original sin

[posthuman]

They would have understood that doing so was against the command

Therefore they understood that obedience is good and disobedience is bad.

 

[posthuman]

They did not eat of the Tree of Life as "commanded"

Where is that commanded?

 

[Corban]

Where is that commanded?

Genesis 2:16. "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat."

 

[posthuman]

Genesis 2:16. "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat."

Freely eat.

That's not 'you must eat this tree' - it's not a command at all, but a proclamation of freedom to Adam.

And it implies two very important things:

Adam has free will to choose from the fruits.
Adam has an innate sense of a fruit 'good' to eat vs 'bad' to eat, so that he is able to make a choice.

 

[Magenta]

Adam knew good by knowing God

 

[Corban]

Freely eat.

That's not 'you must eat this tree' - it's not a command at all, but a proclamation of freedom to Adam.

And it implies two very important things:

Adam has free will to choose from the fruits.
Adam has an innate sense of a fruit 'good' to eat vs 'bad' to eat, so that he is able to make a choice.

I accept your point. But I would read the "freely" not as a freedom but as "without consequences". Young's Literal gives an inkling;

16 "And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man, saying, `Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat;
17 and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it—dying thou dost die.'"

Darby follows, with a margin note. I am not qualified to make a judgment on the Old Testament Hebrew, but I would say that it is more than a suggestion, as verse 17 shows.

I would disagree with your last statement. Eve observed in Genesis 3:6.

"And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a pleasure for the eyes, and the tree was to be desired to give intelligence; and she took of its fruit, and ate, and gave also to her husband with her, and he ate."

There is no "innate sense of good or bad" there. It was "good", "pleasure" and "to be desired".

 

[throughfaith]

Sin is transgression of the law . God said "do not" .

 

[posthuman]

I would disagree with your last statement. Eve observed in Genesis 3:6.

"And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a pleasure for the eyes, and the tree was to be desired to give intelligence; and she took of its fruit, and ate, and gave also to her husband with her, and he ate."

There is no "innate sense of good or bad" there. It was "good", "pleasure" and "to be desired".

Genesis 3:6 proves my point -- she knew the difference between 'good for food' vs 'not-good' and she knew the difference between 'desirable' and 'not-desirable'

i am convinced she's not an amoral imbecile without even the merest sense of morality, as is being implied by ((what i consider to be)) the shallowest possible understanding of what the 'tree of the knowledge of good from evil' is and does.

 

[Benadam]

Genesis 3:6 proves my point -- she knew the difference between 'good for food' vs 'not-good' and she knew the difference between 'desirable' and 'not-desirable'

i am convinced she's not an amoral imbecile without even the merest sense of morality, as is being implied by ((what i consider to be)) the shallowest possible understanding of what the 'tree of the knowledge of good from evil' is and does.

Also, the deepest mode of knowing is being. Neither had that mode of knowing evil.

 

[Corban]

Genesis 3:6 proves my point -- she knew the difference between 'good for food' vs 'not-good' and she knew the difference between 'desirable' and 'not-desirable'

i am convinced she's not an amoral imbecile without even the merest sense of morality, as is being implied by ((what i consider to be)) the shallowest possible understanding of what the 'tree of the knowledge of good from evil' is and does.

I'll concede. In the sense you propose - I agree. The sense I proposed was that she had no idea of the consequences, of (i) the fruit of the Tree itself, (ii) disobeying God. We must remember that she was pristine at the time, not yet besmirched by sin.

 

[posthuman]

I'll concede. In the sense you propose - I agree. The sense I proposed was that she had no idea of the consequences, of (i) the fruit of the Tree itself, (ii) disobeying God. We must remember that she was pristine at the time, not yet besmirched by sin.

well i'd say at the time she sees the tree as 'good for food, desirable for wisdom' she's deceived. so i would question whether either of those are true.

there are three commonly taught things in the majority view of the tree that i adamantly disagree with:

