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

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.

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.

Definitions usually go that way I'm defining sin as disobeying God - whether that involves a moral element or not. According to that definition, there was a sin committed Better said: consequences attached to the disobedience. The text indicates so. Trivial: "of little worth or importance". Importance: "marked by or indicative of significant worth or consequence".There were consequences and they were significant. Could you show me where your statement attaches to the situation?- Wasn't sin previously defined as disobeying God (whether or not a moral element was attaching)? If they are moral creatures then sin committed is morally bad. If they are not it's consequentially bad (from their perspective)But sin in both cases... per definition.

1) Nobody is suggesting anyone need be suspected of lying.2) If assured that a person can say something and be wrong, what value an assurance when an assurance is merely something someone says and things people say can be wrong. You're reasoning in a circle (edit: or better said: the serpent has her head spinning in a circle - she's left stuck in the dilemma - "who's wrong")- See above. Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

For want of a means to know any differently, yes.The 'means' suggested by you are self-refutingEdited by iano, : No reason given.

I'm playing the hand the Bible apears to have dealt me.- they weren't moral beings at the point of choosing
- they are stated as disobeying God
- their disobedience is described as sinergo: a definition of sin doesn't need to include a moral element. I'm not suggesting that's all that could be said to define sin but it includes at least that - it would appear Yet there were "significant consequences arising" from their action. Since the antithesis of trivial is "significant consequences arising"...- Where, other than within God, would you suppose to ground things in order that meaning can be produced. If the grounding is only within God, how can you ever escape so-called whimsy?- This discussion centres around a biblical notion for sin. Not any old notion for it.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

That the one was wrong when the other wasn't? No.Which seems to return us to her being presented with a balanced choice in which she is the decider - not external influences.And neither of us seems to know how process of choosing in a balanced choice situation is worked out.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

When the man saw that the fruit of the Ferrari was good for speed, pleasing to the eye and a magnet for drawing babes, he laid down the dough and ripped out of the forecourt.He finds out subsequently that the babe magnetism of the Ferrari isn't quite enough to offset the male pattern baldness that has advanced of late. More topically, he remembers that this Ferrari-as-babe-magnet notion took hold subsequent to his seeing Ferrari advertisement in mens magazines which suggested that this would be the case.The serpent has built a case for the desirability of the fruit prior to her eating it. Her seeing it as desirable after his pitch can be:a) it was desirable all by itself but God's prohibition held her in check (in which case she had a free choice). Then the serpent comes along and reduces the restraint of the prohibition by sowing the notion that people (him and God) can be wrong. The fruit, the third party, exercises control.b) Her having chosen for his pitch as an exercise in free choice.

True. It's to do with the Lord God who planted the garden and filled it with trees which "were pleasing to the eye and good for food" (Gen 2). So when she finds it so, it's because he made it so.Our meanderings thus far persist in returning us to the conclusion of a balanced set of influences. This suits my position but doesn't yours. You turn now to look at something which, by any textual measure, is an aside: the issue of the attractiveness of the fruit apart from the central theme of good and evil.In response I'd point to a garden full of "all kinds of trees" which shared these characteristics of being pleasing to the eye and being good for food. Over-abundance in these departments renders the influence of any one tree a trifle.- To clarify:I wouldn't have been including good for food/pleasing to the eye in my thinking (for the reason given above). I was dealing with the suggestion of yours that there was a three-legged stool in this choice:- God's prohibition
- the serpents temptation
- the fruit being desirable for knowledge apart from what the serpent saidIf the serpent and God are cancelled out (due to the possibility of both being wrong) then desirability of the fruit itself comes to the fore. But the restraint isn't eradicated by such cancelling. No matter how many bullets you pull from a `Russian Roulette gun, there will be a degree of restraint in the case of a chance that even a single bullet remains.God could be right for all the "cancelling out". If it's 'pleasing to the eye' she's after she's the rest of the risk-free garden to choise from.- That's been dealt with already. I'm assuming she understood plain English (although I'm not supposing that an omnipotent knowledge of every consequence arising from her choice is required in order for her to make an informed-enough choice. No more that it should be supplied to us when we make choices)Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Could you supply some biblically-based argument for this statement?

That's a pretty tall order jar

quote:

---

Explicit: fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal.

---

Here's the Romans 5 passage dealing with the issue. Where does it explicitly say that one needs a knowledge of right and wrong in order to sin?

quote:

---

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

​

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

​

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

​

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

​

20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

---

Perhaps you meant to say implicitly? It's not much better but it allows you at least some wiggle room.ABE: if it's totally irrelevant to the topic then why do you make the claim as recently as post 193. Let's make a deal: if you stop posting irrelevancies, then I'll stop challenging you tio support them.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Your claim:

quote:

---

Until we have the capability to judge right from wrong, there can be no such thing as sin.

---

The (supposedly) explicit support from Romans 5 for this claim you say is:

quote:

---

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.

---

How can a verse which makes no explicit mention of a knowledge of right and wrong explicitly support your claim?Indeed, how can a verse which makes no implicit mention of a knowledge of right and wrong implicitly support your claim?-

quote:

---

Sin that is not charged to an individual is of no consequence or relevance.

---

Er..relevance to your claim?-

quote:

---

And so far no one has shown any way that someone who is not capable of understanding right from wrong can sin.

---

Which would be fine were somebody making that claim. But they're not. It's your claim we're examining - not a contrary claim nobody has yet made. ...that disjointed ... is the word that actually springs to mind. Regarding the defence of your claim, I mean.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Paul doesn't say there is no sin. He explicitly says there was sin but it wasn't charged to someones account prior to the law being given. That it wasn't charged to someones account doesn't mean it ceases to exist - at least, your claming it so doesn't make it so.Not only are you not tying this 2nd claim together (sin not charged > sin non-existant), you're failing to show explicit support for your 1st claim. You did say Romans 5 explicitly supported your 1st claim. The topic is your claim regarding sin, not law. Additionally, it's for you to support your claim, not others to prove any claim they might make.Could you halt with the misdirection already