Our Lord Jesus Was Made A Curse?

[RabbiKnife]

I sure hope you guys figure out what sin means, because I’m feeling like an arrow aimed at the bullseye but hitting 8 inches low and 12 inches to the left.

[CONSPICILLUM]

I sure hope you guys figure out what sin means, because I’m feeling like an arrow aimed at the bullseye but hitting 8 inches low and 12 inches to the left.

Singular anarthrous hamartia is the state of being and condition that is “archerlessness”. Aiming and shooting is irrelevant. Sin means an archer could be sleeping or sitting without a bow or arrows and couldn’t awake and stand up to take bow and arrows to hit the target.

English speakers don’t understand the noun and think everything is the verb (hamartano) and its resulting acts (hamartema/ta). Hamartia isn’t a verb. Bows and arrows are secondary to the state of being wherein they can’t be effectively wielded anyway because of what’s ontologically missing in the archer.

That’s why it’s to be understood as a privation or negation.

[RabbiKnife]

Ah, I knew you could get there using words even I could understand!!!

🤭

Nicely done.

[CONSPICILLUM]

Ah, I knew you could get there using words even I could understand!!!

🤭

Nicely done.

B-b-b-b-but I said ontology and some other schtuff.

Most spend their days trying to shoot better; to become a better archer. The truth is that no one has an “archerness” in them. A life of futile works ensues. This is modern western Christianity. Do more. Pray harder. Believe better. Never understanding the noun that produces the actions is the problem.

Metamelomai is not metanoia (which is a noun; an anarthrous noun).

[RabbiKnife]

I had one of those once; you should get a doctor to look at it.

😀

In a church and society that understand only performance based love, this is the outcome.  Very true

[CONSPICILLUM]

I had one of those once; you should get a doctor to look at it.

😀

In a church and society that understand only performance based love, this is the outcome.  Very true

Indeed.

[RandyPNW]

I sure hope you guys figure out what sin means, because I’m feeling like an arrow aimed at the bullseye but hitting 8 inches low and 12 inches to the left.

I don't have anything to figure out, personally, because Sin means rebelling against God's word. The 1st sin in the Bible was an act of defiance against God's command.

That's what sin is. It has nothing to do with the construction of the word, suggesting the loss of a place, or some such thing. It has nothing to do with missing the mark. These are just ideas from which the word originated.

It is the application of the word that determines its meaning, ie how the word is meant to be used. It is rebellion against God's word, specifically, or disobedience to God's word.

Nothing ambiguous about this. Entering the idea of "privation" confuses the matter, and makes the construction of the word pivotal to the definition. And I respectfully believe that is wrong.

[Athanasius]

On the contrary, that is exactly what C. seems to be arguing, that hamartia must mean what a-meros suggests, namely a "privation." What that "privation" is said to be is unclear to me.

You're not clear on what's being argued.

No one is arguing that hamartia "must mean what ... its constituent parts may have been assigned at some previous point in history". This is to suggest that hamartia is being defined differently today than it was in the past and that someone is arguing that hamartia actually ought to mean what it meant in the past. Again, theologically, the language doesn't change. We want to know what hamartia meant to the first-century writer who used it.

The argument, rather, is to take ἁμαρτία and its various definitions:

- to be without a share in;
- to miss the mark;
- to err, be mistaken;
- to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong

And ask what lies at the foundation: what is it about ἁμαρτία that causes someone to be without a share, or to miss the mark, to err, to be mistaken, etc. What relevance is ἁμαρτία to the hero's tragic flaw? It's not just heroes that have tragic flaws.

Pointing out that the word is negative in construction with respect to μηρός (meros) is part of that investigation. This is hardly controversial. There's no disagreement with the definition of the word because the constituent parts lead us to exactly the definitions above (ἁ-μηρός: without a part, without a share, without a portion...). But those are just definitions. The question concerns the reality this word describes? It's negative, for one. If it's a privation, maybe it's the privation of the part or share of something (like the beatific vision)?

The struggle is realising that ancient Greek isn't modern English, with our neat couple of word definitions. There's more to the idea of hamartia than what the literal definition conveys, and that's what we're getting at.

On the contrary, that is precisely what it seems was being claimed, that the structure of the word "hamatia" demands we accept its definition to mean "a privation." Are you now changing your mind, or did I misunderstand? Or are considering whether your "friend" C. has the same mind set on this? I'd like to think you are seeking the truth, and not just "taking sides?"

I mean, C. is so much less "friendly" than you are. If you agree with him, fine. But please don't adopt his attitude towards me! Thank you.

My understanding is that hamartia is being defined as above and that these definitions then entail privation. We're not immediately defining hamartia as a privation; that is, defining the word.

That just proves my point. You are defining "missing the mark" as a word that must mean a "privation." That's not how it works, though. It could be true, but it isn't necessarily true. The word "hamatia" means what it means, as the author intends it to be understood, and how the word was constructed originally is of much less consequence.

This doesn't make sense.

I'm not defining 'missing the mark' as 'privation', as if I'm defining hamartia, and then its definition a second time. I'm suggesting that the definition entails a privation upon examination, i.e., to stop at 'missing the mark' doesn't convey the full sense of the word.

Of course, the word 'hamartia' means what it means. But what is this, "it could be true, but it isn't necessarily true"? It could be true that hamartia entails a privation but not necessarily? Why?

No, the "privation" is how the word was constructed, a-meros--"not a part." It has little to do with what the word was originally intended to mean, nor what it meant for people in history. You are just looking at what may have been in the mind of those who invented the word. But what they intended the word to mean is borne out in how it is used throughout Scripture--not as a privation from a place, but rather, as disobedience to God's word.

Well, a-meros is negative, and that negative entails a privation by the very example you used: to not be a part of something. That has everything to do with how the word was used in antiquity. What if that 'not a part' is 'not a part of God's presence'? Why would someone who sins not be a part of God's presence? We again have a privation.

Or, it could be you who are failing to understand what's being argued?

That's always possible.

That's probably what has made discussion of Sin as a "contagion" difficult. It doesn't operate strictly likely physical contagions. Therefore, I refer to it as a "spiritual contagion." It is not passed on through physical DNA. Rather, it is passed down through the generations by *spiritual means.* It's above my pay grade to explain how that happens. And I suspect most scientists would have a problem with it as well?

So why not just call it a 'spiritual inheritance'?

I don't have anything to figure out, personally, because Sin means rebelling against God's word. The 1st sin in the Bible was an act of defiance against God's command.

That's what sin is. It has nothing to do with the construction of the word, suggesting the loss of a place, or some such thing. It has nothing to do with missing the mark. These are just ideas from which the word originated.

It is the application of the word that determines its meaning, ie how the word is meant to be used. It is rebellion against God's word, specifically, or disobedience to God's word.

Nothing ambiguous about this. Entering the idea of "privation" confuses the matter, and makes the construction of the word pivotal to the definition. And I respectfully believe that is wrong.

You might need to figure out why you're confusing a narrative for a word.

[journeyman]

I sure hope you guys figure out what sin means....

sin is the transgression of the law. 1Jn.3:4

So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin. Jas.4:17

[CONSPICILLUM]

On the contrary, that is exactly what C. seems to be arguing, that hamartia must mean what a-meros suggests, namely a "privation." What that "privation" is said to be is unclear to me.

You're not clear on what's being argued.

No one is arguing that hamartia "must mean what ... its constituent parts may have been assigned at some previous point in history". This is to suggest that hamartia is being defined differently today than it was in the past and that someone is arguing that hamartia actually ought to mean what it meant in the past. Again, theologically, the language doesn't change. We want to know what hamartia meant to the first-century writer who used it.

The argument, rather, is to take ἁμαρτία and its various definitions:

- to be without a share in;
- to miss the mark;
- to err, be mistaken;
- to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong

And ask what lies at the foundation: what is it about ἁμαρτία that causes someone to be without a share, or to miss the mark, to err, to be mistaken, etc. What relevance is ἁμαρτία to the hero's tragic flaw? It's not just heroes that have tragic flaws.

Pointing out that the word is negative in construction with respect to μηρός (meros) is part of that investigation. This is hardly controversial. There's no disagreement with the definition of the word because the constituent parts lead us to exactly the definitions above (ἁ-μηρός: without a part, without a share, without a portion...). But those are just definitions. The question concerns the reality this word describes? It's negative, for one. If it's a privation, maybe it's the privation of the part or share of something (like the beatific vision)?

The struggle is realising that ancient Greek isn't modern English, with our neat couple of word definitions. There's more to the idea of hamartia than what the literal definition conveys, and that's what we're getting at.

On the contrary, that is precisely what it seems was being claimed, that the structure of the word "hamatia" demands we accept its definition to mean "a privation." Are you now changing your mind, or did I misunderstand? Or are considering whether your "friend" C. has the same mind set on this? I'd like to think you are seeking the truth, and not just "taking sides?"

I mean, C. is so much less "friendly" than you are. If you agree with him, fine. But please don't adopt his attitude towards me! Thank you.

My understanding is that hamartia is being defined as above and that these definitions then entail privation. We're not immediately defining hamartia as a privation; that is, defining the word.

That just proves my point. You are defining "missing the mark" as a word that must mean a "privation." That's not how it works, though. It could be true, but it isn't necessarily true. The word "hamatia" means what it means, as the author intends it to be understood, and how the word was constructed originally is of much less consequence.

This doesn't make sense.

I'm not defining 'missing the mark' as 'privation', as if I'm defining hamartia, and then its definition a second time. I'm suggesting that the definition entails a privation upon examination, i.e., to stop at 'missing the mark' doesn't convey the full sense of the word.

Of course, the word 'hamartia' means what it means. But what is this, "it could be true, but it isn't necessarily true"? It could be true that hamartia entails a privation but not necessarily? Why?

No, the "privation" is how the word was constructed, a-meros--"not a part." It has little to do with what the word was originally intended to mean, nor what it meant for people in history. You are just looking at what may have been in the mind of those who invented the word. But what they intended the word to mean is borne out in how it is used throughout Scripture--not as a privation from a place, but rather, as disobedience to God's word.

Well, a-meros is negative, and that negative entails a privation by the very example you used: to not be a part of something. That has everything to do with how the word was used in antiquity. What if that 'not a part' is 'not a part of God's presence'? Why would someone who sins not be a part of God's presence? We again have a privation.

Or, it could be you who are failing to understand what's being argued?

That's always possible.

That's probably what has made discussion of Sin as a "contagion" difficult. It doesn't operate strictly likely physical contagions. Therefore, I refer to it as a "spiritual contagion." It is not passed on through physical DNA. Rather, it is passed down through the generations by *spiritual means.* It's above my pay grade to explain how that happens. And I suspect most scientists would have a problem with it as well?

So why not just call it a 'spiritual inheritance'?

I don't have anything to figure out, personally, because Sin means rebelling against God's word. The 1st sin in the Bible was an act of defiance against God's command.

That's what sin is. It has nothing to do with the construction of the word, suggesting the loss of a place, or some such thing. It has nothing to do with missing the mark. These are just ideas from which the word originated.

It is the application of the word that determines its meaning, ie how the word is meant to be used. It is rebellion against God's word, specifically, or disobedience to God's word.

Nothing ambiguous about this. Entering the idea of "privation" confuses the matter, and makes the construction of the word pivotal to the definition. And I respectfully believe that is wrong.

You might need to figure out why you're confusing a narrative for a word.

The very simple point missed is that hamartia is a noun. English speakers are clueless about anarthrous nouns because English doesn’t have them while ALL Greek nouns are anarthous (to which may be added the definite article). This means English speakers mentally and conceptually convert nouns into verbs by default. Faith becomes believING. Sin becomes sinnING. Repentance becomes repentING.

Things do. Nouns verb. All action comes from a “thing”. Without “things” (nouns) there would be no acting or resulting acts. Sin (the state of being and condition, which is a lack as privation) is what produces sinning and sins. That which is missing in us is why we can’t bring forth the righteousness of God into action. We can’t even validly try. It’s impossible. The source of all action within us has something missing. Our share in constant communion (spiritual life - zoe) is gone.

Our place in our first estate is gone. Our part in the cosmos as it was originally created is not present within us. We have fallen from those things. They’re missing. Resurrection life in Christ is what provides what is missing, though the full share, part, and place will only finally be restored after this physical life. We have the earnest of the inheritance until redemption of the purchased possession.

SinnING is not hamartia. Hamartia is that state of being and condition from which actING comes that is sinnING. Any resulting post-action act is hamartema. The argument among the masses is always because they presume hamartano and hamartema are hamartia.

Transgression of the law and rebellion against God are actING. They’re not the noun that is sin. They come FROM that noun, which is the source. That which is not of faith is sin. That’s a source statement in scripture about the nouns, not the verbs.

The arguments against this multi-faceted truth about hamartia are sin. Whatever ponderance that has led up to the denial of sin as a privation is… sin. Every false doctrinal concept is… sin.

