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

Hi The Word,Normally we give new members quite a bit of leeway as they familiarize themselves with how EvC Forum works, but you seem to be spamming the website so I'm suspending you right out of the box just to get your attention. When you return tomorrow you will post messages that are on topic and address the current discussion or I will suspend you permanently.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I'd characterize the topic somewhat more generally, as "exploring whether or not there is biblical support for original sin." But what you and some others really mean by this is, "Is there biblical support for original sin in addition to Romans 5?" I haven't seen anyone here try to deny that Rom 5 teaches original sin or that Rom 5 is part of the Bible. Unless you make the positive assertion that there is no support, in which case you should be prepared to back up your assertion with reason or evidence. We seem to agree in principle. We both agree that what the text says should be a fairly objective question. We both agree that the "meaning" should be what was understood by the original audience.I don't mind "cutting to the chase" and investigating what the original audience thought of it; in fact, I have argued for this. But who was the original audience of Gen 2-3? It was Old Testament Jews, not modern Jews. How do we determine what OT Judaism though of Gen 2-3? Modern Judaism and modern Christianity both descended from ancient Judaism, but neither necessarily has the same perspective as the ancients did. You apparently don't like my suggestion of deferring to textual scholars. So what is your suggestion? Wrong. 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. There is a tremendous difference in time and culture between the OT and today. We would expect that a first century Jewish scholar would be closer in time and culture to the original audience of Gen 2-3, so why not trust a highly trained first century Jewish scholar on the matter? Why do you think modern Judaism has a more accurate perspective than the Apostle Paul?

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. 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. 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

In the Opening Post I said:

quote:

---

A claim often made is that there is a Biblical supported concept of "Original Sin", and that the concept is basic to Christianity.

​

Most often the quote they point to is Romans 5 where Paul allegedly writes:

​

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.

---

​

Even in that passage Paul admits that he is being imprecise and inaccurate.

​

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. 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.

---

​

So even Paul admits that sin existed before any law or commandment existed, but he provides nothing to support even that position.

​

The passage gets even more confusing because he then goes on to say that Adam is the pattern of the one to come.

​

It seems that Paul is making a claim that sin and death only existed because of Adam.

​

Well, if we actually look at the story in Genesis 2&3, does it support what Paul appears to be asserting?

​

Does Paul have some basis for the assertion in Romans 5?

---

It explicitly asks "Does Paul have some basis for the assertion in Romans 5?"We've examined Romans 5 and so far the ONLY support in it has been a reference to Genesis 2&3, the Garden of Eden story, and looking at those books I can see no support for Original Sin.We do know that the tradition of Yom Kippur goes back at least to when Leviticus was written, so attributed to Moses and likely formulated and finalized around 450 BCE.We also know that at the same relative period people the concept of the 'scape goat' developed where a goat was selected by lot to carry the iniquities of the nation away.So there appears to be ample evidence that the concept of some "Original Sin" was certainly not a major belief in Judaism.The question remains, in Romans 5, is Paul even proposing Original Sin as currently marketed and if so, is there any support for his position?Edited by jar, : fix dateEdited by jar, : add word period to explain relative time period for the concepts of transitory as opposed to Original Sin

---

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

Sorry, but simply asserting a "default position" does not constitute logical support or reasoned argumentation for your view. 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?Asserting a "default position" strikes me as an attempt to avoid the hard work of actually interacting with the original text, history, and culture. 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. Yes, I'm still a bit unsure of the thrust of the OP; its wording is a bit difficult to parse. If the teaching of Rom 5 is clear regarding original sin, then original sin is a biblical doctrine by definition, no matter where Paul got it from or how he supported it. 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.

What is the evidence for this?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

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. Your continuous refusal to provide any other evidence strikes me as an attempt to hide the fact that you don't have any. So, why didn't Paul push the idea of original sin to all of that Jewish sect? Why only the Romans? 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 article, Reconsidering Paul on Original Sin, gives a different view of reading Paul. The idea is to view Paul as presenting a new Exodus. IOW, Paul framed the Christ event in the imagery of the Old Testament Exodus. I haven't looked at all that Paul wrote through this lens, but it is an interesting theory and makes more sense in some cases.Thought you might find it an interesting read.

I touch on that aspect in the OP.

quote:

---

Even in that passage Paul admits that he is being imprecise and inaccurate.

​

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. 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.

---

​

So even Paul admits that sin existed before any law or commandment existed, but he provides nothing to support even that position.

---

The problem is that yet again, he does not provide his support for that being anything more than his position.

---

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

Yes, I think we all agree that Paul supports his argument from Gen 2-3. I have already pointed out that there are hints of the concept of original sin in Gen 2ff (e.g. the wording of Cain's sin explicitly ties back to the curse on Eve). But the text of Genesis does not develop it nearly as far as Paul did.If we really want to answer your question, we need to try to determine two things:
1) how the original audience (OT Jews, not modern Jews) understood Gen 2-3
2) how Paul (first century Judaism) understood Gen 2-3.
So far, I see no evidence that anyone here is willing to engage these questions in a scholarly way. All I see is anachronistic, lazy appeals to the absence of the doctrine of original sin in modern Judaism. I thought we agreed on this, but perhaps not. I have already given my explanation of Paul's logical progression in Rom 5. If you disagree, please present an alternative explanation for what he is saying.

Paul made his case by referring back to Genesis. We are trying to discuss whether or not his case made valid use of Genesis. For this, we need to determine how Genesis was understood in the OT and in the first century. We have not yet resolved this, and you continually refuse to engage the textual scholarship necessary to do so. Instead, you want me to make a case for original sin that is different from Paul's?? I view your request as a red herring and an attempt to avoid the topic at hand.I have access to a number of textual commentaries on Genesis from a Christian perspective. I (again) invite you and others to present Jewish textual scholarship here, which I don't have easy access to. As I've said earlier, I would be very interested to see what Nahum Sarna or someone of his caliber says about the Garden of Eden story.

I did, in the Opening Post.

quote:

---

Even in that passage Paul admits that he is being imprecise and inaccurate.

​

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. 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.

---

​

So even Paul admits that sin existed before any law or commandment existed, but he provides nothing to support even that position.

---

Is Paul saying what I have also pointed out repeatedly.Until we have the capability to judge right from wrong, there can be no such thing as sin. There is no Original Sin, but after we ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, we became responsible for our behavior.Of course, in that passage Paul seems to point out that Jesus should also be held responsible for his behavior.

---

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

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? Of course. Why on earth wouldn't you want to consider all of the evidence? 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

Interesting article; thanks for the link. I'm curious how Holland understands Rom 5; the article doesn't say.