebrew scriptures in your limited quest. I suspect that your goal was to prove a predetermined point, rather than to actually delve into the depth of meaning and intent in scripture. Which alone seems to be an inadequate way to search for a fully formed Biblical take.
According to the Oxford dictionary the definition of hamartia is "a fatal flaw leading to the downfall of a tragic hero or heroine".
Now as far as I can see, that definition seems to accurately correspond with the notion that "The wages of sin is death". That sin IS fatal and DOES lead to the downfall of the sinner.
"to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
to wander from the law of God, violate God's law, sin
that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act
collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many"
As we look past the simplistic first definition, we see more depth an nuance than your more shallow eisegesis would suggest.
But, if we take your incomplete definition of "to fall short of the ideal, to miss the mark", the question then becomes what is the "ideal" or "mark" we "fall short of" or "miss". To speculate on this while ignoring one critical component, seems shallow and incomplete.
So, if (as you speculate) sin is merely "falling short" or "missing the mark", please tell us what is being fallen "short" of and what is the "mark" being missed? Lack of detail or vagueness will not be tolerated.
https://feedtheneed.org/tabletalk/khata-sin/
This is an interesting look at the OT word and concept of sin.
https://www.pursuegod.org/the-meaning-of-sin-in-hebrew/
Some more depth and context.
https://bibletolife.com/resources/questions/what-are-hebrew-words-for-sin/
Still more depth.
Here is the problem with your claim, it's incomplete. It's undefined, it's vague, it's so vague as to be meaningless.
Dan's preferred definition allows him a rationalization for diminishing the seriousness of sin so as to better run his self-serving notion of God's justice. Sin "misses the mark", as if it's some kind of "oopsie! Sorry!", but not a really big deal about which God should take umbrage.
And as you say, it ignores the mark being missed and it's importance, because if Dan doesn't think missing the mark is worthy of eternal ramifications, then God couldn't possibly disagree and damned well shouldn't if He expects worship and reverence out of Dan.
Much of this is a matter of not only accurate translation of a word or phrase, but how it was understood and applied at the time it was first used. Dan's always judging Scripture on contemporary standards and beliefs as well as his own understanding of those.
Anonymous,
I'm going to post this one of three to see if I can figure out who this is. Please, in the future identify yoruself.
Obviously Dan's definition of sin is signficantly affected by his lack of defining what the "mark" is, and by his belief that it's just a series of oopises instead of intentional actions. As if one doesn't decide to intentionally lie, but that rather the lie just slips out.
Again, clearly Dan needs to apply a 21st century, progressive spin to everything because it's the only way his arguments make sense to him.
Post a Comment