Yup, the particulars aren't that important are they? Whether it was a literal tree, a tree standing figuratively for something else...Adam and Eve disobeyed God.
Yup, the particulars aren't that important are they? Whether it was a literal tree, a tree standing figuratively for something else...Adam and Eve _disobeyed_ God.
End of story, eh?
A momentus (that's lowercase, if you noticed) day in history. Oak and I absolutely agree on something. God did not identify the particular fruit. God did not say whether it was literal or figurative. If God did not specify it, and it cannot be garnered from the context, then it doesn't matter. Yeehaw, hooray. If God didn't say or imply it, it really doesn't matter.
Hey, I was honestly hoping someone had uncovered some hidden information that identified exactly what the original sin was. But, I am perfectly fine just having it be disobedience, and disobedience, alone. One can't determine obedience unless there is something to obey. Why did God have this one thing Adam couldn't do? He had to be able to determine Adam's obedience.
Although, whatever it was, I'm sure it mattered to Adam and Eve; God gave them specific instructions, and they decided to take a different path.
Here's some more food for thought:
Was God's command totally arbitrary and capricious, or was there some logic and ssense that Adam and Eve could easily perceive?
Was the "thou shalt surely die" part of the command because God was going to punish Adam & Eve, or because of an inherant danger in "the tree" that would cause death in and of itself?
An illustration:
When my children were small I told them to eat their vegetables. No inherant, immediate harm would come from not eating their vegetables, but there might be a consequence from failure to obey imposed by me. On the other hand they were told not to play in the street, inherant, immediate harm could result if a car ran them over. The first was a standard that I imposed because of my standards, which were debatable and arguable, the second was imposed to keep them alive.
Like anyone else, the particulars behind the "original sin" may be anyone's guess, but I must confess, I have certainly found theories and takes concerning the first two chapters of Genesis far more interesting than anything I recall being offered through Wayshua Multinational.
I think the view that the first two chapters of Genesis comprising of two different texts - hence, two different creation accounts stitched together - has a bit going for it. Theories along these lines may often be reviewed in the field of OT critical scholarship.
Then there are various esoteric interpretations on why these accounts are different and even contradictory in places,i.e., the first creation account actually concerns that of the spiritual realm, and the second, the material (though I haven't pursued that line of reasoning since first encountering it years ago).
Then there's what might be regarded a "gnostic" interpretation (seemingly evident in some movements of Judaism, as explored by Margaret Barker) - that the first creation account concerned a world created wholly good by the highest "Elohim", while the second, concerned the original creation going downhill upon the angel "Yahweh" entering the scene.
Pretty unusual, but somehow not as outrightly insane as a masterbating Adam, a lesbian Eve, and a universe bobbing in a primoridial sac of water. Which sounds like a bad soap opera.
Isn't it a great thing when a Christian can be right in his thinking about a subject without having to know the details to the nth degree.
Can a Christian simply accept the truth that Jesus Christ was crucified, without having to affirm that it was either a straight pole or a t-shaped object? It is important from God's perspective that we realize what was accomplished by Jesus died upon that object. Or, maybe we do need to know exactly what shape the object was, exactly which day of the week it was, the exact temperature at the time of his death, the exact composition of the soil, the exact number of people present, the height and weight or each soldier present, the wind direction at the time. Or we can just realize what his death represented, period.
Reminds me of something I said a couple of years ago: we spent more time discerning the number of crosses on the side than the significance of the cross in the middle.
Isn't it a great thing when a Christian can be right in his thinking about a subject without having to know the details to the nth degree.
Can a Christian simply accept the truth that Jesus Christ was crucified, without having to affirm that it was either a straight pole or a t-shaped object? It is important from God's perspective that we realize what was accomplished by Jesus died upon that object. Or, maybe we do need to know exactly what shape the object was, exactly which day of the week it was, the exact temperature at the time of his death, the exact composition of the soil, the exact number of people present, the height and weight or each soldier present, the wind direction at the time. Or we can just realize what his death represented, period.
Hmmm~~~ can a Christain simply accept the truth that a Christain can also endure a root canal without No·vo·cain.
Can a Christain simply accept the Earth is not the Centre of The Universe?
Can a Christain simply accept ~~~
~~~
Whoops whoops and hula hoops, forgive me, this thread is concerning Christians BFD Style~~~
Man, Dig It On!!!
postscript ~~~ A period is not final by any stretch oh dee imagination ...
First I will say that this is my opinon after working the word on what the orginal sin was. Second I'm going to state it in a nut shell, because I'm writing during a short break at work, without a whole of of scripture to back up it. But I do believe that it is there. I also freely admit that this is my thinking and it very well could be wrong.
God said don't. Adam and Eve Did. That's the basics.
Since Jeremiah 10:23 says - "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps. "
and prior to the fall we did not know good and evil. I believe the evidence is that man was not to make his own moral judgments regarding right and wrong. We were to let God decide what was right and wrong. The actual sin I believe was that man decided that something God said was wrong was right.
The Tree is refered to in Genesis as the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When they begain to decide this for themselves man sinned and tried to make these judgments with a brain that I don't really believe was made to make this type of moral judgment.
If this is correct it is interesting to note that the first person raised after man begain deciding right and wrong was murderer.
Interesting, Keith, especially when you consider Wierwille's emphasis on self-determination and freedom of choice. certainly, free will can be understood to be implicit in teh Bible, but it is certainly not explicit. Why? I think because man's problem isn't that he fails to exercise free will. His problem is because when he does, he makes such bad choices! But submitting one's will to God and being under his control and authority was a concept not in the Way lexicon...
the original sin is God knowing "his" creation would reject "him" inspite "his" foreknowledge~~~ therefore all the 1st 2nd 3rd earths and heavens to get the "IT" right and btw the secret things belong unto the lourde!!!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
13
34
14
Popular Days
May 16
16
May 20
12
May 15
12
May 17
11
Top Posters In This Topic
sirguessalot 11 posts
Abigail 13 posts
CM 34 posts
lindyhopper 14 posts
Popular Days
May 16 2005
16 posts
May 20 2005
12 posts
May 15 2005
12 posts
May 17 2005
11 posts
TheEvan
All the speculation as to the particulars seems like so much mental masturbation to me (And, apparently, it was a bit more than mental for others!).
I already know what the original sin was. It was disobedience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Evan & BFD:
Yup, the particulars aren't that important are they? Whether it was a literal tree, a tree standing figuratively for something else...Adam and Eve disobeyed God.
End of story, eh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
but then -- it coulda been an orange too.
"Orange ya sorry ya didn't listen??"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Apple works for me because their sin made us rotten to the core.
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
A momentus (that's lowercase, if you noticed) day in history. Oak and I absolutely agree on something. God did not identify the particular fruit. God did not say whether it was literal or figurative. If God did not specify it, and it cannot be garnered from the context, then it doesn't matter. Yeehaw, hooray. If God didn't say or imply it, it really doesn't matter.
Hey, I was honestly hoping someone had uncovered some hidden information that identified exactly what the original sin was. But, I am perfectly fine just having it be disobedience, and disobedience, alone. One can't determine obedience unless there is something to obey. Why did God have this one thing Adam couldn't do? He had to be able to determine Adam's obedience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Rebellion seems to be the obvious choice here. We as a species have been rebelling ever since.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Yes indeed, it is a momentous day
:D-->
Although, whatever it was, I'm sure it mattered to Adam and Eve; God gave them specific instructions, and they decided to take a different path.
Here's some more food for thought:
Was God's command totally arbitrary and capricious, or was there some logic and ssense that Adam and Eve could easily perceive?
Was the "thou shalt surely die" part of the command because God was going to punish Adam & Eve, or because of an inherant danger in "the tree" that would cause death in and of itself?
An illustration:
When my children were small I told them to eat their vegetables. No inherant, immediate harm would come from not eating their vegetables, but there might be a consequence from failure to obey imposed by me. On the other hand they were told not to play in the street, inherant, immediate harm could result if a car ran them over. The first was a standard that I imposed because of my standards, which were debatable and arguable, the second was imposed to keep them alive.
Which was the command to not "eat"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Like anyone else, the particulars behind the "original sin" may be anyone's guess, but I must confess, I have certainly found theories and takes concerning the first two chapters of Genesis far more interesting than anything I recall being offered through Wayshua Multinational.
I think the view that the first two chapters of Genesis comprising of two different texts - hence, two different creation accounts stitched together - has a bit going for it. Theories along these lines may often be reviewed in the field of OT critical scholarship.
Then there are various esoteric interpretations on why these accounts are different and even contradictory in places,i.e., the first creation account actually concerns that of the spiritual realm, and the second, the material (though I haven't pursued that line of reasoning since first encountering it years ago).
Then there's what might be regarded a "gnostic" interpretation (seemingly evident in some movements of Judaism, as explored by Margaret Barker) - that the first creation account concerned a world created wholly good by the highest "Elohim", while the second, concerned the original creation going downhill upon the angel "Yahweh" entering the scene.
