Importance of Original Sin

If the god jaywill tries to market did turn out to be real of course I would refuse to worship it and would actively oppose it.And how many times must I repeat that I am sure that any god we can discuss is NOT GOD.How do Christians "know" God and if they do "know god" why do they have so many different versions of what that god is?

Has it occurred to you that that's one of the main reasons people invented God?
(The other is having to explain a mother's death to her child.)

The story in Genesis 3 explains how mankind "acquired" the knowledge of good and evil. It doesn't matter how that knowledge was obtained; the fact is that we have it and Genesis acknowledges that fact.The children of Adam and Eve - and all mankind - have the knowledge of good and evil and they are subject to the consequences of their actions. It has nothing to do with "inheriting sin" from one man. It's just the way things are.

The account explains a number of things. Saying that it explains how mankind "acquired" the knowledge is no excuse for claiming something else is explained beside this.That's a false dichotomy.It also explains why man was expelled from a paradise like garden and none of Adam descendents were able to return.If you cannot ascertain this from Genesis, you should be able to ascertain it by the time you come to Revelation. For the climax of all of God's work through the generations includes this proclamation - "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

​

Blessed are those who wash their robes that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter by the gates into the city.

​

Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the fornicators and the murderers and the idolators and everyone who loves and makes a lie." (Revelation22:13-15) 1.) "Blessed are those who WASH their robes" surely has to do with cleansing from moral corruption and sinfulness. This proves that SIN is what is keeping man from enjoying the tree of life.2.) "Blessed are those who wash their robes that they may have right to the tree of life ..." proves that the RIGHT to partake of this Divine and eternal life, which is God Himself, is abrogated by the stain of sin on man's deeds - his "robes". The RIGHT to enjoy the tree of life is restored as the divine redemption is availed to to WASH their robes..Once clean - the RIGHT to enjoy the tree of life is restored. This is a window into the entire Bible. Man must avail Himself of God's redemptive operation that he may restore the RIGHT which was taken away by his sin soiled living.3.) In contrast to partaking of the tree of life in the city of God there are those left OUTSIDE - "Outside are the -
dogs ... , (dogs may refer to homosexuals attempting intercourse)
sorcerers ... ,
fornicators ... ,
murderers ... ,
idolators ... ,
everyone who loves and makes a lie." These enumerated sins are not meant to be an exhaustive list of sins.
They only serve as a representative sample.The sins listed are in contrast to washed robes.
They are soiled and stained robes - stained with iniquity.This sinfulness keeps man OUTSIDE God's city and bars him from partaking of the tree of life.And it was so from the moment Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He had a knowledge of good and evil. What he did not have was the life power to reject the evil that he knew. What he did not have was to always perform the good that he knew.He had become infested with the sin nature. And the list of filthy sins in Revelation 22:15 are merely a representative sample of the all the evils man fell into after the fall of Adam.We also should know that Ephesians says that sinful man was "alienated from the life of God" because of darkness in the heart, lack of feeling in the conscience, and uncleaness and greediness, etc. The moral relevance cannot be overlooked. " ... no longer walk as the Gentiles also walk in the vanity of their mind. Being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance which is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; Who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lasciviousness to work all uncleaness in greediness." (Eph. 4:17-19) Man was "alienated from the life of God" from the day Adam was driven out of Eden's garden and forbidden to partake of the tree of life.The tree of life represents the very life of God.Notice also that Paul does not say man was alienated because of his knowledge but because of his IGNORANCE. He may have gained a knowledge of good and evil. But he was ignorant of God Himself and even hardened in his heart towards God. Man needs to depend upon God. The eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was man's thrust to be INDEPENDENT from God. And in so being deceived he became enslaved to Satan and the sin nature.Withdrawing from God the source of life, man was brought under death and him who has the might of death - the Devil.Through Christ's redemption man can "wash his robes" and be saved from judgment and once again partake of the life of God.God can dispense Himself into His redeemed people to live a united and mingled life of the Divine and Uncreated with the created for the fulfillment of His eternal purpose.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

There is indeed an explanation in Genesis 3:22-3:24. The problem is that it does not resemble anything you've said. The kindest thing I can say about your statement is that it is of "extra-Bible" origin.

The problem is that you do not see God saying that man is expelled because of fornication or murder or stealing or gambling or idol worship of any of the typical sins one imagines separate from God.What you fail to realize is that the BEGINNING of all the latter sins is man's move to be INDEPENDENT from God.The tree of the knowledge of good and evil might also be called a tree of independence from God. It could definitely also be called a tree of DEATH.Looking at the entire history to follow and the context of the whole Bible it is nor hard to see that God did not want man to live forever in SIN. No it is not extra-Bible.Especially if you read the Gospel of John and reference how many times Jesus Christ said that He was the life.Ie. "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men." (John 1:4) He is the bread of life (chapter 5).
He is the living water of life (chapter 4 & 7).
He is the resurrection and the life (chapter 11)
He is the way and the truth and the life (chapter 14).He is God Himself become a man - (John 1:1,14) He is not only the life but the True Vine (chapter 15). So He is a vine tree of life. So He is the reality of the tree of life.In symbolic form we see God presenting Himself to man as a tree of life in Genesis. The reality of this tree of life today is Jesus Christ.This is all IN the Bible and not extra to it.

Given that no fornication, murder, or idol worship had ever occurred at the time, the failure to mention those "typical" sins is hardly surprising. Are you suggesting that breaking of the commandments did not separate the Jews from God? Don't see that gambling sin there though. Are you mocking me ... or God?What I see in Genesis 3:22-24 is that God is concerned with future men eating of the tree of life.I can also find any number of verses instructing us to repent and offering forgiveness of our sins. Don't see any telling us to repent of Adam's sins.

quote:

---

I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

​

I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

​

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

---

The doctrine of original sin is completely absent from Genesis 3. You have to torture the text to provide even an entry point for the doctrine, and you have to ignore every verse in the Bible that suggests personal responsibility for your own sins in your attempts to find the doctrine elsewhere. You are a bit full of yourself, aren't you? I can read at least as well as you can when you bother to do so. Independence was part of Man's nature before Eve picked any fruit. Free will was in fact a desirable trait God deliberately gave to man. It was not Adam's nature but Adam's act that drew punishment. And it was similar acts that God acted to prevent in the manner described in 3:24. Yes, I can see exactly how you start in the text and then depart from it. A "vine tree" you say? The metaphor in Chapter 15 is that Jesus is the vine, while God is the husbandman who trims or purges the vine as needed. Or at least that's what the Bible actually says until your numerology is applied to make the vine the same as God's life in the Garden.Way before you get to saying "in symbolic form" you are nowhere near the text of the Bible. You are into doctrine.

The downward decline of the morality of mankind started from the eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and subsequent expulsion from the garden.Genesis traces this downward decline until the flood of Noah when God could no longer tolerate the worsening degradation. "And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. ... and it grieved Him in His heart." (Genesis 6:5,6b) It does not say that God was grieved because of man's knowledge of good and evil. Though that was a concern in 3:22. Rather here it says God grieved because the thoughts of mans heart \[b\]" was ONLY EVIL continually. "\[b\]This tragic climax God calls - "the end of all flesh" - "And God said to Noah, The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence because of them, and now I am about to destroy them with the earth." (Gen. 6:13) If this downward decline did not start from Adam eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, identify where else it started. No. That list I gave was merely representative. Don't miss the main point by being distracted into an argument about a particular lifestyle which you would like to dispute.And why would you think I am mocking you ?
Are you projecting your own desire there ? That is correct. We agree on this.Redemption must be accomplished BEFORE man can come back to partaking of the life of God signified by the tree of life. That is the essence of the story of the whole remainder of the Bible. Ie. HOW will God reconcile the sinful man, redeeming man and bringing him back to eternal life. That is also true. And in Genesis we do have the man Enoch who walked with God and was actually raptured OUT of the world. The stories like this show God working out His plan of redemption on those willing to go along with His will.The situation is by no means without hope. And God intimated this from the very beginning of man's downward decline in Genesis 3:15. A Savior is predicted to come and crush the serpent. Yet in the process of bruising the serpent's head the Savior's heel will be bruised. This speaks of the death of the Son of God for man's redemption and salvation. "And I will put enmity between you [the serpent] and the woman and between your seed and her seed; He will bruise you on the head, But you will bruise him on the heel." (Gen. 3:15) This is the first prophecy concerning Christ the Savior who was born of a woman by virgin birth - truly the woman's seed. On a relative basis some were righteous - comparatively so. For instance we see that Enoch and Noah were righteous compared to the general population - " ... Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; and Noah walked with God." (Gen. 6:9)Righteous men in that regard confessed their sins and walked with God as best they could. They could not redeem themselves eternally. But they did cooperate with God's plan of redemption. And this plan foreshadows Christ Who was to come.That men confessed their sins and walked with God is quite evident even among Gentiles. So also there were those who were deemed righteous not because they never sinned but because they repented. Also we see that because of BELIEF in God righteousness was imputed towards Abraham - "And he [Abraham] believed Jehovah, and He accounted it to him as righteousness." (Genesis 15:6) I am not sure what you are arguing here. Anyway, the sacrificial cattle that Abel offered was a type of Christ the Son. And its blood and the blood of the other beasts so sacrificed according to the law of Moses prefigured the ONCE FOR ALL offering of the Son of God for the sins of the world. And in His name repentance and remission of sins is preached to the world.Actually the killing of the cattle to cloth Adam and Eve was also a foreshadow of Christ's redemptive act. They were expecting to immediately die. To their surprise a cattle died first that they might be clothed with that cattles skin. "And Jehovah God made for Adam and for his wife coats of skins and clothed them." (Gen. 3:21) And I will have to continue latter.

Utter and complete bullshit, jaywill.Eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was the beginning of morality for humans and Adam and Eve were NOT expelled from the Garden of Eden for immorality.You really haven't read the Bible have you? Or do you just take joy in constantly and consistently misrepresenting what the Bible actually says?

I do not know a whole lot about the phrase "Original Sin". It is not a phrase which I am in the habit of using.However, that Adam caused sin and death to come into the world is Paul's revelation and the record of Genesis.I am not defending all aspects of what this phrase "Original Sin" may imply to your mind.Adam had TWO problems the moment he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.1.) He transgressed God's commandment and became a transgressor.2.) He was injected with some foreign element of sin nature which passed on to all his descendents.If a mother warns her child not to drink from a certain bottle of poison and the child does so anyway, the child has TWO problems.1.) The child has disobeyed the mother's orders.2.) The child has taken POISON into his system.This is how we should see the fall of Adam. Paul says that we were CONSTITUTED sinners. That means a matter of a mutation of constitution - "For just as through the disobedience of one man the many were constituted sinners, so also though the obedience of the One the many will be constituted righteous." While I do not use the phrase "Original Sin" I can see where it comes from basically. Those who complain about Original Sin should notice that there is also a Original Righteousness as well. Meaning the same principle of ONE man's act influencing many other is used to man's benefit as well in Jesus Christ.I hear a lot of moaning about "Original Sin" but little to no appreciation for "Original Righteousness" in the obedience of Jesus that man may be justified and constituted righteous before God.Such whiners about Original Sin should study carefully the fifth chapter of the book of Romans. Where did I ever say personal responsibility is not necessary ?
Abraham was accounted righteous because he took the personal responsibility to believe God - "And he believed Jehovah, and He accounted it to him as righteousness." (Gen. 15:6) Whatever make you think I do not recognize "personal responsibility" in the righteous offering of Abel or in Enoch walking with God or in Noah's walking with God.None of these men HAD to do what they did. Abraham did not HAVE to believe. And Enoch and Noah did not HAVE to walk with God. So they listened to their conscience and repented and cooperated with God's purpose.Your complaint of me ignoring personal responsibility is completely misplaced - bogus. From the very beginning it was the failure to be personally responsible which plunged man into the fall to begin with. Adam and Eve were in a NEUTRAL position. They were neutral and they were innocent. This makes perfect sense. God would not create them guilty. He created them "very good".From that neutral and innocent position they had two choices - the tree of life or the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The two trees seem to be mutually exclusive. Adam made the wrong choice and was then barred from the other - the tree of life.But God would not give up His eternal purpose. And the rest of the Bible unfolds His marvelous plan of redemption to bring man BACK to His own eternal life.Personal responsibility was there from the beginning when the neutral and innocent man had to move from that position either towards God or towards God's enemy. He moved towards God's enemy and came under the bondage of that enemy - Satan.Though the initial move away sounds noble - "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" it actually was a tree of DEATH. And what happened to man after eating of it grew worse and worse until we see the earth FILLED with evil and violence.No we do not see God grieved that the earth is filled with the knowledge of good and evil. We see God concerned that it is filled with evil.In taking the tree of the knowledge of good and evil what man did NOT take was the life power to resist the evil always or the life power to perform the good. Man has the knowledge but lacks the life power. And he is very proud of the knowledge. But he is dying and cannot always perform the good that he knows nor resist that evil the he knows.I am a little sympathetic to the idea that Genesis 3:22 only seems to show God is concerned with some kind of competition. But this is the superficial understanding, I think. He is the source of life and the source of all goodness. And to be instead of Him taking another way can only lead to death and evil.God is the source of blessing, well being, goodness, and all wisdom that is needed to live eternally. When Adam was enticed to seek "another way" he joined the rebellion of Satan. He not only became a transgressor. He became poisoned with an evil element.From the death of Adam we have the continual reminder that this one DIED and that one DIED and the next DIED. "And he died ..." follows the death of Adam. This shows that the problem of sin and death started with Adam and continued down through all his descendents.So the anti Paul gang is just wrong to criticize his accurate revelation that through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin.That is all the time I have this morning.

To try to be like God apart from God's prescribed way is the basic immorality.That is why the angel became Satan. He wanted to be like the Most High but apart from God in a way of rebellion.It all makes perfect sense to me. Your posts make no sense other than general grumblings against all that is holy and righteous and godly.

How could Adam have known that he was supposed to follow God's commandments without having prior knowledge of good and evil or right and wrong?What kind of a God would punish his subjects for not knowing what he forbids them to know?

Okay. Not described anywhere in Genesis 3. If you want to offer something some reason to believe the Bible says this elsewhere, your going to have to make a case for it.But you don't do make a case for any foreign element in this post which is full of jaywill and some condescension but devoid of any citations from the Bible that even attempt to make an argument. The few quotes you offer don't even address your "injection".In fact I see very little addressing anything I wrote in my post.

But again, that is NOT what the story says. Adam or Eve were never apart from God in the story and they were not shipped out of the Garden of Eden because they ate from the Tree of Knowledge.You are just making shit up again.Also, you seem totally clueless on the myth (not found in many Canons by the way) of Satan's Fall. It as not from trying to be like God apart from God's prescribed way (utter nonsense at best) but for refusing to fall down and worship man.Your posts may well make sense to you but they are nothing but misrepresentations of what the Bible actually says.What I grumble against is the way so called Biblical Christians pervert what the Bible actually says.

God created humans capable of sin, but that capability apparently did not make them guilty. Were Adam and Eve incapable of sin, their obedience and love would have no meaning. Yet Job tells us that God does indeed value unconditioned love and obedience. It is, in fact a contradiction to say that God gave man free will and did not leave them with the capability to sin.So why is it not rational that God valued love freely given and called that "very good". Isn't "very good" what he called his creation with all of elements in it that produced Adam and Eve's actions. In any event, perhaps less preaching and more of Paul style reasoning might be effective here. I find your railing about how people don't read the Bible as you do to be quite off the mark.I'm not moaning about original sin. I'm questioning the truth and Biblical support for the doctrine and even its value. There is not a man walking who does not have enough baggage of his own.