Is there Biblical support for the concept of "Original Sin"?

Correct; it was written by Luke, a careful documenter and a part-time companion of Paul. Interesting speculations. But as far as I know, the only solid historical information on Paul comes from the New Testament. Perhaps Josephus, Pliny, or someone else wrote about him? If you have more historical sources on Paul, they are welcome.

First, no it is certainly not dangerous to accuse an author of anything. Get serious.And I can see no politer way to describe the discussion then as imprecise and inaccurate.Note Romans 5:12 and then Romans 5:13.

quote:

---

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

​

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

---

Now forget for one moment that not only are both of his assertions in Rom5:12 not supported by the Genesis 2&3 fables but rather refuted by Genesis 2&3.He then goes on in the very next sentence to contradict and try to qualify, hedge, what he just said. Evidence? Reason is my evidence. How can you sin if you don't even have the capability to know right from wrong?It really is that simple.And please get serious about the nonsense that death is caused by sin.Death is the result of being born.I can find NO support for Paul's contention that death is the result of sin unless of course, you assert a truly evil God as much of Christianity seems to do. Huh?

quote:

---

14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

---

More of Paul's muddy thinking it seems. If Adam is the patter for Jesus then Paul needs to 'splain how Jesus is not one who sins and causes death.The whole passage is more like Madison Avenue tap dancing than reason or logic IF it is taken as addressing death and sin.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Death is not caused by sin and again, so far I have found no support for Paul's assertion that it is.Death is caused by being born.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I agree it is not Paul's argument.I'm saying that I cannot find any support for Paul's position, he is just flat wrong.A sin that is not charged to someone is still of no consequence or relevance.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Maybe he didn't repeat it in the other epistles because he couldn't remember the steps.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

I think part of the problem is that folk forget what Epistles are. They are a letter, addressed to an audience, not something written to anyone alive today. We only have one side of a conversation, cannot place much of it into the real context, and often cannot tell if something said would make more sense if we could see the whole discussion.The idea that Death is the result of Sin and the idea of Original Sin are great examples. When they are questioned, the only support so far is "Paul said it".Well, Paul may have been wrong or we may have misunderstood him or what he said might even make sense if we had teh context of the rest of teh discussion.But we don't.So we need to look at what we do have and ask, "Does that make any sense at all?"

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Again I have to ask for evidence for your assertions. There is a considerable lack of consensus that Luke is the author of Acts.

quote:

---

However, it must be stated that there is no consensus, and according to Raymond E. Brown, the current opinion concerning Lukan authorship is ‘about evenly divided’.

---

SourceWhoever the author of Luke and Acts is there are also those that do not feel he was such a careful documenter.

quote:

---

Until recently, Luke's Gospel was read, together with the book of Acts, as a history of Christian origins. The two-volume work was considered a vast storehouse of information for reconstructing what happened in the lives of Jesus and his earliest followers. Modern times, however have brought a new historical consciousness and a refinement of critical methodologies for conducting historical research. Luke the historian has fallen on hard times.

​

There is, of course, a problem with the nature of the work itself. Can any narrative that reports, in so cavalier a fashion, the workings of fantastic miracles and the adventures of angels and demons be read today as history? But even aside from this predilection for the supernatural, Luke's competence as a historian is called into question. For example, there are several discrepancies between his account of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 and the account given by one who was actually there in Galatians 2. Or, again, Lukes Knowledge of Palestinian geography seems so inadequate at times that one prominent scholar was led to remark. "Jesus' route cannot be reconstructed on any map and, in any case, Luke did not possess one."

​

Furthermore, it is doubtful whether the writing of history was ever Lukes's intent. Luke wrote to proclaim, to persuade, to interpret: he did not write to preserve records for posterity. An awareness of this has been, for many, the final nail in Luke the historians coffin. If Luke intended to write history, he did so poorly, but he did not so intend. Luke is a theologian, not a historian.

---

Source

quote:

---

Robert M. Grant has noted that although Luke saw himself within the historical tradition, his work contains a number of statistical improbabilities such as the sizable crowd addressed by Peter in Acts 4:4. He has also noted chronological difficulties whereby Luke "has Gamaliel refer to Theudas and Judas in the wrong order, and Theudas actually rebelled about a decade after Gamaliel spoke(5:36-7)

