Did you read Mark 3:1-6? I don't think so. And lest you be hasty in your self-righteous judgement, consider 1 John 2:1, "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. AND IF ANY MAN SIN, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."

///

1. Thayer doesn't know what he is talking about.

2. Every sin is NOT covered by the Ten Commandments. For example, if you asked your sibling to do something for you, to which he agreed, yet reneged on his promise, he has sinned against you. That has nothing to do with the Decalogue. For him it is a sin, and a sin before you. Similarly, if you deliberately jumped a red light while driving, you are guilty of sin against society. There is no law in the Scriptures against jumping a red light, but by being granted a license to drive, you entered into an agreement to obey all the traffic laws of the land. You have sinned against the Board. That has nothing to do with the Decalogue.

For those reasons, there is another definition for sin, given by Paul, "he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for WHATSOEVER IS NOT OF FAITH IS SIN." (Rom. 14:23) In other words, if you dismiss your conscience, you will be found guilty; whether what you believe is true or not.

///

Nothing? NOTHING?

Exodus 20

12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

///

NOTHING? Your example fits the ninth.

In what way, pray tell?

///

I've never read anything so absurd! How long have you studied Greek? So a Greek scholar, who wrote a Greek lexicon, doesn't know what he is talking about?


Not fulfilling a promise is lying, wherher to a sister or to society; it's bearing a false witness against (to the detriment of) your neighbor. Besides, you are robbing them from the loyalty/veracity/honesty you owe to them as a fellow human being. It's easy (for those who can see the far-reaching claims of the law) to see that these are transgressions of the law.

There's no problem with the verses. The problem is your being obnoxious and arrogant. That says much more about your teachings than the verses you cite in vain.

If someone is wrong, just point it out and we can learn truth. But if you stand as an accuser of the brethren, we just learn that you're a jerk. It's up to you what you want us to learn.

Rosangela, not sure if you really intend to endorse Thayer, or any scribe, whatever their expertise - many spring from Rome as you know.
Bible scholars are frequently wrong on fundamental issues.
Thayer was a contemporary (1828-1901) of the Great Advent Movement, living in Massachusetts, a Harvard graduate immersed in the church. He surely heard of W. Miller and Joshua Himes, yet probably remained a Sunday keeper despite his Greek scholarship, or because of it.

Since lexicons and dictionaries contain men's definitions, we shouldn't lean upon them for Bible understanding.
__________________________________________

Not sure if you really mean that Rosangela. Many Bible scholars have been wrong on fundamental points. Thayer was a contemporary (1828-1901) of the the Great Advent Movement, a Harvard grad immersed in the church. He'd surely heard of William Miller and Joshua Himes, yet probably lived his life as a Sunday keeper despite his Greek scholarship, or due to it.

Since lexicons and dictionaries contain men's definitions,
we can't lean upon them for Bible understanding.
_______________________________