Friday 29 October 2010

Does Psalm 51:5 Teach Original Sin

The Simple Answer is No!

We have already seen Old Testament Biblical passages which militate against the idea of Original Sin. However, a commentator did bring up Psalm 51:5 as an Old Testament verse to support the idea of the Original Sin. Here is the ESV translation of the said verse:

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

As you can see for yourself, this verse is not teaching the Original Sin, it seems to be about the sinful  act of adultery yielding  a child; the Psalm is thought to be a projection upon the future child of an adulterous relationship.

However, the NIV translation does seem to teach a branch of the Original Sin (i.e. babies are with sin):

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

So which translation is correct?

Firstly, if the NIV translation (the one teaching Original Sin) is correct then the Bible-believing Christians will have contradictions on their hands. The verses mentioned in the opening article on the topic of Original Sin (Ezekiel 8:4 and 20, 2 Kings 14:6) would be deemed as contradicting Psalm 51:5, thus further discrediting the Bible.

However, in my research of Psalm 51:5 I have found three more verses (from the OT) which seem to refute the idea of Original Sin. The first two go together(Jeremiah 3:25 and Genesis 8:21); they appear to indicate a human only becomes sinful from his/her youth, i.e. at the time of discernment between right and wrong (good and evil). In fact Jeremiah 3:25 indicates humans sin from their youth onwards, thus the idea of Original Sin upon babies seems to be in real question here.

This age of discernment between good and evil appears to be mentioned in Isaiah 7:15-16 as well.

See appendix one for these three Bible verses in full.

Going back to Psalm 51:5, which translation is correct?

The NIV translation seems to be in error and appears to be unfaithful as the NASB, ESV and KJV all disagree with the NIV translation. The three aforementioned translations all indicate the child was conceived in sin UNLIKE the NIV which suggests the child was sinful at the time of birth.

New American Standard Bible (NASB):

Behold, I was (A)brought forth in iniquity,And in sin my mother conceived me.

King James Version (KJV):

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me

English Standard Version (ESV):

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

So there is NO teaching of Original Sin in this verse! The verse is concerning the sin of adultery; it does not mean the child is born with sin. In fact the verse does not make mention of Adam's sin.

Commentary on Psalm 51:5 refutes the Original Sin

This verse has already been explained by T.W Brents and the explanation denounces the idea of Original Sin:

Whatever may be the meaning of this passage, it can not be the imputation of sin to the child. ‘In sin did my mother conceive me:’ that is, she acted wickedly when I was conceived. Were the wife to say, ‘In drunkenness my husband beat me,’or the child that ‘in anger my father whipped me,’ surely no one would attribute drunkenness to the wife or anger to the child; neither can they impute the sin of the mother to the child (1957, 133, 134).
(Sourced from: http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/276-original-sin-and-a-misapplied-passage)

So is the Original Sin mentioned in the Old Testament?

No, the idea of Original Sin seems to be shunned and denounced by the Old Testament authors. We have already realised that Jesus never taught the concept of Original Sin and moreover we see the Gospel accounts (Matthew 19:14 (also view Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16) indicate Jesus considered children as innocent (thus refuting Original Sin).

As previously mentioned, the foreign concept of Original Sin first came into existence by a man named Paul. He seems to be contradicting the Old Testament as well as Jesus.

Is the Original Sin moral?

The moral dilemma continues for the Christian who believes in the Original Sin. Why are babies born with sin and thought to be hell-bound if unbaptized? St Augustine was a strong advocate for this idea of Original Sin:

In truth, all men who are sullied by the original sin were born of Adam and Eve [Augustine, vol 2, p 633].

Thus St Augustine believed babies were born with sin, is this just? Furthermore Augustine believed unbaptized babies went to hell:

Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin]

Islam frees you from the dilemma of original sin, please look into Islam:
http://www.ediscoverislam.com/

The first article refuting the idea of Original Sin:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-do-christians-believe-in-original.html

Recommended reading on Psalm 51:5:
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/276-original-sin-and-a-misapplied-passage

Further reading:
What is Christianity by Taqi Uthmani (pg 35-43)

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Appendix 1

The three new Bible verses which appear to militate against the idea of Original Sin:

Jeremiah 3:25 (English Standard Version)

25(A) Let us lie down in our shame, and let our dishonor cover us. For(B) we have sinned against the LORD our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even to this day, and we have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God."

Genesis 8:21 (English Standard Version)

21And when the LORD smelled(A) the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again(B) curse[a] the ground because of man, for(C) the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.(D) Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.

Isaiah 7:15-16 (English Standard Version)

15He shall eat(A) curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16(B) For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be(C) deserted

17 comments:

YFC777 said...

Firstly when you say "it seems to be about the sinful act of adultery yielding a child; the Psalm is thought to be a projection upon the future child of an adulterous relationship" .. I hope you realize in this verse (Psalm 51:5) David is talking about himself and his own conception and not a future adulterous relationship. Neither is there any proof of his mother having such a relationship. Read the context of Psalm 55, below are extracts from Christian scholars on this verse.

1: Clarke's commentary - "I believe David to speak here of what is commonly called original sin; the propensity to evil which every man brings into the world with him, and which is the fruitful source whence all transgression proceeds."

2: Barnes commentary - "The idea is simply that he was "born" in iniquity; or that he was a sinner when he was born; or that his sin could be traced back to his very birth"

3: Gills commentary - "the earliness of the corruption of nature; it is as soon as man is conceived and shapen; and that it is propagated from one to another by natural generation; and that it is the case of all men: for if this was the case of David"

4: Keil and Delitzsch commentary - "David here confesses his hereditary sin as the root of his actual sin. The declaration moves backwards from his birth to conception, it consequently penetrates even to the most remote point of life's beginning"

maratsafin said...

and there is the problem with yfc77's religion, as he has demonstrated from christian interpretation you are born with sin and thus as the great church father augustine of hippo said if babies are not baptised they go to hell. not just babies anyone who never hears of jesus goes to hell,there are undiscovered tribes in the most remote parts of the earth that have no contact with the outside world. You see the babies going to hell is still held by majority of protestants. what catholics believe is anyones guess, i think thomas aquinas said he HOPES they go to a neutral place of neither punishment nor eternal joy. why do they have this problem? it easy because paul of taurus certainly believed time was ending soon and ever lasting righteouness would be fulfilled in his lifetime,he never imagined the world as he knew it would continue on for another 2000+ years,if he did he would never formulated the idea of original sin.

YFC777 said...

@Maratsafin. Since this thread is about Psalm 51:5 I will not respond to your comments here. I have however replied to your comments in the original post.

Islam does not have a clear answer to the question on what happens to babies as well. See my comments in the original post

Yahya Snow said...

@maratsafin,

Good points. Paul is a major source of headaches for Bible-believing Christians.

The fact he is opposing Jesus speaks volumes. Perhaps, the future will see another "reformation" on the part of the christians which will see them kicking out Paul's influence and just keping the Gospel of Mark (if they did this they would be coming to the Truth of Islam in great multitudes, inshaAllah)

Peace

Yahya Snow said...

@yfc777

Muslims do not have the problem of original sin and nor do we send babies to hell based on Paul's idea of original sin. In fact we reject such a construct.

We do have a few opinions on the destiny of children though;one of which is that the children will be tested in the hereafter. Ihave uploaded a Sheikh's reply on the said matter, here is a snip:

That they will be tested in the Hereafter, and whoever obeys Allaah will enter Paradise, and whoever disobeys Him will enter Hell. This is the view of the majority of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, as transmitted by Abu’l-Hasan al-Ash’ari, and it is the opinion of al-Bayhaqi and many other researchers

Yahya Snow said...

@yfc777

As for your insistence and support of the original sin doctrine.

Firstly, you are appealing to a faulty translation of the said verse. All the other translations I presented speak of being conceived in sin...that obviously refers to the sexual act which yielded the child (it was adulterous according to the CONTEXT)


Seen as we are discussing context, we can ask ourselves how JEWS understood this...do they believe in the OS? No. Clearly they do not view it to be supporting the OS doctrine.

I also showed you Brents explanation of the verse and he makes it quite clear it is NOT teahing OS.

Furthermore, and more importantly, Jesus, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Book of Genesis and 2Kings ALL appear to reject the idea of OS.

So, yfc777, if you want to hold onto this new belief of Paul's based on a skewed understanding and translation of a VAGUE portion of the Bible (Psalm) as well as the undependable Paul then it is on your head. We are talking issues of salvation

I invite all to Islam and worship the Creator of Paul, Ezekiel, Jesus and all that exists.

Peace

YFC777 said...

Yahya may I first ask you to clarify what is your understanding of original sin. You start the article by quoting verses and stating that this doctrine is no where in the OT or the Gospels even without telling the reader what you are refuting in the first place.

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

From your posts I think you have misunderstood the doctrine of original sin as the sin's committed by one generation being passed on to the next. We believe that Adam's first sin is the one that is passed onto every generation. Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e., all men] were made sinners" (Romans 5:19). Thus the verses you quoted from Ezekiel, 2 Kings and Matthew 19 are out of context and do not deal with the subject of OS.

You also stated that this is only a Christian concept and Jews do not believe in original sin. The concept of OS is mentioned in the fourth Book of Esdras. The below is taken from Jewish Encyclopedia (Not Christian website)

"The germ of evil sown into man by the first sin of Adam"

Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=463&letter=E#ixzz13tR1d4r5

You quoted T.W Brents and provided a link, the site clearly states that there are three possibilities of the meaning of Psalm 51:5. What you pasted was one of the three possibilities. What you did not post from the site was this - "Most likely, however, Psalm 51:5 merely refers to the fact that David was born into a sinful environment. We all are conceived in and brought forth into a sinful world. But we do not actually sin until we arrive at a stage of spiritual responsibility." I also provided you with 4 other commentaries that support Psalm 51:5 refers to OS.

Anonymous said...

That's laughable. Yahya says the passage refers to a illegitimate child, and then he turns around and appeals to the Jews to deny that it is about original sin. I'll pretend for a moment that the Jews never taught this and will simply ask: Can you, Yahya, show ONE, just one, Jewish commentary on this verse that says it is about David being conceived illegitimately?

Anonymous said...

I didn't think so.

YFC777 said...

Guys, I posted a quote from the Jewish encyclopedia on this topic twice yesterday. Both were deleted by the moderator of this blog without any valid reason.

How can sincere Christians defend Christianity if relevant comments on the topic get deleted.

Yahya Snow said...

@YFC

It is on automatic approve. How do you think anonymous's comment came through and yours didnt. Either you posted it a load of times and it subsequently ended up in the spam box (which I will check when I log in after the football)

OR, something is wrong your end.

Think about it, if my comment can come through (as well as the anonymous comments) then so to can yours. Repost whatever you have. It is hardly going to save you from the inconsistent and problematic issue of os.

Peace

Yahya Snow

(if this comment comes through then so to can ANYBODY else's)

Yahya Snow said...

anonymous

You are laughing ...

:(

This is a serious matter. The Bible verse does not teach original sin. There is a faulty translation of the verse in the NIV and you appeal to that as it supports the os. However, the other translations do not teach the os. You are beginning to sound like a JW.

I also quoted you Brents explanation of the verse.

I also (see other article) highlighted other parts of the OT which seem to contradict the os.

So if you want to believe this verse teaches os then you have a contradictory OT.

I invite all to the light of Islam

Peace

Yahya Snow

Yahya Snow said...

@yfc777

Repost whatever you have. Think about it; if anonymous' comments can come through then yours can too.

You must have either posted it more than once and thus ending up in the spam box (I will check when I log in afterthe football) OR you have an issue had an issue at your end. Repost whatever you have, I'm hardly going to begin hiding your posts after allowing ALL your others.

An apology would not go amiss either :)

PEACE

@anonymous

You are laughing ...

:(

This is a serious matter. The Bible verse does not teach original sin. There is a faulty translation of the verse in the NIV and you appeal to that as it supports the os. However, the other translations do not teach the os. You are beginning to sound like a JW.

I also quoted you Brents explanation of the verse.

I also (see other article) highlighted other parts of the OT which seem to contradict the os.

So if you want to believe this verse teaches os then you have a contradictory OT.

I invite all to the light of Islam

Peace

Yahya Snow

YFC777 said...

Yahya, I am sure I posted it in this thread as well as the original thread. In the original thread it went for approval while in this thread it was saved. After 30 mins I could not see it, I'm positive it was deleted.

Anyways, I had written a lot in the thread that somehow got lost. I will keep this post short and simple

1: The concept of original sin is found in the 4th book of Esdras. Below is taken from the Jewish encyclopedia (not Christian website)

"The germ of evil sown into man by the first sin of Adam"

Read more: www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=463&letter=E#ixzz13y01XlYk

2: You quoted T. W. Brents and gave a link to a website. The same link states that there are three possibilities of Psalm 51:1. What you pasted was one of the three possibilities according to the site. What you did not mention is that the site states "Most likely, however, Psalm 51:5 merely refers to the fact that David was born into a sinful environment. We all are conceived in and brought forth into a sinful world." This is consistent with all the other commentaries that I mentioned earlier.

PS - This time I have taken a screen dump of my post just in case ;)

YFC777 said...

Yahya, I posted it a few mins back and it went missing again. This time I took a screen dump that my post indeed was posted on the blog and is now not visible.

I will send you an email with the evidence

YFC777 said...

I will attempt to post the material again, this time without including the URL to the Jewish encyclopedia.

Firstly to answer the question, are there Jewish sources confirming the doctrine of original sin. Yes, the fourth book of Esdras mentions the concept of

original sin. The below quote is from the Jewish encyclopedia

"The germ of evil sown into man by the first sin of Adam" To get the URL copy paste this quote followed by Jewish encyclopedia in a search engine.

Secondly, Yahya quoted Brents comments and posted a link to a website. The same URL that he posted clearly states that Psalm 51:5 could have three

possibilities. What Yahya quoted was one of the possibilities, what he did not quote is what the author of the website believed to be the most likely possibility i.e.

quote "Most likely, however, Psalm 51:5 merely refers to the fact that David was born into a sinful environment. We all are conceived in and brought forth into a

sinful world." This is also consistent with the other 5 commentaries that I provided. Thus from a Christian perspective we have no doubts about the message of Psalm

51:5

Thirdly, Muslim apologist like Yahya must first clarify what their understanding of original sin is. He begins his article by saying OS is not found anywhere in

the Bible and goes on to quote several verses without first giving the reader a summary of what his understanding of OS is. In the Christian position Original sin may

be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent

from Adam. We do not believe that the sins committed by one generation get passed on to the next generation. It is this fist sin and the consequence of this first sin

committed by adam that gets passed on. Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e., all men]

were made sinners" (Romans 5:19). Thus the various verses that Yahya quoted from Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah are not in context to the subject of original sin

Yahya Snow said...

@YFC777

Firstly you quoted a Jewish commentary which ONLY refers to the human beings tendency to do sin. It does NOT teach we are BORN with sin.

Secondly you state I did not quote all of Brents. Yes becuase I only quoted the relevant bit. The other parts do NOT support you. So why bring that up?

Thirdly, I ask you to be sincere. You KNOW by the context which definition of the os I am referencing here.

The two posts on the subject deal with teaching AGAINST the "Christian" view that children are born with sin.

Lastly, again I ask you to be sincere. Jesus nad the Prophets never taught the os and appear to be opposing it. Paul comes laong and teaches the os.

Who are you going to believe?

Your choice

May Allah guide us all

Ameen