|
Author
|
Topic: Is there Biblical support for the concept of "Original Sin"?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
Message 128 of 240 (590971)
11-11-2010 1:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 127 by kbertsche
11-11-2010 12:36 AM
|
|
kbertsche writes: ringo writes: How can becoming more like God be a sin? How can the desire to be more like God be a sin?
Good questions. But rather than answering such questions a priori and forcing the text into an interpretation that fits your preconceived answers, I would recommend going to the text and letting it speak for itself.
I don't have any preconceived answers. I'd still like to hear your answers. And I'd still like an answer to the question I asked you in Message 33: If there is any other support besides the skyhook of Romans 5, please show it.
kbertsche writes: E.g. does the text communicate what I claimed in Message 81?:
quote:
According to the account, God had placed man in an idyllic garden. But man was not satisfied with this; he wanted to make himself like God. He tried to do this in the garden, and tried to do it again at Babel. The Genesis account portrays these attempts to make oneself like God as very bad, not as beneficial.
No, it doesn't. Eve saw that the tree was "to be desired to make one wise". There's no suggestion that she (or Adam) was dissatisfied with anything. And in no way is becoming more like God - not "attempting to make oneself like God" - portrayed as a bad thing.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 127 by kbertsche, posted 11-11-2010 12:36 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 134 of 240 (591022)
11-11-2010 11:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 130 by iano
11-11-2010 4:55 AM
|
|
iano writes: - their disobedience is described as sin
Where is their disobedience described as sin? The first mention of sin in the Bible, as I recall, was in reference to Cain, several years later.
iano writes: ringo writes: I'm saying that that's a silly definition that trivializes sin.
Yet there were "significant consequences arising" from their action.
It hasn't been established that their action had anything to do with sin. You're extrapolating to say that any disobedience of God would be a sin, with or without consequences. That's how your definition trivializes sin.
iano writes: Where, other than within God, would you suppose to ground things in order that meaning can be produced.
Within our own consciences, of course. Without personal responibility, without free will, the concept of sin is no different from the whim of any petty tyrant.
iano writes: This discussion centres around a biblical notion for sin. Not any old notion for it.
That's what I'm saying. I don't think your notion of sin has Biblical support, particularly in this context. Edited by ringo, : Spqlling.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 130 by iano, posted 11-11-2010 4:55 AM | | iano has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 140 of 240 (591184)
11-12-2010 10:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 139 by kbertsche
11-12-2010 6:51 AM
|
|
kbertsche writes: ringo writes: I don't have any preconceived answers.
Oh, really? It certainly doesn't appear that way.
I went to church three times a week for thirty years and never heard of "original sin". The first I heard of the concept was in a book about the comic strip Peanuts. So I know next to nothing about the doctrine of original sin and yes, I would be willing to accept that it's Biblical if there was any support for it. So far, the support presented in this thread has been extremely thin.
kbertsche writes: It should be quite obvious from the text that God gave man a prohibition, but man directly disobeyed God by violating this prohibition.
I would tend to call it a "suggestion" rather than a prohibition. After all, God either lied about the consequences or changed His mind, so even He had His doubts about how much of a "prohibition" it was. And I wouldn't say that Adam and Eve "directly disobeyed" a suggestion that they didn't have the capacity to assess effectively.
kbertsche writes: The serpent tempted/enticed Eve to disobey God.
The serpent offered a different viewpoint. You're reading in intentions that aren't in the text.
kbertsche writes: Eve misquoted God's prohibition (adding "you must not touch it").
Eve embellished, a further clue that she either didn't understand God's suggestion or didn't see any need to take it seriously.
kbertsche writes: The serpent called God a liar.
God either lied or changed His mind about Adam and Eve dying the same day. He Himself confirmed later on that the rest of what the serpent said was true - i.e. that eating the fruit would make Adam and Eve more like God.
kbersche writes: Do we agree this far on what the text says?
Obviously not. You're reading too much into the story that isn't there. It might help if you could provide support for original sin from somewhere else in the Bible. I've already asked for that more than once.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 139 by kbertsche, posted 11-12-2010 6:51 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
kbertsche writes: The consequence is stated very strongly with an intensive construction, "you shall surely die," literally, "dying you shall die."
