What was the first sin?

[jereth]

Thanks once again for your reply, Assyrian. I'm thoroughly enjoying this conversation. Personally, I believe that the issue of "original sin" is the biggest theological challenge for TEism, because (as I said earlier) TEism breaks down the Church's traditional formulation of the doctrine (i.e. the sin of an original couple spreading via biological heredity to the rest of the human race). We have a lot of work to do to formulate a new understanding of original sin, taking into account the dual "problems" of pre-Adamite humanity and Adam's human contemporaries. Until we can successfully do so, YECism has a big inroad with which they can discredit our theology.

I still have problems with sin spreading backwards in time. It seems to be totally unjust. People were either innocent, or guilty of their own sin. To condemn people as sinners based on what someone else did generations later is simply not right.

I'm not suggesting that pre-ADamite humans are held responsible for sin other than their own. As I've tried to explain in previous posts, they were sinners because they rejected the knowledge of God that is evident from creation (Psalm 19, Acts 14:17, Romans 1:18ff.). In the judgment, this is what they will be punished for. It will be nothing more than they personally deserve.

In saying "Adam's sin spread backwards in time", all I'm really saying is that the "fullness" of Adam's sin was foreshadowed in the rejection of God's goodness from the very beginning of humanity ("immature" as this rejection may have been). This is just like saying that the "fullness" of Christian righteousness was foreshadowed in the "immature" faith of Abraham and David. I think "spread backwards" is an unhelpful phrase -- I apologise.

I quite like the idea the the human soul/spirit/consciousness is an emergent property that came with the increased size and complexity of our brains.
...
I see two possible bases for as you call it some kind of sudden, miraculous transition from pre-Adamite humanity to post-Adamite humanity. One is a Pentecost type outpouring of a God given spirit to the human race, a spirit that returns to God when we die, unlike animal spirit which return to the earth when the body dies,

In my mind, these two things are contradictory. Either the human "spirit" is an emergent property of our material brains (which is virtually a proven fact of modern neuroscience), or it is a supernatural, intangible, immaterial "ghost in a machine". Cannot be both at the same time.

What exactly is this "outpoured spirit" that you propose? It cannot be our thought, our consciousness, our rationality, our emotion, our volition, our memory etc. It cannot even be our "religious nature". All these things have been demonstrated to be emergent properties of our brain. So what is it that Adam had that his father did not?

I think Pentecost is a good parallel here because we have seen God pour out a gift of a new spirit, (his own Holy Spirit in the case of Pentecost) on a large group of people without the need for any change in mental or biological development.

I don't think that's a satisfactory parallel. The outpouring at Pentecost was of the Holy Spirit -- the third person of the Trinity -- upon the church as a whole, to empower it for the work of evangelism. The Holy Spirit dwells within Christians, but He does not meld with us and become a component part of our being. What you are proposing, however, is some kind of individual "spirit" that is a component part of each person. Again I ask: what exactly would this thing be that Adam had but his parents lacked?

The other possible basis for a sudden transition is the moral responsibility that comes with being given an actual command from God, temptation was only possible when there was a law to break though I think moral responsibility comes with moral awareness rather than law.

Hmmm, a better theory than the "spirit" idea, but I still don't like it. Are you saying that Adam's parents (and grandparents etc.) completely lacked any sense of moral awareness whatsoever? If Adam was as cognitively developed as his parents, how could there be such a sudden change in moral awareness? I find it hard to believe that a pre-Adamite human could have murdered or raped a fellow human without a pang of conscience. Similarly, it is near impossible to imagine that a race of beings could paint on cave walls and bury their dead while lacking moral awareness.

No, I think that we have to somehow factor into our theology of original sin the sinfulness of pre-Adamite humanity.

 

[stumpjumper]

I think that we have to somehow factor into our theology of original sin the sinfulness of pre-Adamite humanity.

I think that's true too...

