I Love Gellies

Mormonism, Evangelicism and Chaos Theory

Misgivings Against Augustine I

So I went to the bookstore with my roommate a couple of months ago and made a impulse buy. I purchased Augustine’s “confessions”. One of my Evangelical friends, whom I respect, told me his small group was reading through it, so I decided to purchase the book. With the recent hoopla about Calvinism and it’s roots to Augustine, I thought I’d start reading some more.
And because I’m not a Mormon member of the Fluffy Bunny Nice Nice Club, I’m not reading the book in hopes of finding something to tear down in Calvinism, Augustine, Evangelicism, or anything in general. I’m only nine pages in, and I can’t see it’s terribly interesting. That changed last night when I came across something I severaly disagree with. So I thought I’d ask some of my blogging Evangelical friends, who may or may not lend credence to Augustine, to help me understand maybe what he meant, or at least if what he said means anything at all to them.

Who reminds me of the sin of my infancy? for ‘none is pure from sin before you, not even an infant of one day upon the earth’ (Job 14:4-5 LXX).

Naturally, I was very surprised to see the “traditional Christian doctrine” of original sin taught so clearly, and to have it attributed to the Bible. So the first thing I did was open my KJV to the verse, and couldn’t find anything similar to it.

4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. 5 Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;

Upon looking at the quote again, I notice that the verse says LXX=septuagint! Doh. So I looked it up here.

For who can be pure from filth? None, not one! Even if his life on earth be but one day and his months be counted out to him, you have set a time, and he shall not go beyond it.

Highly informative. So how do Evangelicals resolve this discrepancy? Which is the infalllible biblical text in this verse? FYI, the NIV follows the masoretic (KJV). For Latter-day Saints, the KJV is the canonical text, so I don’t need to worry about it as much. Also, if you have any sources for the textual criticism about this verse that would be highly helpful.

For the purposes of this post, let’s not go very much into detail about the LDS rejection of original sin (because I think this requires a post of its own).

Advertisements

May 31, 2009 - Posted by | Uncategorized

3 Comments »

  1. This is a great topic! I haven’t studied Augustine before and I’ve never researched this textual variant issue before. It doesn’t affect my view on the doctrine of original sin since I’ve never based my view on this verse but, rather, on Romans 5. This is interesting and I’ll have to look into it further when I get a chance. I’ll be curious to hear if others know anything about this.

    Comment by Jessica | May 31, 2009 | Reply

    • I am sincerely interested in how you would view this verse. When I post about “Mormons and original sin” I’ll let you know, because I think many Mormons have a caricature of our beliefs which then get’s passed on to Evangelicals. Of course, you’ll have to wait for that post…

      Comment by psychochemiker | May 31, 2009 | Reply

  2. […] Recently, I read some of the differences between the septuagint and the masoretic text from Job re: original sin. Furthermore, there have been some comments at some blogs that have perplexed and worried me. Jack […]

    Pingback by Historical Collapse, Mormons, and Original Sin « Psychochemiker’s Blog | June 1, 2009 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: