Original Sin

starn

Hi, Can anyone explain the whole thing about orignal sin to me

PDN

starn wrote: »

Hi, Can anyone explain the whole thing about orignal sin to me

Original sin is the concept that the first human beings chose to sin and, as a result, the rest of us inherit a tendency towards evil. Therefore no human being is perfect but we all choose, sooner or later, to do stuff that is wrong. It might be helpful to think of it as a virus that is passed from generation to generation.

Some people (eg Calvinists & Catholics) believe that we inherit not just the tendency to sin, but the guilt of our forefathers as well.

Origami sin, on the other hand, is when you fold pieces of paper to make rude shapes.

starn

PDN wrote: »

Original sin is the concept that the first human beings chose to sin and, as a result, the rest of us inherit a tendency towards evil.

Thanks PDB, but this is the bit I dont understand. How can sin be inherited from some distant distant relation.
Who you have never met or known and died thosands of years ago.

PDN

starn wrote: »

Thanks PDB, but this is the bit I dont understand. How can sin be inherited from some distant distant relation.
Who you have never met or known and died thosands of years ago.

You inherit hair colour, eye colour etc. Why not sin?

starn

PDN wrote: »

You inherit hair colour, eye colour etc. Why not sin?

Well can you show me where original sin sits in the genome.
I dont mean to sound flippent. But I find it very hard to belive we can inherit sin.

What exactly do we inherit the sins of the early humans or the sins of our whole paternal line.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Why not sin?

Because if it's inherited, then it's not one's own fault, and therefore it's unjust to be punished (or be threatened with punishment) for it.

PDN

starn wrote: »

Well can you show me where original sin sits in the genome.
I dont mean to sound flippent.

Then perhaps you should make up your mind whether you want to ask questions about Christian belief or whether you want to be flippant?

If you can inherit characteristics from distant ancestors via DNA then it should hardly be a stretch to allow that you can inherit other features in different ways.

But I find it very hard to belive we can inherit sin.

If you're not a Christian then that's no problem. Nobody expects you to believe it.

If you are a Christian then you already believe a lot of things that are harder to swallow than that.

What exactly do we inherit the sins of the early humans or the sins of our whole paternal line.

I don't believe we inherit specific sins, but rather that we inherit a tendency towards sin in general. I suspect this may well be through the paternal line (hence Christ was sinless through the virgin birth).

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Because if it's inherited, then it's not one's own fault, and therefore it's unjust to be punished (or be threatened with punishment) for it.

That's a very simplistic attitude to take, where it's all or nothing.

I believe that we inherit a tendency towards sin, but that we are still responsible for the choices we make.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

That's a very simplistic attitude to take, where it's all or nothing.

Well, I don't quite see how one can be held responsible for something that one was not consulted about and therefore had no control over.

That's not simplistic, that's straightforward honesty.

starn

PDN wrote: »

Then perhaps you should make up your mind whether you want to ask questions about Christian belief or whether you want to be flippant?

Well Im not being flippent I am concerned as coming across that why.

If you're not a Christian then that's no problem. Nobody expects you to believe it.

I realise that but I find whole the concept of original sin reprehensible.

If you can inherit characteristics from distant ancestors via DNA then it should hardly be a stretch to allow that you can inherit other features in difference

Now your being simplistic.

I don't believe we inherit specific sins, but rather that we inherit a tendency towards sin in general. I suspect this may well be through the paternal line (hence Christ was sinless through the virgin birth).

But dont unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin. How can they be dammed they havent sinned or inhertited a sin just inherting a tendency to sin.

Is a person regarded as being completely free from sin after the moment of baptism

Fanny Cradock

starn wrote: »

But dont unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin. How can they be dammed they havent sinned or inhertited a sin just inherting a tendency to sin.

Is a person regarded as being completely free from sin after the moment of baptism

I assume you are looking for a Catholic response?

starn

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I assume you are looking for a Catholic response?

Please, could you also explain from which bible passages original sin is derived form.
Thanks

PDN

starn wrote: »

Of course

Then no point in asking me.

starn

Why not

PDN

starn wrote: »

Why not

Because I'm not a Catholic.

Fanny Cradock

starn wrote: »

Please, could you also explain from which bible passages original sin is derived form.
Thanks

I'm not Catholic, nor is PDN, so others could better answer your question. For my part, I would not support the notion that salvation in any way hinges upon baptism.

starn

PDN wrote: »

Because I'm not a Catholic.

Or right. Sorry, hopefully someone else might be help to help me. Thanks anyway

phelixoflaherty

It's the sin of existence

postcynical

starn wrote: »

Or right. Sorry, hopefully someone else might be help to help me. Thanks anyway

I'm Catholic. What you've written isn't taught by the RCC as far as I know. I wish I'd chosen Ponzo or Lucky as my boards login name.

postcynical

robindch wrote: »

Because if it's inherited, then it's not one's own fault, and therefore it's unjust to be punished (or be threatened with punishment) for it.

I feel the same. But in fact, in the real world (;)), you could argue that kids receive blessings from their parents that they aren't entitled to. For instance many parents make sacrifices for their kids (perhaps not drinking or smoking during pregnancy). Is it wrong that their kids benefit from these sacrifices?

starn

postcynical wrote: »

I'm Catholic. What you've written isn't taught by the RCC as far as I know.

Ok which part.
Can you explain original sin to me.
Thanks

starn

phelixoflaherty wrote: »

It's the sin of existence

Can you explain that a bit more please

kelly1

starn wrote: »

Hi, Can anyone explain the whole thing about orignal sin to me

Hello Starn, I'll have a go.

My understanding is that original sin is the inheritance of the deprivation of the preternatural gifts which were given to Adam and Even before they sinned against God. So original sin isn't actual sin but is more a deprivation of the graces which we would have had if Adam hadn't sinned. It's not a "postive" curse/burden.

The preternatural gifts are moral integrity, immortality, infused knowledge and sanctifying grace (divine life within us). Because of Adam's sin, his children were born without these gifts. And they are gifts because God owes us nothing. We owe all that we have to Him.

The mystery for me is why original sin is inherited. One explanation I've heard is that we didn't inherit these gifts from Adam because he didn't possess them so could pass them on.

Another possible explanation is that greater good came from the fall that would have without it.

Here's a list of related links which I hope will answer your questions:

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_013.htm
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_014.htm
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_015.htm

starn

Thanks Kelly1

The preternatural gifts are moral integrity, immortality, infused knowledge and sanctifying grace (divine life within us). Because of Adam's sin, his children were born without these gifts

That makes a bit more sence then inherting someone elses sins.
I havent had a chance to look at the links yet. But I alreay have one or two questions if you dont mind.

1. When you say Adam and Eve do you mean that in a literal sence ?
2. Can you explain the differences between immortalty and sanctifying grace?

Im a bit confused by this bit

Another possible explanation is that greater good came from the fall that would have without it

Can you explain what you mean by that a little bit more.

kelly1

starn wrote: »

1. When you say Adam and Eve do you mean that in a literal sence?

I'm still undecided as to how the physical bodies of Adam and Eve came to be, could have been evolution or direct creation by God. The important point is that they were the first human beings endowed with a spirit.

starn wrote: »

2. Can you explain the differences between immortalty and sanctifying grace?

Immortality in this sense means freedom from sickness and bodily death. Sanctifying grace is esentially the existence of "divine life" within us. This is what we mean by indwelling of the Holy Spirit and indeed the whole Trinity. Without this grace, nobody gets to Heaven. And none of us is born with it but the good news is that Jesus won this grace for us by dying on the cross (if we're open to loving God and asking for His forgiveness). We initially recieve this grace through baptism but it can be lost through mortal sin and regained in the sacrament of reconciliation (confession).

According to two theologians I've read, they both said (and I agree), that the bestowing of sanctify grace upon a soul is greater than the creation of the entire universe because SG is divine life i.e. it makes us partakering in the life of God albeit usually in an invisible way in this world.

When we are united to Christ (through the Mystical Body), what we do for the love of God is seen by God as though it had been done by Jesus and therefore incurs very great merit. Without this union with Jesus, our good works have comparatilvely little merit because we are of a far lesser nature than God. The corollary is that when we harm others, God sees it as being done to Jesus (not good on Judgment Day!).

Grace is the life-blood of the Christian life. All grace flows from Jesus and so if we're cut off from Jesus (read parable of the vine), we're cut off from grace and therefore from God. We become no better than animals and far worse that animals when we sin.

starn wrote: »

Can you explain what you mean by that a little bit more.

I don't have any kind of list but a few things comes to mind.

Without the weaknesses that we've inherited, we wouldn't have the ability to gain merit for good works and the struggle against evil and temptation. Every time we turn out back on sin, God takes this into account so that when we are judged we will have earned a greater reward than we would have if we hadn't struggled against "the devil, the world and the flesh". We increase our "heavenly riches" and our degree of glory with Christ.

Without the struggle of live there would be no spiritual growth. Life's difficulties/struggles gives us the opportunity to grow in virtue and spiritual strength.

That's all I can think of for now.

Soul Winner

starn wrote: »

Hi, Can anyone explain the whole thing about orignal sin to me

Three things one must remember in order to carry on a reasonable conversation about original sin. Christians assume these things to be true so debating any of them is not debating the concept of original sin and would therefore constitute a new thread. If you don't assume these to be true then that's fine but make a note that Christians do.

Anyway, the three things to remember that Christian assume as true:

1. God exists.
2. What God says goes.
3. God is faithful to His Word.

With them in mind we might be able to proceed.

To talk about original sin one must understand what normal sin is. In the New Testament Paul uses the word harmatia in the Greek to speak of sin. Harmatia being literally translated into English means simply to fall short of God's glory, to miss the mark. This was in relation to God's law which God gave to Moses. Now God's law were things God said we must do in order to deserve eternal life. The problem was that nobody could keep them. And the main reason for this was because they had inherited a sinful condition at conception.

Now original sin is a concept that the first sin came into the world through one man, Adam. Before Adam and Eve sinned - i.e. didn't trust what God said - death was as abstract to them as eternal life is to us today. Back then life was everywhere but God 'spoke' of death. So they didn't know from experience what death was like in reality.

Now God said that to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (whatever that was) will cause them to die. Die meaning that they shall be separated from the source of life which was God Himself. The serpent (whatever form it had before God cursed it to crawl on its belly I don't know) came along and straight away made them question what God 'said'. "Did God really say...?" He made them doubt what God said and then he planted the lie that God is somehow holding out on them, that He just didn't want them to eat of the tree because they would become like Him. The serpent said that if they eat of the tree then they wouldn't die and that they would become like God. And surprise surprise they believed the serpent.

Now God has a problem. He has to be faithful to His Word. He had said for sin comes death, so therefore Adam and Eve must die. "For in the day that you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall surely die." Now in another place it states that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. If you look through the genealogies in Genesis from Adam on wards you will notice that none of them lived beyond a thousand years, they all died before that, proving what the serpent said to be a lie and what God said to be true.

Now we all being in Adam in the sense of our genes, it follows that when Adam was cursed we too were cursed, that is why we inherit our sinful natures even though the sins we commit now are our own sins and not Adam's fault but the condition of our sinful nature is Adam's fault. But as sin came in through one so too did eternal life come in through one Man, Christ Jesus the second Adam as the New Testament calls Him. Because of what that one Man did we now have access back to the source of life by just trusting in what God says and acting on it, that's what faith is, the very thing Adam and Eve didn't' have when God said that if they eat of the tree then they would die. They didn't hold fast to His Word and began to die, but because of His grace in Christ we now have another chance to act in faith on His Word.

Now whether you believe this story to be true or myth the central principle is still the same. God means what He says and will carry out what He says, even to His own hurt. Ours is to hold fast to what He says no matter what circumstances arise to defy it.

