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.
SIN IN OLD TESTAMENT HEBREW:
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).
SIN IN NEW TESTAMENT GREEK:
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”…
SIN IN BUDDHISM:
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.
Join the discussion
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.”
This is good but i think sin can be classified in 2 ways..it 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.
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.
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.
The real problem is not the actual meaning of the words themselves, as much as how people in power, religious leaders or parents for example, have used the concept as a way to manipulate people so they will feel guilty and do what they are told, or give their money to a very rich organization even though they are poor.
My intention in this article and all my work is to give people a better sense of self-esteem and emotional freedom, by not living in an illusion or lie about what God is or said or what will happen to us after we die. Thank you for your comment.
I think sin in old language..is hob..
The Aramaic translation of sin to mean “missed the mark” was something I learned from a book called Just Breath by Dan Brulé. I very much appreciated this knowledge because I understood sin to mean “evil” or “bad”. I think of when I tell my children that we can learn from our mistakes, rather than “you are bad” which is more shaming (in my mind). My children understand that everyone makes mistakes, rather than “I am a bad person” which is a thought that can cause more harm. Thank you for this article and thank you for the thoughtful comments 🙂
I think the best lesson for kids is the obvious, if you want to believe in religion and God, then you can honestly say that no one is perfect except God. Therefore any mistake is understandable and we just have to try harder. How could you feel guilty for making a mistake when you are not God? It’s obvious that this is to be expected, both for the kids themselves and for them to accept the mistakes of their parents. If you make a mistake, and you feel you really are a terrible sinner for example, they you are also in a way stating or imagining that you are God because you should not make any mistakes, and since that is obviously foolish to think, then take another arrow and shoot again.