I tend to look at original sin as the result of our freedom (moral and natural) and take the view that God is love and that the only way for God to create beings that are capable of sharing that love is if they were created via a free process... Original sin then is our propensity and ability to sin and willfully separate ourselves from God...

 

[PastorMikeJ]

I would have to say pride and disobedence by Lucifer and the 1/3 of the angels..

 

[Pats]

I would have to say pride and disobedence by Lucifer and the 1/3 of the angels..

What an excellent point as the first sin recorded in Scripture!

 

[jereth]

I would have to say pride and disobedence by Lucifer and the 1/3 of the angels..

The "doctrine" of Lucifer's fall is nothing but a medieval speculation (beginning with Origen) based on a complete misreading of Isaiah 14 and Revelation 12. The Bible actually tells us nothing about the origin of Satan. There's no one called Lucifer in the Bible.

From WIKIPEDIA:
It is noteworthy that the Old Testament itself does not at any point actually mention the rebellion and fall of Satan. This non-Scriptural belief assembled from interpretations of different passages, would fall under the heading Christian mythology, that is, Christian traditions that are derived from outside of church teachings and scripture. For detailed discussion of the "War in Heaven" theme, see Fallen angel.


It's off the topic anyway... we are discussing the first human sin in this thread, and whether the humans who lived before Adam were sinners too.

 

[shernren]

Hmmm, a better theory than the "spirit" idea, but I still don't like it. Are you saying that Adam's parents (and grandparents etc.) completely lacked any sense of moral awareness whatsoever? If Adam was as cognitively developed as his parents, how could there be such a sudden change in moral awareness? I find it hard to believe that a pre-Adamite human could have murdered or raped a fellow human without a pang of conscience. Similarly, it is near impossible to imagine that a race of beings could paint on cave walls and bury their dead while lacking moral awareness.

No, I think that we have to somehow factor into our theology of original sin the sinfulness of pre-Adamite humanity.

Somehow I don't find it as incredulous as you do (with all due respect). We see a lot of intelligence in the intellectual, social, aesthetic, etc. aspects in many, many other members of the animal family. Even "primitive" animals like ants and termites have clearly defined social systems, albeit biologically founded (instead of being based on "social rites" as we understand them - grooming and all); as we move up all sorts of advanced animals like chimps and dolphins display various levels of sophistry in tool-making, understanding human language (though probably more on the level of trained response than actual human-like understanding). And yet in spiritual terms we don't see them having any sort of relationship with God.

I don't consider it too much of a stretch to imagine that similarly, pre-Adamite humans (there has to be a more neutral term for them, I wouldn't call anything before Adam "human") may have graffitied their cave walls and buried their dead as highly developed social instinct. But the possibility of sin entered the world when God revealed Himself to man and established the relationship of being God's image with them. Notice that the concept of sin from birth, that even the newborn child is tainted by original sin, assumes that it is possible to assign some form of moral status to the newborn (sinner or not-sinner) even though the newborn has far less intellectuality or social ability compared to any normal person. This suggests to me the converse, that it could be possible for the pre-Adamite to have intellectuality or social ability comparable to a normal human, and still not have any moral relationship with God.

 

[jereth]

Thanks for your insightful remarks, shernren.

Somehow I don't find it as incredulous as you do (with all due respect). We see a lot of intelligence in the intellectual, social, aesthetic, etc. aspects in many, many other members of the animal family. ... And yet in spiritual terms we don't see them having any sort of relationship with God.

Hmm, I think I have to disagree on several counts (with all due respect).

Psalm 104:21
The lions roar for their prey
and seek their food from God.

I think this suggests that, at some level, animals do have a "relationship" with God. It may not be much more than "me need food, me receive food, me happy", and perhaps a feeling of "gratitude". But I would still call this a relationship. I do not think that relationship with God is all-or-nothing; I think it is a spectrum. The spectrum exists across species (eg. from ant to human) as well as within humanity (eg. infants and intellectually disabled/demented people vs. cognitively intact adults). The distinction between humanity and animals is not relationship with God (or lack thereof) per se, but something in the quality of this relationship.

