The Idols and False Notions have Taken Deep Root

[chaoschristian]

Mark, one more attempt here.

Is there a difference between saying that Adam made sin possible and all people are sinners because of Adam?

Do you see the distinction?

In the former, and agent, Adam, is responsible for sin (unholiness, seperation from holiness/God) to be an option; the latter states that all people subsequent to Adam are sinners because Adam was a sinner.

Paul says the former. That can be found in the original Greek (that Assyrian has provided) and in all proper English translations.

St. Augustine claimed the latter, based upon a faulty translation of the Greek into Latin. He didn't use the Koine Greek, despite that Paul had written Romans in Koine Greek, because Augustine wasn't reading from Koine Greek manuscripts, but a Latin translation of the Greek manuscripts. I'm not very good at explaining this, but when I read the Latin, I can tell it's in error. Assyrian has provided ample evidence for why it is so.

The implications of your stance, the one Augustine espoused, is that either sin is biological (which if I remember correctly is the former stance of the RC and the one advocated by Augustine) or that, as gluadys pointed out, our own sinful actions are irrelevant because we all bear the burden of Adam's own sin.

I don't think any of these are defensible from scripture. And I know that must smart, because as best as I can surmise your entire paragidm of Christ is based upon a direct physical and biological connection between Adam and Christ.

But then here's a question for you and your creation science: if sin is biological, then what's the biological indication of sin? It is a gene? Something in our blood? And organ, a tissue, a what? Where's the physical evidence of the sin marker?

 

[Calminian]

Mark, one more attempt here.

Is there a difference between saying that Adam made sin possible and all people are sinners because of Adam?

(butting in) Sorry, Mark, can't resist. Yes, there is. It's the difference between biblical theology and the pelagian heresy. Think about it. If sin wasn't possible before Adam sinned, then how did Adam manage to sin? (butting back out)

 

[Assyrian]

Okay, so you don't believe that your natural tendency toward sin is the result of Adam's sin?

Does the bible every say that this is the case? I am quite open to the possibility that it does, I just haven't come across a biblical basis for it.

 

[chaoschristian]

(butting in) Sorry, Mark, can't resist. Yes, there is. It's the difference between biblical theology and the pelagian heresy. Think about it. If sin wasn't possible before Adam sinned, then how did Adam manage to sin? (butting back out)

Except that the difference isn't Pelagianism.

 

[stumpjumper]

I still can't get past the fact that some people are treating Adam as a singular historical figure like Benjamin Franklin.

Replace Adam with Man or Mankind (singular and plural versions may be awkward in English but not so in Ancient Hebrew) and then re-read those passages...

I know people like to toss around accusations of heresy like good tidings but we're talking about mythos here...

 

[Calminian]

I still can't get past the fact that some people are treating Adam as a singular historical figure like Benjamin Franklin.

Replace Adam with Man or Mankind (singular and plural versions may be awkward in English but not so in Ancient Hebrew) and then re-read those passages...

I know people like to toss around accusations of heresy like good tidings but we're talking about mythos here...

In order to believe this you'd have to believe there was a huge conspiracy of translators to translate Adam as a proper name. In some translations this is very difficult, considering the vast number and diversity of translators. The NIV alone was translated by over 100 translators, all of differing backgrounds, and beliefs.

Names often have meanings in hebrew (almost always in fact) but this doesn't mean you don't use them as names. Where the hebrew word for Adam is used as a proper name, it is translated that way. Are you really knowledgeable enough to take on so many experts? Well, by all means, make your case.

 

[stumpjumper]

In order to believe this you'd have to believe there was a huge conspiracy of translators to translate Adam as a proper name.

No, you would not. Adam is both a common and proper noun in Hebrew.

Frodo is a proper noun in the Lord of The Rings...

Well, by all means, make your case.

Again, though, just because a piece of literature designates a character does not mean that we need to look at this character and it's impact in historical terms.

What is the meaning of the story about man's sin? That is where the kernel of truth lies not in whether or not there was a historical Adam who lived about 7,000 years ago and fell from an idealistic paradise because of disobedience....

 

[Calminian]

No, you would not. Adam is both a common and proper noun in Hebrew.

Frodo is a proper noun in the Lord of The Rings...



Again, though, just because a piece of literature designates a character does not mean that we need to look at this character and it's impact in historical terms.

What is the meaning of the story about man's sin? That is where the kernel of truth lies not in whether or not there was a historical Adam who lived about 7,000 years ago and fell from an idealistic paradise because of disobedience....

I'm not arguing with you I'm merely inviting you to make your case as to why the translators are unanimous on translating the word as a proper name in the various places we find it. Please tell us why you disagree. This is not an argument.

 

[stumpjumper]

I'm not saying it's not a proper name, though.

I am saying that it is mythology and that mythologies can be (and usually are) expressed as stories with literary characters who, generally by necessity, have names...

The Hebrew word translated as Adam, however, is also a common noun such as in Genesis 1:26 where it is used to denote mankind...

 

[Calminian]

Does the bible every say that this is the case? I am quite open to the possibility that it does, I just haven't come across a biblical basis for it.

It definitely does. Part of the case is inductive, but I think you'll agree very sound and in my opinion the most convincing. Scripture makes it clear that since Adam sinned and his eyes were opened, everyone of his descendants followed suit. Now if there is no pull on man one way or the other, you'd expect to find a variation of those who have sinned and those who haven't. Yet we find the rate to be 100% (with the exception of Christ, of course).

Rom. 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

1John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

I don't think there's much dispute here among Christians. I'm sure you consider yourself a sinner also.

David of course makes a reference about being sinful from youth.

Psa. 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

And then there's this passage in Isaiah, which I think ties things together for us.

Is. 7:15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

So we're born with sinful tendencies, yet can't discern them and choose right on our own until a certain age. This is when liability sets in. And even though we can choose good once in a while, our nature prevents us from doing so on a continual basis. Paul wrestled with the struggle and concluded death was the only escape.

Rom. 7:24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

This is a micro nutshell, though. This is a very extensive subject, but I hope this helps.

 

[Calminian]

I'm not saying it's not a proper name, though.

I am saying that it is mythology and that mythologies can be (and usually are) expressed as stories with literary characters who, generally by necessity, have names...

That a proper name has other meanings, is not an argument for Mythology. Your own personal name likely has a meaning, yet this doesn't mean you're not real.... I don't think, anyway. :o

And there's no real logical connection that I can see, where the Bible must be mythology just because fictional stories contain proper names. From the context of the entire Bible it's quite clear that these characters are believed to be as real as their descendants who were writing the accounts.

 

[stumpjumper]

That a proper name has other meanings, is not an argument for Mythology.

And nobody said that it necessarily was, though.

The position that the Bible contains mythos is well supported from other facts but you seem to be completely twisting around other's posts so there's not much point in continuing here...

 

[chaoschristian]

Calminian, once you come to terms that scriptures are necessarily mythological and also why that's not necessarily apostate or heretical, then you will begin to understand the what and why of the positions laid out before you.

But so long as you continue to have a modernist's knee-jerk reaction against the term 'myth' and it's many cousins, like 'story', 'literature' and 'narrative' you continue to be as confused as you are.

 

[shernren]

I notice mark has made no response to my post.

Question 1.
Do you accept that I affirm the supernatural events of the New Testament as history? In fact, I affirm the supernatural events of the Old Testament outside the Pentateuch as history as well; I am currently considering my position on the Pentateuch as history, given certain details outside Genesis (such as that the 603 thousand Jewish men given in the Pentateuch would have taken several days to cross the Red Sea at any reasonable pace). Do you accept that? Do you admit that you cannot directly cite any statements of mine which are explicitly anti-supernaturalist?

And if so, do you accept that you cannot impeach my theology on the charge of anti-supernaturalism alone?

Question 2.
Do you answer "yes" to all questions on the list of six that was posed by PaladinValer? If so, do you acknowledge that this constitutes considerable mutual agreement between you and the TEs who have answered "yes"?

Do you believe that any individual answering "yes" to those six questions, and lives a life in accordance with such answers, does in fact believe in a complete and completely biblical gospel?

Calminian, the six questions were:

1. Do you believe in the Nicene Creed?
2. Do you believe that Christ died for all sins, original and actual?
3. Do you believe that, due to an event far ago in the prehistoric past, humanity Fell?
4. Do you believe that, from this Fall, humanity has been "broken" so that we are unable to be fully good and have a pure and wholly innocent conscience, will, and nature?
5. Do you believe that it is only by Christ's Grace that we were healed, are being healed, and will be healed of our imperfections that we "inherited" (for a lack of a better term) from the Fall?
6. Do you believe therefore that the Bible speaks the truth in that humanity Fell, Christ died for humanity's sins and for the healing of humanity's souls and nature, and that Christ is therefore infact a Second Adam?

Questions 4 and 6 are particularly relevant to the recent challenges you have been making on this thread; you should be gratified to know that most, if not all, of the TEs participating here have answered in the affirmative to all six questions.

 

[Assyrian]

It definitely does. Part of the case is inductive, but I think you'll agree very sound and in my opinion the most convincing. Scripture makes it clear that since Adam sinned and his eyes were opened, everyone of his descendants followed suit. Now if there is no pull on man one way or the other, you'd expect to find a variation of those who have sinned and those who haven't. Yet we find the rate to be 100% (with the exception of Christ, of course).

There certainly is a pull on man, the question is what is it and where did it come from? The description of the temptation sound very familiar, not the talking snake of course, but seeing something we want, desiring it when we know we should not, and letting ourselves be talking into doing it. James 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. That sounds very much like Eve too. Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. If Adam and Eve's temptation cause a change in the human race resulting in a fallen sin nature, why did Eve exhibit the very same nature? You see I don't think the story of Adam and Eve tells us how human nature fell and changed, it tells us how human nature falls.

You point out how when they sinned their eyes were opened, now I don't know anywhere in the bible it says that having our eyes opened was passed on through the generations, further down you quote Isaiah 7:17 that says when we are children we do not know the difference between right or wrong. In other words the knowledge of good and evil is not inherited Yet as you say every one has followed suit. How? As Paul says in Rom 5:12, because all sinned. We each learn the knowledge of good and evil by eating the same fruit Adam and Eve did (metaphorically of course). We sin, our eyes are opened and we die spiritually. There is a very interesting verse in Romans 7 where Paul seems to echo the story of temptation in Eden. Rom 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. We all recapitulate the Genesis fall in our own lives, or Genesis simply describes the human race (after all Adam does mean 'man' )

Rom. 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

Don't forget that in Romans 2 Paul was describing Gentiles who do not have the law of Moses showing by their actions that God's laws are written on their hearts, either through knowing to do what is right or their
consciences condemning when they do what they know is wrong. While there was no Mosaic law in the Genesis period, people did know right and wrong and they did sin. Gen 20:9 Then Abimelech called Abraham and said to him, "What have you done to us? And how have I sinned against you, that you have brought on me and my kingdom a great sin? You have done to me things that ought not to be done."

1John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

I don't think there's much dispute here among Christians. I'm sure you consider yourself a sinner also.

Of course. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

David of course makes a reference about being sinful from youth.

Psa. 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

And then there's this passage in Isaiah, which I think ties things together for us.

Is. 7:15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

These two passages seem to contradict one another, one saying children are innocent, the other sinful. Possible we can look at Psalm 51 as hyperbole, David was lamenting his adultery with Bathsheba and declaring how wicked he was. I suspect what he is actually saying is that he was illegitimate, his mother literally did conceive him in sin. It would explain why Jesse hid David out in the fields when Samuel invited Jesse and his sons to a sacrifice.

So we're born with sinful tendencies, yet can't discern them and choose right on our own until a certain age. This is when liability sets in. And even though we can choose good once in a while, our nature prevents us from doing so on a continual basis. Paul wrestled with the struggle and concluded death was the only escape.

Rom. 7:24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

This is a micro nutshell, though. This is a very extensive subject, but I hope this helps.

Thanks I appreciate you sharing this in such an open and friendly way, especially when topics like this usually get rather heated. I agree we are born with a nature that is incapable of consistently doing what is right. However much we might want to (or not) our flesh with its desires always gets in the way. And it is not just physical desires either, pride, ambition and envy can be just as much the flesh as lust and greed. The question is how did it get that way? Saying human nature fell with Adam is a simple answer, but is it the biblical explanation?

The bible seems to give an number of reasons. Society, the world, is in the grip of the evil one 1John 5:19 the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. Here is one are where the sins of our fathers, and their consequences spiritually and sociologically, are visited on the children. When we sin ourselves, we become enslaved to those sins Rom 6:16. Then there is what the bible calls the flesh and its desires which seems to be the key to the whole thing, but does the bible explain why human nature is the way it is? According to the bible God created mankind as flesh and blood (Gen 2:23 well, flesh and bone anyway), yet flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God 1Cor 15:50. I know that is talking about physical flesh, yet it is our physical flesh with its physical needs and desires that cause the problems. Did God make us like that so we could walk by faith rather than by our own righteousness? There certainly seem to be a suggestion of that in verses like Rom 11:32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. Or Gal 3:22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Though this is talking about the law.

There is something incongruous about the idea that unlike us Adam and Eve were capable of living sinless lives. It suggest that the gospel was plan B, which only came into effect when plan A, Adam and Eve obeying God by their own power, failed. Yet Paul tells us the gospel was God's plan from before the foundation of the world.

 

[shernren]

These two passages seem to contradict one another, one saying children are innocent, the other sinful. Possible we can look at Psalm 51 as hyperbole, David was lamenting his adultery with Bathsheba and declaring how wicked he was. I suspect what he is actually saying is that he was illegitimate, his mother literally did conceive him in sin. It would explain why Jesse hid David out in the fields when Samuel invited Jesse and his sons to a sacrifice.

Perhaps looking at two verses together may make things clearer:

Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Surely you desire truth in the inner parts;
you teach me wisdom in the inmost place.
(Psalms 51:5-6 NIV)

Hebrew poetry is rich in parallelism.

What does David see himself as?
Sinful "at birth";
sinful "from conception".

What does David desire for himself?
Truth "in the inner parts";
wisdom "in the inmost place".

I think David is talking not so much about the chronological advent of sin as the widespread extent of it in his life. By the time Nathan confronts him about Bathsheba, he has openly broken Five of the Ten Commandments and allowed his sin to affect his personal life, family life, political career, and military tactics. And anyone who has struggled with sexual temptation (not that any other temptation is less dangerous or insidious) knows how it spreads through one's every waking thought, popping up in places and times where it is least expected or wanted, so difficult to remove once it has started, so easily played over and over in the mind.

So, "surely I was sinful from birth": in other words, "sin in my life is so deeply rooted that it strikes at the very essence of who I am as a human", and what better way to express that than to push its influence back to the very first moment that one is recognizably human - at birth, at conception? The antidote cannot be superficial or external; it has to go to the inner parts and inmost place - because that is where sin has made its home. And I believe that is what is being expressed by being a "sinner from birth", more than being simply a declaration of the hamartiological state of an infant.

 

[busterdog]

That a proper name has other meanings, is not an argument for Mythology. Your own personal name likely has a meaning, yet this doesn't mean you're not real.... I don't think, anyway. :o

And there's no real logical connection that I can see, where the Bible must be mythology just because fictional stories contain proper names. From the context of the entire Bible it's quite clear that these characters are believed to be as real as their descendants who were writing the accounts.

I think people might be messing with you a bit.

Abraham Lincoln is an historical figure. He is "larger than life." In the latter sense, people who write about literature for a living consider such a historical figure to have a mythic significance or to give rise to myths, which is similiar to a worldview, perspective, tendency, spirit or something like that.

Consider, the "Spirit of '76". Its all based upon historical fact regarding the declaration of independence, yet it is said to have mythic characteristics. In a somewhat murky way, it alludes to certain nuances of power, motivation and personal impact. That is myth.

King David was also larger than life and mythic, but a factual character.

You could argue that this is literary professionals talking out of both sides of their mouths, and indeed, the whole use of this term is murky, nuanced thus mythic in and of itself. (Irony intended.)

That being said, its just a term of art that you get used to. It is specialized knowledge and not required for most of us to deal with clarity about subjects like scripture.

However, I think the distinction you are making is pretty clear. Your use of the word is pretty clear. I think it would make sense for folks to meet you on your own terms. I think you have every right to object if people really think they can prove that any Biblical character with a name was only myth and not also historical. If there are one or two thrown in, I can't think of who they might be.



As for the idea of original sin, I am a bit shocked that people would seriously consider sin to be a personal matter divorced from inheritance or circumstances. There is no such thing as any sin that is only your sin. Is it genetic? It is might as well be sin it is so manifestly endemic and powerful on every single individual.

 

[gluadys]

As for the idea of original sin, I am a bit shocked that people would seriously consider sin to be a personal matter divorced from inheritance or circumstances. There is no such thing as any sin that is only your sin. Is it genetic? It is might as well be sin it is so manifestly endemic and powerful on every single individual.

Actually, we could say this not only of sin, but of all human actions good and bad. Nothing we choose to do is divorced from inheritance and circumstances, whether it is cheating on a tax return or donating to a food bank.

But so long as we are held personally responsible for what we do and/or given personal credit for what we do, the action, at some level, is our own.

 

[chaoschristian]

As for the idea of original sin, I am a bit shocked that people would seriously consider sin to be a personal matter divorced from inheritance or circumstances. There is no such thing as any sin that is only your sin. Is it genetic? It is might as well be sin it is so manifestly endemic and powerful on every single individual.

There are different ways of looking at this 'inheritance.'

Mark seems to me to be advocating for a physical and direct biological inheritance from Adam to all of humanity. That's why Adam's special creation is so important to him, that's why the literal veracity of the geneologies is so important to him, and that's why adamantly denying certain aspects of evolutionary theory are so important to him.

But there's at least one other way of looking at it apart from that. That Adam's transgression made possible the option of sin, and that our own sins are ours and ours alone, that we do not bear the sin of Adam, since not one of us save Adam is Adam, but that there is also no way to escape or choose differently from sin as there is no way to escape or choose differently from being human while being only human. Sin is part of the human narrative from which no human can opt out.

Christ is unique in that He is fully human and fully divine. He and he alone could and did make that choice. He could speak a new and good narrative apart from that of death alone. And because of that choice and that new narrative we mere humans are provided with a pathway that leads to a different end than eternal unholiness and death.

 

[Assyrian]

That Adam's transgression made possible the option of sin...

Didn't Adam's transgression show he had the possible option of sin too?