Old Earth and Original Sin

[glad4mercy]

Having an excellent university and seminary education is no guarantee that that the pastor so equipped will be sound in his theology, but lacking both of them nearly guarantees that that such a pastor will be incompetent.

I guess John Bunyan, William Carey, D.L Moody, A.W Tozer, and others like them were abject failures then.

Sorry to digress everyone. I'll stop now.

[percho]

Sinners "before" satan tempted them?? Or only after they fell for the temptation and THEN acted upon the temptation lies of the satan... did they became sinners??

1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Permit me to ask. Were they the above before they/he sinned?

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

God did not tempt. The temptation came from one who was present in the garden when the man was put in the garden and before the help meet was taken out of the man. The woman was taken from the man and they were naked and not ashamed. Then: she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

After that they were dead in trespass and sin.

There is more here than meets the eye in my opinion and I am not sure just what it is.

I do believe for what ever it means concerning the woman, help meet means helper and I believe in context as helper of God or God as helper. This is found in the servant of Abraham, Eliezer (divine helper) and is also related to the Holy Spirit as in the word translated Comforter which also means helper.

[BroRog]

Sinners "before" satan tempted them?? Or only after they fell for the temptation and THEN acted upon the temptation lies of the satan... did they became sinners??

They were already sinners. Thus the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which was the trial of Adam and Eve to demonstrate to them that they were, indeed, evil.

[glad4mercy]

They were already sinners. Thus the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which was the trial of Adam and Eve to demonstrate to them that they were, indeed, evil.

I respectfully disagree with this statement. The book of Genesis says that God looked at everything He had made and it was very good. Sinners are not good, hence the statements, "there is none good but God" and "there is none who does good, no not one". Therefore your paradigm is at odds with the scriptures.


Blessings

[Slug1]

They were already sinners.

If I understand this sentance, you are stating that Adam and Eve were sinners "before" they ate the fruit... is so, your statement is based on what scriptures??

[percho]

If I understand this sentance, you are stating that Adam and Eve were sinners "before" they ate the fruit... is so, your statement is based on what scriptures??

What they were before they ate was flesh and blood living souls with the lust of the flesh and what they were after they had eaten were flesh and blood living souls, dead in trespass and sin who had satisfied the lust of the flesh.

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

[Slug1]

What they were before they ate was flesh and blood living souls with the lust of the flesh and what they were after they had eaten were flesh and blood living souls, dead in trespass and sin who had satisfied the lust of the flesh.

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

So are you saying that God put lust "into" Adam and Eve's flesh? If so... which scripture supports this?

Gen 1:²⁷ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. ²⁸ 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.”

God created both Adam and Eve in "His" image... so when was "lust" a part of that image before satan began to tempt them???

[BroRog]

If I understand this sentance, you are stating that Adam and Eve were sinners "before" they ate the fruit... is so, your statement is based on what scriptures??

First of all, it's common sense. Second, Paul says that Adam was the type of him who was to come, i.e. the rest of us.

[Slug1]

First of all, it's common sense. Second, Paul says that Adam was the type of him who was to come, i.e. the rest of us.

What scriptures show us that Adam and Eve were sinners before they ate the fruit??

[Boo]

I guess John Bunyan, William Carey, D.L Moody, A.W Tozer, and others like them were abject failures then.

Sorry to digress everyone. I'll stop now.

Somethings in scripture are easier seen by someone who has not been brainwashed by denominational theory.

The scriptures and the Holy Spirit are much better teachers than any seminary that I know of. Actually, if one really wants to confuse people about the contents of scripture, what better place than at a school where denominational theology is taught?

[glad4mercy]

First of all, it's common sense. Second, Paul says that Adam was the type of him who was to come, i.e. the rest of us.

Bro Rog. Paul is talking about Jesus, the Second Adam when he says that Adam is a type of him who is to come. Adam and Eve were without sin, innocent, and righteous before they ate the fruit, for God saw everything He had made and it was good. It wasnt until they ate the forbidden fruit that man fell and sin entered the world, as the scripture says, "By one man, sin entered the world..."

[glad4mercy]

Somethings in scripture are easier seen by someone who has not been brainwashed by denominational theory.

The scriptures and the Holy Spirit are much better teachers than any seminary that I know of. Actually, if one really wants to confuse people about the contents of scripture, what better place than at a school where denominational theology is taught?

Your first statement is very true. It is very important when we study the Bible, that we do not allow our theological castles to block the view and prevent us from seeing what God is really telling us. The purpose of Bible study is love from a pure heart and faith unfeigned anyways. This is the fruit that God is looking for in our lives. Additionally, if anyone does God's Will, he will know the Doctrine- John 7;17. It seems to me that the key to understanding the Bible is not going to seminary after seminary, but to do the Will of God, that is to believe in the One He has sent, to hear His Words, to Follow Him, to continue in His Word.

Not that education, Bible college, and seminary are bad things, on the contrary, they are good. My point is that average Joes can understand the Bible as well as professors, for God has given us His Spirit. Sometimes people with a lot of education overthink, and miss some of the beautiful simplicities of the Gospel. It is good to have a formal education as long as we continue in the things that we have been taught from the beginning.

With that in mind, when we study the Bible, what do the views of Jesus and the apostles seem to be regarding Genesis 1-11? We should have the same doctrine or teaching of Genesis 1-11 that Jesus and the apostles had, for the Scriptures say, "everyone who is of God heareth us" and "continue in the things which you have heard from beginning". So people who say that Genesis 1-11 is allegorical or mythical or legend when Jesus and the apostles did not say so are treading on dangerous ground. Additionally, if anyone can show me that the earliest disciples of the disciples, ( for example Polycarp and others of his day) held that Genesis 1-11 were mythical or non historical, let them present it here for us to see. If I am wrong then I will admit it, but only if someone can show from the scriptures that holding to a non literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is consistent with continuing in the teachings handed down to us by Jesus and the apostles.

[Athanasius]

First of all, it's common sense. Second, Paul says that Adam was the type of him who was to come, i.e. the rest of us.

It's common sense that God created sinners even though no human had yet sinned, and then punished Adam and Eve for being the sinners He created? Sounds more like Allah than YHWH, and isn't very commonsensical.

[Jemand]

Your first statement is very true. It is very important when we study the Bible, that we do not allow our theological castles to block the view and prevent us from seeing what God is really telling us. The purpose of Bible study is love from a pure heart and faith unfeigned anyways. This is the fruit that God is looking for in our lives. Additionally, if anyone does God's Will, he will know the Doctrine- John 7;17.

It seems to me that the key to understanding the Bible is not going to seminary after seminary, but to do the Will of God, that is to believe in the One He has sent, to hear His Words, to Follow Him, to continue in His Word.

John 7:14. About the middle of the festival Jesus went up into the temple and began to teach.
15. The Jews were astonished at it, saying, “How does this man have such learning, when he has never been taught?”
16. Then Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine but his who sent me.
17. Anyone who resolves to do the will of God will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own.
18. Those who speak on their own seek their own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and there is nothing false in him.” (NRSV)

If you had completed a seminary education, you would know the context of John 7:17 and you would not have so severely misunderstood it.

Not that education, Bible college, and seminary are bad things, on the contrary, they are good. My point is that average Joes can understand the Bible as well as professors, for God has given us His Spirit.

The “average Joe” is not fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek—indeed he is not even able to read the Bible, but is dependent upon translations of it. That is why the “average Joe” wrongly interprets the New Testament in hundreds of places and we find among the “average Joes” a vast multitude of ridiculously silly conflicting interpretations of even the most theologically important passages in the New Testament. Moreover, the “average Joe” has no knowledge of even the most fundamental principles of interpreting literature, resulting in the most absurd imaginable interpretations of Genesis 1-11 and Romans 5:12-21 and a host of other very important portions of the Bible. Furthermore, the “average Joe” has no knowledge of even the most basic facts regarding the cultural background of any of the passages in the Bible, adding absurdity to absurdity.

Sometimes people with a lot of education overthink, and miss some of the beautiful simplicities of the Gospel.

This is probably true, but it is no less true that people with an excellent university and seminary education are equipped with the ability to read the Bible for themselves rather than be dependent upon translations of it by other men. They are also equipped with the principles of interpreting literature and a knowledge of the cultural background of all of the passages in the Bible. Consequently, they are equipped with the necessary tools to be able to more accurately understand the gospel.

We need to distinguish between three types of seminaries:

1. Those that are little more than diploma mills

2. Those whose primary function is to equip future pastors of the seminary's denomination to serve as pastors in that denomination

3. Those whose primary functions are to equip men and women to be able to study the Bible on their own in the original languages and to inspire them to pursue academic excellence. The best of these also strive to inspire their students to purse excellence in their Christian walk.

It is good to have a formal education as long as we continue in the things that we have been taught from the beginning.

This would be true if we all had been taught the truth from the beginning rather than the beliefs of our parents, our denomination, or anything other than the truth. That was not the case for me—I began with only an excellent, secular university education. Therefore, in the beginning, I was dependent upon the Holy Spirit and translations of the Bible. God, however, saw my thirst for the truths in His word, the Bible, and made it possible for me to further my education, learning from men whom the Holy Spirit had blessed with wisdom and knowledge, and who inspired me to follow in their footsteps.

There is only one Holy Spirit, and He has been teaching men the same truths from the beginning. He does not pour knowledge into our heads—He gives us wisdom to aid us in discerning truth from error and in properly applying what he have learned. Understanding the vocabulary of the Greek New Testament does not come from merely looking up words in a lexicon—understanding the vocabulary of the New Testament comes from an intimate familiarity with the Greek New Testament, the Greek literature that is contemporaneous with it, and the Greek literature from the time of Homer down to the early centuries of the Christian era. Scholarship, therefore, not only has a place—it is vital to an accurate knowledge of the New Testament. I am not such an arrogant fool as to believe that I have a corner on the Holy Spirit that that the early church fathers did not have; nor am I such an arrogant fool as to believe that I have a corner on the Holy Spirit that the Biblical scholars of the past and present did not/do not have. Indeed, as Charles Spurgeon reminded us nearly a century and a half ago, I am indebted to them and what the Holy Spirit taught them,

“In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others. My chat this afternoon is not for those great originals, but for you who are content to learn of holy men, taught of God, and mighty in the Scriptures. It has been the fashion of late years to speak against the use of commentaries. If there were any fear that the expositions of Matthew Henry, Gill, Scott, and others, would be exalted into Christian Targums, we would join the chorus of objectors, but the existence or approach of such a danger we do not suspect. The temptations of our times lie rather in empty pretensions to novelty of sentiment, than in a slavish following of accepted guides. A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might have saved many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences. Usually, we have found the despisers of commentaries to be men who have no sort of acquaintance with them, in their case, it is the opposite of familiarity which has bred contempt….”

Spurgeon, C. H. Commenting & Commentaries. 1876.

With that in mind, when we study the Bible, what do the views of Jesus and the apostles seem to be regarding Genesis 1-11? We should have the same doctrine or teaching of Genesis 1-11 that Jesus and the apostles had, for the Scriptures say, "everyone who is of God heareth us" and "continue in the things which you have heard from beginning". So people who say that Genesis 1-11 is allegorical or mythical or legend when Jesus and the apostles did not say so are treading on dangerous ground. Additionally, if anyone can show me that the earliest disciples of the disciples, ( for example Polycarp and others of his day) held that Genesis 1-11 were mythical or non historical, let them present it here for us to see. If I am wrong then I will admit it, but only if someone can show from the scriptures that holding to a non literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is consistent with continuing in the teachings handed down to us by Jesus and the apostles.

We do not know how Jesus or the New Testament writers interpreted Gen. 1-11. Even our most liberal churches teach their children the Old Testament stories about Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark, and Jonah and the whale. These churches do NOT believe that the stories are accurate, historical accounts of actual events, but they use these stories to teach their children the spiritual truths that these stories were written to teach. Only years later do these children realize the true nature of the stories. Jesus and the New Testament writers used the same stories for the same purpose, but we still find some adults today who do not realize the true nature of the stories.

It has consistently been my observation that the Christians who place the least value upon an excellent university and seminary education are those Christians who have neither and who, consequently, have an extremely incorrect concept of what they are missing. How ironic it is that these Christians would not think of trusting their sick child to a physician who had not an excellent university and medical school education, and yet they trust their children to a pastor who lacks an excellent university and seminary education. The Holy Spirit does not spoon-feed men and women with Biblical knowledge anymore than He spoon-feeds men and women with medical knowledge.

[Lily]

What wonderful revelations did all this literary analysis produce that will make us more Christlike?

The point of the story is the same, whether symbolism is used to express what happened or whether it’s a literal historical account of what happened.

Is the Gospel the same as it was 200 years ago? Has the power of God gotten stronger by men's academic accomplishments? Is all this knowledge leading to love from a pure heart and faith unfeigned?

Academics and scientific findings would not be an issue if we didn’t make it one. When we find artifacts that support Biblical history, it supports the truth of the Gospel and it's message of God's love for us. If we would acknowledge that the creation story suggests a process that was arranged and guided by God, then the evidence which supports an OE would also support the truth of the Gospel. Instead, we insist, in spite of a lot of evidence that suggests otherwise, that God did everything almost instantaneously over a period of six days, just 6 - 10k yrs ago.

This alienates those who see the evidence for an OE when we present the Gospel to them and insist on a six day creation and a literal snake among other things. That is heartbreaking to those of us who know they need Christ.

And that raises the question: When did the serpent cease being a literal snake and become satan? God said it would go on it's belly and eat dust all the days of it's life and bruise the heel of Eve‘s children and that they would step on his head. There is no mention of satan in the story at all or that he had embodied a snake. It says “now the serpent (not satan, or that satan had embodied a snake) was more subtle than any beast of the field that the Lord God had made,” and then it spoke to the woman and deceived her. If all of this is a literal account then it's still a snake that we should be concerned about.

We understand however, that it's symbolic, and the truth it conveys is that satan is sly and deceitful and would ultimately be defeated.

Why is it so hard to understand that the rest of the story of the garden is likely symbolic, as well?

Is the knowledge that you are speaking of leading to radical transformation of life.

How many people might hear the Gospel message and have their lives radically transformed if it wasn’t for our insistence on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11? How many haven't because of our insistence?

I was taught and believed in a YE for many years and promoted the belief to my children when they were young, too. Then, long story short, I began leaning toward theistic evolution. The earth being old has nothing to do with whether I’m sinful or not and in need of a Savior. Nor does thinking that the story of Adam and Eve in the garden is symbolic do anything to diminish the truth that it conveys. There is nothing wrong with believing in a literal interpretation of Gen 1:11, but I think we do a lot of harm by insisting it is the only way to understand it.