What Is Original Sin?

What Is Original Sin?

By Psychologist & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim

Most of us think that we are good people. We haven’t harmed anyone. We’re not that bad. So, what kind of sins do we have to confess? In fact, sometimes we can’t even think of any. Yet 1 John 1.8-10 (KJV) reads:

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive

ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we

confess our sins, he is faithful and just to

forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from

all unrighteousness. If we say that we have

not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word

is not in us.

——-

Original Sin

Original sin is the Christian doctrine that human beings inherit a sin nature at birth, with some Protestant theologians even arguing for total depravity, namely, that we’re in such a state of rebellion against God that we’re not even able to follow him, by ourselves, without his effectual grace. Other Christian theologians, such as Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 AD), totally dismissed the thought of original sin by giving it a more allegorical interpretation.

Unlike Christianity, both Judaism and Islam hold a more positive view of human nature. They assert that human beings have an equal capacity for both good and evil, and that they don’t inherit another person’s sin at birth. They also claim that although humans might be culturally conditioned to sin by decadent societies, nevertheless they’re not born that way. To back that up, the Jews often quote the Torah (Deut. 24.16), which states:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the

children, neither shall the children be put to

death for the fathers: every man shall be

put to death for his own sin.

To drive the point home, they usually cite Ezekiel 18.20:

The son shall not bear the iniquity of the

father, neither shall the father bear the

iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the

righteous shall be upon him, and the

wickedness of the wicked shall be upon

him.

But these passages are only referring to actual sins, namely, to behavioral sins that each individual is personally responsible for. These verses, however, are not addressing *collective sin* that resides in human nature.

——-

The Collective Unconscious

Carl Jung (1875 - 1961), the famous Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, defined the concept we now know as the “collective unconscious.” This phrase refers to the deepest layer of the unconscious mind which, according to Jung, is genetically inherited and is therefore not part of individual history or personal experience. In other words, it’s not part of the personal unconscious.

Jung held that each person retains these innate unconscious impressions of humanity as a collective knowledge of our species. They’re in our genes, so to speak. But, here, also lurk all the dark, animal instincts of man, as well as the archetypes. One such archetype is called the “shadow,” an unconscious aspect of the personality that the conscious self doesn’t recognize or identify with. It represents a large portion of the *dark side* that is completely foreign and unknown to the ego. These collectively-inherited unconscious archetypes are universally present in every human being.

Over the years, many artistic works, like Star Wars, have addressed themselves to the dark side of human nature, from Pink Floyd's album Dark Side of the Moon, to horror movies like American Psycho and Hannibal Lecter, to the constant violence that no current Action film seems to be without. Life imitating art would be when we witness the exact same things happening in real life while turning on the 6 o’clock news. We customarily disassociate ourselves from this aspect of human nature. We can never imagine that this state of mind resides within all of us. We always point fingers at someone else. In our eyes, we are saints. We’re like the Pharisee in Luke 18.11:

The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with

himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as

other men are, extortioners, unjust,

adulterers, or even as this publican.

But, according to Jesus, we are all a bunch of hypocrites. In Matthew 15.18-19, Jesus implies that the dark side is hidden in the unconscious. It’s not simply a conscious thought, a spoken word, or an action that is the cause of one’s sinful behavior but rather a deep state of being (aka “the heart”) out of which proceeds all manner of evil:

But those things which proceed out of the

mouth come forth from the heart; and they

defile the man. For out of the heart proceed

evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,

fornications, thefts, false witness,

blasphemies.

That’s why Jeremiah 17.9 declares:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and

desperately wicked: who can know it?

No wonder Paul says that the unregenerate are still carnal (Rom. 8.8):

they that are in the flesh cannot

please God.

As theologian Timothy Keller asserts:

The church is not a museum for pristine

saints, but a hospital ward for broken

sinners.

If one fails to understand Jung’s concept of the “collective unconscious,” or the dark side of human nature, one will ultimately misunderstand the Biblical doctrine of original sin.

——-

Why Does Jesus Have to Die for Humanity?

Jesus doesn’t have to suffer greatly and die on a tree simply on account of sins that were committed in the past, or to justify repentant sinners because of their current or future sins. No! Jesus dies to redeem *human nature* from original sin. He dies for humanity’s collective sin (past, present, and future). And he also redeems humanity, in himself, by dying to sin. In other words, Jesus dies to the sinful state of being, if you will, in order to free human nature from the bondage of death and decay. Not only does Jesus justify sinners by dying to sin, but because he is God, he also transforms human nature itself. In the resurrection, Christ’s human nature that rises from the grave is no longer sin-tainted, but glorious!

Otherwise, if everyone sinned voluntarily, and human beings were not tainted by original sin, then there wouldn’t be any reason for God’s Son to die for mankind. In that case, sin would be an individual or personal responsibility, not a collective one. And humanity would not need a savior because there would be neither a collective cause nor a cure for crime, violence, and murder. These people would simply be classified as criminal offenders who, unlike others, consciously “chose” to behave that way.

However, that’s not what Paul says in Romans 5.18–19:

Therefore as by the offence of one [Adam]

judgment came upon all men to

condemnation; even so by the

righteousness of one [Christ] the free gift

came upon all men unto justification of life.

For as by one man's disobedience many

were made sinners, so by the obedience of

one shall many be made righteous.

In fact, Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 15.21-22:

For since by man came death, by man

came also the resurrection of the dead. For

as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all

be made alive.

Conclusion

Because the concept of the unconscious had not yet been discovered in Antiquity or the Dark Ages, the existence of the collective unconscious was not known, let alone addressed by either Judaism or Islam. Their criticism of original sin is quite unsophisticated and is presented exclusively from the point of view of the conscious mind. They neither comprehend the totality of the personality nor do they consider unconscious motivation. Therefore, to deny or ignore the overwhelming influence of the dark side of man (aka sin nature) is equivalent to a naïveté: a lack of experience, sophistication, and wisdom! This lack of skillful treatment is either due to innocence or deep repression.

That’s precisely why many people don’t know what sin is. And, consequently, they keep sinning. They can’t even understand why Jesus has to die for them. They often ask, what’s the big fuss about “original sin”? Read Jonathan Edwards’ sermon, “The heart of man is exceedingly deceitful.”

What do you think is the meaning behind Robert Louis Stevenson’s book, “The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde”? It presents the duality within man. This work is emphasizing the dark side of human nature that is hidden underneath our socially-acceptable “Dr. Jekyll” persona. But in the unconscious lurks another personality, Mr. Hyde, who represents evil that’s waiting in the wings. The depth of human cruelty is also represented in “Heart of darkness,” by Joseph Conrad. It’s the same idea in Bram Stoker's “Dracula.” All these classic works of art act like mirrors in trying to show us blind spots that we don’t usually see in ourselves and end up projecting onto others. And this darkness that proceeds from man’s collective unconscious is what Christian theologians have coined “original sin.” Louis Berkhof, in his “Systematic Theology,” pt. 2, ch. 4, writes:

actual sin in the life of man is generally

admitted. This does not mean, however,

that people have always had an equally

profound consciousness of sin. We hear a

great deal nowadays about the ‘loss of the

sense of sin.’

Therefore, the psychological and spiritual goal is to give up one's naivete and to expand one's consciousness so as to embrace and integrate all aspects of one’s personality and human nature. That’s what psychoanalysts mean when they say, “making the unconscious conscious.” It is here that rebirth in Christ becomes possible. That’s why wisdom teachers typically say that we need to see existence as it really is. What you need to do, in the words of the Dalai Lama (which represent the title of his book), is to figure out “How to see yourself as you really are.” It is then, and only then, when you will finally realize that sin is not simply an isolated behavior, but rather a state of being——deeply rooted in the “carnal mind” (cf. Rom. 6.6)——that needs to be transformed by the Holy Spirit. And that *existential experience* in and of itself constitutes not only a prelude to “rebirth,” but also the hope of salvation in Jesus Christ!

——-

For more info on this topic, see my essay, “BIBLICAL SIN: NOT AS BEHAVIOR BUT AS ULTIMATE TRANSGRESSION”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/184880965717/i-think-the-greek-phrase-%CF%87%CF%89%CF%81%E1%BD%B6%CF%82-%E1%BC%81%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82-ie

Eli of Kittim

BIBLICAL SIN: NOT AS BEHAVIOR BUT AS ULTIMATE TRANSGRESSION

I think the Greek phrase χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας (i.e. “without sin”) in reference to Jesus in Hebrews 4.15 has been greatly misunderstood. If in thi

A Critique of Form Criticism

By Bible Researcher & Award-Winning Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 🎓

What is Form Criticism?

Form criticism is a discipline of Bible studies that views the Bible as an anthology of conventional stories that were originally transmitted orally and later codified in writing. Therefore, form criticism tries to identify scriptural literary patterns and trace them back to their particular oral tradition. Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932), a German Old Testament Bible scholar, was the founder of form criticism. He was also one of the leading proponents of the “history of religions school,” which employed the methods of historical criticism. While the methods used in *comparative religion* studies were certainly important, these liberal theologians nevertheless began their formal inquiry with the theoretical presupposition that Christianity was equal to all other religions and they, therefore, rejected its claims to absolute truth. However, this underlying presumption involves circular thinking and confirmation bias, which is the habit of interpreting new evidence as confirmation of one's preexisting beliefs or theories. Despite the usefulness of the approach, form criticism involves a great deal of speculation and conjecture, not to mention blatant unbelief. One of its biggest proponents in the twentieth century was German scholar Rudolf Bultmann (1884—1976). Similar to other form-critics who had a bias against supernaturalism, he too believed that the Bible needed to be “demythologized,” that is, divested of its miraculous narratives and mythical elements.

Form criticism is valuable in identifying a text's genre or conventional literary form, such as narrative, poetry, wisdom, or prophecy. It further seeks to find the “Sitz im Leben,” namely, the context in which a text was created, as well as its function and purpose at that time. Recently, form criticism's insistence on oral tradition has gradually lost support in Old Testament studies, even though it’s still widely used in New Testament studies.

Oral Tradition Versus Biblical Inspiration

Advocates of form criticism have suggested that the Evangelists drew upon oral traditions when they composed the New Testament gospels. Thus, form criticism presupposes the existence of earlier oral traditions that influenced later literary writings. Generally speaking, the importance of historical continuity in the way traditions from the past influenced later generations is certainly applicable to literary studies. But in the case of the New Testament, searching for a preexisting oral tradition would obviously contradict its claim of biblical inspiration, namely, that “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3.16). It would further imply that the evangelists——as well as the epistolary authors, including Paul——were not inspired. Rather, they were simply informed by earlier oral traditions. But this hypothesis would directly contradict an authentic Pauline epistle which claims direct inspiration from God rather than historical continuity or an accumulation of preexisting oral sources. Paul writes in Galatians 1.11-12 (NRSV):

For I want you to know, brothers and sisters,

that the gospel that was proclaimed by me

is not of human origin; for I did not receive it

from a human source, nor was I taught it,

but I received it through a revelation of

Jesus Christ.

Moreover, the gospels were written in Greek. The writers are almost certainly non-Jews who are copying and quoting extensively from the Greek Old Testament, not the Jewish Bible, in order to confirm their revelations. They obviously don’t seem to have a command of the Hebrew language, otherwise they would have written their gospels in Hebrew. And all of them are writing from outside Palestine.

By contrast, the presuppositions of Bible scholarship do not square well with the available evidence. Scholars contend that the oral traditions or the first stories about Jesus began to circulate shortly after his purported death, and that these oral traditions were obviously in Aramaic. But here’s the question. If a real historical figure named Jesus existed in a particular geographical location, which has its own unique language and culture, how did the story about him suddenly get transformed and disseminated in an entirely different language within less than 20 years after his purported death? Furthermore, who are these sophisticated Greek writers who own the rights to the story, as it were, and who pop out of nowhere, circulating the story as if it’s their own, and what is their particular relationship to this Aramaic community? Where did they come from? And what happened to the Aramaic community and their oral traditions? It suddenly disappeared? It sounds like a non sequitur! Given these inconsistencies, why should we even accept that there were Aramaic oral traditions? Given that none of the books of the New Testament were ever written in Palestine, it seems well-nigh impossible that the Aramaic community ever existed.

Besides, if Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews who studied at the feet of Gamaliel, surely we would expect him to be steeped in the Hebrew language. Yet, even Paul is writing in sophisticated Greek and is trying to confirm his revelations by quoting extensively not from the Hebrew Bible (which we would expect) but from the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. Now that doesn’t make any sense at all! Since Paul’s community represents the earliest Christian community that we know of, and since his letters are the earliest known writings about Jesus, we can safely say that the earliest dissemination of the Jesus story comes not from Aramaic oral traditions but from Greek literary sources!

Conclusion

It doesn’t really matter how many sayings of Jesus Paul, or anyone else, reiterates because it’s irrelevant in proving the impact of oral tradition. The point is that all the sayings of Jesus may have come by way of revelation (cf. Gal. 1.11-12; 2 Tim. 3.16)!

And why are the earliest New Testament writings in Greek? That certainly would challenge the Aramaic hypothesis. How did the Aramaic oral tradition suddenly become a Greek literary tradition within less than 20 years after Jesus’ supposed death? That kind of thing just doesn’t happen over night. It’s inexplicable, to say the least.

Moreover, who are these Greek authors who took over the story from the earliest days? And what happened to the alleged Aramaic community? Did it suddenly vanish, leaving no traces behind? It might be akin to the Johannine community that never existed, according to Dr. Hugo Mendez. It therefore sounds like a conspiracy of sorts.

And why aren’t Paul’s letters in Aramaic or Hebrew? By the way, these are the earliest writings on Christianity that we have. They’re written roughly two decades or less after Christ’s alleged death. Which Aramaic oral sources are the Pauline epistles based on? And if so, why the need to quote the Greek Septuagint in order to demonstrate the fulfillment of New Testament Scripture? And why does Paul record his letters in Greek? The Aramaic hypothesis just doesn’t hold up. Nor do the so-called “oral traditions.”

—

Is Free Grace Theology Biblical?

By Award-Winning Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim

Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ,

he is none of his.

(Romans 8.9 KJV)

——-

Sola fide

Sola fide (meaning “faith alone”) is a theological doctrine which holds that believers are justified by faith alone. Originally, the purpose of this doctrine was to distinguish the Protestants from the Catholic & Orthodox Churches that relied on sacraments (such as the Sacrament of Penance, aka Confession) and “works” for salvation. By contrast, Sola fide maintained that it is on the basis of faith alone that believers are justified (pardoned) and saved.

However, the original doctrine of Sola fide (faith alone) didn’t mean to imply that nothing happened to the believer existentially, psychologically, or supernaturally *after* they were saved. On the contrary, many reformers emphatically stressed that *regeneration* should produce verifiable evidence of the spiritual life. As 2 Pet. 1.10 warns (cf. 2 Cor. 13.5), make sure your faith is real:

Wherefore the rather, brethren, give

diligence to make your calling and election

sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never

fall.

The evidence of conversion is a believer’s *new self* in Christ (his new identity cf. Gal. 2.20; Eph. 4.24), with proof of ongoing fruit in their life. Many people mistakenly think they are converted or born again but they show no evidence of a personality change (a recreation) nor any fruit of the Spirit (love, joy, peace). Alas, despite what they say publicly, they have not been converted; they have not been reborn! Read Jonathan Edwards’ sermon, “Sudden Conversions Are Very Often False.”

The reformers knew the importance of John 3.7: “Ye must be born again.” This Biblical concept doesn’t refer to the time when, during a crusade, you decided to make a spiritual commitment to Christ, or to the time when you made a sincere profession of faith during an altar call at a Jimmy Swaggart rally, or when you decided to give your life to Jesus, in your living room one night, while watching Billy Graham or Joel Osteen. This “decision” is characterized under the category of “works” (since you decided the outcome by yourself), and it has absolutely nothing to do with Biblical regeneration or with God. Why? Because God had nothing to do with it, nor is there any evidence of a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in your life. That’s why 2 Corinthians 5.17 declares:

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a

new creature: old things are passed away;

behold, all things are become new.

Unfortunately, the sinner’s prayer doesn’t save anyone. It doesn’t change your carnal nature into a new creature. Your sin nature remains the same and dominates your mind and heart. So how, then, are you saved? A saved person is dominated by God, not by his passions.

That’s why the reformers spoke of irresistible grace (monergism). Regardless of whether we agree with it or not, the point is that this soteriological doctrine teaches that God’s grace is effectually applied to the believer in order to save them, and that God overcomes their resistance and *changes* them from *within.* In other words, a transformation takes place on the inside. It’s not just faith alone. If they cannot deny it or resist it, then that means that God’s grace has a direct cause-effect influence in their lives. That’s why scripture emphasizes the need for a baptism of the Spirit (Matthew 3.11): “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16.16)!

——-

Free Grace Theology

Free Grace (aka Easy-believism) is a Christian soteriological position which holds that anyone can be saved and receive eternal life simply by believing that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (John 20:31). The only condition for receiving the grace of eternal life is *faith.* Nothing else is required. In fact, one is not even required to stop sinning. They have completely removed Sola fide (faith alone) from its original Biblical and soteriological context, thereby isolating and distorting it to mean something entirely different.

By contrast, *Lordship Salvation* requires obedience to Christ. And this is the actual teaching of Scripture! The free Grace movement apparently forgot Jesus’ teaching which states: “repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mark 1.15). Grace is free, but it’s not cheap. Christ says in Mt 16.24:

If any man will come after me, let him deny

himself, and take up his cross, and follow

me.

Here are Jesus’ own words in John 14.15:

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Besides, how can *mere belief* ALONE be sufficient for *salvation* if the demons believe just as much? (James 2.19):

Thou believest that there is one God; thou

doest well: the devils also believe, and

tremble.

In fact, 1 John 2.3-4 would call proponents of Free Grace “liars”:

And hereby we do know that we know him

[Christ], if we keep his commandments. He

that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his

commandments, is a liar, and the truth is

not in him.

And yet, *free grace theology* is constantly mocking Lordship Salvation, calling it evil and unbiblical. Therefore, we should take heed of Isaiah’s (5.20) stern warning:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good

evil; that put darkness for light, and light for

darkness.

In this paper, I’m only talking about the *regenerated* or *born-again believer,* and what their salvation consists of. I’m trying to demonstrate that a rebirth entails a new identity, a new creation, and a constant outflow of the fruit of the spirit. Just to be clear, Christian salvation is not based on the *works* of the law. Obeying the commandments of Moses doesn’t save anyone. We are not saved because we obey; we obey because we are saved! Nor is salvation an intellectual assent to the truths of Christianity (see Wayne Grudem’s “Free Grace” Theology). You don’t simply look at the facts, weigh the evidence, and conclude that Jesus must be the Messiah. Salvation is NOT an intellectual exercise. Rather, it’s an experience! In Paul’s “Participationist” model of salvation, we don’t merely stand afar off and believe in the person and work of Jesus Christ. No! Rather, we *participate* “in Christ.” We share in his baptism (Rom. 6.3), death (Gal. 2.20), and resurrection (Rom. 6.8). Psalm 34.8 says:

O taste and see that the LORD is good.

—

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit

🔎 By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

In discussing the baptism of the Holy Spirit, I’m not referring to the Christian doctrine which holds that salvation is related to the act of water baptism. Rather, I’m referring to a Spirit baptism or a “conversion experience” where an individual has a personal encounter with the power of God (cf. John 3.3) in the Wesleyan sense. Many denominations——especially fundamentalist, evangelical, and pentecostal Christians——emphasize that without such a “born-again” experience no one can be saved.

From the outset, scripture emphasizes the need for a baptism of the Spirit. In Matthew 3:11 (NKJV), John the Baptist says:

I indeed baptize you with water unto

repentance, but He who is coming after me

is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not

worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the

Holy Spirit and fire.

In Mark 16.16-17, it’s not merely by faith alone, but by spirit “baptism” that salvation is accomplished! Given that the born-again Christians “will speak with new tongues,” it’s clear that the text is not referring to an immersion in water but rather to a baptism of the Holy Spirit:

He who believes and is baptized will be

saved; but he who does not believe will be

condemned. And these signs will follow

those who believe: In My name they will

cast out demons; they will speak with new

tongues.

According to some of the Church Fathers, such as Cyril of Jerusalem and St. John Chrysostom, baptism was considered to symbolically represent a form of rebirth——“of water and the Spirit” (John 3.5). Although Baptism is defined as a sacrament or a rite of admission into Christianity——typically by immersing in water——this ritual is symbolic of being cleansed from sin (1 John 1.7), and it also represents the death of the old self and the beginning of a new life! Similarly, 1 Peter 3.20-21 says that the salvation by water is not a baptism of the flesh that cleanses our filth but symbolic of a good conscience.

In Romans 6.3-4, Paul talks of a baptism Into Jesus’ death! It’s a believer’s participation in the death of Christ to allow them to “walk in newness of life”:

do you not know that as many of us as

were baptized into Christ Jesus were

baptized into His death? Therefore we were

buried with Him through baptism into death,

that just as Christ was raised from the dead

by the glory of the Father, even so we also

should walk in newness of life.

Similarly, in reference to his crucifixion and death, Jesus says in Luke 12.50 (cf. Mark 10.38–39):

I have a baptism to be baptized with,

and how distressed I am till it is

accomplished!

In this context, the term “baptism” obviously doesn’t refer to water but to death, which will be eventually followed by resurrection and rebirth. It is, in fact, part of the same regeneration process which comprises the death of the old self and the rebirth of the new self (Ephesians 4.22-24). The best example of the baptism of the Spirit, as a requirement for spiritual growth, is in Acts 2.1-4:

When the Day of Pentecost had fully come,

they were all with one accord in one place.

And suddenly there came a sound from

heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it

filled the whole house where they were

sitting. Then there appeared to them

divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat

upon each of them. And they were all filled

with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with

other tongues, as the Spirit gave them

utterance.

—

How Old Was Abraham When He Left Haran?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The Apparent Contradiction

There’s a seeming contradiction in the Bible concerning Abraham’s age when he left Haran. The apparent contradiction is as follows. If Terah died when he was 205 years old, but fathered Abram when he was 70, then Abram must have been 135 years old when his father Terah died (as Gen. 11.26, 32 suggest), not 75, as Gen. 12.4 indicates. For the story to work without any discrepancies, Terah would literally have to be 130 years old when he fathered Abram. But it seemed as if he were only 70 years old. Hence the apparent contradiction. Below are the relevant citations that appear to contradict each other.

—-

Genesis 12.4 (ESV):

So Abram went, as the LORD had told him,

and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-

five years old when he departed from

Haran.

Acts 7.2:

And Stephen said: ‘Brothers and fathers,

hear me. The God of glory appeared to our

father Abraham when he was in

Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran.’

Acts 7.4:

Then he went out from the land of the

Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his

father died, God removed him from there

into this land in which you are now living.

Genesis 11.26:

When Terah had lived 70 years, he fathered

Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Genesis 11.32:

The days of Terah were 205 years, and

Terah died in Haran.

—————

Apologetic Exegesis

The key passage is Gen. 11.26. The Hebrew text doesn’t explicitly say that *when* Terah was 70 years old he begat Abram. Rather, it puts it thusly (Gen. 11.26 KJV):

And Terah lived seventy years, and begat

Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Nowhere is it explicitly mentioned that Terah had all 3 children when he was 70 years old. Nor is there any direct evidence that these children were triplets, or that they were born on the exact same date, month, or year. The verse in Gen. 11.26 merely indicates that after Terah reached a certain age——namely, 70 years old——he began to father children. But exactly when these children were actually born is unknown. The only thing that’s clear from Gen. 11.26 is that they were born after Terah had reached a certain age.

It’s quite possible, for example, that some of his children could have been born when Terah was 130 years old. Nothing in the text would contradict the timing of such a birth. As long as Terah fathered at least one child after he was 70, the rest could have been born anytime between Terah’s 70th and 205th birthday.

The order in which the names of Terah’s sons are listed may not reflect the precise chronological order in which the children were actually born. The text is simply indicating their order of importance. Given that Abram is a key figure in the Old Testament and the common patriarch of the Abrahamic religions, he’s obviously mentioned first:

there is yet a question whether Abram was

born first as listed, or perhaps he is listed

first because he was the wisest similar to

Shem, Ham, and Jafeth where Shem was

not the oldest, but was the wisest. … the

Talmud leaves the above question open.

(Wikipedia)

—————

Conclusion

Actually, Abram could have been 75 years old when he left Haran, as the text indicates (Gen. 12.4). And maybe he did leave Haran “after his father died” (Acts 7.4) at the age of 205 (Gen. 11.32). There is no contradiction with regard to the dates. The assumed contradiction is actually based on fallacious reasoning and speculation. It’s based on an eisegesis, that is, a misinterpretation of the text. Readers often assume that the text is telling us that Abram was born *when* Terah was 70 years old. But that’s a conjecture. The text doesn’t say that at all. All the text says is that once Terah reached a certain age, he began fathering sons. But exactly when each and every son was born is unknown.

—

The Heresy of the “Grace Road Church” of Korea

By Author Eli Kittim 🎓

A Cult Movement

According to Wiki,

The Grace Road Church is a South Korean

quasi-Christian new religious movement

and cult (although its members call it a

Church) founded in 2002.

This so-called “church” is currently based in Fiji. It moved there because its pastor Shin Okjoo predicted a famine in Korea. This is a shrewd and calculating woman who demanded strict obedience as she seized the passports of about 400 followers so that they wouldn’t leave. Many nearby churches have hurled accusations that this is a cult movement.

The church has diversified and raised funds by opening businesses across Fiji that range from the hospitality industry to construction to agriculture. Footage has emerged of physical abuse and violence, including slave labor. In 2019, its leader Shin Okjoo was found guilty and sentenced to six years in jail.

The Grace Road Church Claims that the Holy Spirit Is a Woman & that Jesus Is Not God the Son

The Deity of the Holy Spirit

The personhood of the Holy Spirit is multiply-attested in the New Testament. There are many verses which hint at the deity of the Holy Spirit, calling Him, for example, a “person” (ἐκεῖνος, meaning “He” Jn. 16:13-14; ὁ Παράκλητος, which depicts “a person”; & ἐκεῖνος, meaning “he” Jn. 15:26). Note that the Biblical references to the Holy Spirit don’t use the feminine but rather the masculine, third-person pronoun “he.”

The Holy Spirit is also called the “eternal Spirit” (Heb. 9:14), a term that is often used interchangeably with the concept of God (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; Acts 5:3-4; Rom. 8:9; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). For example, the Holy Spirit is called “Lord” in 2 Corinthians 3:17:

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the

Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

Moreover, the Holy Spirit is said to have insight into “the depths of God” (1 Corinthians 2:10-11). He also possesses knowledge (Romans 8:27). The Spirit is also said to have a personal will (1 Corinthians 12:11). He is capable of convicting the world of sin (John 16:8), and performs signs and miracles (Acts 8:39). He also guides (John 16:13) and intercedes between people (Romans 8:26). He utters commands and is also obeyed (Acts 10:19-20; 16:6). The Spirit talks (Revelation 2:7; 14:13; 22:17). He warns and prophesies of things to come (John 16:13; Acts 20:23). And the New Testament certainly depicts Him as a member of the Trinity (John 16:14; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14).

The Deity of Jesus Christ

We also have multiple texts which refer to the deity of Jesus Christ, depicting him as the Son of God, such as in Jn 1 (“the word was God”), Col. 2:9 (“in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily”), Jn 8:58 (“before Abraham was, I am”), Heb. 1.2 (God’s “Son, … through whom he also created the worlds”), Heb. 1:3 (“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of his being”), Tit. 2:13 (“our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”), as well as the explicit worship Christ willingly received from his followers (Luke 24:52; John 20:28) and the accusations of blasphemy leveled against him for equating himself with God (Mark 2:7).

Hence, the Grace Road Church’s Biblical claims that the Holy Spirit is a woman and that Jesus is not God the Son are completely bogus and misinformed!

—