Old Earth and Original Sin

[glad4mercy]

I'm not convinced of evolution: I'm just answering your questions. And 'myth' does not mean fictional, e.g. the 'myth of Genesis 1 -11 can teach, very literally, the origin of sin and marriage.

The word myth is highly ambiguous. More often than not it carries the idea of something that is imaginary or unfounded. My Bible is neither imaginary, nor is it unfounded.


myth
   [mith] Show IPA

noun
1.
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

2.
stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.

3.
any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.

4.
an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.

5.
an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

I think there are better words one could use to describe Genesis 1-11.

[teddyv]

Legend might be better term.

[Athanasius]

'Myth' isn't an ambiguous term in the context of biblical studies, and I've told you already the dictionary definition is inadequate (as it often is). I believe F.F. Bruce has written a few papers on the relationship between myth and biblical studies, so perhaps a quick Google might be of help.

The word myth is highly ambiguous. More often than not it carries the idea of something that is imaginary or unfounded. My Bible is neither imaginary, nor is it unfounded.


myth
   [mith] Show IPA

noun
1.
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

2.
stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.

3.
any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.

4.
an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.

5.
an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

I think there are better words one could use to describe Genesis 1-11.

Legend might be better term.

[glad4mercy]

Legend might be better term.

Out of the frying pan into the fire...


leg·end
   [lej-uhnd] Show IPA

noun 1. a nonhistorical or unverifiable story handed down by tradition from earlier times and popularly accepted as historical.

These words seem to imply a skepticism as to whether or not the Biblical accounts occurred or not. I don't think there is sufficient cause to doubt the historicity of Genesis 1-11.

Either Adam and Eve existed, or they did not. If they did not exist, and the fall account in Genesis 3 is non-historical, then you have to explain, ( from a scriptural basis) how man became sinful. If Genesis 3 is not historically accurate, how do you account for man's fall, and our sinfullness. If you think it's an allegory, please explain the allegory for me if you will.

[Lily]

Even if Genesis 1- 11 is not literal history, it is not myth. It may use symbolism, but It was written under inspiration of the Holy Spirit as the rest of the Bible is. While it illustrates history, it’s also quite prophetic and uses symbolism as do the dreams, visions, prophecies and parables in many other books of the Bible. It would only be myth if Jesus, who it points to, had not come.

[Athanasius]

Here we go, F.F. Bruce on the word 'myth' in biblical studies: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...YQyt-g&cad=rja -- it's a pdf, so be aware when clicking if you're on a slow connection / computer.

[glad4mercy]

Here we go, F.F. Bruce on the word 'myth' in biblical studies: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...YQyt-g&cad=rja -- it's a pdf, so be aware when clicking if you're on a slow connection / computer.

Thank you for the link. I will check it out.

[glad4mercy]

I'll lay it out there again for those who do not think Genesis 1-11 are literal historical narratives. If Genesis 1-11 are not literal historical narratives as some have seemed to contend, how do you explain the fall of man and the sinful condition of humanity? Why is mankind the way it is?

As far as I can tell, only a literal interpretation of Genesis 3 provides an answer to these questions, ( unless you want to believe that God created man sinful, or unless you want to accept Pelagianism, both of which I strongly reject.) Maybe I am missing something, so I will offer a respectful challenge.

If someone can provide a biblical answer as to why man is sinful that does not include a literal interpretation of Genesis 3, lay it on us.

[percho]

I'll lay it out there again for those who do not think Genesis 1-11 are literal historical narratives. If Genesis 1-11 are not literal historical narratives as some have seemed to contend, how do you explain the fall of man and the sinful condition of humanity? Why is mankind the way it is?

As far as I can tell, only a literal interpretation of Genesis 3 provides an answer to these questions, ( unless you want to believe that God created man sinful, or unless you want to accept Pelagianism, both of which I strongly reject.) Maybe I am missing something, so I will offer a respectful challenge.

If someone can provide a biblical answer as to why man is sinful that does not include a literal interpretation of Genesis 3, lay it on us.

I agree glad4mercy in respect that there was a temptation from one, not God, the temptation was lusted for and succumbed to and sin and death were brought forth. Methinks some of the most interesting truth we will learn in the kingdom of God is the true meaning of all of Genesis 3.

What do you believe the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was representative of?

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. What does it mean to eat the flesh and drink the blood?

Just who were they eating and drinking of that brought death?

[glad4mercy]

I agree glad4mercy in respect that there was a temptation from one, not God, the temptation was lusted for and succumbed to and sin and death were brought forth. Methinks some of the most interesting truth we will learn in the kingdom of God is the true meaning of all of Genesis 3.

What do you believe the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was representative of?

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. What does it mean to eat the flesh and drink the blood?

Just who were they eating and drinking of that brought death?

I admit that I am an unashamed literalist, and I believe that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a literal tree. I don't think that it was the tree that itself was evil, I believe that by laying a single prohibition on Adam, God was granting him free will. In other words, Adam could choose to obey God or he could choose to disobey God. Adam and Eve had to choose between believing God's Word or believing the serpent, (wh's to say that satan could not possess a serpent and speak through it, just as God spoke through an ass.) Eve argued with the serpent instead of fleeing from it, and she was seduced and deceived. Adam ate from the tree knowingly, realizing he was sinning, but he was enticed to do it by Eve. So Eve was seduced by satan, who used a serpent, and satan also used Eve to seduce Adam, though Adam sinned, IMO, knowingly and willfully.

Because Adam was the ancestor of us all, a sinful nature or propensity for evil has been passed down to every person who ever lived, ( except Jesus). We inherit this sinful nature from Adam, because we are sons of Adam. Only through regeneration and being born spiritually into the Second Adam, Jesus Christ, are we able to escape that corrution.

The theological system that denies that we inherit a sinful nature from Adam is called Pelagianism, and it is a false teaching.

Pelagius (ca. AD 354 – ca. AD 420/440) was an ascetic who denied the need for divine aid in performing good works. For him, the only grace necessary was the declaration of the law; humans were not wounded by Adam's sin and were perfectly able to fulfill the law apart from any divine aid. He also, therefore, denied the more specific doctrine of original sin as developed by Augustine of Hippo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius

As far as drinking the blood and eating the flesh of Christ, we know that Christ often spoke of Spiritual realities using physical illustrations. For example He spoke of the New Birth and the water of Life. The birth and the water were not literal or physical, they were symbolic of spiritual realities. So Jesus was not talking about literally drinking His blood or eating His flesh, I think He was referring to the act of appropriating His sacrificial death by faith. By accepting and receiving by faith what Jesus accomplished on the Cross, we receive Life from God, hence Jesus the Bread of Life.

You see, literalists do not take everything in the Bible literally. We know that figures of speech, parables, similes, metaphors, etc are figurative. We have to be able to discern what is literal and what is figurative in the Bible, and there are clear guidelines to this in the principles of Hermeneutics. We do follow a conservative approach to hermeneutics, and we interpret historical accounts like Genesis 1-11, the crossing of the Red Sea, and other biblical accounts literally, as we do not believe that the Bible is a collection of myths or fables.

[glad4mercy]

Darwin and many other people, however, lost their faith in the gospel because it was taught to them embedded in a severely incorrect interpretation of the first eleven chapters of Genesis that, when proven to be unsound, caused them to believe that the gospel is not true. When the gospel is kept pure and uncontaminated by false teachings, it is just as powerful today as it was when it came directly from the mouth of Jesus.

If a person comes to know Jesus in a personal way and walks with Him and tastes of the powers of God and of the age to come, why would they let someone else's interpretation of the Bible cause them to lose faith in Christ. Even if everything I believed was infallibly proven to be inaccurate, I still would know whom I have believed, and I would still be persuaded that He is able to keep that which I've committed unto Him against that day. You see, I am not committed to a theological system, a denomination, or a worldview, I am committed to a Person, Jesus Christ the Righteous. If I had to abandon every one of my presuppositions, I would still cling to Him, because He is everything to me.

Don't mistake this as confidence in my own faith, I have lost all confidence in my own power to save or keep myself. These statements are based on confidence in the one who saves and keeps me and in His Word. I have confidence in nothing else.

[Athanasius]

By your own admission, you would be clinging to a false conception. That's quite telling.

If a person comes to know Jesus in a personal way and walks with Him and tastes of the powers of God and of the age to come, why would they let someone else's interpretation of the Bible cause them to lose faith in Christ. Even if everything I believed was infallibly proven to be inaccurate, I still would know whom I have believed, and I would still be persuaded that He is able to keep that which I've committed unto Him against that day. You see, I am not committed to a theological system, a denomination, or a worldview, I am committed to a Person, Jesus Christ the Righteous. If I had to abandon every one of my presuppositions, I would still cling to Him, because He is everything to me.

Don't mistake this as confidence in my own faith, I have lost all confidence in my own power to save or keep myself. These statements are based on confidence in the one who saves and keeps me and in His Word. I have confidence in nothing else.

[Jemand]

[QUOTE=glad4mercy;2852981]Ok, I stand corrected. What you said was that Genesis 1-11 may be myths.

No! That is NOT what I said!

[Jemand]

I'll lay it out there again for those who do not think Genesis 1-11 are literal historical narratives. If Genesis 1-11 are not literal historical narratives as some have seemed to contend, how do you explain the fall of man and the sinful condition of humanity? Why is mankind the way it is?

As far as I can tell, only a literal interpretation of Genesis 3 provides an answer to these questions, ( unless you want to believe that God created man sinful, or unless you want to accept Pelagianism, both of which I strongly reject.) Maybe I am missing something, so I will offer a respectful challenge.

If someone can provide a biblical answer as to why man is sinful that does not include a literal interpretation of Genesis 3, lay it on us.

The Bible teaches through the story about Adam and Eve that man is a creature that is subject to temptation. According to a literal interpretation of Genesis, that was the condition of Adam and Eve before they sinned, and their condition after they sinned. The biblical doctrine of original sin is not that we inherited a sinful nature from Adam—a very imaginative philosophical supposition that has no biblical support even if one interprets Genesis 3 literally, but that we sinned in Adam—a theological truth that most people who interpret Genesis 3 literally deny to by true!

For a novel that supports the philosophical supposition that man is born with a sinful nature, please read Lord of the Flies by William Golding.

[glad4mercy]

The Bible teaches through the story about Adam and Eve that man is a creature that is subject to temptation. According to a literal interpretation of Genesis, that was the condition of Adam and Eve before they sinned, and their condition after they sinned. The biblical doctrine of original sin is not that we inherited a sinful nature from Adam—a very imaginative philosophical supposition that has no biblical support even if one interprets Genesis 3 literally, but that we sinned in Adam—a theological truth that most people who interpret Genesis 3 literally deny to by true!

Thank you for your reply. I believe both propositions- that we sinned in Adam and that we inherited a sinful tendency from Adam.

Romans 5: 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

( I suppose you take this to mean that we are guilty in Adam, not that we inherit a sin nature in Adam, and I will grant that to be a possible interpretation) If you believe that all men are guilty in Adam, ( which thing is true), what do you believe concerning infants and innocents. ( I hold that if they die they go to be with the Lord, in other words no one goes to Hell for Adams sin only, but for their own sin and for rejecting Christ.) This question is not meant to challenge your statement, I am just curious about you view of this.

Secondly, Ephesians 2:3 says that we are by nature children of wrath. Certainly the God who looked and saw everything He had made and said it was very good did not create man in this fashion, but sin made him so.

Psalm 51:5- Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Man commits acts of sins because of a principle of sin that is within them...

Romans 7:8- But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead.

Romans 7: ¹⁹ For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. ²⁰ Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

Romans 7: ²¹ I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. ²² For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. ²³ But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members

If man is not born a slave to sin, then it would be possible for a man to live a life free from personal sin apart from Divine Grace, as Pelagius erroneously asserted. Yet the Bible clearly teaches that we were all slaves to sin, we were in bondage, helpless, without strength, possesing no goodness or righteousness whatsoever, which is why Christ came to redeem us from the power of sin. It is only through His work that we are freed from sin unto righteousness.

For a novel that supports the philosophical supposition that man is born with a sinful nature, please read Lord of the Flies by William Golding.

I agree that man is born with a sinful nature, and the reason why he is born that way is because he inherited the posterity of his father Adam. Yet when we are born from above in Christ, we are set free from the bondage of that sinful nature, and made righteous in Christ. In Adam, we are sinners, in Christ we are righteous. Not only are we set free from the guilt and pollution of sin, but we are also set free from it's power.