• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

No Adam = no Original Sin - right?

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Just because they don't know their own religion still doesn't negate the technicality.
Right... the fact that your presumption is WRONG negates the "technicality". Many Christians on this forum who either are not creationists or who don't believe in original sin point to the error of your post.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
You'll have to convince me that the authors considered Adam to be a real individual. Because the Hebrew certainly doesn't read that way.

Sure it does. It mean man kind and it is the name of the first man....at least that's what Strong's lexicon says. Adam is most certainly described as a man, a physical being....You know....Adam slept with his wife and she became pregnant.... Seth is the son of Adam....

I mean...if you'd like just substitute adam for the word (mankind) and see if it fits in the context of the sentence.....It won't.


this isn't a history lesson, it's a theological treatment.
A'dam means "human being."

:rolleyes:.......Well aren't we still talking about original sin? Some one said he was a myth...I'm saying....he had to be real in order for him to have comitted an act of defiance.....Your bible describes "Adam" as a man. There are only a couple..maybe handful of places where "Adam" is used as (mankind)....
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Sure it does. It mean man kind and it is the name of the first man....at least that's what Strong's lexicon says. Adam is most certainly described as a man, a physical being....You know....Adam slept with his wife and she became pregnant.... Seth is the son of Adam....

I mean...if you'd like just substitute adam for the word (mankind) and see if it fits in the context of the sentence.....It won't.




:rolleyes:.......Well aren't we still talking about original sin? Some one said he was a myth...I'm saying....he had to be real in order for him to have comitted an act of defiance.....Your bible describes "Adam" as a man. There are only a couple..maybe handful of places where "Adam" is used as (mankind)....
Which forces the issue that the character in the story is a literary type, standing in for all humanity. Humanity is real. Humanity also commits acts of defiance. The greatest act of defiance, Biblically speaking (from which the doctrine of original sin comes), is our act of blurring the distinction between humanity and divinity by our own volition. All sin is born out of that selfishness. That would be the original, or "mother" of all sin.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Which forces the issue that the character in the story is a literary type, standing in for all humanity.

So what was the first sin...if "eating the forbidden fruit from the tree" is not to be taken literal?

See it is difficult to look upon the story and see that "Adam" was not a person. It is without a doubt that Adam mean "Mankind".....But when you reach verses that say "Adam slept with HIS wife and she became pregnant"...then your bible is talking about a physical man....Like records a genealogy all the way back to Adam...he even list him as..."Adam was the son (singular) of God... I could understand if he said("And Adam were the sons of God")....but that's not what is recorded.

Then it's hard to get around this notion that he was a "literary type filling in for all humanity"....given the fact that your own Paul thought him to be a man who had performed a specific act...He doesn't appear to think of Adam as a community of people. Interesting enough is that this concept of original sin is certainly out of the mind of Paul. Jews did not nor do they subscribe to this form of thinking.

Rom. 5:12 and 5:19
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners"

Jews point to the the Torah, the law, and quote the various places that informs one that he or she is responsible for their own actions and will be judge not by the sins of others but by their own short comings.....
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
Sure it does. It mean man kind and it is the name of the first man....at least that's what Strong's lexicon says. Adam is most certainly described as a man, a physical being....You know....Adam slept with his wife and she became pregnant.... Seth is the son of Adam....

I mean...if you'd like just substitute adam for the word (mankind) and see if it fits in the context of the sentence.....It won't.
Gen 2:7 is a play on words in Hebrew..... between adam (man) and adama (ground).

Later, in 2:23, there is a play on the similar sounding words ishsha (woman) and ishah (her man-her husband)
(NAB Commentary)

Just FYI: I don't know any group outside of Biblical fundamentalists who view the creation story as a literal event.
 

emiliano

Well-Known Member
I believe that they are and that they represent two different events but one could make a case for the second account to be a more detailed account of what happened in the first account.
There is evidence to support the notion that Adam and Eve were not alone on the earth: Ge 6:2that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose.
</B>
That one is not a very good one, the problem is “the sons of God” we must place this in time and the sons of God= Angeles (heavenly creatures) there is a better one in the account of Cain’s supplication and wondering Gen 4:13 And Cain said to Jehovah, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
Gen 4:14 Behold! You have driven me out from the face of the earth today, and I shall be hidden from Your face. And I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth, and it shall be that anyone who finds me shall kill me.
Gen 4:15 And Jehovah said to him, Therefore whoever kills Cain shall be avenged seven times. And Jehovah set a mark upon Cain so that anyone who found him should not kill him.
A life for a lifex7,
Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.
My theory is this: THe earth and everything else was created millions of years ago and man has inhabited the earth in cyles of good and evil.
I think you are right on this “The earth and everything else was created millions of years ago” as meaning long time before the earthly creation Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
But as for “
man has inhabited the earth in cycles of good and evil”? Before creation “earth was without form and empty”
 

crystalonyx

Well-Known Member
Again, most CHristians ascribe to the philkosophy of original sin, which technically means they must be creationists, that is the only logical conlusion.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Again, most CHristians ascribe to the philkosophy of original sin, which technically means they must be creationists, that is the only logical conlusion.
Can you provide us with some figures here? It would appear to me that MOST Christians don't give a flying flip about the concept of "original sin" or it's implications. The same could be said for creationism/evolutionism.

As a Christian and a Militant Theist, it is apparent to me that this concept is not supported by scripture.
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
So what was the first sin...if "eating the forbidden fruit from the tree" is not to be taken literal?

Well, it was "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." "Good and evil" is a hebraic way of denoting "everything." Thus the tree was the tree of absolute or universal knowledge. But only God really has that, and for humans to attempt to attain it is to attempt to be or replace God. Our position is naturally that of a creature with all the limitations that entails. Such a position demands faith because we don't know everything.

So the story of the first sin describes how humanity constantly seeks to "be like God, knowing good from evil", that is, to live life independently of a faithful and trusting relationship with God. We'd rather have all the knowledge so that we could live life without reference to God -- or perhaps make reference to him, but on our own terms. In other words, we upset the whole order of things by presuming to take the role of God.

There you have it. Although my interpretation makes essential reference to all the relevant aspects of the story, it doesn't require a literal individual Adam or Eve.
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
Again, most CHristians ascribe to the philkosophy of original sin, which technically means they must be creationists, that is the only logical conlusion.

I'm not a creationist (that is, I don't believe creation occurred in six literal days just a little while ago), but I believe in original sin (our propensity for sin has been handed down to us through our parents all the way back to whatever it was -- an individual or community -- that started the human race off). Where's the logical problem?
 

crystalonyx

Well-Known Member
I'm not a creationist (that is, I don't believe creation occurred in six literal days just a little while ago), but I believe in original sin (our propensity for sin has been handed down to us through our parents all the way back to whatever it was -- an individual or community -- that started the human race off). Where's the logical problem?

There is no "individual or community" that started it off, evolution is continuous.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Just FYI: I don't know any group outside of Biblical fundamentalists who view the creation story as a literal event.

So if the story is not literal then what act of sin was committed?

In the bible, Adam (The Man - as he is called), is shown to be a physical person but if the story is just a story then what act of disobedience was committed.....and by who?
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
There you have it. Although my interpretation makes essential reference to all the relevant aspects of the story, it doesn't require a literal individual Adam or Eve.

So if no "Leteral Adam and Eve" then what sin was committed to begin with. Who committed the first (original) sin?
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
There is no "individual or community" that started it off, evolution is continuous.

Yes, but there was a time when human creatures (creatures that have more or less the sort of DNA we have) emerged as a result of evolution. As far as I understand evolutionary theory, the first human would have appeared as part of a community (sort of a necessary element in heterosexual procreation).
 

logician

Well-Known Member
So if the story is not literal then what act of sin was committed?

In the bible, Adam (The Man - as he is called), is shown to be a physical person but if the story is just a story then what act of disobedience was committed.....and by who?

Very good question, why the hangup upon this thing called "Sin", supposedly commited by some hominid tens of thousands of years ago.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Very good question, why the hangup upon this thing called "Sin", supposedly commited by some hominid tens of thousands of years ago.


No...No...!!!

Why the hangup upon this thing called "original sin" committed by some one who is regarded as not to have existed (not literal).....?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
What we call "original sin" is not a single event at a single point in time, committed by a single person. Rather, its the propensity for human beings to blur the distinction between humanity and Divinity. That's all it is. That theological stance is imparted to us through metaphor and narrative.
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
So if no "Leteral Adam and Eve" then what sin was committed to begin with. Who committed the first (original) sin?

"Original sin" does not mean "first sin." It's the idea that we inherit our sinful condition from our parents. The first sin, the one that got it all underway, seems to have been a desire to be like God, "knowing good and evil" (a Hebraic way of saying "knowing everything"). Not knowing everything requires a trusting relationship with God. If you know everything, you can live as a law unto yourself with no reference to God. But such a way of life flies in the face of the natural order in which God is over all. In short, the sinful condition we inherit is the desire to put ourselves above God.

The question how this whole thing got started is a bit of a mystery to me. The bible tells us that humanity rebelled in a way similar to what I've described. I don't pretend the biblical account is a journalistic, straightforward representation of the facts. Indeed, I believe the text is a piece of poetry, employing rhetorical devices and imagery designed to bring out the theological importance and meaning, not just the origin of, humankind's separation from God.
 

Dunemeister

Well-Known Member
No...No...!!!

Why the hangup upon this thing called "original sin" committed by some one who is regarded as not to have existed (not literal).....?

Again, "original sin" does not denote the first sin. It denotes our current deplorable sinful condition, and implies that we've inherited it from our parents, on back to either the first human or the first community of humans.
 

Fish-Hunter

Rejoice in the Lord!
Now that it's widely accepted that the story of Adam is not a literal representation of reality, the concept of original sin falls apart, it would seem.

I think a literal Adam is important to embrace the 2nd Adam. I believe one of the keys to embrace the truth is understanding the headship of both the 1st Adam and 2nd Adam. Being united to Adam, or the 2nd Adam is the basis of being cursed or blessed by God. Study Romans chapter 5 and let me know if you agree, and why?
 
Top