original sin

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Benadam said:
We reproduce like animals because like them we die. When we no longer die the urge to reproduce is not our master.
Click to expand...

Hmm but God told them to multiply in Genesis 1:28..
I suppose this could be 'after' Genesis 3. The preceding verse 1:27 is actually describing a time after Genesis 2 - so I can understand how 1:28 is actually taking place after Genesis 3.

Hebrew literature is written sometimes in a way not like we do; it's not necessarily in order of time, but of importance and relevance.
 
posthuman said:
It can eat and drink physical food and wine
Click to expand...
well, we know from the word of God Jesus did eat after the resurrection with the disciples. There are many theologians who say I don't know for sure, the reason why Jesus ate was only for the fellowship with those HE was with at the time. there is no greater time of fellowship then at the table :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: posthuman
We can know A&E did not eat from the Tree of Life by the use of one little word in the text.

To assume they had immortality by the fact of their physical life is erroneous.

The physical comes first and then the Spiritual through Christ alone.

Shall we examine the text rather than wrongfully assume?

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.
He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

If he had already, it would not be also, but again.

Adam and Eve were prevented from eating from the ToL following their
disobedience. If they already had they would have attained to life ever after.
 
Webers.Home said:
I think that's a valid inquiry.

Adam was given liberty to eat from any tree in the garden he wanted except
the one. I rather suspect Adam roamed all over the place; exploring and
sampling the fruit of every tree he encountered; including the tree of life.
_
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a valid inquiry, but there is absolutely nothing in the text to support what you suspect.
 
.
posthuman said:
is death and decay very good?
Click to expand...


Yes, absolutely!

When plants and animals die, their bodies decompose and eventually
become the organic materials that many types of soil require in order to
remain productive.

Back then, every critter on Earth, including humans, were vegetarians. So
you can appreciate just how important it would be to keep the ground
healthy.

NOTE: It's commonly assumed that Adam brought all death into the world,
but not so; according to Rom 5:12-21, he only brought human death.
_
 
posthuman said:
had they eaten from the tree of life before they ate from the tree of good
from evil? such that its presumed life-giving effect can be ((& was))
Click to expand...


The tree of life isn't portrayed in the Bible as a source of life, rather, as a
medicine for whatever ails you. (Rev 22:2)

The tree of life doesn't work like a vaccine; in other words: it isn't
preventative; rather, it's a remedy.

When Adam tasted the wrong fruit, his body became infected with mortality.
The tree of life would've cured him and restored his body to perfect health.
_
 
Webers.Home said:
NOTE: It's commonly assumed that Adam brought all death into the world,
but not so; according to Rom 5:12-21, he only brought human death.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can say 'according to Romans' here - - there is not a different word for death being used that only refers to human death. Remember that in Romans its also written that the creation was subjected to frustration not of its own account, clearly with reference to the earth being cursed for Adam's sake.
 
UCA4J said:
do you have an example of this ?
Click to expand...
It is in the New Testament, until a person is aware he or she has sinned it is not counted against the person. If the person is a believer and is made aware, repentance is necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: calibob
posthuman said:
I don't think you can say 'according to Romans' here - - there is not a different word for death being used that only refers to human death. Remember that in Romans its also written that the creation was subjected to frustration not of its own account, clearly with reference to the earth being cursed for Adam's sake.
Click to expand...
Indeed. In fact the text explicitly says death entered the world through one man.

Romans 5:12-21 only addresses the human aspect of that.

That does not mean animal deaths were present beforehand.

The first animal death is presented with A&E's covering for sin.

Which is a foreshadowing of Christ's shed blood for the same purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: posthuman
Webers.Home said:
When Adam tasted the wrong fruit, his body became infected with mortality.
The tree of life would've cured him and restored his body to perfect health
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't God want that to happen?
Why would God in fact take measures specifically to prevent that?
 
CS1 said:
well, we know from the word of God Jesus did eat after the resurrection with the disciples. There are many theologians who say I don't know for sure, the reason why Jesus ate was only for the fellowship with those HE was with at the time. there is no greater time of fellowship then at the table :)
Click to expand...

He first ate in the upper room in order to prove that the resurrection is bodily resurrection. In John 21 there may be a stronger fellowship aspect, tho i don't think that's the purpose. The purpose is revealing Himself as God IMO. Providing. Dwelling with. Saving.

But in the upper room the "proof" is nullified if He's only pretending to eat in order to make them feel comfortable and welcome.

Both cases are a complement to the OT announcement of the birth of Samson, where He says He will not eat their food, and instructs them instead to make it a burnt offering.
 
.
Magenta said:
Indeed. In fact the text explicitly says death entered the world through one
man. Romans 5:12-21 only addresses the human aspect of that. That does
not mean animal deaths were present beforehand.
Click to expand...


As far as can be known from scripture, Man is the only specie that God
created in His own image. None of the flora, nor any of the fauna, was
created like that.

That being the case, then I think it's safe to assume that death was common
all around Adam by means of nature's fragility, i.e. death wasn't a strange
new word in his vocabulary, viz: God didn't have to take a moment and
define death for Adam seeing as how it was doubtless a common occurrence
in his everyday life.

Adam saw things born, he saw things grow to maturity, he saw things
gradually wither, he saw their life ebb away, and he saw them decay and
dissolve into nothing. So I think we can be reasonably confident that Adam
was up to speed on at least the common aspects of death; viz: he was
familiar with mortality simply by exploring and observing nature, otherwise
the warning given him in Gen 2:17 would've failed to resonate in his
thinking.
_
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benadam
Webers.Home said:
As far as can be known from scripture, Man is the only specie that God
created in His own image. None of the flora, nor any of the fauna, was
created like that.

That being the case, then I think it's safe to assume that death was common
all around Adam by means of nature's fragility, i.e. death wasn't a strange
new word in his vocabulary, viz: God didn't have to take a moment and
define death for Adam seeing as how it was doubtless a common occurrence
in his everyday life.

Adam saw things born, he saw things grow to maturity, he saw things
gradually wither, he saw their life ebb away, and he saw them decay and
dissolve into nothing. So I think we can be reasonably confident that Adam
was up to speed on at least the common aspects of death; viz: he was
familiar with mortality simply by exploring and observing nature, otherwise
the warning given him in Gen 2:17 would've failed to resonate in his
thinking.
_
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the text to support your theorizing on death's prevalence pre-fall.
 
.
posthuman said:
Why wouldn't God want that to happen? Why would God in fact take
measures specifically to prevent that?
Click to expand...


The language and grammar of the warning given Adam in Gen 2:17 is pretty
definite. Adam had to die for what he did; no getting out of it.
_
 
posthuman said:
He first ate in the upper room in order to prove that the resurrection is bodily resurrection. In John 21 there may be a stronger fellowship aspect, tho i don't think that's the purpose. The purpose is revealing Himself as God IMO. Providing. Dwelling with. Saving.

But in the upper room the "proof" is nullified if He's only pretending to eat in order to make them feel comfortable and welcome.

Both cases are a complement to the OT announcement of the birth of Samson, where He says He will not eat their food, and instructs them instead to make it a burnt offering.
Click to expand...
the bible only records a time or two of Jesu eating after the resurrection however, he abided with them for 40 days after the resurrection. Are you thinking they did not eat again? Or did Jesus only eat where it says he ate?
 
CS1 said:
the bible only records a time or two of Jesu eating after the resurrection however, he abided with them for 40 days after the resurrection. Are you thinking they did not eat again? Or did Jesus only eat where it says he ate?
Click to expand...

I'm thinking He ate as He normally ate. Is it that He was with them all day and night for 40 days or He kept appearing to them over a period of 40 days?
I'd need to look it up but can't at the moment
 
posthuman said:
I'm thinking He ate as He normally ate. Is it that He was with them all day and night for 40 days or He kept appearing to them over a period of 40 days?
I'd need to look it up but can't at the moment
Click to expand...
I'm just asking I don't know :) I could be wrong in my understanding
 
  • Like
Reactions: posthuman
posthuman said:
how does God count their eating from the tree against them if they had no idea it was wrong to do so?
how does God count disobeying His command against them if they didn't even have a concept of 'it's right to obey' ?
why would God want to prevent them from knowing that they should choose good and reject evil?
why would He punish them with death because they found out that goodness is good?

that's a thoughtless, extremely simplistic, and untenable view.
unfortunately it's what the modern church teaches almost ubiquitously.
Click to expand...

posthuman said:
how does God count their eating from the tree against them if they had no idea it was wrong to do so?
how does God count disobeying His command against them if they didn't even have a concept of 'it's right to obey' ?
why would God want to prevent them from knowing that they should choose good and reject evil?
why would He punish them with death because they found out that goodness is good?

that's a thoughtless, extremely simplistic, and untenable view.
unfortunately it's what the modern church teaches almost ubiquitously.
Click to expand...
 
Why do you think of Adam and Eve as having the minds of children? They were adults with intelligence. They were able to communicate. Were you there when God told them to not eat of the forbidden fruit of the tree? God didn't just pop up and tell them not to eat. They were in communication with each other. Adam and Eve knew that God was the creator of everything and has to be obeyed. He specifically told them what would happen if they disobeyed. It wasn't a question of knowing right from wrong. It was a question of obeying or suffering the consequences. I, personally, put my trust in the Bible and that God is good, loving, wise, merciful, and just. I will not second guess God. Also, I get all my thoughtless, extremely simplistic, and untenable view straight from the Bible. The church that I belong to is the one established by God and not men. I would refer you to 1 Cor 1: 26-28.

Please, submit your thoughtful, more complicated, and tenable view for everyone to consider.
 
CorrectiveLens said:
Why do you think of Adam and Eve as having the minds of children?
Click to expand...

Even children know the difference between good and evil, that it is right to obey and wrong to disobey.

In a court is it just to punish an imbecile whose IQ is so low they can't be said to understand that what they have done was wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back