Bible Question: What was the First Sin?

Essentially, it IS a compilation of books. I was just trying to stress the fact that I think it is more than that. If God really spoke through men (as I believe) to give us the Bible, then who's to say He didn't make sure everything He intended to be canonized actually was? In other words, if He went as far as to speak to us through prophets and disciples and such, why wouldn't wouldn't He make sure it all ended up being canonized. And so, you have the Bible to me--the complete word of God.

phil responds to me:

quote:

---

My position is that Satan is referred to as a serpent, so it is understandable for someone to think that the serpent in Genesis is Satan.

---

No, it isn't.Revelation has nothing to do with Genesis. Satan may be a serpent but not all serpents are Satan.

quote:

---

The Bible to me is the word of God through man.

---

That may be, but the word needs to make logical sense. There is no logic to the claim that the serpent in Genesis is Satan simply because Satan is described as a serpent in Revelation.

quote:

---

My point is that I believe Revelations DOES have something to do with Genesis.

---

So now you're contradicting yourself.

quote:

---

Anyways, all serpents are not Satan, and Satan may not be a serpent. I believe there is enough evidence present, though, to at least provide a reasonable argument that the serpent in Genesis is Satan.

---

How? The serpent in Genesis is described as an animal, not a supernatural entity. It is cursed as an animal, not a supernatural being.Genesis 3:1 directly states that the serpent was the most subtil beast of the field.Ergo, the serpent in Genesis is not Satan.

quote:

---

They all may be horrible, but one has to be better than the rest. "That's logic."

---

No, that isn't. They may all be equally horrible for different reasons.Consider the problem that there is no such thing as the "original texts."

quote:

---

The date of the book of Job is obviously debatable,

---

But not in the way you think.You are acting as if any debate means that the entire question is completely up for grabs.This is typical creationist thinking. If one admits we don't know something, then that is evidence that we don't know anything.If you find two mathematicians debating as to whether or not the six millionth digit of pi is a 2 or a 3, that doesn't mean there is any question as to whether or not pi is an integer.There is, indeed, debate about the dates of the various texts of the Bible. There isn't really much debate about the general timeline of when they appeared.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Brian, where did the information get given to eve that lieing was not ok, according to the bible?

​

Remember it was the tree of knowledge to know good and evil, they didn't have any knowledge to know the difference between good and evil before then so the first sin was eating from the tree.

​

-Quiz
[This message has been edited by Quiz, 10-29-2003]

Quiz writes:

quote:

---

Remember it was the tree of knowledge to know good and evil, they didn't have any knowledge to know the difference between good and evil before then so the first sin was eating from the tree.

---

But how is that a sin? They didn't know they were doing anything wrong.And the Bible clearly states at the end of Genesis 2 that Adam and Eve were doing something wrong by running around naked ("and they were not ashamed.") Remember, the very first thing that Adam and Eve panic over after eating from the Tree of Knowledge is not that they just ate from the Tree of Knowledge but that they're naked. Clearly, going around without clothes is a no-no.So if Adam and Eve weren't sinning by running around naked since they didn't know any better, how could eating from the tree be a sin since, again, they didn't know any better?It would seem that the first sin was god's when he lied to Adam and Eve and said that they would die (a physical death and before the sun set) if they ate from the Tree of Knowledge.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

The first sin in the Bible is when Eve listened to the Serpent . You want to mince words and assign sin to Eve for her response to the Serpent as being inaccurate/lie. Hogwash , Eve damn well knew exactly what God had said as did the Serpent, the first real sin in the Bible happens where the first question mark appears which makes the Serpents question in itself the first sin. How so ? To question God is to imply He doesnt mean what He said, the Serpent knew God meant what He said but it got Eve to listen and eventually doubt God . We all today are paying for her doubt of what God said. Eve sinned initially by even entertaining the idea questioning what God said, hence we have the goal of the Sepent - to make people doubt what God said.

WILLOWTREE writes:

quote:

---

The first sin in the Bible is when Eve listened to the Serpent .

