Howdy Folks ! :wave:

I am likely taking on more than I can chew, but I have been wanting to do a study in the bible of these words for some time now:
Sin
Sinful
Abomination
Trespass
To comprehend why God's written word chooses to make distinction among those terms or words, and what I can learn from when and how God used each of those terms in our bibles.
So, I hope to have it discussed here to have shared what might be profitable for me or us in discussing those terms used or why one word was used here and another word was used there in our bibles.... or even if there are anymore terms God uses in His written word to denote our disobedience<--- if that makes any since ?


Thank you in advance, and Father bless.

In short... all bad. Heard a lot of ado about the words in the past. But all bad works. :)

Thank You PP

So are you saying: that it would not be profitable for one to comprehend why God's written word chooses to make distinction among those terms or words, and what we can learn from when and how God used each of those terms in our bibles, would not be profitable either ?


Father bless.

Sure it's profitable! Every study, be it words, themes, etc... profitable when talking Scripture. I was just summing it up for you! :D

Howdy Folks ! :wave:

I am likely taking on more than I can chew, but I have been wanting to do a study in the bible of these words for some time now:
Sin
Sinful
Abomination
Trespass
To comprehend why God's written word chooses to make distinction among those terms or words, and what I can learn from when and how God used each of those terms in our bibles.
So, I hope to have it discussed here to have shared what might be profitable for me or us in discussing those terms used or why one word was used here and another word was used there in our bibles.... or even if there are anymore terms God uses in His written word to denote our disobedience<--- if that makes any since ?


Thank you in advance, and Father bless.Since you are going to do your own study, I don't want to derail your process by giving you all the answers. :) But maybe I can get you started by making a distinction between "sin" and "trespass".

A "trespass" is a violation of an established law, rule of conduct, ordinance, regulation or decree. A "sin" is a violation of moral principles, moral vision, phychological wellbeing, and/or the created order." Not all trespasses are sins, and not all sins are trespasses.

For instance, we have laws regulating the speed of vehicles on the road. If the sign says "35", it means that the maximum speed we may travel on that road is 35 miles per hour. And under normal circumstances, if we travel faster than 35 MPH, we trespass the speed law. And some might even argue that if we disobey a law we are sinning. However, emergency vehicles are allowed, and even expected to trespass the speed limit on the way to an emergency situation. In this case, even though the emergency vehicle is going faster than 35 MPH the driver is not sinning, since saving a life is more important than obeying a rule. Not all trespasses are sins.

Not all sins are trespasses. In modern, liberal times some folks among us have chosen to practice homosexuality. The Bible says that such a practice is a sin; but we have no law against it. To practice homosexuality is a sin, but it is not a trespass or violation of a human law, ordinance, regulation and etc.

Jesus makes this distinction when he talks to the Pharisees about the Sabbath day. For instance, he reminds the Pharisees that David ate the show bread and gave some to his men who were famished and starving. David broke the law concerning the show bread, i.e. he trespassed, in order to act in a love toward his men. David trespassed the law, but acted in love, which was not a sin. (Review Matthew 12 for further details.)

Hopefully this helps you along the way. Good luck on your study. :)

Dear MoreMercy,
Thanks for this good question!!

If we are seeking to understand the distinction between the specific words used, I suppose it may be more illuminating -- help us understand more clearly what the Scriptures are actually saying -- if we concentrate on understanding not just the English words, but the words in the original languages.

This is not hard to do, using a tool like Blue Letter Bible (online) or esword (downloadable for free).

Intrigued by your question, I've spent the last several hours trying to do that.

In the OT, the main family of words for sin (H2398-H2403) is the "chata" root; this is almost always translated sin, sinner, etc. and occurs about 427 times in the OT

The best corresponding word in the NT would be hamartia and its cognates (G264-G268) which again means sin, and is almost alwasy translated that way. There are about 257 occurrences of this word in the NT.

Trespass in the OT mostly translates asham (H816-817) about 58 times in all;
trespass in the OT mostly translates paraptomai (G3900) which occurs about 23 times.

Transgress or transgression in the OT translates mainly pesha (H6588) which occurs 93 times, as noun and verb; in the NT it translates mainly parabaino or parabates (transgression or transgressor) which together only occur about 9 times.

