Original Sin?
Is the idea of original sin and inherited sin found in the Bible? Do all humans inherit the sin of Adam as some claim? Are all humans totally depraved, or in a completely sinful position, from the time they are born? It is true that all people are born into a world containing sin and as humans we will all sin. This idea is stated by Paul in Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Every person will sin, but are we born sinful? Did we inherit sin? Do we have a sinful nature? A careful study of the Word of God will reveal to the reader that human beings are in fact not born sinful nor born in a depraved state.
People claim that every human is born sinful. What is the definition of sin? The Bible teaches the following about sin in I John 3:4; “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” The Bible also says that the result of sin is spiritual death, Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” If the payment for sin is spiritual death, and sin is a breaking of God’s law, what law has a newborn baby broken? Why should they receive the payment of something they have not done? This definition of sin is very important to remember. Sin is simply breaking God’s law, nothing else.
The Bible teaches that works of the flesh are sins that people commit. Paul gives a list of sins in Galatians 5:19-21; “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Many other passages could be sighted giving further sins, as these listed here are not an exhaustive list. The author uses this passage because the phrase “and such like” encompasses every other sin imaginable. Also note that sins are not only actions in our flesh, but also of our thoughts, Matt. 5:28, 1 John 2, 3, 4, etc.) If sins are a Transgression of God’s law by works of the flesh or evil thoughts can a newborn human that does not know God’s law, is physically unable to commit any of the works of the flesh, and mentally unable to sin in thought, be guilty of sin? If the Biblical definition of sin is an evil work of the flesh or evil thought of the mind, both of which breaks God’s law, can there be another manmade definition of sin?
Children, especially newborn babies, do not know the difference between good and evil. They are not able to commit transgressions of God’s law. We have an example from the Old Testament about the neutral nature of children. The Israelites had refused to obey God and fight against the land of Canaan. Twelve spies were sent into the land, and only Joshua and Caleb had faith in God to make them victorious. The following verses is God’s reply to these people; Deuteronomy 1:39-41 “Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it. But as for you, turn you, and take your journey into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea. Then ye answered and said unto me, We have sinned against the LORD,. . .” Notice that God’s says that the children had no knowledge of good or evil. All humans are born neutral in the eyes of God because of this fact. The Children of Israel were being punished because “we have sinned”, they truthfully claim. Children, especially babies, do not know good or evil and therefore cannot transgress any of God’s laws by committing works of the flesh and giving way to evil thoughts.
Because of this definition of sin it is clearly seen that original sin cannot exist because sin is an action a person does contrary to God’s law. What about the idea of inheriting sin? This would be sin passed on from parents to children. The prophet Ezekiel speaks about this subject in Ezekiel 18:4-20. To conserve space, only the main points of this passage will be noted. Please read the passage in its entirety on your own. Ezekiel 18:4; “Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.” The prophet tells us that the soul that sins, or transgresses God’s law, shall die. What has a newborn baby done worthy of death if they are physically and mentally unable to sin? Notice especially Ezekiel 18:19-20; “Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” Again the Prophet states this unmistakable fact: the soul that commits sin will die. Sin is not and cannot be passed on from father to son. To say so is to deny the inspired writings of the Bible. The “wickedness of the wicked” is his and his alone. It is not passed on to his or her children.
Many people believe that Romans 5:12 teaches the idea of original sin. Let us examine this verse to see what God would have us to know. Paul states in Romans 5:12; “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” On the surface this verse seems to say that because of Adam and his sin every human to live after him will inherit his guilt. However, this verse comes nowhere near teaching such false doctrine. First, Paul, by inspiration, states that “because by one man sin entered into the world”. Adam introduced sin into the world because he was the first man to commit sin. “And death by sin” Please recall Romans 6:23; “For the wages of sin is death;. . “ and Romans 3:23; “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” Sin was introduced into the world, and, because all have sinned, and the wages of sin is death, death is now entered into the world. This can be applied to physical death, but the context of the passage teaches that the death is a spiritual death. That is why Paul is explaining the necessity of Jesus Christ. Finally, “and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned”. What passed on to all men? Adam’s sin? By no means! Death passed on to all men! Why? Because “for that all have sinned”! The only reason “death passed upon all men” is because “all have sinned” and “the wages of sin is death.”
