₦airaland Forum

triplechoice:
Below is from Collins dictionary.
Harmatia The one you uploaded has been edited. Anybody' following can go online to so a quick check to confirm

triplechoice:
What you uploaded defined harmatiology as the study of sin. None has defined it they way you did. So what's your point?

Are you changing the goalpost?. You have been insisting that harmatiology is the study of harmatia. I said you were wrong. Has the above not shown you were wrong. Where is harmatia in those definitions?

Harmatia has nothing to do with sin. It's a morally neutral term. There are entries for harmatia in English dictionaries..

English language has borrowed from other languages too,; Latin, French, Greek etc. If you don't know this ,why should I continue to argue with you.

Hamartia doesn't translate to sin. It was a mistranslation in the English Bible. This is something that is known as a fact outside of Christianity.

Take your time to read what I wrote or you do further research on this.

Below is a description of harmatia in an Englishdictionary. Other dictionaries in English have the same description for harmatia. Search out for them. You have data.

triplechoice:
The above explanations are incorrect and misleading, but unfortunately you keep repeating them.

You don't have all the facts and have relied only on what you cherry picked from articles in Wikipedia which lacks the necessary background information to make you understand them fully.

It's only within Christianity and amongs Christian apologists that those translations are accepted as correct. Outside, they have been rejected and labeled a mistranslation..

Chata and harmatia are equivalent, but only literally. Both terms were drawn from spear throwing and archery respectively. In those sports when you failed to hit your target, you "miss the mark or target" due to mistake or error.

Nobody would accuse you of sin or offending anyone if you failed to hit your target. It doesn't make sense anyone should.

It's in this sense of missing your target or goal either by mistake or error of judgment that both chata and harmatia were understood by users of those terms in the Hebrew and Greek languages . It was in the same sense that Aristotle, the first person to use the term, harmatia, defined it in his peotics.


However, when Chata was used in the Hebrew Bible it's meaning became dependent on the context in which the word was used; it was used either literally or figuratively; chata in certain Instances in the Hebrew Bible was used as a metaphoric reference for acts of transgressions,"sin" against man and God .

Take note that I have put "sin", in quotes. This is because the way "sin"is viewed in Judaism is not exactly the same as it's conceptualised in Christianity ; harmatiology.

In Judaism for instance, Chata,,"sin" is regarded as a mistake that people can easily make amends for and move on with life, but in Christianity ,sin is not by mistake. Every sin is attached with excessive guilt and regarded as acts of transgressions against God.

It's a known fact that once a particular word takes on a new meaning in a different context in which it's used, it can no longer serve as substitute for its exact equivalent in that same language nor can it translate to its exact literal equivalent in another language.

But unfortunately, Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew Bible into the Greek Bible, the Septuagint, continued to translate chata as harmatia not minding the context where the meaning had changed.This created confusion for later translators from the Greek Bible to other languages.

Harmatia has been described by Greek scholars who understand the language very well as a morally neutral term that as nothing whatsoever to do with "sin" or acts of transgressions either literally or figuratively.

Since "sin" is the issue of contention here, sorry you're in error my friend, Chata when it metaphorically refers to "sin" or acts of transgressions in the Hebrew Bible, doesn't translate as harmatia in Greek Bible..

It was this mistranslation of chata as harmatia,"sin" that made translators of the English Bible to erroneously translate harmatia or chata as "sin" in every instances they came across those terms in the either the Hebrew or Greek Bibles.

For instance, in judges 20. 16, certain stone throwers were described as having the ability to "aim at an hair breath and not "chata" in the Hebrew Bible(harmatia in Greek Bible) , which was later erroneously translated as "aim at an hair breath and not sin" in the English Bible . The translation in this context doesn't make any sense. Here Chata was used literally, but was translated as sin.

However, some of this obvious mistranslation have been corrected but some left untouched

And till today Christian apologists everywhere still argue that harmatia is the word for sin in Greek when it's not. I believe they do this to maintain the sanctity of the Bible because if the truth of those mistranslations becomes public knowledge then it would cast doubt on the authenticity of those documents especially when it's believed amongst Christians that the disciples of Jesus actually wrote parts of the New testament in Greek, whereas it was Early Church fathers who created those stories using false authorship known as pseudography.

I give you a challenge here.There's no dictionary entry that describes harmatiology as the study of harmatia or any entry associating harmatia with sin. If you find any such descriptions that matches the ones you have concoted in your head in any of the top 10 reliable dictionaries ,please post it here.

And please nothing from Wikipedia. That site is not a reliable one. It's a dumping ground for anything both good and bad. Anybody can place and edit anything there to promote their personal agenda or group agenda. Unless you can verify what you read thete, then stay off. But I have noticed you don't bother to confirm anything you read there.
You have swallowed a lot of nonsense from that site which I have observed you used most times in blind arguments with others on this board.




And you expect me not to know this?

The reason I kept asking for the meaning of those terms was to find out what you really know.

But I confirmed from your replies you don't know much and were just clutching at straws in Wikipedia.

You don't know all of the meaning attached to harmatia in Greek language and sin in old English before they were used , but are certain they were correct translations for chata.


I have proven you have limited information and been using that to confidently assertt things that are only true within Christianity and not elsewhere.

Harmatiology is not the study of harmatia. The term, harmatia, is associated with literature and only recently in medicine.

So anytime you declare that falsehood, Just know you're generalising. And it's even worse that you're using what is only true in Christianity to do that.
.

Your cockiness is for nothing. It is waste. It doesn't affect me.

I wanted to reply immediately, but when I read the above nonsense, I felt you were not worth my time. I have better things to do. And decided to reply when I have the time to spare.

Anyone following who has taking the time to read what I have carefully explained above is in a better position to judge for themselves.

Janosky:
Did you REMOVE any portion of the screenshot?

Do you want more information and evidence?
It is here...

Janosky:
What happened to 44% in 2019 in one country?

This medical research journal is saying something based on genuine empirical evidence from just one country among over 250 countries in the globe and you choose to argue against the facts .
When you take such statistics in every country and corner of the globe, what would be the results?

Janosky:
Empty rants of a WAILER

Janosky:
Maynmann says he's not making sense when he confirmed authentication of the Coptic Sahidic Bible.

Monumental Odeh

Janosky:
Did you Maynmann confirm on this forum that Coptic Sahidic Bible is a historical fact?
Maymann did.
Today Maynmann is typing GIBBERISH.

Maynmann ,I challenge you ,Go & screenshot your first comments on Nairaland PROVEN your rooster and bull nonsense you typed today.

Janosky:
. This guy trying so hard to pass off conjectures and assumptions as fact, Odogwu of falsehood.

" the later Gospel authors" later became "unknown authors" for him atheist mindset.
Atheist Rooster and bull nonsense!

That's the only genuine point you made in your copy and paste GIBBERISH.

elated177:
Factor in what? It is not for humans to factor in anything or anyone.


Yahushua the Messiah is YHVH's Salvation. He is the embodiment of the Ten Commandments. He is the Word of YHVH Almighty.

Luke 2: “Sovereign YHVH, as you have promised,
you may now dismiss your servant in peace.
30 For my eyes have seen your salvation,
31 which you have prepared in the sight of all nations:
32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and the glory of your people Israel.”

John 14:6 Yahushua answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

sonmvayina:
I won't call them gospels..

elated177:
Do you or do you not believe that the Ten Commandments of YHVH Almighty constitute his SALVATION?

sonmvayina:
Yes, I meant the gospel bearing Mark..I believe it was written by Eusebius. It is from ancient tales about Marduk...Marduk was the son of Enki and he was also the creator of the universe according to the Enuma Elish..

The letters attributed to Paul where all written by a first century sage Apolinius of Tyna, who actually existed. They where edited for the bible by John Chrysostom.

It's all forgery and bull shit. And to think that they have murdered millions just to keep the lie going..

sonmvayina:
Well as for me, I believe the entire new testament where written post Nicea. They where all written after the council of Nicea. I am 99% sure that it was written by Eusebius, the master forger and Mathew and Luke by his side kicks...
Come to think of it, if they existed earlier why the arguements for almost 10 years prior to Nicea. Each church had their own scriptures no uniformity. And Constantine who desire to have 1 single religion in his empire summoned them to Nicea to iron out their difference. They have being holding such council through the ages, the last being the 2nd Vatican council. It was those council that introduced and defined the doctrines and dogma in Christianity. Not the Bible, it was the council of Trent in 1553 that gave power to the bible as a reaction to the reformation started by Martin Luther.

NB
Until the council of Ephesus the Christ was Serapis Christus

elated177:
Are you ready for this conversation?

What is an altar?

Kobojunkie:
Look who's talking!

johnw47:
you need to have the last word even though you are always wrong,
go on, you can have the last word oh tiny brain

johnw47:

some can't admit when the are wrong, but will keep deceiving/changing the issue
over and over again, you are one of them

bye little man

johnw47:
u still running away from what i said

quote where i said sugar has no nutrients
but i will tell you now that table sugar has very little nutrients



still nothing to do with what i said



it matterss not, honey has significantly more nutrients than table sugar, oh runaway

Why don’t you show us the “significant nutrient” that honey contains or you can continue making dumb statements, oh illiterate.

Shalommy:
This is why i keep on saying that men are useless. Chaii

johnw47:
you are running away from what i said
you commented that honey is only slightly better than table sugar

i told how honey is significantly beter than table sugar

johnw47:
poor tormented, hateful, angry, and evil lost blasphemer:

Mar_3:29  but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin

rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire

Aemmyjah:
Lolz, first prove to me that something can come from nothing and life can emerge from nonlife and I'll answer your questions

HarlequinLekex:
I am a male.


What if Op babe is really trying to avoid one guy disturbing her on whatsapp,only for Op to check her whatsapp and accuse her of cheating which is not so.

HarlequinLekex:
Op was denied checking her phone and whatsapp,for Op to think of cheating he is really obsessed with her.

There is something called privacy,besides,she is a girlfriend and not a wife.

Mercury12:
lol no amount of discipline will work. Ask people they always go back to it. It is beyond their power. He needs to confide in someone else so that person can keep a watch on him. The spirit behind masturbation is strong and it comes and goes it doest stays in ones body. The moment it shows up people hadly have the strong will to resist the demon. He needs help

HarlequinLekex:
You are obsessed with her.


Obsession is a mental ailment.

She is your girlfriend for the meantime if she becomes your wife,will you be over obsessed with her?