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 []. 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}. That is hanging by a thin thread of evidence. 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}
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.

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.

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}.

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.