Pre-Adam, humans may not have had a "complete" revelation of God along the lines of "I am YHWH, your creator, you must worship me." But, as intellectually capable beings, they must have recognised that something made the world and gave them life, and that they therefore owed something to this "higher power". When they instead turned and bowed down to rocks and trees, this was in every sense of the world "sinful".

I don't consider it too much of a stretch to imagine that similarly, pre-Adamite humans (there has to be a more neutral term for them, I wouldn't call anything before Adam "human")

Strongly disagree (again, with all due respect). I believe that if they were genetically, biologically, anatomically, physiologically and intellectually human, then they deserve to be called "human". No scientist would call a member of homo sapiens anything other than "human".

OTOH, I am willing to make the distinction (as some do) between homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens divinus [i.e. God conscious human]. The former is pre-Adamite and the latter is post-ADamite. But both are human IMHO.

But the possibility of sin entered the world when God revealed Himself to man and established the relationship of being God's image with them.

I guess it all depends on how you interpret Genesis 2-3. If you think it is fairly literal story about God establishing some kind of unique covenantal relationship with a specific individual "Adam", who prior to this had absolutely no knowledge of God, and Adam subsequently committed a literal sin (which literally caused the entire human race to turn sinful), then you may end up with your viewpoint. This is also the viewpoint that I formerly held.

There are some problems, though.
- Firstly, the more I read Gen 2-3, the less literal I think it is. In my mind, it is moving more and more towards "general story about humankind" and away from "actual history of one single man" (This is a subjective feeling, I admit.)
- Secondly, if God established a unique covenant with Adam in Mesopotamia in ~6-10k BC, and called him the first "spiritual human", how did this "spiritual humanity" spread instantly to Australian aborigines and American indians who were Adam's contemporaries? I find that a difficult question to answer satisfactorily?
- Thirdly, when Adam committed his literal sin, how did this "sinful status"/original sin spread instantly to the aborigines and indians?
- Fourthly, as alluded to above, I have real trouble imagining how Adam's ancestors could be completely ignorant of spiritual and moral matters, given that they were as well developed as he was. I'm sure they would have had some conception of "spirit world" and "right vs. wrong", even if not from God.
- Fifthly (related to above), if pre-Adamite humans made moral choices based on their own societal ethical framework, surely God must hold them accountable for this?

As a result of these (and other) considerations, I have gradually shifted towards a view where consciousness of God -- and rejection of Him -- developed gradually during human evolution, rather than appearing suddenly in Adam's generation. This is not to say that I reject the idea of a literal Adam, and some kind of covenantal relationship made with him by God. But I feel that it is very difficult to maintain the idea that pre-Adamite humans were a bunch of soul-less beings, considered animals by God.

If I have at all misunderstood your position, please let me know. -Jereth

 

[Assyrian]

Thanks once again for your reply, Assyrian. I'm thoroughly enjoying this conversation. Personally, I believe that the issue of "original sin" is the biggest theological challenge for TEism, because (as I said earlier) TEism breaks down the Church's traditional formulation of the doctrine (i.e. the sin of an original couple spreading via biological heredity to the rest of the human race). We have a lot of work to do to formulate a new understanding of original sin, taking into account the dual "problems" of pre-Adamite humanity and Adam's human contemporaries. Until we can successfully do so, YECism has a big inroad with which they can discredit our theology.

Original sin is a question we need to deal with. In one way we have an advantage in that the doctrine of original sin has already been radically challenged and changed once, the Reformation threw out the traditional Catholic view of sharing in Adam's guilt which was washed away by baptism, to sharing in his fallen sin nature. Now this does answer to the question of why people have a propensity to sin, whose inclination to sin is so strong no one lives a righteous sinless life. But while original sin is a plausible answer to the question, is it actually the scriptural answer? What does the bible say is the reason for our sin?

