Monday, December 5, 2016

There is no concept of "sin" in the Bible



I consider what I will reveal in this post, as one of my most explosive posts. On the surface, this article I write may seem literarily bland or uninteresting and unexplosive - but the theological and hermeneutical implications are far reaching, questioning the very foundations of didactics of salvation of religions claiming to be based on the Bible.
  1. There is no way for you to argue against the grammar. You can invent high and lofty and so-called "authoritative" grammatical exceptions just like you do which I debunk in [http://rameneutics.avishegnath.net/2014/03/does-bible-forbid-gay-sex.html]. So that whenever the Bible disagrees with your doctrines, you willy-nilly invent an exception to suit your pre-determined doctrine. Which would mean, the Bible is meaningless to you - since you will deliberately and willfully make grammatical exceptions anytime you wish to cherrypickingly construct your doctrine to fraudulently claim your doctrine aligns with the Bible. Backpedal and then reinventing and backpedal your translation until you get it to agree with your cart-before-the-horse doctrine.

  2. {חטא} is the only Hebrew word translated as {sin}, the only Hebrew word used as the evidence of concept of {sin}. An evidence that is hanging by a thin thread. Here, I demolish that evidence.

There is no such concept as "sin" when you read the Bible in the original Hebrew. More precisely, "sin" is as much a concept as "walk" is a concept. In English and Greek, "sin" is an evil concept. But in the Hebrew of the Bible, {חטא = sin} is as neutral as the word "walk". You can {חטא sin} for G'd or {חטא sin} against G'd. Just as you can walk for G'd or walk against G'd,

Because {חטא} simply means {separation or gap}. Just as {שטן = satan} is a neutral word, so is {חטא}. Because the word {חטא} is used in the Hebrew of the Bible,
  • positively (separation-consecration for G'd)
  • negatively (separation-gap, deviation from G'd)
  • neutrally (separating items)

And since there is no word for "sin" in the Hebrew of the Bible, then there crumbles the paganistic concept of "original sin". Don't be mistaken - Yes, in the Hebrew of the Bible there are words for {transgression, violation, violence, wicked, evil, bad}, but there is no word of "sin".

{Sin} is a concept found in ancient cultures all over the world, especially those pagan cultures surrounding ancient Israel and yet the concept of "sin" is not found in the Hebrew of the Bible. You may proceed to invent your scholarly excuses. The action of inventing a context and then applying that invented context, that context will return to bite your doctrine in the tail.

Let us begin ...
  • Let us for a moment pretend to accept that the word {חטא} = {sin}.
  • Then, grammatically, {יתחטא} is the 3rdP reflexive of {חטא}
  • Specifically, {יתחטא} is the 3rdP reflexive masculine singular cohortative-subjunctive of {חטא}
  • That is to say, without dispute that, grammatically {יתחטא} is an exhortation {shall sin against oneself}. There is no way for anyone to dispute against this because verily verily I say unto you, grammatically {יתחטא} would mean {shall sin against self}.

Then now, look at the book of Numbers, and apply {יתחטא = shall sin against self} and {חטא =  sin} to those verses, compared to the actual meaning of {חטא = consecrate, separate, gap}
Hebrew Misaligned meaning due to {חטא = sin} Actual meaning
{חטא = consecrate, separate, gap}
8:9
וכה תעשה להם then thus shall you do to them
לטהרם הזה עליהם to cleanse such upon them
מי חטאת water of sin water of consecration/separation
etc, etc
19:9
etc, etc
והיתה לעדת בני ישראל then be the witnesses of sons of Israel
למשמרת to safeguard
למי נדה חטאת הוא the water of excretion sinning it is the water of excretion separation it is
19:12
הוא יתחטא בו ביום השלִישי he shall sin against himself on the 3rd day he shall consecrate/separate himself on the 3rd day
וביום השביעי יטהר
and on the 7th day he then becomes clean
ואם לא יתחטא ביום השלִישי and if does not sin against self on 3rd day and if does not consecrate/separate self on 3rd day
וביום השביעי לא יטהר
and on the 7th day he is then not clean
19:13
כל הנגע במת בנפש האדם אשר ימות
All contaminated in/by death in/of life of the man who dies
ולא יתחטא and does not sin against self and do not consecrate/separate self
את משכן יי טמא
contaminate housing of Hashem
etc, etc
19:17
ולקחו לטמא מעפר שרפת החטאת and he shall take contaminant from burnt ashes of the sinning and he shall take contaminant from burnt ashes of the consecration
ונתן עליו מים חיים אל כלִי and add/give upon it fresh/living water into a container.
19:19
והזה הטהר על הטמא ביום השלִישי וביום השביעי and sprinkle the clean on the contaminant on the 3rd day and 7th day
וחטאו ביום השביעי and he should sin him on the 7th day and should he consecrate him on the 7th day
וכבס בגדיו ורחץ במים וטהר בערב and he rinses his garments and washes in water and he is clean in the evening
19:20
ואיש אשר יטמא
And a man who is unclean
ולא יתחטא and does not sin against self and does not consecrate/separate self
ונכרתה הנפש ההוא מתוך הקהל
and be cutoff the life of his from amongst the assembly
etc, etc
31:23
כל דבר אשר יבא באש תעבירו באש Everything which is bringable into fire shall you pass it in fire
וטהר אך במי נדה יתחטא and but-still cleansed in water of discharge of sinning against self and but-still cleansed in water of discharge of self-consecration/separation
וכל אשר לא יבא באש תעבירו במים and all which is not bringable into fire shall you pass it in water

Also let's look at the to-infinitive {לחטאת}
Hebrew Misaligned meaning due to
{חטא = sin}
Actual accepted meaning
15 occurrences in
Leviticus 4, 5, 9, 12, 16, 23
for-sinning for consecration
13 occurrences in Numbers 7
{שעיר עזים לחטאת}
hairy-goat for-sinning hairy-goat for consecration

And yet the same word {לחטאת} obviously means {to sin}:
  • 1 Kings 8:34, 8:36, 12:30, 13:34
  • 2 Chron 6:25, 6:27, 29:21
  • Prov 10:16
  • Ezek 43:19, 43:22
  • Zech 13:1


And {חטאם} meaning {sinning} instead of {consecrating} in many occurrences, like in Leviticus 20:20
ואיש אשר ישכב את דדתו ערות דדו גלה חטאם ישאו ערירים ימתו

How is it possible that the same (and ONLY) Hebrew word used to mean {sin} also means {consecration}? Unless {חטא} actually means {separation/consecration}. Separation for G'd or separation from G'd.

In the Hebrew of the Bible, there is transgression, wickedness, evil but not the concept of {sin}. Biblical Hebrew is a primitive language, devoid of abstract concepts like "sin".

"Sin" is a concept from philosophically abstract cultures and languages of Chinese, Indians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians but not of the primitiveness of ancient Hebrew.

Note:
The opposite of {חטא} is {קרב}.

{קורבן qurvan} is verbal-noun of {קרב}.
{קורבן qurvan} is a category of offerings made to G'd in the Bible.
{קרב} means "close proximity" and is used in the Bible to mean close proximity in intimacy or in battle or internally-embedded.

As Jacob fought in close proximity with G'd, and then became intimate with G'd, so therefore {קרב} is the actions we take to {חטא = consecrate, separate} ourselves for G'd to close our {חטא = separation, gap} from G'd.

Note:
The koine greek word in christian scriptures translated as {sin} is {αμαρτια amartia}.

{αμαρτια amartia} is derived from martial skills and sports of archery and javelin = not on the mark. i.e. when the spear or arrow is not on the target.

However the word {αμαρτια amartia} is of pagan origin. {μαρτιυσ mars} is the Roman god of war Mars - that is where we get the word {martial}. That is also the origin of the terms {March, martyr, mark}.

The word {mark} and the name {Mark} is from {martkos} = {like Mars}. {On the mark} = {to be like god Mars}.

The Christian origin of "sin" while rather accurate reflection of the Hebrew negative meaning of {חטא}, actually derives the strength of its meaning from {sinful} = {you are nowhere near like our patron god Mars}. Someone communicated with me that I have no proof about this etymological case. I will retrace the proof and write it in another article so as not to defocus the core message of this article.

Also the Christian word for "sin" does not include the meaning of {consecration}. Therefore, the Christian concept of "sin" is totally misaligned with the meaning of {חטא}. Especially that the Christian origin of "sin" is due to a pagan war god.


9 comments:

  1. Are you serious going to exegesis one single word and claim there is no "concept" of something that is so very blatant and obvious throughout both the Old Testament and the New?

    No, you couldn't seriously be trying this. This has to be some sort of April Fools prank!

    Numbers 7 is replete with references to a goat being a "sin offering".
    Psalms 38:18 "I am sorry for my sin" (presumably King David wrote this, considering he was the one who wrote most of the Psalms, but I can't say this with 100% certainty, whether he did or not, it is included in God's Holy Word)
    Proverbs 20:9 Who has said "I am cleansed from my sin"

    The Old Testament even tells us that "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission for sin".

    And, elsewhere, in the New we read "the wages of sin is death"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. Let's say we disprove that there is evolutionary link between chimps and humans. There is this one single link, and we disprove it. Will you celebrate? Or would you express your displeasure saying "You disproved human-chimp link just because of the missing human-chimp linke?"

      There is one and only one Hebrew word that has been used to prove the existence of so-called "sin" and hanging by a one single thin thread. Now I have demolished that single thin link.

      2. I have proven, rather quite easily, that that single Hebrew word translated as {sin} is used both positively and negatively.

      How do you know when {חטא] means {sin} and when it means {consecration}? By inventing a context, and use that invented context to justify your twisting and adhoc revising the meaning of the words of the Bible???

      3. You discussing with me using your pagan English bible??? You read and argue the grammar of English words in the Bible? English words that are not faithfully translated?

