PDA

View Full Version : Psalm 51:5



reformedct
Jan 20th 2009, 04:42 AM
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.


just wanted to hear the arguments that this is referring to Davids environment and not his own sin. (Jewish interpretation, etc) and provide eviedence on why you believe your interpretation is correct

Psalms Fan
Jan 20th 2009, 04:46 AM
There are those (I couldn't name any names; I've just heard of it somewhere or another) who would take this to mean that the act of sex itself is inherently sinful.

reformedct
Jan 20th 2009, 04:49 AM
There are those (I couldn't name any names; I've just heard of it somewhere or another) who would take this to mean that the act of sex itself is inherently sinful.

hey psalms fan,

thats an interesting view, however i think we can be sure that cant be the answer, because how would Adam and Eve multiply? lol. plus we have books like Song of Solomon

Fresco
Jan 20th 2009, 04:52 AM
There are those (I couldn't name any names; I've just heard of it somewhere or another) who would take this to mean that the act of sex itself is inherently sinful.
And IMO thats ridiculous.

I prefer the New Living Translation.
According to it Psalm 51:5 reads:

"For I was born a sinner—
yes, from the moment my mother conceived me"


That makes more sense. It means you're born a sinner because you inherit the DNA from your parents. You basically have no choice in that, you're stuck with it.

Thats why Mary was impregnated with the Holy Spirit and became pregnant with Jesus.
Jesus had both godly DNA and human DNA, so he was both God and human at the same time

Psalms Fan
Jan 20th 2009, 04:55 AM
I wasn't say that that is what I think. Just that it's out there.

The OP asked for someone who has an opinion other than his own to give reasons why. I probably pretty much agree with the OP as to having a sinful nature, so I felt no reason to give my own opinion.

Yukerboy
Jan 20th 2009, 05:00 AM
Romans 5:19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

We did not become sinners of our own accord. We were made sinners through the disobedience of one man.

We did not become righteous of our own accord. We were made righteous through the obedience of one man.

reformedct
Jan 20th 2009, 05:09 AM
lol once again, i personally believe we are born fallen. This thread is for those who believe that this passage refers to something other than David being born a sinner to voice their opinion and provide Scripture

threebigrocks
Jan 20th 2009, 05:13 AM
It's better to look for those things which are common between believers than to look for things that divide. ;)

reformedct
Jan 20th 2009, 05:20 AM
i understand, but for my own confidence in what i believe, i think it is only fair that i listen to the other side.

here is an interesting study on the original hebrew here. A person mentioned that it referred to the actual act of conception. So either the act of sex is wrong, or that David was a sinner at the point of conception in the womb? maybe this verse is more supportive of being born sinners than i thought! that would mean not only are we born sinners but that we are sinful from the point of the sperma and egg coming together! perhaps i am wrong but here is an interesting piece:

Psalm 51 in the Hebrew Text
To begin with the Hebrew, the verse is roughly transliterated from the original characters
as “ubechete yechemachni imi”
viii
and can be translated as “sinful in my mother’s hot
passion.” The word often translated as “conceived” (“yechemachni” in Hebrew) actually
refers directly to the sexual act of conception and arousal, as the demonstrated by the
rendering of “hot passion.” It could also be more colloquially translated as “sinful from
the time my mother was hot.” Clearly to read the text as the Hebrew reader understood it
and claim that the verse describes an event later than conception is unfounded and
oblivious to the original language. If we truly believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word
of God then we are left to conclude that the beginning of life, as the text indicates, must
be traced back to the sexual act which created it. Attempts to shift the beginning of life
beyond this are simply false distinctions.
Psalm 51 in the Septuagint
Page 3
3
The Septuagint is equally as explicit. Psalm 51, in its Greek rendering, reads
“Ιδου γαρ εν ανομιας συνελημφθην, και εν αμαρτιας εκισσησεν με η μητηρ
μου”
ix
(emphasis added). The focus here is on the bolded word, “εκισσησεν,” a form of
the Greek word “κισσαω.” This word, like the Hebrew “yechemachni,” refers directly to
the act of conceiving. In fact, in many ways it has a similar connotation of experiencing
a “burning passion.” While it can be rendered literally as “conceive,” unlike it’s Hebrew
counterpart, the word “κισσαω”has many different hues, as demonstrated by other Greek
literature of the time.
The main source of reference in this regard is the Greek comedy writer and satirist,
Aristophanes, who wrote many works in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, B.C. In
his drama, Wasps, Aristophanes uses a form of “κισσω” to say “I burn to run along the
tiers of the tribunal with my voting-pebble in my hand”
x
(emphasis added). The word
can even refer to an intense longing. In the play Peace, also by Aristophanes, the word is
used to pose the question, “Do you at least, who long for peace, pull heartily?”
xi
Both
burning and longing complement the idea of conception and put this verse in complete
harmony with the Hebrew text. Clearly, as with the Hebrew, to interpret the text as a
Greek reader would understand leaves no room for speculation. Similarly, to claim that
the verse describes an event later than conception is to neglect the clear evidence of the
text and related uses of the word “κισσω.”

Clydson
Jan 20th 2009, 05:25 AM
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.


just wanted to hear the arguments that this is referring to Davids environment and not his own sin. (Jewish interpretation, etc) and provide eviedence on why you believe your interpretation is correct
Greetings.

The language of David does not define the sin as belonging to him, but rather to his mother. David had nothing to do with his own conception.

Jake

reformedct
Jan 20th 2009, 05:28 AM
Greetings.

The language of David does not define the sin as belonging to him, but rather to his mother. David had nothing to do with his own conception.

Jake

hey jake,

could you please provide Scripture/ commentary that would support that? Also, why would David start talking about his mothers sin in the middle of him talking about his own sin? Also, if his mother is the one who sinned, how? is it a sin to have sex?

Yukerboy
Jan 20th 2009, 05:33 AM
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

I see what Jake is saying and would not jump to disagree.

Look at it rephrased for context.

David was shaped in iniquity; his mother who was in sin conceived David.

threebigrocks
Jan 20th 2009, 05:36 AM
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

I see what Jake is saying and would not jump to disagree.

Look at it rephrased for context.

David was shaped in iniquity; his mother who was in sin conceived David.

So are all of us. No man begotten of man has been born sinless. We are all in sinful flesh. No biggie there.

Clydson
Jan 20th 2009, 05:49 AM
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

I see what Jake is saying and would not jump to disagree.

Look at it rephrased for context.

David was shaped in iniquity; his mother who was in sin conceived David.
Very well said. This goes quite well with David's son who wrote, "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions" Eccl 7:29.

God did not make man corrupted. Man corrupted himself with his own inventions. Also consider;

James 1:12-16
12 Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.
15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.
NKJV

God neither corrupts nor tempts man to sin. God made man upright.

Jake

reformedct
Jan 20th 2009, 05:51 AM
Very well said. This goes quite well with David's son who wrote, "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions" Eccl 7:29.

God did not make man corrupted. Man corrupted himself with his own inventions. Also consider;

James 1:12-16
12 Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.
15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.
NKJV

God neither corrupts nor tempts man to sin. God made man upright.

Jake

so how was his mother in sin? i encourage you all to look at the original hebrew and greek interpretations of this verse that i posted a little earlier

Diolectic
Jan 20th 2009, 02:22 PM
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
just wanted to hear the arguments that this is referring to Davids environment and not his own sin. (Jewish interpretation, etc) and provide eviedence on why you believe your interpretation is correct

A Perspective on Psalm 51:5
by William P. Murray, Jr.

Are men born sinners? A commonly abused 'proof' text is Psalm 51:5. Although I cannot claim the following as a result of my own scholarship or research, the information is a culmination from many sources over the years, and, I feel, the best explanation of this particular text that I have come across.

Psalm 51:5 - "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." KJV

This is a Hebrew poetic parallelism, with the second line of the verse saying the same thing as the first line in a slightly different way. The first verb, of which David is the subject, is in the Pulal tense (as is "made" in # Job 15:7 ), which is an idiom used to refer to creation or origins, and is the 'passive' form of Polel ("formed": # Ps 90:2 Pro 26:10). TWOT, #623, 1:270.

The subject of this verse is NOT the state or constitution of David's nature as a sinner at, or before, his birth. The subject is, as the verse clearly states, the `circumstances' of his conception- the sexual union which produced him was an act of sin, and addresses the unrighteousness of his mother's act, not anything (such as a sin nature) inherent within himself. (The NIV's version of this verse is an INTERPRETATION, not a translation: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.")

David had two half-sisters (Zeruiah, Abigail).....:

1CHR 2:13-16 13 “And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, 14 Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh: 16 Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah; Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three. 17 And Abigail bare Amasa: and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmeelite.”

....and the father of David's half-sisters was not Jesse, but Nahash:

2Sam 17:25 “And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which Amasa was a man's son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother.”

Nahash, the father of Zeruiah and Abigal, David's half-sisters, was an Ammonite king:

1Sam 11:1 “Then Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabeshgilead: and all the men of Jabesh said unto Nahash, Make a covenant with us, and we will serve thee.”
1Sam 12:12 “And when ye saw that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon came against you, ye said unto me, Nay; but a king shall reign over us: when the LORD your God was your king.”
David's father was Jesse, not Nahash. Zeruiah and Abigal were David's half-sisters through his mother's previous marriage to Nahash. This would also help explain why Nahash showed kindness to David, perhaps out of respect for David's Mother, Nahash’s former wife and the mother of two of Nahash's children.

2Sam 10:2 “Then said David, I will shew kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father shewed kindness unto me. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father. And David's servants came into the land of the children of Ammon.”

David's mother was most likely the second wife of Jesse, the first wife being the mother of David's half-brothers. Jesse’s first wife's standing before the 'righteousness of the law', (her not having been married to, or the concubine of, a heathen king, as was David’s mother), would have been superior to that of David's mother, and explains why David's
half-brothers, Jesse's other sons, would have felt they were superior to David, and why he would be accused of being prideful, for thinking he was as good as them....

1Sam 17:28-30 28 “And Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spake unto the men; and Eliab's anger was kindled against David, and he said, Why camest thou down hither? and with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know thy pride, and the naughtiness of thine heart; for thou art come down that thou mightest see the battle. 29 And David said, What have I now done? Is there not a cause? 30 And he turned from him toward another, and spake after the same manner: and the people answered him again after the former manner.”

...and why David was not considered, by his father Jesse, as `true' a son as his half-brother. Samuel had called Jesse and his sons, and thus expected `all' his sons, to the sacrifice (1Sam 16:5,11). Jesse, having been told to bring `his sons' by a prophet of the Lord everyone feared (1Sam 16:4), was confident he had obeyed the prophet, even knowing he did not bring David....

1Sam 16:11 “And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither.”

....which would be consistent with God's sometimes choosing that which men esteemed as worthless (the `least') to be the greatest: (Gideon- Jud 6:15; King Saul- 1Sam 9:21;
Jesus- Mt 2:6, Lk 9:48)

David's mother was apparently a Jewish woman, because `no Ammonite shall enter the congregation of the Lord to the 10th generation’ (Deu 23:3), and yet in PS 86:16 and PS 116:16, David refers to himself as "the son of thy handmaid", which would seem to testify to his mother's relationship with the Lord. David's mother was, in the eyes of Jewish law, considered `defiled' by her previous relationship to an Ammonite.

Nu 25:1,2; De 7:3,4; 1ki 11:2-4, Ezr 9:2; Ne 13:23,25; 2Co 6:14-17

This page may be copied and distributed freely as long as it is not altered.

reformedct
Jan 20th 2009, 03:19 PM
A Perspective on Psalm 51:5
by William P. Murray, Jr.

Are men born sinners? A commonly abused 'proof' text is Psalm 51:5. Although I cannot claim the following as a result of my own scholarship or research, the information is a culmination from many sources over the years, and, I feel, the best explanation of this particular text that I have come across.

Psalm 51:5 - "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." KJV

This is a Hebrew poetic parallelism, with the second line of the verse saying the same thing as the first line in a slightly different way. The first verb, of which David is the subject, is in the Pulal tense (as is "made" in # Job 15:7 ), which is an idiom used to refer to creation or origins, and is the 'passive' form of Polel ("formed": # Ps 90:2 Pro 26:10). TWOT, #623, 1:270.

The subject of this verse is NOT the state or constitution of David's nature as a sinner at, or before, his birth. The subject is, as the verse clearly states, the `circumstances' of his conception- the sexual union which produced him was an act of sin, and addresses the unrighteousness of his mother's act, not anything (such as a sin nature) inherent within himself. (The NIV's version of this verse is an INTERPRETATION, not a translation: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.")

David had two half-sisters (Zeruiah, Abigail).....:

1CHR 2:13-16 13 “And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, 14 Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh: 16 Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah; Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three. 17 And Abigail bare Amasa: and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmeelite.”

....and the father of David's half-sisters was not Jesse, but Nahash:

2Sam 17:25 “And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which Amasa was a man's son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother.”

Nahash, the father of Zeruiah and Abigal, David's half-sisters, was an Ammonite king:

1Sam 11:1 “Then Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabeshgilead: and all the men of Jabesh said unto Nahash, Make a covenant with us, and we will serve thee.”
1Sam 12:12 “And when ye saw that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon came against you, ye said unto me, Nay; but a king shall reign over us: when the LORD your God was your king.”
David's father was Jesse, not Nahash. Zeruiah and Abigal were David's half-sisters through his mother's previous marriage to Nahash. This would also help explain why Nahash showed kindness to David, perhaps out of respect for David's Mother, Nahash’s former wife and the mother of two of Nahash's children.

2Sam 10:2 “Then said David, I will shew kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father shewed kindness unto me. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father. And David's servants came into the land of the children of Ammon.”

David's mother was most likely the second wife of Jesse, the first wife being the mother of David's half-brothers. Jesse’s first wife's standing before the 'righteousness of the law', (her not having been married to, or the concubine of, a heathen king, as was David’s mother), would have been superior to that of David's mother, and explains why David's
half-brothers, Jesse's other sons, would have felt they were superior to David, and why he would be accused of being prideful, for thinking he was as good as them....

1Sam 17:28-30 28 “And Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spake unto the men; and Eliab's anger was kindled against David, and he said, Why camest thou down hither? and with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know thy pride, and the naughtiness of thine heart; for thou art come down that thou mightest see the battle. 29 And David said, What have I now done? Is there not a cause? 30 And he turned from him toward another, and spake after the same manner: and the people answered him again after the former manner.”

...and why David was not considered, by his father Jesse, as `true' a son as his half-brother. Samuel had called Jesse and his sons, and thus expected `all' his sons, to the sacrifice (1Sam 16:5,11). Jesse, having been told to bring `his sons' by a prophet of the Lord everyone feared (1Sam 16:4), was confident he had obeyed the prophet, even knowing he did not bring David....

1Sam 16:11 “And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither.”

....which would be consistent with God's sometimes choosing that which men esteemed as worthless (the `least') to be the greatest: (Gideon- Jud 6:15; King Saul- 1Sam 9:21;
Jesus- Mt 2:6, Lk 9:48)

David's mother was apparently a Jewish woman, because `no Ammonite shall enter the congregation of the Lord to the 10th generation’ (Deu 23:3), and yet in PS 86:16 and PS 116:16, David refers to himself as "the son of thy handmaid", which would seem to testify to his mother's relationship with the Lord. David's mother was, in the eyes of Jewish law, considered `defiled' by her previous relationship to an Ammonite.

Nu 25:1,2; De 7:3,4; 1ki 11:2-4, Ezr 9:2; Ne 13:23,25; 2Co 6:14-17

This page may be copied and distributed freely as long as it is not altered.

i have heard this rather complex argument, but i am very very far from being convinced that all of this is what is implied in Psalm 51:5. First, the entire chapter is about David confessing his own sin after being confronted by Nathan for his adultery and murder. Why would he all of the sudden bring up his mother's sin, which had no effect on his being? That would be like him making an excuse for his sin, claiming : well Lord you know my mom was sinful, or well Lord you know it was sinful where i was born at. That would be blame-shifting his sin on someone else or an environment. It seems HIGHLY UNLIKELY that in the context of the personal confession of Davids sin which is throughout the Chapter that this one verse is attributed to his mothers relationship with the Lord.

as William Murray Jr. states:Although I cannot claim the following as a result of my own scholarship or research, the information is a culmination from many sources over the years, and, I feel, the best explanation of this particular text that I have come across. This is what he feels is the best explanation

The argument that this one verse is refferring to the history of his mother and his step-sisters, and relation with the Lord, and OT laws and such etc, seems rather far-fetched imo.

also, as far as the argument of Hebrew parrallelism, as i showed earlier i was doing a study on this in the original language and found that it was translated "sinful from the time my mother was hot" or "sinful in my mothers hot passion"

not in my mothers sinful environment, but sinful in my mothers environment, or sinful since my mother was hot.