As I already pointed out, the consequence proved to be untrue. Strong language doesn't make falsehoods more true.
kbertsche writes: The description of the serpent as "crafty" or "shrewd" in 3:1 implies that he has non-transparent intentions. The fact that he directly contradicts God and tells Eve to disobey God supports this.
I've described my own language as "subtle". It doesn't necessarily suggest dishonesty. It suggests that the listener has to put some effort into understanding the meaning. I'll mention again that the serpent's words were true and God's were not. Eve had to make the best effort that she could to decide whose words to follow.
kbertsche writes: Are you sure that they didn't "die" immediately? Are you sure that you are understanding the word "die" in the same way as the author of the text, his audience, or the context of the Pentateuch and the OT?
Pretty sure. If I tell you I'll do something "when" I get a chance, I don't mean in 900 years. It's just ludicrously meaningless to threaten somebody with death 900 years in the future. Are you sure you're not making up the idea of spiritual death to "fix" God's mistake/lie?
kbertsche writes: If we still disagree on what the text says, I am happy to provide quotations from leading textual scholars.
The topic is about Biblical support. I have no doubt that you can find extra-Biblical support for a lot of things.
kbertsche writes: The main biblical support is Rom 5. You and others (including the OP) raised questions as to whether or not Paul had correctly understood Genesis. This is what we are trying to address.
Speaking for myself, I'd be a lot more impressed if you could provide support for original sin from Hosea or Colossians. One chapter of one book, refering ambiguously to "one man" is extremely thin support.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 144 by kbertsche, posted 11-13-2010 1:26 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 147 of 240 (591442)
11-13-2010 10:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 146 by kbertsche
11-13-2010 10:16 PM
|
|
kbertsche writes: But I am trying to first focus on what the text says before we jump ahead to what it means.
On the contrary, you seem to be claiming that the text "might" mean something other than what it says.
kbertsche writes: If you think you can ignore all such "extra-biblical" evidence and still interpret the Bible accurately, you are deluded.
That's an odd statement coming from somebody who claims to be looking at what the text says. I'm just saying that we don't need a lot of extra-Biblical blah blah to see what the text says. I'm sure you can find extra-biblical support for almost any meaning that you want to shoehorn into the text but let's take your own suggestion and see what it says first.
kbertsche writes: You or I can't change the content of Hosea or Colossians.
We also can't find support for original sin in them, or we would have presented it already. Don't you find it odd that a doctrine as supposedly fundamental as original sin is only found in one book out of 66 and only references one other book of the 66?
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 146 by kbertsche, posted 11-13-2010 10:16 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 148 by jar, posted 11-13-2010 11:14 PM | | ringo has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 149 by kbertsche, posted 11-14-2010 10:52 AM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 151 of 240 (591476)
11-14-2010 11:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 149 by kbertsche
11-14-2010 10:52 AM
|
|
kbertsche writes: I am suggesting that there are potentially a number of possible meanings, and we shouldn't let our preconceived ideas as to meaning influence our understanding of what the text says.
I'm suggesting that your preconceptions about original sin are colouring what you think the text says. You're adding layers to the plain reading of the text. Genesis 3 is a simple story, a children's story. It seems bizarre to try to twist it into a doctrine. That's why I've suggested that we should look elsewhere for support but even you admit that there isn't any. Looking for deep meaning in Genesis 3 doesn't add to the support for original sin. It just stretches the support thinner. Thinner supports are not stronger.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 149 by kbertsche, posted 11-14-2010 10:52 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 155 of 240 (591489)
11-14-2010 11:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 152 by Phat
11-14-2010 11:27 AM
|
|
Re: Two Questions
Phat writes: Its almost as if the day I learned that God could lie, I myself began to die.
Isn't that what Genesis 3 is telling us? It's about the death of innocence.
quote:
I think the saddest day of my life was when I realized I could beat my Dad at most things. -- Homer Simpson
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 152 by Phat, posted 11-14-2010 11:27 AM | | Phat has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 168 of 240 (591783)
11-15-2010 11:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 167 by kbertsche
11-15-2010 8:55 PM
|
|
kbertsche writes: What is important is the "plain reading" of the text to the original audience, not to a modern audience.
The original audience was Jewish and the Jews don't have a doctrine of original sin. Go figure.
kbertsche writes: I have agreed that Rom 5 is our main teaching of the doctrine.
Then for God's sake, tell us what that other support is. I've asked for it several times already.
kbertsche writes: Trying to yank the passage out of its historical-cultural-grammatical context and read it simplistically and naively is simply irresponsible.
And yet my reading seems to tally better with the Jewish reading than yours does. Go figure again.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 167 by kbertsche, posted 11-15-2010 8:55 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 171 of 240 (592034)
11-18-2010 2:01 AM
|
Reply to: Message 170 by kbertsche
11-18-2010 12:59 AM
|
|
kbertsche writes: But it is also possible that this view was extant in the first century, perhaps as a minority position, and that Paul heard it from his rabbis.
It's entirely possible that Paul didn't personally invent the idea of original sin. The topic is about Biblical support, though. If you have references that Jews read the Bible that way, at any time in the history of the planet, feel free to present them.
kbertsche writes: Perhaps when we are done discussing Rom 5 and with Gen 2-3 we can explore this question.
I thought you said we were at an impasse regarding Romans and Genesis. So move ahead. Show us the support for original sin elsewhere in the Bible.
kbertsche writes: ringo writes: And yet my reading seems to tally better with the Jewish reading than yours does. Go figure again.
Does it really? Can you please provide support from some leading Jewish textual scholars (e.g. Nahum Sarna or someone of his caliber)?
I think the onus is on you to show that Jewish scholars (of any caliber) agree with the concept of original sin.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 170 by kbertsche, posted 11-18-2010 12:59 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 177 of 240 (592460)
11-20-2010 10:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 174 by kbertsche
11-20-2010 1:59 AM
|
|
kbertsche writes: And if you (or anyone else here) have references to the effect that the concept of original sin was completely absent from Judaism, feel free to present them as well.
The topic is about showing Biblical support for original sin. There's no obligation for me to prove (a negative) that there isn't any support.
kbertsche writes: Where did I say that we were at an impasse?
In Message 146, you said:
quote:
I would think that what the text says should be fairly objective. But you claim that we disagree on what the text says even before considering what it means. We can each produce our own textual arguments for what the text says, but how do we resolve an impasse?
I agree that a plain reading of the Genesis text is fairly objective but it's very different from the way you read it. You want to play Duelling Commentaries and I want to cut to the chase and go with what the original audience (the Jews) think of it.
kbertsche writes: You, on the other hand, have made an unsupported claim that your reading of Gen 2-3 agrees better with the Jewish reading than mine.
In Message 170, you conceded that modern Judaism has no concept of original sin:
quote:
The original audience was Jewish, long before the time of Christ. I believe you are correct that modern Jews don't have a doctrine of original sin. But what about ancient Judaism, or first-century Judaism?
There is no obligation for me to prove (another negative) that the Jews have not done a 180-degree turn on that subject. I've asked you many times to show something new from somewhere else in the Bible. Please do that. Maybe it will help to clear up the confusion/disagreement about what Genesis says/means.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 174 by kbertsche, posted 11-20-2010 1:59 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 183 of 240 (592952)
11-23-2010 1:58 AM
|
Reply to: Message 182 by kbertsche
11-22-2010 11:23 PM
|
|
kbertsche writes: If your argument rests on the claim that modern Judaism has the same view of Gen 2-3 as did OT Judaism, then you certainly do bear the obligation to support this claim.
Not at all. Continuity of Judaism is the default position. If you think there's been a major change in the Jewish reading of Genesis or the speed of light, the obligation is all yours.
kbertsche writes: Why do you think modern Judaism has a more accurate perspective than the Apostle Paul?
Because the Apostle Paul wasn't selling Judaism; he was selling Christianity. If all he was saying was what the Jews already believed, he was completely redundant.
kbertsche writes: I haven't seen anyone here try to deny that Rom 5 teaches original sin or that Rom 5 is part of the Bible.
I don't see much point in having a whole thread to state a tautology. If there is any other evidence, for the love of God present it.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 182 by kbertsche, posted 11-22-2010 11:23 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 184 by jar, posted 11-23-2010 12:07 PM | | ringo has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 185 by kbertsche, posted 11-23-2010 10:52 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 187 of 240 (593067)
11-23-2010 11:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 185 by kbertsche
11-23-2010 10:52 PM
|
|
kbertsche writes: Continuity of the Old and New Testaments is the "default position" of Christianity. Why is the modern Jewish "default position" any better than the Christian one?
The Old Testament is a Jewish book. The Jews naturally have a better claim to continuity than a dissenting sect. I find it bizarre that you think you understand their book better than they do themselves.
kbertsche writes: Asserting a "default position" strikes me as an attempt to avoid the hard work of actually interacting with the original text, history, and culture.
Your continuous refusal to provide any other evidence strikes me as an attempt to hide the fact that you don't have any.
kbertsche writes: Paul was trained by the leading rabbis, still saw himself as a Jew, and still attended the Synagogues. In his day Christianity was a sect of Judaism.
So, why didn't Paul push the idea of original sin to all of that Jewish sect? Why only the Romans?
kbertsche writes: The questions of why Paul interpreted Gen 2-3 the way he did, and whether or not it was viewed this way by the original audience, are good questions which I am interested to engage. But ultimately these questions have no effect on the question of whether or not original sin is a biblical doctrine.
Again, I have no doubt that you can find scholars who can spin original sin out of Genesis. But you'd have a much more convincing argument if you could find it anywhere else in the Bible. Once and for all, can you provide evidence for original sin outside of Genesis 2-3 and Romans 5? If you can, present it. If you can't, admit it.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 185 by kbertsche, posted 11-23-2010 10:52 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 194 of 240 (593106)
11-24-2010 11:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 192 by kbertsche
11-24-2010 10:54 AM
|
|
kbertsche writes: Paul made his case by referring back to Genesis. We are trying to discuss whether or not his case made valid use of Genesis.
You're trying to narrow the discussion to that one area. I'm trying to find out if there's any other support for original sin. Is there any?
kbertsche writes: Instead, you want me to make a case for original sin that is different from Paul's??
Of course. Why on earth wouldn't you want to consider all of the evidence?
kbertsche writes: I view your request as a red herring and an attempt to avoid the topic at hand.
The topic at hand is any support for original sin. You're the one who's avoiding it. If there is no other support, say so. I've asked before: - Did Paul mention original sin to anybody but the Romans? If not, why not?
- Did anybody else in the New Testament mention original sin? If not, why not?
- Did anybody in the Old Testament mention original sin? If not, why not?
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 192 by kbertsche, posted 11-24-2010 10:54 AM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 215 of 240 (593183)
11-24-2010 7:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 212 by jar
11-24-2010 7:03 PM
|
|
Re: I have to wonder if he read the OP
jar writes: The whole passage is more like Madison Avenue tap dancing than reason or logic IF it is taken as addressing death and sin.
Maybe he didn't repeat it in the other epistles because he couldn't remember the steps. 
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 212 by jar, posted 11-24-2010 7:03 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 216 by jar, posted 11-24-2010 7:30 PM | | ringo has seen this message but not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 219 of 240 (593226)
11-25-2010 10:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 56 by kbertsche
11-05-2010 1:06 AM
|
|
Re: Free Willy
kbertsche writes: Eve would have a controlling desire for Adam; sin had a controlling desire for Cain. The author is intentionally and pointedly tying Cain's sin back to the curse on Eve.
First, it's presumptuous to claim you know what the authors intentions were. Second, you're adding to the author's point by adding the word "controlling" to Eve's desire. Third, if the link between the stories is so strong, then Eve is the equivalent of sin.
"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 56 by kbertsche, posted 11-05-2010 1:06 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2