"In sin my mother conceived me"

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Helen, Mar 17, 2006.

  1. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    This line is from David in Psalm 51. If you trace David's genealogy, there is evidence that this is a purely personal statement and not a statement universal to mankind.

    First of all, the marriage bed is holy. Therefore children conceived within a marriage are NOT conceived in sin.

    If a person cross references 1 Chronicles 2:15-17, 2 Chronicles 11:18-20, and 2 Samuel 17:25 -- and I suggest using the King James or, more particularly, the New King James, as that is, in this case, most faithful to the original, you will find that David's mother was not Nahash, the mother of Jesse's other children, but, rather was Abihail, the daughter of David's oldest brother, Eliab. In other words, David's father evidently had relations with his own granddaughter and the result was David.

    This explains why he was so much younger than the others. It also explains why he was not really considered part of the family unit (when Samuel went to anoint the new kind, David was out with the sheep and not considered one of the true brothers).

    David WAS conceived in sin.

    This does not mean everyone is, and Calvinists should not use this verse as a 'proof text.'
     
  2. Calvibaptist

    Calvibaptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    But the first line of Psalm 51:5 says, "I was born in sin." Does this mean that the sin of adultery carried on to his birth? No, it means that he was born in the state of sin.

    Besides, Psalm 51 is not a recounting of David's family history. It is a detailing of his lament over his own sin. He is weeping over his sin and is saying he was a sinner from birth. What sense would it make for him to be weeping and repenting over his sin and in the middle of it say, "By the way, my mother was an adulterer?"
     
  3. Petrel

    Petrel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not getting that. To me it looks more like rampant re-use of names in these families. From the NASB compiling all this together I get:

    Abigail daughter of Jesse, who married Jether the Ishmaelite and had a son named Amasa

    Abigail daughter of Eliab who married Jerimoth and had a daughter named Mahalath

    Abigail daughter of Nahash, daughter of Jesse, who married Ithra the Israelite and had a son named Amasa

    So I'm guessing that Nahash is Abigail, Jesse's daughter, by another name. Abigail had a daughter (father unknown) named Abigail, who had a son whom she named Amasa after his uncle (Jether's son Amasa). Meanwhile Abigail's brother Eliab also had a daughter named Abigail after his sister, and his daughter Abigail married her cousin Jerimoth, David's son.

    I just re-read the NKJV and it doesn't seem to contradict. I'm not seeing David's mother come up anywhere here. What am I missing??
     
  4. Petrel

    Petrel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think I see something--the II Sam. one may mean Abigail, daughter of Nahash and sister of Zuriah. But that just reconciles Amasa's identity (one person, Jesse's grandson), but messes things up because Abigail couldn't have been married to both Jether the Ishmaelite and Ithra the Israelite. . . If it were just the name I'd think they might be the same person, but the nationality is wrong.

    Plus I'm looking up Nahash and it seems in general a man's name. [​IMG]
     
  5. Brother James

    Brother James
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    0
    She made you look! :D
     
  6. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    We spent a couple of hours tracking this stuff this morning. I ended up with a piece of graph paper marking the generations and names. David was apparently the product of an incestuous relationship.

    The actual first part of Psalm 51:5 reads, in the Alexandrian LXX "for behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me."

    It is not about being born sinful, but about the circumstances of his conception.
     
  7. npetreley

    npetreley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    No need to look for loopholes, Helen. Just use the new "FGT" (Feel Good Translation) of the Bible:

    Romans

    “There is none righteous, no, not one, except babies; There is none who understands except babies; There is none except babies who seeks after God."

    Ecclesiastes

    For there is not a just man on earth who does good And does not sin. But babies aren't men, so they don't count.

    Galatians

    But the Scripture has confined all except babies under sin
     
  8. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm dealing with the meaning of David in Psalm 51, all your mockery aside.
     
  9. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    Well it could be hyperbole as David describing the reach of sin in his life extends it to his very conception. Hyperbole or not, it can be understood in the ways described in this string. "In sin" could be a reference to original sin, his mother, as all mothers are, existing in a state of sin as children of Adam are. Now whether David's mother was regenerate or not, and does that state of sin perpetuate into her regenerate life, might be questions for another day.
     
  10. Calvibaptist

    Calvibaptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Hebrew word in the first phrase is holalti, which means "to be born." It most definitely is referring to his birth and not just whether his mother was a harlot or not.
     
  11. Me4Him

    Me4Him
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,214
    Likes Received:
    0
    Before Adam/Eve sinned, they were kept alive by "God's SPIRIT", not "BLOOD", after sin Blood became the medium which sustained the life of the "FLESH".

    Scripture says, without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, if we sow to the spirit, (expect spirit keep us alive) we reap "eternal life", sow to the flesh, death.

    Jesus shed all his blood on the cross, when he was "resurrected", he was kept alive by "SPIRIT", not Blood".

    Flesh and blood can't inherit heaven, however flesh and bone can, as Jesus said "touch me" for a spirit doesn't have flesh and bone as me, no mention of Blood.


    When we are resurrected, we'll be "like Jesus", no blood, but kept alive by "SPIRIT" as Adam/Eve were prior to the fall.

    We're born into a body of flesh sustained by "BLOOD", that the "SIN" we're born into, but the "SOUL" isn't charged with sin until the "age of accountability", knowing good/evil, with the knowledge of the law and knowingly violating it, sin is "revived", that's what Paul meant.

    Ro 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

    Jesus came to "RESTORE" the "WHOLE WORLD" back to the state of Adam/Eve before their fall, kept alive by "Spirit", he didn't come to condemn Adam/Eve, who by "rights" should receive the "greater condemnation", or anyone since, Satan stole man's soul, but Jesus made it "possible" to "REDEEM" every soul lost, on the one condition, "IF" they believed.

    We have a "saved soul" in a "body of death" (sin) and so does an innocent Baby, but few seem to understand the differences.

    Ro 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver "ME" (saved soul) from the "body of this death"? (Flesh)
     
  12. Calvibaptist

    Calvibaptist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scriptural support for this?

    What does the shedding of blood have to do with us sowing to the spirit or to the flesh?

    Are you sure that every single drop of blood was shed? Not one drop was left in Him? You are making a ridiculous statement that has no point.

    The point of "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven" has nothing to do with the point you are trying to make about blood. Did you notice that one of the things Paul said could not inherit the kingdom of heaven was flesh? His point was that the body has to be changed. He was not trying to make whatever point you are trying to make about blood.

    Pure conjecture and assumption about blood.

    Scriptural support for this?

    And yet Paul had clearly said that sin was in the world before the law. Do you think Paul forgot that he wrote Romans 5 by the time he got to Romans 7?

    Did Jesus fail in His mission? If His mission is to restore the whole world back to the state of Adam and Eve before the fall, then He most certainly did fail. Maybe that was not His mission...

    I really don't have a problem with this statement, except for your incessant misuse of quotation marks. Jesus' first advent did not involve judgment and condemnation. Although, if you read Luke 12:49, it is obvious that he wanted to. His second coming will involve judgment.

     
  13. Me4Him

    Me4Him
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,214
    Likes Received:
    0
    CalviBaptist

    You don't understand the above, yet certain Calvin is right??????


    That's as likely as a "first grader" teaching a "Physic's major" calculus to obtain his PHD. :eek: :eek: :D :D

    In "Redneck" terms, you don't know what you're talking about. [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  14. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    The Alexandrian LXX was translated by Jewish scholars several hundred years before Christ. They considered Psalm 51 to be 'conceived' and the genealogy indicated that David was the product of an incestuous relationship between his father and his oldest brother's daughter.

    No child who is conceived in the holy marriage bed is conceived 'in sin.' In fact, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:14 that if even one of the marriage partners is a believer, then the child is holy and not unclean.

    This is said by me simply to indicate that a child can be considered holy. David said he was conceived in sin -- that means, very bluntly, that he was the result of sex outside of marriage. This is the way the ancient Jews saw his lineage and the meaning of this passage and I'm not sure we are in any position to dispute it with our 'current' and revised understandings.

    So my point is, again, that this passage is not a good one to use for Calvinists in trying to substantiate their theology.
     
  15. Me4Him

    Me4Him
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,214
    Likes Received:
    0
    God is a "SPIRIT" and the spirit that gave birth to Jesus was "God's Spirit",

    And like Jesus, we need a "birth", conceived by the spirit which enables us to "crucify the old man",(shed his blood) and have life by the "Spirit", not blood.

    Sowing to the spirit, means we serve the spirit and the spirit will serve us, give life, and like Jesus, we will "SHINE" like the SUN, from the light of that spirit inside.

    Mt 13:43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.

    Mt 17:2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

    Mt 5:16 Let your light so shine before men,

    BTW, Adam/Eve shined that way before they sinned.
     
  16. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Is that implying that a child born to two unsaved parents is unholy? That does go with the concept that children born to believers are secure, which I've heard taught.

    Anyhow, it seems as if this verse takes the air out of the idea that all children are born without guilt, if they are considered unholy if neither of their parents are born. :confused:

    1 Cor. 7:14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

    There has to be an explanation.
     
  17. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Good point and question, Gina. Barry and I just chased down the words used there through a few Concordances to find out -- because that is a question that needs answering. The word for 'unclean' there is a derivation of the word "kathairo", which means, specifically, to prune. The root of that is uncertain and because the meaning also includes cleansed, the negative derivation which is the word used in the verse we are talking about has been translated as 'unclean.' But if we go back to the original idea of 'prune,' then it would mean 'unpruned' which means that the child without at least one believing parent is therefore not 'pruned' or trained correctly.

    In this way, then, my reference to the 'holy' part would have also been a wrong use. Because if we are on the right track with 'unpruned' or 'untrained', then the concept of 'holy' when used for a child with at least one believing parent would have to do with the idea of being trained up in a biblical manner.

    Thanks for the Bible study your question started!
     
  18. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    NP, if I'd known I'd have come over instead of watching Jesse from Full House do his Elvis impersonations. LOL

    Ok, next question. What is the definition of sanctified there?

    And...next comment. The verses preceding 14 are concerns for the children in a marriage where one partner is saved and the other is not. Obviously there was a concern for the children, but being "pruned" doesn't make sense. It does as far as the saved person being reassured that the child will still learn the scriptures from just one saved parent, but the verse is saying that because the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing one, the children will be holy.

    1 Cor. 7:14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children untrained; but now are they trained.

    The first and second part aren't making sense. Why would an unbeliever being sanctified result in the children being trained?
     
  19. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    It's the influence in the house. One believing partner exerts an influence on the other, on the marriage, on the children.
     
  20. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think I misworded that.

    Let me try again.

    The verse seems to imply that the children will be holy because the unbelieving spouse is sanctified because of the believer.

    When you substitute the word trained it means...

    The children will be trained because the unbelieving spouse was sanctified because of the believer.

    I understand there is influence. That's clear.

    I'm not getting the relationship between sanctification of unbeliever and holiness of child.

    I'll read it again in the morning, maybe I need some sleep first.
     

Share This Page

Loading...