Why are Bible scholars leaving Christianity?

[Ghada]

The other verses seem to be John 1:2-4,9 which also don't comment on whether people are born with a sinful or sinless nature.

You try to teach Ps 51 independent of the rest of the Bible. John 1 shows the Word Christ is the only Maker.

If man's flesh is made sinful, the the Word Christ is made a sinful Maker.

I never claimed that anyone has ever been made by the devil.

Then who other than the Word makes any living creature on earth?

Man? Is man now a maker of natural flesh on earth with the Word? Did man learn to create something living, but with sin in it?

 

[Ghada]

​

I can find no translation which translates Psalm 51:5 like that.

It's mine. With context of John 1, the one I give is correct doctrinally. It doesn't grammatically corrupt the original text.

NIV:

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.​

Amplified Bible:

I was brought forth in [a state of] wickedness; In sin my mother conceived me [and from my beginning I, too, was sinful].​

This is as grammatically corrupt as trying to say the word was a god.

My doctrinal trasnlation agrees with other verses as well: "Behold, I was shapen in a lawless (world); and in (a world) of sin did my mother conceive me."

The Bible speaks of a world of iniquity, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

I was brought forth in [a state of] wickedness. This is acceptable for being brought forth in a world of wickedness.

 

[Ghada]

Of course conception of children is not sinful - it is obeying God's commandment! Genesis 1:28 (WEB):

Then what is conceived cannot be sinful. You say man is conceived with sin, but conceiving man is not sinful. And so now you teach sin proceeds from doing good.

As saith the proverb of the ancients, Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked: but mine hand shall not be upon thee.

You teach doing good can produce evil fruit.

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

The Bible teaches having sin is only by sinning. And having righteousness is only by doing righteousness.

The Bible also declares children are the Lord's heritage, not the devil's.

Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

God's heritage is not evil. Nor does He reward producing evil fruit, when can only be by doing evil.

God does not reward parents with His heritage of evil fruit of the womb. The conceived fruit of the womb is a good heritage and reward from God.

The children of men are not sinful fruit from the womb, as the reward of the devil by Adam sinning.

(28) God blessed them. God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. ..."​

Sexual intercourse between a man and his wife is not sinful.

Unless it is fornication and adultery. Even so, the fruit of the womb is not sinful, but still a reward of God. How people act with it, does not make the conceived babe sinful.

Nor does God make anything sinful, nor do parent inherit evil fruit of the womb.

But when both parents have a corrupt sinful nature, then the child will inherit that same corrupt sinful nature.

Then you have to say it is the Word and God making the fruit of the womb corrupt with sinful nature, or say the devil is fathering all babes of men in the womb.

Or maybe man is now his own maker of sinful babes? But then that also contradicts John 1, where there is no maker other than Christ, and nothing is made without Him.

This 'sin' thingy or spirit or gene would also have to be made by Christ, as well as imputing it into man's seed and flesh as a sort of sin 'virus'.

 

[Ghada]

(he did not have a human father, so he didn't inherit a sinful nature)

The virgin birth is prophesied as a sign, not as a 'way around' having the same flesh of all men.

Once again, "Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?"

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Jesus did not have an earthly father by conception in Mary, however His flesh certainly was shapen and conceived with the seed of man within the flesh of the woman. Mary's body was made of the seed of man, and so was Jesus' body made by the Spirit from her flesh.

The flesh of Jesus was from the same seed of all man from Adam, through David and Abraham. If not, then the flesh of Abraham and David also was not that of all men.

And if Jesus is not come in the same flesh of all men, then He is not come in the flesh of man. Which is exactly why Paul rebukes the notion that Jesus is come in some other kind of flesh than man today.

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

The difference here is between the nature of angel's body and that of man: immortal vs mortal. The nature of angels bodies are spiritually immortal, and the nature of man's body is naturally mortal.

Jesus did not come with an immortal body after the nature of angels, but with the mortal body of man by the seed of David.

You are preaching pagan hero worship, where the first and second Adam came with different kind of more powerful bodies. than of all other men.

(Adam was created perfect and sinless, but after sinning he became imperfect and started dying -

And so we see pagan heroic pantheonism taught for the Bible. They made cult worship of certain heroes, who were said to be born of gods with bodies made different and more supernatural than of other men.

The first and second Adam were not made and born with supernatural bodies, having the immortal nature of angels.