Abomination is usually used to translate three different OT words, pigguw (H6292) which is fairly rare (4 times) and shiqquwst (H8251) which occurs 28 times and tow'ebah (H8441), which is rather common, occurring about 117 times.

Abomination in the NT is a relatively rare word, translating either athemistos (G111) twice, or bdely-root words (G946-947), mainly bdelygmai, which together occur 7 times.

iniquity is used to translate H205, aven, in the OT most of the time (37 of 78 times; and 8 times it gets translated "wicked" in the AV/KJV).

In the NT Iniquity mainly translates (G93) adikia -- roughly unrighteousness -- (6 times of 25) or anomia (G458) -- roughly lawlessness -- 12 times of 15.


The remaining word which comes up a lot in the English translation is "evil" or "wicked".

H7451, ra, occurs 663 times in the OT, and so is far more frequent than the other words. It's the basic Hebrew word for "bad"! It's translated "evil" 442 times in the KJV, and "wicked" 84 times, but this is very misleading. The word really just means "bad" or "undesirable" or "unpleasant". That's what the English word evil meant, also, in the 16th and early 17th century, when the KJV translation -- which influences all later translations -- was made. But now "evil" has the connotation not just of bad things, or choices, but of hardened, malicious, near-demonic badness. Thus the translation is problematic in many passages. Similar words, often translated evil, in the NT are (G4190) poneros, (76 times, 51 of them translated evil) and (G2556) kakos, translated evil over 40 times out of 51.


It's late, and my study had to be rushed, so I may have made some errors. You should reverify these things for yourself. Also, of course, this is not an exploration of how the Hebrew and Greek, or even English, words are used, and what their connotations are, which is required in answering the question you posed. (It's an important question, and I want to understand it better. I thank you very much for asking this!!) However, pursuing that isn't something I'll be able to do in the next few days or, probably weeks.

Blessings,
Scruff

Thank you BroRog
I enjoyed your emergency vehicle / speed limit ref.
Your ref. to the Pharisee's challenge to Christ over Sabbath is very agreeable to me also.
And your ref. to the fornication of homosexuality is agreeable to me also, but I will add that a practicing homosexual is also in error of Fathers purpose for male creatures, and also in error against humanities relation to mother-nature, that being why Fathers says it is an abomination/smoke in His eye/makes Him want to vomit.
I have had several opportunities to exchange thoughts with practicing homosexuals mainly because of the environments in the different places I found myself working for a paycheck at in my history. I would not publicly scorn them there as others did and that opened a door for them to approach me, and I used that opportunity to share Father's light with them, which opened another door to them (Christ's truth and light) which was otherwise rejected by them because of the self righteous scorn of them by my fellows, God's children.
And, that is a perfect example of one of many, many other reasons why I think this subject (Sin, sinful, abomination and trespasses. why so many different terms ?) should be studied and discussed under the eye of "mature Christians".


Thank you Scruffy Kid
That was very graceful of you. Thank you for the call-numbers too those will quicken my study friend. I do study in the archaic Greek and dabble in the Hebrew also.
I found an online personal Library: LAMBERT DOLPHIN'S Library, which I know nothing of the man yet, but his accumulation of worked writings amazed me in the width and breadth of topics n subjects. Which has some of the same information that you shared here, but what he presented was not in such user friendly language as you have presented.

I would appreciate if you would also take a look at the link to his library to examine/discern and or examine him/his history and competence to share or teach.
http://ldolphin.org/


Thank you both, Father blesses.

The bible uses three Hebrew words to describe sin:

Chet-an unintentional sin, done by accident
Avon- a sin from desire; intentional but from weakness of character
Pesha- a rebellious sin to deliberately defy God.

For instance, we have laws regulating the speed of vehicles on the road. If the sign says "35", it means that the maximum speed we may travel on that road is 35 miles per hour. And under normal circumstances, if we travel faster than 35 MPH, we trespass the speed law. And some might even argue that if we disobey a law we are sinning. However, emergency vehicles are allowed, and even expected to trespass the speed limit on the way to an emergency situation. In this case, even though the emergency vehicle is going faster than 35 MPH the driver is not sinning, since saving a life is more important than obeying a rule. Not all trespasses are sins.



What if I go 40 in a 35 zone or 70 in a 65 zone? The common rule among people in general is that whatever the speed limit is you are given a grace between 1 to 5 MPH over the speed limit. I have heard police officers say that "unofficially" this is the general consensus...thus technically you won't be pulled over for doing such a thing. Would I still be sinning practicing this?

The bible uses three Hebrew words to describe sin:

Chet-an unintentional sin, done by accident
Avon- a sin from desire; intentional but from weakness of character
Pesha- a rebellious sin to deliberately defy God.While I have you, on this subject, did God accept a sacrifice for each of these? Or did he reject a sacrifice for say, "Pesha"?

While I have you, on this subject, did God accept a sacrifice for each of these? Or did he reject a sacrifice for say, "Pesha"?

Sacrifices were only for accidental sins.

What if I go 40 in a 35 zone or 70 in a 65 zone? The common rule among people in general is that whatever the speed limit is you are given a grace between 1 to 5 MPH over the speed limit. I have heard police officers say that "unofficially" this is the general consensus...thus technically you won't be pulled over for doing such a thing. Would I still be sinning practicing this?Yes, I believe you would be sinning for knowingly disobeying the law.

Having said that, I think it's important to understand why police officers unofficially give a grace of 5 mph. As I drive my car, the only means I have to judge my speed is the gauge on my dash board, which is a mechanical device subject to manufacturing tolerances. Due to these tolerances, my gauge might read 35 when I am actually going 37. Likewise, if a police officer is tailing me, judging my speed against the gauge in his vehicle, which is also subject to manufacturing tolerances, might indicate that I am going 40 mph on his gauge. My actual speed is 37 mph; I read it as 35 mph on my gauge and he reads it as 40 mph on his gauge. In essence, the police officer isn't "allowing" you to travel 5 mph over the speed limit. He is giving you the benefit of the variations in manufacturing tolerances.

Many people misunderstand this and assume the police are giving you 5 mph, when in fact, that is not the intent. If you accept the misconception that the police are giving you an additional 5 mph, you might decide to go 40 mph on a posted 35 mph road, in which case the same police car will read 45 mph, which is 10 mph over the lawful limit and you will be ticketed. In fact, the police are NOT giving us 5 mph in reality. They are making allowances for the difference in gauge readings, for those who are attempting to obey the law. If vehicle speed gauges were 100% accurate, they would not give you anything over the posted limit, I think.

Sacrifices were only for accidental sins.

I thought so. Thanks. I think if Christians understood this, it would change how they look at the sacrifices and especially as it relates to what Christ did on the cross.

I thought so. Thanks. I think if Christians understood this, it would change how they look at the sacrifices and especially as it relates to what Christ did on the cross.

How does it relate to that?

How does it relate to that?Many among us take offense at the idea that Israel would build another temple and begin once again to make sacrifices and offerings according to Moses. The actual basis for that offence is hard to pin down sometimes. But I think the offense arises from a conception (perhaps misconception?) of the role of the animal sacrifies in the life of a Jewish believer. In this view, the ancient Jewish sacrifices were intended to expiate sin, but their efficacy was limited somehow. The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was also intended to expiate sin, but this sacrifice was compete, without fault, and totally efficatious. The offence arises when someone suggests explicitly or implicitly that the sacrifice of Jesus was not complete, faultless, and totally efficatious for reconciliation with God and the forgiveness of sins.

I agree with my fellow Christians that Christ's sacrifice was complete, faultless, and totally efficatious for reconciliation with God and the forgiveness of sins. Where I would disagree with my fellows is that the resumption of the animal sacrifices according to Moses would necessarily be a repudiation of that. If a resumption of the sacrifices truly spoke of a repudiation of Jesus, I would side with my fellows. But I am certain that when God resumes the sacrifices, this will not be the meaning behind them.

Ah, interesting. Thank you for spelling it out.

Ah, interesting. Thank you for spelling it out.

What is your understanding of God's original purpose for the animal sacrifices in terms of a national experience?

What is your understanding of God's original purpose for the animal sacrifices in terms of a national experience?

I don't think sacrifice was a "national" experience, although many commandments are. Sacrifice was an individual vehicle for achieving atonement.

I don't think sacrifice was a "national" experience, although many commandments are. Sacrifice was an individual vehicle for achieving atonement.What of Yom Kippur and Leviticus 16? Doesn't this sacrifice have implications for a relationship between an entire nation and God?

What of Yom Kippur and Leviticus 16? Doesn't this sacrifice have implications for a relationship between an entire nation and God?
Yom Kippur may be done as an individual, since the text implies that the day itself atones (if one observes it as such anyway). So far as Leviticus 16 goes, there is the concept of communal sin vs individual sin. All Jews are considered guardians to one another (so, for example, we are required to rebuke another Jew who is sinning) and the warnings for disobedience are communal and not individual. All of the punishments of Deuteronomy 28 applied just as much to Jewish sinners as to those who followed the law...because we are a people and not just individuals.

But the individual sin-sacrifice was still just for individuals.

Yom Kippur may be done as an individual, since the text implies that the day itself atones (if one observes it as such anyway). So far as Leviticus 16 goes, there is the concept of communal sin vs individual sin. All Jews are considered guardians to one another (so, for example, we are required to rebuke another Jew who is sinning) and the warnings for disobedience are communal and not individual. All of the punishments of Deuteronomy 28 applied just as much to Jewish sinners as to those who followed the law...because we are a people and not just individuals.

But the individual sin-sacrifice was still just for individuals.Do you see a role for communal expressions in Modern Israel?

Do you see a role for communal expressions in Modern Israel?

Ooh good question!

Hmm I would say probably communal as in the local community, for sure. Communal for the entire people? I don't know. But then, they say before the 6 Day War in 1967 Jews the world over were convinced that Israel was finished. So they were all praying and praying and we all know what happened...

Ooh good question!

Hmm I would say probably communal as in the local community, for sure. Communal for the entire people? I don't know. But then, they say before the 6 Day War in 1967 Jews the world over were convinced that Israel was finished. So they were all praying and praying and we all know what happened...Pardon me for switching gears so abruptly, but I am curious about your interpretation of Daniel 9:27. This relates to the general topic of the OP, specifically abominations. The following is my English translation of the passage.



And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate. (emphasis mine)

My question concerns the translation of the Hebrew word behind the bolded part "on the wing", which to my ears sounds idiomatic, poetic, or simply a mistranslated idea. I've thought about this some and my best guess as to the author's intent is something like "limit" as in "when the abominations have reached their limit, then a complete destruction will be poured out on the desolate" or something like that. Can you offer any insight in this regard?

Ok well the original text definitely says "on the wings of abominations/detestable things". Now, Rashi says this is a poetic expression, although I do not completely follow his reasoning. Please allow me to consult from my library at home at get back to this later....

The bible uses three Hebrew words to describe sin:

Chet-an unintentional sin, done by accident
Avon- a sin from desire; intentional but from weakness of character
Pesha- a rebellious sin to deliberately defy God.
Thank you Fenris


Father blesses.

Please Fenris.
This from an English translation also, out of Ezekiel 18:24.
I am curious about your interpretation here too. I think it would bless this threads purpose, If you will please ?
This scripture passage has five English words translated from the Hebrew relating to the OP subject, and all in the same passage.

Ezekiel 18:24
But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity/עול `evel, [and] doeth according to all the abominations/תועבה tow`ebah that the wicked/רשע rasha [man] doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass/מעל ma`al that he hath trespassed/מעל ma`al, and in his sin that he hath sinned/חטאת chatta'ath , in them shall he die.


Thank you, and Father bless.

"Avel/evel" means something more like "injustice" rather than "sin."

"ToEva" is well translated as "abomination"

"Rasha" does mean "a bad person"

"Maal" means "to be unfaithful".

"Chatas" is an inadvertent sin.

"Avel/evel" means something more like "injustice" rather than "sin."

"ToEva" is well translated as "abomination"

"Rasha" does mean "a bad person"

"Maal" means "to be unfaithful".

"Chatas" is an inadvertent sin.

Thank you again Fenris
(note) I do pray for the peace of Jerusalem, and I also see the blessing from those obedient prayers in my life too.


PS: If Father allows me the timing, I may be sending you a PM with a gentle request for public conversation with you on these forums soon.
Father bless you and yours more and more.