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

The Serpent made it more desirable, yes.
But "the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye" is not to do with the Serpent. Reduces the restraint? You said earlier that it completely removed the restraint.
Eve (we both agreed) didn't know who or what to believe, so I proposed that she would believe what she saw: "good for food and pleasing to the eye". It is the same free choice that you give a baby if you offer it a lit or an unlit sparkler.
God gave Eve a choice he knew she was not equipped to make correctly and then punished her.

True. It's to do with the Lord God who planted the garden and filled it with trees which "were pleasing to the eye and good for food" (Gen 2). So when she finds it so, it's because he made it so.Our meanderings thus far persist in returning us to the conclusion of a balanced set of influences. This suits my position but doesn't yours. You turn now to look at something which, by any textual measure, is an aside: the issue of the attractiveness of the fruit apart from the central theme of good and evil.In response I'd point to a garden full of "all kinds of trees" which shared these characteristics of being pleasing to the eye and being good for food. Over-abundance in these departments renders the influence of any one tree a trifle.- To clarify:I wouldn't have been including good for food/pleasing to the eye in my thinking (for the reason given above). I was dealing with the suggestion of yours that there was a three-legged stool in this choice:- God's prohibition
- the serpents temptation
- the fruit being desirable for knowledge apart from what the serpent saidIf the serpent and God are cancelled out (due to the possibility of both being wrong) then desirability of the fruit itself comes to the fore. But the restraint isn't eradicated by such cancelling. No matter how many bullets you pull from a `Russian Roulette gun, there will be a degree of restraint in the case of a chance that even a single bullet remains.God could be right for all the "cancelling out". If it's 'pleasing to the eye' she's after she's the rest of the risk-free garden to choise from.- That's been dealt with already. I'm assuming she understood plain English (although I'm not supposing that an omnipotent knowledge of every consequence arising from her choice is required in order for her to make an informed-enough choice. No more that it should be supplied to us when we make choices)Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Panda and Iano,The topic concerns the concept of Original Sin, which according to the OP is based on an argument by Paul. One question is whether the Genesis 2&3 story actually supports Paul's argument.Could you two try to tie what you're discussing back to the topic and how it either does or doesn't support Paul's argument. You seem to be stuck on the issue of choice and I don't see it building towards Paul's argument.Thanks
AdminPD

Oh, really? It certainly doesn't appear that way. So we have a fundamental disagreement about what the text is trying to communicate. In order to answer this we need to address two questions:
1) What does the Genesis text say?
2) What did the author (or redactor) mean? (i.e. what did they intend to communicate to their original audience?)
And then a third question:
3) How did Paul understand the Genesis text?I suspect we have fairly good agreement on the first question, as it is quite objective. I suspect that our main disagreement regards the second question.But let's first clarify what the text says:
It should be quite obvious from the text that God gave man a prohibition, but man directly disobeyed God by violating this prohibition.The serpent tempted/enticed Eve to disobey God. Eve misquoted God's prohibition (adding "you must not touch it"). The serpent called God a liar. Eve was convinced; she desired the forbidden fruit and took it. Adam shared in this. The immediate result was embarrassment at their nakedness.Do we agree this far on what the text says?

I went to church three times a week for thirty years and never heard of "original sin". The first I heard of the concept was in a book about the comic strip Peanuts. So I know next to nothing about the doctrine of original sin and yes, I would be willing to accept that it's Biblical if there was any support for it. So far, the support presented in this thread has been extremely thin. I would tend to call it a "suggestion" rather than a prohibition. After all, God either lied about the consequences or changed His mind, so even He had His doubts about how much of a "prohibition" it was. And I wouldn't say that Adam and Eve "directly disobeyed" a suggestion that they didn't have the capacity to assess effectively. The serpent offered a different viewpoint. You're reading in intentions that aren't in the text. Eve embellished, a further clue that she either didn't understand God's suggestion or didn't see any need to take it seriously. God either lied or changed His mind about Adam and Eve dying the same day. He Himself confirmed later on that the rest of what the serpent said was true - i.e. that eating the fruit would make Adam and Eve more like God. Obviously not. You're reading too much into the story that isn't there.It might help if you could provide support for original sin from somewhere else in the Bible. I've already asked for that more than once.

---

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

quote:

---

I went to church three times a week for thirty years and never heard of "original sin".

---

Churches I've been to never mentioned it either. They did imply everyone was a sinner, but not so much why.The Doctrine of Original Sin originally dealt with the supposed hereditary stain that humans are born with because we are supposedly descendants of Adam and Eve.The A&E story doesn't present the idea that mankind is "stained" with something beyond their control that needs to be forgiven.People are so used to accepting what Paul says or what they think he says, they don't actually look to see if his argument made sense or had support.The odd thing is that A&E were already mortal, otherwise the tree of life was useless and no need to put it out of reach.

Actually, and allow me to quote a castillian translation of the bible, since It's the version I have available,3:22 Y dijo el Seor Dios: "He aqu que el hombre ha venido a ser como uno de nosotros, en cuanto a conocer el bien y el mal! Ahora, pues, cuidado, no alargue su mano y tome tambin del rbol de la vida Gnesis y comiendo de l viva para siempre."You can all check your version, it's Gen 3:22. losely translates as "3:22 and the Lord said: 'And so the man has come to be like one of us, regarding knowledge of good and evil. Now then, be careful, will he not reach and take also the Tree of Life and eating from it life forever'"Some interesting things in this single entrance. First, it's quite obvious that Adan and Eve were mortal. It's stated by God himself that the man would die if he didn't eat from the Tree of Life. This is also supported by the matization God makes about man having becoming more like... them?, but only in regards of knowing good and evil. This implies that there are things where Adam and Eve are still not like God.Sidepoint. Us? Who was god talking to?In Gen 3:23 Y le ech el Seor Dios del jardn de Edn, para que labrase el suelo de donde haba sido tomado.So we see that man was expelled of Eden not because of eating from the Tree of Knowledge, but to prevent him from eating from the Tree of Life. This means that Adam and Even were not expelled from Eden as a punishment, but a preventive measure.So, if Paul was actually refering to Gen 2&3, he was totally missing the point.Rom 5:12 Por lo tanto, por un solo hombre entr el pecado en el mundo, y por el pecado la muerte, y as la muerte pas a todos los hombres, porque todos pecaron.(5:12 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)When we crossreference this with Gen 3:22-23, we HAVE to see the falacy. I agree that being expelled from Eden was an indirect consecuence of eating from the Tree of Knowledge, but, even before then, there was death in the world, already.So, either Paul was ignoring the epilogue on Genesis 3, and just assuming that with pregnacy, labor pains, male dominance (for Eve), working, penance, etc (for Adam) also comes death based on one of the "curses" from gen 3:19, or he was refering something else.3:19 Con el sudor de tu rostro comers el pan, hasta que vuelvas al suelo, pues de l fuiste tomado. Porque eres polvo y al polvo tornars."(With sweat in your face you will eat the bread[??], untill you return to the earth, since you were taken from it. Because you are dust, and to dust you will return)Now, this verse, without 3:22-23, could be understood as God condemning Man to die. But, if we read it keeping in mind that man was ALREADY going to die regardless, it could be understood as if God was telling Adam that he'd have to make an effort just to eat until the end of the species (until there was no more man, and Man had returned to dust).I think Paul was just ignoring, for whatever reason, gen 3:22-23, because this is the only way God "cursed" Adam's descendants. If God was refering 'just until Adam dies' then Cain, Abel and Seth would have never had to labor the fields.

There's no way eve could have not eaten the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge after the serpent's speech. As stated in Gen 3:6, Eve made sure the tree was "good to eat" aka, not poisonous, the fruit was atractive, and the only reason not to eat it was cause God had told them not to.Now, Eve didn't have a strong relationship with God at this point. Adam had spent way more time, but Eve, who, at this point lacked a name, yet (she's named at Gen 3:20) barely knew God. She barely knew the serpent, either. But that's not my point.My point is that is a natural tendency of a child to want to become more like their parents. And God was Adam's father. This tendency is shown later with Babel, also, but that'd be going TOO off topic.So, the serpent (who was saying the truth) told Eve that God was wrong about dieing after eating the forbidden fruit. What did Eve do? Well, she cheked. She made sure it was "good to eat". The fruit being edible (and not poisonous, implied in good to eat) the natural tendency of becoming more like their father would take over naturally.In any case, this is obviously NOT the original sin. God punished the serpent, Adam and Eve, and it lead to them being expelled from Eden, sure, but they were still being watched by God. God had not forsaken them, just took preventive meassures.I'm supporting this with Gen 4:14 and Gen 4:164:14 Look! You are driving me off the land today, and I must hide from your presence. I will be a homeless wanderer on the earth; whoever finds me will kill me.
4:16 So Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.Both verses tell us that Cain was forsaken from God's presence. He'd have to "hide from God" and he had to "leave his presence" which means that Adam and Eve were still in God's presence, and not hiding from him. So, the act of eating a forbidden fruit was NOT as bad as a murder. Also, the first mention of sin appears in 4:7.Cain's punishment was also much steeper than Adam's. Not only would he become an outcast from God, but would also be unable to cultivate the lands. And made sure noone would attack him, by marking him.That makes another interesting side point. Who would kill the oonly living descendant of Adam and Eve?Now, keep in mind that we'd have to be descendants of Noe, who was a descendant of Seth, who was given to Adam by God himself to replace Abel .4:25 And Adam had marital relations with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son. She named him Seth, saying, God has given me another child in place of Abel because Cain killed him.So, at this point we can be sure that God's not as angry with Adam and Eve as he is with Cain. And this brings this point:- If Cain was the one who commited the true Original Sin, we, being as we'd be, descendants of Seth, would be innocent
- If Adam and Eve were the one who commited the original sin, however, we'd be still watched by God, given that He never stoped watching them at least until Seth was born.I don't know you, but I see these 2 statements being imposible. So the real original sin that caused God to send us his son must be somewhere else.

If not for the grammar, you argument from the context would be plausible. But the grammar seems to be much stronger than merely a suggestion.
1) The command itself is in the form of a general, permanent prohibition. It is the Hebrew particle "lo" followed by the infinitive. This is the identical construction as in the "thou shalt not's" of the Ten Commandments.
2) The consequence is stated very strongly with an intensive construction, "you shall surely die," literally, "dying you shall die." The description of the serpent as "crafty" or "shrewd" in 3:1 implies that he has non-transparent intentions. The fact that he directly contradicts God and tells Eve to disobey God supports this. Thus the verbs "tempt" or "entice" seem to be suggested by the text. I agree; I think the text implies this. 1) "in the day" is a Hebrew idiom for "when." Look at the NET translation that I posted; it renders this "when."
2) Are you sure that they didn't "die" immediately? Are you sure that you are understanding the word "die" in the same way as the author of the text, his audience, or the context of the Pentateuch and the OT? (Many argue that this is referring to "spiritual death.")
3) Yes, God did confirm that this had made Adam and Eve like Him in some way.If we still disagree on what the text says, I am happy to provide quotations from leading textual scholars. The main biblical support is Rom 5. You and others (including the OP) raised questions as to whether or not Paul had correctly understood Genesis. This is what we are trying to address.

As I already pointed out, the consequence proved to be untrue. Strong language doesn't make falsehoods more true. I've described my own language as "subtle". It doesn't necessarily suggest dishonesty. It suggests that the listener has to put some effort into understanding the meaning.I'll mention again that the serpent's words were true and God's were not. Eve had to make the best effort that she could to decide whose words to follow. Pretty sure. If I tell you I'll do something "when" I get a chance, I don't mean in 900 years. It's just ludicrously meaningless to threaten somebody with death 900 years in the future.Are you sure you're not making up the idea of spiritual death to "fix" God's mistake/lie? The topic is about Biblical support. I have no doubt that you can find extra-Biblical support for a lot of things. Speaking for myself, I'd be a lot more impressed if you could provide support for original sin from Hosea or Colossians. One chapter of one book, refering ambiguously to "one man" is extremely thin support.

---

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

You claim the consequence to be untrue. As I pointed out, you may be misunderstanding the text. I agree that the word ‘ārm doesn't necessarily imply dishonesty or any other negative connotation. It is translated as "crafty" (NASB, NIV, Darby, ESV, NRSV), "shrewd" (NET, JPS. NLT), "clever" (Message), "cunning" (NKJV). Some translations agree with your rendering of "subtle" (KJV, ASV), but I believe this is too weak. You have made it quite clear that this is your interpretation of what the text means. But I am trying to first focus on what the text says before we jump ahead to what it means. Absolutely. The concept of "spiritual death" arose long before I was born. It was expressed by Jesus and Paul in the NT; it apparently was present in NT Judaism. Yes, the topic is about biblical support. Specifically, what did Paul mean in his discussion of "original sin" in Rom 5, what did the writer/redactor of Genesis 2-3 mean, and did Paul understand/interpret him correctly. If we really want to try to answer these questions, we need to consider all pertinent evidence. Genesis and Romans were written in specific historical and cultural contexts, in specific languages. We can't ignore the historical, cultural, and grammatical setting and hope to correctly understand what the original author intended to communicate. If you think you can ignore all such "extra-biblical" evidence and still interpret the Bible accurately, you are deluded.I would think that what the text says should be fairly objective. But you claim that we disagree on what the text says even before considering what it means. We can each produce our own textual arguments for what the text says, but how do we resolve an impasse? We could engage in a personal contest of academic/scholarly credentials, but this doesn't really answer the question, since neither of us are world-renowned experts on the biblical text. I suggest that we refer to professional scholars who have spent their lives studying the text. Or are you afraid of a scholarly discussion on the text? That's nice, but not very relevant. You or I can't change the content of Hosea or Colossians.

On the contrary, you seem to be claiming that the text "might" mean something other than what it says. That's an odd statement coming from somebody who claims to be looking at what the text says. I'm just saying that we don't need a lot of extra-Biblical blah blah to see what the text says. I'm sure you can find extra-biblical support for almost any meaning that you want to shoehorn into the text but let's take your own suggestion and see what it says first. We also can't find support for original sin in them, or we would have presented it already. Don't you find it odd that a doctrine as supposedly fundamental as original sin is only found in one book out of 66 and only references one other book of the 66?

---

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

Or that in the one referenced book the God character seems to forget to mention something of that magnitude, maybe explain that when he said "on that day you will surely die" he didn't mean die die, but rather some slow acting spiritual death that will be inherited by all your kids; and "Oh by the way, because you screwed up I'm gonna have to knock up a virgin and then thirty years or so later kill off my bastard child. Thanks a bunch."

---

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

Sorry for any confusion. I am suggesting that there are potentially a number of possible meanings, and we shouldn't let our preconceived ideas as to meaning influence our understanding of what the text says. We must not take the approach, "If it says x then it must mean y; since I know that y is false the text cannot be saying x." This is "letting the tail wag the dog." The text of Genesis was written in Hebrew, and Romans was written in Greek. What the text says needs to be translated into a language that we can understand (e.g. English), and this requires "extra-biblical" consideration of the original languages, history, and culture.

And the "extra-biblical" consideration of the original languages, history, and culture tells us that the concept of Original Sin was NOT found in Genesis 2&3.Remember that Paul is creating something new, a new religion. The author of Genesis 2&3 was not creating the same religion that Paul was creating.Jews have an entirely different understanding of sin, and of how sin is dealt with, one that makes far more sense than what Paul was marketing.For the Jews, the next life is simply not all that big an issue, and sin, getting born again, being saved, is a continuing, ongoing process. That process is best typified during the Days of Atonement between Rosh Hoshanah and Yom Kippur.On the first day of every year God examines each individual and based on their behavior during the past year, writes their fate for the coming year in the Book, but the book is not sealed for ten days. During those ten days every Jew is expected to honestly examine their behavior, acknowledge where they have screwed up, try to make amends and commit to try not to make the same error in the future.Original Sin is a new concept created by Paul, and not one based on the Garden of Eden story or on the history and culture of the Jews.But even in Romans 5 Original Sin is not the important part. Even there Paul only uses it as a tool to market HIS interpretation of why Jesus has value.

---

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