I consider this post as far reaching, questioning the very foundations of didactics of salvation of religions claiming to be based on the Bible.
- There is no way for you to argue against the grammar. 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 finetune your translation until you get it to agree with your cart-before-the-horse doctrine.
- {חטא} is the nearly 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.
- In Genesis 3, after humans ate the FoToKoGaE, Almighty did not even bother to use any sin word. There goes the ideology of "original sin" down the drain.
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, 23for-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:
There is no umbrella word for the concept of “sin” in the ancient Hebrew text of the Bible. Almighty deliberately refused to allow any umbrella word for the concept of “sin” in biblical Hebrew. of the ancient Hebrew text.
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.
Also the Greek 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.