      I read and discuss and argue the grammar of Hebrew words.

      4. Have you even bothered to check Strong's. The same word {חטאת} is used in Numbers 7. How do you know that {חטאת} does not mean {consecration}

      Here is Numbers 7:16 a very short verse, reflecting the same usage thro out Numbers 7, and let me give it to you with the actual transliteration:

      שעיר עזים אחד hairy-goats of one
      לחטאת for consecration

      But your English translation added extra words because they could not deal with the meaning of {חטאת}. This is what your English translation says,

      One hairy goat
      as sin offering.

      5. In the whole of Numbers 7, as exemplified by 7:16, there is not even a word "offering".

      How on earth did you guys (and unfortunately the JPS too) translate
      {לחטאת} as {as sin offering} ??

      If {חטא} truly means {sin}, then without adding extraneous words, all the 13 occurrences of
      {שעיר עזים אחד לחטאת}

      should be translated as
      {One of hairy-goats for sinning}

      because if {חטא} = {sin}
      then {חטאת} = participle {sinning}
      and therefore {לחטאת} = infinitive {for sinning}

      6. Thanks for reminding me of Numbers 7 - I shall add Numbers 7 into this article.

      You grandstand on your miserable meagre "expertise" in the Bible and you don't even know that by quoting Numbers 7, you are proving against yourself?

      Like you, many of you have no knowledge of Hebrew and the grammar. Like you, many of you try to argue with me using ENGLISH words that are NOT EVEN FOUND in the original Hebrew ???

      7. Thro out Numbers 7, for 12 times the Hebrew actually and literally means {one of hairy goats for consecration}. And the 13th occurrence is plural {hairy goats for consecration}.

      I am a Bible fundamentalist. I read the Bible literally.

      You and your compatriots are liberals, abstractists of the Bible, such that when the words of the Bible do not suit your invented context, you twist the translation to fit it into your fraudulent context. You put a layer of abstraction above the words of the Bible, so that you have the freedom not to read the Bible literally.





      Delete
    2. You actually wrote --
      The Old Testament even tells us that "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission for sin"
      ??

      You really dared to write that crap, without checking it up?

      That is written in "Epistle to the Hebrews", not found at all in any of the ancient Hebrew scriptures.

      You don't even know your own Christian scriptures ! ! !

      Delete
    3. Perhaps you should have paid more attention to Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls,
      ----> for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life."

      excuse my paraphrasing, and making it mimic what is said in Hebrews.

      Delete
    4. " should have paid more attention to Leviticus 17:11 " -- explain.

      Delete
  2. Hello there! I have been going through many of your blog posts and find what you are saying to bee very interesting. I would say that I am Christian, but have had many issue aligning myself with many of the issues that you often talk about. What you say about mistranslation makes a lot of sense to me, and at a later point in my life I would love to learn hebrew so that I would be able to verify this myself. Unfortunately, right now I am only a high school student, and have neither the means nor time to learn Hebrew although I would certainly like to. Until the point I am able to learn it, if the Bibles that I am exposed to are "pagan" as you say, are there any english translations out there that are actually faithful translations? This would be an enormous help for me.
    Thanks so much,
    Tate

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, no translation exists that transmits the grammatical elements of the Hebrew text. Not even any that would transmit grammatical elements in a general less precise manner.

      Unfortunately, Bible translators do not have a firm grasp on structured linguistics. They may be experienced linguistic paleontologists, but do not subscribe to the field of structured linguistics.

      Structured linguistics is an information science and engineering field.

      For example, the subject of functional non-finite language modules, and how subjunctives, infinitives are a phenomenon of functional non-finite modules - is a question that non-mathematician bible-scholars are not aware of, much less bother with.

      Why is it important/significant to have a structured linguistic and an linguistic engineering understanding of the Hebrew text? For example,

      1. Because unlike modern Hebrew, biblical Hebrew has no past/future tense. Its temporal states are mitigated by stative state and non-finite state.

      2. Because bible-scholars lack the understanding in linguistic dynamics how Non-finite states translates to desire, intent, exhortation, command,

      3. And the non-finite verb only IDIOMATICALLY usable to imply future tense, but is not future tense,

      4. And because bible-scholars have so far not realized or ignored that the world is filled with languages which are without past/future tenses, but use sequential anchoring of temporal states; that is, the time/temporal reference is not due to declension but due to temporal context of previous phrase or a root phrase,

      5. And because they are educated and perceive in Romance/European traditional but non-mathematical linguistics, they went forth to invent a framework based on such Romance/European linguistics to understand biblical Hebrew, which they could not consistently apply in their translations.

      I am seriously thinking of quiting my high paying engineering job to get a doctorate in Hebrew biblical studies. To introduce structured linguistics to bible scholars.

      Structured Linguistics is a new field that seeks to overthrow the old obsolete school of ambiguous will-nilly taxonomy of languages.

      Delete
  3. Lol. As a Jew this is pure nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a Jew who is unable to read the Hebrew text of the Bible ??

      Delete