A question to Christians

[Shiranui117]

i've read some of the wisdom of Sirach and it was completely contrary to what scripture teaches in many respects.... for that reason alone I would never consider it worthy of being considered scripture.

He completely contradicts the statement at Romans 5:12-19, which places the responsibility for sin upon Adam. Instead he likes to blame the woman entirely for mankinds woe's, ie “From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die.” (25:33, Dy)

He doesn't contradict Romans 5:12. Verse 24, which you meant to quote, states the following: "24 Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die."

That is, in fact, a true statement. The first sin was actually committed by Eve, not Adam. Adam merely sealed the deal in alienating humanity from God and introducing mortality, sickness and inclination to sin to the human condition. Really, it was Eve who committed the first sin. Adam's sin on top of Eve's caused all of mankind to be fallen, subject to death, etc. Both passages are right, because both Adam and Eve are responsible.

He also has a very negative view of women where he says he prefers any type of wickedness over the wickedness of a woman. 25:19, Dy

Did he say that all women were wicked, or that only wickedness can come from a woman? You're misinterpreting his words. Wicked women are to be avoided, not women in general. He is condemning the sinful behavior of many women (and reading the verses critical of said sinful behavior, I think those verses are more than applicable to many extreme, way-out-there feminists--I mean the fringe feminists, not the ones just seeking equality in society)

You never hear such things from any of the bible writers. The value of women are upheld in the real scriptures.... i would call ben sirach a false teacher of the worst kind.... but then i am a woman, so perhaps i'm being a little biased

And jumping to conclusions about the letters without understanding the meaning and message behind them, as well.

 

[Pegg]

He doesn't contradict Romans 5:12. Verse 24, which you meant to quote, states the following: "24 Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die."

That is, in fact, a true statement. The first sin was actually committed by Eve, not Adam. Adam merely sealed the deal in alienating humanity from God and introducing mortality, sickness and inclination to sin to the human condition. Really, it was Eve who committed the first sin. Adam's sin on top of Eve's caused all of mankind to be fallen, subject to death, etc. Both passages are right, because both Adam and Eve are responsible.

there is quite a difference between, "through HER we all die" and what the bible says "through one MAN sin entered into the world and Death through sin"


When you think about it, Adam had the opportunity to turn the whole thing around....if he didnt sin himself, then we would never be in this situation we are in. So really, this is why God placed the responsibility of our situation onto Adam...he had the opportunity to change it around but he didnt. Besides that, that bible says: 1Tim 2:14*Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived...'
" meaning she acted in ignorance....but the man acted with full knowledge of the sin he committed which makes him more reprehensible. And why can I say that with confidence? Because the bible says this:

Romans 5:14*Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression by Adam

Hence it was Adam who passed on sin, through the laws of hereditary, onto all his offspring.

Did he say that all women were wicked, or that only wickedness can come from a woman? You're misinterpreting his words. Wicked women are to be avoided, not women in general. He is condemning the sinful behavior of many women (and reading the verses critical of said sinful behavior, I think those verses are more than applicable to many extreme, way-out-there feminists--I mean the fringe feminists, not the ones just seeking equality in society)

And jumping to conclusions about the letters without understanding the meaning and message behind them, as well.

its his entire attitude that is messed up. He even says that he prefers other types of wickedness over the wickedness of a woman. Seriously messed up stuff right there.

Does God prefer other types of wickedness over the wickedness of a woman? Is the wickedness of men 'better' then if the wickedness is carried out by a woman?

do you think God holds that view?

 

[Shiranui117]

there is quite a difference between, "through HER we all die" and what the bible says "through one MAN sin entered into the world and Death through sin"

When you think about it, Adam had the opportunity to turn the whole thing around....if he didnt sin himself, then we would never be in this situation we are in. So really, this is why God placed the responsibility of our situation onto Adam...he had the opportunity to change it around but he didnt.

Yes, but this doesn't mean that Eve was blameless in what happened. If she was blameless, then she would have remained in the Garden.

Besides that, that bible says: 1Tim 2:14*Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived...'
" meaning she acted in ignorance....

Wrong. Eve knew exactly what God's command was, and she quotes Him word for word. She knew exactly what the rule was, and what the consequence of breaking that rule was. From Genesis 3:

2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

Moreover, you forgot the last part of 1Tim 2:14--14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Eve is no less guilty of sin than Adam.

but the man acted with full knowledge of the sin he committed which makes him more reprehensible. And why can I say that with confidence? Because the bible says this:

As I said, Eve was also guilty of the same sin.

Romans 5:14*Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression by Adam

Hence it was Adam who passed on sin, through the laws of hereditary, onto all his offspring.

This is only true because Eve also sinned. Eve began the Fall, and Adam merely completed what Eve started. Death ruled as king from Adam over all of mankind, because once Adam sinned, all of humanity was under Death's dominion. Had Eve not sinned, and only Adam, then would the Fall have still happened? Or what if Eve had sinned, and not Adam?

its his entire attitude that is messed up. He even says that he prefers other types of wickedness over the wickedness of a woman. Seriously messed up stuff right there.

He's making a simple observation of human nature: Man's weakness is woman. It's surprisingly easy for a woman to get a man to do what she wants--thus, a wicked woman would have an easy time getting a man to engage in the same behavior as she does.

Does God prefer other types of wickedness over the wickedness of a woman? Is the wickedness of men 'better' then if the wickedness is carried out by a woman?

do you think God holds that view?

No, nor does Sirach say such a thing.

 

[nazz]

The value of women are upheld in the real scriptures....

ReallY/ do tell. Is that why they are to be stoned to death for losing their virginity before marriage? Is that why they are to keep their mouths shut in church?

 

[Pegg]

ReallY/ do tell. Is that why they are to be stoned to death for losing their virginity before marriage? Is that why they are to keep their mouths shut in church?

immorality was punishable by death under the mosaic law, true. But that went the same for a man who committed immorality too. It wasnt a law specifically for women.

The christian congregation was organized for men to be the spiritual leaders. Thats not a law against women, its not derogatory to women and as a woman, im more then happy to follow the direction given by Gods word on that matter. I have enough responsiblity without having to care for the needs of a congregation.

 

[Pegg]

there is quite a difference between, "through HER we all die" and what the bible says "through one MAN sin entered into the world and Death through sin"


Yes, but this doesn't mean that Eve was blameless in what happened. If she was blameless, then she would have remained in the Garden.

no she wasnt blameless, but she was not the one who could have turned the situation around. If Adam obeyed the command, he could have repaired the situation and prevented sin from entering his children.

If sin entered the world through Adam as the bible says, then sin is passed through the sperm, not the egg.

Wrong. Eve knew exactly what God's command was, and she quotes Him word for word. She knew exactly what the rule was, and what the consequence of breaking that rule was. From Genesis 3:

2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

Moreover, you forgot the last part of 1Tim 2:14--14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Eve is no less guilty of sin than Adam.

but it also says she was 'deceived'. To be deceived means to be tricked into it. She did know Gods law, but Satan convinced her that she would become a better person if she ate from the tree. Adam knew that it would result in death and chose to do it anyway.

Eve began the Fall, and Adam merely completed what Eve started. Death ruled as king from Adam over all of mankind, because once Adam sinned, all of humanity was under Death's dominion. Had Eve not sinned, and only Adam, then would the Fall have still happened? Or what if Eve had sinned, and not Adam?

do you know the difference between the egg and the sperm? it is not the egg which develops into a human being. Only the sperm develops into an embryo. The egg is merely the sack carrying the child.

Therefore, sin really does come from the man. And if Adam did not sin, then his children would not have been born with that imperfection and all mankind would still be living in the garden of Eden.

He's making a simple observation of human nature: Man's weakness is woman. It's surprisingly easy for a woman to get a man to do what she wants--thus, a wicked woman would have an easy time getting a man to engage in the same behavior as she does.

No, nor does Sirach say such a thing.

well i think his observation is wrong. Women are no more wicked then men.

