Original Sin

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Original Sin

Post #1

Post by Miles »

.



"Original sin is the Christian doctrine that humans inherit a tainted nature and a proclivity to sin through the fact of birth. Theologians have characterized this condition in many ways, seeing it as ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.

The doctrine of original sin began to emerge in the 3rd century but only became fully formed with the writings of Augustine of Hippo (354–430), who was the first author to use the phrase "original sin" (Latin: peccatum originale). Augustine's conception of original sin was based on a mistranslated passage in Paul the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans, and scholars have debated whether the passage supports Augustine's view.

Augustine's formulation of original sin became popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who equated original sin with concupiscence (or "hurtful desire"), affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom to do good and proposed that original sin involved a loss of free will except to sin.


Roman Catholicism
Catholic veiw: "Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.
By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans.
Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence")


Lutheranism
The Lutheran Churches teach that original sin "is a root and fountain-head of all actual sins.
Martin Luther (1483–1546) asserted that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception.


Jehovah's Witnesses
The consequences of the Fall spread to the whole of the human race . This is elucidated by St Paul: ‘Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin , and so death spread to all men because all men sinned’ (Rom.5:12).
This text, which formed the Church’s basis of her teaching on ‘ original sin ’, may be understood in a number of ways: the Greek words ef’ ho pantes hemarton may be translated not only as ‘because all men sinned’ but also ‘in whom [that is, in Adam] all men sinned’. Different readings of the text may produce different understandings of what ‘ original sin ’ means.
source


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
(Mormon)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) rejects the doctrine of original sin.

Methodism

Methodist theology teaches that a believer is made free from original sin when he/she is entirely sanctified.
(["entirely sanctified" or] Christian perfection is the name given to various teachings within Christianity that describe the process of achieving spiritual maturity or perfection. The ultimate goal of this process is union with God characterized by pure love of God and other people as well as personal holiness or sanctification.
source

Eastern Christianity
The Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholic Churches' version of original sin is the view that sin originates with the Devil, "for the devil sins from the beginning (1 John iii. 8)".[74] The Eastern Church never subscribed to Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt. The Church does not interpret "original sin" as having anything to do with transmitted guilt but with transmitted mortality. Because Adam sinned, all humanity shares not in his guilt but in the same punishment .
source unless otherwise indicated


So, what do think of original sin; a third century Christian doctrine created to invest salvation with greater significance, a concept of questionable value, or concocted hogwash?


.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #71

Post by Diagoras »

2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:04 pmI'm trying to figure out what the focus on this word <cunning> this has to do with the OP myself. It seems like an odd hill to charge upon.
Post #43:
2timothy316 wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:52 amSatan didn't say he was there speaking for God. The Bible says that she just noted that the snake was known for it's caution.
Admittedly it’s a bit of a tangent, but not much. You made the above claim and subsequently relied on one very specific bible translation - the only one (as far as I know) to replace the word ‘cunning’ with ‘caution’. People are curious to know why you did that.

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4175
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 176 times
Been thanked: 458 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #72

Post by 2timothy316 »

Diagoras wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:58 pm
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:04 pmI'm trying to figure out what the focus on this word <cunning> this has to do with the OP myself. It seems like an odd hill to charge upon.
Post #43:
2timothy316 wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:52 amSatan didn't say he was there speaking for God. The Bible says that she just noted that the snake was known for it's caution.
Admittedly it’s a bit of a tangent, but not much. You made the above claim and subsequently relied on one very specific bible translation - the only one (as far as I know) to replace the word ‘cunning’ with ‘caution’. People are curious to know why you did that.
Tell me what does it matter? The snake seemed like it acted with caution or cunning...who cares? What is your point? Are we taking about Satan, an angel with intelligence or a snake that acts on instinct? Or are you lost between the two?

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21109
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 792 times
Been thanked: 1121 times
Contact:

Re: Original Sin

Post #73

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Diagoras wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:51 pm

Laying the world’s current woes at the feet of Adam and Eve for their ‘original sin’ just doesn’t stack up when the world is demonstrably becoming less ‘sinful’.
How would you demonstrate sinfullness to support such a claim? Biblically sin is a spiritual condition of disaccord with one's Creator that results in death.
Biblically, the only way to "demonstrate" there is less sinfulness is showing that more people are living forever now than at a previous point in time

The bible places Adam as entirely responsible for introducing to humanity; the repercussions have indeed been disastrous since he lost paradise for himself and his children. Anything we have achieved medically and scientifically in relation to perfection and eternal life is just gravy.

