What was the first sin?

[Assyrian]

Hmmm ... WIKIPEDIA over Scripture ...

OK.

More WIKIPEDIA over dodgy tradition ...

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.

I don't know, the four verses 12 -15 seem to be looking at a star who tried to take over the throne of God in heaven but was cast down into the pit. The more literal reading (apart from the common biblical star/angel metaphor) is that this referred to some angelic rebellion. The allegorical reading is that this assault on God's heavenly throne refers to the king of Babylon.

The problem is that YECs frequently use the AV which mistranslates heylel, the morning star, as Lucifer, or even if they don't use the AV, rarely question traditional interpretations. I think they are right to identify it as a fallen angel, but they have the wrong one.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

I don't know, the four verses 12 -15 seem to be looking at a star who tried to take over the throne of God in heaven but was cast down into the pit. The more literal reading (apart from the common biblical star/angel metaphor) is that this referred to some angelic rebellion.

To me, those verses seem to be about someone who claimed to be the Son of Dawn or Day Star who had delusions of ascending to on high. Instead, he was brought low, a theme present throughout the taunt and not just in those verses. And, from context both before and after, that someone is the king of Babylon. As shernren pointed out, it is talking about a man a few verses later, so I don't see any reason to think the middle of this taunt addresses someone completely different.

Genesis 11 describes people planning to build a tower "with its top in the heavens", and I think the hubris described there is similar to that of the king of Babylon. There's no need to invoke angels to explain people trying to reach God's dwelling place through their own works.

 

[shernren]

Both interpretations have a good balance of symbolistic and literal meaning. Those who take it more to mean the king of Babylon have to take "Lucifer / Morning Star" as a symbol, but take the man part as referring to an actual king. Those who take it to mean more Satan take "Lucifer / Morning Star" literally; I haven't seen any of them dealt with him being called a king yet. And there are in-between views. My personal take on it is that this specifically describes the state of the king of Babylon, but can also be extrapolated to vaguely describe any sort of spiritual fall, which has to be preceded by some kind of priding oneself above God, which by extension happened to Satan himself too, even if without the actual particulars that tradition ascribe to the Isaiah and Ezekiel passages.

I think this would be a good exegetical exercise to see how much symbolism is actually needed in any reasonable Biblical interpretation.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Those who take it to mean more Satan take "Lucifer / Morning Star" literally; I haven't seen any of them dealt with him being called a king yet.

How is it literal to take a reference to the light bearer / morning star as pointing to Satan? In the Bible, the morning star elsewhere refers to Jesus (Revelation 22:16). It's only been turned into Lucifer, a proper noun, due to transliterating the Latin translation. Lucifer is never indicated to be a name for Satan. Even if Lucifer were a correct translation, why couldn't it be a name for the king of Babylon?

I think all views have to take the morning star reference as figurative in some sense.

My personal take on it is that this specifically describes the state of the king of Babylon, but can also be extrapolated to vaguely describe any sort of spiritual fall, which has to be preceded by some kind of priding oneself above God, which by extension happened to Satan himself too, even if without the actual particulars that tradition ascribe to the Isaiah and Ezekiel passages.

Indeed, and in that sense, Genesis 11 could be added to the passages. It's another case where humans were trying to ascend into the heavens on their own.

 

[stevezak11]

The first sin was the eating of the apple...because the apple represented the choice given to mankind. When Adam & Eve ate the apple, they portrayed a rebelious nature which meant seperation from God.

 

[Numenor]

The first sin was the eating of the apple...because the apple represented the choice given to mankind. When Adam & Eve ate the apple, they portrayed a rebelious nature which meant seperation from God.

Before there is a sinful act there must be a sinful thought behind it, therefore the first sin was not the eating of the apple but the desiring of it contrary to God's command.