For Christians: What is Original Sin?

[DaveD49]

If you ask virtually any Christian "What was the Original Sin?" the reply almost universally would be "A&E's disobedience to God by eating the forbidden fruit. But was that a sin? For something to be a "sin" the element of knowledge that you are doing somethin wrong must be present. According to the story, the The tree they ate from was "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". If they did not possess the knowledge that disobedience of God was an evil before they ate from the tree then they committed no sin by doing so. They may have known it was wrong after the fact, but while doing so it was not a sin. What was actually their first sin? It seems likely that the first sin was their blaming someone else for their actions and not taking responsibility for their own actions. Adam blamed Eve; Eve blamed the snake.

But I think the story has a more important element that is often overlooked. It seems clear that the the story is describing man becoming fully human by gaining a conscience which is the knowledge of good and evil. It is what separates us from animal kingdom. Does a wolf commit evil be attacking and killing a human? No. It may have been a tragic event but a wolf has no conscience, and thus cannot commit evil. He is just being a wolf. Gaining a conscience, whether it be via an evolutionary step or an act of God IS the defining moment of man becoming higher than the animals. Animals live their lives by instinct. Humans on the other hand base ALL of our decisions by creating in us the choice of "Which way is better?" Even a decision to cross a street is based on the conscience. Would it be better to cross the street now in front of the approaching car or should I wait? ALL of our choices are based on the decisions between degrees of good and evil. It has what has led man from living in trees to living in caves, to huts, to houses, and to skyscrapers. On the other hand it is also what has led us to using rocks as weapons, to spears, to arrows, to guns and to thermonuclear weapons.

Oh, and by way, it also explains what has been an often used to attack the A&E story, and that is how Cain was able to find a wife among a "not quite human" people.

[DaveD49]

theophile wrote:
The inheritance aspect is simple if you think of it in a certain way, and also recognize that the opposite is also true, i.e., redemption. (Just as the sin of one has a way of darkening us all, so the light of another has a redeeming affect...)

It's like having a bushel of apples. They look good on the surface but when you take a bite of one you find it mushy and brown. That first bite like the first sin casts all the other apples in doubt, and makes you think that they too are no good.

Obviously the whole Christ story is about unearned redemption, but it is not referred to in the A&E story. And while I agree that one bad apple could make the whole bushel bad, if it were people I don't think that Jesus would have thought that way. He stated clearly (I forget where) that we do not inherit the sin of our fathers.

[JehovahsWitness]

...He [Jesus] stated clearly (I forget where) that we do not inherit the sin of our fathers.

No, Jesus never said that. The bible says one should not be punished for the sins of one's father ... is that perhaps what you are thinking about?

[theophile]

theophile wrote:
The inheritance aspect is simple if you think of it in a certain way, and also recognize that the opposite is also true, i.e., redemption. (Just as the sin of one has a way of darkening us all, so the light of another has a redeeming affect...)

It's like having a bushel of apples. They look good on the surface but when you take a bite of one you find it mushy and brown. That first bite like the first sin casts all the other apples in doubt, and makes you think that they too are no good.

Obviously the whole Christ story is about unearned redemption, but it is not referred to in the A&E story. And while I agree that one bad apple could make the whole bushel bad, if it were people I don't think that Jesus would have thought that way. He stated clearly (I forget where) that we do not inherit the sin of our fathers.

A&E only implies a possible redemption in virtue of its describing a fall. I agree it's not explicit there. And I don't want to speak for Jesus, but if you want the best verses on this topic, I'd look at something like Romans 5, e.g., versus 18-19:

"Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 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."

This is the clearest expression of the biblical logic of original sin that I know of (recognizing of course that original sin is not a biblical term per se but Augustinian). The only explanation for such a logic that I can think of is along the lines that I described... (But open to other ideas on the matter!)

[DaveD49]

...He [Jesus] stated clearly (I forget where) that we do not inherit the sin of our fathers.

No, Jesus never said that. The bible says one should not be punished for the sins of one's father ... is that perhaps what you are thinking about?

You are correct. It is from the Old Testament.

[DJT_47]

No such thing scripturally as original sin. No one is born in sin. Sin must be committed.

[JehovahsWitness]

No such thing scripturally as original sin. No one is born in sin. Sin must be committed.

PSALM 51:5

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me

RELATED POSTS

Are all humans sinners?
viewtopic.php?p=1105233#p1105233

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

SIN , PERFECTION , and ...THE RANSOM

[DJT_47]

Ezekiel 18:20

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

[DJT_47]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #26]

Ezekiel 18:20-21 KJV
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

[Eddie Ramos]

If you ask virtually any Christian "What was the Original Sin?" the reply almost universally would be "A&E's disobedience to God by eating the forbidden fruit. But was that a sin? For something to be a "sin" the element of knowledge that you are doing somethin wrong must be present. According to the story, the The tree they ate from was "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". If they did not possess the knowledge that disobedience of God was an evil before they ate from the tree then they committed no sin by doing so. They may have known it was wrong after the fact, but while doing so it was not a sin.

Adam knew perfectly well before the fact that eating of that tree was forbidden by God because God told Adam. Furthermore, to not eat of the tree was not a suggestion, it was a commandment.

Genesis 2:16–17 (KJV 1900)
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


Eve likewise knew of the commandment as well as the consequence for disobeying that commandment.

Genesis 3:1–3 (KJV 1900)
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto 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 midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Does that sound like someone who who had no knowledge that disobedience was evil? Or that it was wrong after the fact? Of course not. The Bible defines sin as the transgressing of Gods law (and a commandment is law).

1 John 3:4 (KJV 1900)
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

But I think the story has a more important element that is often overlooked. It seems clear that the the story is describing man becoming fully human by gaining a conscience which is the knowledge of good and evil. It is what separates us from animal kingdom.

Man was already created fully human on the 6th day of this earth's existence. What separated them from the animals was the fact that God created them in his image and his likeness, unlike any animal. And also that man became a living soul, also unlike any animal who only had the physical breath of life.

It has what has led man from living in trees to living in caves, to huts, to houses, and to skyscrapers.

If you're alluding to evolution by that comment, then I'm sorry to say that it seems like you don't trust the very Bible you're trying to hold a discussion with.

Oh, and by way, it also explains what has been an often used to attack the A&E story, and that is how Cain was able to find a wife among a "not quite human" people.

Not sure where the "not quite human" idea came from, but since Adam and Eve were the first parents in this world, and Cain and Abel were their first set of boys recorded in the scriptures that were born unto them, God does tell us that from the time they were born, till the time Cain killed his brother, there was an undisclosed period of time that had elapsed.

Genesis 4:1–3 (KJV 1900)
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. 2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. 3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

God also tells us that Adam and Eve begat more sons and daughters.

Genesis 5:4 (KJV 1900)
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

This isn't saying that Adam and Eve begat sons and daughters after Seth was born, it's telling us how much longer Adam lived after he begat Seth, and that he begat sons and daughters. We can actually have a pretty good idea how much time is the "process of time" described in Genesis 4:3. Since God recorded how long Adam lived when he begat Seth (130 years) (Gen 5:3), we can be sure that the process of time was less that 130 years. This of course would have been plenty of time for Adam and Eve to bear many more children who would have had to marry one another in order to fill the earth. And we have to keep in mind that what was eventually forbidden, thousands of years later, was allowed in order to bring about God's command to fill the earth. So, Cain married a sister of his. And because we al ultimately came from Adam and Eve, we are all (in a sense) brothers and sisters.

Song of Solomon 5:1 (KJV 1900)

I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse:
I have gathered my myrrh with my spice;
I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey;
I have drunk my wine with my milk:
Eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #1]
Original sin is the turning of their backs (Adam and Eve) on God, deliberately deciding to go against Him and run their own lives without Him. This resulted in their growing old and ultimately dying. Because of that, all of their progeny were/are in line to also die. Something perfect cannot come from something imperfect, tainted (with sin). But Adam's descendants are not to blame for A&E's deliberate betrayal, so God has made the way out of sin and death. That is where Jesus Christ comes in. He gave his perfect human life for everyone else's sin. "As in Adam all are dying, so in the Christ all will be made alive." (I Corinthians 15:22) See also(Romans 5:14-19).