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

God directly rebukes any teaching of Adam or second Adam being made with immortal bodies like that of angels, but rather were made, and are still made by Christ, with the same mortal flesh and blood of all living creatures on earth.

Having natural mortal bodies is not a sin. Having immortal bodies of angels is not righteousness.

They are all simply made and created good by God, whether angelic immortal bodies in heaven, or natural mortal flesh in the womb.

 

[Ghada]

the punishment from God for sin).

This is more the natural theology of the carnal minded. The nature of all sinning and doing good is spiritual. It is the hearts of angels and men, that either does good or lusts with the bodies made them by God.

It is the soul that sins with the body, and it is the soul that dies to God by sinning.

The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Everyone else is decended from Adam and Eve after they had become corrupted,

Their soul and heart was corrupted by sinning with their bodies. Jesus born of Mary by the seed of David, was descended bodily from Adam.

and so all their descendants inherit that corrupt and sinful nature.

No man has, including Jesus Christ.

Until you answer who it is that conceives and makes flesh sinful in the womb, then you are arguing a sinful christ and god of this world, who is now making and conceiving sinful living creatures on earth.

The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

The nature of angels' bodies made by God, is immortal. The nature of man's bodies made by God is mortal. That Includes the mortal nature of Jesus' body, that was prepared by the Spirit from the flesh of Mary's womb, who was made of the seed of David.

If Adam and Eve had not sinned then all their decendants would have been born perfect and with a sinless nature.

I.e. all men would be the pantheon of god-born heroes on earth, with immortal nature of angels.

If everyone is born perfect and sinless, but then sinned, then Jesus would have to sacrifice his life over and over, billions of times, sacrificing his life for one person at a time. Hebrews 10:10 (WEB):

This of course is a nonsensical argument, made only to make the truth look foolish.

If being born pure and sinless as Adam, means man cannot sin, then Adam would not have sinned. All men are still made by Christ the same as Adam, except now in the womb, and like Adam all men have sinned.

The doctrine of all men now being made evil and unclean by Christ, so that they sin, is only for sinful men to justify their continued sinning.

It was possible for the pure made and born Adam to sin, as well as all men, including Jesus Christ.

I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

Paul quotes this verse in Heb 1 for the Son made flesh of men. It was possible for Jesus to sin like all men, being tempted like all men, but He didn't.

Rather than Jesus being made onto to idolic ideal of man, that no man can live like, it is Jesus the second Adam made flesh like all men, that condemns all men sinning in the flesh, because He didn't.

 

[Ghada]

So your typing above of "Then Behold, I was born in a world of inequity. In a world of sinners my mother conceived me" is garbage too!

Thank you! I am glad to be a heretick to you, even as you are to me.

I preach newborn babes pure and innocent from the womb, as God's heritage of good fruit by conception.

You teach sinful children cursed with sin from the womb, as the god of this world's inheritance of evil fruit by conception.

I also preach Christ lightens every man coming into the world, while you preach the devil darkens every man coming into the world.

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

What say you? Exactly who is it that is making all these sin-filled flesh of babes in the womb? And whose heritage and reward are these little sinful creatures coming into the world?

 

[keithr]

If man's flesh is made sinful, the the Word Christ is made a sinful Maker.

As I said, Adam was created perfect and sinless, but later he sinned. God punished him for that by sentencing him to die. Adam had a corrupted, imperfect and sinful nature from that point on, and everybody else has inherited that sinful nature. Jesus did not create anybody with a sinful nature. Paul agrees and wrote, Romans 5:12,17-19 (WEB):

(12) Therefore as sin entered into the world [humankind] through one man [Adam], and death through sin; so death passed to all men, because all sinned.​

(17) For if by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; so much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ.​

(18) So then as through one trespass, all men were condemned; even so through one act of righteousness, all men were justified to life.​

(19) For as through the one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one, many will be made righteous.​

Is man now a maker of natural flesh on earth with the Word? Did man learn to create something living, but with sin in it?

It's called procreation. We inherit a lot of things from our parents; one of those things is a sinful nature.

 

[keithr]

Unless it is fornication and adultery.

I wrote, "Sexual intercourse between a man and his wife is not sinful". Fornication and adultery, by definition, is not sexual intercourse between a man and his wife.

Then you have to say it is the Word and God making the fruit of the womb corrupt with sinful nature, or say the devil is fathering all babes of men in the womb.

This 'sin' thingy or spirit or gene would also have to be made by Christ, as well as imputing it into man's seed and flesh as a sort of sin 'virus'.

The Bible says otherwise, so your deduction of "you have to say" and "would also have to" is shown to be incorrect. When people are conceived in the womb, genetic material from the father and mother is used to create the new human. God/Jesus may also be involved, but the genetic material contains the imperfections of the parents. Some babies are born with deformities, disabilities or inherited illnesses. Just like we can inherit the colour of our eyes from our parents, the Bible says that we also inherit our sinful nature.

As the Cambridge Bible Notes says about Romans 5:12 ("Therefore as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin; so death passed to all men, because all sinned."):

Without explaining (what cannot be explained, perhaps, in this life,) the reason of the thing, it states as a fact concerning the Fall that its result is not only inherited sinfulness, but inherited guilt; i.e. liability to punishment, (that of death,) on account of the primeval Sin. Death (in human beings) is penalty: but e.g. infants, void of actual moral wrong, die: therefore they die for inherited (we may say for vicarious) guilt.​

 

[keithr]

The first and second Adam were not made and born with supernatural bodies, having the immortal nature of angels.

Angels are not immortal - only God was immortal, 1 Timothy 6:16 (WEB):

(16) who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and eternal power. Amen.​

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Unfortunately that is a misleading translation, it should be translated more like, Hebrews 2:16 (WEB):

(16) For most certainly, he doesn’t give help to angels, but he gives help to the offspring of Abraham.​

or Darby:

(16) For he does not indeed take hold of angels by the hand , but he takes hold of the seed of Abraham.​

The KJV says, "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham", with the italicised words meaning that they are words that were not in the original manuscripts but have been added by the translators. In fact the KJV footnote for the verse says:

{took not … : Gr. taketh not hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold }​

The Greek word is "epilambanomai", of which the Cambridge Bible Notes says:

All are now agreed that the verb does not mean “to take the nature of,” but “to take by the hand,” and so “to help” or “rescue.”​

For example, the same Greek word is used in Hebrews 8:9 which is translated as (KJV):

(9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt;​

The KJV translation can be more clearly seen to be incorrect when it is taken in context, Hebrews 2:14,16-17 (WEB):

(14) Since then the children have shared in flesh and blood, he also himself in the same way partook of the same, that through death he might bring to nothing him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,​

...​

(16) For most certainly, he doesn’t give help to angels, but he gives help to the offspring of Abraham.​

(17) Therefore he was obligated in all things to be made like his brothers, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people.​

It would not make sense to say that Jesus took on him the seed of Abraham and therefore he was obligated to to be made in all things like other men (his brothers - Christians). It does make sense that in order to help/rescue the seed of Abraham (Galations 3:29, MKJV - "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise") he had to ("was obligated to") be made just like them, i.e. he had to be made fully a man, so that he could make atonement for them by the sacrifice of a perfect human life - a substitue for Adam.

 

[Ghada]

As I said, Adam was created perfect and sinless, but later he sinned.

Since it doesn't matter how we are created, so far as sinning or not, then why do you insist that Christ now creates us differently than Adam?

And where does the Bible say He does?

God punished him for that by sentencing him to die. Adam had a corrupted, imperfect and sinful nature from that point on,

Now you know if he repented or not.

and everybody else has inherited that sinful nature.

Jesus is not a sinful maker of bodies conceived in the womb with sin.

Who is it imputing sin into the seed and flesh of man? Who made this sin 'spirit' or 'gene' to impute in the first place?

Until you begin to teach all the Bible together, you're just teaching your own stuff. Ps 51 cannot be taught independent of John 1.

Jesus did not create anybody with a sinful nature.

Then who does? Who is this maker of a sinful nature and imputing it into the bodies created by Jesus in the womb?

Paul agrees and wrote, Romans 5:12,17-19 (WEB):

(12) Therefore as sin entered into the world [humankind] through one man [Adam], and death through sin; so death passed to all men, because all sinned.​

And there we go. Death of the soul passes upon every soul by sinning.

Sinning enters into the world by man sinning.

'Sin' dies not pass upon anyone by 'inheritance' made in the womb.

It's called procreation. We inherit a lot of things from our parents; one of those things is a sinful nature.

The only thing we inherit from the seed of man, is the shape of man. Same with walruses.

And that inheritance is made by Christ, when making and shaping all things.

You are rejecting Jesus Christ as the only Maker of all things, whether spirit or flesh.

You are preaching another maker of sinful things made on earth, and you won't name who it is.

The only other candidate maker is the god of this world, but he cannot make any spirit nor flesh, but only a lie.

 

[Ghada]

When people are conceived in the womb, genetic material from the father and mother is used to create the new human.

True. And all such things on earth, including spirits in heaven, are created and made by Christ, just as in the beginning.

And when did He begin imputing sin into our natural matter?

God/Jesus may also be involved,

Well now, a bit lukewarm, but at least you get the point. So God is at least 'involved' in making something sinful.

Which would have to be so, since nothing is made without Him.

And so, God's will has something to do with man sinning. He imputes that natural sin into our bodies, so that we will certainly sin according to His will.

It's not our fault, because God made us this way. And the accusers of God as the tempter for man to sin are right.

And God has something to do with it. He imputes that natural sin into our bodies, so that we will certainly sin according to His will.

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

You've avoided the necessary answer about who makes and imputes sin into man's seed and flesh, because now you must join the self-excusers and accusers of God for their natural born sinning at His hands.

 

[Ghada]

but the genetic material contains the imperfections of the parents.

The mortal natural flesh of all the earth, created and made that way by the Word from the beginning.

Some babies are born with deformities, disabilities or inherited illnesses.

Now you stray from the elephant in the room, and veer into another lie, that men are born blind because of sin.

They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

All your doing is believing and teaching an old Jewish lie and fable.

The natural flesh and blood being corruptible is simply being mortal, not morally corrupt. No flesh nor grass has any moral scruples in it at all, but just natural growth and death back to dust.

And once again why? Since being born perfect and sinless doesn't stop anyone from sinning, why preach being born unclean and sinful?

 

[Ghada]

Just like we can inherit the colour of our eyes from our parents, the Bible says that we also inherit our sinful nature.

And here we go. Sin and sinning is just another natural inheritance and function of the natural body.

We have blue eyes, we eat, we poop, and we sin.

Thanks. I'll add this to the thread about unrepented Christians sinners making their sinning just something natural from cradle to grave.

As the Cambridge Bible Notes says about Romans 5:12

Oh boy. Poop from scholars on a thread about scholars forsaking the Bible. Good job.

("Therefore as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin; so death passed to all men, because all sinned."):

Death passes upon man's souls by sinning against God with the body. The body dies by natural mortal creation of God.

Sin and death by sin does not pass on anyone, but by sinning.

 

[Ghada]

Without explaining (what cannot be explained, perhaps, in this life,) the reason of the thing, it states as a fact concerning the Fall that its result is not only inherited sinfulness, but inherited guilt; i.e. liability to punishment, (that of death,) on account of the primeval Sin. Death (in human beings) is penalty: but e.g. infants, void of actual moral wrong, die: therefore they die for inherited (we may say for vicarious) guilt.

This is a perfect example of why many Bible 'scholars' ought to leave the Bible alone, and all Christians ought to leave them alone.

To put it scholarly: This is a disgusting display of transparent duplicity. It is an open example of purposed deceitful instruction by mental malfeasance.

I.e. the guy is a total insult to any one of amateur intelligence.

Without explaining (what cannot be explained, perhaps, in this life,)​

Really? The Bible verse doesn't explain anything? And maybe even the Bible cannot explain it at all? Really?

First He accuses God of not explaining something, so that he can 'suggest' it is unexplainable. Thereby inviting his own explanation.

He's now going to humbly fill in for God, what he says God does not do, and perhaps even cannot do.

Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

it states as a fact concerning the Fall that its result is not only inherited sinfulness, but inherited guilt;​

Wait. Didn't he just say that an explanation was not made for 'the thing'. Now we see a fact entered in to explain it?

Oh yes, that's the 'invitation' for personal explanation based upon something not explained, and perhaps not even explainable. His explanation, which as far as Mr Bible Egghead is concerned, is fact.

And so, here we go. His personal explanation is the fact, that sin is in the world and death passes upon man, because it's 'inherited' through the seed and flesh of man.

Which, of course, the verse says nothing about 'inheritance', but only about what men do in the world, which is sin against God.