Pretty unusual, but somehow not as outrightly insane as a masterbating Adam, a lesbian Eve, and a universe bobbing in a primoridial sac of water. Which sounds like a bad soap opera.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
Isn't it a great thing when a Christian can be right in his thinking about a subject without having to know the details to the nth degree.
Can a Christian simply accept the truth that Jesus Christ was crucified, without having to affirm that it was either a straight pole or a t-shaped object? It is important from God's perspective that we realize what was accomplished by Jesus died upon that object. Or, maybe we do need to know exactly what shape the object was, exactly which day of the week it was, the exact temperature at the time of his death, the exact composition of the soil, the exact number of people present, the height and weight or each soldier present, the wind direction at the time. Or we can just realize what his death represented, period.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Dave
On behalf of all biblical lumbermen, architects and soil experts, I give you the apple butter raspberry.
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Actually,
in this case,
based on the results,
I'd be comfortable calling it "rebellion",
or calling it "High Treason".
(wordnet dictionary)
'High Treason: a crime that undermines the offender's government."
(hyperdictionary)
"High treason: treason against the sovereign or against the state,
the highest civil offense."
"Legal Definition of treason:
A breach of allegiance to one's government, usually committed
through levying war against such government or by giving or comfort
to the enemy.
The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government
of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying
the state into the hands of a foreign power. Treason consists of
two elements: adherence to the enemy, and rendering him aid and
comfort."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
The Original Sin
Is Thinking About It!
OKAY~~~ let's do some corporeal mortification aerobics!!!
Ready AND One ~~~
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Reminds me of something I said a couple of years ago: we spent more time discerning the number of crosses on the side than the significance of the cross in the middle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
And we spend more time arguing about who Jesus isn't instead of what he did and what it means.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Too true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
The Original Sin
My question is ...
What is the origin of the original sin?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darrell Bailey
. . . and if I "copy" the original sin by sinning in my life, thereby passing it off as my own sin ...
. . . am I guilty of plagiarism ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Biblefan Dave
posted December 15, 2004 11:12
Isn't it a great thing when a Christian can be right in his thinking about a subject without having to know the details to the nth degree.
Can a Christian simply accept the truth that Jesus Christ was crucified, without having to affirm that it was either a straight pole or a t-shaped object? It is important from God's perspective that we realize what was accomplished by Jesus died upon that object. Or, maybe we do need to know exactly what shape the object was, exactly which day of the week it was, the exact temperature at the time of his death, the exact composition of the soil, the exact number of people present, the height and weight or each soldier present, the wind direction at the time. Or we can just realize what his death represented, period.
Hmmm~~~ can a Christain simply accept the truth that a Christain can also endure a root canal without No·vo·cain.
Can a Christain simply accept the Earth is not the Centre of The Universe?
Can a Christain simply accept ~~~
~~~
Whoops whoops and hula hoops, forgive me, this thread is concerning Christians BFD Style~~~
Man, Dig It On!!!
postscript ~~~ A period is not final by any stretch oh dee imagination ...
ROK On!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keith
First I will say that this is my opinon after working the word on what the orginal sin was. Second I'm going to state it in a nut shell, because I'm writing during a short break at work, without a whole of of scripture to back up it. But I do believe that it is there. I also freely admit that this is my thinking and it very well could be wrong.
God said don't. Adam and Eve Did. That's the basics.
Since Jeremiah 10:23 says - "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps. "
and prior to the fall we did not know good and evil. I believe the evidence is that man was not to make his own moral judgments regarding right and wrong. We were to let God decide what was right and wrong. The actual sin I believe was that man decided that something God said was wrong was right.
The Tree is refered to in Genesis as the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When they begain to decide this for themselves man sinned and tried to make these judgments with a brain that I don't really believe was made to make this type of moral judgment.
If this is correct it is interesting to note that the first person raised after man begain deciding right and wrong was murderer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Interesting, Keith, especially when you consider Wierwille's emphasis on self-determination and freedom of choice. certainly, free will can be understood to be implicit in teh Bible, but it is certainly not explicit. Why? I think because man's problem isn't that he fails to exercise free will. His problem is because when he does, he makes such bad choices! But submitting one's will to God and being under his control and authority was a concept not in the Way lexicon...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Nor Adam's -- apparently!
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
the original sin is God knowing "his" creation would reject "him" inspite "his" foreknowledge~~~ therefore all the 1st 2nd 3rd earths and heavens to get the "IT" right and btw the secret things belong unto the lourde!!!
"Food for Thought" - Original Sin
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CKnapp3
Ok, here's a question:
Who committed the Original Sin? Adam and Eve? or Satan?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
CK you left out GOD~>~>~
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.