Bible Question: What was the First Sin?

And neither did God. Come on. I'm sorry but that is even funnier. They don't know right from wrong or what obey means but they know that they should obey God? God was the only one handing out orders? The serpent merely deceived?If they do not yet know good from evil, right from wrong, how are they supposed to make such choices?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't think that's clear at all.

quote:

---

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil....

---

Becoming "like God" is a good thing. The knowledge of good and evil is a good thing.
It seems to me that the point of the story is not about blind obedience but using our knowledge wisely.People put too much emphasis on the punishment God gave to Adam and Eve. The sweat-of-the-brow and pain-in-childbirth just illustrate that there are consequences to our actions. The real point is that knowledge and free will - not just obedience - bring us closer to God.Edited by Ringo, : Punctuation.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

how did you know to listen to your parents when you were a child? i bet you knew what NO meant, right? this is the relationship between God and adam. if you want to use LOGIC for this discussion here you go:
if there are only four beings in this discussion (adam, eve, God and the serpent) and the two adam and eve are merely childlike in mentality know ing nothing at all then the first thing to happen is a being called God steps in and says "you may eat of any tree, except for the one in the middle" and he's the only one who ever said anything like that... who ELSE is the authority figure... when the serpent confronted them, he even pointed the fact that was God was authority when he stated that the fruit will make you LIKE God. it never said they would BE God. and God probably had a different plan for adam and eve, had they not eaten the fruit... point being in this whole chapter is that the relationship between God and man changed, and it made God have to set up two different covenants with his people. the first is old testament commandments, very easy, strict instructions, JUST LIKE ADAM AND EVE. later, he instated the new law, which Jesus ordained all throughout the four books of the Gospel. and no... knowledge does not bring you closer to God... obeying his commandments is EVERYTHING. that's thrown everywhere in the new testament. the parable of the slave becoming master and master becoming slave. numerous scriptures that state "what is it to gain earthly possession but lose your soul?". "The wisdom of man is foolishness to God" all these things in the new testament CLEARLY, CLEARLY state that OUR knowledge and wisdom are nothing when it comes to salvation.

That's just the point, though: we don't stay children. The story is about two children learning and growing up. As they grow up, they become more like their parents. You can't just make up maybes and probablies like that. You have to deal with the story as written. Exactly. It changed from a blind obedience relationship to a more equal relationship, from a parent/child relationship to a parent/adult relationship. There's nothing about "covenants" in there. A covenant is a give/take relationship. The garden of Eden story is strictly an explanation of what is. There are no contractual obligations on either side. Well, God said it did:

quote:

---

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us....

---

Argue with Him. That has nothing to do with knowledge or obedience. That says that our wisdom is less than God's. It does not imply that we shouldn't strive to improve our wisdom to the best of its potential.One way to do that is to remove the blinkers and open our eyes.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

"There are no contractual obligations on either side."
sure there were. "you may eat of any tree in the garden", "but you must not eat of the tree in the middle" sounds like it to me. God supplied him what he needed to carry out his work in the garden, hence why he needed a helper. adam has duties to perform, otherwise he wouldn't need eve, and in return God gave them food and a place to live.
and maybe you should read this: paul tells us of the future in 2 timothy 3
1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God” 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.
6They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. 8Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth”men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.their knowledge didn't bring them anywhere near God, it caused selfishness - and the truth which is stated in verse 7 isn't truth of anything pertaining to worldly knowledge, it's truth of God's word. 2+2=4 is truth, but not the truth that gets you nearer to God.
and really, knowing WHAT sin IS, and knowing what it looks like, and staying away from it is far more important to the truth of God's word than who committed it first.

God providing Adam with the necessities of life hardly constitutes a covenant. He does that for everybody.A covenant entails a specific agreement with a specific person or group. The first covenant that God mentioned was with Noah (Gen 6:18), so let's not disagree with Him, okay? For future reference: I don't use Paul to explain Genesis. I use Genesis to explain Genesis.Specifically, in your quote Paul speaks of "the last days". Since we are talking about the first days in this topic, that quote is spectacularly irrelevant. Where do you get that Adam's and Eve's knowledge brought them selfishness? Why not? Why wouldn't practical truths about God's creation bring us closer to God? How does "closer to God" have any meaning except in practical terms?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Where do you get that Adam's and Eve's knowledge brought them selfishness?
i never did... you took that out of 2 Timothy where paul is saying that the people IN THE LAST DAYS were... *and going on* don't take that out of context."God providing Adam with the necessities of life hardly constitutes a covenant. He does that for everybody."
yes, and thats our covenant with him... he provides, WE give back (through faith and works by faith)! he gave to adam, adam had duties.if you're only going to use genesis to explain genesis, you are using blind knowledge. this is the beauty of the Bible, it explains itself over to affirm the importance and clarity of its subjects."Why not? Why wouldn't practical truths about God's creation bring us closer to God? How does "closer to God" have any meaning except in practical terms?"
truths about God's CREATION wont' bring you closer to Him... truths about GOD as a being will. and what better way to know him than to read Jesus' words, he is God, afterall! and why not argue God's words? the bible clearly says we should test ourselves on these things. it's healthy to question what you believe, otherwise you're a lemming.

That's what I'm asking you. When using the words "them" and "they", please be clear to whom you're refering. Excuse me? You brought up a quote which is completely out of context and you didn't specify which "they" you were refering to. No, that's not a covenant - it's a fact of life. As I said, a covenant is specific - it does not apply to everybody. How can seeing what is in Genesis be blind? How can you know about "God as a being" except through His creation? Sorry, but that is not a given in this thread. This thread is about the first sin, which was presumably in Genesis or at least almost certainly in the Old Testament. Jews and Muslims accept the Old Testament but they don't accept that Jesus is God - so that idea has no relevance here. I'm trying to get you to question what you believe.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

and i answered... read my post again please. ONCE AGAIN, read my post over... i'm quoting you and answering on the next line. a covenant is an agreement between two people... In the bible, God's promise to the human race
Covenant - definition of covenant by The Free Dictionary blind knowledge is using knowledge that does not strive to find another source that would affirm the text in question. by reading Jesus' words, HE IS GOD! new testament is FILLED with his writings. four different people wrote books on him for it. Paul preached Jesus' words the best! then if you're going to ask about the being of God, expect to get an answer about Jesus! i find it funny that you're going off on a tangent about other people's theologies when you tell me not to get off topic! kinda cute how you go off topic by saying stay on topic. i do, every day i read this forum. so thank you! i simply feel like people around here don't give enough credence to the Bible's REAL meaning, and in a lot of cases, the people who stand up for the bible and give Biblical evidence for Biblical arguments are shot down. so go ahead and say "stop that right now!" again, because if you look at what people have said to me and other biblical Christians around this thread, we're not treated well when presenting our side of the story.Edited by Mikael Fivel, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed quotes. Mikael, use the peek button to see how we make quotes. It looks much nicer.

I was just pointing out that you weren't clear the first time. Exactly. There was no "agreement" between God and Adam, just the status quo. Hence, no covenant. A promise is not an agreement. Hence, no covenant. Using another text to "affirm" a text is blind knowledge. You should be seeking to test the passage, not affirm it. Using an untested passage to affirm another untested passage only compounds the error. Sorry, none of that is relevant in this thread. Anybody's theology is a tangent in this thread. I don't know where you got the impression that this was a Christian thread or a Christian forum, but it's not. You can't just discount everybody's theology but your own. A lot of people don't agree with you what the "real meaning" is. That's why we have this forum - to discuss different ideas. I stand up for the Bible.And yes, I will shoot your ideas down if they are weak. Even if I agree with you, I will shoot down your weak arguments. Weak arguments are no good for anybody. I look at how you treat Christians like jar (and I haven't even told you whether or not I am a Christian). You come in here with an arrogant attitude about how you are going to teach us a thing or two about the Bible's "real meaning". You tell people who have studied the bible for half a century that they don't know anything, that they're blind. You throw Judaism and Islam out the window with no consideration whatsoever....Take the beam out of your own eye.Edited by Ringo, : "test" --> "text".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

no agreement between God and Adam? there's no agreement between a two year old and his parents either. but its still a covenant whether the kid understands them or not, if he obeys, they will reward.test the passage, yes, but using non-contextual jib-jab what we call logic, no. our human logic varies every 5-10 years... people's ideas change, its what happens. you're testing a book that has NOT changed in 2000 years with logic that never stays the same, hence no solid answer for more than what, a year or two? how about making something permanent?i never discounted anybody's theology, but if you want me to go into them, sure i will. good, i like that. discussion is good. you're simply shooting me down. oh really? i never said i was in here to teach you a thing or two, not once. i'm saying "if you're going to argue a biblical subject, USE THE BIBLE" and that goes for studying it, and looking for historical relevance ('cause the bible is moreso history than theology). and so far all i'm hearing is I THINK I THINK I THINK... instead of using CONTEXT. here's a brilliant example of the importance of context...
say we're arguing whether or not my ball is red based on the sentence "a ball with shades of red"... when really, if you look at surrounding sentences it says "mikael was painting a ball with shades of red and decided he wanted blue instead", turns out we're not talking about the ball... its about the painting!arrogance huh? "take the beam out of your own eye" sound familiar?
you stand up for the bible? show me scripture that affirms your point of view on this subject and i'll show you mine. Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed quotes. Mikael...use peek feature and see how quotes are made

And to think that Adam and Eve were thought to be perfect before they actually ate the fruit. So in essence, the first sin was an innocent little white lie? Funny how those things can grow!

No. Obedience --> reward is not an agreement. It's a one-way street.But that's not the topic. Can you confine yourself to one misunderstanding per thread? Your contempt for logic doesn't impress me. Changing ideas are not changing logic. Logic is the unchanging foundation on which we build our ideas. Ideas change because of added information, operated on by the same logic. Nonsense. It wasn't in English 2000 years ago, was it? And there is no fixed canon. "The Bible" is different things to different people. Of course you did, when you proclimed that Jesus is God. If you're considering other theologies, that can never be a "fact". Yes, it has been simple so far. Try harder. First off, since you don't seem to have a real firm grip on the topic, how about telling me what you think "this subject" is? Then tell me what you think my point of view on "this subject" is. Then I'll point out where you're wrong. (Second off, you've been around long enough to have learned how to do quotes properly. Try [qs]This is a quote.[/qs].)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I was tempted to suggest that the first "first sin" was when God lied to Adam about killing him on the spot. We learn our bad habits from our parents, don't we?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

you COULD if you wanted, but then again God never said "you will drop dead the second you eat it" he said "you will surely die", no time frame was ever established. and just because there wasn't one established doesn't discount an alternative. we simply don't know. but when you look at the next 65 books in the bible, it's pretty clear that he didn't mean 'death on the spot'.