|
|
Post by freebirdro on Jun 21, 2011 20:52:50 GMT -8
I agree Josh, also to respond to the statement "the sin entered the world becouse all sinned" could the answer simply be the fact that you and me weren't there for sure?  But we were in the seed of Adam? thus we all sined? |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 21, 2011 20:55:58 GMT -8
I agree Josh, also to respond to the statement "the sin entered the world becouse all sinned" could the answer simply be the fact that you and me weren't there for sure? But we were in the seed of Adam? thus we all sined? That would be the "traducionist view" I believe, which I used to hold. Not so sure anymore. You can follow my change in thought on the subject on this thread: www.aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=humannat&action=display&thread=2302 |
|
|
|
Post by freebirdro on Jun 22, 2011 9:04:08 GMT -8
I have been reading your discussion with Chris about it and I undersand your point of view.
The only thing that may also need to be taken in consideration is the verse that says : The unbeliver's spouse will sanctified by the believer faith in order for their kids to be sanctified, or something like that. What is that mean in this context?
I don't think you have to do something evil to be considered a sinner. The merelly fact that we have a sinful nature in us from birth transfered from Adam is enough to make us worthy of death. Death is the sign of a sinfull nature.
I don't think the sinfull nature comes later , and I don't know of any passages that supports that. Thus we have to assume that the sinfull nature is already there at birth, which have more supporting passages regarding any translation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 22, 2011 15:27:58 GMT -8
I have been reading your discussion with Chris about it and I undersand your point of view. The only thing that may also need to be taken in consideration is the verse that says : The unbeliver's spouse will sanctified by the believer faith in order for their kids to be sanctified, or something like that. What is that mean in this context? I don't think you have to do something evil to be considered a sinner. The merelly fact that we have a sinful nature in us from birth transfered from Adam is enough to make us worthy of death. Death is the sign of a sinfull nature. I don't think the sinfull nature comes later , and I don't know of any passages that supports that. Thus we have to assume that the sinfull nature is already there at birth, which have more supporting passages regarding any translation. It's been a while since I reviewed that thread, but if I remember correctly, I wasn't denying that we are born with a sinful nature, just that we are not born guilty. I see it this way: our sinful nature is like HIV waiting to be activated by our free will. It's only a matter of time until it becomes full blown AIDS. |
|
|
|
Post by freebirdro on Jun 22, 2011 21:41:22 GMT -8
I agree, that can make sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Jun 23, 2011 17:45:05 GMT -8
Right. This is the story of all of us. We were all innocent in the womb as infants and we all made the choice to follow our own way instead of the way given to us. Adam is the story of us all, rather than the story of some early tribe. It could be historically accurate as well, but it doesn't need to be. Steve, in thinking through this, one problem I see with the theory is that although it fits some of the main metaphors (if only metaphors they be) it seems to ignore some of the other major metaphors. Or maybe not? What would the "tree of life" correspond to in this scenario? The serpent? The fruit? In your scenario would there have been a real choice to either a) stay innocent or b) follow God and stay in his will? What about Adam walking with God in the cool of the day? Are you saying that early man might have had a more intimate relationship with God? The reason I'm pursuing this line is that if the story is metaphorical, then a good metaphorical story should have coherent parts that all (or at least the major ones) reinforce the truth being taught. Let me spell out what I see going on here (and I didn't make this up myself, I'm borrowing a lot from Deitrich Bonheoffer's Ethics): Adam and the woman are all of humanity, including each individual. Humanity is granted authority/responsibility over the created earth. But he is told not to make ethical decisions on his own (the tree of knowledge of good and evil), but to rely on his relationship with God. Satan (the serpent, the power that judges humanity) convinces humanity to take authority on their own, because if they were to make their own ethical decisions, apart from God, then they would be all-powerful. Humanity makes the decision to separate their idea of good and evil from God's. God abides by their decision and determines to separate himself from humanity. Humanity is now devoid of God's wisdom and must depend on their own wisdom. However, humanity is also devoid of life. Because humanity is like a toddler with the power of a king, God doesn't allow humanity the opportunity for eternal life (the tree of life)-- humanity would just be too dangerous. Instead, God puts humanity under the power of Death who limits humanity through suffering and hardship and who shortens humanity's lifespan. That's how I see it. Again, I don't have a problem with a historical read of the story, but we need to recognize ourselves in this story as well. |
|
Michael
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by Michael on Jun 25, 2011 19:23:38 GMT -8
Steve, I think you make a respectable argument for a metaphorical interpretation of the story. And even though I still lean toward a historical read, you make a good point that "we need to recognize ourselves in this story as well." Even if the event really took place, we can still make application of the story in our own lives today.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Jun 26, 2011 7:42:09 GMT -8
Thanks, Michael.
|
|
But we were in the seed of Adam? thus we all sined?