I'm not suggesting that pre-ADamite humans are held responsible for sin other than their own. As I've tried to explain in previous posts, they were sinners because they rejected the knowledge of God that is evident from creation (Psalm 19, Acts 14:17, Romans 1:18ff.). In the judgment, this is what they will be punished for. It will be nothing more than they personally deserve.

In saying "Adam's sin spread backwards in time", all I'm really saying is that the "fullness" of Adam's sin was foreshadowed in the rejection of God's goodness from the very beginning of humanity ("immature" as this rejection may have been). This is just like saying that the "fullness" of Christian righteousness was foreshadowed in the "immature" faith of Abraham and David. I think "spread backwards" is an unhelpful phrase -- I apologise.

I see what you mean now. I think instead of saying the fullness of Adam's sin was forshadowed in earlier rejections of God's goodness from the very beginning of humanity, I would say Adam was a figurative picture of humanity from the beginning. In fact he is a figurative picture of sinful humanity now too, which is why Paul can say all died (present tense) in Adam. But the historic rebellion against God in Genesis, shows the creation and fall of the human race, so Adam would cover the human race from it's first inkling of moral awareness to the fullness of our rebellion against God.

In my mind, these two things are contradictory. Either the human "spirit" is an emergent property of our material brains (which is virtually a proven fact of modern neuroscience), or it is a supernatural, intangible, immaterial "ghost in a machine". Cannot be both at the same time.

Indeed. They are basically two different alternatives. One is that the human spirit emerged as a property of increased brain complexity, the other that it is a direct gift imparted from God. Of course there is no reason God could not add to / transform an emerged spirit.

What exactly is this "outpoured spirit" that you propose? It cannot be our thought, our consciousness, our rationality, our emotion, our volition, our memory etc. It cannot even be our "religious nature". All these things have been demonstrated to be emergent properties of our brain. So what is it that Adam had that his father did not?

This depends on what is the difference between mind/soul and the spirit. I do not know the answer to this and am suspicious of the overconfident answers given to this question on basically very little scriptural foundation and more than a touch of Greek philosophy. The view that the human spirit is that part of us that can communicate with God fit beautifully here but is probably too good to be true.

The biblical tendency to use terms interchangably does not help. I like the writer of Ecclesiastes's view that animals do have spirits which perish when they die (clearly an emergent property of their organic structure) while humans have a spirit that returns to God when we die.
Eccles 3:21 Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?
Eccles 12:7 and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
Zech 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel: Thus declares the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit [ruach] of man within him:

Interestingly this could be a reference to the creation of Adam, though the Hebrew adam is so vague translations seem to stick to 'man'. But the context is the creation, so 'Adam' seems reasonable. If so Zech is not taking the Genesis account literally. Gen says God formed [yatsar] Adam out of the dust, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (assuming this refers to Adam's spirit), Zechariah says God formed the spirit within him. The other interpretation is that God forms the spirit within each person. Of course I don't think the two interpretations are mutually exclusive, if the creation of adam refers to all mankind.

Anyway, this ties up with Ecclesiastes, God giving each person his Spirit. He form it in us in our mother's womb, but in some very special way, the spirit is from him and returns to God when we die. It is from God in a way the spirits of animals are not, they are purely a manifestation of the organic structure.

God who formed the spirit within me also knitted me together in my mother's womb Psalm 139:13. So yes there is plenty of room for natural processes and emergent properties, but there is something from God in the human spirit too. I see no problem with the human spirit arising as an emergent property along with emotion volition etc., even the beginnings of a religious nature, but which was exchanged / transformed / added to, becoming our God given spirit, perhaps in another parallel, as our mortal bodies will be transformed into spiritual ones as Paul said in 1Cor 15.

