Bible Question: What was the First Sin?

indeed, god does not indicate the true consequences, instead telling them they will die. well, that's definitely part of it. though we will never know if god still would have punished them if they stood up and took responsibility and apologized.

---

Arachno, could you comment on my post #254? That seems clear to me but I wanted to check with you as well. Thanks-

---

-Equinox_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

this is actually a tough question. it's easy to jump to the conclusion that the serpent is satan, as that's what the dogma tells us. it's also easy to say "now hold on, it doesn't actually say that, and it seems to explain something about snakes the animals."the truth, i think, is somewhere in the middle.the serpent functions as a temptation, giving him a role similar to satan. by the intertestimental period, people were reading the serpent as satan, as evidences by some of the various pseudepigraphical texts. the problem is that the satan himself doesn't seem to have been invented until pretty late in jewish mythology. granted, just before the torah was put together -- but he's not in the source documents or legends that inspired them. there is also the tradition of surrounding cultures that treated snakes as evil spirits.what seems to have happened with the torah is that the authors took a lot of hints from mythology, and then stripped their stories of anything too polytheistic very carefully. an evil spirit in the form of a serpent was likely borrowed from other mesopotamian traditions, but editted down to be "just a snake." satan, possibly, comes out of similar traditions. so the two may in fact be related.but it's hard to say.

---

I have to disagree here with Ringo also. It is not sinful to follow orders blindly, and it is an excusable position. Following orders gets you off the hook in monasteries and armies and traffic accidents at any rate. The traditional view is that obedience to any trusted authority is commendable and excusable, a necessity of sorts since we can not all be super-knowledgable in every circumstance.

satan putting himself above god

But not in international war crimes tribunals.In the end, it always comes down to individual responsibility.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Brian,In this trivial story G3 perhaps Eve's memory didn't serve her well when she responded to the serpent. If I am right, then Eve didn't sin in her response to the serpent.

---

Thanks
trossthree

The first sin happened way before the earth was created. The first sin was when Lucifer became jealous of Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit because he wasn't included in the plans for the new planet (aka earth). He got a third of the angels on his side, and there was war in heaven. God threw him down to earth, changing his name to Satan. Then when God created the earth, he changed himself to look like a serpent, and tempted Eve. Eve's was the first sin on earth, but the question clearly states what was the first sin.

No. The question clearly asks:

quote:

---

What was the first sin committed by a human in the Bible? Message 1

---

So the rest of your fantasy is irrelevant.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

i apologise, but the title of the debate is What was the First Sin? That was what I was looking at when I wrote my reply, not the first post.

quote:

---

the serpent functions as a temptation, giving him a role similar to satan. by the intertestimental period, people were reading the serpent as satan, as evidences by some of the various pseudepigraphical texts. the problem is that the satan himself doesn't seem to have been invented until pretty late in jewish mythology. granted, just before the torah was put together -- but he's not in the source documents or legends that inspired them. there is also the tradition of surrounding cultures that treated snakes as evil spirits.

​

what seems to have happened with the torah is that the authors took a lot of hints from mythology, and then stripped their stories of anything too polytheistic very carefully. an evil spirit in the form of a serpent was likely borrowed from other mesopotamian traditions, but editted down to be "just a snake." satan, possibly, comes out of similar traditions. so the two may in fact be related.

---

i agree here, hasatan or heylel came later......as per being borrowed from earlier traditions, i concur, the serpent is not satan or heylel but a serpent, this being in reference within the metaphors of the garden of eden and the temptation of knowledge with the result being knowledge of the flesh, or 666, or as may be from the earlier traditon of khundalini the representation of the physical realm in accordance with man is a symbol of a serpent with its coil wrapped around earth. so i think the serpent in the garden of eden was a chosen effigy by God to symbolise knowledge of the flesh or physical, which is the opposite side of being completely 100% spiritual.

​

i love the debate of the garden of eden.

​

i do not beleive that the first sin of temptation was commited in the garden of eden, i beleive the first sin was that of cain murdering abel.

​

in the bible it never says adam was tempted, it merely says he ate of the fruit after it was offered by eve, eve knew none the wiser.

​

adam was taught the order of things before eve was created, he knew he had paradise and 100% spiritual, so when presented with the fruit, he knew God wanted him to eat it, so as to know what it is to suffer to gain wisdom of the reason of God's grace, if adam never ate the fruit the story would not have continued and the only humans would have been adam and eve, none after.

​

a good google would be adam kadmon, primordial man etc.

We have to remember that the Bible is simply silent in some matters of discussion, which is why we must rely on the wonderful blessing of human intelligence---it's called, "reading between the lines".For instance, just because Genesis 2:16 and 17 says that God commanded man to eat of every tree except for the tree of knowledge and good and evil does not mean that God might have conveyed his message in further detail to Adam and Eve.In fact, all that Genesis 3:2 and 3 is doing is describing a conversation between the Serpant and Eve:Genesis 3:2,3 "And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."Right there, the Bible is simply giving more detail as to what God had told Adam and Eve. If the Bible had mentioned that this is what God had said BEFORE, it would have been simply "repetition".Eve did not lie, rather, the author elaborated these details through the communication between Eve and the Serpant.It's amusing to me how atheists will desperately try to pick on straws to prove their points.LoL, if you guys only knew how silly you sound.No worries though, I forgive ya. Edited by Lysimachus, : No reason given.Edited by Lysimachus, : No reason given.Edited by Lysimachus, : No reason given.

---

~Lysimachus

Yeah, I mean, hey - why be limited to what is just written in the Bible? It's so much easier when you can just pretend like it says whatever you want it to!

Crashfrog, please don't discredit your intelligence.Even a kid in kindergarden can ascertain that the verse simply implies that is what God told Adam and Eve. By jolly, do you think the Bible is going to describe every detail...(i.e. Adam and Eve visited the south pole...they built a house, they named their favorite pet Lion 'Leo').I know you crashfrog to be intelligent. Even you know very well that the Bible does not have to into any more detail than it has in that chapter for a reader to come to the proper conclusion.

The expectations I would have for the Bible depend on what you expect me to believe the Bible is.As a written record of traditional Hebrew oral myths? No, I wouldn't expect the Bible to go into every detail, nor provide any more information than is necessary for the reader to get the general gist of the myth.As God's inerrant Word to His creation, detailing every way in which a person should live? I would expect significantly more detail, and at the same time, less outright self-contradiction.Like I said it all depends on what you think the Bible is. It's certainly what we would expect if it's just (heh; "just") a long-surviving record of the myths of an interesting culture. It doesn't even begin to rise to the level of a supernatural dictation from the Creator of All. Don't discredit your intelligence and try to assert that you or anybody couldn't write, on their own, a more insightful and self-consistent bible.