And so, we see the scholarly use of sophistry to deceive the simple. By first doubting the certainty of the verse and it's sure conclusion, he then invites himself to enter in his own conclusion as certain fact, which has nothing to do with the sure conclusion of the verse itself.

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

And this is why such deceitful artificers soon depart from the Bible, because God calls them plainly what they are: profane and vain babbling 'professors'. They profane honest scholarship through the use of vain babble-speak.

 

[Ghada]

i.e. liability to punishment, (that of death,)​

I.e. the verse is afterall is explaining the fact that sin and death by sin, is by sinning, and only by sinning. 'Inheritance' of sin is nowhere being spoken of.

The verse does not say sin passes upon on all men, but that death of sin does by sinning. The foundational lie of the old Jewish fable, taken up later by Christian 'scholars', is that sin passes upon on all men, as if by inheritance of the seed.

The Bible says death passes upon on men that sin. Which began with the bad example of Adam. Not any 'inheritance' of sin passed along by Adam through the flesh.

The Bible says plainly in several ways: Sin is not inherited, but is committed. Having sin is not by inheritance but by doing it.

Lucifer did not inherit lust and sin, which could only have been from God the Father, and Adam did not inherit lust and sin from Lucifer the angel. Lust and sin is not inherited from any other than one's own heart and soul. Men and angels produce it of our own accord and will set against God.

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Children of the devil, whether angels or men, are not by inherited transference from the father of lust and sin, Lucifer. That would make the god of this world indeed a creator and maker of his own, which is what he lusted to do in the first place.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:

Having sin and death by sin is only by the act of doing it:

The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

There is no death whatsoever brought forth upon the heart and soul of any angel nor man, unless that Christ-created creature, first angels and then men, first lusts and sins against God.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Having sin and death of the soul and heart by sin, is only by sinning, not by inheritance of any other being created and made by Christ, whether angels in heaven or men on earth.

 

[Ghada]

but e.g. infants, void of actual moral wrong, die:​

Of course the bodies of all flesh die naturally. Some sooner some later.

Your phony professor is a carnal minded pretender to Bible study.

Death (in human beings) is penalty: but e.g. infants, void of actual moral wrong, die:​

The death that is by sinning, is the soul's separation from the Spirit of life. The death of the body that is by birth is natural.

 

[Ghada]

i.e. liability to punishment, (that of death,) on account of the primeval Sin.​

Wow. Dinosaurs sinned. The primordial soup was sinful after all. And then Tolkien's Sauros inserted his created dinosaur sin into man's seed! The evil seed of Sauros.

That is as close to the truth as Marvel's "The Adamic Race' ever comes. An evil sin imputed into the natural seed of man, by a saurian christ, that Jesus Christ does not know.

​

 

[Ghada]

therefore they die for inherited (we may say for vicarious) guilt.​

And so we conclude with sinful man's usual accusation against God, as being an unjust judge, that condemns a man by 'vicarious' guilt.

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

 

[Ghada]

(16) For most certainly, he doesn’t give help to angels, but he gives help to the offspring of Abraham.​

or Darby:

(16) For he does not indeed take hold of angels by the hand , but he takes hold of the seed of Abraham.​

It's not wrong to paraphrase the Bible doctrinally, so long as the translation is faithful to the text.

The problem here is context. If Heb 1-2 were speaking of the purpose of the Son' coming, then you could translate this way. But the context is not at this time purpose, but is who the Son is and how He comes to help man.

The Son is not an angel come in the flesh, and the flesh He comes in is not that of angels.

The nature of the bodies of angels is immortal, and the nature of the bodies of man is mortal.

Saying He is come in immortal flesh, is saying He is come as an angel temporarily in flesh that does not die.

Angels have come (and still do), in immortal flesh temporarily on earth. No angel comes in the flesh from the womb of women by the seed of men, and no man comes with immortal flesh of angels on earth.

Any teaching of the Son come by the seed of man and womb of a woman with immortal flesh, contradicts the Bible. It is a variant of Docetism, with an angel spirit coming temporarily in a body of flesh like that of men, but not that of men.

The same would be said for the first Adam.

 

[keithr]

Since it doesn't matter how we are created, so far as sinning or not, then why do you insist that Christ now creates us differently than Adam?

And where does the Bible say He does?

Adam was made from the dust of the earth (Genesis 3:19) - he was not born as a baby. Eve was made from one of Adam's ribs - she was made as a woman, not a baby. But everyone else has been made by humans procreating, and are born as babies. So clearly Adam was made differently from everybody else.

It does matter how we are created, so far as sinning is concerned. Adam was created perfect and could have remained sinless, just as God prepared a perfect human body for Jesus and Jesus remained sinless. After Adam and Eve had sinned they were changed. Eve, and all women descendants, would suffer much greater pain in childbirth (unlike all other mammals which don't suffer anywhere near as much as women do). Men were condemned to toil for food, and he and Eve would also suffer dying and death (by being barred from the food that would enable them to live forever). So their bodies and minds started decaying, until they eventually died. All their offspring were produced during that dying process, so everyone was born less than perfect physically and mentally, and even more inclined to sin than Adam.

Now you know if he repented or not.

Irrelevant. God had not at that time revealed any way of escape from the penalty of death. Whether Adam repented or not, it would not make any difference - he would still have died.

Who is it imputing sin into the seed and flesh of man? Who made this sin 'spirit' or 'gene' to impute in the first place?

I've already covered that. Romans 5:12 (WEB):

(12) Therefore as sin entered into the world through one man, and death through sin; so death passed to all men, because all sinned.​

Sin entered the world, that is all humankind, through Adam. So all humankind have become sinful. The fact that all men (people) have died shows that everyone has sinned. Barnes' Bible notes says:

Sin entered into the world - He was the first sinner of the race. The word “sin” here evidently means the violation of the Law of God. He was the first sinner among people, and in consequence all others became sinners. ... He says, therefore, that Adam was the first sinner of the race, and that death was the consequence.​

​

Into the world - Among mankind; Joh_1:10; Joh_3:16-17. The term “world” is often thus used to denote human beings, the race, the human family. The apostle here evidently is not discussing the doctrine of original sin, but he is stating a simple fact, intelligible to all: “The first man violated the Law of God, and, in this way, sin was introduced among human beings.” In this fact - this general, simple declaration - there is no mystery.​

'Sin' dies not pass upon anyone by 'inheritance' made in the womb.

So how do you explain the death of babies during or shortly after birth? Why do they suffer the wages of sin - death? If a baby hasn't sinned, but has a sinful nature, then is God justified by applying/allowing the penalty for sin (death)? Again, Barnes' Bible notes says:

2. Moreover, there are certain facts connected with the moral history of mankind, which present insuperable difficulties, if we deny the doctrines of representation and imputed sin. “How shall we on any other principle account for the universality of death, or rather of penal evil?” It can be traced back beyond all personal guilt. Its origin is higher. Antecedent to all actual transgression, man is visited with penal evil. He comes into the world under a necessity of dying. His whole constitution is disordered. His body and his mind bear on them the marks of a blighting curse. It is impossible on any theory to deny this. And why is man thus visited? Can the righteous God punish where there is no guilt? We must take one side or other of the alternative, that God inflicts punishment without guilt, or that Adam’s sin is imputed to his posterity. If we take the latter branch of the alternative, we are furnished with the ground of the divine procedure, and freed from many difficulties that press upon the opposite view.​

​

It may be noticed in this place also, that the death of infants is a striking proof of the infliction of penal evil, prior to personal or actual sin. Their tender bodies are assailed in a multitude of instances by acute and violent diseases, that call for our sympathy the more that the sufferers cannot disclose or communicate the source of their agony. They labor with death and struggle hard in his hands, until they resign the gift of life they had retained for so short a while. It is said, indeed, that the case of infants is not introduced in Scripture in connection with this subject, and our author tells us, that they are not at all referred to in any part of this disputed passage, nor included in the clause, “death reigned, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression.” On this, some observations will be found in the proper place. Meanwhile, there is the fact itself, and with it we are concerned now. “Why do infants die?” Perhaps it will be said that though they have committed no actual sin, yet they have a depraved nature; but this cedes the whole question, for that depraved nature is just a part of the penal evil, formerly noticed. Why are innocent infants visited with what entails death on them? One answer only can be given, and no ingenuity can evade the conclusion, “in Adam all die.” The wonder is, that this doctrine should ever have been denied. On the human family at large, on man and woman, on infant child, and hoary sire, on earth and sky, are traced the dismal effects of the first sin.​

So Barnes implies that it is God that imputes sin on everybody, and that because of Adam's sin everybody dies.