"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Psalm 119:89

starn

Thank guys, there lots there so Im gonna have another read thru and check out the links
Think I still might have a few questions for you both when Im finished.
But I already think Im going to have a bit of a problem with it if it all stems form Adam and Eve.

Do the church still regard original sin as docterine ?

robindch

postcynical wrote: »

in the real world you could argue that kids receive blessings from their parents that they aren't entitled to. For instance many parents make sacrifices for their kids (perhaps not drinking or smoking during pregnancy). Is it wrong that their kids benefit from these sacrifices?

Well, I think that if somebody reckons that not drinking or smoking during pregnancy (or boozing or smoking around kids after they've been born) is a significant sacrifice, then I think they should sit down and figure out whether they have the degree of responsibility necessary to be a good parent

The same with the chrisitan god -- if he's knowingly designed people who could damage themselves for eternity, then he should (a) not be surprised or disappointed if they do and (b) have not bothered sacrificing himself to himself to seal a deal he made with himself, when he simply could have designed people correctly the first time around.

It smacks of parental irresponsibility on several levels.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

The same with the chrisitan god -- if he's knowingly designed people who could damage themselves for eternity, then he should (a) not be surprised or disappointed if they do and (b) have not bothered sacrificing himself to himself to seal a deal he made with himself, when he simply could have designed people correctly the first time around.

It smacks of parental irresponsibility on several levels.

Lets assume that you do believe in God for a moment. Your statement is really just you saying, 'this is how I think it should work', but without knowing if such a thing is possible.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Well, I think that if somebody reckons that not drinking or smoking during pregnancy (or boozing or smoking around kids after they've been born) is a significant sacrifice, then I think they should sit down and figure out whether they have the degree of responsibility necessary to be a good parent

The same with the chrisitan god -- if he's knowingly designed people who could damage themselves for eternity, then he should (a) not be surprised or disappointed if they do and (b) have not bothered sacrificing himself to himself to seal a deal he made with himself, when he simply could have designed people correctly the first time around.

It smacks of parental irresponsibility on several levels.

Or they could have just not eating of the fricken tree in the first place. To not set boundaries for one's children is also irresponsible parenting don't you agree?

kelly1

starn wrote: »

Do the church still regard original sin as docterine ?

The RCC certainly does. The doctrine explains why there is so much sin an corruption and sin in the world and why we must depend on God for the grace to live lives pleasing to Him.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Lets assume that you do believe in God for a moment. Your statement is really just you saying, 'this is how I think it should work', but without knowing if such a thing is possible

Well, I'm assuming that the deity could be omnipotent, so anything should be possible, including a rational, reasonable and fair deal?

Soul Winner wrote: »

To not set boundaries for one's children is also irresponsible parenting don't you agree?

Of course I agreed However, as a parent myself, I don't set a trap for my kid into which I know she'll fall, and then, having fallen in, I don't condemn her and her descendants to the possibility of eternal damnation for all, and the certainty of damnation for some.

That's irresponsible parenting.

Phototoxin

I feel the same. But in fact, in the real world (), you could argue that kids receive blessings from their parents that they aren't entitled to. For instance many parents make sacrifices for their kids (perhaps not drinking or smoking during pregnancy). Is it wrong that their kids benefit from these sacrifices?

yeah but its God you're supposed to be talking about who is bigger and more sensible and more fair than the 'real' world so you think he'd devlop better methods of making people love him than the whole 'you're going to hell if you dont' approach

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Or they could have just not eating of the fricken tree in the first place. To not set boundaries for one's children is also irresponsible parenting don't you agree?

We set boundaries for our children to help them learn how to protect themselves in the world we don't control, ie don't play on the road, don't climb that hill.

Adam and Eve existed in a utopia. There was nothing to protect them from, so setting boundaries would not have served any purpose.

The only thing they need to be protected from was God's wrath, and since God never demonstrated this to them there was no chance to properly learn what would happen to them if they disobeyed him.

Anyway, its all a bit irrelevant though since most of you, if I understand correct, don't believe this story literally happened.

Which brings me to my question. Where does that leave the idea of inherited sin?

If there never was an Adam and Eve (a pair of first humans), or a garden of Eden where they lived, who do we inherit our sin from?

starn

Wicknight wrote: »

Anyway, its all a bit irrelevant though since most of you, if I understand correct, don't believe this story literally happened.

Which brings me to my question. Where does that leave the idea of inherited sin?

If there never was an Adam and Eve (a pair of first humans), or a garden of Eden where they lived, who do we inherit our sin from?

Well Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden definatly didnt happen, and Ive been waiting three pages for someone to explain to me who or why do we inherit sin. To be fair it all sounds like a load of mumbo jumbo to me.

JimiTime

starn wrote: »

Well Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden definatly didnt happen,

I'm not saying you're wrong, but how do you 'know' this?

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

We set boundaries for our children to help them learn how to protect themselves in the world we don't control, ie don't play on the road, don't climb that hill.

Adam and Eve existed in a utopia. There was nothing to protect them from, so setting boundaries would not have served any purpose.

God laid down a rule - don't eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge (probably an alegory for some other rule). They disobeyed and rebelled against their Creator and the source of all good. They were selfish by going against the will of God which is perfectly good and just and following the own will (which have self-destructive effects). Sin was the boundary.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which brings me to my question. Where does that leave the idea of inherited sin?

If there never was an Adam and Eve (a pair of first humans), or a garden of Eden where they lived, who do we inherit our sin from?

If we define Adam and Eve as the first humans who had spiritual souls, there's no problem.

starn wrote: »

Well Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden definatly didnt happen, and Ive been waiting three pages for someone to explain to me who or why do we inherit sin. To be fair it all sounds like a load of mumbo jumbo to me.

The term original sin I think is misleading. There no actual sin inherited. It means a deprivation of the graces we would have had if Adam hadn't sinned.

starn

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not saying you're wrong, but how do you 'know' this?

There is another thread all about that somewhere else on the forum, and Id like to stay well away from it

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Well, I'm assuming that the deity could be omnipotent, so anything should be possible, including a rational, reasonable and fair deal?

On the face of it such a proposal seems reasonable, but again it really is just you saying how things should work, not how they do.

While I believe that God is omnipotent, many Christians think that this power extends to matters that are both logical (ruling out such canards as the square circle) and consistent with his character.

Again, assuming you believe there is a Christian God, we would have to admit that we don't understand the very nature of sin. It is a strange and mysterious thing - as, too, is the manner in how God deals with it. All we really know is that sin is something that apparently permeates the cosmos, and until Jesus, temporarily caused the whole creation project to backslide. I don't pretend to know why God can't simply click his fingers and say we are all forgiven. Maybe it is a case that is compelled to be true to himself, or possibly sin is a much more complex and pernicious thing then we can understand.

If there is a thing called sin (remembering that you have temporarily 're-converted') then dictating the manner in how God deals with it is about as useful and sensible as me screaming at the universe until I'm blue in the face that things should be done differently. It would be entirely irrational, unreasonable an unfair of me to expect the universe to shift on it axis because of my cries.

JimiTime

starn wrote: »

There is another thread all about that somewhere else on the forum,

Really? Are you talking about the evolution thread?

and Id like to stay well away from it

Maybe you shouldn't make such a strong statement, if you are not going to provide us with your reasons as to how you 'know' Adam and Eve never existed. As i said, I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering how you 'know' your statement to be true.

starn

kelly1 wrote: »

God laid down a rule - don't eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge (probably an alegory for some other rule). They disobeyed and rebelled against their Creator and the source of all good. They were selfish by going against the will of God which is perfectly good and just and following the own will (which have self-destructive effects). Sin was the boundary.

If we define Adam and Eve as the first humans who had spiritual souls, there's no problem.


