original sin | SermonIndex

sermonindex Nov 3, 2003

Wow, lots of complicated stuff on original sin. Especially when it is so clear what Original sin is. Genesis 1:29 says that we are given "every seed bearing plant for food". This is the Only order we are given. Similarly, in science protohumans, the Australeopithicus Afarensis, were herbivores. Then they became scavengers and began developing the tools of the hunt, from which came war. Genesis 9:3 clearly indicates that God meant us to be herbivores! and points out the "hardness of our hearts" towards other living things.The evolution to hunting required narrower hips for running, and guess what, this caused women to have increased pain in childbirth. Cause and effect! Original Sin brought down an abundance of ugly behaviors that complicated or lives and made us ignorant of "every seed bearing plant." Herein lies the key to health and peace.After mankind became hunters, they became cannibals and descended into a very long history of debauchery. We would have discovered agriculture a very long time ago if we had not made this choice to go against God.This is what Genesis tells us. We had clear and simple orders at first on how to live. We broke with these orders and then things got ugly; we compounded one sin with many. First was Adam, then Cain and Abel (Homo Erectus and Australeopithicus Robustus) Next Erectus kills Able, and later Seth, the Neanderthals, comes and replaces the one who died.The biblical story and scientific story are two sides of the same coin. You can't get the whole story without examining all the evidence!

J

jouko Nov 3, 2003

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Gen 1:27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Gen 1:28 And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3761.asp

sermonindex Nov 4, 2003

yes we were given dominion, and we have been doing a very lousy job of it. the only clear command, from a behavioral standpoint, was to not eat animals.

J

Jason Nov 4, 2003

Your theory has too many holes both biblically and scientifically. First of all, your idea that Seth represents Neanderthal man and developed into modern man is not scientifically plausible.Recent examinations of Neanderthal DNA have shown that they apparently were not linked to modern man, and made no contribution to our gene pool. http://www.mcjonline.com/news/00/20000404a.htmSecondly, this view does violence to the Genesis account in many more ways than one. A particular point of oversight is that God gave man permission to eat meat after the flood had changed the makeup of the world: Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood (Gen 9:3-4).I'm sorry, but your explanation cannot be true scientifically and is even more impossible biblically. I have no problem with your eating only vegetables, but it is ignorant to suggest that eating meat has or had anything to do with Original Sin or that it is sinful now.

sermonindex Nov 12, 2003

I didn't say that Seth became modern man, just that the three brothers mentioned in the Bible correspond with the three main branches of protoman advanced by evolutionary scientists: Astraleopithicus afarensis, Homo Erectus, Neanderthal. We arose from HE and the role of Neanderthals is not clearly understood at this time. It is interesting that many scientists believe that the Neaderthals were the first to speak. Similarly, at the time of Seth, man begins to "call upon the name of the Lord."Man may have been given permission to eat animals in Genesis 9:3 but God pointed out that it was only because of the hardness of our hearts.Have you considered that the flood destroyed all of mankind except for Noah's family and that the Out of Africa theory tells us that we are all descendents of one small clan? Then Noah plants a vineyard and mankind descovers agriculture.There are many more points to this story and some day I will get around to putting them up on a web site. At the present time, there are too many competing activities.

C

Chosen7Stone Nov 12, 2003

Speaking of Noah and what he ate...Please read Genesis 9:3.

N

Nasher Dec 9, 2003

Amen Mary, here is Genesis 9:33Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.There is nothing here about hardness of heart, infact out of all the inhabitants of the earth before the flood, I would say that Noah had a soft heart in comparison to the rest whose every intent of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.God says here that he has given them all things even as the green herbs.Jake, are you a vegetarian? If you are for what reason?

sermonindex Dec 9, 2003

Genesis 9: The FEAR and DREAD of you shall fall upon all wild animals on earth, on all the birds of heaven, on everything that moves upon the ground and all fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. Every creature that lives and moves shall be food for you; I give you them all, as once I gave you green plants.This tells us that originally God restricted mankinds diet to green plants! We violated this command and fell into sin.

A

almondBranch Dec 9, 2003

So did jesus sin when He ate meat?

P

philologos Dec 9, 2003

Jake wrote:This tells us that This tells us that originally God restricted mankinds diet to green plants! We violated this command and fell into sin. ! We violated this command and fell into sin. As with all your posts Jake, you mix up revelation with speculation. But you can't add your speculation without rejecting the revelation. The revelation of Gen 1-3 is quite clearly that that originally God restricted mankinds diet to green plants. Now how can you justify accepting that bit of the revelation while, at the same time, rejecting the rest?The revelation states quite simply that man disobeyed God in the question of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As it is referred to as 'fruit' we can only conclude that Adam and Eve did not breach their vegetarian diet. ;-) As a result of Adam's part in this rebellion mankind was banished from God's immediate presence. According to what we have in the Book inspired by the Spirit, Adam lived, sinned and died a vegetarian.So you will see that there was no connection of any kind between a change in basic diet and Adam's falling into sin.Now, will you tell me again that the 'inward witness told you'? Here's another little selection of good, clear thinking, Barclay. He is referring to the holy scriptures:we do look upon them as the only fit outward judge of controversies among Christians; and that whatsoever doctrine is contrary to their testimony, may therefore justly be rejected as false. And, for our parts, we are very willing that all our doctrines and practices be tried by them; which we never refused, nor ever shall, in all controversies with our adversaries, as the judge and test. We shall also be very willing to admit it as a positive certain maxim, that whatsoever any do, pretending to the Spirit, which is contrary to the scriptures, be accounted and reckoned a delusion of the devil. For as we never lay claim to the Spirit's leadings, that we may cover ourselves in anything that is evil; so we know, that as every evil contradicts the scriptures, so it doth also the Spirit in the first place, from which the scriptures came, and whose motions can never contradict one another, though they may appear sometimes to be contradictory to the blind eye of the natural man, as Paul and James seem to contradict one another.(Emphasis is Barlclay's own)I draw you attention again to original Quaker theology "the Spirit and the scriptures can never contradict one another" According to Barclays criteria above your speculations are justly to be rejected as false and a delusion of the devil. This is strong stuff but those early Quakers knew they were on solid ground

N

Nasher Dec 9, 2003

Before the fall man was allowed to eat plants etc., God did not command man not to eat animals, why? we do not know, it could be for several reasons; here are a couple of possibilities:1. Man did not need animal meat to survive:And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.2. Man ruled the animals but the animals were not afraid of them, i.e. they were close 'friends' (much closer than person or animal is today):Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."After the fall, when Sin entered (i.e. it already existed before Adam) the world, so did Death. Here we see the first animal sacrifice performed by God himself to cover their sin:Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.Remember that the only command God had given to man was:but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eatIt was not a breaking of a command of man only eating green plants that caused him to fall into sin as you have said, there was no such command!It was not even the fall that caused God to say that now man can eat animals, it is only after the flood!The reason why God allows man to eat animals after the flood could be due to the dramatic environment change it produced (which is another interesting topic), however lets be clear about this: it was not as a direct result of the fall.A reason why animals had fear and dread after the flood is because man could now hunt and kill them for food.Jake, you didn't answer my questions about you being a vegetarian and the reasons for it.

sermonindex Dec 9, 2003

I am a vegetarian, but not a vegan. Health is one reason. Environmental concerns is another. The spread of disease is another. Equity is another.A former head of the National Institute of Health wrote that if meat was a new product it would not be allowed on the market because cooked meat is far too carcinogenic. Animal production is highly pollutive and is ravaging our enviroment. Health experts are now predicting an viral pandemic and the source of this is predicted to be chickens kept for food. The many unnaturally crowded animals kept for food are vectors for infectious diseases.Finally, I recognize that God gave us every seed bearing plant for good reason. The tools of the hunt are the tools of war. Plants are medicine as well as food, however we have not known "Every" seed bearing plant because we were diverted by scavenging, hunting and then a nomadic lifestyle. As a result we fail to learn what God commanded and today 99% of flowering plants have not been tested for medicinal properties. But the 1% that has been tested account for 40% of our medicines. Think about the vast storehouse of knowledge we have forgone because of our choice to kill and eat animals. I believe we would have discovered agriculture thousands of years earlier if Cain had not become the restless wanderer, chasing after game across the African plains.

P

philologos Dec 9, 2003

your quote: I believe we would have discovered agriculture thousands of years earlier if Cain had not become the restless wanderer, chasing after game across the African plains.Jake, more speculation. Cain actually built the first city in defiance of God's command to be a restless wanderer. When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

N

Nasher Dec 9, 2003

The tools of the hunt are the tools of war.Are you saying that because a tool can be used for war that the tool itself is bad?Were the tools Noah used to make the ark (e.g. some sort of chopping / cutting implement) bad?Are my hands bad because they can be used as a fist to fight someone?

sermonindex Dec 9, 2003

The tools themselves are not bad. The agressive predatory practice of hunting was very bad for us because it took us away from our reliance on "every seed bearing plant" for food. This was a peaceful process of living. It was inevitable that nomadic hunters became warriors because of territorial and tribal concerns. If we had concentrated on developing tools for sedentary agriculture that did not develop in us the aggression required for hunting, war would have been unthinkable.

sermonindex Dec 9, 2003

It is curious that immediately after the fall from grace, God gives us "animal skins" to wear. I don't think this is a coincidence.

P

philologos Dec 9, 2003

your quote:It is curious that immediately after the fall from grace, God gives us "animal skins" to wear. I don't think this is a coincidence.Adam and Eve tried to cover their nakedness with figleaves. This is indicative of man's attempt to deal with his sin. This is DIY salvation and we can imagine how successful the effort was.God provided leather clothes (makes me think of that Fox man again ;-) ) to cover their nakedness. The implication being that the first blood shed on earth was shed by God in order to provide a covering for sinners.Here is your 'coincidence'; this is God setting the scene for centuries to follow by showing that only by shed blood would man be fit to enter the presence of God. The blood that would finally effect this was not of bulls and goats but the blood of His own Son, by whom we now draw near to God.This passage is not teaching anything to do with the human race becoming carnevores. It is sowing seed-truth that would be reaped generations later by Paul And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

R

rookie Dec 15, 2003

Everyone seems to be looking at the result of something much more basic to the understanding of why man is fallen.Paul writes, "You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections.' 2 Corinthians 6:12 Paul then begins to teach about the desires of men. The idea of what we yoke ourselve to. His solution is given to us in these words, "Come out from among them and be seperate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean." verse 17. Many believe this passage pretains to our relationships with worldly people or fallen man. The true question is why do we associate with people of this nature? It is because we hold on to the same desires that they do. Please bear with me.We are created in the image of Adam. One of the attributes of God is faithfulness. Adam also had this attribute. We also have this attribute. Man seeks to be faithful to something. When we teach that God created us with an emptiness which can only be filled by Him. In essence, this precept is defined by faithfulness. What motivates us, why do we seek to become what our heart gives us a passion to do?Adam chose to walk away from God. The essence of the fall can be defined by the absence of God's Holy Spirit giving man that direction or knowledge of God's will. Only living by God's will, can man be filled by the fulness of Him.The fall of man means that man is dead spiritually. Man has only his self as the focus of his knowledge. He seeks to find something to be faithful to, which will satisfy him. As he learns from this world his nature only become more depraved because there is not understanding, there is not wisdom, because the only truth that exists, exists in God. Jesus taught, "Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again," '(this is seeking wisdom and fulfillment in this world), "but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst,..." (this represents the revelation of God to those who seek Jesus)"Behold I have come-in the volume of the book it is written of Me-TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD," Hebrews 10:7 His creation will only find God's fulness as they learn from our High Priest to do His will. Finally, the fall from God, the loss of the Holy Spirits' counsel is the reason all men sin and why all are condemned. There is nothing outside of God's grace teaching us where truth exists. Salvation is revelation.in ChristJeff

P

philologos Dec 16, 2003

Jeff, you wrote Finally, the fall from God, the loss of the Holy Spirits' counsel is the reason all men sin and why all are condemned. There is nothing outside of God's grace teaching us where truth exists. Salvation is revelationIn all my other posts on original sin (my choice of title would be congenital) I have carefully avoided the word 'condemnation' because I wanted to get the ground established before we moved on to this. Condemnation is the consequence of someone having been proved 'guilty'. Personally I believe in congenital sin but NOT in congenital guilt. That is, I do not believe God holds me responsible for Adam's sin. I do not believe that I will go to hell for Adam's sin. Adam's 'condemnation' (his penalty) was banishment from the immediate presence of God and that condemnation I shared by first birth.As you say, if I understand you correctly, Adam chose self-knowledge rather than the dependence upon God represented by the tree of Life. Initially his sin was independence which hardened into rebellion. (it was mirrored again in Saul, Israel's first legitimate king). Adam opened the door of the human race to Sin and Death came in behind. This occured in the moment of Adam's disobedience. Physical death was part of the consequence; that passed to me too.When a man is put back into right relationship with God through justification and regeneration a new way of life becomes possible. He (she) walks in the Spirit and does not fulfil the lust of the flesh. The order is important here. We do not restrain the lust of the flesh and thereby walk in the Spirit. We listen to what He says and in obedience lies the outworking of our salvation.Your phrase is 'Salvation is revelation'. I would prefer 'the outworking of salvation is by revelation.' We live by faith. Faith is right response to revelation. But it is God who both works and wills; the dynamic and the desire are all God's gift to us. We work out what He has worked in and we do it by 'abiding in Him, and allowing His word to abide in us'.But we cannot be saved just by obeying the revelation. We must be brought out of Sin and Death and receive a new inward law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus which frees us (in a moment) from the law of Sin and Death. Let me express it in a historical context. Israel was brought out of Egypt without raising a finger; God made His arm bare. But to enter the promised land they had to fight for every inch, under the continual direction of Joshua (Jesus).So by a sovereign act of regeneration God brings us out of the old, endues us with new life and becomes our Captain. Then salvation, His life within, must be manifested in daily obediences to His command.

R

rookie Dec 16, 2003

Hi Ron,I am not at all aware of these terms people use to explain what someone else defined as positions of doctrine held.What I do have is the Scriptures. And so we are back to Romans 5. vs 16..."And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the JUDGEMENT which came from one offense RESULTED in CONDEMNATION, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification."vs 18..."Therefore, as through one man's offense JUDGEMENT came to ALL MEN, RESULTING IN CONDEMNATION, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came TO ALL MEN, resulting in justification of life."Please explain how all are not condemned prior to the Holy Spirit providing cousel to fallen man.Also going back to what I said about why all are condemned. What do you think about the choice of men and why they yoke themselves to either self or the Holy Spirit?Back at youJeff