How did mankind get its sin nature?

[JeremyTheAnglercan]

I believe sin has had dire effects on creation that have permeated back through time. God's creation has been raging since it began 13 billion years ago. Stars have been exploding, volcanoes have been erupting and life has been in a continuous battle for survival since it began. We even describe the stars themselves as dying (yes, I know they don't really die). Thus, I feel that sin has entered into the laws of physics themselves (I'm not crazy, I don't think the universe is actively hostile or that volcanoes are a punishment for sin).

Who knows what a perfect world without sin looks? It defies the laws of physics (eternal life, no more pain, the presence of supernatural beings [assuming we interact with angels etc], and the fact that we get to see God face to face). Will radioactive material still decay? Will stars still form and die? It all gets a it philosophical, and ultimately doesn't matter much in this world except for the fact that we know it'll be better.

 

[JeremyTheAnglercan]

The problem is, is that the bible has already answered the question...and Theo-Evo refuse to believe that portion of the bible. Instead....considering evolutionisn MUST be true....Genesis can't be true....so they create the myth. Phew...Theo-Evos wipe brows.
But when the myth is challenged by asking where original sin comes from.....shoulders shrug.

Yes the bible does talk about our spiritual nature...all fall short....sin and death was the result of one man. Wait!!!! One man? How can that be so if Adam wasn't real and the evolutionist claim populations evolve.

Theo-evoism has some serious theological doctrine to fix.

To me it seems far more difficult to give an explanation for scientific evidence if we accept Genesis to be true than the other way around.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

There is a relatively simple way to understand the origins of man's sin nature without relying upon the presupposition of either a young or old earth creation. The answer is found in God's nature. God, as eternal and ultimate reality, constitutes moral values and duties in His immutable nature; there is no alternative to the way God exists (deduced from His eternal, comprehensively uncaused and immutable being) and thus no alternative to the moral values and obligations we possess. This is important to recognize because when we understand that it is God's very nature that constitutes the good, we will understand that, conversely, sin is the result of the absence of His nature.

We are made in God's image so that we possess basic reflections of His nature (e.g. moral reasoning, rationality, emotions, and relational nature) but we do not possess God's nature because we are not God. Whatever good we can accomplish is by the power of God and whatever good we can apprehend is by the disclosure of God; everything we have is received. This is why Jesus says that without remaining in Him we can do nothing but dry and wither in unrighteousness (John 15:5-6). This is also why Adam had the potential to sin when given a choice and Jesus would never choose to sin, because Christ possesses the divine nature and human beings only act as a conduit or breaker of that nature as He discloses it to us and fills us with Himself.

To summarize this point, we possess the sin nature as a result of having a nature that is not God's and not submitting it to God. There is no means by which we conduct ourselves inconsistently with God's nature and do not sin. In 1 John 3:4, John defines sin as simply lawlessness. Against who's law? God's Law, and God's Law is a partial disclosure of His nature which the Holy Spirit enables us to obey (Romans 8:15). Thus we are as sinful as we are removed from God, and as sinless as we allow Him to draw near. Our sin nature is so because it is a nature that, removed from the Holy Spirit, does not incline us to God, who is the good.

 

[lewiley]

This is a very fair question. After all, our sin nature is a foundational truth of Christianity, and without that, one might question if Christ's sacrifice was needed at all.

From a Theistic evolution perspective (well, at least this one, held by many Christians), our sin nature is absolutely real, as is a literal Adam.

Sin nature:
Well, the view that myself and many other Christians have is that humans evolved from earlier apes. At some point, God miraculously gave a transitional ape a soul. That was Adam. Adam rebelled against God, having the mental ability to recognize and think about God and the mental ability & freewill to reject God's command. That act was the fall. As a result of that fall, Adam's soul became vulnerable to spiritual death - and hence needed Jesus as a savior to grant eternal life of the soul in heaven.

The apes before Adam died, and without a soul, they just died. If we call Adam the first human, then he's also the first with a soul. Hence, there were no "humans" before the Adam, and hence no humans before the fall - though the apes just before Adam were very, very much like Adam physically, and like Adam, all experienced physical death, with their bodies rotting like any other animal.

Maybe the apes were Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis and were still around a few chapters later and took wives from the sons of God. The serpent (a play on the word naked) was just being honest, "So what if God SAID". He lived by instincts. He did not live by the Word of God. Adam had the Word of God but disobeyed. As a result the Spirit of God left him and he was dead and needed to be reborn in Spirit.

 

[See Through The Guise]

How did mankind get its sin nature?
I would love to have somebody explain that to me if the creation/fall account presented in Genesis is a parable, myth or is allegoric.

I think it could be allegorical to what Papias and JackRT

Well, the view that myself and many other Christians have is that humans evolved from earlier apes. At some point, God miraculously gave a transitional ape a soul. That was Adam. Adam rebelled against God, having the mental ability to recognize and think about God and the mental ability & freewill to reject God's command

I do not read the Genesis narrative as a fall from an original state of perfection into sin and death. The first couple were completely innocent and naïve creatures. They were certainly capable of making a mistake but, without knowing good from evil, they lacked even the ability to sin. That ability came only with them eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To me the story is a "coming of age story". Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgements.

But I think of it more in terms of Slavery and Communism. Since slaves didn't have to make any decisions. What they eat, where they go and what they work on is all determined by their masters. And in a communist system the government decides what people read, what they can say and what they are allowed to do. For slaves, their masters tell them the outside is worse so they won't rebel, and in communist systems the government smears and debases all foreign governments so the garden is supposedly paradise.

When Adam and Eve eat of the fruit of knowledge they become more cognizant of their present conditions. There's a sword guarding the garden, so maybe they become aware of the violence involved in keeping the garden, whatever it is they reject it so God punishes them by expelling them from the garden and giving them our sin nature.

After The Ancient Hebrews escaped from Egypt they wandered the desert and had to start all over again, and after Adam and Eve left they had to start all over again as well in terms of procreation. And since The Garden of Eden if lush and fertile, the surrounding land would have been more like a desert by comparison.

 

[Papias]

One would think there would be quite a few of these very, very much like Adam..non humans alive today.
This creates a problem where Genesis say Eve was the mother of all people. How is it that only people of Adan and Eves progeny survived and all the very, very much like Adam not humans died off?

No one had to "die off". Since the children of Adam and Eve will be ensouled, all their descendants will as those spread across the population due to intermarriage.

For instance, Thomas Jefferson has literally thousands of descendants alive today, even though he only had a few kids (many less than Eve!). Ever year, some of those descendants marry, and all their kids are Thomas Jefferson descendants. So in a few centuries, nearly everyone in the US will be a descendant of Thomas Jefferson, and a few centuries after that, nearly everyone in the world will be, and shortly after that, every single living human on earth will be a descendant of Thomas Jefferson. The same goes for anyone who has a few kids, unless all of the descendants die childless soon (after a few generations, that's increasingly unlikely). Think about it. It's pretty cool! If that's not clear, let me know, and I can try to explain it better.

It seems as if all the names in the bible have some sort of meaning. For instance Isaac means laughter...because Sarah laughed at God. Just because Adam means dirt and is named dirt doesn't mean Adam wasn't a literal human made from the dirt.

True, but it could be a symbol. After all, we both agree there is tons of clear symbolism in the story, and I've already pointed out to you the Hebraic poetic structure - aside from the obvious inconsistencies that even the early Christians recognized as signs that this wasn't just a simple history.

The rebellion was eating the fruit.
So, back to original sin.....how did it come about?

So you really think this was about magical fruit? In the story, if read literally, the fruit is magical - their "eyes were opened" when they ate the fruit. If fact, if you read the story, God didn't even know until he saw them wearing clothes. And actual snakes don't talk, and so on. All of that points to a deeper meaning than magical fruit.

The original sin was actually rebelling against God. The point were the first ensouled human decided to reject God - perhaps by worshiping a carved image, etc. After all, those are things that are repeated again and again in the scriptures, while there is no mention that it's a sin to eat this or that fruit.

God gave a soul to an ape????? You do know I'll need a chapter and verse that supports that unbiblical claim.

I gave many aspects of the Genesis story that show that this is a deeper story than a rib convinced by a talking snake to give magical fruit to a mudpie. In the same way, we know that there is more to the growth of a baby in the womb than just knitting (as in Ps 139).

You think God gave a soul to a mudpie, and I think that God gave a soul to a mostly anatomically modern human. And, by the way, you are an ape. So am I. Just like we are mammals, vertebrates, etc.

....you surely haven't presented an answer with God gave a primate a soul......

Forgive me for thinking that you were sincerely asking what Theistic evolution supporters think. Even if you don't agree, I could imagine one being curious. But, if instead this is just a ruse to attack people, then just let me know and I won't waste my time.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[-57]

Well, to be fair, Papias did answer the question from that so-called 'theo-evolutionist; perspective, even if you were not satisfied with the answer. It wasn't just a shrug that he gave you.
As for myself, the question of evolution or not-evolution does not seem all that relevant to what I myself find important and spiritually invigorating and inspiring about the verses on Adam and Eve.
In terms of science itself, that is my training, as I guess it would be for anyone with a formal Western education. But I do find the ideas of David Berlinski very intriguing. He is an agnostic to much of what passes as scientific origins theories, but when it comes to evolution, his critiques really go to the heart of the difference between evolution, and the evolutionism that you had referred to in the previous thread.

I suppose applying that kind of analysis to my own Christianity, I would say I am a believer in Creation, without necessarily being a proponent of creationism.

I was kinda hoping to receive some real answers to the dilemma concerning original sin creates for the Theo-Evos and the changes to the bible that are required.

 

[JackRT]

I was kinda hoping to receive some real answers to the dilemma concerning original sin creates for the Theo-Evos and the changes to the bible that are required.

No changes are required to the Bible just a realization that it is not inerrant or to be always understood literally. That is our problem not the Bible's.

 

[Speedwell]

I was kinda hoping to receive some real answers to the dilemma concerning original sin creates for the Theo-Evos and the changes to the bible that are required.

You won't. "Theo-evos" don't generally regard it as a dilemma nor think that changes to the Bible are required. You do, because of the way you read scripture, but "Theo-evos" don't.

 

[-57]

To me it seems far more difficult to give an explanation for scientific evidence if we accept Genesis to be true than the other way around.

The science of evolutionism has many, many problems. One of which is how soft dinosaur tissue has survived for over 65+...and in many other instances even millions of years longer with out fossilizing or decaying.
When I apply science in many instances I see evolutionism fail and the bible reign.
What I see is the Theo-Evo sect clinging onto a false science then trying to fit the bible into that science and by doing so crushing doctrine such as original sin.

 

[JackRT]

The science of evolutionism has many, many problems. One of which is how soft dinosaur tissue has survived for over 65+...and in many other instances even millions of years longer with out fossilizing or decaying.
When I apply science in many instances I see evolutionism fail and the bible reign.
What I see is the Theo-Evo sect clinging onto a false science then trying to fit the bible into that science and by doing so crushing doctrine such as original sin.

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

 

[Speedwell]

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

You're wasting your time. It will be "raw meat" to 57 forever.

 

[-57]

No one had to "die off". Since the children of Adam and Eve will be ensouled, all their descendants will as those spread across the population due to intermarriage.

For instance, Thomas Jefferson has literally thousands of descendants alive today, even though he only had a few kids (many less than Eve!). Ever year, some of those descendants marry, and all their kids are Thomas Jefferson descendants. So in a few centuries, nearly everyone in the US will be a descendant of Thomas Jefferson, and a few centuries after that, nearly everyone in the world will be, and shortly after that, every single living human on earth will be a descendant of Thomas Jefferson. The same goes for anyone who has a few kids, unless all of the descendants die childless soon (after a few generations, that's increasingly unlikely). Think about it. It's pretty cool! If that's not clear, let me know, and I can try to explain it better.

Here you made a HUGE assumption that everyone would be related through intermarriage.
Even if that were possible it would take many years for that to occur.
During those thousands of years there would heve ben soulless people working and living side by side with fallen people with this unbiblical sin nature. THe simple fact, the bible doesn't teach this. Extra-biblical material that contradicts scripture is required to be inserted into christian doctrine derive directly from the Word of God rather than the word of man you're using.

True, but it could be a symbol. After all, we both agree there is tons of clear symbolism in the story, and I've already pointed out to you the Hebraic poetic structure - aside from the obvious inconsistencies that even the early Christians recognized as signs that this wasn't just a simple history.

Genesis doesn't meet any Hebraic poetic structure.

So you really think this was about magical fruit? In the story, if read literally, the fruit is magical - their "eyes were opened" when they ate the fruit. If fact, if you read the story, God didn't even know until he saw them wearing clothes. And actual snakes don't talk, and so on. All of that points to a deeper meaning than magical fruit.

I have to call...STRAWMAN alert on this issue. No one claims the fruit was magical except for your sect.
The sin was an act of disobedience. The fruit had no power and the eating of the fruit was the act of disobedience. Basic theology 101. I trust you stand corrected.

The original sin was actually rebelling against God. The point were the first ensouled human decided to reject God - perhaps by worshiping a carved image, etc. After all, those are things that are repeated again and again in the scriptures, while there is no mention that it's a sin to eat this or that fruit.

I suggest you pick up Genesis and re-read the chapter that tells of the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden.
The bible doesn't say the were worshiping carved images or anything else. THIS IS YET ANOTHER PLACE YOU ADD TO THE WORD OF GOD WITH THE WORD OF MAN.
The bible DOES say it was sin to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. GOD SAID, DON'T EAT FROM IT. You seem to be denying that....and changing it to worshiping a carved image.

You think God gave a soul to a mudpie, and I think that God gave a soul to a mostly anatomically modern human.

A mudpie? Now you mock the Word of God? God made man from the dust....and you deny the Word of God and tell me the bible is wrong, God lied and really gave a sould to a mostly anatomically modern human. Where does the Word of God teach this between Gen and Rev? Can you produce scripture to support your word of man...

Forgive me for thinking that you were sincerely asking what Theistic evolution supporters think. Even if you don't agree, I could imagine one being curious. But, if instead this is just a ruse to attack people, then just let me know and I won't waste my time.

If you want to continue to claim the bible is wrong....and insert the word of man into scripture, well, what can I say.

 

[-57]

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

Yeah, this is real science. They put the tissue in a solution for two years...and then claim the iron would protect it for over 65+ million years.

If that's the best you got....I have to chuckle a little.

 

[-57]

You won't. "Theo-evos" don't generally regard it as a dilemma nor think that changes to the Bible are required. You do, because of the way you read scripture, but "Theo-evos" don't.

Then show me how original sin came about resulting in our sin nature without changing the Word of God.
Please post chapter and verse to support your "theology" rather than the word of man.

If you can't do that....you have a dilemma and really shouldn't be presenting it as christian doctrine.

 

[dqhall]

Man or beast who stray from the wisdom of God may lose paradise. If a squirrel falls out of a tree over a city parking lot, the black top below is not forgiving.

 

[-57]

No changes are required to the Bible just a realization that it is not inerrant or to be always understood literally. That is our problem not the Bible's.

This is just one of many verses that needs to be changed.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

 

[JackRT]

This is just one of many verses that needs to be changed.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

I have no doubt that was Paul's understanding. I don't share it.

 

[Speedwell]

This is just one of many verses that needs to be changed.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

Why? It could well be true, as more than one "Theo-evo" has already explained to you. There is a difference between real people and events and stories in a book about them. Taking Genesis as something other than 100% accurate literal history does not ipso facto deny the existence of Adam.

 

[Abraxos]

Well, the view that myself and many other Christians have is that humans evolved from earlier apes. At some point, God miraculously gave a transitional ape a soul. That was Adam.

To put this into perspective: The Bible says God created us to be a reflection of Him and a reflection of His glory (Isaiah 43:7). I have trouble seeing the reflection of God through an old earth creationists version of Adam and Eve... and Cain.

I think the reflection of God is much more in line with Bible scripture if we view ourselves as we are. Did we have a noble origin as the Bible says or did we come from the slimepit to fish armpits and upwards is a question that should be easily answered from a theological point of view.
Having examined the many contradictions between theistic evolution and the biblical view of life and history, one should consider the following question: If God is not limited in power and could have created the world, if He has given man a record of what He did, and if the scientific evidence does not contradict it, then what prevents you from believing that it actually happened?

Personally, I think the reflection of God's majesty is much more clearly displayed in the upper pictures as opposed to a "transitional ape."