₦airaland Forum

Dtruthspeaker:
There is nothing to prove. Like you, by their speech (posts) we know them.

Balderdash

Dtruthspeaker:
That is trap which caught you. The story is designed to reveal the perspectives of its readers.

Then prove that you know how the targeted audience think, without projecting because that's what you're known for doing here and it's exactly what you have just done.

Dtruthspeaker:
He did not missaply it, the story is designed to catch people like you.

To catch me and use me for pepper soup?

You didn't bother to read my response ,but just reacted emotionally ,apparently due to cognitive dissonance.

If you want to succeed in convincing other people who don't believe in what you believe, then make sure you understand first, how they think, so that you can easily put yourself in their position and from there judge if what you're going to tell them would be convincing.

I only gave him a feedback to help him rethink what he has concluded using that story


But , unfortunately just like you,he is not willing to see things from the perspective of his audience and just assume that his submission from the story must make sense to everyone who reads it .

There's a local saying that" my Mama soup naim sweet pass" ; My mother's soup is the sweetest

If you refuse to taste the soup of others (see things from the other person's perspective ) , how would you know that your mama soup is the sweetest?

I am not an atheist and not against you practicing your religion. I only highlighted what I find wrong in the op's submission.

HisSplendor:
Thanks for your submission.

Would you orove to me right now that heaven is imaginary as you stated above?

What is the meaning of the word imaginary?

Try to know the meaning first before asking for prove

HisSplendor:
There was an old man in this city. The oldest of them all. After the 100 men had departed, he summoned his numerous children and said, 'Do you see this travelling company? Those who have a red cap are wise because, if in case, this rumour turns out to be true, these wise ones would save their heads a million times. And if it's a false rumor, they actually have nothing to lose. But those who journeyed without a red cap are fools, for if this rumour turns out to be true, they'll certainly lose their heads."

Conclusion
The company of those who wore a red cap are the believers. If there's no God out there in death, they have nothing to lose.

But the Atheists who are taking a godless journey into the unknown eternity are simply being reckless. If in case there's a God out there. They're losers.

Interesting story which anyone can learn from, but unfortunately you have misapplied it .

You have simply ignored the fact that the story is set in a physical location and that the men were journeying to another part of it that's expected to exist even if they have never been there before.

This is unlike your imaginary non physical heaven which even you yourself doubt exist.

Since the 100 men were embarking on a journey to another physical location they expect should exist, the men who bought a cap to save their heads incase the rumor turned out to be true acted wisely.

But in a situation where somebody advise another to buy a life jacket and wear it to bed to save their life incase they have a dream of drowning and the advice is heeded to, then both the person who gave the advice and the person who obeyed it ,have acted unwisely and need their heads examined. This is exactly how you have misapplied the story.

Heaven is imaginary or is created by the imagination of those who believe in it.

It's not a known physical space that exist somewhere. Even if we accept it exist somehow in a non physical location, there's no single verified story of anyone who has gone there and back to convince everyone that such a place exist.

Dtruthspeaker:
You keep saying unmanned, unmanned, unmanned when we are talking about manned landings.

And all I am saying is that their silence has not gone unnoticed exactly like when politicians go in for a meeting and come out silent definitely makes us wonder what is wrong.

It's because you don't know what those unmanned space missions are for. It's almost the same thing.

Why continue to send humans to the moon all the time with all the attendant risks when robots can easily serve the same purpose and get them what they want?

Before humans are sent to the moon there must be a valid reason. They're not sending them there for sightseeing or to live there as it's not inhabitable .

After more than 50 years they're now attempting to send humans there again. Go through the first link I shared to know why.

And they have not been silent. It's because you're insulated in your own little world you can't "hear" what is going on outside.

Since 2013, the Chinese robots, Yutu 1 and Yutu2 have been on the Moon exploring it and sending feedback.

Are you aware of this?

MaxInDHouse:
Old Covenant was between YHWH and Israel so there's no business a none Israelites who lives far away from Canaan (Jerusalem temple) has with YHWH in the Old Covenant. Matthew 15:24

But with the New Covenant {Jeremiah 31:33} people from other nations can become friends of YHWH because geographical location doesn't count in the New Covenant! John 4:22-24

So who connected you with YHWH when you're not an Israelite neither a citizen of Israel living close to the temple in Jerusalem?

Does it mean then that Jesus didn't die for the sins of the Israelites,?

43Ronin:
So China, Russia are also photoshoping. Bros don't be silly in this 21st century..

They're not even aware other countries are involved in the same thing. They think it's only America.

Dtruthspeaker:
You look at it na, this is a very stupid reason. Is 1 or 2 chairs and oxygen tanks so expensive to attach to the space vehicle?

Or are 6 humans heavier than a satellite?

Their conduct is suspicious. It is now 50 years since they said they went to the moon and no man has gone there. Why? What are they not telling us?

You never disappoint. 2 chairs and oxygen tanks to attach to what? What can anyone make of that ?

What do you really know about space missions to land a human being on the Moon. I doubt if you know anything.

I already mentioned that there have been unmanned space missions to the Moon, which can still get them the same results if they were to send humans. There's no much difference. It appears that information is lost on you as you have not made anything of it from you latest reply.

The Japanese, the Chinese, the Russians,the Koreans and some other countries have all sent unmanned space craft that has landed on the Moon to get samples after the Apollo space mission. Google this right now to see the names of all of the countries and the date. You have data.

BTW,what part of the universe are you living in right now not to be aware of all these unmanned space missions? You live in Mars or where.?

My friend, please use your phone and do some research or throw it away and get a phone without internet access. You certainly don't deserve the phone you're holding.



See, if the Americans did not succeed in landing any human being on the Moon for the first time, other countries such as the old Soviet Union who were also in the "competition" to be the first, would have challenged it and helped the world to know the Apollo project failed..

Or do you believe all these other countries I already mentioned are in a conspiracy of silence to deceive the world?
How is that possible?

Dtruthspeaker:
The question was why did they not go since, if they in truth went the first time.

They have not stopped going. They still "go" but only with unmanned space craft which is far less expensive.Unmanned space craft doesn't carry any human being.

The major reason the Apollo space mission was significant and celebrated was because it gave the Americans, the bragging rights of being the first super power in the world to land a man on the surface of the Moon.

The iconic image of Neil Armstrong and Edwin buzz planting the American flag on the Moon was an important milestone for NASA and the Americans as a whole

And what was the cost?, $20 billion dollars ,fifty years ago. What do you think it would cost now to make them want to repeat it again and again to satisfy people like you who doubt the first Moon landing?

The article below, if you go through it ,has provided further reasons why we have not had a similar repeat of what happened the first time.
But don't forget what said at the beginning. They have been going,but with unmanned space craft.
https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/why-did-we-stop-going-moon



.

HantaVirus:
Of course it never happened..

Only few human beings like us are enlightened enough to know that shit was staged in Area 51.

I have a lot to say but nairalanders will come for me so let's just keep it locked.

NASA have the greatest Photoshop experts on their payroll.

Why haven't anyone gone to the moon since it last happened in the 70's? At least we have better technologies now.

They're almost set to go back again and this time with a woman as a crew member.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220927-artemis-i-a-giant-rocket-to-set-new-space-records

Lance008:
Let me tell this to those saying this just stories
Kindly remember am not paid to do this
Only sharing this out of experience for others not to make mistakes because i believe experience is the best teacher

Witches go extra miles to hurt you
Always know this and be safe always
Trust none but your family members I repeat trust none
Witches get some people most commonly in rural areas
Don't take cash gift from people you don't know their source of living it very dangerous
Witches sometimes control someone to steal huge amount of money after stealing the witches control the person to be generous to you and give you some part of the money after been given some part and the witch already aware spiritually then he lay a course on the thief
The main reason for doing that is to get you and not the thief because the thief is already useless

Oh

KnownUnknown:
I didn’t say you were a Buddhist nor do I care if you are. I’m not an atheist but I was addressing Lordreed’s opinions and posted the violence to point out they can be just as violent as the Abrahamic ones..

And I ask, is there anything in that religion that you know of that has caused those monks to behave that way?

If you can find it ,please post it here.


Buddhist as a group have never in their history gone on any "jihad" or Inquisition(mass killings) to forcefully convert anyone into their fold.

If the group as a whole was never guilty of the above in the past and even in the present times, what then is your point of using and isolated incident involving some Monks who were obviously acting on their own to declare that Buddhism encourages its members to be violent or the religion makes one prone to violence.

Buddhist are not covered by special grace or holy spirit that's expected to make them have good behaviour.

You're on your own from what I know of the rellgion.

In Buddhism, even though they have certain moral codes which guides behaviour, there are no strong restrictions of how members are expected to behave at any given time.

