Did Adam sin?

Claire Evans · Jun 20, 2015

BukiRob said:
You should change your affiliation to PAGAN.....

Read scripture it will open your eyes. G-d created evil... man has both the inclination for good and evil. When man fell by virtue of his disobedience to Adonia Sin entered creation and both mankind and creation to this day suffer the consequences of said Fall.

I'm just saying that Genesis is based on paganism. How is me starting that fact make me a pagan?

How can you say God created evil and then punish us for committing it? Wouldn't it have been better for evil not to have been created at all? In the Lord's prayer, Jesus says, "Deliver us from evil." In others words, deliver us from what God created." Make sense?

You are also insinuating that God created us evil. Why are the angels in heaven made perfectly? Why can they not be tempted?

It must horrify God that people think He created evil which, in turn, is the reason why some people commit things like murder and rape. Where is Satan's culpability in all this? Is he innocent?

Claire Evans · Jun 20, 2015

smaneck said:
And the consensus of academic biblical scholarship agrees with them.

The only hostility I see is yours.

Sorry to jump in. How can Israel die for our transgressions?

Isaiah 53:

4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

He? Is Israel a he?

Isaiah 53 is not read out in the synagogues.

the Sabbath haftarah readings cover Isaiah 49, 50, 51, 52 (up to 52:12), 54, 55, and 56.

It is just strange that 53 is omitted.

http://rootedthinking.com/2015/04/07/how-do-orthodox-jews-read-isaiah-53/

ViaCrucis · Jun 20, 2015

Claire Evans said:
What makes more sense? An alien being conversing with man being represented as a serpent god or a snake talking to Eve and she doesn't get freaked out by it?

Can I vote for option C?

Though, in the context of a bronze age culture telling a story? A talking snake is the more sensible.

-CryptoLutheran

smaneck · Jun 20, 2015

Claire Evans said:
I do believe in extra terrestrials taking dominion of the earth and fighting one another. The Bible call them fallen angels. There is always a kernel of truth in myths.

Yeah, but on what basis do you say this is the kernel?

smaneck · Jun 20, 2015

Claire Evans said:
Yes, eating a fruit that makes one sees the difference between good and evil is far more plausible, right? A talking snake? What makes more sense? An alien being conversing with man being represented as a serpent god or a snake talking to Eve and she doesn't get freaked out by it?

Here's the thing. All of this is symbolic to me, I don't take it literally. DNA coding is another matter.

smaneck · Jun 20, 2015

Claire Evans said:
Sorry to jump in. How can Israel die for our transgressions?

You tell me: "Surely, for Thy sake we have been slain all the day, Reckoned as sheep of the slaughter." Psalm 44:22
In fact this Psalm parallels the fourth Suffering Servant song of Isaiah 52-53 rather exactly.

There are four Suffering Servants songs in Deutero-Isaiah. If you read them together it is pretty obvious they refer to Israel. Might they also refer to the Messiah who comes? I think so but not necessarily so. Israel is the primary meaning of this passage but I think Deutero-Isaiah as a whole depicts a God who participates in our suffering.

"In all their affliction He was afflicted, and the angel of His presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old." Isaiah 63:9

He? Is Israel a he?

Uh, yeah. The Jewish people are consistently referred to as a singular entity, using the singular pronoun throughout the Bible, but let's keep our focus on Deutero-Isaiah.

“You are My servant, O Israel” (41:8)
“You are My servant, Israel” (49:3)
see also Isaiah 44:1, 44:2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20

ChetSinger · Jun 20, 2015

Claire Evans said:
I don't understand. Jewish tradition said there were 70 nations after the flood. Can you give me the verse that supports your claim?

Sure, I'm happy to. I didn't make a claim, but asked a question. But I suppose there was an assumption in my question, that being the Israelites didn't consider themselves one of the seventy nations, and perhaps you're referring to that.

That Israel didn't consider themselves one of the seventy nations is evidenced by those seventy nations being listed in Genesis 10, and Israel isn't included in that list.

So Israel was the 71st nation, God's chosen people, because Abraham was God's chosen man.

I'm quite familiar with Deut 32:7-8 and some of the interpretations regarding it, including the one you linked to (YHWH was a son of El). My question posed to that particular interpretation is this: How could the Israelites have considered YHWH to be one of El's seventy sons when they didn't consider themselves one of the seventy nations?

smaneck · Jun 20, 2015

ChetSinger said:
Sure, I'm happy to. I didn't make a claim, but asked a question. But I suppose there was an assumption in my question, that being the Israelites didn't consider themselves one of the seventy nations, and perhaps you're referring to that.

That Israel didn't consider themselves one of the seventy nations is evidenced by those seventy nations being listed in Genesis 10, and Israel isn't included in that list.

So Israel was the 71st nation, God's chosen people, because Abraham was God's chosen man.

Uh, no. The Israelites are the descendants of Eber mentioned in Genesis 11:21. I believe that is where the word Hebrew comes from. Abraham is supposed to be his descendant nine generations later.

Robban · Jun 20, 2015

Theway said:
They had a choice to not eat of the fruit, which meant they would have remained in the Garden forever, God never said that was a wrong choice, and in fact, most Christians believe it was the only correct choice they had.
Did God want them to go out into the world and learn to become as He is... Of course God did, therefore that was also a right way.
The choice had to be completely ours, otherwise if it was forced on them they could rightly say that it was God's Will that the Fall happened, and therefore not a transgression or a sin.

The bottom line is that because of the Fall and then the Atonement, mankind can now co-inherent all the Father has... Where as before Adam would have remained a glorified gardener forever.
That is why I said that for those that will recieve God's eternal wrath, will say Adam should have stayed in the Garden.
However for those which are obedient to Gods commandments, they will see the Fall as a unmeasurable blessing.

Claire Evans said:
Yes, eating a fruit that makes one sees the difference between good and evil is far more plausible, right? A talking snake? What makes more sense? An alien being conversing with man being represented as a serpent god or a snake talking to Eve and she doesn't get freaked out by it?

It's natural to try and lean towards things we know. What I am saying is that we all grown up with the Adam and Eve story so it is going to seem more plausible.

Theway said:
Then congratulations, you got my point... Although the analogy does not mirror my belief, it is meant to show the ridiculous and contradictory nature of those who believe Adam sinned by eating the fruit, and that the Fall was an evil act.
For if the Fall was the single greatest act of evil by one man, then that makes God culpable.
First God leaves Adam and Eve without the ability to know what they were doing was wrong.
God then made the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil a most desirable tree.
God then places the Tree right in the middle of the Garden.
God leaves the Tree unguarded when clearly God had the foreknowledge to know when to guard it, and the Angels with flaming swords at hand to protect it... Like God did with the Tree of Life.
God then allows Satan into the Garden knowing his intention was to tempt them.
God gave them free agency to choose to eat it if they wanted.
God then leaves the Garden, where at least to Adam and Eve's knowledge, God was not around.
God only returns after it was too late to stop it.
Given this... It appears that God wanted Adam and Eve to leave the Garden. God just wasn't going to make the decision for them, they needed to make it for themselves.
Does this make Satan's part in it a righteous act?..... No!
Even though Satan didn't exactly lie when he told them they would be as the gods knowing good and evil, Satan wasn't concerned about seeing that God's Will was carried out. Satan was only concerned about himself. Because if Adam and Eve did not partake of the fruit, then man could not know good from evil or right from wrong. If man did not know right from wrong, then man could not be held accountable for sin. If man could not sin, then Satan could not gain followers. Satan's arrogance is that he believes when given the chance he will be able to draw away all of Gods children unto himself. In fact, he would have succeed in doing that (except for One) had God not planned the Atonement also; whereby man could be forgiven for having made wrong choices when they followed Satan.

If they had eaten from the tree of Life first maybe they would have known that, no means no.

The serpent saw them eating of all the other fruits, he spoke to her at length in order for her to answer him and get her talking about that tree.

He saw that they had not eaten of the tree Life.

Robban · Jun 20, 2015

Did it again, with the quote thing, sorry about that, it was a reply to Theway.

Robban · Jun 20, 2015

Also, if there was a garden somewhere, did the rest of the planet look like the moon?

If they were shown out of the garden, why the need to set a guard so they could not eat from the tree of Life?
It seems more likely that the Divine presence withdrew to the highest realms,
though still sustainig His Creation, they were left on their tod.

Gradually, He was drawn down again, the grand finale being at Sinai and the giving of the Torah.

ChetSinger · Jun 20, 2015

smaneck said:
Uh, no. The Israelites are the descendants of Eber mentioned in Genesis 11:21. I believe that is where the word Hebrew comes from. Abraham is supposed to be his descendant nine generations later.

Of course they're descendants of Noah. But they didn't consider themselves one of the seventy nations. Because immediately after the seventy names in the Table of Nations (Genesis 10) and the splitting of mankind into those nations (Genesis 11) comes Genesis 12, where God tells Abraham that He will make a great nation of him. That makes Abraham the 71st nation. And what made Abraham and his nation special was that they dealt directly with God, rather than having to go through angelic intermediaries as the others did.

If you want to continue this I could start a thread; this is becoming a sidebar conversation.

LoAmmi · Jun 20, 2015

Claire Evans said:
Isaiah 53 is not read out in the synagogues.

the Sabbath haftarah readings cover Isaiah 49, 50, 51, 52 (up to 52:12), 54, 55, and 56.

It is just strange that 53 is omitted.

It's not strange at all. The haftarah's are all about theme. It is an attempt to theme the Torah portion or part of the year with a section of the prophets because when we were conquered by the Greeks we were forbidden to read the Torah in synagogue so we had to read the Propehts. The tradition stuck, as happens and we read portions today. Isaiah 53 does not theme with any section of the Torah or any holidays. The reason so many parts of Isaiah come in order is that they are leading up to Rosh HaShannah and Yom Kippur and are the comforting parts of Isaiah. Isaiah 53 is not comforting as it's all about suffering. It wouldn't comfort us to know we're going to suffer but to know that Israel will be redeemed, which the other parts of Isaiah speak of, is comforting as we look toward Yom Kippur when we must focus on the collective sins of Israel.

The article spent absolutely no time in even trying to find out why, just decided that Isaiah 53 was omitted and the reason MUST BE JESUS! Based upon that by itself, I dismiss it as an attack on my faith with no research done.

LoAmmi · Jun 20, 2015

BukiRob said:
You are blind. As I said AND YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED.... Isaiah 53 is about Mesiach.. yet you will try and tell us its about Israel... face it you are hostile, blind and rebellious.

Yep, I will tell you it's about Israel. If you want to throw names my way, that's fine. I would prefer to discuss things in a mature, adult way. Care to do that?

I am MESSIANIC Jewish... stop throwing me in the gentile church pile pal

Christ is based upon the Greek word for Messiah. So... Messianic is almost literally Christian.

Were you born of a Jewish mother or a convert to Judaism?

smaneck · Jun 20, 2015

ChetSinger said:
I'm quite familiar with Deut 32:7-8 and some of the interpretations regarding it, including the one you linked to (YHWH was a son of El). My question posed to that particular interpretation is this: How could the Israelites have considered YHWH to be one of El's seventy sons when they didn't consider themselves one of the seventy nations?

Incidentally the word Allah is based on the Semitic high God, El not Enlil as was suggested earlier.

Claire Evans · Jun 21, 2015

LoAmmi said:
It's not strange at all. The haftarah's are all about theme. It is an attempt to theme the Torah portion or part of the year with a section of the prophets because when we were conquered by the Greeks we were forbidden to read the Torah in synagogue so we had to read the Propehts. The tradition stuck, as happens and we read portions today. Isaiah 53 does not theme with any section of the Torah or any holidays. The reason so many parts of Isaiah come in order is that they are leading up to Rosh HaShannah and Yom Kippur and are the comforting parts of Isaiah. Isaiah 53 is not comforting as it's all about suffering. It wouldn't comfort us to know we're going to suffer but to know that Israel will be redeemed, which the other parts of Isaiah speak of, is comforting as we look toward Yom Kippur when we must focus on the collective sins of Israel.

The article spent absolutely no time in even trying to find out why, just decided that Isaiah 53 was omitted and the reason MUST BE JESUS! Based upon that by itself, I dismiss it as an attack on my faith with no research done.

I know what the explanation given for what you have said prior to me asking you these questions. I wanted you, in the interest, to give me that explanation. You say Isaiah 53 is omitted as it isn't relevant because it talks about suffering? That could be the official explanation but the real one is because it is a prophecy of the Messiah. Life is not all about comforting. Life is about talking about our struggles as well as our joy. To ignore suffering is not beneficial to anyone. It's hardly comforting to hear about the killings and misery God inflicted on the Egyptians. It's hardly comforting how God punished the Israelites but it is part of the scriptures.

Challenging your beliefs is not an attack on one's faith. It gives someone the opportunity to defend their faith. Now, I want you to answer the question you did not answer.

How can Israel die for our transgressions?

Isaiah 53:

4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

He? Is Israel a he?

Claire Evans · Jun 21, 2015

ChetSinger said:
Of course they're descendants of Noah. But they didn't consider themselves one of the seventy nations. Because immediately after the seventy names in the Table of Nations (Genesis 10) and the splitting of mankind into those nations (Genesis 11) comes Genesis 12, where God tells Abraham that He will make a great nation of him. That makes Abraham the 71st nation. And what made Abraham and his nation special was that they dealt directly with God, rather than having to go through angelic intermediaries as the others did.

If you want to continue this I could start a thread; this is becoming a sidebar conversation.

Please start another thread!

Claire Evans · Jun 21, 2015

smaneck said:
You tell me: "Surely, for Thy sake we have been slain all the day, Reckoned as sheep of the slaughter." Psalm 44:22
In fact this Psalm parallels the fourth Suffering Servant song of Isaiah 52-53 rather exactly.

There are four Suffering Servants songs in Deutero-Isaiah. If you read them together it is pretty obvious they refer to Israel. Might they also refer to the Messiah who comes? I think so but not necessarily so. Israel is the primary meaning of this passage but I think Deutero-Isaiah as a whole depicts a God who participates in our suffering.

"In all their affliction He was afflicted, and the angel of His presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old." Isaiah 63:9

Uh, yeah. The Jewish people are consistently referred to as a singular entity, using the singular pronoun throughout the Bible, but let's keep our focus on Deutero-Isaiah.

“You are My servant, O Israel” (41:8)

“You are My servant, Israel” (49:3)

see also Isaiah 44:1, 44:2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20

Should we start another thread because this is getting off topic?

Just to answer, I think it could be entertained that both Israel and the Messiah are being referred to and this is causing confusion. Here is an example:

Isaiah 52:14

See, my servant;
he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.—
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being
and his form marred beyond human likeness

Israel's face disfigured? It is very clear that it is a man that is being referred to here.

Another example:
Isaiah 53: 1-3

1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?

2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

A man of sorrows? When was Israel despised and rejected by men? How did they hid their faces from Israel? Israel had no beauty?

Why is Israel sometimes considered a he and then sometimes a she?

Another interesting note, even though I believe there are some references to Jesus in Isaiah it is still interesting that the Jews rejected Him because He did not fulfill all of the the prophecies. He never did become the king of Israel.

Claire Evans · Jun 21, 2015

smaneck said:
Yeah, but on what basis do you say this is the kernel?

This definitely needs a new thread because it is going off topic. Can you start one for me? I said that Enki was represented as a serpent. Well, there were gods that walked the earth with a reptilian appearance.

Robban · Jun 21, 2015

Maybe it would make more sense to some if Adam had been placed in a garden full of mushrooms, and was told, "You can eat of any mushroom but not that one, because it is poisonious.

As for the serpent,
The mind and heart of man are never empty,
if there is no Life-nourishing "water" there are snakes and scorpions in it.

Joseph was cast into the pit,
the pit was empty,
there was no water in it.

(Gen 37:24)

We need to stop pretending we are perfect.

Did Adam sin?

Newbie

Newbie

Confessional Lutheran

Baha'i

Baha'i

Baha'i

Well-Known Member

Baha'i

-----------

-----------

-----------

Well-Known Member

Dispassionate

Dispassionate

Baha'i

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Attachments

-----------

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency