Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[JM2C]

You think that robin1 is God?

From what argument

 

[Clear]

JM2C :

All of the points you made in an attempt to re-define Isaiah 64:5-6 are irrelevant JM2C. Conjugating greek will not save your theory. Also, If readers have already read posts # 4247 and #4248 then your points come too late. Readers already realizethat Isaiah 64:5-6 does not mean that infants are morally “depraved” nor can your theory justify the creation of a morally "depraved" infant, who is someday punished for having moral characteristics placed into it. Your theory creates an unjust God.


Did you read the points CG DIDYMUS made in his recent posts? I think the underlying basic point the rabbi made regarding "original sin" was quite correct. The theory that adams fall brought about depravity of all other spirits coming to mortality was a foreign concept in early Judeo-Christianity. Although I cannot tell when, in history, the interpretation that infants are morally “depraved” or that “babies sin constantly” started, I am sure it is not authentic apostolic era interpretation. I do like Rabbi Singers’ basic model for the one reason this theory of depravity started in and became part of later Christian institutions (though I think there were other reasons as well).


Perhaps, at some point you will be able to at least consider other theological models existed among the early Christians and consider that they might have had insights modern christians do not have. In any case, good journey JM2C, whatever the truth on this point is.


By the way, in responding to nakosis in post # 4260, you quoted 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
As long as we are discussing greek, there is NO word "given" in this sentence (if you can find this word, let us know) This quote you offer nakosis is thus incorrect.


Clear
σεφυτωειτωω

 

[1robin]

You think that robin1 is God?

I sure hope not. If I was, we would be in real trouble.

 

[JM2C]

Did you read the points CG DIDYMUS made in his recent posts? I think the underlying basic point the rabbi made regarding "original sin" was quite correct. The theory that adams fall brought about depravity of all other spirits coming to mortality was a foreign concept in early Judeo-Christianity. Although I cannot tell when, in history, the interpretation that infants are morally “depraved” or that “babies sin constantly” started, I am sure it is not authentic apostolic era interpretation. I do like Rabbi Singers’ basic model for the one reason this theory of depravity started in and became part of later Christian institutions (though I think there were other reasons as well).

The Copy and paste? I bet you don’t even know what that rabbi was saying. Can you summarize it, let us see if you understood it. They are nothing but the opinions of that rabbi.

 

[JM2C]

By the way, in responding to nakosis in post # 4260, you quoted 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

As long as we are discussing greek, there is NO word "given" in this sentence (if you can find this word, let us know) This quote you offer nakosis is thus incorrect.
Clear
Σεφυτωειτωω

“given” and this is your argument? The keyword there is theopneustos.

 

[Skwim]

By the way, in responding to nakosis in post # 4260, you quoted 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
As long as we are discussing greek, there is NO word "given" in this sentence (if you can find this word, let us know) This quote you offer nakosis is thus incorrect.

King James Bible
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Webster's Bible Translation
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

New Century Version
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by God and is useful for teaching, for showing people what is wrong in their lives, for correcting faults, and for teaching how to live right.

Third Millennium Bible
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

​

 

[Nakosis]

This is not a mistake or a misprint.

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

The word “theopneustos” in 2Ti 3:16 is a combination of two other Greek words: theos ("God") and pneo ("breathe") or God-breathed.

Propheteia in Greek, signifies the speaking forth of the mind and counsel of God. -Vine’s

The prophets and apostles did not speak from themselves, but what they received from the Lord Jesus Christ that they delivered unto us.

This translation looks pretty good.

2 Timothy 3:16 American Standard Version (ASV) Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

Every writing that was inspired by God is good for guidance. What you assume however is everything written in the Bible to have been inspired by God. That's not what it is saying. You take it all in without any attempt at discernment because that is what you were taught to do.

After being frustrated with the morality of Christianity, I tried to dismiss the Bible entirely. Mainly the OT which overall seemed pretty barbaric and Paul.

However I found Prophets in the Bible I had to accept they were divinely inspired. I would have preferred to dismiss the Bible entirely.

I believe there was a transfer of knowledge. A correct teaching among early followers. However I also believe that transfer of understanding was lost, severed somewhere between the Apostles and Christianity. You are left with a book of writings without clear understanding of those writings. So many Christian denominations certain of their righteousness. Mostly without a clue whether they are correct.

I am inspired by many Prophets of the Bible, yet you claim I have to accept it all or it is not good enough. Not only do I have to accept it all, I have to understand an interpretation that is acceptable to your personal beliefs.

You can read about God, you can be inspired by prophets but none of that makes God real.

If God is real, can we trust God to provide the correction that is needed? Or do we have to trust a book and our ability to correctly understand that book?

If you have to rely on your ability to correctly interpret the Bible, then your cause is hopeless. The history of Christianity should prove that.

 

[Ingledsva]

*

I translate 2Timothy 3:16 as -


2Ti 3:16 For all scripture is Divine inspiration, and is helpful/advantageous for instruction, for conviction/evidence, rectification, (and) for training in equity/character.


*

 

[1robin]

Hi robin1; I'd like to search for some specific common ground regarding our agreement that individuals have some sort of obligation to God at birth but yet we disagree as to what sort of obligation we have and how it accrued. I am thinking of ways we can consider these theories without causing one another frustration or anger so that our considerations are more efficient and conclusions more a collaboration rather than contentious.

Hello clear. Two initial things first.

1. The verse in Isaiah you and JM2C are debating I was going to leave alone but I think your making a mistake. That verse may refer to a specific subgroup but everyone in that group is a baby. It concerns the moment we are born. I think it mostly symbolic but your missing a meaningful point. It never says which babies these are. So it only makes clear than babies can be born wicked from the womb (now I have no idea how a baby can be wicked exactly) but that indicates absolutely that age is no barrier to sin. That babies in fact set off on a path of sin at birth.
2. I sure wish you would use quotes as others in the forum. I have a hard time recognizing who your posts were aimed at. It is also hard to quote them in response. It's your right to format as you wish but it is inconvenient at times for others. Anyway, no big deal.

As for your point above I think you misunderstand what my point was to begin with. The issue was God ordering the death of the Canaanites. I made an extrapolation from that by saying that he could kill us all because we are all imperfect and have failed to meet the mark. Indebtedness is not the primary issue here, failure to meet a standard is. The standard is perfection. God will not let imperfection in heaven so he has to legally change our status to allow us in even with new and perfect bodies. In an adults case it is through Christ, in a child's through not be accountable. My point was that children fail to meet that standard. Of course there is no argument to kids sinning but non-theists can't give in one inch or the whole house of cards will implode, so a tiny exception was cited to disprove the rule. It is also handy because it appeals to emotion and sensationalism. I finally saw what was occurring and tried to steer the conversation back into relevance but most were not having it. Babies fail to obey God's moral commands. I am happy and will concur with that being only because they have no idea what they are, and leave it there. No harm, no foul, no bad doctrine, no injustice, no problem of any kind. I will entertain doctrinal issues about this but not appeals to emotion as if we are in a contest. So I will only respond to the former not the latter.

1) When was an obligation accrued (regardless of it's type)

IF an individual comes to earth as an infant (as we all do), and if, upon coming to earth an individual spirit inside the infant, already has some sort of debt or obligation towards God; THEN it is logical and rational that such an obligation is connected to some condition(s) associated with birth or prior to birth.

I don't know that human logic is a perfect test for what God does. His ways are not our ways. My rationality does not agree with dead people coming to life, the Trinity, or multi headed monsters yet I believe in them. I think Debt is just a bad word for what I am talking about. Sin comes through either a violation of God's will as it reflects his nature or the failure to act on what his nature demands. A baby would fail both as he would not even be aware of either. A baby also comes with a fallen nature (and this is nota result of his birth) it is a result of the judgment placed on Adam's descendants that results in our spiritual disconnection with God. What we do is the result of our spirits being inherently rebellious towards God and over focused on our selves. Just as a baby may break the law in snatching an item off a shelf in a store and it going unseen he may violate a divine law in deed or thought but God does not hold him ultimately accountable.

2) If obligation to God is present AT birth, then it was logically accrued either AT or BEFORE birth

The context of pre-mortal existence of spirits
IF the early Judeo-Christians were correct that all intelligent spirits of mankind had a conscious existence prior to being born, then I believe your claim for obligation at birth is more logical, more rational and more secure inside of this worldview rather than inside the ex-nihilo (i.e. creation from “nothing”) worldview where a new infant is responsible for the sin of another person of another age. Is there any agreement we can come to on this specific point?

I do not agree we had consciousness or being before we were conceived. I believe or separation from God is a result of Adam's actions not ours. I however do allow that there are many who think the opposite. I think your making a mistake in using words like debt. I was simply saying children act inconsistently with God's moral law. Your talking more about original sin than what I was. I do not really need original sin or our separation from God in order to argue children fail to perfectly obey divine law. It is hard to look for common ground when it is not on the playing field I am on.

Think of all the Guatemalan's breaking the law crossing the border. We are suspending that law in their case many times. It would be hard to say they have a debt or obligation to us once you suspended the law in their case but regardless they broke the law.

3) The context of mortality as a tutoring experience for spirits of mankind
IF the early Judeo-Christians were correct that the earth and it’s experiences of mortality were created as a method to teach spirits by their own experience the concepts and effects of both good and evil and the disastrous consequences of evil, is there some way inside of that worldview that you can imagine any debt or obligation that is created by this apprenticeship?

That is the epistemological context. I am talking about the ontological context. I am not discussing how mankind accesses or uses laws. I am talking about the nature of moral law. Moral truth is a reflection of God's nature. It is the same in every place, for every person, at all times. Children do not perfectly obey it or act constantly with it at times. Their being ignorant may make them immune to punishment but it does not change the law or the fact they broke it.

For example, Jewish Zohar describes this context of the world as a place of tutoring the spirits who come into it. Speaking of the spirits of mankind he first asks : ”...why do they [spirits of mankind] descend to this world only to be taken thence at some future time? “This may be explained by way of a simile: A king has a son whom he sends to a village to be educated until he shall have been initiated into the ways of the palace. When the king is informed that his son is now come to maturity, the king, out of his love, sends the matron his mother to bring him back into the palace, and there the king rejoices with him every day." (Zohar – A seal..)

Human kings are not Divine. If all this life is a school then why did God not just give us the information without the necessity of the time it takes to live a life? Were those who are aborted, died at birth, or died in their teens so smart they learned it all in their time frames? Why are we born with such drastic inequalities concerning access to truth? How would anyone learn how to act in heaven (the palace) by living in a place that bears no semblance to it?

I can agree that we are here to learn but we are here to learn primarily a very specific set of things, and we are to teach them as well. I cannot agree we are here to be trained to be fit for heaven as no one will ever achieve that on earth. In the end we are here to freely decide for God or against him.

In this simile, does the son accrue a debt or obligation to the Father for his education? (I would be more clear but I don't want to affect your conclusion..)

He probably would in that scenario, but that scenario is so dissimilar to salvation it's hard to equate them at any level.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

This same context of mortality as a place of tutoring is used by early Christians For example, the great apostolic Father, bishop Ignatius, speaks to the Christians saying : Ignatius to the Ephesians 3:1 It will become obvious that there was a specific reason why mankind was to learn moral and social laws as a priority and preparation in this worldview.

I of course can agree we are to learn while we are here but since Christ makes up the infinity that separates us from God's standard I would not agree that I can circumvent that and learn my way into being fit for heaven. Lets say the range of human morality and knowledge is from 0 (the worst), and 100 (the best). The knowledge of God and the moral perfection of God would have to be infinite but lets call it 1 trillion just to have a number. Compared to 1 trillion how much closer to being there am I if at 50 or 75. Now we should strive to be as moral and learned as we can but we will never, ever, ever even get in the same ball park as God or what would be appropriate in heaven. I believe when we are raised to heaven everything about us will be changed. Our bodies are certainly said to be made perfect, I think our souls will be transformed to meet heavens standards as well. I do not think out actions on earth are in any way ever going to make a significant difference towards perfection but never the less should be attempted as best we can for the sake of our witness.

I believe that the early Christians such as Ignatius understood that IF Gods plan was to prepare spirits to live in a social heaven together in eternal joy and harmony, then the spirits of mankind would have to learn about, understand, and master the living of those moral and social laws which could support such a society in harmony and joy for ever. This is the context underlying the zohar’s example of educating a child “into the ways of the palace”. Relatively uneducated spirits of mankind needed to learn to live together.

I would of course leave open that possibility but I think most of our duties involve either our living together in this life or the setting apart of our moral actions so as to validate or draw attention to our message. I am forced to think of heaven as so superlative and so far above me that my best days from the standard of perfection are not much different than my worst days. I think your flirting too close with works based salvation. Your not there, but your heading in that direction and I flatly reject that concept.

It’s not just a future “heaven” which requires beings capable and willing to live certain social laws, but any calm, joyful, unified, civilized existence for any social group also requires the group to live certain social laws. You cannot have bullies and oppressors and rapists and murderers in such a society and still maintain calm unified joyful existence for ever. Thus, the individuals not wanting to live these social laws must be, somehow, identified and separated from those who are willing and able to live those social laws.

If you can (not confine but) primarily focus our moral learning and actions with our ability to live in harmony with men I can agree completely. I don't think we can learn anything that is making us significantly more fit for heaven, that is why God has to change us so dramatically so we can enter it. It is like talking about how many yards an ant can walk in his journey to the sun and back. On ant may quadruple another in his journey but it will never be significantly far compared to the goal. How do you get a percentage of the way to perfection? Any segment of any thing infinite is infinite percentage wise.

This "domestication" and education itself, is based on logical and obvious basic principles. It was said in the context of tutoring as a “domestication” : “There are domestic animals like the bull and the as s and others of this kind. Others are wild and live apart in the deserts. Man plows the field by means of the domestic animals, and from this he feeds both himself and the animals, whether tame or wild. Compare the perfect man. It is through powers which are submissive that he plows, preparing for everything to come into being. For it is because of this that the whole place stands, whether the good or the evil, the right and the left. The Holy spirit shepherds everyone and rules all the powers, the “tame” ones and the “wild” ones, as well as those who are unique.” The gospel of Phillip

You seem to quote extra-biblical sources almost in exclusion to cannonical sources. Why is that? Your quoting from a known gnostic text, not a divine one. I am trying to find common ground. Lets see if I can offer a summary of two positions and offer them for agreement.

1. Man is to learn and attempt to make moral progress his entire life. This is primary for benefit and application in our earthly life and as a witness to our message.
2. This moral progress, however great, compared to God's moral perfection is insignificant as a percentage.

The point is that mankind most efficiently plows and organizes and creates mainly through civilized and domesticated processes and beings. "Wild" and unruly ones do not contribute in the same way. It is the domesticated and civilized beings which are able to feed and care for all others who live from their production and that which they organize and prepare for the benefit of themselves AND others who do not produce.

If this early Judeo-Christian model where God created mortality as a process of education is correct, Can you see any way that in such a context where God accomplishes this great and grand organization for the sake of mankind, that an obligation to God is created and exists from birth (or even from before birth?)

I would not equate the Gospel of Thomas as either an "official" position of Judaism and/or especially Christianity. Most of the sources you quote are from texts specifically rejected for canonization. You may certainly argue they are true but not that they are mainstream doctrine. What you stated is typical of Gnosticism. Gnostics sat around and using earthly wisdom guessed at God's methodology. Usually being somewhat right but not exact. This principle above is a simplistic one you can find everywhere, even in science. Right/functionality/purpose require intent and organization. Tearing up a house is much easier than building one. Building one requires extreme coordination, planning, and specified intent. Destroying one requires only force. I do not regard that as divinely inspired but just an observation stated in theological language.

My point is NOT to say that such early Christian beliefs are perfectly true or false, but rather to show that these early Christian beliefs create coherent and logical models for obligation to a God who wants to allow mankind to become morally educated for mankinds benefit rather than for his own. I also wanted to demonstrate that your concept of debt or obligation can exist inside earlier and different Christian tradition and worldview in rational and logical ways.

It is both, though it seems your contradicting at least what I understood you to have been saying. It is our benefit in that it makes a just and productive society. It is in his as it makes his message shown to have an effect in the world. The Jews were given so many laws to both attempt to ensure justice, and to make them morally unique as the conduit for his revelation and savior. This takes us back to the Canaanites. God ordered them destroyed after many years of trying to get them to repent so their immorality would not destroy Israel's. The providential truth of this is a fact. They did not obey God and the Canaanites plagued them for generations causing them to sin and be punished repeatedly. Some went as far as to sacrifice humans to Molech as they became intermarried, etc...

In any case Robin1 I hope it makes sense that multiple models existed for what God was planning and what his purpose was for creating a world where we experience intense and terrible evils and that such evil can serve a purpose for the education of spirits of beings who will exist for billions of years and need to be “immunized” against evil by the very education of what it is and the temporary but terrible experiences associated with it in mortality.

I hope I communicated my agreement on his purposes complexity and how morality is relevant throughout but not as a significant effort to equip us for perfection.

Is there any agreement we can come to as to whether an obligation can exist in both models? (though the type of debt, it’s manner of accrual and the coherency and logic of these models may differ)

Yes, and I hope I have given opportunity for that, but I must retain my caveats to it. I will sum them up again and add a third.

God's morality.

1. Is an absolute set or standards or criteria that are reflections of his nature. They apply everywhere, at all times, to every person. However some persons are exempt from the punishment based on ignorance. The violation exists but the judgment is not enacted. These would include Christians, children, and possibly the unevangelised (though I am ignorant about the last).
2. It's purpose was two fold. First it was to provide rules to increase justice, harmony, and human flourishing (within a context of purpose).
3. It was to ensure the moral uniqueness of those who follow him and carry his message.

Can you agree or partially agree with these three?

 

[1robin]

*

I translate 2Timothy 3:16 as -


2Ti 3:16 For all scripture is Divine inspiration, and is helpful/advantageous for instruction, for conviction/evidence, rectification, (and) for training in equity/character.


*

Scripture is Theopneustos (God breathed). Anything with God as it's source is profitable.

 

[1robin]

Here's the rest of the article:Come on Christians, where did you come up with the "depraved" thing again? It wasn't from the Hebrew Bible. Unless you're taking a verse from here and there to create a doctrine. You wouldn't do such a thing, would you?

I thought English words not being in the bible was a given and did not need to be pointed out. I have responded to children and sin quite a bit to Clear's posts above. If that is what your asking please see them.

 

[Ingledsva]

*

I translate 2Timothy 3:16 as -


2Ti 3:16 For all scripture is Divine inspiration, and is helpful/advantageous for instruction, for conviction/evidence, rectification, (and) for training in equity/character.

*

Scripture is Theopneustos (God breathed). Anything with God as it's source is profitable.

There you go again - telling us it can only be translated one way, - which is wrong.


As you know Theos is also Divine, Divinity, Magistrates, etc.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God - This sentence is not well translated; the original (Greek not displaying correctly for some reason - ING), κ. τ. λ. should be rendered: Every writing Divinely inspired is profitable for doctrine, etc. The particle και, and, is omitted by almost all the versions and many of the fathers, and certainly does not agree well with the text. The apostle is here, beyond all controversy, speaking of the writings of the Old Testament, which, because they came by Divine inspiration, he terms the Holy Scriptures, 2Ti_3:15; and it is of them alone that this passage is to be understood; and although all the New Testament came by as direct an inspiration as the Old, yet, as it was not collected at that time, not indeed complete, the apostle could have no reference to it." Clarke's Commentary on the Bible.


"All this is expressed in the original by one word - Theopneustos. This word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means, God-inspired - from Θεός Theos, “God,” and πνέω pneō, “to breathe, to breathe out.” Barnes - Notes on the Bible.


Obviously it can be translated "Divine inspiration," or "Divinely inspired," as that is what the phrase means.



*

 

[CG Didymus]

I thought English words not being in the bible was a given and did not need to be pointed out. I have responded to children and sin quite a bit to Clear's posts above. If that is what your asking please see them.

I thought you used the word "depraved" also, but regardless here is the post I got that word "depraved" from.

Originally Posted by JM2C
I don’t know why you can not understand that there is no difference between “babies sin constantly” and infants were morally “depraved”.


No offend here. Read this until you are blue in the face:
Men did not become sinners because men sin. Men sin because men were sinners to begin with.
Constantly sinning, adults or babies, are just the fruits of this depravity.


Human are born depraved and ‘cause of this depravity human can not know God.


Isaiah said, Isa 64:6 “all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags” in the sight of the almighty God. Meaning no one can do good enough to impress God because human were born depraved.


If you can not understand this simple explanation that all men were born depraved then you are deceived by your belief, whatever that is.

Since Christians use the Hebrew Bible to prove their doctrines, I thought it would be nice to hear what a Jewish Rabbi has to say on the subject.

Oh, and what about that "filthy rags" quote? In context, what do you think was going on? What was the point that Isaiah and God were trying to get across to the people? Again, the context should be understood. Don't' you think? People shouldn't just build a doctrine out of a couple of verses from here and there in the Bible. It might end up missing the original point of the text or something.

 

[CG Didymus]

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God ...The apostle is here, beyond all controversy, speaking of the writings of the Old Testament, which, because they came by Divine inspiration, he terms the Holy Scriptures, 2Ti_3:15; and it is of them alone that this passage is to be understood...*

And who decides what is "Scripture"? I know, it was a "divinely inspired" bunch of men. They knew exactly which books were to be included and which ones were not from God. And that extends to the NT. They knew exactly which books came from divinely inspired writers. There was never a doubt. It's not like they had a bunch of anonymously written gospels and epistles. They knew who wrote what and that God was behind the writing of them... Didn't they?

 

[Imaginary_Friends]

Heaven is not just having the best of things it is lacking the appetite for the worst of things. Every preacher I talk to says the most depraved and depressed people they council are rich kids. They are not miserable because they lack things, they are utterly depressed and hopeless because they have everything and none of it satisfied them.


No you say Joe is in heaven with infinitely greater things than sex and alcohol. If they are your idea of fulfillment even here on earth I don't envy you. I tried to get as much of each as I could and never achieved anything but a temporary distraction from misery. I never felt true peace and contentment until I experienced God. You will constantly be in need of even these half measures you mention where as a Christian will permanently have infinite access to greater rewards without end. In your view you can say little of comfort about Joe at all. The best you can do "is oh well, the rest of us are going to die in eventual heat death anyway, who cares lets get some beer".

The son curses fig trees for being out of season and his dad makes pacts based on removing excess skin off a primates d***. I don't think in Heaven there gonna be playing chess or there the Jeopardy types

I was actually hoping we could combine what Jesus said about ever lasting wine with the 72 virgins from Islam so Heaven could be like a cross between a bordello and Willy Wonka's chocolate factory but with wine in lieu of a chocolate river.

 

[Ingledsva]

And who decides what is "Scripture"? I know, it was a "divinely inspired" bunch of men. They knew exactly which books were to be included and which ones were not from God. And that extends to the NT. They knew exactly which books came from divinely inspired writers. There was never a doubt. It's not like they had a bunch of anonymously written gospels and epistles. They knew who wrote what and that God was behind the writing of them... Didn't they?

Ummmm!


Did you miss this part -


The apostle is here, beyond all controversy, speaking of the writings of the Old Testament, which, because they came by Divine inspiration, he terms the Holy Scriptures, 2Ti_3:15; and it is of them alone that this passage is to be understood; and although all the New Testament came by as direct an inspiration as the Old, yet, as it was not collected at that time, not indeed complete, the apostle could have no reference to it."



*

 

[Clear]

CG Didymus said : “I thought you used the word "depraved" also, but regardless here is the post I got that word "depraved" from.”

CG : In the flurry of posts that accompanied the suggestion that babies and infants sin and are morally depraved, it would have been easy to have become confused. The source of these descriptions, historically, is as follows. It was suggested by a poster that babies sin. Multiple posters yelled "grab a rope!" and were looking for a tree (I admit I sided with the lynching committee since I feel new infants have not yet sinned and are innocent of committing sin)

1) Ingledva responded : “Babies are obviously innocent!” post # 4044

2) Robin1 responded “No, babies are the most self centered beings in the universe. They sin constantly…. Post # 4045

This is where the quote regarding babies sinning originated. In response to Robin1s claim that babies “sin constantly, I then Robin1 to substantiate this theory.
3) Clear asked Robin1 : WHAT SINS WOULD A ONE MONTH-OLD BABY IN MY QUESTION HAVE BEEN COMMITTING?