---

Source
Original SourceIt seems there are a few scholars that would disagree with your assessment of Luke's capabilities.You are very good at presenting opinions as fact. There is little fact known in biblical authorship.So unless you can provide evidence of Luke as the author and back up your assertion that he was a "careful documenter" then all you have is a bunch of hooey.I have yet to see evidence for this assertion by you.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Your approach is dangerous if you are truly trying to understand Paul, meaning that you will likely misunderstand him. But more and more it appears that you do not really want to understand him at all, but rather to stand in judgment over him. I see absolutely no reason to charge imprecision, inaccuracy, contradiction, or hedging. Qualificatin and clarification, yes. Your charges indicate that you are not understanding what he said and meant. I still don't see any imprecision or inaccuracy, and I don't understand how you are reading the text to get this. I asked you to explain your reading in excruciating detail, which you did not do. Until you present your own phrase-by-phrase paraphrase and I can see how you are reading the text, we are probably talking past each other.I'm not sure that you even want to understand what Paul was saying. But in case you do, I would recommend reading this passages in some other translations or biblical paraphrases. Here are a few: You are coming to the text and insisting that it follow your understanding of the terminology. This is again dangerous (in the sense that you will likely misunderstand what the text is trying to communicate). Paul clearly states that "sin entered the world through one man and death through sin." In other words, death is the consequence of sin, according to Paul. You are free to disagree with Paul on this, but you cannot ignore this claim and hope to understand his logical argument. Evidence has been presented to you multiple times, but you simply ignore it as if it didn't exist. This is the third time I will have pointed out that the wording regarding Cain's murder of Abel intentionally ties back to God's curse on Eve--look back at my earlier post for the details. No, the muddy thinking is all yours. If you look at the context (the next few verses after 14, especially verse 18) you will see what Paul means by a "pattern." It's not what you claim.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

First, it's presumptuous to claim you know what the authors intentions were. Second, you're adding to the author's point by adding the word "controlling" to Eve's desire. Third, if the link between the stories is so strong, then Eve is the equivalent of sin.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

When Paul begins his argument with fallacies, it is not surprising if he ends up with a fallacy.I have pointed out many times here at EvC that had Paul used Cain as his reference, he might have been able to make some case for death entering through sin. It would still have been a weak case and I believe one that again would be wrong and could be shown to be wrong.But he didn't.I also have absolutely no problems if YOU happen to read Romans 5 and come to some different conclusion. But for you to continue to use terms like "dangerous" just comes across as silly.I will admit that I am amazed that you cannot see inconsistency when Paul says sin entered the world through one man but sin was in the world already.BUT...as I read it Paul is saying something entirely different then the concept of "Original Sin" as commonly marketed by much of today's Christian Churchs.There is no "Original Sin" that is inherited.Nor is death caused by Sin. Death is the result of being born, and always was. If that was not true then there would have been no purpose for the creation of the Tree of Life.But humans are different than the rest of the animals (although we are now learning that we are not as different as Paul thought) in understanding that there is right and wrong behaviors and in building a society based on a set of laws prescribing and proscribing behavior.If a lion kills its brother lion over breeding rights or food or position in the hierarchy, it is an amoral act. It was not seen as a sin because other animals were not seen as knowing right from wrong. Humans though, have the Great Gift from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. We have been given the tools needed to make good choices.That Gift though also entails responsibilities, we are charged to try to do right and will be judged, unlike the other animals, on how well we perform.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Hows abbout you ask the Jews they use the same text the only thing missing is the new testament cause they dont belive jesus was the messias.And i do not think Jews have a concept of original sin. So if you want to find something that points to the original sin it would be found in the new testament. Though why the original sin would be hidden from the knowlage of man kind until jesus came along is a noter question.

You may replace "Luke" in my sentence above by "the author of Luke/Acts" if you wish. I don't believe there is serious scholarly disagreement that the same person wrote both books. The early church Fathers (second and third centuries) attributed both works to Luke, the companion of Paul. As you say, current scholarship is not unanimous on this point.If you accept that the same person wrote both Luke and Acts, his own claims as to his goals are pertinent: Yes. Almost every claim that one can make in any field of study can and will be criticized by someone, as you so aptly illustrate by your criticisms. Biblical studies is not unique in this respect; the same is true of global warming, the age of the earth, etc.The scholarly view in the nineteenth century was that "Luke" was a poor historian and geographer who had no first-hand knowledge of the region he wrote about. But this view came from armchair archaeologists who themselves had no first-hand knowledge of the region. Their claims were effectively challenged by Sir William Ramsay, who spent his career in first-hand studies of Asia Minor. Ramsay made a strong case for Luke being an excellent historian who new the region well. Apparently some want to deny this and to cling to the nineteenth-century view (just as some want to deny evidence for the age of the earth or for global warming).For more information, see:
Short article re Luke and Ramsay
"Luke the Physician" by Sir William Ramsay

I disagree. I assume that the author/redactor was writing intentionally, trying to communicate something to his original audience. If so, we must pay attention to his word choice and grammar. He personifies "sin" as an animal, which "desires" Cain, using the same word "desire" as used in God's curse on Eve in the preceding chapter. This is seen by most textual scholars as a significant linkage of the two events, e.g.: ----- No, I'm not adding anything: The sense of the text is a "controlling" or "dominating" desire.----- No, it sets up an analogy, not an equivalence.

Your authority on history and archaeology died in 1939? Do you not think the fields of history and archaeology have come some way since 1939? The one link you provided is a book published in 1908!
This link is worthless
Short article re Luke and RamsayLooking at his website shows he is clueless about a vast array of subjects.The only place I can find any of the cites are on fundie and apologist websites.The last lines are a fine example of the quality of the information posted.

quote:

---

When reviewing the research and writings of Saint Luke, Famous historian A.N. Sherwin-White declares:

​

In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands without error. 8

​

For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. 9

---

This is written to make it seem Sherwin-White wrote both lines. He did not. The first is by Norman Geisler in Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Baker Books, 1999, 47. The cite is correct but there is no mention of Geisler in the article. The writer of the article seems to want to camouflage that it was said by Geisler. I can see why.Sherwin-White's specialty was Rome and roman law. He was not a biblical specialist. His prime issue was with form-criticism. I think he may not have understood it. SourceGeisler has no training in history or archaeology. To present him as an expert in the field is laughable. He is an apologist, nothing more.The majority of cites are to this.
Pat Zukeran, Archaeology and the New Testament, 2000, 4, Archaeology and the New TestamentThis is an article on a fundie website. I think if someone wants to be taken seriously they should use serious scholarship. Probe Doctrinal Statement

quote:

---

We explicitly affirm our belief in these basic Bible teachings:

​

1. There is one true God, eternally existing in three persons-- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--each of whom possesses equally all the attributes of Deity and the characteristics of personality (Matt 28:19; John 10:30; Acts 5:3,4; 2 Cor 13:14).

​

2. God the Father, Creator of heaven and earth, is the functional head of the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). He sent the Son to obtain satisfaction for divine justice and to proclaim reconciliation. The Spirit He sent to teach truth. He is spoken of as the Father of all creation, of angels, of Israel, of believers, and of Christ (John 14-17, 20:17; Job 1:16; Psalm 103:13).

​

3. Jesus is God, the living Word, who became flesh through His miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit and His virgin birth. Hence, He is perfect Deity and true humanity united in one person forever. He lived a sinless life, and voluntarily atoned for the sins of men by dying on the cross as their substitute, thus satisfying divine justice and accomplishing salvation for all who trust in Him alone. He rose from the dead in the same body, though glorified, in which He lived and died. He ascended bodily into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God the Father, and there He, the only mediator between God and man, continually makes intercession for His own (Matt 1:16,20,23; Luke 1:34; Heb 4:15; 2 Cor 5:21; 1 Cor 15; Acts 1:9-11; 1 Peter 2:5-9; 1 John 2:1).

​

4. The Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity, has come into the world to reveal and glorify Christ and to apply the saving work of Christ to men. He convicts and draws sinners to Christ, imparts new life to them, continually indwells them from the moment of spiritual birth, baptizes them into the body of Christ, and seals them until the day of Redemption (John 16:8-11; Titus 3:5; 1 Cor 6:19; Rom 8:9b; 1 Cor 12:13; Eph 5:18; Gal 5:22-23).

​

5. Man was originally created in the image of God. He sinned by disobeying God; thus, he was alienated from his Creator. The historic fall brought all mankind under divine condemnation. Man's nature is corrupted, and he is thus totally unable to please God. Every man is in need of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit (Gen 1:26-27; Eph 2:1; Rom 1:18, 3:20, 7:21-25, 5:12).

​

6. The salvation of man is wholly a work of God's free grace, and is not the result, in whole or in part, of human works or goodness or religious ceremony. God imputes His righteousness to those who put their faith in Christ alone for their salvation, and thereby justifies them in His sight (Rom 6:23; Eph 2:8,9; John 3:16; Titus 3:5-8).

​

It is the privilege of all who are born again of the Spirit to be assured of their salvation from the very moment in which they trust Christ as their Savior. This assurance is not based upon any kind of human merit, but is produced by the witness of the Holy Spirit, who confirms in the believer the testimony of God in His written Word. The Holy Spirit's fullness, power, and guidance are appropriated in the believer's life by faith (Rom 5:9-10, 8:1, 29- 30, 38-39; John 5:24, 10:27-30, 14:16; 1 Tim 1:12; Phil 1:6; Heb 7:25; Jude 24).

​

Every believer is called to live so in the power of the indwelling Spirit that he will not fulfill the lust of the flesh, but will bear fruit to the glory of God. The Scriptures set out the principles and rules of the Christian life (Rom 12:1,2; Gal 5:16- 26; 2 Cor 6:14).

​

7. Jesus Christ is the head of the Church, His Body, which is composed of all men, living and dead, who have been joined to Him through saving faith. God admonishes His people to assemble together regularly for worship, for participation in ordinances, for edification through the Scriptures, and for mutual encouragement (1 Cor 12:12-13; Col 1:18; Eph 2:15-16).

​

8. At physical death, the believer enters immediately into eternal, conscious fellowship with the Lord and awaits the resurrection of the body to everlasting glory and blessing (1 Cor 15:12ff; 2 Cor 5:1-10; Phil 1:23; John 12:26).

​

At physical death, the unbeliever enters immediately into eternal, conscious separation from the Lord and awaits the resurrection of the body to everlasting judgment and condemnation (Eph 2:12; Rom 3:23, 5:12; Matt 25:31-46; Rev 20:11-15).

​

Jesus Christ will come again to the earth--personally, visibly, and bodily--to consummate history and fulfill the plan of God (Rev 19:11-16; Zech 14:4-11; 1 Thess 1:9-10).

​

9. The Lord Jesus Christ commanded all believers to proclaim the gospel throughout the world and to disciple men of every nation. The fulfillment of that Great Commission requires that all worldly and personal ambitions be subordinated to a total commitment to "Him who loved us and gave Himself for us" (Matt 28:19; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47-48).

---

Yeah I can see real objectivity from them.There is also a cite to Apologetics Press Here is the belief statement for Apologetics Press.

quote:

---

What We Believe

​

The following principles of truth are accepted by those who actively participate in this work:

​

1. God exists, and man can know that God exists, by means of His manifold revelations, both in nature and through the inspired Word of God, the Holy Bible.
2. The entire material Universe was specially created by this almighty God in 6 days of approximately 24- hours each, as revealed in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11.
3. Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate a relatively young Earth, in contrast to evolutionary views of a multi-billion-year age for the Earth.
4. Both biblical and scientific evidence indicate that many of the Earth’s features must be viewed in light of a universal, catastrophic flood (i.e., the Noahic Flood as described in Genesis 6-8).
5. All compromising theories such as theistic evolution, progressive creationism, threshold evolution, the gap theory, the modified gap theory, the day-age theory, the non-world view, etc., are denied and opposed as patently false.
6. Christianity is the one true religion; Jesus Christ is the only divine Son of God, resurrected Lord, and Savior of all who lovingly obey Him.
7. The 66 books of the Bible are fully and verbally inspired of God; hence, they are inerrant and authoritative, and a complete guide for moral and religious conduct.
8. Salvation is by means of obedience to the Gospel system, involving faith in God and Christ, repentance from sin, confession of faith, and immersion in water for remission of past sins, coupled with a life of growing consecration and dedication.
9. Those enjoying salvation are members of the one true church, which is the body of Christ.

---

Yeah they are going to be objective.The final cite is also to a fundie website.If you are going to post something and expect me to take it seriously maybe you should not post things from fundie/apologist sites that just use other fundie/apologist sites as their source.oh could you provide evidence for this statement? I find it mentioned on many fundie/apologist websites but have never seen any backing for the argument. It may very well be true, but I would like to see some evidence that backs the statement.Now back to my original problem with your post. You admit that there is But in your original post you state such things as facts. Also, it seems quite obvious that stating. is very much not universally accepted. You speak in absolutes. You make statements expecting that since they a bible based others will just accept them as is. What you accept as fact is in fact not universally accepted and there is a lot of dissent on the subject.Edited by Theodoric, : Link to doctrinal statement, spelling

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I think you're projecting what you see as the "meaning" of Genesis 4:7 backward to colour your reading of Genesis 3:16.I think you should be reasoning in the opposite direction, using the well-known desire of a woman for her man to understand the metaphoric relationship between sin and man. If you start that way, there's much less temptation to try to shoehorn control into the text. I don't think it is. As the KJV puts it:

quote:

---

Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shall it not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door; and unto thee is its desire, but thou mayest rule over it.'

---

The control is in one direction only, us over sin. The emphasis is that we can control sin or we can fail to control sin. Sin's "desire" is a literary device, nothing more.Edited by ringo, : Fixed typo: "the" --> "that".

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi