How did mankind get its sin nature?

[-57]

I have no need to challenge the Bible. I know well what it says. All that I challenge are some of the interpretations that people have drawn from the Bible. It is also well to remember (or in some cases to learn) that the Bible itself is an interpretation on the part of the various authors.

You challenge the bible when you disregard why we sin....and replaced it with ..what?

 

[-57]

Whoever wrote Genesis wasn't around for centuries after the supposed events.

But who ever wrote it(Ill stick with Moses) was inspired by God who was there.

They might not have understood human nature in relation to animals and called it "sin", when it's more how our higher cognitive functions allow us both to create amazing things and have the negative effects of primal instincts (territory, jealousy, etc.) be amplified.

So, the bible teaches our sin nature is only negative primal instincts rather than the result of an act of disobedience? You do know your view conradicts scripture.

 

[JackRT]

You challenge the bible when you disregard why we sin....and replaced it with ..what?

IMHO the root cause of all sin is selfishness which I believe to be caused by our evolutionary history. However, it is still sin which we can and should overcome but frequently fall short.

 

[-57]

IMHO the root cause of all sin is selfishness which I believe to caused by our evolutionary history. However, it is still sin which we can and should overcome but frequently fall short.

That would place sin as a natural expected product of our evolutionary history. Perhaps caused by a sin mutation.

If that be the case...natural cause...then how can God judge mankind for it?

 

[JackRT]

That would place sin as a natural expected product of our evolutionary history. Perhaps caused by a sin mutation.

If that be the case...natural cause...then how can God judge mankind for it?

You are learning grasshopper, you are learning.

 

[-57]

You are learning grasshopper, you are learning.

Yes, I'm learning what the Theo-Evo sect is teaching...and I'm also learning it's not biblical.

 

[thesunisout]

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.

Hello, the account presented in Genesis is literal. The reason we have a sin nature is because Adam and Eve disobeyed God and sinned, and through their sin death entered the world and corrupted the creation.

 

[Papias]

The bible says "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," Lets stick with your example.
In your example only those related to Thomas Jefferson would be saved or go to hell....all other people arn't really men yet and would simply die like any other animal.
.....

All other people now, (and at the time Paul wrote that) were indeed descended from Adam. That was already many thousands of years, and as the data I posted earlier shows, that's plenty of time.

You read that paper, right? You saw that it shows that the human population quickly becomes all descended from people in the past who have many descendants, right?

After explaining it and giving evidence, I'm not sure what more you could want. How about this - I'll explain it in detail:

Consider the hominid population that is evolving to be more and more human. It consists of all non-humans, each represented by an asterisk, below, with around a million individuals in the population:

Gen 1 ****************************************** (+ a million more or so)

Call that Generation 1 (Gen1)

Now, in Gen 2, A hominid is born whom God gives a soul. This is the first human, Adam. Along with his human wife, Eve (who also has a soul), generation 2 looks like this, with humans marked in blue :

Gen 2 ******************************************* (+ a million more or so)

Now, Adam and Eve have many kids, and each of them is human, has inherited original sin, and is marked in blue. Adam and Eve are human, thus we are descended from a single pair of humans, but not a single pair of ancestors.

Gen 3 ***************************************** (+ a million more or so)

Of course, a child of whom one parent has original sin will also inherit original sin, and be human, so the descendants of Adam and Eve increase with each generation, EVEN IF THE WHOLE POPULATION ISN'T INCREASING:

Gen 4 ************************************ (+ a million more or so)

So even after just a few generations, most of the nearby hominids are descendants of Adam, and are human, and over time this will spread to the whole population.

Gen 7 ************************************************* (+ a million more or so)

So fast forwarding just a few thousand years, the whole population is human.

Gen 83 **********************************(+ a million more or so)

Notice that at no time was the whole breeding population limited to just two individuals. See Dr. Ayayla's statement:

We know that our ancestors were never at any time just two individuals. Modern genetic analysis allows us to conclude that through millions of years of our history, there have been always at any time at the very least several thousand individuals. So we don't descend from a single pair. (Dr. Francisco Ayala)

See? We don't descend from only a single pair of ancestors, as the good Dr. is pointing out. At the same time, we can be descended from a single pair of humans, (Adam and Eve) as shown above.

Your bible doesn't claim Eve as the mother of all living. Your post clearly showed that.

Wrong. I point out that Eve is indeed the mother of all the humans living today - and if one defines human as being ensouled, then yes, the mother of all the living.

I was simply pointing out how you needed to add to the Word of God with the word of men and not the need for atoms, gravity, microbes, X-rays.

Yes, you do have to add to the word of God to see those as real, if going by your literal interpretation. You are claiming that only things described in a Bible are real (because evolution isn't mentioned by name or described in detail), so you are saying that atoms, gravity, microbes, X-rays aren't real.

That's not parallelism.

Yes, it is. Your example is also parallelism. Parallism is two verses that show a parallel construction and topic. In the creation account, day 1 parallels day 4, day 2 parallels day 5, and day 3 parallels day 6. In each case, the first parallel is about creating the space, the second is about filling it. The paper by the Bible scholar pointed this out clearly. Did you not read it?

You misunderstood that verse.
As Gill puts it.....and how I bare you on eagles' wings; that is, as on eagles' wings, the note of similitude being wanting, but to be supplied; for it cannot be thought that they were literally bore on eagles' wings; but as that creature is reported to be very affectionate to its young, ref if you would like to read further.

We both see that verse the same. We recognize the non-literal nature of the passage, and know better than interpreting it literally. Along with millions of other Christians, I can see the same in Genesis, and even though you agree there is sympolism in the creation stories, and you, like me, are interpreting it symbolically in some places and literally in others, say that my interpretation is not allowed.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[-57]

Gen 1 ****************************************** (+ a million more or so)

Nonsense. You are assuming they all live in the same neighborhood. That the population would not have divided and established itself on the four corners of the earth.
I don't accept your answer.

Yes, you do have to add to the word of God to see those as real, if going by your literal interpretation. You are claiming that only things described in a Bible are real (because evolution isn't mentioned by name or described in detail), so you are saying that atoms, gravity, microbes, X-rays aren't real.

There was no need to place evolutionism in the bible....why? Well, the bible says Adam was made from the dust then Eve from Adams rib. That verse alone squashes your idea of what the bible presents as not real through omission.
Do you think Noahs ark had a ladder on it from going from one level to another? You would argue it didn't because the bible didn't mention a ladder.

Yes, it is. Your example is also parallelism. Parallism is two verses that show a parallel construction and topic. In the creation account, day 1 parallels day 4, day 2 parallels day 5, and day 3 parallels day 6. In each case, the first parallel is about creating the space, the second is about filling it. The paper by the Bible scholar pointed this out clearly. Did you not read it?

I disagree and really don't care about your paper. Secondly, if it was poetic...poetic literal can be literal and Historical. Much of the bible's poetic verses are literal and historical. If you insist Genesis is poetic then it is literal and historical.

 

[JackRT]

The primeval human population never was very large. Homo Sapiens Sapiens (anatomically modern human) evolved in east central Africa and entered the fossil record about 200,000 YBP. However we suffered a genetic bottleneck when some unknown disaster reduced the population to perhaps as little 1000 individuals about 70,000 YBP.

On the other hand Homo Neandertalensis has been around several hundred thousand years longer in Eurasia. Some anthropologists suggest that there probably was never more than about 25,000 alive at any given time.

 

[Abraxos]

You are using physical appearance as a measure of how "Godlike" a person is. People have all kinds of physical appearances, including a homeless man and a women with severe facial disease, and so many others. To suggest that because you find other apes to be ugly, that can't have been the first humans, suggests that humans who don't measure up to your criteria of appearance are farther from the "image of God".

That's abhorrent. Would you tell the obese person or the accident victim that they aren't in the image of God? Do you rate everyone you see as to whether they are closer or farther from God based on appearance? Aside from the fact that all of God's creations - human or not - reflect the glory of God, and hence the transitional ape is not ugly because of it's biology, in addition to that you suggest that physical appearance makes a difference in the "image of God".

I hope I never see another creationist make this horrific and socially repulsive argument - but I know I will see that. I may even see you defend it, here.

In Christ -

Papias

I'm using our physical appearance as one of the measures God used as a reflection of Himself and His glory. The Bible says God made man in His image and in His likeness, and to rule over His creation.
Of course today there are many diseases and bad things that affect our appearance and physicality; some by our own consequence, and others passed down or a result of many other things. These shouldn't surprise us as we are living in a fallen state and in a fallen world. Simply pointing out that there are many layers to God when He made us in His image and appearance was one of them. If the picture above reveals just a shadow of Adam and Eve's likeness and their rich genetic makeup, then that is something to behold.
Maybe your reaction is due to a lowly form of mindset of "survival of the fittest", an evolutionary kind of thinking you have been fed your whole life.

Genesis, the first chapters are about the origins of the universe and of ourselves. It is a story of the ages which I'm sure you also see it as such. Even if one doesn't believe it to be the actual creation account, it is still a timeless, wonderful, inspiring, and powerful piece of Hebrew literature. Unfortunately when you try and put your theory of evolution spin on it, you just totally butcher it.

Personally, if that was Eve I'd be running in the opposite direction. A nightmare.

 

[Abraxos]

Right. But it also means that any creationist who makes arguments to the effect that an assertion of naturalistic causality is a de facto denial of divine causality can be dismissed as an intellectual bankrupt and a sophist.

I'm just saying that "theistic evolutionist" is a contradiction in terms. You tried to offer something else through a 'confined' version of the cosmological argument which really is still contradicting the natural 'undirected' process of evolution. The whole point of Darwinism is that it is natural selection acting on random variations. If you want God directing it defeats the purpose of the theory.