Most crimes and acts of wickedness in todays world are carried out by men. A man is more likely to kill then a woman. A man is more likely to rape then a woman, a man is more likely to beat another person then a is a woman.

 

[adi2d]

Neither Adam or Eve had knowledge of good or evil. the whole idea that they should be held responsible for being tricked by the most cunning.

If Adam had not sinned what would have stopped one of his descendants from sinning and put us in the same position. Out of the garden.

 

[nazz]

immorality was punishable by death under the mosaic law, true. But that went the same for a man who committed immorality too. It wasnt a law specifically for women.

Oh yes it was...

Deu 22:20 “But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from among you."

There is no corresponding law for young men. Young women were the property of their fathers and they fetched a good price as virgins.

 

[roger1440]

no she wasnt blameless, but she was not the one who could have turned the situation around. If Adam obeyed the command, he could have repaired the situation and prevented sin from entering his children.

If sin entered the world through Adam as the bible says, then sin is passed through the sperm, not the egg.




but it also says she was 'deceived'. To be deceived means to be tricked into it. She did know Gods law, but Satan convinced her that she would become a better person if she ate from the tree. Adam knew that it would result in death and chose to do it anyway.





do you know the difference between the egg and the sperm? it is not the egg which develops into a human being. Only the sperm develops into an embryo. The egg is merely the sack carrying the child.

Therefore, sin really does come from the man. And if Adam did not sin, then his children would not have been born with that imperfection and all mankind would still be living in the garden of Eden.




well i think his observation is wrong. Women are no more wicked then men.

Most crimes and acts of wickedness in todays world are carried out by men. A man is more likely to kill then a woman. A man is more likely to rape then a woman, a man is more likely to beat another person then a is a woman.

A man may beat his woman for a few minutes, but a woman nags her man for decades. I would rather take the beating.

 

[Shiranui117]

no she wasnt blameless, but she was not the one who could have turned the situation around. If Adam obeyed the command, he could have repaired the situation and prevented sin from entering his children.

My question was, if Adam had sinned first, then could Eve have turned the situation around?

If sin entered the world through Adam as the bible says, then sin is passed through the sperm, not the egg.

How very Augustinian of you.

Sin isn't a genetic disease. It's a condition that affects human nature itself.

but it also says she was 'deceived'. To be deceived means to be tricked into it. She did know Gods law, but Satan convinced her that she would become a better person if she ate from the tree. Adam knew that it would result in death and chose to do it anyway.

So basically, Eve wasn't at fault, but Adam was?

do you know the difference between the egg and the sperm? it is not the egg which develops into a human being. Only the sperm develops into an embryo. The egg is merely the sack carrying the child.

:biglaugh:

Then what about the 50% of DNA that the egg contributes to the child? The sperm isn't the only source of genetic material. The egg cell gives half of the DNA. Otherwise the baby would be a clone of the father. Rather, the sperm and the egg fuse together, melding their genetic material. The egg is not a sack carrying the child--it is one half of what will become the child.

You should brush up on the subject of human reproduction.

Therefore, sin really does come from the man. And if Adam did not sin, then his children would not have been born with that imperfection and all mankind would still be living in the garden of Eden.

Sin comes from both Adam and Eve. It is Adam's fault that all of humanity suffers from the effects of sin, but Eve already brought part of humanity under sin. Adam just made the dominion of sin universal over mankind.

well i think his observation is wrong. Women are no more wicked then men.

Sirach did not say that women are more wicked than men. You're completely misreading him.

Most crimes and acts of wickedness in todays world are carried out by men. A man is more likely to kill then a woman. A man is more likely to rape then a woman, a man is more likely to beat another person then a is a woman.

Hooray, sexism! Men are no worse sinners than women.

 

[Pegg]

My question was, if Adam had sinned first, then could Eve have turned the situation around?

I dont think we really know how God would have handled the situation had it been different, but if only Adam sinned, then my best guess is that God would have banished him from the garden and provided Eve with a new mate. Thats just my own speculation though. As offspring are produced by male sperm, then he would have died childless, and none of us would have been born.

Adam was created first and in Gods image and God bestowed upon Adam, his authority. This is why men are in the position they are in. God expects them to use their authority in a directive manner...they are to be the guides and shephards of their families and they are ultimately held accountable for those in their care.

This is why I dont believe Eve could have turned the situation around....but had she remained obedient, Adam would have been put to death as God said, and Eve would have

How very Augustinian of you.

Sin isn't a genetic disease. It's a condition that affects human nature itself.

So basically, Eve wasn't at fault, but Adam was?

i actually think it IS a genetic disease...and when its removed, mankind will live forever as the bible promises. The sin of Adam shows itself in all of us by our independent nature.....being independent is not really 'natural' for us. We were created to be dependent on God...without him, we die. Adams sin was to disregard his dependence on God and do his own thing....isnt that the pitfall we all encounter from time to time? We make many bad decisions and they are always things against Gods laws.

And im not saying that its all Adams fault, the woman did eat first...but I believe Adam could have changed the situation that eventuated.

Then what about the 50% of DNA that the egg contributes to the child? The sperm isn't the only source of genetic material. The egg cell gives half of the DNA. Otherwise the baby would be a clone of the father. Rather, the sperm and the egg fuse together, melding their genetic material. The egg is not a sack carrying the child--it is one half of what will become the child.

yes true, but remember the bible says that Eve was 'deceived'...so the worst that she may have passed onto us would have been her naivety ....and i think many of us do show substantial signs of naivety

Sin comes from both Adam and Eve. It is Adam's fault that all of humanity suffers from the effects of sin, but Eve already brought part of humanity under sin. Adam just made the dominion of sin universal over mankind.

imagine if Adam did not sin though.... God could have replaced Eve with a new woman. And we would still all have been born because we are still Adams children. However, if only Adam sinned and a new man was created to replace Adam, then none of us would have been born.

 

[adi2d]

ine if Adam did not sin though.... God could have replaced Eve with a new woman. And we would still all have been born because we are still Adams children. However, if only Adam sinned and a new man was created to replace Adam, then none of us would have been born.[/QUOTE]

Really? If God replaced Adam. We would all be descended from Pedro and Eve. Why do you think Adam would be the only sinner? Gods plan for us wouldn't change

 

[Pegg]

Really? If God replaced Adam. We would all be descended from Pedro and Eve. Why do you think Adam would be the only sinner? Gods plan for us wouldn't change

to sin is to disobey God.... many of Adams imperfect offspring have already proved that they would choose to obey God. Therefore, not all of mankind would choose to be sinners. If God removes sin (which is part of his plan) then there will be many from mankind who will not be sinners.

 

[Shiranui117]

I dont think we really know how God would have handled the situation had it been different, but if only Adam sinned, then my best guess is that God would have banished him from the garden and provided Eve with a new mate. Thats just my own speculation though. As offspring are produced by male sperm, then he would have died childless, and none of us would have been born.

No, offspring are produced by the fusion of the male sperm with the female's egg. Both are needed to contribute the necessary genetic material to the child. The sperm alone only has half the genetic material that goes into the child. The sperm alone DOES NOT become the child. This is basic human reproduction knowledge that every middle-school child learns in health class.

If Eve were expelled and Adam was given a new woman, we would still have never been born--or, at least, we would be completely different people, genetically speaking. The same would have happened if Adam was expelled and Eve was given a new man.

Adam was created first and in Gods image and God bestowed upon Adam, his authority. This is why men are in the position they are in. God expects them to use their authority in a directive manner...they are to be the guides and shephards of their families and they are ultimately held accountable for those in their care.

Women are also made in the image of God.

This is why I dont believe Eve could have turned the situation around....but had she remained obedient, Adam would have been put to death as God said, and Eve would have

And Eve would have..?

i actually think it IS a genetic disease...and when its removed, mankind will live forever as the bible promises. The sin of Adam shows itself in all of us by our independent nature.....being independent is not really 'natural' for us. We were created to be dependent on God...without him, we die. Adams sin was to disregard his dependence on God and do his own thing....isnt that the pitfall we all encounter from time to time? We make many bad decisions and they are always things against Gods laws.

It seems you derive this idea from St. Augustine. He thought exactly as you do. But he had no theological training and was working off a bad translation of the Scriptures.

And im not saying that its all Adams fault, the woman did eat first...but I believe Adam could have changed the situation that eventuated.

yes true, but remember the bible says that Eve was 'deceived'...so the worst that she may have passed onto us would have been her naivety ....and i think many of us do show substantial signs of naivety

It wasn't just naivete. She willingly and knowingly disobeyed God's command when she knew exactly what was at stake, and when God asked for an explanation, she blamed the serpent rather than taking responsibility for her actions. Adam did the same.

So not only did they disobey God, but they refused to take responsibility and repent. They hid because they were afraid to face God, rather than acknowledging the wrong they had done and falling down before God with tears of repentance. God knew full well what they had done, but He still asked, "What did you do? Why are you hiding?" to give them a chance to confess and own up to their mistakes. They refused to do so, trying to shift the blame onto someone else. This is ultimately what got them thrown out of the Garden. You will notice that they weren't immediately cast out upon eating the fruit, but only after God had asked them and gave them a chance. Had they repented, God could have rehabilitated them, slowly brought them back to where they once were--except now knowing firsthand just how terrible the world of sin is. They could have stayed in the Garden. But they blew that chance.

imagine if Adam did not sin though.... God could have replaced Eve with a new woman. And we would still all have been born because we are still Adams children. However, if only Adam sinned and a new man was created to replace Adam, then none of us would have been born.

You might want to read this link...
Human fertilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"We", specifically speaking, would never have been born if Adam had received another wife. The vice-versa is true. Different people with different genes would have born.

 

[Clarity]

**Btw, If you believe that the world is only 6,000 years old, then I suppose this question doesn't apply to you.

For the rest of you: I am not a Christian, I am an Indigenous Germanic Polytheist. I have always wondered something about your god and your, for lack of a better word, mythology (not saying that your Lore and Stories are "fake" as the definition of the word "myth" is a story or fable based on culture or spirituality).

For over 50,000 years, Proto-Indo-Europeans had been practicing their polytheistic "pagan" beliefs, all of which were related to each other and descended from one polytheistic belief system in a pantheon coming out of Africa. For a couple hundred thousand years before that, people had been practicing animistic, shamanic, tribal traditions in Africa. It is also theorized that over 1.5 million years ago, when we weren't "homo-sapiens" but our predecessor, homo erectus, started to develop myth, lore and beliefs in gods and spirits.

The bible also explicitly says that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus Christ doesn't enter heaven and, by default, goes to hell. That would mean that 1.5 billion years of people are doomed, simply because they were born in a time when monotheism, at least in the god "Yahweh" hadn't existed. This belief would continue to not exist until hundreds of thousands of years later, somewhere between 2,000 and 600 BC, not to mention that the worship of "Jesus" wasn't actually organized until 300 AD.

If God is so loving, merciful and just, why would he create all of these people for thousands and thousands of years to be simply doomed to Hell, not having the slightest opportunity for salvation, and then when there is the opportunity the people who apparently "need" the salvation are people who weren't raised in a Christian household and were raised with their own set of beliefs and religion, and aren't going to convert unless if a) by forceful conversion and threat of genocide or b) belief in divine intervention, possibly by near death experience?

I suppose what I'm asking is, how can a loving, merciful, just and fair God create millions and millions of souls and people, only to have less than a handful of them not be damned? Why waste the energy? And why create souls just to make them suffer for eternity because they were born in the wrong place, wrong time or both?

I think we understand indigenous Germanic religion differently.

As an anthropology major, I used to study the "symathetic magic" and animism of the tribes descended from the Celts (indigenous Europeans). I see no polytheism prior to the first collision with Romans, and I don't see written records demonstrating such a lineage.

Can you be of guidance?

 

[EyeofOdin]

I think we understand indigenous Germanic religion differently.

