|
Post by anfauglith on Mar 1, 2020 11:09:15 GMT -6
Hi folks! I'll try to keep this short: how do you explain the concept of sin or the original sin for people who do not read the story of Adam and Eve and the fall of man literally? What is "sin" and how does it come into the world? Or the other way: does one have to read the formentioned story literally for making sense of the concept at all? I'm looking forward to your ideas! Anfauglith
|
|
|
Post by nocturnaliridescence on Mar 1, 2020 12:09:12 GMT -6
Depends how you interpret the account of Adam and Eve, if not literally. There are a few things that I would say are indisputable, from a Biblical standpoint. - Adam was a literal human, who existed. Luke 3:38- He had a son named Abel who was murdered. Matthew 23:35- When the first proper human beings appeared on earth, they were a male and a female, and were a couple. Matthew 19:4Every other New Testament mention of Adam that I know of, is said in letters written by apostles, not actual Gospels, unlike the 3 listed above. Not to say that the apostles aren't trustworthy -- just, these are words said in the Gospels themselves, and I think it's wrong to discount that detail. This does leave a lot of stuff open to interpretation though. Although Satan is referred to as a "serpent" in Revelation, it doesn't 100% mean that Satan was, or possessed (etc) a literal serpent in a literal Eden. It doesn't mean that Adam's wife was Eve, or that Adam and [wife] ate literal fruit, or that they were kicked out of a literal Eden for eating said fruit. You have to be careful though, because if you take certain loose interpretations into consideration, you start to get into lies written by gnostics and kabbalists, etc. I read "Adam and Eve" literally, but for example, I've come to reconcile "Adam and Eve" and "evolutionary theory" with this idea: You've heard of "neanderthals" etc in the past, but they weren't counted as "humans". They eventually developed into Adam and [wife], who were were the first beings in the evolutionary chain to be scientific "humans", homo sapiens. But I would say sin is knowingly doing things against God's will. You know, animals get territorial with each other and kill each other out of anger, but God doesn't hold that against them, because they don't know any other way to act. But when humans murder other humans, God counts this as sin because we know better. There are cases where some humans literally cannot understand such things (for example, babies, or people with severe Down's Syndrome, etc), and I don't think God condemns them, because they can't understand. They can't be taught. But even sociopaths who don't "care" that something is wrong, who "enjoy" the suffering of others, are capable of understanding that "God doesn't approve of sin, God is King, and God can punish you very severely for your actions". Of course it's a struggle, to learn a new way of thinking and behaving, but it's been a struggle for every Christian in history. Just look at Paul. Or look at Peter who denied Jesus before He was even crucified!
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Mar 2, 2020 15:05:18 GMT -6
I read "Adam and Eve" literally, but for example, I've come to reconcile "Adam and Eve" and "evolutionary theory" with this idea: You've heard of "neanderthals" etc in the past, but they weren't counted as "humans". They eventually developed into Adam and [wife], who were were the first beings in the evolutionary chain to be scientific "humans", homo sapiens. I've read a Christian theory that, what is known to science as "neanderthals", are actually "humans of extraordinary age". Its scientifically proven that the bones in the face change shape as we age. (cartilage grows, bones change shape) It makes sense to me that the skull of someone age 100 may look different than Biblical examples of people living to age 900 or more. I don't quite know if I consider about this theory. It certainly is interesting. Kind of strange to think that the actual skull of an ancient Biblical figure could be on display in a museum as a caveman though. But I would say sin is knowingly doing things against God's will. Sin can be knowingly going against God.... but not always. Adam and Eve did not have knowledge of good and evil, before they ate from that tree. A biblical example I can think of right off hand is the Parable of the 10 Virgins. (Matthew 25:1-13) The 5 bridesmaids that didn't have oil and missed entry to the wedding... didn't knowingly or willfully not bring oil out of rebellion or some other negative intent. They were foolish. They didn't think. They forgot. That unknowing still created a neglect, which started a chain of events that led to them being denied entry to the wedding. (with the parable meaning denied entry to heaven for the people unprepared and unknowing) What is "sin" and how does it come into the world? I know Christians who take the Biblical creation story literally - I'm in this group myself. I know Christians who think the creation story is a metaphor, perhaps a parable, of how mankind came to be. None of us were there, so there is going to be a degree of speculation on this, but I hardly see the personal interpretation of this story as important as personal salvation itself through Christ. (like folks that think the earth is round and folks that think the earth is flat. What they think, changes not the ground they stand on.) To answer your question though: Human beings are two different things. Spirit and flesh. How sin came into the world, is the same answer as how flesh came into the world. 1st Corinthians 15:50 states that flesh cannot enter heaven, just like perishable cannot be imperishable. Galatians 5:19-21 states that the deeds of the flesh are obvious: "adultery, sexual immorality, uncleanness, lustfulness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, strife, jealousies, outbursts of anger, rivalries, divisions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these" The numerous verses around the Bible stating that sin cannot enter heaven, often reference the same or similar list as what those Galations verses states what flesh does. Yes, there are deliberate sins, willfully doing something wrong. ...but on a technicality, flesh itself, is also sin. Hence what's in Romans on how we all have sinned, we all fall short to the glory of God. I've seen some people ask why a perfect holy God didn't just make us perfect and holy too... but if God made us all perfect, that would actually make less sense to me. Why would we need a creator, if we were perfect like Him? It would be like if children were the exact same thing as parents. Sin is a problem, that has a solution. Christ died for our sins; they are ALL paid for. "They're paid for, might as well rack them up and get the payment's worth!" would be the finest conclusion flesh and sin could draw. LOL A "heterogeneous mixture" in chemistry is a mix of different chemicals, that once mixed, can NEVER be separated. This is just like sin and flesh. The reason we can never not sin is because we can never not have flesh. What is separate, is our spirit. I've seen the "theory" that spirit is to consciousness as flesh is to the brain. (sounds like a nice theory that I remain a bit ambivalent about)
|
|
|
Post by julienbakerfan on Mar 2, 2020 20:21:18 GMT -6
I'm glad I'm not the only one who struggles with this issue. I don't have problems with the creation account in Genesis, as it seems pretty compatible with evolutionary science. What I do have a problem with is that 1) evolutionary explanations of things seem to have great power, 2) in evolutionary explanations of human behavior, what Christians call "sin" is a feature, not a bug, 3) this seems to contradict Christian teaching, and 4) I haven't found a good counter-explanation that isn't ad hoc.
I'm sure someone from my alma mater has written about this. I suppose I should do a little research.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Mar 3, 2020 10:58:09 GMT -6
There are a number of different approaches to explain this, but no matter the approach, there's going to be unknowns. We can't truly understand God as God understand's God. Here's how I try to wrap my head around it. Please roll with my analogy. Lets say dude works robotics. He makes this robot and wants it to love him. Why? Dude wants to be loved by his robot, what can I say! XD Just programming the robot to love, doesn't seem all that genuine (since that's its program, that's what it does) - so dude programs the robot to love and hate, in varying degrees, with algorithms to give it complete freedom to choose love or hate. When the robot loves dude, it seems more like genuine love to him, because robot chose it. When robot hates, dude considers it to be "sin", and he's sad. If the robot loves dude on Wednesday and hates dude on Saturday, is the robot flawed? No, it was programmed to choose freely, even though this isn't what dude wants. Is dude flawed for making a robot that can hate him (does what dude doesn't want) - no, because in the absence of choice, a love-only program lacks sincerity. If robot is programmed to be aware of its choices, doesn't WANT to hate/sin, and thinks being programmed with this capacity is dude's stupid flaw, is it a bad robot? Well yes, bad robot is bad and doesn't understand dude's motives, dude still loves robot no matter what, dude wants robot to have choices and freedom of choices because dude loves robot, and dude still wants robot to choose to love him. Well, robot analogy aside, I myself haven't found myself caught up on the how's and why's of sin. Mostly because (another analogy) that would be like getting frustrated and worked up about a list of debits on a receipt that has already been paid in full. What I'm more concerned about is being saved from having to pay that myself, loving Who paid for it, and not wracking up additional charges.
|
|
|
Post by anfauglith on Mar 3, 2020 11:19:07 GMT -6
My problem would be that if there is no literally Adam and Eve how can there be such a thing as an original sin, coming from people who took a fruit from a tree (which would not be there, too, if it is not literally read)? If nobody was there to sin than it cannot be passed down til today. And if that is not the point what exactly makes original sin? Sorry... quite confused. I read many articles about all that on the website of the biologos foundation one or two years ago and they helped me. But seemingly I forgot. Anyway, sorry to confuse you. Since I think I am not a real christian anymore maybe I should not bring the topic up at all.
