I've been reading about the interpretations of the above passage and how it relates to other passages.
on inherited sin...
Ezekiel 18:19 - 20
“Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.
on the origin of your soul...
Ecclesiastes 12:7
and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
Does this not contradict with David's psalm if both are to be taken literally? Reconciling David's concept of original sin seems highly problematic if one is to accept both a hereditary and yet individual wellspring. I can accept that his meaning was to the world around us when we are conceived and what we are born into, but I don't see how a child is sinful from birth and have heard the opposite stated myriad times from Christians. I was taught children are innocents until they can be spiritually responsible for themselves and choose to sin.
A literal interpretation of Psalms seems disingenuous to its very nature and in light of other passages doesn't seem to me to be that rational of a course to take.
on inherited sin...
Ezekiel 18:19 - 20
“Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.
on the origin of your soul...
Ecclesiastes 12:7
and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
Does this not contradict with David's psalm if both are to be taken literally? Reconciling David's concept of original sin seems highly problematic if one is to accept both a hereditary and yet individual wellspring. I can accept that his meaning was to the world around us when we are conceived and what we are born into, but I don't see how a child is sinful from birth and have heard the opposite stated myriad times from Christians. I was taught children are innocents until they can be spiritually responsible for themselves and choose to sin.
A literal interpretation of Psalms seems disingenuous to its very nature and in light of other passages doesn't seem to me to be that rational of a course to take.


Comment