As an anthropology major, I used to study the "symathetic magic" and animism of the tribes descended from the Celts (indigenous Europeans). I see no polytheism prior to the first collision with Romans, and I don't see written records demonstrating such a lineage.

Can you be of guidance?

Polytheism did exist before collision of the Romans and the Celts and Nordics, and even before the Celtic and Nordic cultures had existed. This isn't technically "proven" because the cultures prior to the Archaic and Classical Europeans didn't actually have a writing system, at least none which there is evidence for.

Instead we've made strong inferences about Proto-Indo-European culture based off of similar lingual structures of Native European and Vedic languages. Ferre in Latin has some similarities to the Old English word Beran. The word Zeus seems to have Etymological similarities to the Germanic Deity's name Tiw/Tyr, Roman Jupiter (from Archaic Latin Diovis [pater]), Celtic Dagda etc. so we can infer that they came from a common source.

Similarities and patterns in Proto-Indo-European based religions also lead us to believe that the deities and pantheons are (for lack of a better term) spin offs from an original pantheon. I'll give a few examples.

There is a pattern of a sky father with the lingual root De[w] (as seen in Greek Zeus, Roman Jupiter and Germanic Tiu), a pattern of divine twins (Greek Artemis and Apollo, Germanic Freya and Freyer and Roman Diana and Pheobus), other divine twins or smply siblings with solar/lunar qualities (Greek Helios and Selene, Roman Sol and Luna and Nordic Sol and Mani). There also is a pattern of a divine queen (Greek Hera, Roman Juno and Germanic Frigga) an Earth Mother, usually simply referred to as "earth" in whatever language the deity is revered in (Jord/Eorth to the Germanic peoples, Terra Mater, literally "Earth Mother" in Rome and Gaia in Greece). A different goddess of the earth and Fertility (Germanic Nerthus, Celtic Danu, Greek Demeter and Roman Ceres). Another pattern is a masculine deity of fertility which usually, but not always has an association with Thunder or lightning (Celtic Taranis, Germanic Thor/Thunar, Vedic Indra and [possibly, but uncertainly] Greek Dionysos and Roman Bacchus).

I could literally go on forever. We see however that by breaking the theology, mythology and linguistics of deities, we see more and more that it is at the very least highly likely that these gods have a common origin. So just because a hymn to Thor wasn't written down before say the Viking age, we know that the praises to The Thunder God was being practice long before Imperial Rome had any conflicts with Germans or the Gaulish.

Another note: We actually DO have written and archaeological evidence of polytheism before Rome's conquest throughout Europe, just not within Europe itself. We have ruins and actual translated texts of Egyptian holy books (such as the Egyptian book of the dead) which are dated to be written at least 3550 years ago, much longer before imperial Rome. Granted it wasn't IN Northern Europe, but the polytheism that existed a long long time ago in places like Egypt, Japan, India, The Americas etc. leads us to believe that we as humans remained consistently polytheistic for thousands of years since we were in Africa. This is a root belief in humanity, it's practically in our DNA.

I'm not trying to proselytize, just pointing out the cultural and linguistic theories and facts.

 

[Sees]

I think we understand indigenous Germanic religion differently.

As an anthropology major, I used to study the "symathetic magic" and animism of the tribes descended from the Celts (indigenous Europeans). I see no polytheism prior to the first collision with Romans, and I don't see written records demonstrating such a lineage.

Can you be of guidance?

You can't possibly be serious with this.

 

[EyeofOdin]

You can't possibly be serious with this.

This person obviously recognizes that Polytheists have a different perception and has asked me to give mine. I commend that. It isn't ignorance, just misinformation.

 

[Sees]

This person obviously recognizes that Polytheists have a different perception and has asked me to give mine. I commend that. It isn't ignorance, just misinformation.

I'm just stunned that it was linked to university studies in the post...

What early spirituality/religious basic aspects were universal isn't even debated in secular studies.

 

[EyeofOdin]

I'm just stunned that it was linked to university studies in the post...

What early spirituality/religious basic aspects were universal isn't even debated in secular studies.

Yeah I did find that a little odd.