It was in response to this question that JM2C quoted my question to Robin1 and then : :

4) JM2C quoted a version of Psalms 58:3 and said “No one is “INNOCENT”, all are born depraved.“ Post # 4094

This is the origin of “babies ‘sin constantly’ “ and “infants ‘are born depraved’ “ theories and quotes. I hope this makes the sources clear.

Good Journey CG Didymus

Clear
σεφυδρακτωω

 

[Clear]

JM2C :

Regarding the king James translation of 2 Tim 3:16

JM2C used the King James rendering of 2 Tim 3:16 : All scripture is given by inspiration of God,…”

Part of my point that I wanted to make in pointing out another error in your quotes (but did not have time to make) is the tendency to read our own theology into a text. ALL of us tend to do this. Translators also do this as well. Occasionally a translator or group creates and sells a bible almost as an advertising medium for their specific theology. THIS verse is often subject to abuse and misinterpretation to support other theories.

The context of pointing out this error was to confirm to, yet again, the concept of and potential for, errors we all make in interpretation. Just as you incorrectly interpreted Isaiah 64:6 in support of your theory that infants are born morally "depraved", the translator of King James text makes a similar error in interpretation and then in translation of 2 Timothy.

While the original 1611 King James uses “all scripture is “given”, later translators corrected in the New REVISED Standard Version to “ All scripture is inspired”. However, the creators of the various Bibles have not all been careful translators.

For example, Skwim, in post 4266 gives us another four examples where the creators of other bibles did not correct the error made in the King James Bible..

Nakosis in post 4267 offers us an improved 2 Tim 3:16 from the ASV : Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable…”

Nakosis’ version leaves out the word “is” since it isn’t in any greek manuscript (though a verb is implied in greek...)

However, English requires a verb, so the translator must make his best guess and uses “is” and then places it where he thinks the word "is" should go. Thus, one version will say “Every scripture IS inspired of God...” and another will say “Every scripture inspired of God IS…”. These versions do NOT mean the same thing.

OFTEN, a translator is making a “best guess”. This “best guess” depends not only on language skills, but on historical skills and the final product reflects the personality and characteristics of the person(s) creating the bible as it does the manuscripts they use.

Nakosis made a profound point once, a few posts back. When Robin1 described an experience when he was inspired of the Holy Spirit, Nakosis asked about Robin1 writing it down and if it would then be “scripture” since, If Robin1 had written something down under the influence of the spirit, it was presumably the same spirit which inspired the prophets and the same species of man the spirit was inspiring.

To bring the production of scriptures under such considerations gives us some common-sensical models as to the production of sacred texts and how errors in both translation and in theology crept into them.


Both writing and translation are affected by the author/translator of a text

For example, Luther, when creating his wildly popular first vernacular bible, changed the 10 commandments.

This is why the protestants had a different set of 10 commandments than the Catholics had for a time. He simply felt that the prohibition against graven images was a “judishes sachenspiegel” (a law that applied to a special case involving the jews) and purposefully left this commandment out.

Luther then split the commandment involving coveting so that the number of commandments remained 10. He added “allein” to a verse in Romans to support his theory of being saved “through faith alone”, rather than “through faith” (durch glauben). Thus, by adding a single word, Luther creates a New Theology theory of salvation by "faith alone" that may not have existed prior to adding it. Some new theories started by such simple origins.

My point is that all of us make these sorts of mistakes in “translation” and in “interpretation” and that we should not take our own interpretations too seriously but should have enough humility to realize that we have errors in our theological models.

I hope this makes sense. I was not trying to pick on you, but to use the example to point out the problem with texts and personal / professional interpretations we apply to the various texts.


Good Journey JM2C

Clear
σεφυνετωτωω


P.S. Robin1, I noticed you responded to my post. It's after 1 am for me, so I will respond after I have slept.

Clear

 

[CG Didymus]

Ummmm!


Did you miss this part -


The apostle is here, beyond all controversy, speaking of the writings of the Old Testament, which, because they came by Divine inspiration, he terms the Holy Scriptures, 2Ti_3:15; and it is of them alone that this passage is to be understood; and although all the New Testament came by as direct an inspiration as the Old, yet, as it was not collected at that time, not indeed complete, the apostle could have no reference to it."



*

Sometimes I write things that sound as if I'm disagreeing with you. But, actually I agree with you completely.