Originally posted by Conrau KMy argument is that they did not know that eating the apple was good or evil or sinful - though certainly they knew there were consequences. However, they did could not distnguish sin from good until eating the apple. So its disputable whether they committed a sin.
I don't disagree with what you were saying (I purosely said "popular" translation because you were disagreeing with what most bibles read).
My argument is that they did not know that eating the apple was good or evil or sinful - though certainly they knew there were consequences. However, they did could not distnguish sin from good until eating the apple. So its disputable whether they committed a sin.
Now, it appears we are quibbling about semantics. Sin is thought of as any transgression against the standard or law of God. In Gen. 2:17, the law of God is given to Adam and there is no amiguity related to the prohibition. Very clearly, the man is told "you shall not eat" of the fruit of that tree. The only sin possible at that time was (surprise!) eating from the fruit of that tree.
Inexplicably, you want to impute to them a type of ignorant innocence that would allow them to disobey God's direct command and yet be innocent of disobedience. Moreover, awareness of the consequences (the double death) was ineffective in restraining them, but 'had they known it was a sin...' somehow would have been enough to keep them from eating of the fruit? Weird. Highly convoluted, too, unless I'm missing the gist of what you are trying to say in all of this.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHUsually a sin entails knowledge that such an action is a sin.
[b]My argument is that they did not know that eating the apple was good or evil or sinful - though certainly they knew there were consequences. However, they did could not distnguish sin from good until eating the apple. So its disputable whether they committed a sin.
Now, it appears we are quibbling about semantics. Sin is thought of as any t ...[text shortened]... convoluted, too, unless I'm missing the gist of what you are trying to say in all of this.[/b]
If a Jew eats pork but does not know it is pork or has never known that he shouldn't eat pork he would not be unclean or have committed a sin.
Similarly, Adam and Eve did not have knowledge that eating the apple was sinful. They knew that God told them not to. But they had no conception that disobeying God was inherently sinful.
They may have exited from a perfect world by eating the apple but tey did not commit a sin.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerIn that case, the serpent is merely repeating (with a slight, thoughtful twist, no doubt) the prohibition originally given to the man. The 'you' used there was a blanket 'you,' covering all mankind.
Every "you" and second-person verb form in the sentences the snake speaks to the Woman in Gen 3:1-7.
In the Hebrew, each act of the chapter is seen separate, each beginning with the all-important 'and,' signifying a different act of the narrative:
'and-the-serpent he-becomes crafty... and-he-is-saying to the-woman...and-she-is-saying the-woman to the-serpent...'
Really no indication that the 'they' is directed at two people presently, but rather reflective of the original prohibition given to the man.
Originally posted by Conrau KThat is definately not the case. The Bible is very clear that sin can be sin without knowledge. Otherwise remaining blissfully ignorant would be everyones best tactic.
Usually a sin entails knowledge that such an action is a sin.
It is clear from the Bible that sin can be inherited (no knowledge there) and also it can be commited without intention.
Why would a true believer willingly sin? Yet we are told that one can never be truly free from sin. This is in my opinion one of the many proofs that the God described in the bible is not Just. You are guilty whether you like it or not, it is not because of a wrong choice you made.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou need to distinguish between sin itself and the effects of sin. The first is personal and cannot be transferred; the second (obviously) can affect more than just the sinner. For instance, if a millionaire decides to blow up his fortune gambling, his kids are going to grow up in poverty. Would you say that was unjust?
That is definately not the case. The Bible is very clear that sin can be sin without knowledge. Otherwise remaining blissfully ignorant would be everyones best tactic.
It is clear from the Bible that sin can be inherited (no knowledge there) and also it can be commited without intention.
Why would a true believer willingly sin? Yet we are told that one ...[text shortened]... Just. You are guilty whether you like it or not, it is not because of a wrong choice you made.
Besides, no normal person above the age of reason can remain "blissfully ignorant". Reason itself dictates a moral code that we all follow (this is called the "natural law" ) - every rational person has the opportunity to do both good and evil knowingly.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI was taught that sin was in some way inherited not the effects of sin. That is you are born a sinner, not born with some punishment on your slate.
You need to distinguish between sin itself and the effects of sin. The first is personal and cannot be transferred; the second (obviously) can affect more than just the sinner. For instance, if a millionaire decides to blow up his fortune gambling, his kids are going to grow up in poverty. Would you say that was unjust?
Yes I say that inheritance of weath or lack thereof is unjust. Hence communism and suchlike. But we all know that the world and its ways are unjust. There is nothing just about being punished for another persons sins whether or not you are related.
Besides, no normal person above the age of reason can remain "blissfully ignorant". Reason itself dictates a moral code that we all follow (this is called the "natural law" ) - every rational person has the opportunity to do both good and evil knowingly.
What if the "natural law" dicatates a different moral code from what is given in the Bible? Are you a sinner if you follow the natural law while ignorant of the Bible?
A comment on a previous post about unclean food. I was told by a muslim that it is thier duty to take any reasonable steps to ensure that what they eat is Halaal (clean). Merely closing your eyes when there is pork on the table does not allow you to eat it. If you are unsure it is better to abstain.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf inheritance of wealth is unjust, then surely the giving of gifts is unjust as well?
I was taught that sin was in some way inherited not the effects of sin. That is you are born a sinner, not born with some punishment on your slate.
Yes I say that inheritance of weath or lack thereof is unjust. Hence communism and suchlike. But we all know that the world and its ways are unjust. There is nothing just about being punished for another pers ...[text shortened]... pork on the table does not allow you to eat it. If you are unsure it is better to abstain.
There is no "what if" about the natural law dictating a different moral code from what is given in the Bible - at least as far as the Deuteronomic laws go, we already know they are. Jesus himself says so in his discourse on divorce.