The term original sin I think is misleading. There no actual sin inherited. It means a deprivation of the graces we would have had if Adam hadn't sinned.

OK altough that is still quite vauge. Its a much better explination then I expected. So thanks.
Can you also explain to me what you mean by " Sin was the boundry" I know Ive asked already but can anyone direct me to the passages in the bible form which the docterine of orinal sin is derived ?

Also, can someone explain the link between orginal sin, unbaptised babies and limbo.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

God laid down a rule - don't eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge (probably an alegory for some other rule). They disobeyed and rebelled against their Creator and the source of all good. They were selfish by going against the will of God which is perfectly good and just and following the own will (which have self-destructive effects). Sin was the boundary.

Ok. None of that has anything to do with what I said, but ok

The question is why did God lay down a rule. The justification used before was that parents lay down rules to their children, and this is good parenting. But I countered this with the fact that parents do this to protect their children. Adam and Eve did not require protection from anything except God himself. The only bad thing that could happen to Adam and Eve is if God himself did something bad to them. Therefore what is the purpose of placing the tree in the garden and laying down the rule?

kelly1 wrote: »

If we define Adam and Eve as the first humans who had spiritual souls, there's no problem.

Well yes there are loads of problems with that, but if we are going to change the story why not simply change it entirely? It is a metaphor and there is no inherited sin or deprecation. Its just a story about how you should listen to God or he will get annoyed?

starn

.

starn

JimiTime wrote: »

Really? Are you talking about the evolution thread?

Of course

Maybe you shouldn't make such a strong statement, if you are not going to provide us with your reasons as to how you 'know' Adam and Eve never existed.

I have a question regarding RCC docterine. As far as Im aware they have reconised evoultion, and accepted the Adam and Eve are allogorial. What I would like to know is how if Adam and Eve were not real in the literal sence. How that effect RC docterine regarding original sin.

As i said, I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering how you 'know' your statement to be true.

I dont think listing the points of evolution over creationism is really relevent. When there is already quite along thread on it somewhere else
Honestly I think your just trying to be a sh1t stirer and its not going to work with me. If you want belive that Adam and Eve lived in the garden of eden and exsisted in a literal sence thats fine. But the burdon of proof lies with you, and belongs in another thread

S

JimiTime

starn wrote: »

Honestly I think your just trying to be a sh1t stirer and its not going to work with me. If you want belive that Adam and Eve lived in the garden of eden and exsisted in a literal sence thats fine. But the burdon of proof lies with you, and belongs in another thread

S

Well thanks for being honest. I'll be honest in return. I'm not attemping to stir the sh!t, but when you make such a strong statement, i would expect you have a pretty concise answer. One does not have to be a creationist to believe in Adam and Eve. If you don't wish to back up your claim, thats fine. 2 things struck me about your claim, a) That you may be ignorant to the different theories regarding Adam and Eve, and b) The fact that you know, rather than believe they didn't exist.

All I was doing was looking for you to clarify this knowledge (which may be faulty). Directing me to a page where 2 creationists are battling it out with hoardes of atheists will hardly give me my answer. But hey, its no biggie, leave it be if its a distraction.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Which brings me to my question. Where does that leave the idea of inherited sin?

If there never was an Adam and Eve (a pair of first humans), or a garden of Eden where they lived, who do we inherit our sin from?

The notion of inherited sin (a concept I admit I am fairly clueless about) works with a literal Adam and Eve or a metaphorical pair that are representative of a larger population.

starn

JimiTime wrote: »

Well thanks for being honest. I'll be honest in return. I'm not attemping to stir the sh!t,

Sorry I wrongly [I hope] assumed you were some sort of militant creationist

a) That you may be ignorant to the different theories regarding Adam and Eve, and b) The fact that you know, rather than believe they didn't exist.

Truth be told I am unaware of the different interpretations of Adam and Eve other then literal.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm not attemping to stir the sh!t, but when you make such a strong statement, i would expect you have a pretty concise answer.

I imagine he was refering to Adam and Eve as described in the Bible, rather than you know the new Adam and Eve stories (and the infinite variations on that) made up by modern Christians when they realised the old one never happened. :rolleyes:

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

I imagine he was refering to Adam and Eve as described in the Bible, rather than you know the new Adam and Eve stories (and the infinite variations on that) made up by modern Christians when they realised the old one never happened. :rolleyes:

Now that starn, is stirring the sh!t;):)

Fanny Cradock

starn wrote: »

Truth be told I am unaware of the different interpretations of Adam and Eve other then literal.

Many Christians in Europe don't subscribe to a literal reading of Genesis. In fact, the mainstream denominations accept evolution or are happy to let their parishioners decide.

Some of the distinctions regarding Genesis are as follows:

Young earth creationism - this arose by counting over the genealogies and getting a figure of an earth 6,000 years old.
Old earth creationism - a literal reading of Genesis that isn't necessarily read as strictly as YEC.
Theistic Evolution - this is the position held by Anglicism, RCC, Eastern Orthodox etc. It fully accepts the theory of evolution and sees no contradiction with Genesis, which is read as a metaphorical story for an actual series of events.

There are other variations on the above.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

We set boundaries for our children to help them learn how to protect themselves in the world we don't control, ie don't play on the road, don't climb that hill.

The same could be said for God. He didn't make them not eat of the tree, He just warned them what would happen if they did. They did eat and what He said would happen did happen. Just like a parent would say to their child, don't get too close to the road, if you do you will get knocked down.

There are three possibilities for why the tree was there.

1) God gave them everything else and as the Boss just wanted to establish the right to say NO to just one thing. So he put the no no tree there for that very purpose. What was possibly more important to God wasn't the fact that He didn't want them to eat of the tree, rather it was to teach them that what He says is true and that you are to live by every Word He says. If what He says isn't true then there is no basis for faith in Him. As the creator and giver of all life I believe He has that right.

2) God is just a big old meanie who hates sharing His tree with human beings.

3) God doesn't exist and the whole story is a load of BS.

Wicknight wrote: »

Adam and Eve existed in a utopia. There was nothing to protect them from, so setting boundaries would not have served any purpose.

But there was something to protect them from. Death. The opposite of life. God being the source of life so any separation from Him would result in death. So He wasn't protecting them from Himself, rather from the lack of Himself.

Wicknight wrote: »

The only thing they need to be protected from was God's wrath, and since God never demonstrated this to them there was no chance to properly learn what would happen to them if they disobeyed him.

The only way you can learn what will happen if you disobey someone is to actually disobey them. They got their warning and didn't heed it, hence the consequences that resulted. In any case the record states that they didn’t die straight away. God had left open a way back to Him. He established a meeting place where they were to give offerings to Him. This is shown when one reads the story of Cain and Able. They came together to the same place to give their offerings. Abel’s was accepted and Cain’s wasn’t. Cain brought of the ground that God had curse through Adam and Abel brought of his flocks which must have been the way God laid it down. Which is probably why God rejected Cain’s offering. Cain was doing it his own way but Abel did it God’s way. Any th epoint benig that God did not close the door on them completely, that door is still open.

Wicknight wrote: »

Anyway, its all a bit irrelevant though since most of you, if I understand correct, don't believe this story literally happened.

Well I believe it literally happened. Why shouldn't I? Because there is scientific evidence that shows that mankind existed a lot longer than what the bible says? Well the Bible doesn’t say that God created mankind in general (Ishi) when describing the creation of Adam. Genesis 1:26 in Hebrew states: “Let us create Adam in our own image.” It should not read “Let us create man in our image.” It says that God breathed into Adam and Adam became a living soul. This is what is says in the Hebrew despite what way it’s translated into in English. And as there is only enough hominid fossils to fill a standard size coffin anyway then I fail to see why that is any basis for believing that the Adam and Eve story to be false. And sure you can find all the fossils of man like creatures all you want, you will never find a fossilised soul.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which brings me to my question. Where does that leave the idea of inherited sin?

For me it leaves it exactly where it was, in Adam.

Wicknight wrote: »

If there never was an Adam and Eve (a pair of first humans), or a garden of Eden where they lived, who do we inherit our sin from?

I believe there was a literal Adam and Eve. As one whose faith is based on the resurrection of Jesus which if true makes what He says more reliable than anything else and He believed in Adam and Eve and quoted from Genesis then as one who is no better than His master I too believe in a literal Adam and Eve and have no problem admitting it either.

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female." Mark 10:6

Science may find all kinds of manlike fossils in the old geology of the earth but when God created Adam, that was something which different to anything else he had made up to that point.

That does not mean that I believe that the earth is only 6000 years old, I don't. I believe that there is room for a vast gulf of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth became a waste and a desolation."

The bible gives no indication as to how much time passed between these two verses. Most English translations translate verse 2 as "The earth was without form and void." But the Hebrew word used (waw) which means 'became' can easily be used in Genesis 1:2 as it is in other verse of Genesis like in Genesis 2:7 "Adam became a living soul." Even the prophet Isaiah confirms that God did not create the earth a waste and a desolation:

"For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens, He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited, "I am the LORD, and there is none else." Isaiah 45:18

Whatever geological evidence we have for an old earth I have no problem with whatsoever, a correct reading of the Bible in its original languages will inform the reader that there is no conflict between scientific evidence and the Bible. The only conflict between science and religion is with religious people who hold to a literal English translation of the book of Genesis and atheistic scientists who don't want to believe the bible and use science as a club to beat at up people who do. Usually good theologians who are bad scientists an good scientists who are bad theologians. But if one actually studies the Bible one will clearly see that there is no conflict at all.

I believe that the Earth was inhabited long before Adam was created, but something happened which made the Earth which was not created to be a waste, to become a waste and a desolation. Something cataclysmic happened which I believe might have had something to do with Satan being cast down but that’s speculative. The prophet Jeremiah states that in a vision he saw the Earth become a waste when there was no Adam but there were cities.

“I beheld the earth, and indeed it was without form, and void (became a waste); And the heavens, they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and indeed they trembled, And all the hills moved back and forth. I beheld, and indeed there was no man (Adam), And all the birds of the heavens had fled. I beheld, and indeed the fruitful land was a wilderness, And all its cities were broken down at the presence of the LORD, by His fierce anger.” Jeremiah 4:23-26

Now if the vision is true what where these cities? The literal translation for the cities is “meeting places of intelligent beings.” I believe it is possible that these intelligent beings were the Sons of God or Angels who as Jude 1:6 says left their first estate which caused God’s wrath to be poured out on them. And that the void which they left in heaven is to be made up by the redeemed of Adam's descendents who will do what Adam and Eve didn't do, which is trust in what God says. Faint in His Son, the Eternal Living Word of God who became flesh and dwelt among us, died paying the penalty for our sins and rose again according to the promise of the Father and is now seated (type of work finished) at the right hand of God making intercession for us on our behalf, silencing the accuser of the brethren Satan who accuses us night and day before God and God night and day before us. My point is that there is a lot if indications in the Bible which suggest that the Earth is a lot older than 6000 years old.

But from Adam onwards we are dealing with a re-creative period. Like when God said to Noah, replenish the earth, He said the same to Adam and Eve. Just because the prior cataclysm to the creation of Adam and Eve is not recorded in Genesis does not mean it didn’t happen. There is even geological evidence for many cataclysms which struck this earth in its very ancient past. As for Noah’s flood. The YECs want the older geologic evidence for the really ancient cataclysms to be evidence of Noah’s flood. I don’t go along with that. Noah’s flood came after that and there is some evidence for that which doesn’t affect the other more ancient cataclysmic evidence or a really old earth. So unless you can show that what I have outlined above is not what the Hebrews words are saying then I for one have no problem with evolution or a billions of years old earth because I can believe in the bible and not be bothered by it. The main cause of the problem is just bad translations from the original languages into our very ambiguous English.