Sin, what is the meaning ?

[discus70]

Not sure if this has been covered or not, but does the word sin have a different meaning.

In other words, what was the original Hebrew or Greek meaning of this word?

Was there a mistranslation of any sort?

[Heterodoxus]

Thank you, Heterodoxus.

Given those meanings, how is it that some Christians, contrary to what we know about genetics, claim that sin can be inherited?

Their claim is based on the Judiasm-influenced Christian notion that a blind person is being punished because of the sin(s) of the father, a belief Jesus quashed in JN 9:1-3.

[Vanguard]

Not sure if this has been covered or not, but does the word sin have a different meaning.

In other words, what was the original Hebrew or Greek meaning of this word?

Was there a mistranslation of any sort?

The original Hebrew , it is literally translated as 'Missing the Mark' (i.e... when an archer shots an arrow, missing the target'. It is mainly making an error. It doesn't seem to have this overpowering sense of wrong that Christianity has placed on it.

That version resonates more with what I believe. It would suggest that "missing the mark" would include those who never knew there were a mark to miss so to speak. I believe it is much more helpful when a distinction is made between "transgression" and "sin" - the former connoting unknowlingly missing the mark and the other knowingly doing so. I haven't a clear evidentiary basis for this but to say it makes the most sense to me when attempting to understand the Christian Gospel. In other words, we are all "mark missers" and cannot dwell in His presence without a "correction" (i.e., Christ's Atonement). Christ's Atonement also served a purpose for those who have "sinned" provided those individuals fulfill their end of the bargain.

[Goat]

Not sure if this has been covered or not, but does the word sin have a different meaning.

In other words, what was the original Hebrew or Greek meaning of this word?

Was there a mistranslation of any sort?

The original Hebrew , it is literally translated as 'Missing the Mark' (i.e... when an archer shots an arrow, missing the target'. It is mainly making an error. It doesn't seem to have this overpowering sense of wrong that Christianity has placed on it.

That version resonates more with what I believe. It would suggest that "missing the mark" would include those who never knew there were a mark to miss so to speak. I believe it is much more helpful when a distinction is made between "transgression" and "sin" - the former connoting unknowlingly missing the mark and the other knowingly doing so. I haven't a clear evidentiary basis for this but to say it makes the most sense to me when attempting to understand the Christian Gospel. In other words, we are all "mark missers" and cannot dwell in His presence without a "correction" (i.e., Christ's Atonement). Christ's Atonement also served a purpose for those who have "sinned" provided those individuals fulfill their end of the bargain.

Of course, when it comes to the Jewish point of view, people are responsible for their own mistakes. People can only atone for their own mistakes, and having an 'intermediary ' makes no sense.

[Esoteric_Illuminati]

Of course, when it comes to the Jewish point of view, people are responsible for their own mistakes. People can only atone for their own mistakes, and having an 'intermediary ' makes no sense.

As are Christians of course - that's the whole faith and works thing. But according to Scripture this idea of individual atonement as laid out by the Jewish laws became hollow and misguided. The act (sacrificial offering) was there but the heart/mind (contrition/repentance) was not. The idea of Christ becoming our intermediary restores the covenant between man and God. Through Christ we become reconciled with God and a person's focus becomes re-centered on an ongoing spiritual relationship with Him based on contrition and repentance.

[Cathar1950]

Of course, when it comes to the Jewish point of view, people are responsible for their own mistakes. People can only atone for their own mistakes, and having an 'intermediary ' makes no sense.

While I agree with your concept of "missing the mark" and see the list
Heterodoxus gave us as also present, there is also hints of sins committed as social or better collective in nature.
In the Hebrew stories it is often the people that suffer for the sins of others.
The idea of personal responsibility developed in such a cultural outlook.
The Jewish point of view has a long history of struggle as a reading of "Job" can attest.
In the mind of ancient peoples sins of peoples were often attributed to calamity.

Another idea that we need to keep in mind is there was not a separation between civil laws and religious laws as we have today.
Breaking any law could be breaking a law against your neighbors, country and God.
Ezra under the orders and authority of the Persian ruler recreated the writings to reflect the laws that would govern them.
I suspect sin is a overused and outdated concept that seems to have more emotive value then usefulness.

[tlong]

Of course, when it comes to the Jewish point of view, people are responsible for their own mistakes. People can only atone for their own mistakes, and having an 'intermediary ' makes no sense.

While I agree with your concept of "missing the mark" and see the list
Heterodoxus gave us as also present, there is also hints of sins committed as social or better collective in nature.
In the Hebrew stories it is often the people that suffer for the sins of others.
The idea of personal responsibility developed in such a cultural outlook.
The Jewish point of view has a long history of struggle as a reading of "Job" can attest.
In the mind of ancient peoples sins of peoples were often attributed to calamity.

Another idea that we need to keep in mind is there was not a separation between civil laws and religious laws as we have today.
Breaking any law could be breaking a law against your neighbors, country and God.
Ezra under the orders and authority of the Persian ruler recreated the writings to reflect the laws that would govern them.
I suspect sin is a overused and outdated concept that seems to have more emotive value then usefulness.

Under the new covenant we are suppose to obey the laws of the land and live peaceably as much as we can. Therefore if we break the laws of the land knowingly, we sin. There is definitely a difference between the two covenants, since the old law was a type of government and the new covenant is a life style and not a 'governing' type of covenant.

[Cathar1950]

Of course, when it comes to the Jewish point of view, people are responsible for their own mistakes. People can only atone for their own mistakes, and having an 'intermediary ' makes no sense.

While I agree with your concept of "missing the mark" and see the list
Heterodoxus gave us as also present, there is also hints of sins committed as social or better collective in nature.
In the Hebrew stories it is often the people that suffer for the sins of others.
The idea of personal responsibility developed in such a cultural outlook.
The Jewish point of view has a long history of struggle as a reading of "Job" can attest.
In the mind of ancient peoples sins of peoples were often attributed to calamity.

Another idea that we need to keep in mind is there was not a separation between civil laws and religious laws as we have today.
Breaking any law could be breaking a law against your neighbors, country and God.
Ezra under the orders and authority of the Persian ruler recreated the writings to reflect the laws that would govern them.
I suspect sin is a overused and outdated concept that seems to have more emotive value then usefulness.

Under the new covenant we are suppose to obey the laws of the land and live peaceably as much as we can. Therefore if we break the laws of the land knowingly, we sin. There is definitely a difference between the two covenants, since the old law was a type of government and the new covenant is a life style and not a 'governing' type of covenant.

Where does it say the new covenant says we are suppose to obey the laws of the land?
Do you think the Kingdom of God is a new type of government and why call it a kingdom if it is new?
I am under the impression Christians believe the New covenant was faith in Christ or even faithfulness not some obedience to some law that says you obey the laws of the land.
So Paul was just substituting Laws supposedly given by God to replace them with a new set of laws which include obeying the laws of the land?
How do those that are dead to sin sin with the New Covenant?