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

But I don't see it being that simple a question to answer.e.g.
Person A tells you that if you eat an apple then an unpleasant thing will happen.
Person B tells you that if you eat an apple then a pleasant thing will happen.What would you choose?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I too do not have a definite answer.
I also agree that the concepts of right and wrong alone do not help answer the question.
I think that you would also need to be able to be suspicious/trusting/cautious/etc. - all of which require the knowledge of good/evil first, before they can be given context.I guess that from a simplistic view I would act on what the last person that had spoken to me had said - as Person B's 'pros' were greater than the poorly understood 'con' of Person A.This leaves me in the position that Adam and Eve were very poorly equipped to make that choice, and that even if they had understood good/evil they would still be poorly equipped.

Maybe you misunderstood my earlier post (as you seemed to agree with it).
Could you explain these consequential decisions?

quote:

---

Gen2 16 And the LORD God commanded
the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will
surely die."

---

quote:

---

Gen3 4 "You will not surely die,"
the serpent said to the woman. 5
"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and
you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

---

Person A [God] tells you that if you eat an apple then an unpleasant thing will happen.
Person B [the serpent] tells you that if you eat an apple then a pleasant thing will happen.How exactly do Adam and Eve make a decision?Edited by Panda, : added Jar quote

I see Adam as a person who is given contradictory information.
Unless Adam suspects deceit, he will act on the most recent information.
(If you hear an 'attack warning' and then you here an 'all clear' signal, you would act on the second message.)
I see no way for Adam to be capable of suspecting fowl-play. Yes, this would be the result of a 'choice' situation. But as I describe above: there is no choice required.
Unless Adam/Eve understand that snakes can't be trusted, then they should go by the most recent information. Since Original Sin is firmly rooted the decision made by Adam/Eve, aren't discussions regarding this decision on-topic?

The two phrases contradict each other.
"Bombs will be falling" is contradictory to "Bombs will not be falling" regardless of whether bombs are actually falling.
"Eat the fruit and you will surely die" is contradictory to "Eat the fruit and you will not die". You see a policeman who tells you to stop your car because there is danger up ahead.
You then see a different policeman who tells you to continue driving - the road is safe.
Which policeman do you listen to?
(I would say that you would actually listen to both of them, but the 2nd policeman's message 'cancels out' the 1st policeman's message.)I am still left thinking that the serpent's message 'wins' due to chronological order.Edited by Panda, : clarityEdited by Panda, : No reason given.

My arguement is not based on the analogy - it was meant to be clarified by it.
Since it didn't clarify it, I will abandon the analogy. And you describe no reason to plump for the former.
The reason to choose the latter option is because there is no reason to not believe the serpent. Ok, I'll try again.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.]Which stairs would Bill choose and why?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

No. There is no 'narrative flow'.
Bill is told to do 2 different things by 2 different people.
He has to choose. The commands are contradictory. They are mutually exclusive. Bill cannot go down both flights of stairs. He has to choose.
There is only one part of each statement: "Go down the stairs I specify".
The reasons are not part of the command. You are mixing up the 'command' with the 'coersion'/'justification'.
If Person A tells you to kill Victim C because Victim C is a Nazi and Person B tells You to kill Victim C because Victim C is a Murderer then these are not contradictory commands. Yes. Perhaps, perhaps, maybe, maybe - but Bill doesn't know.
All Bill knows is that Alice told him to use the internal stairs and that Colin then told him to use the external stairs.Which stairs would Bill choose and why?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : typosEdited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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

---

So when the Serpent accomodates God's command and adds to it, then there is a narrative flow that inevitably leads Eve to believe the Serpent.As it turned out, Colin was a sociopath and killed 18 people by sending them out onto dangerous stairs.In both instances: Eve and Bill weren't capable of making the correct decision because they were too innocent and trusting. p.s.
Please bare in mind that you are asking for an impossible hypothetical situation. The impossible part means that I will only ever be able to get close.
When asking someone to provide an impossible real-world example (i.e. where there is no knowledge of good/evil/lies/deceit) it is not very constructive to then start nit-picking tiny details when the example (by definition) is not possible to create accurately.
Almost as pointless as asking someone to describe a unicorn and then saying "But unicorns don't exist!"
Edited by Panda, : ytopsEdited by Panda, : No reason given.

Yes: the Serpent implicity acknowledges that god was wrong about the consequences.
Eve is then told the correct consequences and has no reason to suspect duplicity. Which is why the serpent said:

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.

---

Now there is a reason for a decision. Apart from the fact that you are forgetting that Eve knows nothing about lying.
Eve would have no reason to suspect duplicity. Since your example had major flaws I am still not convinced. ... This seems to be drifting, so to re-focus:Eve was told 2 conflicting pieces of information.
Since she had no reason to doubt the 2nd informer, I see no reason for her not to act as if the 2nd piece of information was correct.Do you see a reason for Eve to say that the Serpent was lying?
Do you see a reason for Eve to understand that serpents can lie?
Do you see a reason for Eve to know what a lie is?
I say: "No" to the above questions.What do you say?

If someone didn't know that you shouldn't disobey, then it would be completely unjustified to punish them for it?

"...you shall surely die." was the only promised consequence, yes?

So when God said "....you shall surely die." he meant:

quote:

---

3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

---

...and banish them both from the Garden?Edited by Panda, : tyopsEdited by Panda, : No reason given.

How did Adam or Eve know this?

Well, this sounds like we are back to my Message 80 (which I think you missed): Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Who says she doubts the first informer?
Being wrong is very different to lying.
If the Serpent corrects God's information then neither are necessarily being dishonest.
For Eve to question the veracity of informer 2's information to the point of ignoring it, she would have to think he was lying or delusional. If Eve asked: "Are you sure?" and the serpent replied: "Yes. Completely." then she would be left with no other option that to think the Serpent correct (unless you think she could anticipate the Serpent being mad or immoral).