Whether this is figurative Hebrew parrarelism or whatever, the original language translation points to a state of sinfulness at the point of conception attributed to David

Psalm 51 in the Hebrew Text
To begin with the Hebrew, the verse is roughly transliterated from the original characters
as “ubechete yechemachni imi”
viii
and can be translated as “sinful in my mother’s hot
passion.” The word often translated as “conceived” (“yechemachni” in Hebrew) actually
refers directly to the sexual act of conception and arousal, as the demonstrated by the
rendering of “hot passion.” It could also be more colloquially translated as “sinful from
the time my mother was hot.” Clearly to read the text as the Hebrew reader understood it
and claim that the verse describes an event later than conception is unfounded and
oblivious to the original language. If we truly believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word
of God then we are left to conclude that the beginning of life, as the text indicates, must
be traced back to the sexual act which created it. Attempts to shift the beginning of life
beyond this are simply false distinctions



n

holyrokker
Jan 20th 2009, 05:53 PM
And IMO thats ridiculous.

I prefer the New Living Translation.
According to it Psalm 51:5 reads:

"For I was born a sinner—
yes, from the moment my mother conceived me"


That makes more sense. It means you're born a sinner because you inherit the DNA from your parents. You basically have no choice in that, you're stuck with it.

Thats why Mary was impregnated with the Holy Spirit and became pregnant with Jesus.
Jesus had both godly DNA and human DNA, so he was both God and human at the same time

A problem is that this is an example of assuming something to be true (born sinful) and interpreting the passage to fit that assumption.

The passage doesn't actually say what you've interpreted it as saying.

holyrokker
Jan 20th 2009, 05:57 PM
Psalm 51:5 is NOT teaching that all of mankind is born in sin.

1st - it is a song of repentance. David is expressing, with strong language, the anguish of his guilt.

Notice the personal pronouns used:

blot out my transgressions
Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity
cleanse me from my sin
For I know my transgressions
my sin is ever before me
Against you, you only, have I sinned

It is obvious that David is accepting full responsibility for his actions. He is not attempting to pass his sin off on a pre-existing condidtion.

Also notice the wording of verse 5

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This is not a doctrinal statement of inherited sin. It doesn't even imply that David himself inherited a sin nature.

David is utilizing "hyperbole" - a standard poetic practice of exaggerating a statement. The purpose is to express intense emotions, or to make a strong empression upon the reader, and should not be taken literally.
A common American hybole is "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse".

David again uses this technique in verse 7:

Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

Surely David isn't creating a doctrine of cleansing from sin in this statement.

reformedct
Jan 20th 2009, 06:08 PM
Psalm 51:5 is NOT teaching that all of mankind is born in sin.

1st - it is a song of repentance. David is expressing, with strong language, the anguish of his guilt.

Notice the personal pronouns used:

blot out my transgressions
Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity
cleanse me from my sin
For I know my transgressions
my sin is ever before me
Against you, you only, have I sinned

It is obvious that David is accepting full responsibility for his actions. He is not attempting to pass his sin off on a pre-existing condidtion.

Also notice the wording of verse 5

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This is not a doctrinal statement of inherited sin. It doesn't even imply that David himself inherited a sin nature.

David is utilizing "hyperbole" - a standard poetic practice of exaggerating a statement. The purpose is to express intense emotions, or to make a strong empression upon the reader, and should not be taken literally.
A common American hybole is "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse".

David again uses this technique in verse 7:

Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

Surely David isn't creating a doctrine of cleansing from sin in this statement.

it doesnt matter if it is hyperbole or whatever type of grammatical or poetical form it is in. The fact remains that it is Scripture. There is a literal interpretation of the Bible and a literal-figurative. Even when the Bible speaks figuratively ie "my bones rejoice", "purge me with hyssop" it is still communicating a literal point. The literal point is cleanse me, i need to be purified.

The literal point David is making here is that he was sinful from before he was even born. it may be considered exaggerated or hyperbole or whatever, but He is literally making the point that he was sinful from the womb. It is very hard to have an interpretation that says this Scripture or that Scripture is not making a literal point, just because of its literary structure. All Scripture is making a literal point

holyrokker
Jan 20th 2009, 06:23 PM
it doesnt matter if it is hyperbole or whatever type of grammatical or poetical form it is in. The fact remains that it is Scripture. There is a literal interpretation of the Bible and a literal-figurative. Even when the Bible speaks figuratively ie "my bones rejoice", "purge me with hyssop" it is still communicating a literal point. The literal point is cleanse me, i need to be purified.

The literal point David is making here is that he was sinful from before he was even born. it may be considered exaggerated or hyperbole or whatever, but He is literally making the point that he was sinful from the womb. It is very hard to have an interpretation that says this Scripture or that Scripture is not making a literal point, just because of its literary structure. All Scripture is making a literal point
So when David says:
Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
is he saying that there is a way, apart from the blood of Christ, to be cleansed from sin?
The literal translation would indicate such.

Yes, it is VERY important to look at the language being used in Scripture to know what God is literally telling us. We can't ignore the form being used because we want a particular passage to mean something it isn't actually saying.

Does God have wings?
Psalm 61:4 Let me take refuge under the shelter of your wings!

reformedct
Jan 20th 2009, 06:33 PM
So when David says:
Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
is he saying that there is a way, apart from the blood of Christ, to be cleansed from sin?
The literal translation would indicate such.

Yes, it is VERY important to look at the language being used in Scripture to know what God is literally telling us. We can't ignore the form being used because we want a particular passage to mean something it isn't actually saying.

Does God have wings?
Psalm 61:4 Let me take refuge under the shelter of your wings!
as i said, literal, and literal-figurative. its not that deep.

David literally needed to be cleansed inside. He said it in a figurative way.

God literally is our refuge and literally protects us. it is communicated in a figurative way.

David literally was sinful from birth..i dont even see this as literal figurative, just plain literal. However even if it was literal-figurative, the literal point is that we are sinful from the womb

i have yet to see a good descent simple argument against this that is more than a speculation of "ifs" and "perhaps"

Fresco
Jan 20th 2009, 07:15 PM
A problem is that this is an example of assuming something to be true (born sinful) and interpreting the passage to fit that assumption.

The passage doesn't actually say what you've interpreted it as saying.
What does it mean in your opinion then??
How do you interpret Psalm 51:5??

holyrokker
Jan 21st 2009, 01:08 AM
What does it mean in your opinion then??
How do you interpret Psalm 51:5??
Read my post here. I think it's pretty clear as to how I read Psalm 51:5.

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1951720&postcount=19

Clydson
Jan 21st 2009, 02:04 AM
so how was his mother in sin? i encourage you all to look at the original hebrew and greek interpretations of this verse that i posted a little earlier
Scripture teaches that one is not condemned because his blood relative sinned, but rather because he sinned himself, Ezek 18:20. Adam's sin is not imputed upon us today any more that Christ's righteousness is imputed upon us. We are condemned or approved according to whom we choose to obey, Rom 6:16.

David's mother was in sin because of her own transgression, not because someone else in her family sinned.

Jake

Fresco
Jan 21st 2009, 02:52 PM
Read my post here. I think it's pretty clear as to how I read Psalm 51:5.

http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1951720&postcount=19
Thats a different way of interpreting it, thats for sure.

Either way it matters little, I think we can all agree there's not a day goes by that we dont sin.
Therefore we are sinners, whether we like it or not

reformedct
Jan 21st 2009, 07:35 PM
Thats a different way of interpreting it, thats for sure.

Either way it matters little, I think we can all agree there's not a day goes by that we dont sin.
Therefore we are sinners, whether we like it or not

yes, i believe that interpretation is very very far reaching. the whole chapter of Psalm 51 is talking about David confessing his own sin. Why would he all of the sudden mention some sin of his family that took place long ago or whatever. once again here is a study i found just using the original hebrew:

here is an interesting study on the original hebrew here. A person mentioned that it referred to the actual act of conception. So either the act of sex is wrong, or that David was a sinner at the point of conception in the womb? maybe this verse is more supportive of being born sinners than i thought! that would mean not only are we born sinners but that we are sinful from the point of the sperma and egg coming together! perhaps i am wrong but here is an interesting piece:

Psalm 51 in the Hebrew Text
To begin with the Hebrew, the verse is roughly transliterated from the original characters
as “ubechete yechemachni imi”
viii
and can be translated as “sinful in my mother’s hot
passion.” The word often translated as “conceived” (“yechemachni” in Hebrew) actually
refers directly to the sexual act of conception and arousal, as the demonstrated by the
rendering of “hot passion.” It could also be more colloquially translated as “sinful from
the time my mother was hot.” Clearly to read the text as the Hebrew reader understood it
and claim that the verse describes an event later than conception is unfounded and
oblivious to the original language. If we truly believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word
of God then we are left to conclude that the beginning of life, as the text indicates, must
be traced back to the sexual act which created it. Attempts to shift the beginning of life
beyond this are simply false distinctions.
Psalm 51 in the Septuagint
Page 3
3
The Septuagint is equally as explicit. Psalm 51, in its Greek rendering, reads
“Ιδου γαρ εν ανομιας συνελημφθην, και εν αμαρτιας εκισσησεν με η μητηρ
μου”
ix
(emphasis added). The focus here is on the bolded word, “εκισσησεν,” a form of
the Greek word “κισσαω.” This word, like the Hebrew “yechemachni,” refers directly to
the act of conceiving. In fact, in many ways it has a similar connotation of experiencing
a “burning passion.” While it can be rendered literally as “conceive,” unlike it’s Hebrew
counterpart, the word “κισσαω”has many different hues, as demonstrated by other Greek
literature of the time.


so it is translated that David was indeed saying HE was sinful since conception.

Gospeller
Feb 7th 2009, 03:59 AM
I am trying to use my imagination with Ps 51:5 in light of what we know about David's life and family relationships from scripture. Maybe, just maybe, there are some insights to this verse we need to consider. When David took on Goliath (1 Sam 17), his brothers mocked him, called him conceited, and told him to go back to the hills and tend the sheep. Likewise, it appears his brothers and maybe his family sided more with Saul against David until Saul had it out for them, too. In 1 Sam 16, David's father did not even think to include David among his "favored" sons, or worthy of sharing in the sacrificial feast of Samuel. And it was out of the question that Jesse or his family saw David as a candidate for the anointing of God through Samuel (another of God's great and gracious surprises!). So what is behind such a violation of the required hospitality and rule of table fellowship? Why, when family was everything in those days, is David excluded? Simply because he was a kid? The youngest? More often the last son is treasured most of all (like Joseph). In Psalm 27:10, David alludes to the rejection of mother and father. An acceptable translation is "For my father and my mother have forsaken me..." This statement sounds more real (historical) to me than just a poetic comparison between the greater love of God vs. that of a hypothetical parent. And then we come to Psalm 51:5 which, without doubt, uses the term for the "heat" of the passion of sex. Yes, David is owning up to his grave moral and sinful failure before God. Yes, we would all likely agree that our sinful nature is born within us by conception into fallen humanity. But could his message also include a double entendre? Could it be that the circumstances surrounding David's birth (or conception) were strange and irregular, or socially unacceptable, such that they caused hurtful memories for his parents, painful memories for David, and stirred some contempt from his brothers? Or was he the "surprise child" who came late -- years after the other children -- and was unplanned, if not unwanted?. If so, then perhaps this notion throws additional light on David's life and writings. I am not saying that David was the offspring of adultery (a "mamzer" in Hebrew) but perhaps the circumstances surrounding his birth were a difficult memory that everyone wanted to erase, and couldn't. So he was seen as "less" among his brothers and had to fight for any respect he could get. "What have I done, now!" he laments in 1 Sam 17:29. "You won't listen to me!" he argues. I wonder about the way his parents may have modelled their behavior toward him, as compared to his other siblings?

Personally, when I think of how the people and Pharisees contested the circumstances surrounding our Lord's birth -- and failed to see his birth as appointed and anointed of God Himself -- it strikes me that David may have another feature in his life which is also a kind of "type" of Christ. Just wondering about all this...

Benaiah
Feb 7th 2009, 04:34 AM
God neither corrupts nor tempts man to sin. God made man upright.notice the verse you quote says God made MAN, not, made MEN.

Man ( Adam) was created upright, But because of his transgression caused all who are born of Adam to be born with his fallen nature.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Sirus
Feb 7th 2009, 06:54 AM
notice the verse you quote says God made MAN, not, made MEN.

Man ( Adam) was created upright, But because of his transgression caused all who are born of Adam to be born with his fallen nature.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.The verse you quoted neither states a change in Adam's nature or that Adam's descendants where any different than God's original creation. Where might this fallen nature be found in scripture?

Butch5
Feb 7th 2009, 12:58 PM
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.


just wanted to hear the arguments that this is referring to Davids environment and not his own sin. (Jewish interpretation, etc) and provide evidence on why you believe your interpretation is correct

David said he was conceived in iniquity, if so, why would we apply this to every person? David didn't say all men are conceived in iniquity. Was David speaking of himself or was he giving a theology lesson? The holy Spirit was with John the baptist from birth, should we then say that the holy Spirit is with every person from birth? The Lord said this regarding Israel,

Isaiah 44:1-2 ( KJV ) 1Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen: 2Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.

Should we apply this to every nation and say the Lord will help every nation? My point is that we have to be careful not to take the Scriptures out of context. Just because David said he was conceived in iniquity does not mean every person born is formed in iniquity.

Butch5
Feb 7th 2009, 01:24 PM
as i said, literal, and literal-figurative. its not that deep.

David literally needed to be cleansed inside. He said it in a figurative way.

God literally is our refuge and literally protects us. it is communicated in a figurative way.

David literally was sinful from birth..i dont even see this as literal figurative, just plain literal. However even if it was literal-figurative, the literal point is that we are sinful from the womb

i have yet to see a good descent simple argument against this that is more than a speculation of "ifs" and "perhaps"

Reformed,

Where exactly does it say that David was sinful from birth?

threebigrocks
Feb 7th 2009, 03:36 PM
So when David says:
Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
is he saying that there is a way, apart from the blood of Christ, to be cleansed from sin?
The literal translation would indicate such.

Yes, it is VERY important to look at the language being used in Scripture to know what God is literally telling us. We can't ignore the form being used because we want a particular passage to mean something it isn't actually saying.

Does God have wings?
Psalm 61:4 Let me take refuge under the shelter of your wings!

So who does the purging, who does the washing? Who is David speaking to here? No way aside from the Lord to be washed clean.

The moment of conception is not the same as the moment of the sex act. That ought to be obvious and understood by many. Could take a couple days for conception to occur. So if David is mentioning the sin of others - is it not a simple prayer of recognizing the condition under whom he was conceived by? Can't we see that taken in context David is praying for his own inequity to be removed, desiring to move forward in despite of the condition he was conceived by?

It's like he's saying Lord, from the beginning of my life there has been inequity present, I've sinned against you. Clean me, purge me, make me right in your sight. This is David's plea to be forgiven, to be made right in the eyes of God. As much as David messed things up, he had a heart that wanted to be as close to God as possible. Here we see his acknowledgment of the inequity that has followed him since his conception. This is his heartfelt plea, once again, for God to forgive all things and make him clean again.

Benaiah
Feb 7th 2009, 04:48 PM
The verse you quoted neither states a change in Adam's nature or that Adam's descendants where any different than God's original creation. Where might this fallen nature be found in scripture?

In Genesis thru revelation.

Scripture tells us that the Carnal (Natural mind, the one we are born with) is at enmity with God.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be

We are born selfish and self centered, any parent knows this, one of the first words a child learsn and uses is MINE! They have ot be taught to share, they have ot be taught not to take things that do not belong to them.

Sirus
Feb 7th 2009, 05:01 PM
No, no, no....I didn't ask about the natural course of this world after the spirit and god of this world, I asked for scripture for

-a change in Adam's nature and
-how that change in nature can be passed to Adam's descendants so that they are BORN WITH IT.

I know man is born with a veiled relationship with God and goes his own way and after his fleshly desires by natural course.

Sirus
Feb 7th 2009, 05:09 PM
notice the verse you quote says God made MAN, not, made MEN.

Man ( Adam) was created upright, But because of his transgression caused all who are born of Adam to be born with his fallen nature.

Does it?

Jam 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
Jam 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jam 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

BroRog
Feb 7th 2009, 05:24 PM
David said he was conceived in iniquity, if so, why would we apply this to every person? David didn't say all men are conceived in iniquity. Was David speaking of himself or was he giving a theology lesson? The holy Spirit was with John the baptist from birth, should we then say that the holy Spirit is with every person from birth? The Lord said this regarding Israel,

Isaiah 44:1-2 ( KJV ) 1Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen: 2Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.

Should we apply this to every nation and say the Lord will help every nation? My point is that we have to be careful not to take the Scriptures out of context. Just because David said he was conceived in iniquity does not mean every person born is formed in iniquity.

I agree with you. This is well stated and correct in my opinion.

At the same time, doesn't David's confession challenge us to look at the origins of our own sin?

Benaiah
Feb 7th 2009, 06:56 PM
I know man is born with a veiled relationship with God and goes his own way and after his fleshly desires by natural course.

Was Adam created that way? I see no evidence that his relationship with God was "veiled". So what happened? God told him that in the day he ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil he would surely die. Did Adam fall over dead on that day? or did he experience a spiritual death, a separation From God that did not exist before that day.

And that is the condition into which men are born, separated from God the source of life and the only one who is Good.

We are born missing a vital component, man is not just flesh and blood, the spiritual component of man is dead, and only brought to life Thru our union with Christ.

Sirus
Feb 7th 2009, 07:40 PM
A change in relationship, however small, is not a change in nature. I asked for change in nature scripture! 'Separated from God the source of life' is very popular to say and sounds great but what does that mean? How is a spirit dead and willing? Man still had a relationship with God. The relationship was never cut off -separated -severed, as is always suggested. People presume some special spiritual state upon Adam the Bible never says he had. Where was God when Adam sinned? It says Adam was a natural corruptible mortal man.

What vital component are we born missing? What vital component did Adam have before he sinned that he didn't have after he sinned?

There is no death other than physical death spoken of in Genesis 3, 5 and Romans 5 and 8. The only spiritual death in scripture is the second death, which is future.

The Hebrew for ‘shall surely die’ is ‘dying die’ or ‘dying you will die’. Meaning, if you disobey it will be certain that you die (no tree of life) because you are dying (mortal, corruptible, dust, decaying, natural, temporal, flesh). Death passed, and passes on all men. The Hebrew says it, translations say it, Hebrew scholars say it, and God said it removing man from the garden, guarding the tree, and saying man would live forever in a sinful state if he had access to the tree of life.

The day Adam ate, he was separated from the tree of life. Death became certain. Done deal. Over. As good as dead! So death passed on all men (Rom 5:12). That's the judgment on Adam passed down to his descendants and is the exact same judgment (condemnation) found just three times in Romans 5:16, 18 and in Romans 8:1. Physical death -death reigned from Adam to Moses (Rom 5:14). Spiritual death is not found in either text. Sorry. It's just not! It is assumed because of a lack of proper study. Let me explain.

The Hebrew is "dying you will die". This can be understood two ways.

1) Adam was mortal (1Cor 15) and would die being separated from the tree of life
2) Adam would be separated from the tree of life and begin to die and go through a process of death

Either way it is a process.
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=gen&chapter=2&verse=17

4 tn Heb “dying you will die.” The imperfect verb form here has the nuance of the specific future because it is introduced with the temporal clause, “when you eat…you will die.” That certainty is underscored with the infinitive absolute, “you will surely die.”
sn The Hebrew text (“dying you will die”) does not refer to two aspects of death (“dying spiritually, you will then die physically”). The construction simply emphasizes the certainty of death, however it is defined. Death is essentially separation. To die physically means separation from the land of the living, but not extinction. To die spiritually means to be separated from God. Both occur with sin, although the physical alienation is more gradual than instant, and the spiritual is immediate, although the effects of it continue the separation.http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=Genesis+2%3A17&as_epq=dying+you+will+die&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Genesis+2%3A17&section=0&version=cjb&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ge&NavGo=2&NavCurrentChapter=2

This one is funny -true
http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Genesis+2%3A17&section=0&version=msg&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ge&NavGo=2&NavCurrentChapter=2

http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Genesis+2%3A17&section=0&version=gwd&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ge&NavGo=2&NavCurrentChapter=2

http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Genesis+2%3A17&section=0&version=ylt&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ge&NavGo=2&NavCurrentChapter=2

http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Genesis+2%3A17&section=0&version=tnv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ge&NavGo=2&NavCurrentChapter=2

http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Genesis+2%3A17&section=0&version=nrv&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ge&NavGo=2&NavCurrentChapter=2

http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Genesis+2%3A17&section=0&version=dby&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ge&NavGo=2&NavCurrentChapter=2

http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Genesis+2%3A17&section=0&version=csb&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ge&NavGo=2&NavCurrentChapter=2

Now, I'm not a fan of these translations. This is just to show another POV. It is the Hebrew language. Other versions say 'surely' but surely isn't the Hebrew, die is! Saying;

you shall surely die
and
death will be certain
is the same thing!

Now if that is not enough for you, then let scripture interpret scripture!

1Ki 2:37 For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die: thy blood shall be upon thine own head.
1Ki 2:38 And Shimei said unto the king, The saying is good: as my lord the king hath said, so will thy servant do. And Shimei dwelt in Jerusalem many days.
1Ki 2:39 And it came to pass at the end of three years, that two of the servants of Shimei ran away unto Achish son of Maachah king of Gath. And they told Shimei, saying, Behold, thy servants be in Gath.
1Ki 2:40 And Shimei arose, and saddled his ass, and went to Gath to Achish to seek his servants: and Shimei went, and brought his servants from Gath.
1Ki 2:41 And it was told Solomon that Shimei had gone from Jerusalem to Gath, and was come again.
1Ki 2:42 And the king sent and called for Shimei, and said unto him, Did I not make thee to swear by the LORD, and protested unto thee, saying, Know for a certain, on the day thou goest out, and walkest abroad any whither, that thou shalt surely die? and thou saidst unto me, The word that I have heard is good.
1Ki 2:43 Why then hast thou not kept the oath of the LORD, and the commandment that I have charged thee with?
1Ki 2:44 The king said moreover to Shimei, Thou knowest all the wickedness which thine heart is privy to, that thou didst to David my father: therefore the LORD shall return thy wickedness upon thine own head;
1Ki 2:45 And king Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the LORD forever.
1Ki 2:46 So the king commanded Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; which went out, and fell upon him, that he died. And the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon.

Shimei traveled a days journey, found servants, and returned a days journey and didn't die the day he left Jerusalem!
Did Solomon lie???
Same Hebrew, same construction, same concept.

It is physical death
........shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Now, please show me spiritual death in Genesis 3!!!!!!!

Clydson
Feb 7th 2009, 08:12 PM
God told him that in the day he ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil he would surely die. Did Adam fall over dead on that day? or did he experience a spiritual death, a separation From God that did not exist before that day.

Neither. Context does not allow Adam to have suffered from the "second death", for that experience is yet to come. Adam, in a single day, went from being an immortal being to mortal. This transpired when God ended his participation in eating from the Tree of Life. Consider;

Gen 3:22-24
22 Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"—
23 therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken.
24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
NKJV

"Live forever" is indicative of physical life, not spiritual.



And that is the condition into which men are born, separated from God the source of life and the only one who is Good.

We are born missing a vital component, man is not just flesh and blood, the spiritual component of man is dead, and only brought to life Thru our union with Christ.
I disagree, the spiritual nature of man is very much alive, for its source is God, Eccl 12:7, and He does not equip man with a dead spirit.

Jake

Clydson
Feb 7th 2009, 08:46 PM
notice the verse you quote says God made MAN, not, made MEN.

Man ( Adam) was created upright, But because of his transgression caused all who are born of Adam to be born with his fallen nature.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
The Hebrew word, "haa aadaam", rendered "man" in Eccl 7:29, is defined by Strong's as, "a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.)". Thus it does not necessarily mean a specific man or a single man, but it is used also as all human beings, men and women, or mankind.

Context tells us exactly how "haa aadaam" is meant to be understood. Part B of that verse, "but they have sought...", shows that "man", in part A, is plural. Thus, King Solomon wrote that mankind, including women, was created "upright", revealing the nature or state of mankind at the point of birth.

Jake

Benaiah
Feb 8th 2009, 12:16 AM
A change in relationship, however small, is not a change in nature. I asked for change in nature scripture! 'Separated from God the source of life' is very popular to say and sounds great but what does that mean? How is a spirit dead and willing? Man still had a relationship with God. The relationship was never cut off -separated -severed, as is always suggested. People presume some special spiritual state upon Adam the Bible never says he had. Where was God when Adam sinned? It says Adam was a natural corruptible mortal man.Adam obviously did not have the same relationship with God that he had before he sinned.

If there is nothing wrong with our nature why must we be born again?


Eph 2:1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins,

Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),Since Paul is obviously not writing to physically dead people here how is it they were made alive?

* let me guess, you are Eastern Orthodox?

Benaiah
Feb 8th 2009, 12:27 AM
The Hebrew word, "haa aadaam", rendered "man" in Eccl 7:29, is defined by Strong's as, "a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.)". Thus it does not necessarily mean a specific man or a single man, but it is used also as all human beings, men and women, or mankind.

Context tells us exactly how "haa aadaam" is meant to be understood. Part B of that verse, "but they have sought...", shows that "man", in part A, is plural. Thus, King Solomon wrote that mankind, including women, was created "upright", revealing the nature or state of mankind at the point of birth.

Jake

Here is another Hebrew Word, "Asah", it is what s translated "made in Ecc. 7:29 it is the same word used in Genesis 1:26 and translated as "Make". "Let us make *Asah" man in our own image. And the one made there was Adam.

Sirus
Feb 8th 2009, 01:09 AM
Adam obviously did not have the same relationship with God that he had before he sinned.Obviously? I didn't say he did or didn't, did I? What scripture tells us about their relationship?




If there is nothing wrong with our nature why must we be born again?The spiritual didn't come first. The natural came first. You can find that in 1Cor 15 and it says this pleased the Lord.



Since Paul is obviously not writing to physically dead people here how is it they were made alive?

* let me guess, you are Eastern Orthodox?It doesn't say they were born in that state. Again, I'm not arguing the state of those that have walked according to the natural course of this world and spirit and god of this world.

No, I am not Eastern Orthodox. I'm just Bible.

Benaiah
Feb 8th 2009, 03:25 AM
It doesn't say they were born in that state. Again, I'm not arguing the state of those that have walked according to the natural course of this world and spirit and god of this world.

You appear to be trying to make the argument that men are born in a sinless state, But that is not what David says in Psalm 55:5 or 58:3

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth.

Sirus
Feb 8th 2009, 03:50 AM
You appear to be trying to make the argument that men are born in a sinless state, But that is not what David says in Psalm 55:5 or 58:3

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth.

go astray from....????

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)


It's about the wicked......
"violence of your hands"

"Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely."

"Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth"

"Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces."

"As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun. Before your pots can feel the thorns, he shall take them away as with a whirlwind, both living, and in his wrath."

In contrast to the righteous.....
"The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth."

If v3 described ALL at birth, who are the righteous?

Of course ALL men are born sinless. No man has, or can, commit sin before he is born. Sinful = full of sin.

Ps 51:5 doesn't say ALL men, or David, are born with sin or guilty of anothers sin. There simply isn't one verse of scripture to support one mans sin imputed to another. Not one. If Ps 51 says anything it is that all men are guilty of their own sin they have committed. It's even quoted in Romans 3 to establish the same.

Psa 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Rom 3:5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? I (speak as a man)
Rom 3:6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?

So now how did David in the next verse say either he or all are born guilty of committing sin simply because they are born?

Butch5
Feb 8th 2009, 04:21 AM
I agree with you. This is well stated and correct in my opinion.

At the same time, doesn't David's confession challenge us to look at the origins of our own sin?

I agree you on that!

Clydson
Feb 8th 2009, 05:07 AM
The Hebrew word, "haa aadaam", rendered "man" in Eccl 7:29, is defined by Strong's as, "a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.)". Thus it does not necessarily mean a specific man or a single man, but it is used also as all human beings, men and women, or mankind.

Context tells us exactly how "haa aadaam" is meant to be understood. Part B of that verse, "but they have sought...", shows that "man", in part A, is plural. Thus, King Solomon wrote that mankind, including women, was created "upright", revealing the nature or state of mankind at the point of birth.

Jake


Here is another Hebrew Word, "Asah", it is what s translated "made in Ecc. 7:29 it is the same word used in Genesis 1:26 and translated as "Make". "Let us make *Asah" man in our own image. And the one made there was Adam.
I believe you've reinforced my point. Adam was indeed a member of mankind created or made by God. Thanks.

Also note the plurality denoted by the term "them". Context shows that the usage of "man" in both passages is in the plural; at the very least, more than one.

Further more, consider the next verse;

Gen 1:27
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
NKJV

According to your own reasoning, God necessarily made Adam both male and female.

This is a very good case in point showing the importance of using context to help with exposing God's intent, His simple truth.

Jake