Is there Biblical support for the concept of "Original Sin"?

Well, this sounds like we are back to my Message 80 (which I think you missed): Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Huh?I'm sorry but that just confuses me totally. Are you not arguing that the issue was that Adam and Eve disobeyed God? Huh?I'm sorry but exactly what is the difference between obeying one person over another and disobeying one person over another?How could either Adam or Eve choose who they should obey?Edited by jar, : fix grammar

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

The issue isn't their disobeying God. The issue is your claim that they would have to have known not to disobey God in order to be in a position to disobey God.It's a claim which requires justification. Have you got one? A change in signage only. Obey A means disobey B. Obey B means disobey A. They could choose based on the percieved attractiveness of the consequences offered as they understood them to be. Avoiding death vs. being like God.

A) do not eat from this tree you can eat from any other tree
B) eat from this tree god does not want you to eat it cause you will become like himFrom the 2 arguments i would choose B if someone would have said do not eat from this tree cause you will die. Then i would choose to follow A whit all my knowlage of right and wrong that i supposedly got from those 2 eating the tree and whitout the knowlage i would die and the knowlage of what death is i would EAT the f%&# Apple.

Again, isn't that the point? Without a "should-element", how can there be any sin? They used their free will, which they were entitled to do, and they accepted the consequences. Where's the sin?

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

No, I did not make such a claim. I said that they were not capable of deciding they should obey God rather than the serpent unless they had some capability to tell right from wrong. Okay. And that is a valid reason. Or that the fruit is pleasant to eat. Both are very reasonable decisions and decisions that one might expect a child to make.And God did punish them as outlined in the curses, BUT the curses only had any value because they then did have the tools to know right from wrong and there is still no support there for Original Sin.The story in Genesis 2&3 is NOT about Original Sin as suggested in Romans 5 or of some Fall, but rather as I have pointed out many times, a "Just So Story" explaining why humans create a society based on the concept of right and wrong, why we fear snakes, why we farm instead of just being hunter gatherers, why childbirth seems more painful for humans than the other animals.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Sorry. I did. Her reason for doubting the 2nd informer would stem from her doubting the 1st (which she would need to do in order to circumvent the contradiction and go with the 2nd).But if any informer can be wrong then all informers can be wrong - she'd have no reason to suppose the one more likely to be right than the other.- Me too. And if you put "God" instead of "serpent" the same applies.

If "disobeying God" is a definition of sin then they sinned. That you add a moral element to the original consequential element for my sinning doesn't alter the definition being so. It's still disobeying God and so, still sin.

Who says she doubts the first informer?
Being wrong is very different to lying.
If the Serpent corrects God's information then neither are necessarily being dishonest.
For Eve to question the veracity of informer 2's information to the point of ignoring it, she would have to think he was lying or delusional. If Eve asked: "Are you sure?" and the serpent replied: "Yes. Completely." then she would be left with no other option that to think the Serpent correct (unless you think she could anticipate the Serpent being mad or immoral).

So the only way you can come up with "Original Sin" is by trivializing sin itself? If sin is nothing but disobeying God's whim, if it has no "bad" connotation in and of itself, why would we be concerned with sin at all?

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Because the God iano tries to market is evil.Even though the God knows that Adam and Eve do not have the tools necessary to make an informed decisions the God places an attractive nuisance (the Tree itself) in the Garden, mentions it to make it significant, puts a tempter in the Garden and then punishes the kids and all their descendants for eating the fruit.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Please see Message 81, which might be a partial answer. But I'm not quite sure what you are trying to ask?

Doubting need not involve suspicion of lying. One could suspect a person of being wrong - like you say.Suffice to say she either doubts the first (and moves in direction 2) or doesn't doubt either party and sit's where she is with an unresolved contradiction. But if doubting the first ("the first could be wrong") then she'd immediately have reason to doubt the second ("if one can be wrong then so can two")You don't supply a reason to doubt the first and not the second.- True. But how's she to know the Serpent is correct once doubt is permitted as a resolution of the contradiction?- Or mistaken. Just as she'd have to do with informer 1- ..or mistaken, for all his self-assuredness.We can dance around Panda but nothing of substance has emerged so far: not in the serpent being the last to speak, not in the doubt raised. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I don't see the original sin as trivial. There were huge consequences arising from it. Then again, I'd be shy of supposing us the luxury of blaming it all on Adam. Per definition, it has a "bad" connotation when arising from creatures made moral. For you, for me, for post-fall Adam, for post-fall Eve. Before that, it only can have consequential connotations - perceived as negative or positive.I wonder whether Adam and/or Eve were saved. No man comes to the Father except through Jesus .. afterall.

Your reasoning seems circular. You're assuming that there was a sin committed in the Garden of Eden and then you're attributing consequences to that sin. I'm saying that if anything Adam and Eve did in the story was a "sin", then sin is trivial. According to the story, Adam and Eve were "made moral" by eating the fruit. How can you retroactively charge them with sin when the act was what made them capable of sin?

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi