Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

2 Bumps

Had the corrupt definition of "sin" destroyed Jesus' original message?

The original definition of "sin" was "to miss the point".

The current dictionary definitions of "sin" (because this is how it is used now) are as follows:

1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
2. Theology
a. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
b. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.
intr.v. sinned, sin┬Ěning, sins
1. To violate a religious or moral law.
2. To commit an offense or violation.

The original meaning of the word had nothing to do with breaking a law and being punished or abandoned for it unless you make amends. Just this one little mistranslated word (or was it deliberately redefined by some corrupt leader?) seems to have caused all the rampant judgment and condemnation popular among so many who believe in the Abrahamic God. The mistranslation of this little word seems to have single-handedly made the majority of believers in God notoriously judgmental. So much so that they don't realize they are forgetting one of the most important points of Jesus' teachings...not judging others!

Christians/Jews/Muslims, do you think its possible that you are following a man-made mistake in your holy text when you condemn others for their "sins"? Do you think its possible that the original point, before it was corrupted, was to just give people a friendly suggestion on how to find happiness?


Asked by metalcowgirl34 at 11:50 AM on Jun. 18, 2011 in Religious Debate

Level 12 (864 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (24)
  • I don't think Jesus says anything in the Bible - not about sin or anything else. Nowhere in the bible is there a book written by him. There are books written by men who claim to have known Jesus, written decades after his supposed death, but nothing that came directly from the man. Therefore, any mention about "sin", whether it means a serious transgression or simply "missing the point" are the words of other men who are supposedly reporting what Jesus might have said over half a century (or more) before. That means that the waters become even murkier. Did Jesus mention sin? Did he mean sin as we understand the definition to day? Did his "disciples", who wrote part of the NT really hear him talk? Did they live long enough to record those words? If so, were they of sound enough mind to accurately recall his words? Who knows if he really said anything about sin or what he meant by it?


    Answer by jsbenkert at 10:41 PM on Jun. 19, 2011

  • The mistranslation of this little word seems to have single-handedly made the majority of believers in God notoriously judgmental.

    Disagree with the word "majority" in this statement- I believe the majority of Christians to be loving and non-judgmental- there is more to Christianity and Christian than the vocal groups we hear about- there are huge numbers quietly living their lives in a kind/compassionate way- I tend to believe they are the majority- if you change it to "too many" I would agree because even a vocal minority is "too many"

    Answer by soyousay at 2:47 PM on Jun. 18, 2011

  • I don't know if I think it's "destroyed" the message, but I do think that to focus on sin in this way certainly misses the point he was trying to make. I don't believe in sin as it is understood today, I find it incompatible with the rest of what I understand about Jesus and his teachings.

    Answer by bandgeek521 at 11:58 AM on Jun. 18, 2011

  • i think the original definition makes a lot of sense, but can still be made to follow today's view on sin. a lot of ppl believe homosexuals "miss the point" of sex since two men/women cant procreate. an adulterer "misses the point" of marriage by going outside of it to find pleasure. a liar "misses the point" of honesty & how its usually an easier way to live.

    as for forgiveness, even w/out the current idea of sin, ppl would still hurt other ppl & when (good) ppl hurt others unintentionally they want atonement which is forgiveness. & by the old definition of sin, one could ask for forgiveness for missing the point & not understanding the true intent. i believe forgiveness is more for the person wronged than the perpetrator so it really isnt a big issue for me.

    i find this new old definition very interesting as it makes the human-nature sins not evil, but unwise in certain situations...which is what i believe anyway.

    Answer by okmanders at 1:22 PM on Jun. 18, 2011

  • The original definition of "sin" was "to miss the point".

    Where did you get that from? Historians have compared the modern-day Bible to the hand-written copies of portions of the NT, and they are the same. There are also complete Bibles that date all the way back to 300 A.D. Again, nothing has been changed or "mistranslated". I don't understand why everybody keeps saying that the Bible is pretty much meaningless now because of changes and mistranslations that have taken place over the years. It just isn't true.

    Answer by popzaroo at 5:10 PM on Jun. 18, 2011

  • Just going to throw out real quick and leave. there is much in the Bible about doing wrong and asking for forgiveness. I am not sure I have seen a part in the Bible where Jesus said a sin was missing the point. I could be wrong I do not know every singel part of the Bible memorized. I would have to say the answer to your question is no

    Answer by vntNyll at 11:58 AM on Jun. 18, 2011

  • A lot of things that have been lost in "translation" have really been lost in self-serving interpretation. Sin was the Boogey Man for countless generations, used to keep children in line, husbands behaving and women obeying. You can't mentally condition people with a concept for centuries without that condition taking on an entirely new meaning. It's like the lost children of Beyond Thunderdome - they had the lore passed on from parent to child, and after a few rounds, it bore absolutely no resemblance to the original. To think that phenomenon is really fiction, and doesn't have anthropological precedent would be naive.

    Answer by NotPanicking at 2:10 PM on Jun. 18, 2011

  • I still consider sin as "missing the point" as in- not a good idea to use Jesus' word and life as an excuse to harm others- sinful to miss the point of the message- ;)

    Answer by soyousay at 2:43 PM on Jun. 18, 2011

  • and to answer your last question...yes

    Answer by okmanders at 1:23 PM on Jun. 18, 2011

  • "but when you tell someone, "you've missed the point", you're not condemning them, you're just making a suggestion. "

    true & i totally agree with you...i was just playing a little devils advocate for funsies.

    Answer by okmanders at 4:53 PM on Jun. 18, 2011