JW
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Wed Jun 09, 2021 11:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #74

Post by Diagoras »

2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:49 pm Tell me what does it matter? The snake seemed like it acted with caution or cunning...who cares?
It doesn’t really matter at all. However, standing by your original claim and answering a simple question would go a long way toward advancing debate - rather than deflecting and trivialising when called to back up a position.
Are we taking about Satan, an angel with intelligence or a snake that acts on instinct? Or are you lost between the two?
Enlighten us, please. All anyone has to go on are various translations of the bible in order to determine the precise nature of the ‘serpent’ in Genesis. I don’t believe there is consensus around this story, nor do I believe a snake ‘acting on instinct’ has cropped up in this debate before now. Is this another example of mere speculation that you will subsequently dodge out of backing up with a scriptural source?

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21109
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 792 times
Been thanked: 1121 times
Contact:

Re: Original Sin

Post #75

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Diagoras wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 11:49 pm
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:49 pm Tell me what does it matter? The snake seemed like it acted with caution or cunning...who cares?
It doesn’t really matter at all.
I'm not sure that is true. Cunning (crafty) is negative, caution is neutral or depending on the circumstances, even positive. The choice would effect how the reader views whoever (or whatever) it is being addressed. If the initial reference is to the snake (the animal) then it would imply there is something negative about snakes as a species. If the observation was about the spirit creature Satan the Devil (manipulating a dumb animal) it would reflect his negative characteristics.

The HEBREW word comes from the root aram which can simply mean "prudent" /wary (as in to beware) or subtle.

Image
http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebibl ... .htm#S6191

NOTE cautious is a synonym of prudent ...
Image

Various translators translate Genesis 3:1 as "shrewd" which can mean (acute, intelligent, far-sighted), "subtil" or "clever"
https://biblehub.com/parallel/genesis/3-1.htm


ARUM in the book of Proverbs is invariable presented as a positive quality.
A fool’s anger is known at once, but a prudent (man) [arum] conceals dishonour (Proverbs 12:16).

A prudent man [adam arum] conceals knowledge, but the heart of fools proclaims folly (Proverbs 12:23).

Every prudent (man) [kal arum] acts with knowledge, but a fool displays folly (Proverbs 13:16).

The wisdom of the sensible [arum] is to understand his way, but the foolishness of fools is deceit (Proverbs 14:8).

The naive believes everything, but the sensible [w-arum] man considers his steps (Proverbs 14:15).

The naive inherit foolishness, but the sensible [w-arumim] are crowned with knowledge (Proverbs 14:18).

A fool rejects his father’s discipline, but he who regards reproof is sensible [ya-a’rim] (Proverbs 15:5).

Strike a scoffer and the naive may become shrewd [ya-a’rim], but reprove one who has understanding and he will gain knowledge (Proverbs 19:25).

The prudent [arum] sees the evil and hides himself, but the naive go on, and are punished for it (Proverbs 22:3).

A prudent (man) [arum] sees evil and hides himself, the naive proceed and pay the penalty (Proverbs 27:12).
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21109
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 792 times
Been thanked: 1121 times
Contact:

Re: Original Sin

Post #76

Post by JehovahsWitness »

CAUTIOUS (WISE) AS SERPENTS

When Genesis 3:1 was translated into Greek in the Septuagint the word Greek word phronimos was used​—the same word later used at Matthew 10:16:
"Listen! I am sending you out just like sheep to a pack of wolves. You must be as cautious as snakes and as gentle as doves. - Jesus Christ (Matthew 10:16) Good News Translation
The bible Question & Answer site "Got Questions" points out ...
Most people don’t mind having their character compared to a dove’s purity and innocence. But some people recoil at the image of a serpent, no matter what the context. They can never see a snake in a good light, even when used by Jesus as a teaching tool. But we should not make too much of the simile. We cannot attach the evil actions of Satan (as the serpent) with the serpent itself
SNAKES ARE NATURALLY CAUTIOUS/WARY* ANIMALS

* wary: feeling or showing caution about possible dangers or problems
Image
  • Both venomous and nonvenomous snakes are extremely wary of humans and are not prone to strike. A bite is their last-ditch effort to avoid harm.- Oklahoma University State Website
  • “There is no snake which preys on man. Any snake will flee from him, if it has time" - Animal Life Encyclopedia
  • Most snakes have adopted a somewhat cowardly or cautious attitude towards danger. Defensive tactics include staying hidden and relying on their excellent camouflage ... - Texas Park & Wildlife website

CONCUSION : If Genesis 3:1a is an observation about the instinctive characteristics of this kind of reptile, then cautious /subtile is a more fitting choice than wise/clever or cunning since animals, while instictively wise, biblically are not moral creatures.

JW




RELATED POSTS
Why are snakes described in scripture as cautious ? [this post]
viewtopic.php?p=1041182#p1041182

Was ADAM responsible for keeping SNAKES out of the garden?
viewtopic.php?p=1029136#p1029136

Does the bible teach snakes used to have legs?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 27#p836127

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

ANIMALS , ORIGINAL SIN and ...THE GARDEN OF EDEN
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:20 am, edited 4 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4175
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 176 times
Been thanked: 458 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #77

Post by 2timothy316 »

Diagoras wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 11:49 pm
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:49 pm Tell me what does it matter? The snake seemed like it acted with caution or cunning...who cares?
It doesn’t really matter at all.
If it doesn't matter to you then the discussion is a waste of time. You can ponder what as been said so far, then take it or leave it. I take into account the whole Bible not just a single word. I am certainly not getting any thought provoking insights from your side of the debate. Seeing how it doesn't matter to you anyway, Now I know why.
(2 Timothy 2:14)

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3038
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3269 times
Been thanked: 2018 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #78

Post by Difflugia »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:45 amVarious translators translate Genesis 3:1 as "shrewd" which can mean (acute, intelligent, far-sighted), "subtil" or "clever"
Nobody has suggested that "cautious" isn't a possible meaning of עָר֔וּם ('arum), but that there are potential meanings of עָר֔וּם that are not captured by "cautious." A translator selecting "cautious" is limiting the meaning in a way that may not capture the intention of the author at all. If contextual clues suggest that the potential meaning is narrower than all potential meanings for a word, then such a limitation might be justified, but the clues that we have in Genesis 3:1 actually suggest against the selection of "cautious" over a word with a similar range of meanings to עָר֔וּם, like "clever," or a word with a negative connotation, like "cunning."
JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 2:45 amARUM in the book of Proverbs is invariable presented as a positive quality.
Which, again, suggests that it is merely a possible meaning. Several of those proverbs offer contextual clues that the word is meant in a positive light, but Job 5:12 contextually suggests that עָר֔וּם has a negative connotation:
He frustrates the schemes of the crafty, so that the work of their hands does not succeed.
Here, "cautious" would be inappropriate.
JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:02 am When Genesis 3:1 was translated into Greek in the Septuagint the word Greek word phronimos was used​—the same word later used at Matthew 10:16:
The word φρονέω doesn't primarily mean "be cautious," either. The meaning of φρονέω suggests the kind of cognizance that you're arguing a snake doesn't have; φρονέω has a broader set of meanings like "have understanding," "be wise," and "be cunning," which makes it an eminently suitable Greek translation for the Hebrew. There's no contextual reason for artificially limiting the meaning to "be cautious" in English when there are more suitable words and no suggestion that the author intended such a narrow reading.
JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:02 amCONCUSION : If Genesis 3:1a is an observation about the instinctive characteristics of this kind of reptile, then cautious /subtile is a more fitting choice than wise/clever or cunning since animals, while instictively wise, biblically are not moral creatures.
That's true, but it requires that the translator read a meaning back into the text that may not reflect the author's intention. You're just saying that if the author had in mind a meaning more narrow than suggested by the context, then a narrow meaning is more fitting. That's a circular argument. Sometimes, there's no translation that captures all potential meanings of a word and a translator must necessarily make a narrower choice than suggested by context, but that's not the situation here. "Clever" suggests a wider range of possible meanings than "cautious," while "cunning" is more suggested by the subsequent context.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21109
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 792 times
Been thanked: 1121 times
Contact:

Re: Original Sin

Post #79

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Difflugia wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 10:14 amSometimes, there's no translation that captures all potential meanings of a word and a translator must necessarily make a narrower choice than suggested by context, but that's not the situation here.
Evidently it is the situation here because you go on to declare that the choice with the negative connotation is more fitting (effectively narrowing the meaning and eliminating the neutral). You are thus contradicting yourself. You stated.. .
Difflugia wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 10:14 am..."cunning" is more suggested by the subsequent context.
Difflugia wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 10:14 am...the clues that we have in Genesis 3:1 actually suggest against the selection of "cautious" over a word.... like "clever," or a word with a negative connotation, like "cunning."
I dont expect an answer given my previous efforts but I will ask anyway: What do you consider the contextual "clues" that suggest against the selection of "cautious" over "clever," or a word with a negative connotation, like "cunning." and why (rationale) do you consider them as such.

I would expect a reply (from someone ready for intelligent exchange) along the lines of ...verse X says this... I understand this to mean Y because ... => {rationale} <= and if my reasoning is correct this it would favor clever," or "cunning."


One lives in hope,


JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3038
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3269 times
Been thanked: 2018 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #80

Post by Difflugia »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:22 pm
Difflugia wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 10:14 amSometimes, there's no translation that captures all potential meanings of a word and a translator must necessarily make a narrower choice than suggested by context, but that's not the situation here.
Evidently it is the situation here because you go on to declare that the choice with the negative connotation is more fitting (effectively narrowing the meaning and eliminating the neutral). You are thus contradicting yourself. You stated.. .
Difflugia wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 10:14 am..."cunning" is more suggested by the subsequent context.
Difflugia wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 10:14 am...the clues that we have in Genesis 3:1 actually suggest against the selection of "cautious" over a word.... like "clever," or a word with a negative connotation, like "cunning."
Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I didn't contradict myself. By "must necessarily make a narrower choice," I meant in the case that there is no one English word or phrase that captures the range of meaning that the Greek or Hebrew does. An example off the top of my head is from Paul's speech in Acts 17:22:
Men of Athens, I perceive that you are δεισιδαιμονεστέρους in all things.
The word δεισιδαιμονεστέρους (deisidaimonesterous) literally means to be in fear of the divine or supernatural and can either have a positive connotation of "religious" or negative one of "superstitious." The literal English equivalent, "God-fearing," always means "religious" and would never refer to someone that, for example, avoids black cats or touches wood to avoid jinxing themselves. Since there is no single English word that captures both meanings and the ambiguity inherent in the Greek, a translator must necessarily choose between words with different meanings; the translator doesn't have the option of expressing the full range of meaning in the Greek even if he or she wanted to.

That's not the situation with Genesis 3:1. There are English words like "clever" that can take on a similar range of meanings, both positive and negative, as 'arum. We're not necessarily limited to a narrower word like "cautious," "wise," or "cunning" that excludes some potential meanings of 'arum.
JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:22 pmI dont expect an answer given my previous efforts but I will ask anyway:
I was expecting was a good-faith description of your debate position. You've since done that.
JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:22 pmWhat do you consider the contextual "clues" that suggest against the selection of "cautious" over "clever," or a word with a negative connotation, like "cunning." and why (rationale) do you consider them as such.
The natural way to read Genesis 3:1ff is that 3:1a, "and the serpent was the 'arum of all the animals," was intended as a prologue for the rest of chapter 3, which explicitly portrays the serpent in a negative light ("The serpent deceived me!" "Because you have done this, you are cursed..."). It's possible that 3:1a is intended as a contrast with the rest of the chapter ("Now, the serpent was the most 'arum of all the animals, but it said to the woman..."). It's also possible that 3:1a is just a random, passing thought and 3:1b is a non sequitur. If we're going to choose between "careful" and "cunning," that gives us three choices of summary paraphrase:
  • The serpent was the most careful of the beasts, but decieved Eve anyway.
  • The serpent was the most careful of the beasts. In other news, the serpent also deceived Eve.
  • The serpent was the most cunning of the beasts, therefore it deceived Eve.
With the entirety of chapter 3 comprising our evidentiary, "contextual clues," then, I (and apparently most translators) would consider the third to most likely match the intention of the author. Neither of the first two is a particularly natural reading and the most likely intention is that the serpent being 'arum is offered in explanation for the subsequent deception, making the third option the most natural reading of the three.

My personal preference, however, would be to retain ambiguity where it genuinely exists in the original. I'd opt for:
  • The serpent was the most clever of the beasts and it deceived Eve.
This option allows the reader to interpret the text in any of the first three ways. I still think that the third option is the most likely intention of the author, but the fourth option still allows for the reader to infer either of the first two meanings if that's how he or she reads chapter 3.

I'd consider the third option to result in a translation with the most likely meaning and the fourth, the most ecumenical meaning. The first two, while possible, are neither likely nor ecumenical.
Last edited by Difflugia on Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Post Reply