|
|
|
Post by lefo on Mar 3, 2020 14:28:02 GMT -6
Hi folks! I'll try to keep this short: how do you explain the concept of sin or the original sin for people who do not read the story of Adam and Eve and the fall of man literally? What is "sin" and how does it come into the world? Or the other way: does one have to read the formentioned story literally for making sense of the concept at all? I'm looking forward to your ideas! Anfauglith
Sin is if you do something that is out of order. So it is orderless deed.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Mar 3, 2020 15:46:12 GMT -6
My problem would be that if there is no literally Adam and Eve how can there be such a thing as an original sin, coming from people who took a fruit from a tree (which would not be there, too, if it is not literally read)? If nobody was there to sin than it cannot be passed down til today. And if that is not the point what exactly makes original sin? Sorry... quite confused. I read many articles about all that on the website of the biologos foundation one or two years ago and they helped me. But seemingly I forgot. Anyway, sorry to confuse you. Since I think I am not a real christian anymore maybe I should not bring the topic up at all. If Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior, you're a Christian IMO - but the heart of that is between you and God. I don't quite know what to make of "original sin". I mean, if this means the FIRST sin, God kicking 1/3rd of Heaven out when they chose to follow Lucifer seems like a more applicable candidate. (the first disobedience to God wasn't even from man) All we know is God created the world, and it was good, and God is love. My understanding of "the fall" is man is good, tempted by Satan to eat from the forbidden tree, now we "fell". The tree isn't evil though. It is knowledge (of good and evil)... ...so good and evil existed, before man knew about it. Perhaps "the fall" is better represented as the turning point that man now knows what sin is. Side note, I wish I knew who God was talking to in v22 below. I can only fathom the "Heavenly Counsel" as mentioned in Psalms:
|
|
|
Post by nocturnaliridescence on Mar 3, 2020 22:22:48 GMT -6
if there is no literally Adam and Eve I addressed this already.
|
|
|
Post by julienbakerfan on Mar 5, 2020 18:18:11 GMT -6
A few resources that popped into my brain: Peter Enns, who is a theologically conservative Christian, wrote an entire book about this subject called The Evolution of Adam. Full disclosure: I have not read the book. This book (and some of his other research) led to Enns being driven out of his place of employment (a seminary whose identity I can't remember) and becoming l'enfant terrible of the conservative theological world. However, Michael Heiser, who is no theological liberal and who knows his stuff, has defended Enns' work and has made the claim that the people opposing Enns quite literally don't know what they're talking about (i.e. they are theologians who don't know about the Ancient Near Eastern context of the Bible). Again, I haven't read Enns' book (although I want to), just read about it. I have read John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One, which deals with a lot of creation/evolution stuff and looks at Genesis from the Ancient Near Eastern context. He wrote a companion volume called the Lost World of Genesis Two, which deals with Adam and Eve. I have not read it. I have read a lot of Michael Heiser's work, and he deals with this issue (for example, here: drmsh.com/comments-views-historical-adam-reviews/). IIRC he is agnostic about whether Adam and Eve are historical, but doesn't think that it matters either way--and he has AN ACTUAL ARGUMENT for why it doesn't matter (instead of just handwaving it away). Heiser has a PhD is something like Semetic languages, and he really knows his stuff. C.S. Lewis, who is a BIG DEAL within Christianity, did not believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I know he tangentially addressed this question somewhere in his writing, but I don't remember where. If I recall correctly, he thought that something similar to the Adam and Eve story happened near the beginning of human history (though perhaps with groups of humans rather than individuals); this isn't necessarily incompatible with a literal Adam and Eve. Roy Clouser, who was a philosopher at College of New Jersey and a Christian, doesn't believe in a literal Adam and Eve. Here is one article about this: www.allofliferedeemed.co.uk/Clouser/RC2016Reading%20Genesis.pdf. Finally, Origen, who was one of the church fathers, did not believe that the Adam and Eve story was literal. Note that Origen held a lot of weird views, so he should probably not be your first source. Note also, however, that he has been unfairly smeared as a borderline heretic by many Christians. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion about the Adam and Eve story. I don't think they were the very first humans ever (where did Cain get his wife? How did he build a city?). On the other hand, I don't know if they existed or not. I feel like the main challenge of evolution and evolutionary psychology, namely, sin is a feature, not a bug, remains whether or not you have a literal Adam and Eve (provided that you accept evolution).
|
|
|
Post by julienbakerfan on Mar 5, 2020 18:42:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Mar 7, 2020 10:19:02 GMT -6
Heiser has a PhD is something like Semetic languages, and he really knows his stuff. He sure does know his stuff. I pretty much gobble up every new Fringepop321 video that comes out. (and his take on some Biblical themes is quite fascinating, in particular, the "divine counsel" and tackling the question regarding "gods" and old testament authors not being "polytheists" because they believed other gods existed. (since they only worshiped one God) ...which, I made a thread/posts about here. :B
|
|
|
Post by Deepfriar on May 17, 2020 12:49:40 GMT -6
The Bible defines sin as transgression of the law (1 John 3:4).
I do believe Adam & Eve were literal persons and "sin" under the Adamic covenant was to eat of the forbidden fruit against which they had been commanded... too much scriptural truth is built upon these premises. Romans 5 explains the reason all sin could be paid for by Christ: all sin was attributed to one man, Adam, from whom woman was also taken.
My personal reasoning for some supposed scientific discrepancies with the biblical account is Gap creationism, but I'm always open to ideas and I'd be interested to hear more about the neanderthal theory that Thomas mentioned. It sounds a bit sensational but I try not to have presupposed bias without further examination.
|
|