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

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.