Importance of Original Sin

Aren't all of the above examples of fakery? I'm not familiar with the talking mule, but I do know that no horse ever talked on the Mr. Ed show and that ventriloquist dummies don't really speak. On the other hand, the Bible describes the serpent as a clever talking animal.Genesis 3:1 (NIV)

quote:

---

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?

---

After his deception of Eve, God curses the serpent. I don't see any indication in Genesis that an evil being was using ventriloquism or fakery to make the serpent appear to talk.

quote:

---

So the LORD God said to the serpent, Because you have done this,

​

Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.

---

It could have been, but eating the fruit appeared to have magical effects on Adam and Eve.Genesis 3:6

quote:

---

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

---

On what basis should he be expected to obey rather than disobey God?

Hi CS, Paul did not write "So it was written".Paul wrote:
καί οϋτω(ς) γράφωThe first word is kai a conjunction connecting this sentence to the previous sentence.The second word is hout(s) an adverb meaning in this manner.The third word is graph a verb which means to write or written.So Paul said, "And, in this manner written". "So" was a choice of the translators as was the insertion of "it is".God Bless,

Hi NoNukes, Well if the serpent was not being spoken through by the devil who was he being controled by?Serpents can't talk can they? Yet this one did talk. But in this paradise perfect world all the animals might have been able to speak.Those of us who make it to the New Jerusalem John wrote about in Revelation will find out won't we.You do know the devil is refered to many times in the Bible as a serpent don't you? What magical effects?The only thing that happened was when the man not the woman ate the fruit their eyes were opened and they saw they were naked.What was magical about them knowing they were naked?They did decide they needed clothes and covered themselves with fig leaves. Which is a lot more material than some try to cover their nakedness with today.God Bless,

Hi Straggler, If it is possible for you to put yourself in the first mans place please do so and lets look at what he observed.The man was formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7:

quote:

---

2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

---

This man was the first living life form on the face of the Earth.

quote:

---

Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

---

There was no plants of anykind alive so there was no animals of anykind alive.So the man of Genesis 2:7 was looking at a barren Earth.Now lets see what he observed, besides a barren Earth that had no water, no plants, and no animals.

quote:

---

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

---

So this man observed plants that came into existence after he did.

quote:

---

2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

---

He then observed trees to grow out of the ground.

quote:

---

Genesis 2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

---

He saw a river begin to exist.

quote:

---

Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

---

He saw animals, and fowls that began to exist.

quote:

---

Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

​

2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

---

God brought a woman to him and he knew she was cloned from a bone from his body.Now if you saw all these things and the being that you saw do them told you not to eat the fruit of a specific tree, would you disobey that being?The man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 had every right to believe that God could and would do exactly what He said He would do if he ate the fruit from the forbiden tree.Now if you want to mix this story up with the story in Genesis 1:2 throught Genesis 2:3 in which the man was created in the image/likeness of God on day six which was not told he could not eat of a specific tree, you could come to the conclusion why should I obey?God Bless,

Kicked to the touchline called 'gloopy disjointedness'. I get the hint..

I might do. Why wouldn't I? Why wouldn't you? Pardon my biblical ignorance but what exactly did He say that he would do?

I'm inclined to agree with you. In the measure that God does/provides something that makes Adam go "Wow" is Satan's temptation more enabled.Satan is offering Adam that he can be like God afterall.It seems to me that there is no particular reason why Adam should choose this way or that way - it's left to him to decide what he wants without his being swayed this way or that by what's on offer.There certainly is no sense that "this is what I ought do" applies (where 'ought' contains a moral dimension)We seem to be tied to the notion that sin necessarily involves choice with a moral element to it. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Not unless I was given cause to be swayed in another direction. And if I wasn't given cause to be swayed in another direction (unto balance in the influence exerted by the competing options) then I can't see how the choice can be said to be a free-willed one.I mean, a set of choices in which one of the options is a no-brainer isn't exactly a choice that can be said to involve free-will. Such a situation would see the no-brainer option exert excessive influence.As stated to Straggler, the more God impresses Adam, the more the temptation to be like God is empowered.

quote:

---

Now if you saw all these things and the being that you saw do them told you not to eat the fruit of a specific tree, would you disobey that being?

---

You're adding to the story. You're adding the back story that suits you. It's easier to do that with fiction than with fact. I have no problem with that in a teaching setting, but that's not what this is.We always wonder why the scared girl always runs away from the crowd and to the empty room or basement because we know she will get killed. The reason is because that is the way the story is written.The storyteller made Adam's choice, not Adam. The story can be altered to suit the needs of the storyteller or audience, just like you're doing. The Redactor put the two stories together to suit his purpose.People have written stories that integrate the two stories together to suit their purpose.Paul took what Adam represented for his purpose.It is a shame that Christianity took a nice cultural story and made it totally about sin. We don't really need those types of stories anymore. They are nice for the kids, but they will outgrow them at some point.From what I've seen so far, the Christians that feel they have no control over their behavior seem to cling to the Creation story.Like I said, losing the story doesn't take away from the teachings of Jesus or Paul. It probably doesn't help the later doctrine created through reinterpretation. Creative License.

Hi iano, What cause was given to the first man to disobey and eat the fruit?He knew the consequences was death.God Bless,

Hi PD, I am not adding to anything.I simply gave what was recorded in the verses I presented.Either it is true or it is false you have the choice of exercising your freewill and accept what is written or reject it.God Bless,

Hi iano, Where did Satan or the serpent make that offer to the man?God Bless,

Hi Straggler, Cause the consequences of disobedience to occure.The consequences for disobedience was death.God Bless,

Here..

quote:

---

4 You will not certainly die, the serpent said to the woman. 5 For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

---