Original Sin

[unworthyservant]

6 hours ago, other one said:

They did have the enlightment that they were sinners for they realized they were naked.

I've always been curious as to why a "married" couple running around naked is sinful. As for modesty, there was no one else there to see. God obviously didn't have a problem with them being naked until after the famous "eating of the fruit". At least He never admonished them to clothe themselves. The fruit was "the knowledge of good and evil", indicating that before eating it, they had no concept of good and evil. The old saying is ignorance is bliss and it seems that Adam and Eve were blissful until sin entered the picture. The original sin, in reality was disobeying God. He had only given one command at that time and that command was not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

We are told that Adam and Eve were created in God's own image. That's another conundrum in itself, as we can't really know what the image of God actually is. That said, men have always used this passage to try to explain God in light of human attributes and vice versa. This has led to much push back from non-believers, making the point that man has tried to make himself in some ways equal with God. The quote that's often attributed to Voltaire says "In the beginning God created man in His own image, and man has been trying to repay the favor ever since." So, the whole story has created much debate and consternation solely based on a literal reading of the story.

That's why I prefer to take a more nuanced approach to the entire debate. That is, I admit there are things I don't understand and will not until God reveals them in His time. As for the creation story, I don't know if it's meant to be a literal blow by blow, day by day account or a metaphorical one, using a garden and fruits as an analogy to man choosing the knowledge of good and evil as shared by Satan over God's commandment and thus seriously damaging his relationship with God. Note that God didn't sever the relationship but punished Adam and Eve via banishment from the garden. The bright side is that it's not necessary to accept or believe either reading in order to serve God and follow Christ.  

[Orion]

3 hours ago, other one said:

Because like God, we were created with free will. Don't think God isn't capable of sinning(so to speak) just because he doesn't. 

Okay. I see where you're going. But where in the Bible does it support the notion that God has a sin nature or that God is capable of sinning?  

The Bible says God is not capable of lying (Numbers 23:19; Hebrews 6:18); and, God cannot be tempted with evil, nor does God tempt any man (James 1:13); and, God cannot be unrighteous (Romans 9:14; Hebrews 6:10).  When God entered His creation in the person of Jesus Christ, we're told that Jesus (God in the flesh) was without sin (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15).

Do you know of any mention in the Bible of God sinning?

 

[other one]

1 hour ago, Orion said:

Okay. I see where you're going. But where in the Bible does it support the notion that God has a sin nature or that God is capable of sinning?  

The Bible says God is not capable of lying (Numbers 23:19; Hebrews 6:18); and, God cannot be tempted with evil, nor does God tempt any man (James 1:13); and, God cannot be unrighteous (Romans 9:14; Hebrews 6:10).  When God entered His creation in the person of Jesus Christ, we're told that Jesus (God in the flesh) was without sin (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15).

Do you know of any mention in the Bible of God sinning?

 

He sent a lying spirit to get one of the leaders of Israel to go somewhere to be killed. 

[Orion]

58 minutes ago, other one said:

He sent a lying spirit to get one of the leaders of Israel to go somewhere to be killed. 

Maybe I'm missing something, but I dont see how that can be considered a sin committed by God. How would you argue that it was a sin by God? 

But if God is completely righteous and can never be unrighteous, how can any disasters or deaths that God causes to occur be sin if those occurances are for His righteous purposes?  Take for example the flooding in Noahs day, and the Red Sea closing back up after Israel passed over on dry ground, killing all of Pharaoh's army in the process.  Or destroying the sons of Aaron for offering strange incense/fire, or allowing the killing of the 850 false prophets when challenged by Elijah, and sending she bears to kill the youths that ridiculed Elisha. 

In the case of King Ahab and the false prophets he favored, wasn't it God's prerogative to show His sovereignty in causing Ahab to suffer the consequences for believing the lies of the false prophets? 

Your thoughts? 

 

 

Edited April 10 by Orion

[Michael37]

5 hours ago, unworthyservant said:

The fruit was "the knowledge of good and evil", indicating that before eating it, they had no concept of good and evil.

They did have the rule of God to follow, and were obedient to God in doing so for an unspecified time, so all day everyday Adam and Eve exercised restraint because of God's instructions. 

Eve certainly knew what the deal was, without having what is called Experiential Knowledge of the consequences of disobedience.

Gen 3:2-3  And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden.  (3)  But of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.

[Michael37]

6 hours ago, other one said:

Because like God, we were created with free will. Don't think God isn't capable of sinning(so to speak) just because he doesn't. 

Well, if God permits Himself to do or not do something it cannot be a sin, because it is the Divine Will.

The Nebuchadnezzar Restoration Narrative:

Dan 4:34-37  And at the end of the time I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my understanding returned to me; and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever: For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, And His kingdom is from generation to generation.  (35)  All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, "What have You done?"  (36)  At the same time my reason returned to me, and for the glory of my kingdom, my honor and splendor returned to me. My counselors and nobles resorted to me, I was restored to my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added to me.  (37)  Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, all of whose works are truth, and His ways justice. And those who walk in pride He is able to put down.

[Marilyn C]

9 hours ago, unworthyservant said:

I've always been curious as to why a "married" couple running around naked is sinful. As for modesty, there was no one else there to see. God obviously didn't have a problem with them being naked until after the famous "eating of the fruit". At least He never admonished them to clothe themselves. The fruit was "the knowledge of good and evil", indicating that before eating it, they had no concept of good and evil. The old saying is ignorance is bliss and it seems that Adam and Eve were blissful until sin entered the picture. The original sin, in reality was disobeying God. He had only given one command at that time and that command was not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

We are told that Adam and Eve were created in God's own image. That's another conundrum in itself, as we can't really know what the image of God actually is. That said, men have always used this passage to try to explain God in light of human attributes and vice versa. This has led to much push back from non-believers, making the point that man has tried to make himself in some ways equal with God. The quote that's often attributed to Voltaire says "In the beginning God created man in His own image, and man has been trying to repay the favor ever since." So, the whole story has created much debate and consternation solely based on a literal reading of the story.

That's why I prefer to take a more nuanced approach to the entire debate. That is, I admit there are things I don't understand and will not until God reveals them in His time. As for the creation story, I don't know if it's meant to be a literal blow by blow, day by day account or a metaphorical one, using a garden and fruits as an analogy to man choosing the knowledge of good and evil as shared by Satan over God's commandment and thus seriously damaging his relationship with God. Note that God didn't sever the relationship but punished Adam and Eve via banishment from the garden. The bright side is that it's not necessary to accept or believe either reading in order to serve God and follow Christ.  

God`s image is - mind, will and emotions.

However, as to a moral character that needs to develop by choices. eg, to be faithful requires time, and other attributes need time to develop. However, Adam`s moral character became damaged and focused on self instead of God. Thus, the human race has this `bias.` 

[Tristen]

On 4/9/2025 at 5:17 AM, Orion said:

If the doctrine of original sin is true, there must also be a doctrine of the age of accountability, since newborns are completely innocent, except for the sin they inherited.  If so, at what age are we accountable? Is it the same age for all, or is there a "scale" from which one can confidently say that a person has reached that age?

There is not enough information in scripture justifying dogmatism about a putative "age of accountability" (one way or the other). Arguments can be made from scripture supporting or rebutting this idea. The concept of an "age of accountability" is neither directly, nor repeatedly, addressed by scripture. It therefore cannot be considered a settled matter by honest assessment.

No one knows for certain how inheriting our sin nature works. It may well be that our "inherited" corrupted nature branches out like a vine growing from Adam's spirit - meaning there is a sense in which we were all in Adam, making the decision to sin with Adam. In that case, no-one is "completely innocent" - not even "newborns".

My suspicion is that God left this issue ambiguous on purpose.

What is completely clear is that the Biblical God is perfectly just - and will therefore make the fair, morally correct, decision; regardless of where we individually land in our assessment.

 

[Orion]

9 minutes ago, Tristen said:

What is completely clear is that the Biblical God is perfectly just - and will therefore make the fair, morally correct, decision; regardless of where we individually land in our assessment.

Amen amen. 

[Indentured Servant]

On 4/9/2025 at 4:43 PM, unworthyservant said:

I've always been curious as to why a "married" couple running around naked is sinful.

It's not sinful, but they had given no thought of being naked, until after they ate the fruit, and gained awareness awareness of that fact, and felt ashamed. 

On 4/9/2025 at 4:43 PM, unworthyservant said:

we can't really know what the image of God actually is.

The image of God is defined in Scripture.

In Scripture, (OT & NT), this image is reflected in numerous passages, providing numerous examples of how it applies to Mankind; however, it is so difficult for people to understand, (or even accept), because it has been misunderstood and mistaught for so long.