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

jar writes:I will admit that I am amazed that you cannot see inconsistency when Paul says sin entered the world through one man but sin was in the world already.

First there was no sin in the human race.
Then Adam and Eve sinned and brought sin and death to the entire human race, but it was not counted as a transgression of a law, since the Law had not yet been given.
Then the Law was given, and the sin already here began to be counted as a transgression of the law.

Theodoric writes:Your authority on history and archaeology died in 1939?

Theodoric writes:Do you not think the fields of history and archaeology have come some way since 1939?

Theodoric writes:The one link you provided is a book published in 1908!

Theodoric writes:This link is worthless
Short article re Luke and RamsayLooking at his website shows he is clueless about a vast array of subjects.

Theodoric writes:The only place I can find any of the cites are on fundie and apologist websites.

theodoric writes:Geisler has no training in history or archaeology. To present him as an expert in the field is laughable. He is an apologist, nothing more.

Theodoric writes:oh could you provide evidence for this statement? I find it mentioned on many fundie/apologist websites but have never seen any backing for the argument. It may very well be true, but I would like to see some evidence that backs the statement.

Merrill F. Unger writes:1. Location of Iconium and the Accuracy of Luke. Until the work of Sir William Ramsay in the first decade and a half of the twentieth century, the historical reliability of The Acts as a bona fide work of Luke was widely denied. An important detail of this critical suspicion existed in the matter of Luke’s clear implication in Acts 14:6 that Iconium was in Phrygia as distinguished from Derbe and Lystra which are said to be cities of Lycaonia. Despite the fact that Xenophon and Pliny agree with Luke in listing it among Phrygian cities, the fact that Cicero and Strabo assign it to Lycaonia, caused criticism to side against the genuineness of Lukan authorship and accuracy.
In 1910 Ramsay recovered the now well-known inscribed monument which demonstrated that Iconium was such a thoroughly Phrygian city that the Phrygian tongue was still employed in dedicatory notices as late as the middle of the third century A.D. Numbers of other inscriptions from Iconium [BSac 118:470 (Apr 61) p. 108] and its environs substantiate the fact that racially the city could be described as Phrygian and administratively as Galatian. When Paul visited the city, it was one of the important centers of population in the southern part of the Roman province of Galatia.

van Ommeren writes: What has led some to conclude that Acts is historically unreliable? This conclusion has been drawn from an idea contrived by the Tbingen School in 19th-century Germany. This school promulgated the hypothesis, among others, that the Book of Acts and the Gospels were not written until the second century. As a result, the distance between the historical facts and the written record of those facts in the Book of Acts (the so-called time-gap) became so great that it was impossible for the book to contain a historically reliable account of the facts. This has been one of the primary reasons for concluding that Acts is historically unreliable. Another reason will be given below.
...
When Ramsay, the founder of classical archaeology in Great Britain, somewhat later (in the late 1870s) began intensive archaeological investigations, he was convinced of the accuracy of the Tbingen theories. But he was gradually forced to change his mind under the weight of the evidence yielded by the facts he discovered in the course of his investigations. Ramsay came to the conclusion that Luke was a first-class historiographer and an authority on the topography, history, and society of the Asia Minor of his day.

Brian Janeway writes: Whether The Acts of the Apostles is historically accurate is a question that has engaged scholars for centuries. The debate has become particularly acute since the Tbingen School addressed it in the middle of the nineteenth century. The intensity of the debate has waxed and waned since that time. But even now the scholarly community’s assessment of Luke as an historian is deeply fissured.
...
How has scholarship evaluated Luke’s veracity as an historian? Contrast the following two views on Luke’s performance. In Sir William Ramsay’s words, Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect to its trustworthiness. This came from one who originally subscribed to the Tbingen theses only to change his views following his extensive inscriptional investigations in Asia Minor.
Richard Pervo does not share Ramsay’s high view of Luke. He calls Luke bumbling and incompetent as an historian while lauding his creativity as an author. Furthermore, the writer of Acts has a bewitching ability to foist upon his readers one inconsistency after another and convert the most dreary material into good reading. Though some of Ramsay’s scholarly positions have been dated, his overall assessment of Acts is shared by some modern scholars. Most observers, however, would tend to rate Luke more in line with the view of Pervo. How has the question remained so polarized?
A review of the critical history of Acts with special emphasis on the school of tendency critics known as Tbingen (derived from University of Tbingen in Germany) will be undertaken. This emphasis will illustrate how influential Tbingen was and continues to be today despite refutation of their basic thesis earlier this century.
...ConclusionIs the Book of Acts Historically Reliable? In attempting to answer this question, we began with a survey of scholarly criticism, emphasizing in particular the methodology of the Tbingen school, only to discover that critics have tended to derive their radical skepticism from an excessive dependency on theological interpretation and a neglect of sound historical method. As employed by Martin Dibelius and subsequently promulgated by Haenchen and Conzelmann, radical skepticism mutated following World War I into new forms of criticism, dealing with style, form, and redaction. The recent fascination with Luke’s theological tendencies is merely the most recent manifestation of a similar skepticism that began with Baur. Sherwin-White was compelled to comment on this phenomenon:

quote:

---

So, it is astonishing that while Graeco-Roman historians have been growing in confidence, the twentieth-century study of the Gospel narratives has taken so gloomy a turn in the development of form-criticism. Over time research by archeologists and historians like Ramsay, Lightfoot, Harnack, Wikenhauser, et al., has exposed the highly subjective presuppositions of many critics. Today, scholars taking a fresh look at Luke are more apt to treat him seriously as a historian. Like Bruce and Hanson before them, Hemer, Hengel, and Marshall hold more traditional views of the Book of Acts.

---

...
The Book of Acts is not without difficult passages, yet when compared to Josephus’ well-documented biases and tendencies to exaggerate, Luke’s careful accounting of events, people and their speeches is even more apparent. The seeming discrepancies between the accounts of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem in Acts and Galatians was addressed. While not proving the historical accuracy of the accounts, a very plausible understanding was given that preserves the integrity of the accounts in both books.
Fortunately, archaeologists and historians like Ramsay have contributed greatly in establishing a sound historical foundation for the Book of Acts. According to one scholar: (T)he results of archaeological excavations help to constrain the imaginations of scholars who would mythologize the New Testament. Indeed, radical skeptics have been compelled to take note of the growing body of archaeological data that supports the narrative of Acts.
As F. F. Bruce put it:

quote:

---

When a writer’s accuracy is established by valid evidence, he gains the right to be treated as a reliable informant on matters coming within his scope which are not corroborated elsewhere.

---

In the final analysis, we must conclude that the Book of Acts is historical reliable.

John H. Skilton writes: The reconstruction of early Christian history which is associated with the name of F. C. Baur and the Tbingen School provides another example of the kind of approach to the New Testament which is fundamentally unprofit able. Baur more than a century ago attempted, like Strauss, to interpret the New Testament from a Hegelian viewpoint. He held that the book of Acts was a peace-making work of late date that sought to veil differences which really existed between Peter and Paul. He and his followers found irreconcilable conflicts within the New Testament and read a dialectic disunity into its pages. The reputation of the Acts for historical reliability suffered greatly from their determined attack. Sir W. M. Ramsay, who began his studies of the Acts under the influence of this attack, has said that from about 1880 to 1890 the Acts was looked upon [WTJ 60:2 (Fall 1998) p. 187] as the weakest part of the New Testament. He remarks further: No one that had any regard for his reputation as a scholar dared to say a word in its defence. The most conservative of theological scholars, as a rule, thought the wisest plan of defence for the New Testament as a whole was to say as little as possible about the Acts. But by 1914 Ramsay found that the situation was completely changed. The Tbingen position had become utterly antiquated, not a single point in it was any longer accepted; he himself had come to believe that Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness. Scholars of all schools, conservative, liberal, and radical, contributed to the overthrow of the Tbingen hypothesis in its most virulent form, but regrettably there are still some lingering influences of that mistaken theory today. The discrediting of one form of naturalistic criticism does not inevitably lead to the adoption of a supernaturalistic, biblical approach; too often it merely leads to the adoption of another mode of naturalism.

William Ramsay writes: I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favour of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to the reader, On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavourable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvellous truth. In fact, beginning with the fixed idea that the work was essentially a second-century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trust worthy for first-century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations. But there remained still one serious objection to accepting it as entirely a first-century work. According to the almost universally accepted view, this history led Paul along a path and through surroundings which seemed to me historically and topographically self-contradictory. It was not possible to bring Paul's work in Asia Minor into accordance with the facts of history on the supposition that an important part of that work was devoted to a district in the northern part of the peninsula, called Galatia. It may appear at first sight a mere topographical subtlety whether Paul travelled through North Galatia or through Lycaonia ; but, when you consider that any details given of his journeys must be false to the one side just in proportion as they are true to the other, you will perceive that, if you try to apply the narrative to the wrong side of the country, it will not suit the scene, and if it does not suit, then it must appear to be written by a person ignorant of what he pretends to know. The case might be illustrated from our own experience. Suppose that an unknown person came to Auburn from New York, and you wished to find out whether he was an impostor or not. In our country we are exposed to frequent attempts at imposition, which can often be detected by a few questions ; and you would probably ask him about his experiences on his journey from New York to Auburn. Now suppose you had been informed that he had come not along the direct road, but by a long detour through Boston, Montreal, and Toronto, and had thus arrived at Auburn ; and suppose that you by questioning elicited from him various facts which suited only a route through Schenectady and Utica, you would condemn the man as an impostor, because he did not know the road which he pretended to have travelled. But suppose further that it was pointed out by some third party that this stranger had really travelled along the direct road, and that you had been misinformed when you supposed him to have come by the round-about way, your opinion as to the stranger's truthfulness would be instantly affected. Precisely similar is the case of Acts as a record of travel ; generations and centuries have been attempting to apply it to the wrong countries. I must speak on this point confidently and uncompromisingly, for the facts stand out so clear and bold and simple that to affect to hesitate or to profess any doubt as to one's judgment would be a betrayal of truth.

William M. Ramsay writes: Among other old books that described journeys in Asia Minor the Acts of the Apostles had to be read anew. I began to do so without expecting any information of value regarding the condition of Asia Minor at the time when Paul was living. I had read a good deal of modern criticism about the book, and dutifully accepted the current opinion that it was written during the second half of the second century by an author who wished to influence the minds of people in his own time by a highly wrought and imaginative description of the early Church. His object was not to present a trustworthy picture of facts in the period about A.D. 50, but to produce a certain effect on his own time by setting forth a carefully coloured account of events and persons of that older period. He wrote for his contemporaries, not for truth. He cared nought for geographical or historical surroundings of the period A.D. 30 to 60. He thought only of the period A.D. 160-180, and how he might paint the heroes of old time in situations that should touch the conscience of his contemporaries. Antiquarian or geographical truth was less than valueless in a design like this : one who thought of such things was distracting his attention from the things that really mattered, the things that would move the minds of men in the second century.Such was the commonly accepted view in the critical school about 1870 to 1880, when I had been studying modern opinions. It is now utterly antiquated. There is not one point in it that is accepted. Everything is changed or discarded. But about 1880 to 1890 the book of the Acts was regarded as the weakest part of the New Testament. No one that had any regard for his reputation as a scholar cared to say a word in its defence. The most conservative of theological scholars, as a rule, thought the wisest plan of defence for the New Testament as a whole was to say as little as possible about the Acts.

Theodoric writes:Now back to my original problem with your post. You admit that there is But in your original post you state such things as facts. Also, it seems quite obvious that stating. is very much not universally accepted. You speak in absolutes. You make statements expecting that since they a bible based others will just accept them as is. What you accept as fact is in fact not universally accepted and there is a lot of dissent on the subject.

ringo writes:I think you're projecting what you see as the "meaning" of Genesis 4:7 backward to colour your reading of Genesis 3:16.
I think you should be reasoning in the opposite direction, using the well-known desire of a woman for her man to understand the metaphoric relationship between sin and man. If you start that way, there's much less temptation to try to shoehorn control into the text. I don't think it is. As the KJV puts it:

jar writes:I'm sorry but I find your post just plain hilarious.

jar writes:Again, death existed before the incident with the fruit, otherwise there was no point to the Tree of Life.

jar writes:Second sin existed. Even Paul in Romans 5 agrees that sin existed.

jar writes:Since both death and sin existed then they both predate anything Adam or Eve did.

jar writes:There is no mention or support for "Original Sin" found in Genesis 2&3.The evidence shows that the Jews did not have a concept of "Original Sin", in fact the very basics of the Hebrew Faith show example after example of individual sins, sins of the Nation and forgiveness through the acts of acknowledgment, repentance, restitution and contrition. These traditions go back at least as far as Leviticus and can be seen in the concept of the sacrificial goat and the 'scape goat that carried off the general sins of the nation, as well as in the Days of Atonement between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur when God writes down the individual's judgment of the previous year's behavior of that individual but waits to see the development in atonement before sealing the next years fate for the individual.

kbertsche writes:Please provide explicit statements by textual scholars stating what is wrong with the two positions I have presented above, i.e.
1) an explicit statement that the two passages were not intentionally linked by the word choices of the original author, and evidence for this claim, and
2) an explicit statement that the "desire" is not a "controlling" or "dominating" desire, and evidence for this claim.

kbertsche writes: You might believe this yourself, but you are not getting it from Paul. Paul disagrees with both points.