Original Sin is a man made term that states that we are born full of sin and have inherited sin from Adam. This is not the Biblical definition of sin. Sin is something that transgresses God’s law. Only those who go past, or transgress, the law that God gave to govern men and women in Jesus Christ can commit sin. Sin is not passed on from father to son. A newborn baby can do none of the above-mentioned things. God’s definition of sin contradicts man’s definition of sin. Which is it then? Men or God? What kind of God would condemn an infant or child of sin when that child has done nothing contrary to God’s Law? What kind of doctrine would teach something so contrary to the nature of God and the biblical definition of sin? God created man in his own image, and said it was good, Genesis 1:26-27. God does not continue to create his children evil and full of sin.

77 Comments:
Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, and other groups teach original sin/sinful nature. If their teachings contradict the bible, are they included in Christ? Can one billion Catholics be wrong?
A serious question.
May 29, 2005 6:53 PM
Can 1 billion Catholics be wrong?? Can the billions of Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhist be wrong?
May 29, 2005 7:01 PM
Can one who believes in original sin still be saved? See Acts 2:38, Romans 10:9-10, Romans 6, 1 Peter 3:21. I disagree with original sin but those that mistakenly believe that can most definitely still be saved.
May 29, 2005 7:21 PM
Can one billion Catholics be wrong?
The answer: yes.
Just because a lot people follow a certain path doesn't make it right.
May 29, 2005 10:07 PM
There were thousands of people who drowned in the flood, but only 8 people were saved in the ark. By the reasoning that numbers make a thing right, God would have been obligated to save those thousands and drown Noah and his family.
Incidentally, I have known Muslims who use the numbers game to "prove" the validity of that false religion. As David Ray notes, the majority of people will travel the broad way Jesus described, and be lost.
Jerry Brewer
May 31, 2005 6:16 AM
If anyone here has not already done so, I would like to recommend something to read.
T. W. Brents' "The Gospel Plan of Salvation" (1874).
The first five chapters devastate the whole system of Calvinism.
Ch. 5 is on Hereditary Total Depravity (i.e., the doctrine of inherited original sin)
May 31, 2005 2:01 PM
Concerning Roman Catholicism:
It is the apostacy about which the apostles spoke. Protestant denominations are an outgrowth of the apostacy.
That whole branch of historical study is NOT church history. It is the history of apostacy.
The Lord's church has no part in it.
May 31, 2005 2:09 PM
James,
I never denied the restoration movement came out of Protestantism. But the key phrase is "CAME OUT" refusing to participate in that failure any longer.
And no I do not believe that the church fell of the map. But I do believe that it was under the radar from most historians who were distracted with the history of apostacy.
Since the seed of the kingdom is the word of God, the church has both potentially and truly been on the earth since Pentecost (AD 30).
May 31, 2005 3:10 PM
By the way...the phrase "gates of hell" is not likely a statement about the church's enduring nature.
It should be "gates of hades". The gates refers to his death (into hades) and his resurrection (out of hades). Death could not prevent him from est. the kingdom.
The RSV even renders it "powers of death."
May 31, 2005 3:13 PM
I thought buildings dated back to Judaism and not Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. What were Synagogues?
May 31, 2005 6:38 PM
I've never seen a church of Christ building that looked anything like a Catholic cathedral.
June 01, 2005 8:32 AM
James
It amazes me how you can jump on the peripheral packaging and completely miss the doctrinal.
The RCC is the apostate church. And Protestantism came from within it.
Restorationists came out of it and endeavored to go back to just the scriptures for all matters of faith and practice.
The use of a building is a lawful expedient. Having an order of service is also a lawful expedient and fulfills the need to do things decently and it order.
Many current congregations began in homes, but grew.
The persecuted church often was in hiding. The radar I was speaking of was that of historians. They mostly discuss the dominant religious movements of the day.
June 01, 2005 9:46 AM
Reminds me of a funny response I gave to an old woman one time. She said she did not want to believe in God, because her husband was an Atheist, and clearly not in Heaven, so she desired to go to Hell and be with him. To which I replied: Well, the problem with that idea is that Hell is so crowded that you legitimately may never find him. Many religions will be in Hell, if they do not turn to Christ. Many followers of Christ will be in Hell if they do not live by Matthew 25.
Now to the actual original post. I do believe that Adam brought sin into the world. I would have to say that we each have buckets enough of our own sin that it wouldn't matter if Adam's was thrown in there as well. I hope that Adam's isn't, because original sin doesn't seem to be correct, but in the end, what's a fruit on a tree coming off compared to all the times I have fallen short.
June 01, 2005 10:19 AM
There are some things that Protestants and Roman Catholics were doing that were right. We should keep what was right and get rid of what was wrong.
June 01, 2005 1:35 PM
Well, Josh, I expect your blog to get a lot more traffic now that Scott has made anonymous posting unavailable on his blog. I hope that you will allow anonymous posting, because it has been discussed a number of times for the reasons people choose to do this, including myself. People do this so that those refuting what they say will be focused more on principles than people, and I think posting anonymously helps achieve that. To make it unavailable is not respecting these peoples' opinions in the least concerning the matter. Thank you for letting me post and express my ideas using an anonymous name.
June 01, 2005 2:15 PM
The reason why anonymous posts were removed from my blog is because those who were posting anonymously were acting in an un-Christian like manner. There are many blogs that do not allow anonymous posts like Pat Ridenour's and Mike Cope's. If those posting anonymously would stop making personal attacks then I would allow them to post once again. What kind of person make a personal attack on a person, calling them by name, but won't even put their own name behind it?
June 01, 2005 2:38 PM
Scott said,
"What kind of person make a personal attack on a person, calling them by name, but won't even put their own name behind it?"
I seem to remember getting a packet in the mail last spring denouncing OC and Glenn Pemberton (even with one of those illegal CDs). Guess what? No name.
I'm not accusing Scott or anyone else of doing that. (I have a pretty good idea of who it was.) But lots of folks don't put their names on statements. Some, so they can speak too harshly about a person. Some (like me) out of fear of being "written up" at some point for words taken out of context (like what happened to Dr. Pemberton).
June 01, 2005 3:37 PM
Anonymous stated,
"Some (like me) out of fear of being "written up" at some point for words taken out of context (like what happened to Dr. Pemberton)."
Why would anyone be afraid to put their name behind something they believe to be truth? I wonder if anonymous is afraid to preach what he believes from the pulpit? I'm assuming he is minister because I believe those CD's were sent out to mainly preachers and you are right I did not send them out.
June 01, 2005 3:46 PM
What illegal CD's??
June 01, 2005 4:10 PM
James, how can what he said be taken out of context when it over 20 hours of only Dr. Pemberton speaking?? Nothing in the CD is hidden. If the CD itself wasn't bad enough, the way certain people have acted concerning that CD is even more suspicious. What should commentary class teachers have to hide?
June 01, 2005 7:54 PM
Graduate classes are much more than 'commentary' classes. If you want commentary classes take undergraduate Bible classes. If you want to do academic biblical study then go to grad school, but do not confuse the two.
June 01, 2005 10:20 PM
Just so we're clear: I don't allow anonymous posts on my blog because I don't know how. It isn't out of wanting to expose someone, I'm just not sure how to do it. I wasn't even aware until a few days ago that you couldn't. As for the Pemberton thing, I would like a CD, because I have no idea what you all are talking about. By the way, I am a minister in the Christian Church, and I am pretty sure that's okay.
June 02, 2005 6:27 AM
I was very dissapointed over the issue of the CD. It is sad to me that the young man who chose to wrongfully produce and send out the CD was not willing to discuss the issues with the professor in class. He was willing to make public the issues of the class only after he received his grade and his degree. Why did he not confront the issues at the time? Was he more concerned with getting a good grade or with "exposing false doctrine"? It appears that he put his grade first. There is no discussion on the CD between this student and Glenn Pemperton in class (those of you who received this illegal reproduction can listen). Why not? Where is this great defender of the faith? Instead, he chose to smear the good name of a sincere man in an illegal manner. He asked to download the class for his own study sake. Again, he lied. He should publically repent, and privately meet with Pemberton. Anything less would be shameful. New Testament writers marked people for avoidance for such issues as this (Rom 16:17). I believe this young man should be marked and avoided, his radio program should not be supported until he takes such actions.
June 02, 2005 6:44 AM
It is also sad that some of the issues on the CD are considered matters of salvation. Does it really matter is Johah is a real story or a parable? Does it really matter if sections of Job are arranged differently? And does it really matter if someone holds to a traditional view of innerancy, so long as they believe that Scripture reveals all things that lead to life and godliness? Where in the NT is our salvation based upon such matters as these? Where in the NT are we asked to answer such questions for matters of salvation? Salvation is based upon Jesus Christ and our response in active faith to him. For a group that claims to have no creed, some among us have created one out of such trivial matters.
June 02, 2005 6:47 AM
James stated:"Are you claiming that it was okay to break the law by producing unauthorized copies of copyrighted material and sending them to congregations anonymously to slander another Christian?"
James I am not claiming it is okay to break the law. My original question of "what illegal CD's" was because I wanted to know why they were considered illegal. People say they are illegal but none prove it.