A few other verses on the human spirit:
Job 12:9 Who among all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? 10 In his hand is the life [nephesh] of every living thing[chai] and the breath[ruach] of all mankind.
Isaiah 42:5 Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath [neshamah as in Gen 2:7] to the people on it and spirit[ruach] to those who walk in it:
Ezek 18:4 Behold, all souls [nephesh] are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.
Heb 12:9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits [pneuma] and live?

I don't think that's a satisfactory parallel. The outpouring at Pentecost was of the Holy Spirit -- the third person of the Trinity -- upon the church as a whole, to empower it for the work of evangelism. The Holy Spirit dwells within Christians, but He does not meld with us and become a component part of our being. What you are proposing, however, is some kind of individual "spirit" that is a component part of each person. Again I ask: what exactly would this thing be that Adam had but his parents lacked?

The parallel is that God can pour out something spiritual across a whole group of people, giving some sort of spiritual gift to a large number. What that something is I can't say. I cannot even tell you what the human spirit is. Certainly it wasn't the Holy Spirit. But the bible uses both the picture of the spirit being formed within us, and it being in some way from God.

The difference is a spirit that in some sense returns to God when we die instead of decaying.

Hmmm, a better theory than the "spirit" idea, but I still don't like it. Are you saying that Adam's parents (and grandparents etc.) completely lacked any sense of moral awareness whatsoever? If Adam was as cognitively developed as his parents, how could there be such a sudden change in moral awareness? I find it hard to believe that a pre-Adamite human could have murdered or raped a fellow human without a pang of conscience. Similarly, it is near impossible to imagine that a race of beings could paint on cave walls and bury their dead while lacking moral awareness.

No, I think that we have to somehow factor into our theology of original sin the sinfulness of pre-Adamite humanity.

Good point. I would say that even as children develops, there can be a growing moral awareness before we reach a stage of actual moral responsibility. Isaiah 7:16 For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. Moral awareness is probably a continuum, but moral responsibility seems to be a distinct stage reached along the continuum of moral awareness.

Sorry if this is a bit waffly
Assyrian

 

[PastorMikeJ]

The "doctrine" of Lucifer's fall is nothing but a medieval speculation (beginning with Origen) based on a complete misreading of Isaiah 14 and Revelation 12. The Bible actually tells us nothing about the origin of Satan. There's no one called Lucifer in the Bible.

From WIKIPEDIA:
It is noteworthy that the Old Testament itself does not at any point actually mention the rebellion and fall of Satan. This non-Scriptural belief assembled from interpretations of different passages, would fall under the heading Christian mythology, that is, Christian traditions that are derived from outside of church teachings and scripture. For detailed discussion of the "War in Heaven" theme, see Fallen angel.


It's off the topic anyway... we are discussing the first human sin in this thread, and whether the humans who lived before Adam were sinners too.

whatever

 

[jereth]

Original sin is a question we need to deal with. In one way we have an advantage in that the doctrine of original sin has already been radically challenged and changed once, the Reformation threw out the traditional Catholic view of sharing in Adam's guilt which was washed away by baptism, to sharing in his fallen sin nature. Now this does answer to the question of why people have a propensity to sin, whose inclination to sin is so strong no one lives a righteous sinless life. But while original sin is a plausible answer to the question, is it actually the scriptural answer? What does the bible say is the reason for our sin?

Plenty of great things to think about. I plan to reply a little later when I have some more time.

Also... perhaps we should move this discussion about pre-Adamite humanity over to the TE area?

 

[Agape_]

I would think that the first sin was man's desire to be like God and to be God, for the serpant said that if you eat of this fruit you will be just like God knowing both good and evil. This desire to be God was the first sin which caused the doom of mankind. Everyday mankind is faced with the cold hard fact that we are not God, by instances like death and despair we are reminded everyday of how our basic desire to be like God can never be fulfilled.

 

[Assyrian]

[/size]



Plenty of great things to think about. I plan to reply a little later when I have some more time.

Also... perhaps we should move this discussion about pre-Adamite humanity over to the TE area?

That sounds good, is there any way to transfer the discussion so far there?

