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

Whilst I agree Adam is given contradictory information and understands that to be the case, I don't see how your conclusion follows from it. An all clear signal isn't understood as a contradictory thing but is instead, understood to be something to be expected at some point following a warning signal. An all clear signla would be a contradictory thing if issued whilst bombs where still falling.Consider God and the serpent sitting side by side. God says "it's dangerous out there" the serpent then says "it's safe out there". Does the fact that the serpent speaks later mean Eve should side with the serpent. I don't see how that works.- No problem. A mod might be along. Or might not be. We'll see.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Indeed not. They merely add a tier to list of available categories of influences for and against an action. I dunno. One can become suspicious of unstable looking rocks on a hillside due to previous encounters with the consequences of them tumbling down. Consequences that don't have any moral element attaching... And if persons A's cons were better appreciated than poorly understood B's pro's - even though you encountered B later? Surely you'd go with A? If so, the sequence of encountering isn't the issue.- You seem to be assuming A was understood less than B. Whatever they understood about death, there is no reason to suppose they understood less of it than what a knowledge of good and evil might entail.I know I'm assuming the choice was a balanced one - because nothing else makes much sense. Have you any reason to suppose it was unbalanced, other by assuming it was unbalanced?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The example strikes me as a poor one. Eat/don't eat is simple contradiction without an in-statement reason to suppose the one true over the other. Bomb warning signal/all clear signal isn't so much a contradiction but a collection of statements in which the latter is expected to follow and render no-longer-current, the former. You've done the same thing here in pushing a scenario which plays on expectancies surrounding an incident. If held up by a policemen because of danger up ahead you expect the police to deal with it and clear the way and eventually, to pronounce the road clear.I've suggested a neutral example devoid of expectancies. God speaks first and pronounces danger, the serpent speaks immediately after him and pronounces no danger - we can immediately see we've a contradiction but no particular reason to plump for the latter simply because it's the latter.Could you do the same - but without the 'expectancy' bit which resolves the contradiction.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Thanks.- There's no reason not to believe God either. At least you haven't suggested why not other than to:a) use analogies in which there is no true contradiction given that the circumstances and expectations instantly resolve what is reasonable to believe.b) suppose Adam and Eve unconsidering robots whose course is set by the last hand at their rudder. Yet in response to the serpents temptation Eve says "but God did say..." indicating she understands the existance of a contradiction to what the serpent is saying. Robots don't do contradiction, they go where their pointed.- You've done precisely the same thing as with the warning sirens and the two policemen. The narrative flow (assuming reasonable deductions by Bill) resolve any sense of the statements being considered as contradictory.If Alice told him not to use the stairs because, though intended for repair, they haven't been repaired yet - then Colins statement would be a contradiction. Perhaps Colin is under the false impression - although appearing subsequent to Alice. Perhaps Colin has the most up to date information afterall.Bill would have a choice to make.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I'm afraid there is. And that narrative flow resolves the contradictory information. From Bills perspective what Colin says indicates that Alice is correct (the stairs was dangerous) but out of date in her information (the stairs was old and dangerous as Alice said but has since been repaired).He should choose to follow Colins advice on the basis of Colins advice accomodating Alices advice and (apparently - from Bill's perspective) adding to it

quote:

---

There is a fire in Bill's office block.
Fire-safety person Alice tells Bill to go down the internal stairs to escape, because the outside stairs are old and dangerous.
[Alice then goes off to help a disabled person.]
Fire-safety person Colin then tells Bill that the external stairs have recently been repaired and are not dangerous at all.
[Colin then goes off to help an unconscious person.]

---

- Er... it was you who supplied the information which shows why Bill should go with Colins direction. If you want to strip that information away then there is no reason for Bill to follow the one over the other - each merely point to a stairs.- I've explained why 'Colin' above. That assumes you keep to the original story. If limiting it to simple command without further information then there is no particular reason to choose the one over the other.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Could you point that accomodation out? Colin accomodates Alice by implicitly acknowledging her right .. but out of date. Bill isn't left with any contradiction to ponder upon (we're assuming the idea that Colin is out to trick him isn't on the or his agenda).Now consider the serpent.

quote:

---

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

---

Mere pointing to a different staircase. Not enough in itself to warrant a decision for or against.

quote:

---

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

---

Direct contradiction without accomodation. Directly on a par with Colin saying that Alice knew that the old staircase was safe but choose to say otherwise.Bill wouldn't have sure reason to accept what Colin says as he did in your original story. If one person can know one thing and say another then so can two persons.- I've given you a equivilent paraphrasing of the Alice/Bill/Colin story based on the Genesis text provided. It wasn't at all impossible. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

And I have never seen a good explanation as to why one would need to know not to disobey one authority figure over another authority figure ... in order to disobey either.I mean, it seems to me that disobedience simply involves not doing what someone tells you. Quite where the need to know you shouldn't disobey is required I can't quite figure out.Any ideas jar?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Indeed: words like "should" and "punish" are associated with the realm of morality whereas Adam and Eve don't appear to have been moral beings at the point of their choosing.It would however, be completely justified to deliver on the promised consequences associated with a choice in the direction chosen.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Indeed. But just as with the word 'faith', I'd see it as sensible to consider how the Bible defines things rather than how a dictionary does (especially when there's a marked difference between the two definitions)

My post wasn't so much belief-centred as it was question-centred. You assert something, I ask how you arrive at that idea ... then silence.- When you say 'authority figure' do you mean that they are understood to be someone who should be obeyed?Where did you get the notion that God or the serpent were seen as authority figures?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

...for starters.

I'm pretty sure you won't be able to link to me claiming that. At least, not exegetically. I agree.And so my questioning why you think disobedience requires such concepts since disobedience only requires you not following a persons direction?

I don't know if you've been following the discussion but my view is that Adam and Eve were faced with decision involving proferred consequences ("death" (whatever that means) and "be like God" (whatever that means)).There is no need to introduce a should-element to a decision involving only consequences.

I'm not supposing they did.Not that it matters. A balanced choice doesn't require that the full extent of all consequences be known at the time of choosing. It merely demands that the same amount is known about both sets of consequences.I mean, which one of us can know all the consequences for any decision we make - yet we are held accountable for the choices we makeEdited by iano, : No reason given.

The issue isn't their disobeying God. The issue is your claim that they would have to have known not to disobey God in order to be in a position to disobey God.It's a claim which requires justification. Have you got one? A change in signage only. Obey A means disobey B. Obey B means disobey A. They could choose based on the percieved attractiveness of the consequences offered as they understood them to be. Avoiding death vs. being like God.