You're free to act as you deem fit, but made to understand that the responsibility for anything you do is yours to bear alone: your karma.

Every religion is they same as they are all certain people’s opinions at the end of the day.

Every religion is not the same. You have used what you know about the two Abrahamic religion to generalise.

Yes , both Buddhism and the abrahamic religion have sprung from the opinions of people, but that doesn't make them the same kind of religion.

You're comparing apples with oranges. It doesn't work.

KnownUnknown:
Yeah, no true Scotsman. Same ol’ song.

Lol. I'm not a Buddhist. What you picked out from that article doesn't address the op and I think it was an attempt to look for something anywhere as support for one thing, "every rellgion is the same'.

"The danger of a single story" chimamanda Adichie

KnownUnknown:
Monks incited a deadly four-day rampage against minority Muslims in central Myanmar, Reuters found. The killings come amid the rapid spread of an apartheid-like movement known as 969.


The Buddhist monk grabbed a young Muslim girl and put a knife to her neck.
“If you follow us, I’ll kill her,” the monk taunted police, according to a witness, as a Buddhist mob armed with machetes and swords chased nearly 100 Muslims in this city in central Myanmar.
https://www.pulitzer.org/files/2014/international-reporting/reuters/04reuters2014.pdf

I don't think anything that happened in that story has anything to do with the rellgion.

Buddhism advocates for the sanctity of human and animal life and for this, they are mostly vegetarians.

The monks and the other adherents , in the report, are humans who reacted under immense pressure . The story says a monk was killed first and I think they couldn't control their emotions in such circumstances and went amok.

LordReed:
Glad I didn't say they were any less prone to violence. LoLz.

There are all manner of persons within any group.

Ayo13945:
Why do most Atheist find it easier to accept a
religion like Buddhism, but are less tolerant
to Abrahmaic Religions such as: Christianity,
Islam or Judaism.

In essence what appeal does Buddhism have that
the Big 3 (Religions) don't.

It depends on the form of Buddhism one is exposed to as there are traditional Buddhist groups whose practises and beliefs are a put off for an atheist or the irreligious.

The form of Buddhism tolerated by the irreligious is the modernised one that places emphasis on rationality and meditative practises to take charge of one's mind.

Here, adherents are advised to subject anything they hear or read to rational analysis before accepting it. It doesn't matter if it's coming from a high ranking religious figure within the group or if what you read is contained in Buddhist scripture. But this is not so in the two major abrahamic religion where truth is only found in the Bible/Koran or from a respected pastor/Imam

Infact in modern Buddhism any practice or belief that has been proven scientifically to be unhelpful or harmful is discarded.

Also, there's no concept of God in Buddhism. The Buddha, the founder of the religion, is not deified or worshipped as a God. It is due to this Buddhism has been described as an atheistic religion

Furthermore, Buddhist don't attempt to convert of force their religion on anyone. You're advised to take your time to explore the teachings first before making the decision to join. No treat of hell fire or eternal damnation if you decide it's not for you.They allow you be and because of this they are tolerated.

And again modern Buddhism don't discriminate against women. They allow for equal participation

Finally, I already mentioned it before, the main attraction and why the irreligious or atheist is more tolerant of Buddhism, is the meditative practises which has been proven to provide salutory effect on the brain/mind. Atheist and non atheist, not all though, practise some form of Buddhist meditation to take charge of their mind. If you can't control your mind, then it becomes difficult to have control over your life.

BTW I'm not an atheist. You can describe me as agnostic or just irreligious.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/teach/why-do-buddhists-meditate/zdt9f4j

How is a 24 year old "a kid sister"?

Inspite of age, you and your parents still think she is a child that needs protection?

Just get closer to her and treat like a friend and an adult . Once you do that, she would confide in you ,and then you would be in a better position to advise her.

She needs to be talked to and not caged or beaten.

The issue here is simple.

Is harmatiology the study of harmatia? I said no from the beginning.

You were the one who insisted harmatiology is the study of harmatia. You were denying and at point were ambivalent in order to convenient shift position to the one that favours you, untill I provided evidence from your own comment.


Does harmatia translate to sin. No, it doesn't. It was a mistranslation in the early English Bible., and I
proven how .It's not Just what I imagined, but what finds support amomgs scholars who know the truth about those translations. Anyone can research this to arrive at the truth.

Harmatia doesn't translate to sin because both terms don't share the same meaning. A word can only translate to another if they share the exactly the same meaning or near meaning. Both terms, harmatia and sin, are worlds apart . They don't translate correctly.

Concerning harmatia as a medical term, I never said there's a dictionary entry for it. I only mentioned that to announce other places where the word is currently being used. Go back to my comments to confirm.

The link I shared was to show where, and not that it's a generally accepted definition yet in dictionaries.

Harmatiology is derived from the Greek word harmatia , but that doesn't mean it's current use has anything to do with its word origin..

There are lot's of words in English language that are no longer connected semantically to their origin.

Unfortunately, one half educated human being here who only reads Wikipedia without corraborating anything he reads, think otherwise and has been desperately trying to connect harmatiology with its origin in order to win an argument.

You win

English dictionaries have defined harmatia the same below.
It's not associated with sin because it has nothing to do with that. It's only within Christianity that harmatia is associated with sin and that's because the word was wrongly translated to mean that by early translators of the Greek Bible to English. You are not aware of this fact of the mistranslation.

The irony of your behaviour is that given your reputation on this board as an antichristian, you have been blindly supporting some of the falsehoods in Christianity each time you declare that harmatia translate to sin correctly when doesn't.
You're really confused. Totally confused
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hamartia

Maynman:
I give you a challenge here.There's no dictionary entry that describes harmatiology as been associated with literature and medicine. If you find any such descriptions that matches the ones you have concoted in your dull brain in any of the top 10 reliable dictionaries ,please post it here.





Pure Jargons.
Simply tell us Tell us the name of the religion that uses “sin” before Christianity?
Also tell us the religion that uses “god” as a supreme deity before Christianity.
The link you sent said NOTHING about the etymology of sin.


In yoruba “god” is called orisha.
The head of orishas is Olorun. Olorun means ruler of heaven.
Yahweh doesn’t mean “god”
“god” originally doesn’t mean supreme beings, it became that during Christianity translation, if you are sure of your jargons tell us the religion that uses “god” to mean supreme deity before Christianity

If you look up the origin of the words “Chukwu, the Edos, Osanubua.” It doesn’t mean “god”
First start your learning by finding out what “god” means before it was used in the New Testament to translate “theos” and “deus”.

Listen boy, Harmatia was used to translate chata to greek language.
Then sin was used to translate harmatia to English language.
The original Writings of New Testament and Old Testament is greek and hebrew.
English “sin” was a later later translation by English writers


How many times will you say your “final words” bwahahahaha

I keep saying it , you don't have all the facts.


I have taken my time to explain the mistranslation of chata as harmatia and harmatia as sin in both the Greek and English Bibles.

If you pretend not
to see it, that's your business.
There are articles online treating the mistranslation of chata as harmatia and harmatia as sin.


Harmatia doesn't translate to sin because sin doesn't mean missing the mark. Simple.


If you don't know the meaning of the word sin(you already admit it has no meaning) before it was used as translation in the English Bible then please tell me how do you know it translate correctly as harmatia?

You're only trying to confuse yourself not me.


Besides, why should I continue to argue with somebody like you who has ignorantly claimed that harmatia is a Greek word that is not found in English dictionaries, whereas there's an entry for it with the meaning explained..

You have a phone go online and do a comprehensive research on harmatia as a word associated with literature and recently also a medical term, and stop depending only what you read from Wikipedia.

Your arrogant blindness is really working against you.
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hamartia




You can continue to quote me.

Maynman:
You are lost, Can’t you read?
Tell us the name of the religion that uses “sin” before Christianity?
Also tell us the religion that uses “god” as a supreme deity before Christianity.
The link you sent said NOTHING about the etymology of sin.

Sin goes beyond old English.

Hehehehe.

Just imagine the nonsense talk.

Before the event of organised rellgion our primitive forbears have a word for what they collectively refer to as "God" or the supreme deity.

For instance, in Yoruba language, "God" is called Olorun .

The Ibos, Chukwu, the Edos, Osanubua.

So whatever, religion you practice or don't practice within in any given society, there's a general word for the supreme deity or what people call God.

Disagreement comes in when each Religious group try to give a personal name to this supreme deity which they all believe exist.
.
Take this final word from me.
Harmatiology is derived from the word harmatia because harmatia was used in the Septuagint as mistranslation for "chata" sin"
Sin is not" missing the mark" and so harmatia doesn't translate to it.
Go and research this .

Maynman:
You said nothing.
Send another link that says the same thing

What’s the origin of the word “sin”
Which religion uses it to mean violations to god?
What’s the origin of the word “god”

You can continue basking in ignorance!

You're confused. So Christianity is the only religion practiced in the world?
Go through the link I shared and get the answers you are asking

The English people of the past had their own traditional religion.

[quote author=Maynman post=118284628]The same can be said for “sin”, if sin wasn’t used in new king james bible it won’t be in Christianity.
Christianity didn’t create the word “sin”
Sin too is a neutral term that has nothing to do with violations.
You lied, “sin refers to the violation of moral laws and the laws of God” that’s a LIE!


Harmatiology is the study of harmatia![/quote
What are saying? Are you listening to yourself at all
Before a word in any language is used as translation for another word in another language it must have a meaning associated] with it.

Translators don't use meaningless words in their translation.

You don't know the meaning of sin before it was used in the English Bible. That's actually the problem you have.
Here below s the meaning of sin before it vwad used in the Bible.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/what-is-sin. You can continue to argue blindly.. I am done for now.

The reason the word hamartia is used in Christianity is because of its use in the Septuagint.

But the use has been proven to be incorrect.. You're unaware of this fact.

Harmatia doesn't translate ro sin because sin before it was used in the English Bible, refers to the violation of moral laws and the laws of God

Harmatia is a morally neutral term that has nothing to do with any such violations.

The mistranslation is similar to what Ajayi crowther did by wrongly translating Satan as Esu in the Yoruba Bible..

Till today some uninformed Christians in Nigeria would argue blindly that Esu is the same as Satan and that Ajayi was correct.

Maynman:
Harmatiology is the study of sin.
What’s sin in greek language?
If you can’t comprehend what i said then it’s your on you.
What is the definition of sin?
What’s the definition of harmatia?

Show us the entry of harmatiology. Are you backtracking now?

Below are your own words. You can't deny it now.

Maynman:
Harmartiology is simply the study of harmatia!.
These are greek words that existed before Christianity was created in rome.

?

I don't need to upload any definitions. The ones you shared has confirmed my position.

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

Maynman:
I give you a challenge here.There's no dictionary entry that describes harmatiology as been associated with literature and medicine. If you find any such descriptions that matches the ones you have concoted in your dull brain in any of the top 10 reliable dictionaries ,please post it here.


You said a bunch of nothing.
The tanakh was written in hebrew and cheta was used.
New Testament was originally written in greek, hence chata was converted to harmatia. “Sin” was a later translation of harmatia and chata, not the other way round.
“ Chata and harmatia are equivalent, but only literally. Both terms were drawn from spear throwing and archery respectively”
This is a complete LIE, you just keep ranting without dropping your reliable links yet you blabbing about how Wikipedia is not reliable.

Harmatiology is the study of harmatia. “Harmatia” is not a English word, so which English dictionary do you expect to see a greek word in it, if you are wise you’ll first translate what’s sin in greek language then you get your definition.

Can you send your own reliable sites?
You just said a whole lot of jargons.

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.

Maynman:
The Old Testament talks about “cheta” which translates to sin in ENGLISH LANGUAGE , and the greek equivalent is “harmatia” which translates to sin in ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
.

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.

Listen, “Sin” is an English word, the latins, french, greek or Hebrew people that are Christians won’t call it “sin”.
“Sin” is the English translation of Greek “harmatia” in the Christian theology.
This is basic..

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.
.

I replied to your mention, I’m chilled, don’t fret, you are trying too hard!
I overestimated you, I didn’t know you were this basic, I’ll come down to your level now.

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.

Maynman:
“Sin” is not a Christian word.

I know that and don't think there's really anything like Christian word. Christianity is practiced by humans not aliens that may use non human language to communicate.

I am concerned with the meaning of the word, sin, a human language, in Christianity where the word is currently and mostly used .
I said I will be back. Be patient

Maynman:
This is getting lame.

I will respond more to this later when I am less busy.

But in the maintime does the word, sin, mean a failure in Christianity?. Yes or no

The op is concerned with sin as Christians understand it and not any other

It appears to mean you're running away from something.

I will be back to point this out

Maynman:
An English word with a meaning.
Just as cheta and harmatia has a meaning lol

The bible used by Christians was not originally written in English, this are later translations.

An English word with a meaning. What is the meaning?