---

Why?It isn't like the serpent told Eve to eat from the tree. The serpent simply said that god wasn't being truthful in the description of the result of eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.

quote:

---

Eve damn well knew exactly what God had said as did the Serpent

---

Indeed.God lied and the serpent told the truth.God said that were Adam or Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, they would die that very day.The serpent, however, said that were Adam or Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, their eyes would be open and they would become as gods, knowing good and evil.And what happened to Adam and Eve when they ate from the Tree of Knowledge? Did they die that very day the way god said they would? No, they didn't. Instead, their eyes opened and they became as gods, knowing good and evil, just like the serpent said.So how is either Eve or the serpent at fault here? Eve is innocent and the serpent told the truth.

quote:

---

To question God is to imply He doesnt mean what He said

---

But he didn't. God said that eating from the Tree of Knowledge would kill you. He didn't mean that. When Adam and Eve ate from the tree, they didn't die.

quote:

---

the Serpent knew God meant what He said but it got Eve to listen and eventually doubt God .

---

How? The serpent never told Eve to eat from the tree. Even though god deliberately lied about the effect of eating from the tree, that still doesn't give a person license to eat from the tree.If the cops tell you that the speed limit on a certain street is 25 mph and you see a sign on that street that says it is 35 mph, that doesn't give you license to go 45 mph.

quote:

---

We all today are paying for her doubt of what God said.

---

But she's innocent. She didn't know right from wrong before she ate from the Tree of Knowledge. She was physically incapable of that precisely because she hadn't eaten from the tree.How can one have doubt if one doesn't have any knowledge to begin with?

quote:

---

hence we have the goal of the Sepent - to make people doubt what God said.

---

So let me see if I have your logic down:God lies, the serpent points out that god lied, and it is somehow the serpent's fault for those who later come to know good and evil, having eaten from the Tree of Knowledge despite not being told to do so by the serpent, to distrust one who is known to lie?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Even though they were punished for the sin of eating of the tree of knowledge, it doesn't necessarily mean they knew good or evil. I’m sure you’re familiar with the age of accountability, which basically holds children exempt from hell until they reach the age they can be held accountable for their actions. Children at a young age do not realize what is evil, but only obey their parents, by not performing these acts. For example: A child is told not to play in the street. The child doesn’t play in the street because they are told not to by their parents, not because they think it to be evil. If the child does play in the street, however, is it not still a sin against their parents and worthy of punishment? I believe the same logic to hold true for Adam and Eve. They had no knowledge of good and evil, therefore the only sin that could be committed was disobedience and the only order given to them was not to eat from the tree of knowledge.

quote:

---

Even though they were punished for the sin of eating of the tree of knowledge, it doesn't necessarily mean they knew good or evil. I’m sure you’re familiar with the age of accountability, which basically holds children exempt from hell until they reach the age they can be held accountable for their actions. Children at a young age do not realize what is evil, but only obey their parents, by not performing these acts. For example: A child is told not to play in the street. The child doesn’t play in the street because they are told not to by their parents, not because they think it to be evil. If the child does play in the street, however, is it not still a sin against their parents and worthy of punishment? I believe the same logic to hold true for Adam and Eve. They had no knowledge of good and evil, therefore the only sin that could be committed was disobedience and the only order given to them was not to eat from the tree of knowledge.

---

You give no reason for exempting disobedience from the reasoning that applies to other sin. Besides, all sin is disobedience to God. Disobedience to God is evil, and they did not know good or evil; thus, disobedience was equally foreign to them as murder or theft.The age of accountability is a nice and popular concept, but it's a shameless dodge to the question of whether babies go to hell. Tell me, on what day did you become accountable? How did you know you were accountable? The idea is contradictory to our knowledge of the development of the mind. Knowledge and understanding develop slowly along a continuum over a period of years. You don't suddenly wake up one day and understand it all, and realize you're accountable for your actions. You are taught to believe so, one event at a time.

God never said they would die that day. He said in Genesis 2:17 "... for when you eat of it you will surely die." Up until they ate from the tree of knowledge there was no death. Although I don't see mention of Eve's death, in Genesis 5:5 it clearly says, "and then he [Adam] died." So in no way did God lie. The serpant however, does lie by saying in Genesis 3:4 "You will not surely die." He does tell the truth in the next verse, however. This truth though was only used to manipulate Eve into sinning. Even though what the serpent said about knowing good and evil is true, he didn't mention it to bring wisdom to mankind but to cause them to disobey God's only command.

I see you used the NIV. Note that "when you eat of it" determines a time. And that agrees with the KJV.You seem to have a language comprehension problem.

Wait I know what is wrong and why we are having such problems. The Bible is just so poorly written that a simple straight forward reading of it produces all sorts of errors in the mind of the reader. Is that what is wrong?

abba's dash writes:

quote:

---

Even though they were punished for the sin of eating of the tree of knowledge, it doesn't necessarily mean they knew good or evil.

---

But the Bible directly says they did:Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:So, they were punished for eating from the tree of knowledge and they became as gods, knowing good and evil.

quote:

---

They had no knowledge of good and evil, therefore the only sin that could be committed was disobedience

---

But you can't disobey unless you know good and evil which they didn't because they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.If you put a delicate Mhing vase on a wobbly pedestal and then put your baby who has just barely learned to walk in the same room, do you really think you're doing anything by telling that child "Don't touch"? Do you really think that baby knows what you're talking about? And when you come back and find the vase toppled over and broken, do you really blame the child for "disobedience" or do you blame yourself for putting a delicate vase where a child who doesn't know any better could get at it?

quote:

---

the only order given to them was not to eat from the tree of knowledge.

---

But they didn't understand that. They hadn't eaten from the tree and thus didn't understand things like obedience.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

abba's dash responds to me:

quote:

---

God never said they would die that day.

---

Yes, he did:Genesis 2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

quote:

---

He said in Genesis 2:17 "... for when you eat of it you will surely die."

---

Where did you get this translation? Where is the word "day"? Do you not know the Hebrew?u.me.ets ha.da.at tov va.ra lo to.khal mi.me.nu ki be.yom a.khal.kha mi.me.nu mot ta.mut:I have highlighted the appropriate word. In Hebrew, "yom" means "day." It is the same "yom" that is used everywhere else in the Bible to refer to a literal, twenty-four-hour day.Why does your translation miss the point of the verse?

quote:

---

Up until they ate from the tree of knowledge there was no death.

---

That makes no sense. It certainly isn't mentioned anywhere in Genesis that such is the case. What would be the point of the Tree of Life if there was no death? Remember, the first thing that god does after learning that Adam and Eve have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge is panic that they will eat from the Tree of Life and become immortal:Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:What would be the point of having the tree of life if there was never any death, if Adam and Eve were already immortal?

quote:

---

Although I don't see mention of Eve's death, in Genesis 5:5 it clearly says, "and then he [Adam] died." So in no way did God lie.

---

Yes, he did. Your translation is wrong. Genesis 2:17 clearly states that god tells Adam that if he eats from the Tree of Knowledge he will die that very day, before the sun sets:Genesis 2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.Again, here is the Hebrew with the appropriate word highlighted:u.me.ets ha.da.at tov va.ra lo to.khal mi.me.nu ki be.yom a.khal.kha mi.me.nu mot ta.mut:Why does your translation neglect to include the fact that god tells Adam that he will die that very day?

quote:

---

The serpant however, does lie by saying in Genesis 3:4 "You will not surely die."

---

And they don't. God says they would die that very day, and they don't.

quote:

---

He does tell the truth in the next verse, however. This truth though was only used to manipulate Eve into sinning.

---

Why? How? He doesn't tell her to eat from the tree. As I said, just because the result of eating from the tree is different does not give one license to eat from the tree.If the cops tell you the speed limit is 25 mph but the signs on the road say 35 mph, that doesn't give you license to drive at 45 mph.

quote:

---

Even though what the serpent said about knowing good and evil is true, he didn't mention it to bring wisdom to mankind but to cause them to disobey God's only command.

---

Says who? You? Why should we believe you? The book you're using has already been shown to be in error. Are you sure you can trust it?Have you considered the possibility that the Bible is actually a work of the devil designed to deceive you into following a false god? That it doesn't bring wisdom to manking but rather causes them to disobey god's only command?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rrhain: God in mercy delayed the penalty of death, Adam and Eve BEGAN to die that very day because they were banished from the Garden , which represents the source of their life - God. Eventually they both died but that is not in dispute. For you to casually accuse God of lying reveals a lack of basic Bible knowledge - it is impossible for God to lie. You do not understand. God did not want them to eat from the tree because He said so ! Eve had no business even going near the thing that God said not to have anything to do with. God didnt want them to have the knowledge of good and evil because there is no power in that knowledge to choose the good over the evil , the entire record of the O.T. on proves that.

WILLOWTREE How about these?1 Kg.22:23
"Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."
2 Chr.18:22
"Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets."
Jer.20:7
"O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived."
Ezek.14:9
"And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."
2 Th.2:11
"For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."Pay particular attention to Ezek.14:9 Now to confuse the issue even more we have these contradictions.1 Sam.15:29
"The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent."
Tit.1:2
"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began."
Heb.6:18
"It was impossible for God to lie."Now this is in a book that was authored by God? Apparently he must feel he doesn't need to proofread. This is inerrancy?