What are your thoughts on Adam and Eve's decision to eat the fruit?

[Ripheus27]

So when Christ was pierced for our transgressions, He wasn't dying for our sins? It is just utterly false that sin and transgression are different categories. To sin is to break the Law, to transgress is to trespass upon the Law, and as the Law is not a clay jar that can break or a piece of territory to be trespassed upon, in saying what I have I am speaking indirectly, because the ultimate thing here is that doing what is against the Law is all of what sin and transgression are.

I also realized something else. Good-and-evil is a separate concept from right-and-wrong, according to some. So Adam and Eve (who I will repeat were not physical individuals but symbolic people) could have known right from wrong without knowing good from evil.

I'm grateful that the truth never left the Earth...

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Lol I expected Genesis 1 to be quoted. Sorry but it this isn't where reproduction starts. Read the beginning of chapter 2.

LOL, I expected you to not be able to support your statement with scripture; “Nothing in the Bible indicates they still would have had children.” Why don’t you when you read Genesis 2, understand that it is a retelling of chapter 1. Even if Genesis did record events sequentially, it still occurs before the fall of man recorded in Gen 3.

Note that the institution of marriage between one man and woman is given in 2:24, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” This is a reaffirmation of the command from God in Gen 1 to be fruitful and multiply with the further constraint to mate for life with one person. It further states that it takes a man and woman to result in offspring.

This is what is called Natural Law. It is something that is true of nature, it does not have to be proved or learned. This is the secularist attempt to convey an intelligent design that we know God created the world with. Included in this are the instincts imparted on animals. If wild animals don’t have to take sex-ed to figure it out, man also knew how to reproduce.

God also imposed intelligence on his creation. Proof of this is recorded in the first task given to man, to give meaningful names to the animals of God’s creation. Gen 2: 19 “Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.”

 

[Sophrosyne]

So when Christ was pierced for our transgressions, He wasn't dying for our sins? It is just utterly false that sin and transgression are different categories. To sin is to break the Law, to transgress is to trespass upon the Law, and as the Law is not a clay jar that can break or a piece of territory to be trespassed upon, in saying what I have I am speaking indirectly, because the ultimate thing here is that doing what is against the Law is all of what sin and transgression are.

I also realized something else. Good-and-evil is a separate concept from right-and-wrong, according to some. So Adam and Eve (who I will repeat were not physical individuals but symbolic people) could have known right from wrong without knowing good from evil.

I'm grateful that the truth never left the Earth...

Again if one isn't under the domain of the Law one cannot transgress it can they? If one cannot transgress then one isn't sinning.

 

[Der Alte]

This one goes back to a very basic and common knowledge of how the Bible was translated or at least the King James Version. Within it are many words that are in italics. Translations from one language to another will not always be perfect. Sometimes you won't find any word in language B that has the same definition as what's in language A. Sometimes it is related to the differences in the rules of the respective languages. Another reason is a word, let's say in Greek, could have 3 pages of meanings and many of them be very different definitions and it can be difficult for translators to understand the context the word is used in.

Which shows you know diddly about how Greek is translated. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with tense, voice, mood, case, etc. Scholars don't just look at the "definitions" in Strong's and eenie, meenie, minie, moe, pick one they like. Context is not difficult for scholars who have studied Greek.

The translators of the KJV were well [aware?] of this. The italicized words are not translations by any means. These words were inserted by the translators themselves. They were "best guesses" because they seemed to be what made sense to the translators.

Do you have a list of where any of these so-called "best guesses" significantly alter the meaning or that they are wrong? If not this point is irrelevant.

One example, outside of the italicized words, of a mistranslation is found in Exodus 22:18 "Suffer not a witch to live." Not only do Bible scholars agree this is a mistranslation, they also agree it was done on purpose. Why would it be done on purpose? So people of England could try and justify their killing of people they deemed as witches.

Who are these "Bible Scholars?" This is a logical fallacy, appeal to authority. Sort of like "everybody knows." As for the "mistranslation" See the Septuagint, 1917 Jewish Publication Society, and the pre-Christian Targum.

LXXE Exo 22:18 Ye shall not save the lives of sorcerers.

JPS Exo 22:18 (22:17) Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live.

Targum Ex 22:13 An enchantress[2] shall not live.

Copyists also have something to do with it. When the scriptures were written and then copied by men onto other parchments sometimes words and even entire phrases would be added to or removed from what was said in the original text.

Evidence? Documentation? Substantiation?

This goes back to the scenario of "If I tell the guy in the front of a line that's 100 people long something and have this repeated until it gets to the end of the line, what I said is going to be turned into something entirely different."

As Dr. Steve has said elsewhere, this is not true. Your scenario is irrelevant because copying documents does not rely on remembering something and passing it along to another person, followed by multiple people doing the same. The copyists have the scroll right in front of them. Small errors might be made but not of the magnitude you claim. See Dr. Steve's discussion of the accuracy of the DSS Isaiah scroll in his [post=64893340]Post #78[/post]

 

[Der Alte]

Again if one isn't under the domain of the Law one cannot transgress it can they? If one cannot transgress then one isn't sinning.

That is correct.

Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.​

 

[Sophrosyne]

God also imposed intelligence on his creation. Proof of this is recorded in the first task given to man, to give meaningful names to the animals of God’s creation. Gen 2: 19 “Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.”

It would be intellectually dishonest to say that in Adam's job to name every animal that some of them wouldn't be "mating" within his line of sight at one time or another either. God created Adam perfect, but the idea he didn't know about sex to me makes Adam imperfect because it is idiotic that he should know about animals enough to be able to properly name them yet not know anything but what they looked like. Adam would be either already knowledgeable about the animals or curious enough to either find out or ask God questions about them. Adam had a lot of time to think and learn we would have some believe that he looked at his body and Eve's body and didn't even say a thing to God why they were different.. why do I have this and Eve have those and that? Even children ask other children about their "parts" out of curiousity.

 

[Ripheus27]

Again if one isn't under the domain of the Law one cannot transgress it can they? If one cannot transgress then one isn't sinning.

The Law is related to the eternal Torah, if I remember my Judaism rightly. (netzarim or some other MJ, some help here!) If the Law is encoded into eternity, then all of us have always, in a sense, been under it. (Not in the sense that would preclude us, as Paul says, from being freed from the punishment of the Law, though. Now actually maybe that's all Paul means when he talks about the dissolution of the Law: not that the prescriptions themselves were disappearing but the institution of retribution for violating those was.)

 

[Sophrosyne]

The Law is related to the eternal Torah, if I remember my Judaism rightly. (netzarim or some other MJ, some help here!) If the Law is encoded into eternity, then all of us have always, in a sense, been under it. (Not in the sense that would preclude us, as Paul says, from being freed from the punishment of the Law, though. Now actually maybe that's all Paul means when he talks about the dissolution of the Law: not that the prescriptions themselves were disappearing but the institution of retribution for violating those was.)

Ummm..... no. There has never been obligation for Christians unto the Law. We have our "laws" given to us by Jesus through the Apostles and nowhere are we told to relate ourselves to the Torah. The Law is the property of the Jews (Israel) and NOT the property OR obligation of Christians. A Christian cannot transgress the Law unless they have decided willfully to obligate themselves unto it. The default position of Christians is we are in the spirit.. NOT under the Law (Torah).

 

[Ripheus27]

So we cannot transgress or sin, but we can do wrong...?

 

[Sophrosyne]

So we cannot transgress or sin, but we can do wrong...?

There are things defined for us... we are commanded to love God and our neighbor so anything that is construed directly with not doing those commandments can be considered sin. Because these commandments were given to Christians they can be transgressed.

 

[Ripheus27]

I'm still not seeing a real difference between wrongdoing, sin, and transgression...

 

[LegacyJB]

Lost scriptures are lost... until they are found they aren't of use to prove or disprove anything to equate them is nothing but a diversion and excuse.

Excuse, excuse, excuse. Like I haven't heard that accusation before. You say they can't be used to prove or disprove anything. Books that are considered lost are named within the Bible itself. Jasher is a popular one. "Lost scriptures are lost." Guess what, lost scripture is still scripture.

The Bible you quoted as being so full of errors is the KJV which most scholars know of the errors and most translations that come after it have fixed many if not all of the errors. The fact is even with errors something that isn't there.... is still not there when the error is fixed which proves your argument for errors is invalid and useless to explain something that isn't there to begin with.

Here's one: how do you prove or disprove something that you can't see? Of course they're not going to say "Oh ok, these words and this phrase are suppose to be her but they're not." Translators can't do that because they cannot see words and phrases that have been removed by copyists who lived centuries ago.

Let's say I were to write on a piece of paper "The sky is blue, the grass is green, stop signs are red, and cars move." I erase "and cars move" completely and change the ending to "and stop signs are red." Then I give you an assignment to figure out if something is missing and what the something is. I give you no clue as to if there was ever anything else there and I don't give you any list of what could have possibly been there. Could you figure out "and cars move" is the missing part? No. Why? You cannot find deletions.

If you don't have the original golden plates that Joseph Smith was given then basically you are calling the pot black here about copying.

This would be another place where you're wrong. Unlike you I don't need manuscripts or parchments. I don't even need the physical golden plates for that matter. If they were upon the earth it would still require faith to believe they were translated by the power of God. Faith would still be required to believe the things in the golden plates actually happened. I only mention the lack of original writings for the Old and New Testaments to illustrate a point, not diminish the words of the prophets and apostles. Comparing the Bible to the manuscripts is fine and dandy but the bottom line is you're comparing the Bible to what's not even considered the original writings of the prophets themselves. The parchments the prophets themselves wrote on. If we had them that would be amazing.

As for Adam and Eve transgressing vs sinning.... they sinned the Bible says so transgression almost always equates to sin, it is only not sin when jurisdiction puts what was commanded out of bounds for those involved. I would say your comment about simple truths shows your hypocrisy in that what you are equating with Adam and Eve simply doesn't ring true to begin with. You are now jumping through hoops to support something that should be simple by first saying the bible is wrong, then saying scripture is missing.

Transgression is rarely sin. Breaking a law and committing sin are 2 different things. I've already shown how in an earlier post. If you want it again you can look for it. I'm not saying the Bible is wrong, I 100% believe in it. What I do know is there are errors because of the translators, not because of the prophets.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I'm still not seeing a real difference between wrongdoing, sin, and transgression...

sin is always sin, transgression is when a law, command, commandment, etc is given out in the Bible to someone or a group of people. Transgression is only a sin to that group of people whom it was commanded of. It is not by default a sin to those who are outside of the group it was delegated (given) to.
Transgression requires a law to be laid down... but sins do not require one. Cain sinned when he slew able but since there was no commandment regarding murder at the time he didn't transgress any law. Transgression usually has an accompanying punishment for those who it applies like in the Mosaic Law breaking the Sabbath had people stoning the transgressor to death.

 

[Ripheus27]

I'm glad LegacyJB apparently pays no heed to any of my posts, else he would've lost faith in the LDS church and been in the unpleasant position of apostasy from his fellows in the faith...

 

[Ripheus27]

But what is a law or a commandment? It's an imperative sentence, a, "Do this," or, "Don't do this," sentence. But these sentences have to do with guiding action. Sin, as a moral category, has to do with guiding action, namely sins are actions we are given guidance to avoid. So there can be no sin without an imperative sentence corresponding negatively thereto, and this is all of what a law or commandment would be, so there is always a law, and sin is no different from transgression.

Remember, He was pierced for our transgressions, not our sins plus our transgressions or whatever.

 

[LegacyJB]

So when Christ was pierced for our transgressions, He wasn't dying for our sins? It is just utterly false that sin and transgression are different categories. To sin is to break the Law, to transgress is to trespass upon the Law, and as the Law is not a clay jar that can break or a piece of territory to be trespassed upon, in saying what I have I am speaking indirectly, because the ultimate thing here is that doing what is against the Law is all of what sin and transgression are.

Sometimes transgression is also a sin but this isn't always the case. In fact many times it isn't. Christ was punished for our sins and transgressions.

Because you actually touched upon this topic in a different manner from the other guy I'll address it a little differently. You seem to be the more respectful one at least. Not all transgressions are sins. When you break the speed limit are you committing a crime and breaking the law or are you just breaking a law? You are breaking the law, but you are not committing a crime. Crimes are handled in criminal court and torts, such as breaking the speed limit, are handled in civil court. Things handled in civil court are not considered crimes, they are merely civil laws. If someone in the days of the Old Testament offered one turtle dove for a sacrifice that required 2 this would not be a sin against God, just a transgression of the law of Moses.

I also realized something else. Good-and-evil is a separate concept from right-and-wrong, according to some. So Adam and Eve (who I will repeat were not physical individuals but symbolic people) could have known right from wrong without knowing good from evil.

I have to actually agree here to a degree. Let's say you have 2 good choices. Neither are bad so there's no evil there. While both choices are good, the one that is the greatest good is considered right and the one that is the lesser of the good would be the wrong. The thing is there was no knowledge of this when Adam and Eve were first on the earth. They didn't know right or wrong, good or evil. They just knew "God says this" and that was the extent of it. They didn't know what God said was good, they didn't know if what He said was evil, they didn't know if what He said was right, and they didn't know if what He said was wrong. They simply knew God said stuff and that's all they had to go off of.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Excuse, excuse, excuse. Like I haven't heard that accusation before. You say they can't be used to prove or disprove anything. Books that are considered lost are named within the Bible itself. Jasher is a popular one. "Lost scriptures are lost." Guess what, lost scripture is still scripture.

If you cannot produce the scripture then it just isn't scripture as far as its usage it becomes irrelevant to proof.

Here's one: how do you prove or disprove something that you can't see? Of course they're not going to say "Oh ok, these words and this phrase are suppose to be her but they're not." Translators can't do that because they cannot see words and phrases that have been removed by copyists who lived centuries ago.

The burden of proof rests upon you, you have yet to show us that what you say is true. So far you are equating proof of your statement with nothing that can be considered trustworthy but in shadows and phantoms and opinions based upon someone who was not alive during the time the Bible was written. Your accusations about the Bible are going to be ignored because you cannot produce proof they have merit that would make them less authoritative than the books you are relying upon to disprove the Bible as invalid in this case.

Let's say I were to write on a piece of paper "The sky is blue, the grass is green, stop signs are red, and cars move." I erase "and cars move" completely and change the ending to "and stop signs are red." Then I give you an assignment to figure out if something is missing and what the something is. I give you no clue as to if there was ever anything else there and I don't give you any list of what could have possibly been there. Could you figure out "and cars move" is the missing part? No. Why? You cannot find deletions.

No lets say you write something on paper that says the sky is green and the grass is red and stop signs are blue and tell me that the book of grass, sky, and stop signs have errors in them and they are wrong while I can look outside and see that your statement is wrong.

This would be another place where you're wrong. Unlike you I don't need manuscripts or parchments. I don't even need the physical golden plates for that matter. If they were upon the earth it would still require faith to believe they were translated by the power of God. Faith would still be required to believe the things in the golden plates actually happened. I only mention the lack of original writings for the Old and New Testaments to illustrate a point, not diminish the words of the prophets and apostles. Comparing the Bible to the manuscripts is fine and dandy but the bottom line is you're comparing the Bible to what's not even considered the original writings of the prophets themselves. The parchments the prophets themselves wrote on. If we had them that would be amazing.

Your argument that the Bible is copied can only be (in your mind) defeated by someone displaying you the original. You would have us believe that the BOM is more reliable when all you have is copies and we are talking about the Bible which was written in parchment vs plates of metal which should be easily preserved for a few hundred years vs thousands for the Bible. To be intellectually honest you are requiring a higher standard for the Bible than the BOM itself and making it way too easy for the BOM at the same time.

Transgression is rarely sin. Breaking a law and committing sin are 2 different things. I've already shown how in an earlier post. If you want it again you can look for it. I'm not saying the Bible is wrong, I 100% believe in it. What I do know is there are errors because of the translators, not because of the prophets.

If you are transgressing you are sinning.... period. It is only when you are NOT able (due to jurisdiction) transgress that you are NOT sinning.

I challenge you to put the BOM to the same test and standards you force upon the Bible... I dare you to do this.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I'm glad LegacyJB apparently pays no heed to any of my posts, else he would've lost faith in the LDS church and been in the unpleasant position of apostasy from his fellows in the faith...

Don't feel alone. My posts are ignored also.

Better to argue definitions than meaning.

 

[LegacyJB]

I challenge you to put the BOM to the same test and standards you force upon the Bible... I dare you to do this.

The other stuff I've addressed before so I'll ignore it but mostly because you are disrespectful in different posts. This one I'll address because it's the only thing you've said that I actually care about. What test have I put to the Book of Mormon? What indeed. That's a simple one, I've prayed to God and asked Him. He told me it's true. I'm always amazed as to the responses I get. "But where's the evidence," "How do you know it was God," "Where are the plates?" It seems like "Christians" don't believe God is even a semi-halfway decent source for answers. I know evidences are there, I've done my own research. Bottom line is I don't care about those physical things. For anything, evidence merely gives a good approximation, not absolute proof. You can't prove the Bible is true, you can't prove the Book of Mormon is true, you certainly cannot prove Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin and is the Son of God. A person can only give evidence, not proof, and that's just for the first two things I mentioned. The other 2 comes by faith without evidence.

You can stick with the need for physical things in order to believe and I'll stick with relying upon God for answers to my prayers and questions.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I'm glad LegacyJB apparently pays no heed to any of my posts, else he would've lost faith in the LDS church and been in the unpleasant position of apostasy from his fellows in the faith...

He isn't really paying attention to my posts from the lame arguments he is countering them with. I think he is more about evangelizing here than debating (as usual).