I do not believe such is slander. The CD contains the entire context and NO commentary by the maker of the CD to say that anyone was slandered. If the things Dr. Pemberton said were his actual beliefs and teaching then I would say that there is an obligation to expose people for destroying the faith of others by their teachings. Paul refered to one as "making shipwreck of the faith". If a law was broken then I and most brethren are willing to except that fact, but the law of man does not trump the law of God. Since the CD contained the entire context of that class I think it gave the listener the chance to make up their own mind about the things said. I'm sorry that recorders cannot be used in your classes anymore. It's a shame that OC has punished you and your peers rather than the one who actually recorded the class, if he indeed is worthy of such.
June 02, 2005 2:12 PM
Anonymous stated:"Graduate classes are much more than 'commentary' classes. If you want commentary classes take undergraduate Bible classes. If you want to do academic biblical study then go to grad school, but do not confuse the two."
I merely stated "commentary Class" because of a statement made by a certain professor who will remain nameless called all translations commentaries. It was a pun nothing more.
June 02, 2005 2:15 PM
To address John's comments:
1. It's illegal because OC has a copyright on all material. That proves it. Read any class syllabus. You can't just take class materials and give them out. That's like giving out a WHOLE free graduate class to everyone. The maker of the CDs basically made the contents of a WHOLE graduate class available to the general public. That's not fair to those that paid for the class, nor is it legal.
2. You say that the law of humans does not trump the law of God. This is true, but you have to be very careful playing that card. Can I be Robin Hood and go steal from rich people so I can help poorer people? See where this line of logic leads? My question to you is this: When is it ok to break the law for spiritual purposes? (I'm not saying there aren't times for this, but I'm curious as to what distinctions you make and your biblical backing for such.)
3. The CD itself was not slanderous, but the accompanying letter/articles gave PLENTY of unpleasant and misleading commentary on Dr. Pemberton.
4. OC can't punish the one who recorded the class, because as someone said before, he waited until after he received his degree before going public. He doesn't go to school there anymore, so what can they do? They could have revoked his degree, but they (wisely) didn't.
June 02, 2005 2:38 PM
Anonymous stated:
OC can't punish the one who recorded the class, because as someone said before, he waited until after he received his degree before going public. He doesn't go to school there anymore, so what can they do? They could have revoked his degree, but they (wisely) didn't.
If what he did was illegal as you are claiming can they not take him to court?
June 02, 2005 3:34 PM
OC chose not to litigate against a brother in Christ. (I Cor. 6)
June 02, 2005 3:40 PM
ONE of the Anonymous persons wrote:
"Does it really matter is Jonah is a real story or a parable?"
=============
I guess that depends on how comfortable you are at calling God a liar?
Jesus affirmed the historicity of Jonah at least twice in the gospels.
He talked about the people repenting when Jonah preached to them.
He also likened his passion to the time Jonah was in the great fish.
Nowhere does the scripture refer to Jonah as a parable.
June 02, 2005 3:54 PM
(you better sit down for this. Long post ahead)
I truly hope that my salvation is not based on whether or not I agree with every conclusion some of you fight so hard for on this blog. Do you honestly believe that a person will be lost if they believe Jonah is a parable? Again, you build a straw man and paint a misleading picture by saying such a conclusion calls God a liar. Is Jesus' story in Luke 16:19-31 a parable or a true story.
Careful, your eternal salvation hangs in the balance (based on your logic). To say it is parable would be calling Jesus a liar. He says "There was a rich man". So was there or was there not really a rich man? Or say it is a parable and I call it historical am I adding to God's word. Am I again calling Jesus a liar? Am I ading to the word?
The lesson of the story is not whether or not is historical. The lesson is that Jesus came to those who were often rejected and looked down on. Salvation is for all!
The lesson of Jonah isn't whether or not we can prove its historicity (animals fasting?). The lesson is that God loves even the gentile nations. Jonah's pride kept him from teaching the gospel to the lost. That is the point.
We need to learn what is worth fighting for and what is worth granting liberty. I may disagree with someone about whether Jonah is history or parable, but my salvation is not dependent on such issues. Don't you think the world needs to hear the message of Christ first? Don't you think the gospel is the means of salvation? Or is God going to hand me a test on the day of Judgement which covers Jonah's historicity? Such a conclusion makes the cross of Christ of no effect!
I fear that so many people are turning from the Lord's church because we find it more important to debate such issues as these rather than teaching the gospel of Christ. We seem more willing to debate matters of opinion rather than teach a lost soul about the saving grace of Jesus. No wonder so many look on us as Pharisees. They were more willing to debate their traditions than scripture.
