The verse states, "Behold, with iniquity I was formed, and with sin my mother conceived me. Most the commentaries are not available in english (https://mg.alhatorah.org/Full/Tehillim/51.6#e1n6). Some explain about David ha-melech's mother, and some about his father. Onkelos in the Targum comments, "Behold, in iniquities my father thought to create me; and in the sin of the evil impulse my mother conceived me." If "father" refers to Yishai, how can we reconcile that with Shabbat 55b which says Yishai had no sin or flaw of his own? If "father" referred to Hashem, how could Hashem create in iniquity, unless it should be read that Hashem of course created with purity, but created David with iniquity in him in order to give him an obstacle to overcome to earn his reward? And similar questions for the mother aspect of the interpretation on any levels it could apply (about Nitzevet, about Eve, and if applicable about the Shechinah, which I'm not saying it is, just that I'd like to learn those interpretations too if they exist).
Another midrash, google translates as "Both in my sinful space and in G-d - the tendency to sin and iniquity is natural in man." You cannot go off google translations, sometimes they are correct, sometimes they make huge errors that have heretical implications. I would discount any translation that flirted with the idea of sin in G-d as heretical and wrong, but since some texts do flirt with the idea of illicit desire within G-d, I can't know if it's the translation or if this commentary is exploring a similar idea? So I am asking for help to learn the key concepts from the most instructive commentaries on this verse, whether from the ones available in english on altorah or elsewhere. For example they don't have many of the major kabbalists there, but that is not my focus, since if there are non-kabbalists with great interpretations elsewhere, I am just as interested in those. In general I am always searching for the interpretations that mean the most to me and expand my scope of contemplation the most (part of the process of understanding but that is a much longer process). I seem to connect most with the more philosophic and (at first) counter-intuitive interpretations which are often found with the kabbalists, thus my interest, but many times these come from non-kabbalists also, or sometimes I connect to the peshat or pemez more than the derash or sod. It just depends on a case by case basis, which is why I always want to know the full scope of the interpretations, from the most "simple" explanations to the most complex.