The first 3 chapters of Genesis

quote:

---

Sin was around before the law though.

---

Sin is not a thing that thinks or moves. Sin is an action.I agree that right and wrong actions were around before they were deemed right or wrong.
Just like A&E walking around naked.Where does the A&E story imply a character stain? The punishment was for A&E. I don't see in the story where God states man's potential for misbehavior has changed. Our children are born not knowing any rules or what is right or wrong. They have to be given the knowledge by their parents.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

yes and no. their punishments (pain in childbirth, patriarchal society, agriculture, etc) clearly affected the authors of genesis, and even us today to some degree.but i see no character shift, other than the increased awareness of adam and eve.

---

are you saying that god legitimately didn't know whether or not adam would sin?

---

The historical facts bear you out.
Original sin - WikipediaThe doctrine of original sin originated with Augustine of Hippo. It was made a tenet of Roman Catholicism but Eastern Orthodox Christianity rejected the idea. Among Protestants you generally encounter it in sects that trace their history to Martin Luther and John Calvin. Other reformers opposed the idea.Today mainstream Lutherans and Presbyterians (ELC, PresUSA, etc.) generally do not espouse the doctrine either. It is the more stern branches of these traditions, as well as their historical offshoots (7th Day Adventists), that assert the idea.Judaism does not recognize original sin.Among Jews (and Christians outside strong Catholic/Calvinist lineage), children are more often thought of as models of innocence rather than total depravity. Jesus did hold them up as models for adults.Of course, today the doctrine of inherited guilt should be testable. All one has to do is find the 'original sin' gene..Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Punctuation.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Paul sees it otherwise. In personifying it he is telling us not what it is but also that it is not as you say it is. Sin it some kind of thing in and of itself. Law cannot give expression to something that does no exist in some form or other. A potential if you like. Now this isn't strictly Genesis territory. But then again - neither is the word 'sin'. God created them naked so walking around could not have been wrong. They were ashamed because they were now fallen. All sorts came in with the fall - including pain and labour and nakedness being wrong. The new order of things. Thats begging the question PD. For clarification we would have to look elsewhere in the Bible - as you unconciously do when you infer God punishing them. How do you extract Gods actions as punishing without a sense of punishment drawn from elsewhere?There is no point in drawing analogy from your parents. You are presuming no fall in pointing to them. Begging the question.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Hi Arach.I don't know the purpose of the word 'legitimately' there. God knew they would sin. But to leap from his knowing something to it being a foregone conclusion is not necessary to take (abe: in their case or ours). That assumes something not shown to be the case.The way I visualise it is many options and the option chosen (note chosen) is the one God knows will happen. If another option was chosen then that is the one God knew would be taken. Our choice influences what he knows (in a manner of speaking: we're mixing time with eternity here so we should watch out)Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

wow this jumped into semantics territory awful fast. i should have known better. either god knows it will happen or he does not. if knows it's going to happen, then it will. god's pre-knowledge is about as close to "foregone" as you can get. or are you saying that god says something will happen, and it might not in reality?do your posts always come back to basic position that "god lies?"

---

Preparing the grounds of your rebuttal as usual. Fling mud from the outset. One of these days you'll show rather than fling - but I would not hold my breath on that one. Are you familiar with the concept of timeless eternity?

it's hardly the "outset" or "flinging mud." every point i've debated with you, you've defended by twisting the meanings of things, and making false distinctions. your entire argument strategy is semantics. and this one is no different. so god knows adam will sin then?Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

Perhaps, but this site is about arguing your assertions, not asserting them. I can't remember the argument made - only the assertions. That is the fallacy called answering a question with a questionEdited by iano, : No reason given.

the prosecution rests. i think that's a new one, ian. and even so, it's exactly what you did, not me. i asked you a yes or no question in message 153, "are you saying that god legitimately didn't know whether or not adam would sin?"when you dodged it, i asked in message 157, "or are you saying that god says something will happen, and it might not in reality?"you answer with "Are you familiar with the concept of timeless eternity?"you answered my question with a question. i'm just asking the same question until you actually answer it.Edited by arachnophilia, : message link broken?

---

The prosectution asserts it is the prosectution. But lets leave history to history okay? Yeah. But I spotted the problem first The reason I asked the question was that yes/no is not the way to address things if you had a notion as to timeless eternity. If you had a notion as to that then you would not frame the question in the fashion you did. Timeless eternity permits Gods knowing without it having to be so.Its not like timeless eternity is a concept that hasn't been around a while now.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

the prosecution is the party in the trial that makes assertions, iano. and seriously, keep proving my point. no, you didn't. i pointed out that you were dodging my question, a very simple "yes or no" question, from the get-go. so god knows something will happen, and it doesn't? and semantics to disguise poorly thought-out arguments isn't exactly new either.

---

quote:

---

Paul sees it otherwise. In personifying it he is telling us not what it is but also that it is not as you say it is. Sin it some kind of thing in and of itself.

---

Personifying the action for evangelical purposes doesn't make it a thing in and of itself. Can you point to the thing called sin? Not the sinful action.The text links ashamed with naked not fallen. Their actions show that it was wrong to be naked.

quote:

---

Thats begging the question PD.

---

If something is begging a question then state the question. I don't know what question it begs.

quote:

---

For clarification we would have to look elsewhere in the Bible - as you unconciously do when you infer God punishing them. How do you extract Gods actions as punishing without a sense of punishment drawn from elsewhere?

---

Simple. People understood punishment or discipline or consequences, whatever you want to call it and the story was written for people to learn from. It was used before the rest of the Bible was written, so the audience couldn't use the rest of the Bible to help them understand the story.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

So I can be the prosecution too - with all the benefits your accrue to yourself then? So you aren't familiar with the concept of timeless eternity then. Your insisting on yes/no indicates as such. One can force the question into yes/no but only by ones own forcing. Ones ignoring of a well known concept.