Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there Biblical support for the concept of "Original Sin"?
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 76 of 240 (590456)
11-08-2010 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Panda
11-08-2010 8:52 AM


Re: Free will I, won't I
Panda writes:
No. There is no 'narrative flow'
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 From Bills perspective what Colin says indicates that Alice is correct (the stairs was dangerous) but out of date in her information (the stairs was old and dangerous as Alice said but has since been repaired).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.]
-
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'.
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.
-
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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Panda, posted 11-08-2010 8:52 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Panda, posted 11-08-2010 11:10 AM iano has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 77 of 240 (590465)
11-08-2010 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by iano
11-08-2010 10:17 AM


Re: Free will I, won't I
iano writes:
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 adding to it.
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, : ytops
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by iano, posted 11-08-2010 10:17 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by iano, posted 11-08-2010 1:22 PM Panda has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 78 of 240 (590499)
11-08-2010 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Panda
11-08-2010 11:10 AM


Re: Free will I, won't I
Panda writes:
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.
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.
-
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!"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Panda, posted 11-08-2010 11:10 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by ringo, posted 11-08-2010 2:00 PM iano has not replied
 Message 80 by Panda, posted 11-08-2010 2:41 PM iano has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 79 of 240 (590510)
11-08-2010 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by iano
11-08-2010 1:22 PM


iano writes:
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.
God did acknowledge later on that the serpent was right:
quote:
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil....
It's the equivalent of Alice acknowleging that she was wrong/mistaken/lying.
Edited by ringo, : Soelling.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by iano, posted 11-08-2010 1:22 PM iano has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 80 of 240 (590515)
11-08-2010 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by iano
11-08-2010 1:22 PM


Re: Free will I, won't I
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).
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.
iano writes:
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.
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.
iano writes:
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.
Apart from the fact that you are forgetting that Eve knows nothing about lying.
Eve would have no reason to suspect duplicity.
iano writes:
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by iano, posted 11-08-2010 1:22 PM iano has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 81 of 240 (590521)
11-08-2010 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ringo
11-06-2010 11:24 AM


Re: Free Willy
ringo writes:
The serpent let the cat out of the bag:
and God later confirmed that the serpent was right:
It's hard to understand how anybody could consider becoming more like God a "fall" or a "sin".
The sin wasn't becoming more like God. The sin was the direct disobedience of God, and the desire to make oneself like God (c.f. Is 14:12-17).
jar writes:
But beyond that, in the Garden of Eden the serpent figure is not predatory, tells the truth and actually helps Adam and Eve.
How did the serpent help Adam and Eve? He got them kicked out of the garden!
According to the account, God had placed man in an idyllic garden. But man was not satisfied with this; he wanted to make himself like God. He tried to do this in the garden, and tried to do it again at Babel. The Genesis account portrays these attempts to make oneself like God as very bad, not as beneficial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 11-06-2010 11:24 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by jar, posted 11-08-2010 4:29 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 83 by ringo, posted 11-08-2010 5:25 PM kbertsche has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 82 of 240 (590532)
11-08-2010 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by kbertsche
11-08-2010 3:24 PM


Re: Free Willy
kbertsche writes:
According to the account, God had placed man in an idyllic garden. But man was not satisfied with this; he wanted to make himself like God. He tried to do this in the garden, and tried to do it again at Babel. The Genesis account portrays these attempts to make oneself like God as very bad, not as beneficial.
I know that you read the story that way, but I will continue to point out that there are other ways to read the story and that you still fail to address the issues raised.
First, Paul made no reference to Isaiah or to the Tower of Babel story so those are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the concept of original sin can be supported.
Second, what you say makes absolutely no sense.
According to the account, God had placed man in an idyllic garden. But man was not satisfied with this; he wanted to make himself like God.
There is nothing in the story that says man was dissatisfied with the garden or that man wanted to be more like god. The serpent mentions that eating from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil would make them more like god in one specific way, AND god later confirms that is the case. God never says anything that in any way says that knowing right from wrong is in any way a sin.
In addition, the reason Adam and Eve are sent from the Garden of Eden is NOT because they disobeyed God, that issue was addressed by the curses, but because God feared that the might next eat from the Tree of Life and so live forever.
quote:
21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
And you still have not explained how it is possible to sin before you have the tools that allow you to make choices about right and wrong.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by kbertsche, posted 11-08-2010 3:24 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by kbertsche, posted 11-09-2010 11:01 AM jar has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 83 of 240 (590538)
11-08-2010 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by kbertsche
11-08-2010 3:24 PM


Re: Free Willy
kbertsche writes:
ringo writes:
It's hard to understand how anybody could consider becoming more like God a "fall" or a "sin".
The sin wasn't becoming more like God. The sin was the direct disobedience of God, and the desire to make oneself like God (c.f. Is 14:12-17).
You only addressed half of what I said. How can becoming more like God be considered a "fall"?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by kbertsche, posted 11-08-2010 3:24 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by kbertsche, posted 11-09-2010 11:04 AM ringo has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 84 of 240 (590660)
11-09-2010 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by jar
11-08-2010 4:29 PM


Re: Free Willy
jar writes:
First, Paul made no reference to Isaiah or to the Tower of Babel story
Correct; Paul made no direct reference to these.
jar writes:
so those are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the concept of original sin can be supported.
No, these are part of the biblical context in which Paul was trained; they are relevant to understanding how Paul interpreted the events in the garden.
jar writes:
Second, what you say makes absolutely no sense.
kbertsche writes:
According to the account, God had placed man in an idyllic garden. But man was not satisfied with this; he wanted to make himself like God.
There is nothing in the story that says man was dissatisfied with the garden or that man wanted to be more like god. The serpent mentions that eating from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil would make them more like god in one specific way, AND god later confirms that is the case.
Yes and no. The text says that Eve desired the fruit and its promised results (3:6). Eating the fruit was in direct disobedience to God. As stated in the NET Bible notes, "The temptation is to overstep divinely established boundaries."
jar writes:
God never says anything that in any way says that knowing right from wrong is in any way a sin.
Correct.
jar writes:
In addition, the reason Adam and Eve are sent from the Garden of Eden is NOT because they disobeyed God, that issue was addressed by the curses, but because God feared that the might next eat from the Tree of Life and so live forever.
Yes, but banishment WAS a secondary effect of their disobedience. If they had not disobeyed, they would not have been banished.
jar writes:
And you still have not explained how it is possible to sin before you have the tools that allow you to make choices about right and wrong.
Correct; I see this as an unsupported straw-man position. I have yet to see a good historical-grammatical-literary argument from the text to the effect that Adam and Eve were not able to trust or obey God (or to sin) before eating the fruit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by jar, posted 11-08-2010 4:29 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 11-09-2010 11:33 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 85 of 240 (590662)
11-09-2010 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by ringo
11-08-2010 5:25 PM


Re: Free Willy
ringo writes:
You only addressed half of what I said. How can becoming more like God be considered a "fall"?
I have not claimed this. I don't see where the text implies it. I don't see a need to address it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ringo, posted 11-08-2010 5:25 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by ringo, posted 11-09-2010 11:14 AM kbertsche has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 86 of 240 (590663)
11-09-2010 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by kbertsche
11-09-2010 11:04 AM


Re: Free Willy
kbertsche writes:
ringo writes:
You only addressed half of what I said. How can becoming more like God be considered a "fall"?
I have not claimed this. I don't see where the text implies it.
So there was no "fall". Good. That's a start.
The next obvious question is: How can an action that makes one better - i.e. more God like - be considered a sin? How can a desire to be better be a sin?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by kbertsche, posted 11-09-2010 11:04 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by kbertsche, posted 11-09-2010 11:45 AM ringo has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 87 of 240 (590667)
11-09-2010 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by kbertsche
11-09-2010 11:01 AM


Re: Free Willy
No, these are part of the biblical context in which Paul was trained; they are relevant to understanding how Paul interpreted the events in the garden.
But they are not mentioned as support in Romans 5 and so not evidenced. If they were not used then they were not used.
It really is that simple.
You can add to Romans 5 by asserting that there are other facts not in evidence, but what we are discussing is whether or not Paul's assertion is Roman's 5 is supported by the argument he presented.
Yes and no. The text says that Eve desired the fruit and its promised results (3:6). Eating the fruit was in direct disobedience to God. As stated in the NET Bible notes, "The temptation is to overstep divinely established boundaries."
I am not concerned with Net Bible foot notes, or any other unsupported assertions.
Yes, but banishment WAS a secondary effect of their disobedience. If they had not disobeyed, they would not have been banished.
Again, the cause is given in the story, the god character feared that in addition to learning right from wrong they would also eat from the Tree of Life and become immortal. The banishment was not as a punishment but rather for god's self esteem and protection.
I have yet to see a good historical-grammatical-literary argument from the text to the effect that Adam and Eve were not able to trust or obey God (or to sin) before eating the fruit.
And I have never seen a good explanation of how anyone can possibly sin or even know not to disobey one authority figure over another until they have the knowledge of right and wrong.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by kbertsche, posted 11-09-2010 11:01 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by iano, posted 11-10-2010 5:53 AM jar has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 88 of 240 (590670)
11-09-2010 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by ringo
11-09-2010 11:14 AM


Re: Free Willy
ringo writes:
kbertsche writes:
ringo writes:
You only addressed half of what I said. How can becoming more like God be considered a "fall"?
I have not claimed this. I don't see where the text implies it.
So there was no "fall". Good. That's a start.
Not what I said.
To rephrase and clarify: I have not claimed, nor do I see where the text (either Genesis or Romans) implies that becoming more like God is considered to be a "fall" or a "sin".
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by ringo, posted 11-09-2010 11:14 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by ringo, posted 11-10-2010 10:03 AM kbertsche has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 89 of 240 (590836)
11-10-2010 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by jar
11-09-2010 11:33 AM


Re: Free Willy
kbertsche writes:
I have yet to see a good historical-grammatical-literary argument from the text to the effect that Adam and Eve were not able to trust or obey God (or to sin) before eating the fruit.
jar writes:
And I have never seen a good explanation of how anyone can possibly sin or even know not to disobey one authority figure over another until they have the knowledge of right and wrong.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 11-09-2010 11:33 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Panda, posted 11-10-2010 8:20 AM iano has replied
 Message 94 by jar, posted 11-10-2010 9:27 AM iano has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 90 of 240 (590849)
11-10-2010 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by iano
11-10-2010 5:53 AM


Re: Free Willy
Quite where the need to know you shouldn't disobey is required I can't quite figure out.
If someone didn't know that you shouldn't disobey, then it would be completely unjustified to punish them for it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by iano, posted 11-10-2010 5:53 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by iano, posted 11-10-2010 9:06 AM Panda has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024