The Sin Gene

[-57]

Most people believe in evolutionism because it is what they have been taught.

Some christians believe this misinformation of evolutionism and try to make the bible conform to the false theory of evolutionism.

The problem is the origination and nature of sin is changed.

They disregard the story of Adam and Eve and their act of disobedience and substitute a mutation in Adam and Eves place.

According to this article from a Theo-Evo site...."The first humans would have inherited tendencies for selfish behaviors that injured their fellows".

The claim is it was not an act of disobedience that gave man kind his sin nature but rather an inherited tendencies.

The same people then put it this way...."Our estrangement from God began when early humans disobeyed God’s will and took a path leading away from God. Genes and culture contribute to a sinful world in which all people are born and nurtured, and our impact on our environment distorts the terrestrial creation."

Once again genes are the cause. The early human population inherited these "sin" genes which when coupled with culture lead to our sinful world....not one man named Adam as Paul points out in Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

The Theo-Evos not only deny that an act of disobedience caused sin and death but also deny Paul and his confirmation that it wasn't a population that inherited a sin gene but rather a single man that disobeyed God.

The Biblical view is this..... Disobedience caused our sin nature and death of mankind.

The Theo-Evo view is this...Evolutionism caused our selfish desires which leads us from God. As well as there was always death.

Christians should beware when they try to filter their beliefs through the ever changing false science of evolutionism.

Jesus Christ came and died for our sins because of Adams sin NOT because of a naturally occurring inherited mutation.

 

[Papias]

Wrong, again and again.

First, there is a common view among supporters of theistic evolution that Adam was a real person - the first member of a community of transitional ape/humans who decided to disobey God and hence cause the fall. No magical fruit is needed.

Next, Scripture itself shows that there always was physical death. The idea that physical death was absent before the fall is both completely illogical as well as being unscriptural.

Lastly, the origination of sin is not significantly different from that in an evolution denier's view. In both cases, sin resulted from disobedience, and the disobedience was a result of many different factors (free will, other influences, etc.).

Anybody who claims that sin today is not partially influenced by genes could well be speaking out of ignorance of biology.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[029b10]

Next, Scripture itself shows that there always was physical death. The idea that physical death was absent before the fall is both completely illogical as well as being unscriptural.

If it is written that a good tree only bears good fruit, then wouldn't an eternal God produce an eternal creation, or being?

Thus, the serpent says in Genesis 3, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

And the 'woman' responds with the what the man was told as written in Genesis 2:16, , 'And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

And the serpent responds, "Ye shall not surely die:". For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Did the man and his wife die on the day that they ate of the tree?

Gen 6:1-3
6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

 

[-57]

Wrong, again and again.

First, there is a common view among supporters of theistic evolution that Adam was a real person - the first member of a community of transitional ape/humans who decided to disobey God and hence cause the fall. No magical fruit is needed.

Next, Scripture itself shows that there always was physical death. The idea that physical death was absent before the fall is both completely illogical as well as being unscriptural.

Lastly, the origination of sin is not significantly different from that in an evolution denier's view. In both cases, sin resulted from disobedience, and the disobedience was a result of many different factors (free will, other influences, etc.).

Anybody who claims that sin today is not partially influenced by genes could well be speaking out of ignorance of biology.

In Christ-

Papias

Concerning Adam being the first member of a community of transitional ape/humans.....this is not what the bible says.

Concrning physical death....Without the literal six-day creation account, God created a "very good" world that quickly degenerated into violence and illness naturally, without the curse of sin. Death itself was not a curse or a deviation from God's "very good" world. Without the literal six-day creation, God intentionally included death and violence and sickness in His world. And if death is a natural, "very good," aspect of creation, then we don't need Jesus to save us from it. ref

Concerning original sin....the other influence was the sin gene. The Theo-Evo sect denies the fall of Adam in the garden. Somewhere along the line this mutation occured which caused man to sin. On all 3 accounts the bible has to be revised and rewritten.

 

[John 1:1 GodCZU]

I suppose when there is a God gene there would have to be a sin gene. That way we can know why we feel the need to repent and ask father to forgive us for being exactly as planned.

It's sort of a parallel universe in the human familial experience isn't it.
I wonder if a study has ever been done that relates the most ardent fundamentalists back to what their family life was like? Most devout = broken family. Least devout=nuclear family . Like that.

 

[ewq1938]

And if death is a natural, "very good," aspect of creation, then we don't need Jesus to save us from it.

Jesus doesn't save people from physical death. It's the second death which sin can cause and that is the only death Jesus died to save people from.

Concerning original sin....the other influence was the sin gene.

There is no such thing. Sin is an act of breaking the law/rules. It is freewill that allows someone to choose to do good or bad, or a mix of both throughout one's life. No one is born with sin, especially Adam's or their parents sins. That is neither scientific nor biblical. It is merely an old old misunderstanding passed down and believed despite the lack of scriptural evidence.

 

[-57]

Jesus doesn't save people from physical death. It's the second death which sin can cause and that is the only death Jesus died to save people from.




There is no such thing. Sin is an act of breaking the law/rules. It is freewill that allows someone to choose to do good or bad, or a mix of both throughout one's life. No one is born with sin, especially Adam's or their parents sins. That is neither scientific nor biblical. It is merely an old old misunderstanding passed down and believed despite the lack of scriptural evidence.

You never heard of the resurrection?

 

[ewq1938]

You never heard of the resurrection?

I have but it isn't related to the issue of all mortals dying a physical death. Christ did not come to stop that death from happening. The resurrection gives the righteous a new body which will not die as their first body did.

 

[-57]

I have but it isn't related to the issue of all mortals dying a physical death. Christ did not come to stop that death from happening. The resurrection gives the righteous a new body which will not die as their first body did.

Resurrection is from the dead back to physical life.
Sure, christians physically die...but they are saved from that death via resurrection.

 

[ewq1938]

Resurrection is from the dead back to physical life.
Sure, christians physically die...but they are saved from that death via resurrection.

Then they aren't saved from physical death since they experience it. Christ will save us from the second death....we will not experience that death. Besides, the "dead" are alive. "dead" only refers to the physical body but soul and spirit are alive. God is the God of the living as is written.

 

[Willtor]

Besides which, in the story of the garden, there is already death present. Otherwise, why would Adam and Eve need to eat from the Tree of Life in order to live forever? No, physical death is part of this creation, whether you use the scientific method or the Bible.

 

[ewq1938]

Besides which, in the story of the garden, there is already death present.

Absolutely. This "immortal Adam" doctrine doesn't come from scripture. Everything Earthly was created mortal, even the Earth!

 

[Willtor]

Absolutely. This "immortal Adam" doctrine doesn't come from scripture. Everything Earthly was created mortal, even the Earth!

Clearly, unambiguously. Their immortality was conditional on their access to the Tree of Life, just as ours is.

 

[ewq1938]

Clearly, unambiguously. Their immortality was conditional on their access to the Tree of Life, just as ours is.

Yes and despite being free to take from it, there is no evidence to suggest they ever did. In fact scripture states if they eat from it they will live forever so the implication is they ever ate from it hence they remained mortal and died. It is clear to me they choose to eat from the wrong tree instead of the idea of eating from both. It's the same concept of not being able to serve two masters.

 

[-57]

Besides which, in the story of the garden, there is already death present. Otherwise, why would Adam and Eve need to eat from the Tree of Life in order to live forever? No, physical death is part of this creation, whether you use the scientific method or the Bible.

Then you disagree with Paul. Why?

 

[Willtor]

Then you disagree with Paul. Why?

I do not disagree with Paul.

 

[ewq1938]

Then you disagree with Paul. Why?

Paul never wrote anything which disagrees with any of that. I suspect you think he did but are misreading something he did write.

 

[-57]

Paul said sin and death entered at the fall. You disagree. You say Paul was wrong.

 

[Willtor]

Paul said sin and death entered at the fall. You disagree. You say Paul was wrong.

He wasn't talking about physical death. If he had been, it would be a contradiction.

 

[-57]

He wasn't talking about physical death. If he had been, it would be a contradiction.

Paul most certainly was. I suppose Paul wasn't talking about physical sin either.

Secondly there is no contradiction.