• it's said that they had no sense of right or wrong, good or bad before eating of the tree
  • i think several things in the narrative contradict this. Adam names every living soul. Adam tends the garden. they freely eat from the garden, making independent decisions. Adam isn't deceived. Woman, while deceived, sees eating from the tree as good & desirable. the argument Satan makes depends on her having a sense of right and wrong; he convinces her God has done evil by commanding her not to eat. they receive commands from God - i see it as implicit they know the difference between right and wrong by virtue of having been given a command; they have to know that it's good to obey & evil to disobey, or commands make no sense & it's questionable whether they can be held accountable for disobedience. etc
• it's said that they only gain a sense of right vs. wrong be eating from the tree
  • previous objections all apply here. furthermore, this view implies that God does not want them to have ethical knowledge, because He forbids them from eating -- i.e. in this proposed paradigm, God creates morally imbecilic creatures and considers it evil for them to have wisdom to make good decisions. this paradigm equates knowing the difference between good and evil with death -- compare Isaiah 7:16, speaking of the Messiah knowing to choose good & reject evil, is this calling the Messiah "dead" and full of sin & forbidden knowledge? consider too, that this is not something God ever says about the tree. He does not say the tree gives a person the ability to know the difference between good, that it should be chosen, and evil, that it should be rejected. so where is the origin of this interpretation?
• it's said that eating from the tree makes them "like God"
  • this is what Satan says. God never says this. Satan is a liar. everything he tells Woman is a lie. this paradigm makes 'divinity' attainable through created things and makes 'knowing that evil is bad' the only thing separating mortals from godhood. the implication being that understanding goodness should be chosen rather than wickedness is tantamount to divine omniscience and wisdom, that God considers it evil for man to be able to discern right from wrong, that God calls it 'death' for man to be like Him. starting to sound absurd? because that's Satan's premise: that God has lied, that God is evil, that what God is calling 'death' is really wisdom and life. remember, this entire idea is what Satan tells Woman in order to deceive her. it's not the truth.
    • God later declares of Adam, not Eve, that he has become like one of the divine "Us" -- when Adam hears the judgement of the Serpent and the promise of the Seed that will crush it, Adam renames his wife, who is full of death at the time, having been sentenced to death and pain, to "mother of the living" -- at this saying God sheds blood and covers them, and declares that Adam has become like "one of" Him.
    • note there is no mention of the tree when God says this. note that it's specifically said of Adam, not Eve. to my understanding, it's because of what Adam displays by changing his wife's name, that God declares this about Adam. it's not a product of having eaten from the tree, but of Adam's understanding and faith. first Adam must be covered with the atonement God makes, then this can be declared.

i have the sense that a more accurate translation is 'tree of knowledge of good from evil'
and not in the sense of distinguishing one from another -- but in the sense of knowing good which proceeds from evil.

think about it. they do something evil. it results in death, but does good eventually come of it?
compare Romans 11:32 -- He constrained all under sin in order that He might have mercy on them all.

how often are we tempted to do something wrong, thinking that it will achieve a right result?

 

[posthuman]

The sense I proposed was that she had no idea of the consequences, of (i) the fruit of the Tree itself, (ii) disobeying God. We must remember that she was pristine at the time, not yet besmirched by sin.

i agree for sure she didn't 'know death' -- certainly not in the sense that @Benadam remarked, that she has no 'being dead' in her, there being no sin in her, and no evil, until she eats ((or until she decides in her heart to? hmm))

these things are introduced to her thinking through deception, by the Serpent, who turns her heart towards evil with his lies. 'the abundance of his traffic'

i didn't mean to belittle you of course, i hope you understand, when i lambasted this view that they only attain a sense of morality by eating from the tree. i'm not sure that it's even what you were suggesting. other people here tho, for example @Webers.Home preach those things that i posted arguing against. so i feel compelled to speak at length about it whenever a new thread comes up on the topic


to me Genesis 2-3 are very important keys to understanding the scripture. if we get these wrong, we'll misunderstand a lot of other things, because almost all the Bible connects to this. such that if we get these things here right, we'll have a much easier time understanding so many other things. Genesis 3 is a 'supernode' in the connected network graph of the scripture, if you will. it's similar to how, if we misunderstand what Christ did at the cross, we'll botch most of the NT. it's a fundamental

 

[Magenta]

I'll concede. In the sense you propose - I agree. The sense I proposed was that she had no idea of the consequences, of (i) the fruit of the Tree itself, (ii) disobeying God. We must remember that she was pristine at the time, not yet besmirched by sin.

She was told she would die. Did she understand death? Do we???

Largely and for the most part, based on what I see people saying about death, I think not.

 

[Corban]

i agree for sure she didn't 'know death' -- certainly not in the sense that @Benadam remarked, that she has no 'being dead' in her, there being no sin in her, and no evil, until she eats ((or until she decides in her heart to? hmm))

these things are introduced to her thinking through deception, by the Serpent, who turns her heart towards evil with his lies. 'the abundance of his traffic'

i didn't mean to belittle you of course, i hope you understand, when i lambasted this view that they only attain a sense of morality by eating from the tree. i'm not sure that it's even what you were suggesting. other people here tho, for example @Webers.Home preach those things that i posted arguing against. so i feel compelled to speak at length about it whenever a new thread comes up on the topic


to me Genesis 2-3 are very important keys to understanding the scripture. if we get these wrong, we'll misunderstand a lot of other things, because almost all the Bible connects to this. such that if we get these things here right, we'll have a much easier time understanding so many other things. Genesis 3 is a 'supernode' in the connected network graph of the scripture, if you will. it's similar to how, if we misunderstand what Christ did at the cross, we'll botch most of the NT. it's a fundamental

After reading through your two postings twice, I have the feeling that we will not solve Eve's (and Adam's) INNATE condition before the fall. Certainly they had intelligence, understanding and all the faculties we have, yet working without the burden of a sinful nature as we have. I too agree that an understanding of Genesis Chapters 2 and 3 are vital to being able to understand the rest of the Bible. The problem we are confronted with is that we have approximately one Chapter in which the understanding, intellect and morality of a person who has not sinned is revealed. How their psyche worked must remain a mystery to us who only know corruption.

But, we do have something to work with - the Lord Jesus - the "second man". But again we are limited because our Lord Jesus did not stand before any decision like Adam and Eve. He possessed the divine nature from insemination. There is a huge difference between a man who is created a perfect (Hu)-man, and THEN offered eternal and divine life, and a man who possesses BOTH from the womb. But from Romans 8:29, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren", we can study our Lord Jesus and see what the GOAL is.

What is certain, is that God, in His mercy and His unflappable sovereignty, has prepared a way and a solution for man to be transported back from depravity and utter fallenness to the condition He wanted Adam in IF Adam had eaten from the Tree of Life. And for this we may study the matter from all angles, for it is the story of the Bible. The Bible divides men into three parties. (i) Those who get to eat from the Tree of Life - the Church, (ii) those who do not get to eat from the Tree of Life, BUT have a Covenant with God - Israel, and (iii) those who do not eat from the Tree of Life BUT retain this knowledge gained from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil - the Gentiles. And at their respective Judgment Seats, they are called into account based on their position and their works with what thy had.

We see us Christians being required to produce fruit - that of the True Vine. The Jew has no such demands laid on him. He has the Law as his standard (Rom.2:12). And the Gentile has his conscience. This is no let-off for the Gentile because it is the conscience that carries the knowledge of Good and Evil. And this conscience is so knowledgeable and so condemning that it must be "seared" (1st Tim.4:2) to be able to do the evil it knows. Not even Judas could overcome it. It drove him to despair and suicide.

I think Ill leave it at that. The tendency is to relate half the Bible, and then still transmit very little knowledge to others, mainly because we have to live through the problem. In Matthew 7:21-23 we have men who called upon the Lord, men who had divine power to work the works of God, men who knew that the power came from God and which works were intrinsically not evil - but good. And yet, in the day of giving account for themselves, they are found "workers of iniquity". It is this dilemma that we must get to the bottom of, for it helps not a wit to say that these men were unsaved or unbelievers. That is not addressed. What is addressed is WHAT THEY DID - not what they believed!

 

[Corban]

She was told she would die. Did she understand death? Do we???

Largely and for the most part, based on what I see people saying about death, I think not.

Exactly my point. Thanks. But there is more. Within hours (by sunset) she became intimately acquainted with death, for God slew animals to clothe her. And while God did the killing, it was for her, and on her account that the animals died ("skins" - plural). Their blood was IN-STEAD of hers. And although Eve's age at death is not given, she must have witnessed the bloody and broken body of her second-born - Abel - and been shocked by it. And yet, as you say, Eve, confronted with the effects of death, must still die her own death to really know death itself.

 

[Magenta]

In Matthew 7:21-23 we have men who called upon the Lord, men who had divine power to work the works of God, men who knew that the power came from God and which works were intrinsically not evil - but good. And yet, in the day of giving account for themselves, they are found "workers of iniquity". It is this dilemma that we must get to the bottom of, for it helps not a wit to say that these men were unsaved or unbelievers. That is not addressed. What is addressed is WHAT THEY DID - not what they believed!

I did read your whole post (thank you!) but want to address just this, for it seems to me that the issue is one of to whom they submitted. Like the builders of the tower of Babel... they professed to want to reach God but it was to glorify themselves. I see the same in those who do works about which and whom Jesus proclaims, I never knew you. The works they do are not in service to God, but their own egos and advancement.

 

[Webers.Home]

.
It's believed by a pretty large percentage of modern Christians that the so
called fallen nature is inherited from one's biological father. Oh? From
whence did the woman get it?

She was constructed with material taken from Adam's body prior to the
forbidden fruit incident. Since himself tasted the fruit after his wife was
born; then it was impossible for Adam to pass the so-called fallen nature to
her by means of procreation.

In the past, I was sure that the chemistry of the forbidden fruit had
something to do with the change that took place in the first couple's moral
perception; but now I seriously doubt it because the woman was the first to
eat it, and when she did, nothing happened.

She remained shameless and went about in the buff as usual; the woman's
self awareness was unchanged, and her feelings about the human body
remained the same. It wasn't till Adam tasted the fruit that she began to
think that full frontal nudity is indecent; so I'm pretty sure that the
underlying cause is far more serious than the chemistry of that fruit.

Ruling out Adam, and ruling out the fruit; we're left with two alternatives:
either God did it to them or the Serpent did it. My money is on the Serpent,
a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2)

He has the power of death (Heb 2:14) and the ability to tamper with the
human body and the human mind in ways not easily detected; e.g. Luke
13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2.

The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield his power the moment
that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it
takes effect. As soon as Adam tasted the fruit, he and his wife both
immediately set to work with the fig leaves.

FAQ: Why wasn't the woman effected by the Serpent's power when she
tasted the forbidden fruit?

A: It was apparently God's decision that if sin and death were to come into
the world, they would come via a male's actions just as life and
righteousness would later be offered to the world via a male's actions. (Rom
5:12-21)

FAQ: When does the Serpent go to work on people. . . in the womb or out of
the womb?

A: Adam and his wife demonstrate that it can be done on adults, but I'm
guessing that for most of us it's in the womb. (Ps 51:5 & 58:3)

Bottom line: Jesus didn't inherit the fallen nature simply because it isn't
inherited; and all that was necessary to protect Mary's baby from infection
was to keep the Serpent's paws off him.
_

 

[Webers.Home]

.

She was told she would die. Did she understand death?

In order for the warning to resonate in Eve's thinking; it had to be related to
death as she understood it in her own day rather than death as modern
Sunday school classes construe it in their day. In other words: Eve's concept
of death was primitive, i.e. normal and natural rather spiritual.

As far as can be known from scripture, Man is the only specie that God
created with immortality (Gen 1:26-27). The animal kingdom was given
nothing like it. That being the case, then I think it's safe to assume that
death was common all around Eve by means of vegetation, birds, bugs, and
beasts so that it wasn't a strange new word in her vocabulary; i.e. God
didn't have to take a moment and define death for the woman seeing as how
it was doubtless a common occurrence in her everyday life.

Eve saw things born, she saw things grow to maturity, she saw things
gradually wither, she saw their life ebb away, and she saw them decay and
dissolve into nothing. So I think we can be reasonably confident that Eve
was up to speed on at least the natural aspects of death; viz: she was
familiar with mortality and she was familiar with immortality.
_

 

[Corban]

.
It's believed by a pretty large percentage of modern Christians that the so
called fallen nature is inherited from one's biological father. Oh? From
whence did the woman get it?

She was constructed with material taken from Adam's body prior to the
forbidden fruit incident. Since himself tasted the fruit after his wife was
born; then it was impossible for Adam to pass the so-called fallen nature to
her by means of procreation.

In the past, I was sure that the chemistry of the forbidden fruit had
something to do with the change that took place in the first couple's moral
perception; but now I seriously doubt it because the woman was the first to
eat it, and when she did, nothing happened.

She remained shameless and went about in the buff as usual; the woman's
self awareness was unchanged, and her feelings about the human body
remained the same. It wasn't till Adam tasted the fruit that she began to
think that full frontal nudity is indecent; so I'm pretty sure that the
underlying cause is far more serious than the chemistry of that fruit.

Ruling out Adam, and ruling out the fruit; we're left with two alternatives:
either God did it to them or the Serpent did it. My money is on the Serpent,
a.k.a. the Devil (Rev 20:2)

He has the power of death (Heb 2:14) and the ability to tamper with the
human body and the human mind in ways not easily detected; e.g. Luke
13:16, Mark 5:1-5, and Eph 2:2.

The Serpent was apparently all set and ready to wield his power the moment
that Adam crossed the line and ate that fruit. It amazes me how quickly it
takes effect. As soon as Adam tasted the fruit, he and his wife both
immediately set to work with the fig leaves.

FAQ: Why wasn't the woman effected by the Serpent's power when she
tasted the forbidden fruit?

A: It was apparently God's decision that if sin and death were to come into
the world, they would come via a male's actions just as life and
righteousness would later be offered to the world via a male's actions. (Rom
5:12-21)

FAQ: When does the Serpent go to work on people. . . in the womb or out of
the womb?

A: Adam and his wife demonstrate that it can be done on adults, but I'm
guessing that for most of us it's in the womb. (Ps 51:5 & 58:3)

Bottom line: Jesus didn't inherit the fallen nature simply because it isn't
inherited; and all that was necessary to protect Mary's baby from infection
was to keep the Serpent's paws off him.
_

Or, there is another possibility. Romans 1:20 tells us, "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse". That is, we can look to the creature to see how things went. Food is only assimilated over a certain time. We read the account in less than sixty seconds, but our last meal took 6 to 8 hours to be assimilated by the system. The effect of the fruit might have taken hours. Eve ate by sight, as all unfaithful people live by sight. She could have offered the fruit to Adam, and convinced him of its pleasures long before the poison worked. WE could even go further and liken the effects of the fruit to a cancer. Maybe it took years to work.

If the "knowledge" of good and evil is intellectual knowledge, it could be had as quickly as it is explained. But what is the implication if the "knowledge" was EXPERIMENTAL knowledge? Consider. They had already disobeyed God twice, and Eve had misquoted God's Words. They had not only eaten of the Tree that was forbidden, but what was the Serpent doing in the Garden? The literal Hebrew of Genesis 2:15 is that Adam was to "fence about", or "hedge about" and "bring to order" the Garden. God expected man to put a fence and/or a hedge about the Garden to keep defiling things out of the place where God meets with man. And God expected man to cast out anything that interfered with fellowship. What was the Serpent still doing in the Garden?

But I'll readily admit that this is somewhat speculative, just as your example is. What then is the truth? It is in the grammar of the sentence. In verses 6-7 of Genesis 3, it reads:

6 "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings."

The couple were TOGETHER, and the effects of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil HIT BOTH OF THEM EQUALLY. And it was the fruit of the Tree that corrupted them. However, in Matthew 3:,7 12:34, 23:33 and Luke 3:7, BOTH John Baptist and our Lord Jesus called men, and men of the God-given religion, "a generation of vipers". That is, vipers "generated" Israelites. That means that they would have the SERPENTINE NATURE. It would seem that the "Knowledge of Good and Evil" was first EXPERIMENTAL and THEN became embedded in their intellects AFTER it was experienced - the Same sequence that Satan experienced in Ezekiel 28:15;

"Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found IN thee."

It does not read, "till you acquired intellectual knowledge of good and evil".

Moving on to the reason why our Lord Jesus does not possess Adam's sin-nature, the answer is simple. The sin-nature is passed on by the MALE (Romans 5:12). Because it needs male and female to produce offspring, everybody has the sin-nature. But in Christ's case, the MALE part was not Joseph. It was the Holy Spirit. Our Lord Jesus was "seed of the woman", as predicted in Genesis 3:15, but not "seed" of the MALE. He is "Son of Man", and He is a "Son of God" via Adam because the woman came from Adam.

 

[posthuman]

It's believed by a pretty large percentage of modern Christians that the so
called fallen nature is inherited from one's biological father. Oh? From
whence did the woman get it?

her name was called "Woman" because she was taken out of man. Adam was formed out of the dust; Eve was formed out of Adam.

reproduction is a process by which both the mother and the father contribute genetic material to a child.




P.S.

she doesn't have a fallen nature **before** she falls. are you suggesting God created Adam sinful from the beginning?