Originally posted by Wulebgr
A concept is inseparable from the words used to describe it. Digging into the etymology, we find echecero's claim:

Originally posted by echecero
[b]It comes to us through Germanic roots that mean "it is so", specifically in the context of a judgment, meaning that the charges are true.

This claim differs from Shipley's:

Originally ...[text shortened]... uman concept, you concede important ground to the authors of sin: [i]Christian missionaries.[/b]

[/i]For example, the main Hebrew word translated as “sin,” chet (and its derivations: chataah, etc.) carries the connotations of failure, error, to miss the way, etc.—it is not strictly, or even primarily, “wrongdoing.”

asham and ashmah have to do with trespass, guilt, destruction. avon, carries the meanings of perverseness, guilt, suffering. pesha, carries the meanings of transgression, rebellion, apostasy. These are translated as “sin” only in 11 cases, but appear with the other translations more often.

So basically, in the original language, it depends on which word is being used, and the various shades of meaning that word carries.

Originally posted by no1marauder
This is an uninteresting observation. Since Christianity (and most religions) are saying that Man was created by God, it follows that behavior that would be detrimental to an individual man or Man in general would be disfavored by God. Surely a religion that ignored all facts about how men act wouldn't be worth anything at all. It would be more accurate ...[text shortened]... l depravity" or "Man is by nature evil" stance of the fundies, Calvinists and others though).

This is an uninteresting observation

I'm full of 'em. Stick around, I'll bore you some more.

It would be more accurate to say certain Christian dogma is consistent with the observed nature of Man

Much more precisely articulated, thank you. I suppose any fundamentalist or apologetic worth his salt could seize upon that to reinforce his arguments.

Originally posted by vistesd
So basically, in the original language, it depends on which word is being used, and the various shades of meaning that word carries.

Is there a Greek word for sin?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Is there a Greek word for sin?

I’m not as much into the Greek, but— hamartano (verb), which literally means, I think, “to miss the mark”—also connotes to err, fail, mistake, lose, trespass or offend.* Wuelbgr may be able to say whether this is true or not, but I read once that the English word “sin” was used in archery tournaments to mean anything less than a bulls-eye hit—i.e., to miss the mark.

* Langenscheidt Pocket Greek Dictionary.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Is there a Greek word for sin?

Geez, learn how to google. http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn09/conceptsin.htm

Originally posted by no1marauder
Geez, learn how to google. http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn09/conceptsin.htm

The only problem I have with that article is that it immediately moves to impose “wrongdoing” as the central meaning of the word. This is basically reading a particular moral/theological understanding into the word (even if this has become—at least in Protestantism—the predominant understanding). In my looking into Greek Orthodoxy for my debate with LH, I have found that they do not necessarily read that into it—perhaps because they have never moved away from the original Greek.

Originally posted by David C
Absolutely not. The idea of 'sin', as defined by christian dogma, is a relatively recent invention. The behaviours described are as old as our consciousness. For instance, 'Gluttony'. While it does not carry any sort of ill-conceived notion like 'damnation of the eternal soul' attached to it, it is still an undesirable behaviour that can lead to health consequences.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a world of difference between undesirable behaviors, and even the stronger censure of tabu behaviors (which often carry spiritual as well as material consequences), and the more specific concept of sin. Bad decisions, undesirable behaviors, even tabus are all universal concepts--every society has a system of ethics and wisdom. Sin is not universal, for it assumes moral guilt that is in the nature of being: "all have sinned" (Romans 3:23).

Originally posted by vistesd
I’m not as much into the Greek, but— hamartano (verb), which literally means, I think, “to miss the mark”—also connotes to err, fail, mistake, lose, trespass or offend.* Wuelbgr may be able to say whether this is true or not, but I read once that the English word “sin” was used in archery tournaments to mean anything less than a bulls-eye hit—i.e., to miss the mark.

* Langenscheidt Pocket Greek Dictionary.

Yes, the differences between the Greek term hamartano and the Germanic synn bear examination. A full delineation of the differences may well illuminate important elements in the development of Christian theology, and suggest the extent of spiritual alienation that it fosters in order to assert ecclesiastical control over life and society. I am reminded here of the provocative study of the origins and meaning of blood sacrifices in Rene Girard, Violence and the Sacred. The need for blood sacrifice to expiate wrongdoing certainly predates the Germanic notion of synn, and it exists in societies in many parts of the world--not only those areas from which monotheism emerged. Such blood sacrifices, however, do not seem universal, and they are not always connected to notions of inherent moral guilt.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
The point I'm trying to make is that there is a world of difference between undesirable behaviors, and even the stronger censure of tabu behaviors

You're absolutely right, and I don't know what the hell I'm on about. I'll just shut up now.

Originally posted by David C
You're absolutely right, and I don't know what the hell I'm on about. I'll just shut up now.

No, hold on a minute! I thought part of your point was that Christianity imposed it’s own dogmatic understanding of “sin” onto what might have been previously viewed, fairly universally, as undesirable, even destructive behaviors…. This goes to my criticism of the article that No.1 cited, as well as trying to lay out the fact that the Hebrew (and Greek) words were much broader than that particular Christian understanding. Have I got that wrong?

Don’t go away yet—I think we’re all still playing in the same ballpark: though it seems to be getting larger…

Originally posted by vistesd
The only problem I have with that article is that it immediately moves to impose “wrongdoing” as the central meaning of the word. This is basically reading a particular moral/theological understanding into the word (even if this has become—at least in Protestantism—the predominant understanding). In my looking into Greek Orthodoxy for my deb ...[text shortened]... ecessarily read that into it—perhaps because they have never moved away from the original Greek.

I offered the article only for the specific meaning of the Greek words, not for the editorial comments. I thought it basically supported the main use of the word in the NT being equivalent to "missing the mark" as you suggested.

Originally posted by David C
You're absolutely right, and I don't know what the hell I'm on about. I'll just shut up now.

Just when a real debate begins to emerge in these forums, you wanna throw in the towel. C'mon, argue with me. I'm enjoying the struggle.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I offered the article only for the specific meaning of the Greek words, not for the editorial comments. I thought it basically supported the main use of the word in the NT being equivalent to "missing the mark" as you suggested.

Understood.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Just when a real debate begins to emerge in these forums, you wanna throw in the towel. C'mon, argue with me. I'm enjoying the struggle.

I've lost momentum. As no1 pointed out, my observations were pedantic. Any further harping on my point would constitute pointless polemic. I wouldn't want to detract from the debate at hand, which appears to have developed in to an etymological discussion. I just don't have the linguistic skills to offer any insight.

I'm still right, though.... 😵

Originally posted by David C
I've lost momentum. As no1 pointed out, my observations were pedantic. Any further harping on my point would constitute pointless polemic. I wouldn't want to detract from the debate at hand, which appears to have developed in to an etymological discussion. I just don't have the linguistic skills to offer any insight.

I'm still right, though.... 😵

Of course you're right! That's why it is imperative that you defend your views.

I've tried to be clear that etymology only takes us so far--its the history of the word's introduction and use (of which etymology offers clues, but not the entire srory) that seems to me critical.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Of course you're right! That's why it is imperative that you defend your views.

I've tried to be clear that etymology only takes us so far--its the history of the word's introduction and use (of which etymology offers clues, but not the entire srory) that seems to me critical.

If you ignore the etymology, then you must look at the modern, common usage. Among Christians, "sin" is an offense to God. Among Hindus, "sin" is an action which gathers bad karma. Among others, it may bear yet other meanings. The thing that connects them all is that it indicates undesirable or immoral actions.

If you follow the etymology, you'll see that it comes to moral judgments every time.
[BTW, here's the entry from the online etymology dictionary: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sin ]