No Adam = no Original Sin - right? (moral, genesis, moral)

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by crystalonyx

Just because they don't know their own religion still doesn't negate the technicality.

Right... the fact that your presumption is WRONG negates the "technicality". Many Christians on this forum who either are not creationists or who don't believe in original sin point to the error of your post.

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by sojourner

You'll have to convince me that the authors considered Adam to be a real individual. Because the Hebrew certainly doesn't read that way.

Sure it does. It mean man kind and it is the name of the first man....at least that's what Strong's lexicon says. Adam is most certainly described as a man, a physical being....You know....Adam slept with his wife and she became pregnant.... Seth is the son of Adam....

I mean...if you'd like just substitute adam for the word (mankind) and see if it fits in the context of the sentence.....It won't.

Originally Posted by sojourner

this isn't a history lesson, it's a theological treatment.
A'dam means "human being."

.......Well aren't we still talking about original sin? Some one said he was a myth...I'm saying....he had to be real in order for him to have comitted an act of defiance.....Your bible describes "Adam" as a man. There are only a couple..maybe handful of places where "Adam" is used as (mankind)....

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin

Sure it does. It mean man kind and it is the name of the first man....at least that's what Strong's lexicon says. Adam is most certainly described as a man, a physical being....You know....Adam slept with his wife and she became pregnant.... Seth is the son of Adam....

I mean...if you'd like just substitute adam for the word (mankind) and see if it fits in the context of the sentence.....It won't.




.......Well aren't we still talking about original sin? Some one said he was a myth...I'm saying....he had to be real in order for him to have comitted an act of defiance.....Your bible describes "Adam" as a man. There are only a couple..maybe handful of places where "Adam" is used as (mankind)....

Which forces the issue that the character in the story is a literary type, standing in for all humanity. Humanity is real. Humanity also commits acts of defiance. The greatest act of defiance, Biblically speaking (from which the doctrine of original sin comes), is our act of blurring the distinction between humanity and divinity by our own volition. All sin is born out of that selfishness. That would be the original, or "mother" of all sin.

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by sojourner

Which forces the issue that the character in the story is a literary type, standing in for all humanity.

So what was the first sin...if "eating the forbidden fruit from the tree" is not to be taken literal?

See it is difficult to look upon the story and see that "Adam" was not a person. It is without a doubt that Adam mean "Mankind".....But when you reach verses that say "Adam slept with HIS wife and she became pregnant"...then your bible is talking about a physical man....Like records a genealogy all the way back to Adam...he even list him as..."Adam was the son (singular) of God... I could understand if he said("And Adam were the sons of God")....but that's not what is recorded.

Then it's hard to get around this notion that he was a "literary type filling in for all humanity"....given the fact that your own Paul thought him to be a man who had performed a specific act...He doesn't appear to think of Adam as a community of people. Interesting enough is that this concept of original sin is certainly out of the mind of Paul. Jews did not nor do they subscribe to this form of thinking.

Rom. 5:12 and 5:19
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners"

Jews point to the the Torah, the law, and quote the various places that informs one that he or she is responsible for their own actions and will be judge not by the sins of others but by their own short comings.....

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin

Sure it does. It mean man kind and it is the name of the first man....at least that's what Strong's lexicon says. Adam is most certainly described as a man, a physical being....You know....Adam slept with his wife and she became pregnant.... Seth is the son of Adam....

I mean...if you'd like just substitute adam for the word (mankind) and see if it fits in the context of the sentence.....It won't.

Gen 2:7 is a play on words in Hebrew..... between adam (man) and adama (ground).

Later, in 2:23, there is a play on the similar sounding words ishsha (woman) and ishah (her man-her husband)
(NAB Commentary)

Just FYI: I don't know any group outside of Biblical fundamentalists who view the creation story as a literal event.

[emiliano]

I believe that they are and that they represent two different events but one could make a case for the second account to be a more detailed account of what happened in the first account.

There is evidence to support the notion that Adam and Eve were not alone on the earth: Ge 6:2that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose.

</B>
That one is not a very good one, the problem is “the sons of God” we must place this in time and the sons of God= Angeles (heavenly creatures) there is a better one in the account of Cain’s supplication and wondering Gen 4:13 And Cain said to Jehovah, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
Gen 4:14 Behold! You have driven me out from the face of the earth today, and I shall be hidden from Your face. And I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth, and it shall be that anyone who finds me shall kill me.
Gen 4:15 And Jehovah said to him, Therefore whoever kills Cain shall be avenged seven times. And Jehovah set a mark upon Cain so that anyone who found him should not kill him.
A life for a lifex7,
Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.
My theory is this: THe earth and everything else was created millions of years ago and man has inhabited the earth in cyles of good and evil.
I think you are right on this “The earth and everything else was created millions of years ago” as meaning long time before the earthly creation Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
But as for “man has inhabited the earth in cycles of good and evil”? Before creation “earth was without form and empty”

[crystalonyx]

Again, most CHristians ascribe to the philkosophy of original sin, which technically means they must be creationists, that is the only logical conlusion.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by crystalonyx

Again, most CHristians ascribe to the philkosophy of original sin, which technically means they must be creationists, that is the only logical conlusion.

Can you provide us with some figures here? It would appear to me that MOST Christians don't give a flying flip about the concept of "original sin" or it's implications. The same could be said for creationism/evolutionism.

As a Christian and a Militant Theist, it is apparent to me that this concept is not supported by scripture.