Honest evolutionists and even atheists like Richard Dawkins would tell you that Christianity and evolution are not compatible, they contradict each other.

 

[JackRT]

If you want God directing it defeats the purpose of the theory.

The "purpose" of the ToE is to explain or model what is observed in nature. Nothing more.

Honest evolutionists and even atheists like Richard Dawkins would tell you that Christianity and evolution are not compatible, they contradict each other.

Well, I am a Christian but I guess I am a dishonest evolutionist because I find it completely compatible with Christianity. Needless to say, I disagree with Dawkins.

 

[Papias]

I wrote:

I hope I never see another creationist make this horrific and socially repulsive argument - but I know I will see that. I may even see you defend it, here.

And sure enough, here you are defending your bias against people based on their physical attractiveness. You wrote:

I'm using our physical appearance as one of the measures God used as a reflection of Himself and His glory. The Bible says God made man in His image and in His likeness, and to rule over His creation.
Of course today there are many diseases and bad things that affect our appearance and physicality; some by our own consequence, and others passed down or a result of many other things. These shouldn't surprise us as we are living in a fallen state and in a fallen world.

I'm using our physical appearance as one of the measures God used as a reflection of Himself and His glory. The Bible says God made man in His image and in His likeness, and to rule over His creation.......
Personally, if that was Eve I'd be running in the opposite direction. A nightmare.

How about this child of God? Do you consider her "farther from the image of God" because of her physical appearance?

Have you discussed with your minister how you rate people on how close they are to the image of God based on their physical attractiveness? Do you think Jesus would do this? Can you hear Jesus saying "nah, I don't think I'll heal you, your leprosy is unattractive, so you are farther from the image of God. I, on the other hand, am quite buff - closer to the image of God than thou!"

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Speedwell]

I'm just saying that "theistic evolutionist" is a contradiction in terms. You tried to offer something else through a 'confined' version of the cosmological argument which really is still contradicting the natural 'undirected' process of evolution. The whole point of Darwinism is that it is natural selection acting on random variations. If you want God directing it defeats the purpose of the theory.

I never said I wanted God to be directing it. In fact I specifically rejected that idea. It is my belief that natural phenomena can be entirely explained by natural causality, what Aristotle would call Efficient causes. I'm not even sure what God "directing" it would even mean. Is God supposed to push atoms around, directing them to form certain molecules and not others? Or does He just allow the natural properties of the atoms themselves take care of it?

 

[Abraxos]

I wrote:


And sure enough, here you are defending your bias against people based on their physical attractiveness. You wrote:




How about this child of God? Do you consider her "farther from the image of God" because of her physical appearance?

Have you discussed with your minister how you rate people on how close they are to the image of God based on their physical attractiveness? Do you think Jesus would do this? Can you hear Jesus saying "nah, I don't think I'll heal you, your leprosy is unattractive, so you are farther from the image of God. I, on the other hand, am quite buff - closer to the image of God than thou!"

In Christ-

Papias

What I'm saying is that when God created man in His image and likeness - physical appearance was but one of those traits. Hardly something to be a drama queen about. It isn't the one and only or the most important trait of God which you are trying to sneaky into my posts.

Nice try though.

 

[Abraxos]

The "purpose" of the ToE is to explain or model what is observed in nature. Nothing more.



Well, I am a Christian but I guess I am a dishonest evolutionist because I find it completely compatible with Christianity. Needless to say, I disagree with Dawkins.

I wouldn't say you're dishonest per say, just ignorant of the rationale behind it. Richard Dawkins wasn't saying what he said out of spite for Christianity, but he was questioning the logical and rational reasoning for it; and when one really looks into it, the conclusion is ultimately Christianity and the theory of evolution are not compatible.

 

[Papias]

What I'm saying is that when God created man in His image and likeness - physical appearance was but one of those traits.

I'm pointing out that including it at all is wrong, harmful, and unscriptural. Trying to backpedal by saying "oh, physical appearance is but one of those traits" doesn't change anything. Own your statement, or admit you were wrong.

Hardly something to be a drama queen about.

A typical response when someone points out discrimination or other harmful behavior is to say "you are making a big deal about nothing", "you are being a drama queen", "oh, I was only joking, can't you take a joke?", or similar weasel words.

I'm pointing out your statement because it's wrong, harmful, and unscriptural. A person of integrity will either defend their statement or retract it. That's up to you.

You still haven't answer these questions:

How about this child of God? Do you consider her "farther from the image of God" because of her physical appearance?

Have you discussed with your minister how you rate people on how close they are to the image of God based on their physical attractiveness?

Do you think Jesus would rate people on how close they are to the image of God based on their physical attractiveness?​

In Jesus' name-

Papias

 

[OwainK]

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.

Because Adam eat the apple. Because of this all mankind fell and is now inevitable to sin.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Because Adam eat the apple. Because of this all mankind fell and is now inevitable to sin.

It never even said it was an apple in Genesis. That's just how it's been popularized.