Original Sin

[bbyrd009]

Genesis 3
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Much love!

well ok but again it is easy to put our own interpretation onto that, and assume that it is saying that we actually know good from evil, when it could be saying that we have merely assumed that role; iow saying "i know good from evil" does not mean i know

 

[marks]

Just like a man--blame the woman! She started it, lol! (I'm joking with you. I did read the rest of your post where you say that Adam was ultimately responsible.)

I would love to know why Adam stood there and let Eve eat the fruit. I suppose we may never know, at least on this side of heaven.

We don't know whether he was there at that time or not. Perhaps if he was, maybe he wanted to see what would happen when Eve ate.

But I don't know, and I'm not going to try to fill THAT silence.

Much love!

 

[marks]

well ok but again it is easy to put our own interpretation onto that, and assume that it is saying that we actually know good from evil, when it could be saying that we have merely assumed that role; iow saying "i know good from evil" does not mean i know

I'd say, just read it like it says.

Much love!

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I go along with that.

I'm reminded of the blind man, the disciples ask Jesus, who sinned that this man was born blind? Neither his sin, nor his parent's sin. The man wasn't culpable, but he was still blind.

I think he was born blind because God subjected creation to futility as the beginning of the restoration of Mankind.

Much love!

For me, that reason I can't embrace the idea of the the "Original Sin" doctrine, is that it does imply that an infant is culpable for another's sin, and sentenced to torture because of it.

I just don't find such to be part of God's Truth. A sinner is a person who sins. Not somebody whom suffers consequences for another's actions.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

We don't know whether he was there at that time or not. Perhaps if he was, maybe he wanted to see what would happen when Eve ate.

But I don't know, and I'm not going to try to fill THAT silence.

Much love!

We are told that Eve gave the fruit to Adam who was "with her," so I'm guessing he was right there.

Gen. 3:6 (NASB)--When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

(HCSB)--So she took some of its fruit and ate it; she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it....
.

 

[Enoch111]

Are you of the mind that Adam was supposed to protect Eve from the serpent, and that the real original sin was his failure to do that?

Absolutely. Husbands must protect their wives and families from evildoers. So you could call that the sin of negligence before the sin of disobedience.

 

[Enoch111]

We don't know for sure, but we are told that Eve gave the fruit to Adam who was "with her," so I'm guessing he was right there.

It is more likely that she then sought him out eagerly and all excited (wherever he was) and then offered him the forbidden fruit.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Your quote does NOT include "who was with her". That is pure conjecture. It is more likely that she then sought him out eagerly and all excited (wherever he was) and then offered him the forbidden fruit.

No, it's not conjecture on my part. JKV and NASB say "to her husband with her," and HCSB says "to her husband, who was with her." I added the HCSB after you quoted my post.

 

[marks]

Absolutely. Husbands must protect their wives and families from evildoers. So you could call that the sin of negligence before the sin of disobedience.

You might. But not me.

Much love!

 

[marks]

We are told that Eve gave the fruit to Adam who was "with her," so I'm guessing he was right there.

Gen. 3:6 (NASB)--When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

(HCSB)--So she took some of its fruit and ate it; she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it....
.

However, we have no idea whether there was a space of time intervening. How much time passed from when the serpent spoke to Eve, and when she plucked the fruit and ate?

Much is built on this silence in Scripture, even an entirely new "first sin" aside from what the Bible tells us, Adam's failure to "keep the garden", IE, protect it from the serpent. Of course, God created the serpent. And we are not told of anything about God telling Adam anything regarding the serpent.

Much love!

 

[marks]

For me, that reason I can't embrace the idea of the the "Original Sin" doctrine, is that it does imply that an infant is culpable for another's sin, and sentenced to torture because of it.

I just don't find such to be part of God's Truth. A sinner is a person who sins. Not somebody whom suffers consequences for another's actions.

I understand.

To me it made much more sense when I came to the understanding that Humanity isn't a collection of disassociated individuals, each determining their own destiny. That "In Christ" I share His inheritance. Otherwise, I'm left with Adam's inheritance.

Or the other way to say it, I'm not responsible for Adam's sin, but it DID damage me, so that I would inevitably sin.

Even so, I find the words in Romans 5 rather compelling, that by one man's offence, condemnation came to all.

There's that other question, do we sin because we are sinners, or are we sinners because we sin?

Even so, I really do think that God does not hold someone accountable who has not been given law, therefore, the infant who dies is received by Him, in my view.

Much love!

 

[Prayer Warrior]

However, we have no idea whether there was a space of time intervening. How much time passed from when the serpent spoke to Eve, and when she plucked the fruit and ate?

Much is built on this silence in Scripture, even an entirely new "first sin" aside from what the Bible tells us, Adam's failure to "keep the garden", IE, protect it from the serpent. Of course, God created the serpent. And we are not told of anything about God telling Adam anything regarding the serpent.

Much love!

I understand what you're saying. We would like to think that Adam was not standing there as Eve was being deceived, but there is nothing in the Bible that says otherwise (that I know of). And there is no sense of a time lag before Eve hands Adam the fruit from my reading of the account.

From time to time, the Holy Spirit leads me to read through Genesis. I believe it was one of those times that I noticed the words "her husband with her" implying that Adam was standing right there. I don't think this is a major point to debate, but it's something to think about.
.

 

[marks]

I understand what you're saying. We would like to think that Adam was not standing there as Eve was being deceived, but there is nothing in the Bible that says otherwise (that I know of). And there is no sense of a time lag before Eve hands Adam the fruit from my reading of the account.

From time to time, the Holy Spirit leads me to read through Genesis. I believe it was one of those times that I noticed the words "her husband with her" implying that Adam was standing right there. I don't think this is a major point to debate, but it's something to think about.
.

I agree, but I think it's just something we don't know for certain. And this seems to be one of those ambiguities in the Bible that some people spin into entire doctrines.

Myself, I get the sense that Eve is having a private conversation, because there is no interruption from Adam, who could have correct the convo to what God has actually said, about not touching the fruit. Or maybe Adam had told her that. Something else we don't know.

Much love!

 

[marks]

well ok but again it is easy to put our own interpretation onto that, and assume that it is saying that we actually know good from evil, when it could be saying that we have merely assumed that role; iow saying "i know good from evil" does not mean i know

Then there is another thought related to this, what does it mean to restore us from the effect of original sin? I think we've come accross this before too . . . innocence.

Much love!

 

[Prayer Warrior]

I agree, but I think it's just something we don't know for certain. And this seems to be one of those ambiguities in the Bible that some people spin into entire doctrines.

Myself, I get the sense that Eve is having a private conversation, because there is no interruption from Adam, who could have correct the convo to what God has actually said, about not touching the fruit. Or maybe Adam had told her that. Something else we don't know.

Much love!

Right, we don’t know for certain, and we don’t NEED to know.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I understand.

To me it made much more sense when I came to the understanding that Humanity isn't a collection of disassociated individuals, each determining their own destiny. That "In Christ" I share His inheritance. Otherwise, I'm left with Adam's inheritance.

Or the other way to say it, I'm not responsible for Adam's sin, but it DID damage me, so that I would inevitably sin.

I disagree with you on every point here.

Even so, I find the words in Romans 5 rather compelling, that by one man's offence, condemnation came to all.

There's that other question, do we sin because we are sinners, or are we sinners because we sin?

You choose to sin, that then makes you a sinner.
Reverse that is an attempt to erase your culpability.

Even so, I really do think that God does not hold someone accountable who has not been given law, therefore, the infant who dies is received by Him, in my view.

Much love!

Hence no Original Sin doctrine (from my perspective).



Aside- I really do enjoy your very thoughtful posts and engagement here @marks

 

[marks]

Aside- I really do enjoy your very thoughtful posts and engagement here @marks

Ditto!

 

[marks]

Hence no Original Sin doctrine (from my perspective).

I think I'm understanding your point of view. That either we're guilty or we're not, and guilt is either real or not. So if we are guilty, and guilt is real, it's because of our sin, not someone else's. Is that right?

Where I run into difficulty is in these statements that by one man's disobedience all are condemned. How do you understand that?

Much love!

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I think I'm understanding your point of view. That either we're guilty or we're not, and guilt is either real or not. So if we are guilty, and guilt is real, it's because of our sin, not someone else's. Is that right?

... I'm not sure...
Let me phrase things this way: a baby as committed no sin. They have no responsibility for another's sins. They are innocent until they themselves sin (and hence become a sinner themselves). An infant whom dies is saved by Christ's grace, not sentenced to torture for crimes they didn't commit.

Where I run into difficulty is in these statements that by one man's disobedience all are condemned. How do you understand that?

I understand your perspective, even as I disagree with it. Two main points of disagreement:
1) You aren't condemned due to crime you didn't commit. Infinitely just God doesn't work that way.
2) There's also another huge player on the field: Christ. Through Him is salvation. And He was always planned to be there, even before the entire Garden was created. The path for salvation was/is always there.

 

[bbyrd009]

I'd say, just read it like it says.

Much love!

yes, and wisdom is hidden from the wise