The Factual Definition Of The Word SIN From the Original Bible

This article is about the incorrect interpretation of the word and concept of ‘sin’ in the Bible. Here is its original definition. This research was done by my brother Michael, a truly great scholar and infinite source of accurate information as he has learnt many of the ancient languages, last count at 12. Michael has studied ancient texts in their original languages and I believe that the information he provides is the most objective and accurate available.

The Old Testament, i.e., the Hebrew Bible, was written 98% Hebrew and 2% Aramaic (a Semitic language related to Hebrew, like Arabic).

New Testament, the Christian Bible, was originally written in Greek, though Jesus did NOT speak Greek, only Aramaic and Hebrew. The New Testament was written for mass dissemination, and that particular dialect of Greek (Koine) was common in the Eastern Roman Empire in which early Christians were active missionaries.


We’ll stick to the Hebrew, which is the main language here. There are about a dozen different terms for sin. I can’t cover them all, but should caution you that there are subtle nuances that should not be overlooked. But the most common term is “chata.”
“Ch” Pronounced like when clearing your throat.

Philologists understand the literal meaning of this term to be: “missing the right point” (Theological Dictionary, vol. 1, p. 271).


Ancient Hebrew has sophisticated terminology when it comes to this subject, the root CHATAH being just one of many forms. Greek is a bit less discriminating. The common translation for CHATAH in the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, called The Septuagint, is the family: AMARTIA, AMARTANO, ETC… which also has the meaning of “not to hit” or “to miss.” Suffice it to say that there too, it can mean “intellectual shortcoming,” and so the Sophos (wise man) is contrasted with the Amartanon (“one who is in error” — and not “one who is in sin.”)

Thus, the Christian writers of the New Testament, could merge both the Hebrew and pagan Greek understanding of CHATAH – AMARTANO in the sense of “missing the mark”…


Contrary to the Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions, sin simply does not exist in Buddhism. In these sorts of situations, Buddha used the simple words, “Missed the mark”.

Such is the world. We can sin and feel miserable and give up on how terrible we are, destined to burn in hell with guilt for our sins, or we can just try a bit harder to do things correctly next time without guilt or fear or hopelessness.

I would like to add that we can and should live without guilt, but we should regret our actions, with the determination to not repeat them again. Only this way can a person live freely without negative emotions weighing them down and thus have the energy and hope to become a better person tomorrow as they review and regret the wrong actions of today.

, , ,

5 Responses to The Factual Definition Of The Word SIN From the Original Bible

  1. Preston April 19, 2013 at 6:11 am #

    I also like this because it changes the idea of sin from something that is embodied to something that is acted out. “To be sinful” makes less sense, rather it is to “commit a sin.”

  2. omotayo green muyiwa June 15, 2013 at 10:36 am #

    This is good but i think sin can be classified in 2 can be described as NATURE because it originated from the devil which makes mankind condescend from the life God has given to man.Consequent to this,death and diseases set in,and man became infirmed,tainted by sin.Then it can be described as an ACT ,which connotes that humanity lacks the affinity to do something right.So sin is not only a nature (of the devil) but also an act.

    • David Samuel June 16, 2013 at 12:20 am #

      Indeed, we could say ‘sin’ is an act, but I do not think we can define acts as sins. Rather it is our view of it that makes it a sin, at least for some people. Now we are broaching the concept of guilt. If one person does something and feels it a sin, yet another does the same thing and feels it normal, then one has guilt and the other does not. Hence, who defines what a sin is. This applies to the life we live. If we take the view of an afterlife judged by God, then it takes a whole different meaning of course. Unfortunately since we cannot prove God to everyone, we must view the concept of sin from the personal point of view and see it as that which causes guilt or not. This is where our personal morals become God’s voice as that is where guilt starts. So given the existence of God or not, either way, sin is a concept which helps us live according to what we feel is correct and thus is a method of improving our character and self. In the end of all this, it still comes down to saying that a sin is something you have done wrong in your own opinion of yourself and that the only thing you can do is try to do it differently next time, shoot again, try again, tomorrow is another day to be a better person. Thank you for commenting.

  3. Reen November 22, 2013 at 12:15 am #

    To “miss the mark” is a little vague… probably there looses something in the translation relative to culture. However when I compare it to my working definition it is close. My understanding is that sin is anything that causes us to turn away from God. It doesn’t even have to be something “bad” by the worlds definition. Making anything more important than God can be sinful, indeed idolatry. The original word religare, from which we get religion, I understand means ‘to bind back’. So original sin, our nature, is to have turned away… religion is man’s institution in hope of bringing us back. Biblically however a religion is not needed… just you and God, and His Word.

  4. Gabriel David Gomez September 15, 2016 at 10:01 pm #

    Obviously inflicting shame is only useful as a wake up call and not for the sake of negativity and especially if the person only derails more as a result.

    One should NOT regret the result of their failed actions but regret the intention they had. There has never existed an impossible action. Therefore you should regret (which should be followed by change) a bad intention.

    The definition of insanity (widely known as, “To do the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.”) is better stated as, “To commit a logical action while intending to cause a result which is not logically the result of that action, though the intended result may be logical if such a result were logically the result of another action.”

    How can illogical intentions exist? Much the same as how imaginations form unicorns; by extracting details from the known existence and rearranging them in a different manner. A horn, horses body, rainbow, etc. can be combined to form a unicorn. In the same way, an illogical intention is formed by knowing the cause and knowing a result but mixing the two different causes and results or even copying and pasting enough so that one can intend to do the impossible.

    That, if you can accept, is why something like Satan can exist and yet the natural things deemed “good” (which is translated better as “functional” rather than “good”) by God are not bad. If you mix something that works up in the right way, the result may be something “dysfunctional” (which is “evil”). That is why homosexuality is bad and why murder is bad but not the punishment for murders stated in the Bible.

    Murder is bad because there is no fruitfulness or result of expansion.
    If you kill a murderer, however, you reduce the deeds of illogical intention and the flow of the universe is less persecuted.

    The original definition of sin means a lurch or reel (or to lose one’s balance and stagger or lurch violently).
    That is because one who intends to cause an illogical result is taken by surprise and stumbles as a result of the logical result. Just like a foundation, if you build with sin the result is a fall because such fails according to nature. if you build with wisdom, the result is a firm standing structure because such is “functional”.

Leave a Reply