Creationist proclaim that sin entered the world when Adam ate of the fruit, and that Christ death served as redeeming of this action. Much of the reason why they are against evolution is based on this premise, but it's a false premise.
Their support for such a diminsion comes from Paul's Epistles, and an erroneous reading of them, since the Gospel say next to nothing about the Garden of Eden story, nor does the Old Testament support such a notion as sin manifesting in the world as the result of Adam eating a fruit.
So I want to show why this understanding of Paul is clearly false, and the fundementalist/creationist understanding of how sin came into the world is erroneous.
Paul says in Romans 7: "I once lived outside the law, but when the commandment came, sin became alive"
Paul here proclaims that sin became alive at the awareness of a commandment, not an action.
Paul presents sin as dichotomy, of a will within in himself in opposition to that which is good: "So, then, I discover the principle that when I want to do right, evil is at hand."
Fundementalist and creationist will claim that this rebellious spirit manifested in humanity by Adam eating the fruit, but that's false.
Sin manifested in Adam when he was made aware of the commandment: "From that tree you shall not eat.". From the commandment Adam's plight became that of Paul's in his dueling dichotomy. Sin did not manifest in humanity by Adam eating a fruit, but that sin manifested in humanity by the awareness of commandment, in an awareness of that which is good. Sin manifested when God told Adam what he should do (do not eat), not by the act of eating.
Original sin then drifts from how fundamentalist/creationist conceive of it, and is more aligned to what Paul and Reinhold Niebhur would concieve it as: "Original sin is that thing about man which makes him capable of conceiving of his own perfection and incapable of achieving it"--the dichotomy of our moral condition.
From this point one can conceive why the Garden of Eden narrative for Paul has an allegorical framework, rather than literal, because the story of Paul represents his own moral dichotomy, and the narratives becomes the biblical allegory for it. The narrative now lacks a necessity for it to be taken as literal history, but now is conceived as allegory about the reality of the human condition.
Their support for such a diminsion comes from Paul's Epistles, and an erroneous reading of them, since the Gospel say next to nothing about the Garden of Eden story, nor does the Old Testament support such a notion as sin manifesting in the world as the result of Adam eating a fruit.
So I want to show why this understanding of Paul is clearly false, and the fundementalist/creationist understanding of how sin came into the world is erroneous.
Paul says in Romans 7: "I once lived outside the law, but when the commandment came, sin became alive"
Paul here proclaims that sin became alive at the awareness of a commandment, not an action.
Paul presents sin as dichotomy, of a will within in himself in opposition to that which is good: "So, then, I discover the principle that when I want to do right, evil is at hand."
Fundementalist and creationist will claim that this rebellious spirit manifested in humanity by Adam eating the fruit, but that's false.
Sin manifested in Adam when he was made aware of the commandment: "From that tree you shall not eat.". From the commandment Adam's plight became that of Paul's in his dueling dichotomy. Sin did not manifest in humanity by Adam eating a fruit, but that sin manifested in humanity by the awareness of commandment, in an awareness of that which is good. Sin manifested when God told Adam what he should do (do not eat), not by the act of eating.
Original sin then drifts from how fundamentalist/creationist conceive of it, and is more aligned to what Paul and Reinhold Niebhur would concieve it as: "Original sin is that thing about man which makes him capable of conceiving of his own perfection and incapable of achieving it"--the dichotomy of our moral condition.
From this point one can conceive why the Garden of Eden narrative for Paul has an allegorical framework, rather than literal, because the story of Paul represents his own moral dichotomy, and the narratives becomes the biblical allegory for it. The narrative now lacks a necessity for it to be taken as literal history, but now is conceived as allegory about the reality of the human condition.
Last edited:
