Ccel: Genesis 3
Original sin by PigSP
- Original Sin by FelixPhil
- Original sin by PigSP
- Adam vs. Eve's position in the fall by hesed28
- All men pregnant by PigSP
- All men pregnant by hesed28
- All men pregnant by PigSP
- Revisiting Genesis -Paul's comments on women by hesed28
- broken rib by PigSP
- Taking a rib from a ribcage by hesed28
- Joseph's bones by PigSP
- Adam's rib and Christ's bones by tomgroeneman
- bones not broken by PigSP
- bones by tomgroeneman
- water and blood by PigSP
- Woman from the rib by PigSP
- Sin vs. transgression by PigSP
- Men pregnant by PigSP
- No male or female in Christ - marriage by PigSP
- Good Greek analysis by PigSP
- Good Greek analysis by hesed28
- women and authority by tomgroeneman
- Original Sin by FelixPhil
- It's in the touch by PigSP
- The Clues by PigSP
- To touch or not to touch - is that the question? by FelixPhil
- ayin and gimmel by PigSP
- alphabetic metaphor by PigSP
- obfuscation by PigSP
- Pun used by Jesus by PigSP
dump
Original sin Submitted by PigSP on Sun, 2015-04-19 08:25.
The Greeks cannot reason from silence. The Hebrews do. Ge 1:1 begins with an invisible and silent aleph (meaning it does not exist in the text) and from that we discern that God created the heavens and the earth when no one was there to see or hear him do it. We will see that when reasoning from silence, no other plausible explanation is possible.
serpent נחש: also means brass. 1Co 13:1 ... Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angles, and have not charity, I am become as a roaring serpent (brass). The lie of the serpent became a roaring temptation in the ears of Eve.
Two trees were in the midst of the garden, they represented Holiness and Love. The command not to eat of the tree was a simple object lesson in holiness. God is separate from us. He is not our peer, he is our creator. The separateness of the tree was just a symbol. There was nothing magic or poisonous about it.
The serpent was more subtle than the other animals. This implies that the other animals were less subtle. (if something is more, then something else is less) In fact they were very blatant. In what? In the same topic that the serpent was subtle. They were blatantly tempting Eve. There was only one temptation, to eat of the tree. Therefor they were blatantly eating of the tree and not dying. As Eve observed this she wondered, "Why aren't they dying?"
Her answer was "Because they are animals and I am not. I am created in God's likeness, they are not, therefor I should not eat."
Then the serpent comes along. "Eve, aren't you an animal also? Don't you have blood and breath like an animal? Weren't we made by the same God? He gave me instincts. When something looks good and smalls good, I eat it. And I glorify God by doing so because He gave me my instincts. Surely he would want me to be what he created me to be. Surely He wants the same for you to."
So Eve chooses to obey her instincts like an animal rather than obey the word of God. We know the dialog went something like that because of the results.
The results: More separation from God as they were cast out of the garden. The mezzuzah placed on the door post was a reminder of their separation from their real home. Separation from each other as they played the blame game. Clothing to indicate they are more than animals. The sabbath so we don't pass time instinctively like animals but acknowledge God with one day. Marriage so we don't procreate like animals. Grace before meals so we don't eat instinctively like animals.
These all are reminders that we are more than animals. There is nothing magic in clothing, mezzuzahs, prayers over food, marriage. They are object lessons as remnants of the fall.
The basic nature of original sin is to act instinctively, like an animal. We are supposed to acknowledge God in all our ways. God is angry because men do not acknowledge him as God. Rom 1:18 ff)
Whenever we act instinctively, we are committing original sin. We are guilty of it. Love is the opposite of original sin. It puts others before self.
Original Sin Submitted by FelixPhil on Sun, 2015-04-19 17:49.
I'm having difficulty following this one. It seems to me that acting instinctively without considering our ways is part of a state of depravity. There were two trees in the middle of the garden, one was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the other was the tree of life. It seems to me that they were in the middle of the garden as a point of focus for an unfolding story. Adam was placed in the garden to work and take care of it and he received the instruction to eat freely from any tree in the garden but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - and its consequence - direct from God. Eve, made after God placed Adam in the garden, received the instruction from Adam and it seems that it was different to the instruction God gave Adam - she got the rib of it, not the rub. The serpent exploited the difference and added confusion to Eve's choices. cf Hushai's adding to Ahithophel's advice 2 Sam 17:14.
Adam and Eve were left with choices. Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, the Israelites, Saul and David, the Jews, and gentiles (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth) were left with various choices. It seems to me that faith led to life and fear or another form of insecurity to death. Dodging a wayward punch can be acting instinctively and it doesn't seem to me to be committing original sin - maybe throwing such a punch is.
Original sin Submitted by PigSP on Sun, 2015-04-19 20:52.
>>I'm having difficulty following this one. Thank you for asking.
>>It seems to me that acting instinctively without considering our ways is part of a state of depravity.
You are correct. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve had the ability to consider what God said first.
>>There were two trees in the middle of the garden, one was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the other was the tree of life. It seems to me that they were in the middle of the garden as a point of focus for an unfolding story.
The word garden גן also means 'pursue man ג with the death of the son of man ן'. We will see as the story unfolds that it is a hidden prophecy of Christ, and as such the trees represent the cross and are central to the whole of the redemption story.
>>Adam was placed in the garden to work and take care of it and he received the instruction to eat freely from any tree in the garden but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - and its consequence - direct from God. Eve, made after God placed Adam in the garden, received the instruction from Adam and it seems that it was different to the instruction God gave Adam - she got the rib of it, not the rub. The serpent exploited the difference and added confusion to Eve's choices. cf Hushai's adding to Ahithophel's advice 2 Sam 17:14.
Yeah, that is one of the traditional Greek interpretations. However, in the dialogs that follow, the issue of training is never brought up. Paul says the woman was deceived, not that she was ill trained.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Ill-training is not a theme or motif that I have seen yet. If you have other things that build it I would be happy to see them.
However, because she was deceived the female gender is used as a metaphor for those who do not see. This does not mean that Eve was not ill-trained, but since Adam represents Christ and Eve represent the church, I don't know of any prophecy that Christ would fail to train his bride.
Because the ill-training is not part of the metaphor, to me it is not important whether it is literally true or not. However, it is ripe for Greek rhetorical invention concerning training and discipleship. In this hermeneutic, things do not stand in isolation but are all pictures of Christ, and are reinforced by other scriptures.
>>Dodging a wayward punch can be acting instinctively and it doesn't seem to me to be committing original sin - maybe throwing such a punch is.
Instincts were given as a gift. They are not sinful in and of themselves, however they have been perverted to be preeminent over God's word and Love. I think you may have identified a plausible case for non-sinful instinct prior to the fall. However, sin is not the act, but the heart.
Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
So even if we find a dozen cases of legitimate use of instinct, the proposed act is still sin because the heart is sinful.
Yours is a good challenge based on taking an extreme position. Before we leave the topic, I need to discuss Adam first, I think I can give a more complete answer.
All men pregnant Submitted by PigSP on Sun, 2015-04-19 22:26.
That is certainly a Greek approach. I am off to bed now, but a doctrine is not complete until it sums up and includes everything the Bible has to say on it. I have never seen the following text explained in any doctrine of women, yet it is probably the key to all that Paul says about it.
Jer 30:6 Ask ye now, and see whether a man doth travail with child? wherefore do I see every man with his hands on his loins, as a woman in travail, and all faces are turned into paleness?
I'm not sure how to work it into Genesis. ;)
We do need to examine the difference between transgression and sin. Have you considered the difference between washing with water and being unclean until the evening, and being put outside the camp and/or put to death?