Just listen to some of the postings on these blogs and in publications. We argue about English translations when so many in the world have no translation at all. We argue about how the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian, when so many are not Christians at all. Does it matter if the holy spirit dwells literally in a Christian or not? (If you say he does not, are you calling Paul a liar? Rom. 8:9).
And we wonder why the church is not growing. May I suggest that Christ knew what would grow the church when he said, "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself." I'm willing to give that a try!
June 03, 2005 7:27 AM
What disturbs me is that people cannot believe that God kept Jonah alive three days in the belly of the whale but they do believe that Jesus was three days in the belly of the earth and then raised from the dead. Where is the consistency in that? How many other parables give specifics such as names of people and cities?
June 03, 2005 8:12 AM
Anonymous,
Great comments. I do feel that there is a place and time to discuss our opinions on these issues, but we need to keep in perspective what is all-important - Christ, and Him Crucified! I must admit, that I'm guilty as charged... I have spent more time following the copious arguments and repeats of the same arguments, than I have simply studying and thinking on the Word. I appreciate the conviction that you’ve offered.
June 03, 2005 8:16 AM
(refering to Anonymous 1)
June 03, 2005 8:17 AM
Mr or Mrs. Anonymous (2) again paints with a very broad brush. Just because someone suggests that Jonah is a parable does not mean thy reject the miraculous ability of God. Does the prodical son being a parable mean that God is not loving? It is a parable after all, not historical. And, the difference between the historicity of Jonah and the historicity of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is that the message is dependent on the historical fact. Paul himself said, "If Christ be not raised then we of all men are most pitiable".
I haven't seen anywhere on this blog or heard anyone in Brother Pemberton's class reject the miraculous ability of God. God is powerful enough to have Jonah swallowed by a gold fish if he so desired. But the point is not whether or not it is historical. I can believe the message of Jonah if it is a parable or not. But you cannot believe in Christ if you reject his resurrection.
June 03, 2005 9:20 AM
2 Peter 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
Why were fables permissible in the Old Testament but frowned on in the New? Why would it matter to the apostles whether or not the New Testament was based on fables if the Old Testament that they had followed before Christ was based on fables all along?
As a side light, notice that the parables of Christ do not use proper names (like "Jonah") or other trademarks of historical accounts. If the story of Jonah started out: "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain man who was told to go to a certain city before he was swallowed by a big fish ..." then you might have a case for it being a parable. As the story of Jonah does have trademarks of historical accounts, calling it a parable is just bad scholarship ... among other things.
June 03, 2005 12:26 PM
You can't compare a "parable" in the OT to one in the new. The Hebrew way of writing fiction was different than what we know of as a NT parable, so just because Jonah doesn't sound like one of Jesus's parables doesn't mean it isn't fiction.
Here are some thoughts:
Think of Lord of the Rings. It all has historical detail, names of figures, etc. It's an epic tale. Yet we know it's fiction. It also has teaching value. The Hebrews would use stories like this to teach lessons.
The word "Jonah" means "dove," which was a symbol for Israel. And when you read Jonah, you realize that - historical or not - the point of the book is to tell the Israelites that God's grace is open to other nations - not just the Israelites.
The writer of Jonah calls it literally a "god-big" city - 3 days to walk across. Nineveh was nowhere near this large. Again, this points to an "epic" tale - exaggeration.
In Nineveh, the king repents immediately and calls an immediate fast (including the cattle). According to the book, the whole city repents. If such an event occurred (the entire population of a capital city of an empire repenting without so much as a question), why isn't it recorded in Assyrian histories? Again - exaggeration to make a point.
And I'm not disputing God's ability to send a big fish. He can do anything. But Jonah actually manages to compose a metered, rhymed psalm in the belly of this fish. It's pitch black, he has no writing material, yet he writes a polished poem.
You can certainly disagree with this conclusion, as you may with Dr. Niccum's conclusion about Mark 16:9-20. But people like Benjamin Williams and Johnny take too simplistic of a view by calling it "bad scholarship" or by saying we're "comfortable calling a liar." It's not as black and white as you'd like everything to be.
June 03, 2005 12:50 PM
I agree completely. Thank you for pointing this out. Some interesting views to think about.
June 03, 2005 1:13 PM
Ben, as one who knows you, you are smarter than to use Paul's words from 1 Timothy to argue against a parabolic reading of Jonah. Could not the same logic be used to discount Nathan's parable to David? Wouldn't that be a fable? It wasn't historically true. It was a parable.
Jonah can be inspired and still be a parable. I honestly don't think it is worth arguing over such an issue. Just as anonymous pointed out some interesting points for a parabolic reading, so too could someone point out legitimate reasons for a historical reading. It doesn't matter! The point of Jonah is not altered either way.
Are you willing to make this an issue of fellowship? Is someone a false teacher who sincerely believes Jonah could be a parable? That is my concern. That is my concern for several issues on this blog. Why are we making issues of fellowship, things that don't matter to the message of Christ and him crucified? Why are we drawing lines over matters that do not compromise the gospel of Christ? Isn't that the very thing Jesus condemned the Jews for? God help us to quit drawing lines where God has not drawn them!
June 03, 2005 1:36 PM
Sorry Ben, you used Peter's quote. I stand corrected. However, Peter would not have agreed with your use either. The argument still stands. I hope I'm not "marked" for my mistake.
June 03, 2005 1:38 PM
How do you know that Peter would not have agreed with Ben's use of that Scripture?
June 03, 2005 2:02 PM
Easy, read the context. What kind of "fables" does Peter have in mind?
June 03, 2005 2:09 PM
Would it be consistent and OK for Jesus to reference Jonah in the NT if it was a parable? He spoke as if it really happened. On the flip side, we speak of Paul Bunyon makeing the Grand Canyon like it really happened. We speak of George Washington cutting down the cherry tree and then fessing up to teach our children to always tell the truth. Again, Washington didn't cut down any cherry tree. We speak of things that are fiction as if they are true. Did Jesus do that? OR- did he speak of Jonah and Ninevah and their repentance because it really happened? I would like to think, because Jesus is comparing the repentant Ninevah to the unrepentant Jerusalem, that it really happened. But. . .
June 03, 2005 2:39 PM
Do not be discouraged by the debates carried on on this blog. It is good to consider your views and it is better to be forced to defend your views, as this makes you a better student of God's word. Remember, many people write, read, and debate on these blogs late in the evening after a long day's work of preparing Bible classes, bible camp lessions, sermons, and speaking with friends and neighbors about Christ. Just because someone is dedicating an hour (our 2-3) a day to this type of discussion does not mean they are neglecting the duty to 'meekly correct them that oppose themselves' by teaching Christ, and him crucified.
Carry on!
June 03, 2005 2:44 PM
Someone brought up the fact that we cannot compare NT parables with OT parables. I would take this further and say that we shouldn't compare american fiction (Paul Bunyan, Washington & the cherry tree) with stories in the Bible.
June 03, 2005 2:56 PM
Maybe not, but neither should we compare American history and expect it to be written to how Bible writers wrote "history." They had a whole different concept of history and the place of fiction in society.
June 03, 2005 3:09 PM
Hey, Nice Blog!
I think you would enjoy www.scripturist.com
It's part of this complete breakfast.
June 03, 2005 3:14 PM
God clearly and firmly stands opposed to the use of fables or myths in His Word.
Click Verse for Commentary Notes
1Ti 1:4 - Show Context
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
1 Timothy 4:7
But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
2 Timothy 4:4
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Titus 1:14
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
2 Peter 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
Liberal theologians have for years laughed at the biblical account of Jonah calling it a myth or fable. Now we have folks calling it a parable. Apparently they do not understand the nature of a parable.
June 03, 2005 5:07 PM
God clearly and firmly stands opposed to the use of fables or myths in His Word.
1 Timothy 1:4
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
1 Timothy 4:7
But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
2 Timothy 4:4
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Titus 1:14
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
2 Peter 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
Liberal theologians have for years laughed at the biblical account of Jonah calling it a myth or fable. Now we have folks calling it a parable. Apparently they do not understand the nature of a parable.
June 03, 2005 5:12 PM
Johnny,
You have proof-texted and taken these verses from their context. What kinds of fables and myths are Paul and Peter talking about? Just because we're using the same word doesn't mean we're talking about the same thing.
June 03, 2005 8:33 PM
How has Johnny proof-texted? Please elaborate and show how he has done so instead of simply accusing him.
June 03, 2005 10:07 PM
Johnny has not shown us the context of these passages, so we can understand Paul and Peter's definition of "myth" and "fable."
For example, in I Timothy, Paul is talking about those who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods God allows.
In Titus, Paul uses "Jewish myths" to refer to the "circumcision party" who were making up teachings [note: these were entirely new things; not just people saying that existing stories weren't "true] that were upsetting families just to make a buck.
Those are a few examples. My use of the word "myth" does not equal Paul's use of the word "myth," so you can't just throw a couple of verses at me that use the same word to refute me.
June 03, 2005 10:45 PM
Anonymous wrote
My use of the word "myth" does not equal Paul's use of the word "myth"
Where is functional equivalence when you need it?
June 04, 2005 8:22 AM
That was a cheap shot. Thanks for the constructive dialogue.
June 04, 2005 10:27 AM
The Greek term translated "fable" is --muthos-- (ie, myth). It is the contrasting term to --aletheia-- "truth". It is something told which is fiction, a tale, a figment, fanciful story, a falsehood.
Those definitions come from:
A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament
by: Barclay M. Newman, Jr.
United Bible Society, London
The Analytical Greek Lexicon Rev. (1978 Ed.) by Moulton, Zondervan
Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words
by: W. E. Vine
Riverside
A New Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament
by: George R. Berry, Ph. D.
Zondervan
The Bible student would do well to study the different figures of speech used in the Bible. Especially important would be the distinction between a fable and a parable.
One can study a classic book on Hermeneutics by D. R. Dungan at
http://www.mun.ca/rels/hrollmann/restmov/texts/ddungan/hatb/HATB00.HTM
June 04, 2005 12:33 PM
Johnny,
You still took those passages out of their context. Paul was speaking of specific things that had nothing to do what what started this discussion.
June 05, 2005 10:34 AM
Anonymous,
The point is...regardless of the context...God forbids the use of myth or fable and as such does not use it himself. Therefore nothing recorded in the Bible which is from an inspired speaker/writer is a fable or myth.
June 05, 2005 3:28 PM
James, Is the account of the rich man and Lazarus ever called a parable? Is it an "earthly story with a heavenly meaning". I believe this is an account of an actual event. Something that only deity could know. Jesus never said that this account was a parable or likened it to anything.
June 06, 2005 6:10 AM
Does it matter if the rich man and Lazarus is a parable or not? Does that in any way change its message? Does it matter if Jonah is a parable or not? Does it change its message?
Would you mark me as a false teacher if I said Jonah was a parable? Would that endanger someone's soul in some way? If so how?
When we make matters such as these issues of salvation and fellowship, we have made a mockery of the cross. This is one reason the liberal element in the church is turning its back on so many. They have been pushed out over matters of opinion. (Many have moved beyond matters of opinion, I will readily admit). But why are we arguing over such trivial matters?
June 06, 2005 8:03 AM
I strongly believe that the Rich man and Lazarus is a true story given to us for many useful insights. One, as James says, was for Christ to state that some will not believe even after he rose from the dead. Other insights would be what hades is, a place of the dead with two parts. Another would be a gimpse into what life is like after physical life is gone. Another would be a lesson to be benevolent and kind with the world's poor, so we don't go to tartarus in hades. Even if this account is not a true story, Because it is given by Jesus, it is an accurate account of life after death. Even if these men never lived, we know that it is like 'over there' beyond life because of this story.
June 06, 2005 4:40 PM
It has been suggested by scholars that the name Lazarus literally means "beggar". This would make a good "proper name" to use in a parable.
June 07, 2005 7:52 AM
Anonymous (?) wrote:
"It has been suggested by scholars that the name Lazarus literally means 'beggar'."
===================
LOL
Some scholarship!!!
Luke 16:20
But there was a certain BEGGAR NAMED LAZARUS, ...
Is this supposed to be "a certain beggar named beggar"?
ptochos = poor man, ie, beggar (vss. 19, 22)
Lazaros (-ov) = Lazarus, a proper name (Greek Lexicon)
According to McGarvey, Lazarus is derived from Eleazar which means "God a help."
Besides, Lazarus is not the only proper name in the passage...Abraham is named as well.
June 07, 2005 2:33 PM
Anonymous (?) wrote:
"It has been suggested by scholars that the name Lazarus literally means 'beggar'."
===================
LOL
Some scholarship!!!
Luke 16:20
But there was a certain BEGGAR NAMED LAZARUS, ...
Is this supposed to be "a certain beggar named beggar"?
ptochos = poor man, ie, beggar (vss. 19, 22)
Lazaros (-ov) = Lazarus, a proper name (Greek Lexicon)
According to McGarvey, Lazarus is derived from Eleazar which means "God a help."
Besides, Lazarus is not the only proper name in the passage...Abraham is named as well.
June 07, 2005 2:33 PM
JONAH
The words of Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, of the priests who were in Anatoth in the land of Benjamin, to whom the word of the LORD came... (Jer. 1:1-2)
The word of the LORD that came to Hosea the son of Beeri, ... (Hos. 1:1)
The word of the LORD that came to Joel the son of Pethuel. (Joel 1:1)
The word of the LORD that came to Micah of Moresheth ... (Micah 1:1)
The word of the LORD which came to Zephaniah the son of Cushi,... (Zeph. 1:1)
...the word of the LORD came by Haggai the prophet... (Hag. 1:1)
...the word of the LORD came to Zechariah the son of Berechiah... (Zech. 1:1)
NOW...
Now the word of the LORD came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying...
Note that there is virtually no difference in the set up of Jonah and other prophetic books of the OT.
It records real events at real places with real people.
June 07, 2005 2:57 PM
Johnny,
Care to compare how much prophecy is in Jonah vs. the other prophets? There is a HUGE difference. Jonah is the only "prophet" that has ANYWHERE the amount of narrative that it does. In fact, there is only a couple of sentences (at most) of prophecy in the "prophet" Jonah.
June 07, 2005 3:47 PM
So... if I understand this right, "the Word of the LORD came to fictional Jonah son of fictional Amattai"
why don't we just preach that this Sunday
June 07, 2005 4:23 PM
Some seem to be under the impression that prophecy is always predictive. It isn't.
Prophecy is forth telling...for God. Whatever is written in the book came by inspiration. The writer wrote from the gift of prophecy regardless of much predictive information.
June 07, 2005 5:26 PM
Johnny I think a functional equivalent set up to Jonah would read something like "Once upon a time in a land far far away"
After all a word for word just doesn't seem to have a whole lot of "meaning".
June 07, 2005 6:24 PM
The meaning is obviously the most important. It's important to have both functional and formal equivalency. But functional equivalency is vital to the understanding of Scripture.
June 07, 2005 6:52 PM
Back to the Dark Ages, only the religious scholars have the word of God.
June 07, 2005 8:33 PM
Not only does Jonah not have much "predictive" information, it has very little "forth"telling - another definition of prophecy that Johnny correctly brought up.
Jonah is the only one of the "prophets" that doesn't do much foretelling OR forthtelling. It's a small narrative that is not at all in the style of the other prophetic books.
June 07, 2005 8:35 PM
Even if this were so, does it take away the truth found it the book? Parable or historical account, it belongs in the Bible, it contains God's truth, and it serves as a valuable lesson to us all! Don't run away from your responsibilities, teach the Gospel, rejoice when others repent and are saved. And, most importantly, Ninevah, whether the real city or a parable, repented at Jonah's preaching were Israel did not repent at Christ's preaching. Therefore, salvation was offered unto the Gentiles!!! (Which we ALL probably are).
June 08, 2005 4:25 AM
James,
Considering the most popular "functional/dynamic equivalent" translation (?) [commentary] on the market is the NIV; and that it is dominated by folks from denominations who can't even understand the plan of salvation and tend to be premillenial...you really think I am going to depend on them to help poor little ole me to understand Revelation..HA! Not gonna happen.
Yes the book tends to be a bit difficult. But I do not want a "translation" interpreting it for me, which is precisely what functional equivalence does.
It reminds me of a mother bird chewing up a worm and puking down the neck of her babies. It is insulting to adults to make them think that they are too stupid to handle a respectful liter translation.
June 08, 2005 9:00 AM
James wrote,
"A literal translation of Revelation prevents the reader from understanding the meaning that certain words had during the first century."
and
"If we just trust a word for word translation the reader will never see the beauty of the imagery that is seen in the original language. This is just one of countless examples from this book that shows that we need more than just word for word translation."
TNIV Rev.12:1 "A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a CROWN of twelve stars on her head."
TNIV Rev. 12:3 "Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven CROWNS on its heads."
ASV Rev. 12:1 "And a great sign was seen in heaven: a woman arrayed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a CROWN of twelve stars"
ASV Rev. 12:3 "And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his heads seven DIADEMS."
ESV Rev 12:1 "And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a CROWN of twelve stars."
ESV Rev 12:3 "And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven DIAMDEMS."
It seems like the literal and the word for word translations (ASV, ESV) got it right and the thought translation (TNIV) failed.
June 08, 2005 1:32 PM
God's word is truth
Jonah is God's word
Jonah is truth
June 08, 2005 2:13 PM
God's word is truth
Jesus's parables are God's word
Jesus's parables are truth
June 08, 2005 2:33 PM
James you didn't advocate one version but you did bash word for word and literal translations. Perhaps they didn't get it exactly right but at least it tells the reader that there is a difference between the two words unlike your beloved TNIV which translates them both crown. You were also arguing that thought translations were better in translating the book of Revelation than word for word or literal. I disagree with that and I was simply showing that in this instance you were wrong. As much as people argue for thought translations they are simply not as good as word for word or literal translations and again this has been proven with this example that James brought out in the book of Revelation.
June 08, 2005 3:26 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home