There are a number of verses misused to teach a doctrine of "Original Sin". By that we mean an inherited wickedness which renders us either already guilty prior to having personally sinned, or, a view that “sin” is an inherited genetic trait specifically passed down from our fathers. Now, it is not denied that mankind inherits flesh..which is inherently weak and subject to lust and subsequent sin. Also man inherits a world full of temptations, and a propensity to do that which is wrong. Similarly, we are given a will…which (by definition) means that we inherit a desire or drive to do that which pleases US, and not necessarily what pleases another (namely God). But that does not mean that sin itself is a genetically passed trait which renders all infants inherently guilty or in need of salvation. Sin is the transgression of God's Law. The Scripture defines it this way precisely: 1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. It is not a gene. It is not a physical defect. It is a willful disobedience to revealed Law. It is something one DOES, not something one IS. "Original Sin" as believed to be an inherited defect has no foundation in Scripture. And some verses misused to teach that falsehood are exposed here. Here are a few of them recently cited and an explanation of how they either 1.) Simply do no such thing 2.) Often teach exactly the opposite: The one most commonly cited is probably Ps. 51:5 A.) Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. However, does this teach that sin is an inherited genetic defect? Well, provided those who use this verse in this way are willing to teach that that same physical defect can be physically removed by scrubbing it away with a hyssop plant, then they will be being consistent in their hermeneutic. Here are some other statements which taken as definitive facts about how sin operates which MUST ALSO be believed if they want to use vs. 5 this way: Psa 51:7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Do adherents of Original Sin claim that I can be cleaned with a particular plant? If not, then you aren’t being consistent with your interpretation of this passage. Psa 51:8 Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice. Did God physically break David’s bones? If that is not your claim, then you are picking and choosing how you interpret this obviously poetic literature and making one clause to be a pseudo-scientific/ physical claim, and relegating the parts you don’t like to mere poetry…. That’s not how to interpret the work. B.) Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. Interestingly, this passage directly contradicts the notion of Original Sin. It tells us that our nature has been defined and is the way it is because of what we have DONE…not because of how we are Born. See the qualifying clause: “accustomed to do” Obviously, a man’s skin is as it is because of genes, as is a leopard’s spots. But our propensity to do evil as a matter of our nature exists not because of genes…but because of what we are ACCUSTOMED TO DOING. This verse is telling us, that those who have become accustomed to sinning have so ordered and defiled themselves such that it has BECOME natural to do evil….just as it is natural at birth for a leopard to have spots. C.) Eph 2:1-3 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins, We are dead because of our sins… Wherein in time past ye walked Notice that sin and our death in sin is because of how we have WALKED….it is something we have done, not a treatise on how we are genetically born. according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation Our “Course” is a direction we have chosen to take. Our “conversation” is a description of how we have acted, neither is an inherited trait. in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. Why were we “by nature” the children of wrath?.....because of what we have DONE, because we Fulfilled the lust of the flesh (which we do inherit) how we have WALKED, our COURSE and because of our CONVERSATION, all action verbs describing things we do, not a state of being. D.) John 3: 3-5 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. This one is interesting….presumably, it is being brought up because it has been already assumed that we have sin in our genes and are therefore in need of being “born again”. While this is consistent with the notion of Original Sin (actually most verses used are)…it certainly doesn’t ESTABLISH it. If a view of Original Sin as commonly taught is ASSUMED then this verse appears to re-enforce it. However, it is a leap in logic to say it teaches it. All flesh has corrupted it’s way upon the Earth, and Christ’s Kingdom is Spiritual. Therefore, the corrupted flesh is insufficient to be with God, and God who is Spirit insists that man be born “again” of the Spirit. However, does being born of the Spirit somehow UNDO the birth of water or flesh? If not, then Original Sin still remains, and man would still not be able to be with God. Is “Original Sin” completely REMOVED at the point of re-birth? If not, then whatever the purpose of re-birth is, it isn’t strictly to remove a physical trait. If being born again removes that Original Sin, than those who teach the second-blessing are correct…..there is no reason why men, now no longer tainted with it, need sin, and should be perfect. Why, after all, is the so-called “old nature” still with us? Because it is a matter of habit, not genes. Because it is a matter of possessing weak flesh (an inherited trait) Because we still have a “Will” and a “will” is by definition something which seeks the desires of it’s possessor and not another. It is at minimum a stretch to assume Original Sin simply from these verses. E.) Jer 17:9,10 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. This one would be simply laughable, if not so tragic: Presumably, the strength of it is that it mentions one’s heart, which is something which (at least physically) exists at birth. But it BLATANTLY refuses to allow the preceding verses (7and8) to place it within it’s proper context: Jer 17:7-8 Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is. For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit. Here, a man who has done that which is good, becomes a certain SORT of tree….namely, one which bears GOOD fruit. Notice the actions described. In verse 9 and 10: according to his ways according to the fruit of his doings. Compare them to the presumptively GOOD trees which bear GOOD fruit in the preceding verses, which are ignored: the man that trusteth in the LORD…. For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters…. neither shall cease from yielding fruit. Yes, a man is known by the fruit of his doings….and a man who trusts in the Lord bears GOOD fruit. How, then is this verse claiming that Adam’s Ribonucleic Acid imparts a sin defect at birth? The passage is straightforward, simple, and it not only DOESN’T teach Original Sin…..it specifically denies the doctrine. F.) Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. By now, it should be clear that sin is a description of people’s Goings, ways, doings, actions, choices etc… This verse, like some previous one’s reinforces that sin is not a genetic defect…but a description of actions. It speaks directly Against the notion of Original Sin as often believed here is what it says of sin: we all do fade as a leaf our iniquities…… have taken us away Original Sin, as commonly taught is not Scriptural. It is a fact that because of Adam, like Adam, because we are mankind, we have inherited flesh, a propensity to sin, weakness against temptation etc…and like Adam, we all do fade as a leaf. Like Adam we all like sheep do “GO ASTRAY”. Adam’s sin brought physical death, corruption and sickness into the world. We all like our fathers have a will and bent to do that which is evil. But, sin is not a genetic defect; children are not born guilty of having committed it. It is a conscious choice all men make when they know the law, and choose of their own free will (which we also inherit) to do that which is right in our own eyes.