Romans 10:17 is a prime example of anarthrous nouns not being understood. “So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” Hearing is a NOUN. It’s the thing heard; the message, the report. And it’s ARTICULAR (just as faith is in this passage), meaning there’s only THE message/report that brings THE faith. The article is particularizing the vast meaning of each noun’s default semantic range. THIS faith comes out of/from (ek) THIS message, which comes by means of [the] Rhema (anarthrous, not articular) of God.

If there’s another qualitative rhema (other words from another source) and another message, then it will be another faith (confident persuasion). That’s why these guys argue so vehemently for error. They believe a message that is from linguistic error and it becomes a false device (noema - concept of the mind) of Satan. They’ll double down on whatever report/message they think they’ve heard with a zeal of God but not according to knowledge (epiginosko, not merely ginosko).

This affects everything theological. Turning nouns into verbs and having no clue what words mean is the modern realized recipe for schism and rampant error of individual interpretation and divergent doctrine. I’ve become fairly convinced that the English lack of anarthrous nouns will send more people to hell in unbelief and trusting their own works than any other primary source of faithlessnes. English privates faith because anarthrous nouns are missing. It’s maddening, and I watch it unfold with virtually everyone as they refuse to listen to truth because they think they’ve already reasoned it for themselves internally. Triple sigh.

[RandyPNW]

On the contrary, that is exactly what C. seems to be arguing, that hamartia must mean what a-meros suggests, namely a "privation." What that "privation" is said to be is unclear to me.

You're not clear on what's being argued.

No one is arguing that hamartia "must mean what ... its constituent parts may have been assigned at some previous point in history". This is to suggest that hamartia is being defined differently today than it was in the past and that someone is arguing that hamartia actually ought to mean what it meant in the past. Again, theologically, the language doesn't change. We want to know what hamartia meant to the first-century writer who used it.

I agree with what you're saying up to this point. Hamartia is the word as it's intended to be understood. As I said, the construction of the word has little to do with it.

The argument, rather, is to take ἁμαρτία and its various definitions:

- to be without a share in;
- to miss the mark;
- to err, be mistaken;
- to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong

And ask what lies at the foundation: what is it about ἁμαρτία that causes someone to be without a share, or to miss the mark, to err, to be mistaken, etc. What relevance is ἁμαρτία to the hero's tragic flaw? It's not just heroes that have tragic flaws.

Yes, and this is my point. Sin means disobedience to God's word, and so, any "helpful" definitions of hamartia, such as "missing the mark," can only make sense in the context of disobedience to God's word.

My point is that "missing the mark" alone has nothing to do with defining what hamartia means. It only *helps* us to understand some sense of what disobedience is. Perhaps that is all you've been trying to say?

I don't believe we can say hamartia means, as a definition, "missing the mark." We can only say hamartia means disobedience to God's word.

If we thought that hamartia was purely "missing the mark," someone may start to think sin is only about perfection, which is only part of the idea. We fall short of God's glory, but we still have the obligation to obey God's word, whether we're perfect or not. Sin has to do with not obeying God's voice in our conscience, despite  the fact we're imperfect. (Discussion of the meaning of "perfection" is another subject altogether!)

Pointing out that the word is negative in construction with respect to μηρός (meros) is part of that investigation. This is hardly controversial. There's no disagreement with the definition of the word because the constituent parts lead us to exactly the definitions above (ἁ-μηρός: without a part, without a share, without a portion...). But those are just definitions. The question concerns the reality this word describes? It's negative, for one. If it's a privation, maybe it's the privation of the part or share of something (like the beatific vision)?

Again, that's defining a word based on its construction, and not on how the word is used. I mean, sin is partly used as a privation, as being somewhat separate from God's glory, and it is spoken of as the lack of perfection, such as "missing the mark." But I don't wish to define words based on their construction, because it can be misleading, or perhaps limit the scope of the word to just one aspect of its meaning. That's why I avoid using the word "privation."

The struggle is realising that ancient Greek isn't modern English, with our neat couple of word definitions. There's more to the idea of hamartia than what the literal definition conveys, and that's what we're getting at.

Well, I'm not proficient in Greek by any means. My brother is who I go to, because not only does he study Greek but he knows a genuine Greek scholar or two. I hesitate to ask him now because he has a serious case of glaucoma.

My brother doesn't blink an eye if he disagrees with me. We've had many disagreements. But I respect his opinions and the way he argues them. He's a text person. He may even agree with you that hamartia is a "privation."

My understanding is that hamartia is being defined as above and that these definitions then entail privation. We're not immediately defining hamartia as a privation; that is, defining the word.

Okay, I guess...

The word "hamatia" means what it means, as the author intends it to be understood, and how the word was constructed originally is of much less consequence.

This doesn't make sense.

The word, as constructed, means something like "not having a place," such as being deprived of Eden. But the word itself is defined as "disobedience to God's word."

The literal meaning of the word "as constructed" does not give the meaning of the word "as used." It may explain the origin of the word, ie the circumstances by which the word was appropriated. But in reality it has nothing to do with a "place" or "not having a place."

It is roughly the equivalent, I think, of turning a regular noun into a proper noun. Or, it might be like using a common word and turning the word to a primary use in a specific technical definition. Sin may have started out as meaning a generic mistake or accident. But at some point it may have acquired a more technical definition as "disobeying God's word."

I'm not defining 'missing the mark' as 'privation', as if I'm defining hamartia, and then its definition a second time. I'm suggesting that the definition entails a privation upon examination, i.e., to stop at 'missing the mark' doesn't convey the full sense of the word.

Yes, "missing the mark" may convey less than what the word was designed to convey. To define the word as "missing the mark" therefore is an aid to understanding how the word was devised, but does not add to the definition of the word.

It may, however, help us understand how the word came about and thus contribute to the general context in which the word "sin" is used. It has to do with disobeying God, having lost our place in Paradise.

Of course, the word 'hamartia' means what it means. But what is this, "it could be true, but it isn't necessarily true"? It could be true that hamartia entails a privation but not necessarily? Why?

Hamartia indicates disobedience to God's word, and as such, could be the cause of depriving us of God's blessings, just as the original sin caused Adam and Eve to lose their place in Paradise. So yes, privation could be part of the definition, although using that as a definition for hamartia could be misleading.

It is not strictly "missing the mark," or falling short in an archery contest. But referring to it as such does help us understand that disobeying God's word is a matter of falling below God's standard of perfection.

But sin obviously is more than just falling below the standard of perfection. God certainly doesn't expect sinless perfection. He only expects us to obey His word.

Well, a-meros is negative, and that negative entails a privation by the very example you used: to not be a part of something. That has everything to do with how the word was used in antiquity. What if that 'not a part' is 'not a part of God's presence'? Why would someone who sins not be a part of God's presence? We again have a privation.

I'm not sure the word was even used as such in antiquity. Again, that is just the construction of the word. I could use a word constructed to indicate one thing and then design and use the word with a completely different more technical meaning.

For all I know, sin was used in antiquity for any flub up, whether falling down, or accidentally killing someone. It may have had little to do with God at all. But the point is, it came to have a technical definition not corresponding exactly to this idea of mistakes and accidents.

It came to mean, definitively, disobedience to God's word. We just don't know how the word developed, but we do know how the word is used biblically. It's obtained a technical definition that the Bible uses consistently for failing to adhere to God's voice in our conscience.

That's probably what has made discussion of Sin as a "contagion" difficult. It doesn't operate strictly likely physical contagions. Therefore, I refer to it as a "spiritual contagion." It is not passed on through physical DNA. Rather, it is passed down through the generations by *spiritual means.* It's above my pay grade to explain how that happens. And I suspect most scientists would have a problem with it as well?

So why not just call it a 'spiritual inheritance'?

I do call it that. Contagion helps me to understand that we're not just dirty villains--we're also victims.

I appreciate the gracious spirit you've exhibited in this disagreement/misunderstanding. Thanks for entertaining a different perspective. That's what it's all about.

[Athanasius]

The very simple point missed is that hamartia is a noun. English speakers are clueless about anarthrous nouns because English doesn’t have them while ALL Greek nouns are anarthous (to which may be added the definite article). This means English speakers mentally and conceptually convert nouns into verbs by default. Faith becomes believING. Sin becomes sinnING. Repentance becomes repentING.

Things do. Nouns verb. All action comes from a “thing”. Without “things” (nouns) there would be no acting or resulting acts. Sin (the state of being and condition, which is a lack as privation) is what produces sinning and sins. That which is missing in us is why we can’t bring forth the righteousness of God into action. We can’t even validly try. It’s impossible. The source of all action within us has something missing. Our share in constant communion (spiritual life - zoe) is gone.

Our place in our first estate is gone. Our part in the cosmos as it was originally created is not present within us. We have fallen from those things. They’re missing. Resurrection life in Christ is what provides what is missing, though the full share, part, and place will only finally be restored after this physical life. We have the earnest of the inheritance until redemption of the purchased possession.

SinnING is not hamartia. Hamartia is that state of being and condition from which actING comes that is sinnING. Any resulting post-action act is hamartema. The argument among the masses is always because they presume hamartano and hamartema are hamartia.

Transgression of the law and rebellion against God are actING. They’re not the noun that is sin. They come FROM that noun, which is the source. That which is not of faith is sin. That’s a source statement in scripture about the nouns, not the verbs.

The arguments against this multi-faceted truth about hamartia are sin. Whatever ponderance that has led up to the denial of sin as a privation is… sin. Every false doctrinal concept is… sin.

Romans 10:17 is a prime example of anarthrous nouns not being understood. “So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” Hearing is a NOUN. It’s the thing heard; the message, the report. And it’s ARTICULAR (just as faith is in this passage), meaning there’s only THE message/report that brings THE faith. The article is particularizing the vast meaning of each noun’s default semantic range. THIS faith comes out of/from (ek) THIS message, which comes by means of [the] Rhema (anarthrous, not articular) of God.

If there’s another qualitative rhema (other words from another source) and another message, then it will be another faith (confident persuasion). That’s why these guys argue so vehemently for error. They believe a message that is from linguistic error and it becomes a false device (noema - concept of the mind) of Satan. They’ll double down on whatever report/message they think they’ve heard with a zeal of God but not according to knowledge (epiginosko, not merely ginosko).

This affects everything theological. Turning nouns into verbs and having no clue what words mean is the modern realized recipe for schism and rampant error of individual interpretation and divergent doctrine. I’ve become fairly convinced that the English lack of anarthrous nouns will send more people to hell in unbelief and trusting their own works than any other primary source of faithlessnes. English privates faith because anarthrous nouns are missing. It’s maddening, and I watch it unfold with virtually everyone as they refuse to listen to truth because they think they’ve already reasoned it for themselves internally. Triple sigh.

Mann, Nietzsche was a philologist too and look what happened to him. It's no wonder!

Did you read Feser yet?

[CONSPICILLUM]

The very simple point missed is that hamartia is a noun. English speakers are clueless about anarthrous nouns because English doesn’t have them while ALL Greek nouns are anarthous (to which may be added the definite article). This means English speakers mentally and conceptually convert nouns into verbs by default. Faith becomes believING. Sin becomes sinnING. Repentance becomes repentING.

Things do. Nouns verb. All action comes from a “thing”. Without “things” (nouns) there would be no acting or resulting acts. Sin (the state of being and condition, which is a lack as privation) is what produces sinning and sins. That which is missing in us is why we can’t bring forth the righteousness of God into action. We can’t even validly try. It’s impossible. The source of all action within us has something missing. Our share in constant communion (spiritual life - zoe) is gone.

Our place in our first estate is gone. Our part in the cosmos as it was originally created is not present within us. We have fallen from those things. They’re missing. Resurrection life in Christ is what provides what is missing, though the full share, part, and place will only finally be restored after this physical life. We have the earnest of the inheritance until redemption of the purchased possession.

SinnING is not hamartia. Hamartia is that state of being and condition from which actING comes that is sinnING. Any resulting post-action act is hamartema. The argument among the masses is always because they presume hamartano and hamartema are hamartia.

Transgression of the law and rebellion against God are actING. They’re not the noun that is sin. They come FROM that noun, which is the source. That which is not of faith is sin. That’s a source statement in scripture about the nouns, not the verbs.

The arguments against this multi-faceted truth about hamartia are sin. Whatever ponderance that has led up to the denial of sin as a privation is… sin. Every false doctrinal concept is… sin.

Romans 10:17 is a prime example of anarthrous nouns not being understood. “So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” Hearing is a NOUN. It’s the thing heard; the message, the report. And it’s ARTICULAR (just as faith is in this passage), meaning there’s only THE message/report that brings THE faith. The article is particularizing the vast meaning of each noun’s default semantic range. THIS faith comes out of/from (ek) THIS message, which comes by means of [the] Rhema (anarthrous, not articular) of God.

If there’s another qualitative rhema (other words from another source) and another message, then it will be another faith (confident persuasion). That’s why these guys argue so vehemently for error. They believe a message that is from linguistic error and it becomes a false device (noema - concept of the mind) of Satan. They’ll double down on whatever report/message they think they’ve heard with a zeal of God but not according to knowledge (epiginosko, not merely ginosko).

This affects everything theological. Turning nouns into verbs and having no clue what words mean is the modern realized recipe for schism and rampant error of individual interpretation and divergent doctrine. I’ve become fairly convinced that the English lack of anarthrous nouns will send more people to hell in unbelief and trusting their own works than any other primary source of faithlessnes. English privates faith because anarthrous nouns are missing. It’s maddening, and I watch it unfold with virtually everyone as they refuse to listen to truth because they think they’ve already reasoned it for themselves internally. Triple sigh.

Mann, Nietzsche was a philologist too and look what happened to him. It's no wonder!

Did you read Feser yet?

I’ll take Nietzsche over many in the landscape of the modern western “church”, and that’s sad (though obviously an exaggeration). Why do you hate Philology? It’s the foundation for everything you’ve ever thought, said, read, or written. I don’t think you understand what Philology is if you have disdain for the discipline.

Nope, no Feser yet. I should read him tonight before it slips to a lesser priority by my forgetfulness.

[RabbiKnife]

Every one of the blind men and the elephant were blind

[CONSPICILLUM]

On the contrary, that is exactly what C. seems to be arguing, that hamartia must mean what a-meros suggests, namely a "privation." What that "privation" is said to be is unclear to me.

You're not clear on what's being argued.

No one is arguing that hamartia "must mean what ... its constituent parts may have been assigned at some previous point in history". This is to suggest that hamartia is being defined differently today than it was in the past and that someone is arguing that hamartia actually ought to mean what it meant in the past. Again, theologically, the language doesn't change. We want to know what hamartia meant to the first-century writer who used it.

I agree with what you're saying up to this point. Hamartia is the word as it's intended to be understood. As I said, the construction of the word has little to do with it.

The argument, rather, is to take ἁμαρτία and its various definitions:

- to be without a share in;
- to miss the mark;
- to err, be mistaken;
- to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong

And ask what lies at the foundation: what is it about ἁμαρτία that causes someone to be without a share, or to miss the mark, to err, to be mistaken, etc. What relevance is ἁμαρτία to the hero's tragic flaw? It's not just heroes that have tragic flaws.

Yes, and this is my point. Sin means disobedience to God's word, and so, any "helpful" definitions of hamartia, such as "missing the mark," can only make sense in the context of disobedience to God's word.

My point is that "missing the mark" alone has nothing to do with defining what hamartia means. It only *helps* us to understand some sense of what disobedience is. Perhaps that is all you've been trying to say?

I don't believe we can say hamartia means, as a definition, "missing the mark." We can only say hamartia means disobedience to God's word.

If we thought that hamartia was purely "missing the mark," someone may start to think sin is only about perfection, which is only part of the idea. We fall short of God's glory, but we still have the obligation to obey God's word, whether we're perfect or not. Sin has to do with not obeying God's voice in our conscience, despite  the fact we're imperfect. (Discussion of the meaning of "perfection" is another subject altogether!)

Pointing out that the word is negative in construction with respect to μηρός (meros) is part of that investigation. This is hardly controversial. There's no disagreement with the definition of the word because the constituent parts lead us to exactly the definitions above (ἁ-μηρός: without a part, without a share, without a portion...). But those are just definitions. The question concerns the reality this word describes? It's negative, for one. If it's a privation, maybe it's the privation of the part or share of something (like the beatific vision)?

Again, that's defining a word based on its construction, and not on how the word is used. I mean, sin is partly used as a privation, as being somewhat separate from God's glory, and it is spoken of as the lack of perfection, such as "missing the mark." But I don't wish to define words based on their construction, because it can be misleading, or perhaps limit the scope of the word to just one aspect of its meaning. That's why I avoid using the word "privation."

The struggle is realising that ancient Greek isn't modern English, with our neat couple of word definitions. There's more to the idea of hamartia than what the literal definition conveys, and that's what we're getting at.

Well, I'm not proficient in Greek by any means. My brother is who I go to, because not only does he study Greek but he knows a genuine Greek scholar or two. I hesitate to ask him now because he has a serious case of glaucoma.

My brother doesn't blink an eye if he disagrees with me. We've had many disagreements. But I respect his opinions and the way he argues them. He's a text person. He may even agree with you that hamartia is a "privation."

My understanding is that hamartia is being defined as above and that these definitions then entail privation. We're not immediately defining hamartia as a privation; that is, defining the word.

Okay, I guess...

The word "hamatia" means what it means, as the author intends it to be understood, and how the word was constructed originally is of much less consequence.

This doesn't make sense.

The word, as constructed, means something like "not having a place," such as being deprived of Eden. But the word itself is defined as "disobedience to God's word."

The literal meaning of the word "as constructed" does not give the meaning of the word "as used." It may explain the origin of the word, ie the circumstances by which the word was appropriated. But in reality it has nothing to do with a "place" or "not having a place."

It is roughly the equivalent, I think, of turning a regular noun into a proper noun. Or, it might be like using a common word and turning the word to a primary use in a specific technical definition. Sin may have started out as meaning a generic mistake or accident. But at some point it may have acquired a more technical definition as "disobeying God's word."

I'm not defining 'missing the mark' as 'privation', as if I'm defining hamartia, and then its definition a second time. I'm suggesting that the definition entails a privation upon examination, i.e., to stop at 'missing the mark' doesn't convey the full sense of the word.

Yes, "missing the mark" may convey less than what the word was designed to convey. To define the word as "missing the mark" therefore is an aid to understanding how the word was devised, but does not add to the definition of the word.

It may, however, help us understand how the word came about and thus contribute to the general context in which the word "sin" is used. It has to do with disobeying God, having lost our place in Paradise.

Of course, the word 'hamartia' means what it means. But what is this, "it could be true, but it isn't necessarily true"? It could be true that hamartia entails a privation but not necessarily? Why?

Hamartia indicates disobedience to God's word, and as such, could be the cause of depriving us of God's blessings, just as the original sin caused Adam and Eve to lose their place in Paradise. So yes, privation could be part of the definition, although using that as a definition for hamartia could be misleading.

It is not strictly "missing the mark," or falling short in an archery contest. But referring to it as such does help us understand that disobeying God's word is a matter of falling below God's standard of perfection.

But sin obviously is more than just falling below the standard of perfection. God certainly doesn't expect sinless perfection. He only expects us to obey His word.

Well, a-meros is negative, and that negative entails a privation by the very example you used: to not be a part of something. That has everything to do with how the word was used in antiquity. What if that 'not a part' is 'not a part of God's presence'? Why would someone who sins not be a part of God's presence? We again have a privation.

I'm not sure the word was even used as such in antiquity. Again, that is just the construction of the word. I could use a word constructed to indicate one thing and then design and use the word with a completely different more technical meaning.

For all I know, sin was used in antiquity for any flub up, whether falling down, or accidentally killing someone. It may have had little to do with God at all. But the point is, it came to have a technical definition not corresponding exactly to this idea of mistakes and accidents.

It came to mean, definitively, disobedience to God's word. We just don't know how the word developed, but we do know how the word is used biblically. It's obtained a technical definition that the Bible uses consistently for failing to adhere to God's voice in our conscience.

That's probably what has made discussion of Sin as a "contagion" difficult. It doesn't operate strictly likely physical contagions. Therefore, I refer to it as a "spiritual contagion." It is not passed on through physical DNA. Rather, it is passed down through the generations by *spiritual means.* It's above my pay grade to explain how that happens. And I suspect most scientists would have a problem with it as well?

So why not just call it a 'spiritual inheritance'?

I do call it that. Contagion helps me to understand that we're not just dirty villains--we're also victims.

I appreciate the gracious spirit you've exhibited in this disagreement/misunderstanding. Thanks for entertaining a different perspective. That's what it's all about.

Before I fly the coop here, I have a simple question (for you AND others, I suppose). Why do you consider entertaining different perspectives to be “what it’s all about”? Why would gathering a diversity of distinct subjective opinions be any kind of priority? It seriously makes no sense to me, so this is a legit information question (lest you think it’s sarcasm).

Why would anyone in any field want to entertain endless differing perspective on their field of study or expertise or other endeavor? It’s baffling to me. Though I’ve thoroughly studied other religions, I don’t want to hear any of their proponents speak on the topic. Why would I want to know someone’s opinion instead of facts and truth?

That’s my write-in to the newspaper column for the week.