Original Sin - The First Adam

[notreligus]

Do those who post here who believe the "Theistic Evolution" theory (evolution by any other name is still evolution, IMO) also believe that sin originated with the first Adam, as detailed in the Book of Genesis?

Does Genesis 3:21 point to how Christ would one day provide us with a permanent sin covering?

I'm not a hard-line literalist who does not see allegory in the Scriptures, but symbolism points to a reality. The Book of Genesis is not a book of parables but it describes mankind's relationship with God Almighty and how man gave away his unimpeded relationship with God by his disobedience in the Garden. The Bible is a record of mankind's redemption and how God would reconcile mankind back to Himself. Why are we so concerned with "science" when it is the Holy Spirit who must convict?

 

[trophy33]

Adam was either the first man ever who sinned or an archetype.

That we have some kind of Adam's guilt in us even if we do not sin ourselves, is a theological construct made because of Augustin's mistranslation of Greek.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Do those who post here who believe the "Theistic Evolution" theory (evolution by any other name is still evolution, IMO) also believe that sin originated with the first Adam, as detailed in the Book of Genesis?

Does Genesis 3:21 point to how Christ would one day provide us with a permanent sin covering?

I'm not a hard-line literalist who does not see allegory in the Scriptures, but symbolism points to a reality. The Book of Genesis is not a book of parables but it describes mankind's relationship with God Almighty and how man gave away his unimpeded relationship with God by his disobedience in the Garden. The Bible is a record of mankind's redemption and how God would reconcile mankind back to Himself. Why are we so concerned with "science" when it is the Holy Spirit who must convict?

The idea is more that there are people who are trying to undermine the Truth of what God told us. If you allow that God isn't telling us the Truth in one matter, then the next step is how do you know that God told you the Truth in another matter.

God didn't have to say "in the beginning...." God didn't have to tell us about a flood, if there wasn't one. God didn't have to talk about how Adam sinned and it affected all of us, if it didn't. God didn't have to talk about the confusion of language and why He did it. In fact, there is much in those prior-to-Abraham chapters that we wouldn't know, if God didn't tell us. So, why would He tell us something that wasn't true? And, if Jesus is who He said He was and He references things like Adam and Eve and the Flood--as if they are true and happened--why should we doubt them?

Jesus could have discounted the Old Testament. He didn't. He spoke of it as if it was true and had to be fulfilled. John's Gospel even confirmed the importance of The Word of God in the beginning when all was created. Instead, He went so far as to say in John 5: "Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” So, Jesus appeared to support Moses words as true and Moses personally wrote about the 6 day creation in Exodus as well as what is written in Genesis. So, Moses believed the six days and He got really close to God.

If Jesus Himself--who would have known--treated the Old Testament as historical account--as if it really happened--not allegory, why should we treat it differently?

 

[Job 33:6]

Do those who post here who believe the "Theistic Evolution" theory (evolution by any other name is still evolution, IMO) also believe that sin originated with the first Adam, as detailed in the Book of Genesis?

Does Genesis 3:21 point to how Christ would one day provide us with a permanent sin covering?

I'm not a hard-line literalist who does not see allegory in the Scriptures, but symbolism points to a reality. The Book of Genesis is not a book of parables but it describes mankind's relationship with God Almighty and how man gave away his unimpeded relationship with God by his disobedience in the Garden. The Bible is a record of mankind's redemption and how God would reconcile mankind back to Himself. Why are we so concerned with "science" when it is the Holy Spirit who must convict?

Well, we know that things like death and violence, existed before mankind. We simply didnt exist to perceive it and to acknowledge and understand it. We didnt have the sentience to recognize things like destruction and pain.

And how we know this is, we have things like predators that predate mankind, that have prey in their stomachs as fossils. We have things like plant eating dinosaurs that have teeth marks in their bones. We have things like fossils of mammoths that were malnutritioned and suffered from things like the disease osteoporosis. We have things of course like evidence of viruses in our lineage as well identified in our biology.

Mammoths' chronic osteoporosis may hold clues to their ultimate extinction

<i>Tyrannosaurus rex</i> hunted for live prey

Scarred Duckbill Dinosaur Escaped T. Rex Attack

More ancient viruses lurk in our DNA than we thought

So we know that, hunting and pain and disease and infection existed before we did. And this isnt surprising, its just the way it is.

So the question becomes, since these things pre-dated Adam, does this mean that sin pre-dated Adam?

It comes down to what we consider sin.

Some suggest that eating of the tree of knowledge, was an experience that simply resulted in Adam and Eve gaining awareness and knowledge of the fact that they were surrounded and lived in a broken world. In which case, sin became initially perceived and thus was at that moment, considered to exist.

Sin is also something people do in light of awareness that it is wrong. A human being can sin by taking a babies candy because we know that it is wrong. Is it a sin for a horde of ants to eat a babies candy? Did these ants sin? Not really, because theyre just ants and dont really know any better. These ants arent really sinning, theyre just doing what ants do without knowledge or awareness of their actions.

--------------------------------------------------------
So i would say that, Adam and Eve, they became aware of existence when they ate the apple. They became aware of their nakedness, they became aware of their guilt and fear and dishonesty. They became aware of their failed state. In this sense, this is when sin was first perceived.

Some people suggest that the world had no violence, pain or disease before the fall of mankind. These people believe that animals like tigers and T-rex which has saw like teeth and jaws that could crush through massive bones...they think that these animals once were vegetarian. Why would a T-rex or a shark have a serrated tooth like a steak knife, if it were for eating grass? This opposing view, in my opinion is just silly and goes against all the evidence.

 

[SkyWriting]

Adam was either the first man ever who sinned or an archetype.

That we have some kind of Adam's guilt in us even if we do not sin ourselves, is a theological construct made because of Augustin's mistranslation of Greek.

It's hard to picture you with zero sin though. No offence intended.

 

[SkyWriting]

Do those who post here who believe the "Theistic Evolution" theory (evolution by any other name is still evolution, IMO) also believe that sin originated with the first Adam, as detailed in the Book of Genesis?

Yes. If Adam is a"man" or is "mankind" yes, sin came through Adam.

 

[SkyWriting]

The idea is more that there are people who are trying to undermine the Truth of what God told us. If you allow that God isn't telling us the Truth in one matter, then the next step is how do you know that God told you the Truth in another matter.

God didn't have to say "in the beginning...." God didn't have to tell us about a flood, if there wasn't one. God didn't have to talk about how Adam sinned and it affected all of us, if it didn't. God didn't have to talk about the confusion of language and why He did it. In fact, there is much in those prior-to-Abraham chapters that we wouldn't know, if God didn't tell us. So, why would He tell us something that wasn't true? And, if Jesus is who He said He was and He references things like Adam and Eve and the Flood--as if they are true and happened--why should we doubt them?

Jesus could have discounted the Old Testament. He didn't. He spoke of it as if it was true and had to be fulfilled. John's Gospel even confirmed the importance of The Word of God in the beginning when all was created. Instead, He went so far as to say in John 5: "Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” So, Jesus appeared to support Moses words as true and Moses personally wrote about the 6 day creation in Exodus as well as what is written in Genesis. So, Moses believed the six days and He got really close to God.

If Jesus Himself--who would have known--treated the Old Testament as historical account--as if it really happened--not allegory, why should we treat it differently?

God managed to convert his thoughts into our Cosmos. So with God reality and allegory are joined together, not seperate. For humans, we are limited to fiction writing. God can write reality with his thoughts. Jesus demonstrated that.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

God managed to convert his thoughts into our Cosmos. So with God reality and allegory are joined together, not seperate. For humans, we are limited to fiction writing. God can write reality with his thoughts. Jesus demonstrated that.

If you are saying that the history the Bible reported is both true history and allegory, I wholeheartedly agree with that. God is amazing like that. When He speaks it usually has multiple purposes.

However, if you are saying that it was never meant to be taken as history or fact, but only allegory, I disagree wholeheartedly, as I noted above with all my "God didn't have to say..." notes.

 

[SkyWriting]

If you are saying that the history the Bible reported is both true history and allegory, I wholeheartedly agree with that. God is amazing like that. When He speaks it usually has multiple purposes.

However, if you are saying that it was never meant to be taken as history or fact, but only allegory, I disagree wholeheartedly, as I noted above with all my "God didn't have to say..." notes.

I'm saying that God can rewrite our reality with his thoughts when He chooses. He does this as prophecy and what we call miracles.

 

[trophy33]

It's hard to picture you with zero sin though. No offence intended.

Exactly. All people sin and therefore death came to all people.

 

[notreligus]

Adam was either the first man ever who sinned or an archetype.

That we have some kind of Adam's guilt in us even if we do not sin ourselves, is a theological construct made because of Augustin's mistranslation of Greek.

I disagree. There would be no need for reconciliation.

Romans Chapter Five
6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person-though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die- 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. ESV

Romans Chapter Five
12 Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death resulted from sin, therefore everyone dies, because everyone has sinned. 13 Certainly sin was in the world before the Law was given, but no record of sin is kept when there is no Law. 14 Nevertheless, death ruled from the time of Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the same way Adam did when he disobeyed. He is a foreshadowing of the one who would come.
15 But God’s free gift is not like Adam’s offense. For if many people died as the result of one man’s offense, how much more have God’s grace and the free gift given through the kindness of one man, Jesus the Messiah, been showered on many people! 16 Nor can the free gift be compared to what came through the man who sinned. For the sentence that followed one man’s offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift brought justification, even after many offenses. 17 For if, through one man, death ruled because of that man’s offense, how much more will those who receive such overflowing grace and the gift of righteousness rule in life because of one man, Jesus the Messiah! ISV (International Standard Version)

If a man could live a perfect life then Christ's obedience on the cross was unnecessary. Some claim that Christ was tempted such that He could have failed to live a perfect life. If that's true, then that's like assuming that God was going to keep sending Messiahs until one of them got it right.

Adam's sin brought a sin upon mankind and the world. Christ was victorious over sin and death. Has this world become the perfect New Earth over which Christ will reign? Do people have sickness? Do we have cataclysmic events in the world which call much disease or death?

 

[trophy33]

I disagree. There would be no need for reconciliation.

Romans Chapter Five
6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person-though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die- 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. ESV

Romans Chapter Five
12 Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death resulted from sin, therefore everyone dies, because everyone has sinned. 13 Certainly sin was in the world before the Law was given, but no record of sin is kept when there is no Law. 14 Nevertheless, death ruled from the time of Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the same way Adam did when he disobeyed. He is a foreshadowing of the one who would come.
15 But God’s free gift is not like Adam’s offense. For if many people died as the result of one man’s offense, how much more have God’s grace and the free gift given through the kindness of one man, Jesus the Messiah, been showered on many people! 16 Nor can the free gift be compared to what came through the man who sinned. For the sentence that followed one man’s offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift brought justification, even after many offenses. 17 For if, through one man, death ruled because of that man’s offense, how much more will those who receive such overflowing grace and the gift of righteousness rule in life because of one man, Jesus the Messiah! ISV (International Standard Version)

If a man could live a perfect life then Christ's obedience on the cross was unnecessary. Some claim that Christ was tempted such that He could have failed to live a perfect life. If that's true, then that's like assuming that God was going to keep sending Messiahs until one of them got it right.

Adam's sin brought a sin upon mankind and the world. Christ was victorious over sin and death. Has this world become the perfect New Earth over which Christ will reign? Do people have sickness? Do we have cataclysmic events in the world which call much disease or death?

As Adam was our archetype and we are in him because of our sins, so also Christ is our archetype and we are in Him if we believe in Him ...

Thats how I understand it.

 

[NobleMouse]

What the Bible actually says is that sin entered the world through one man (Adam) - Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:21. Genesis also states that Adam was created by God (thus, has no pre-existing earthly parents) - he was the first. The consequence of sin is death - both physical and spiritual. When Adam and Eve sinned, they were separated from God at that moment (they died spiritually) - just as they were told, for on the day they ate the fruit, they would surely die. Physical death did not result immediately just it does not result immediately when a flower is cut from its roots. But like a cut flower, they too eventually experienced death just as we still do today.

We can know that physical death is a part of the penalty for sin because Jesus had to die - it wasn't just that Jesus had to suffer, or just that He had to bleed... both could have been accomplished without dying, but in order for our sins to be paid in full, He had to pay the penalty for sin, He had to die.

Genesis 3:21, like much of Genesis, lays the foundation of understanding - in this case for how we are to understand the consequence of sin. More than just providing a covering for Adam & Eve sinning, sin requires a sacrifice (death). We can be forgiven and separated as far as the East is from the West from our sin, but the offense has still occurred and the debt must still be paid for, and this does illustrate why Jesus is the perfect sacrifice. All of our sins created a debt that needed to be paid for and animal sacrifices only provided a covering, but it is Jesus and only Jesus, who lived a perfect and sinless life, once and for all paid for our sins.