Yes. And I also still use and rely on Einstein's Special theory of Relativity (1905) and Maxwell's equations (1860s).

His second cite is a text which you will need to look for at a library.

Geisler is a philosopher, not an archaeologist or New Testament scholar. But the fact that he does apologetics does not negate his expertise in philosophy.

I believe the evidence is overwhelming for the age of the earth, for global warming, and for Luke.

kbertsche writes: Correct; it was written by Luke, a careful documenter and a part-time companion of Paul.

ringo writes:Oh come on. You want me to prove a negative? You have the gall to demand extra-Biblical references from me when you steadfastly refuse to provide the Biblical references that I've asked for?

ringo writes:As I said, you should be reasoning forward instead of backward. You should be reasoning from the known to the unknown. In the analogy, the desire of a woman for her man is the known part and the desire of sin for mankind is the unknown part. "Controlling desire" is not an accurate description of a woman's feelings for her man, so you're not justified in applying it to the analogy.

ringo writes:The topic is Biblical support for the concept of original sin. Why is it that you have nothing but apologetics?

kbertsche writes:I want you to provide support for your claims.

kbertsche writes: If your position is worthy of consideration, you should be able to find textual scholars who examine these oft-made claims, reject them explicitly, and provide reasons for their objections.

jar writes:You should know by now that arguments from authority will carry little or no weight with me.

jar writes:I really don't care how much tap dancing you do. I have presented the arguments to support my position. If you have any support for another position, feel free to present it.

jar writes:And stop misrepresenting what I say. Of course I not only never claimed that I got that from Paul, I went further and pointed out where I did get that. Paul was simply wrong. Go back and actually read what I wrote.

jar writes:I'm sorry but I find your post just plain hilarious. Again, death existed before the incident with the fruit, otherwise there was no point to the Tree of Life.Second sin existed. Even Paul in Romans 5 agrees that sin existed.Since both death and sin existed then they both predate anything Adam or Eve did.

jar writes:I see absolutely no point in trying to find evidence that the Hebrews did not have a "Concept of Original Sin" any more than I see a need to find evidence that the Hebrews did not have a concept of clearing cache or making cootie catchers.

Theodoric writes: If you think these are the same as historical research and archaeology, then I am not sure where to begin to explain the difference to you. I think you are trying to sound impressive, but in actuality that argument makes you look very foolish.

Theodoric writes: WRONG!!!
This is a lame fundie webarticle. When imported to Word it is six pages long and a total of 2661 words long. Do not pawn this drivel off as some sort of scholarly book or article. The only places it can be found is on the probe.com website and other fundie sites. The author has no credentials in history. He is a minister. He has Th.M. and a D.Min.
...
Gee, nothing even about church history there. This is one of your experts?

Theodoric writes: Evidently you have a misunderstanding of what the word evidence means, or maybe you are just equivocating. There is overwhelming scientific evidence for the age of the earth being approx 4.54 billion years . There is overwhelming scientific evidence that we are in the middle of human induced climate change. There is no historical evidence for Luke. All you have is anecdote and tradition.

Theodoric writes:Remember the start of this digression. You have no evidence to back that assertion. Therefore, there ARE problems with the claims made in Acts.

ringo writes:I haven't made any claims.

ringo writes: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.

ringo writes:The control is in one direction only, us over sin. The emphasis is that we can control sin or we can fail to control sin. Sin's "desire" is a literary device, nothing more.

ringo writes:"Controlling desire" is not an accurate description of a woman's feelings for her man, so you're not justified in applying it to the analogy.

ringo writes:I'm questioning your claims, particularly the claim that the Jews may have made a 180-degree about-face in their reading of Genesis.

ringo writes:I'll let people decide for themselves what's worthy of consideration. If we have to play battling scholars over every verse, the Bible loses much of its value.

ringo writes:Now I'll ask you again, why do you refuse to answer the simple questions?
What did Paul say to the Corinthians, the Ephesians, the Colossians, etc. about original sin?
What did Jesus say about original sin?
What did anybody in the Old Testament say about original sin?
There's little point in nit-picking over what scholar said what until we look at the big picture. Are you refusing to look at the big picture because it isn't there?

kbertsche writes:If people deny the clearest passage, what's the point of discussing less-clear passages?