 

[jereth]

That sounds good, is there any way to transfer the discussion so far there?

Attention fellow TEs -- discussion about pre-Adamite humanity now in TE section!

Cheers

 

[shernren]

The biblical tendency to use terms interchangably does not help. I like the writer of Ecclesiastes's view that animals do have spirits which perish when they die (clearly an emergent property of their organic structure) while humans have a spirit that returns to God when we die.
Eccles 3:21 Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?
Eccles 12:7 and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
Zech 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel: Thus declares the LORD, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit [ruach] of man within him:

I tend to interpret the "ruach" of Ecclesiastes as literally the "breath" of animals, representing what the author of Ecclesiastes saw of life - living things breathe, dead things don't - which he described phenomenologically as a vital-energy or life-force which God gave and which made inanimate matter live. The breath, or life, is something breathed from God into a dead lump of clay (or whatever God used to create man) and when a man or woman dies the portion of that breath which they inherited from their first created predecessor returns to God who first gave it.

Or, in short, I don't see "spirit" in its modern sense as the facet of a human which communes and relates to God.

I did have a reply typed out but a computer error wiped it out. I don't know when I'll work up the motivation to rewrite it ...

 

[Assyrian]

Should that be in the TE section, in Jereth's Sin and Pre-Adamite Humanity?

 

[jereth]

I tend to interpret the "ruach" of Ecclesiastes as literally the "breath" of animals, representing what the author of Ecclesiastes saw of life - living things breathe, dead things don't - which he described phenomenologically as a vital-energy or life-force which God gave and which made inanimate matter live. The breath, or life, is something breathed from God into a dead lump of clay (or whatever God used to create man) and when a man or woman dies the portion of that breath which they inherited from their first created predecessor returns to God who first gave it.

Or, in short, I don't see "spirit" in its modern sense as the facet of a human which communes and relates to God.

Sounds like you share my position. Christianity has a big job ahead of it to shake off Greek/Descartian (or should that perhaps be Cartesian?) ideas of the soul/body duality.

I've written more in the TE section thread.

 

[Tychicum]

I would have to say pride and disobedence by Lucifer and the 1/3 of the angels..

I know many believe it was "pride" but a close scrutiny reveals it to be ... "the desire to better his station in life".

Advancement. Self-reliance.

Something that we today in this world believe to be a fundamental to be a "winner".

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
(Isa 14:12-15 KJV)

And yet "out of God's will" ...

 

[Tychicum]

The "doctrine" of Lucifer's fall is nothing but a medieval speculation (beginning with Origen) based on a complete misreading of Isaiah 14 and Revelation 12. The Bible actually tells us nothing about the origin of Satan. There's no one called Lucifer in the Bible.

From WIKIPEDIA:
It is noteworthy that the Old Testament itself does not at any point actually mention the rebellion and fall of Satan. This non-Scriptural belief assembled from interpretations of different passages, would fall under the heading Christian mythology, that is, Christian traditions that are derived from outside of church teachings and scripture. For detailed discussion of the "War in Heaven" theme, see Fallen angel.

Hmmm ... WIKIPEDIA over Scripture ...

OK.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

It's interesting how the tables turn when looking at Isaiah 14. TEs seem more likely to take the passage as literally being "a taunt against the king of Babylon", though containing poetic imagery in its description. YECs seem more likely to interpret it allegorically about Satan.

 

[shernren]

It's interesting how the tables turn when looking at Isaiah 14. TEs seem more likely to take the passage as literally being "a taunt against the king of Babylon", though containing poetic imagery in its description. YECs seem more likely to interpret it allegorically about Satan.

Aye there mate. Taking a closer look:

Those who see you stare at you,
they ponder your fate:
"Is this the man who shook the earth
and made kingdoms tremble,
the man who made the world a desert,
who overthrew its cities
and would not let his captives go home?"
(Isaiah 14:16-17 NIV)

What does a "plain and simple" interpretation say to that?