Original Sin (again)

lilithu · Feb 1, 2005

Deut. 32.8 said:
That is certainly a strong argument, lilithu. I find myself both surprised and embarrassed that I've neither encountered nor considered it in the past, and can think of no counter argument other than tradition.

Kewl, well then my job is done!

Deut. 32.8 said:
But the weight of tradition is not wholly unimportant. Certainly Jewish tradition reads Genesis 3:16 as referring to childbirth in general. The Etz Hayim Torah commentary, for example, simply notes that "Intense pain in childbearing is unique to the human species."

In fact, I find absolutely no talmudic interpretation suggesting that the verse referred solely to Eve, nor does the Torah hint at anything unique about the birth of Cain or Abel.

Yes, tradition carries weight too. But the topic here is (or was) original sin, which as far as I understand it is an uniquely Christian concept. At least, I have been told by practicing Jews and professors alike that Judaism does not believe in it. So I started my arguments based on my understanding what the Christian tradition says of original sin (and by tradition I mean theologians). It may well be that Talmudic tradition holds that the pain of childbirth (and female subservience) is hereditary from Eve, and that this is a lasting punishment from God. But they, as far as I know, are not refering to the same thing as when Christian's refer to original sin. I have no wish to dis Talmudic tradition. I had just been addressing this thread from the Christian apologist's viewpoint because it seemed that was what Rex was asking for. When it seemed that you wanted to argue this from the scriptural level, that's when I went to sola scriptura. And at that point, I was no longer speaking as a Christian apologist but just as someone picking apart the text. (To be honest, I then lost sight of the original sin bit. As NetDoc pointed out, OS is not scriptural.)

Deut. 32.8 said:
What I do find is the sense/recognition that the section imposes a profound transformation in the condition of the species: in very short order are introduced fear, enmity, pain, subservience, longing, toil, and death.

I believe that this is true in the Christian tradition too. But the profound transformation is the natural consequence of their having eaten of the fruit (as No*s says, before they were ready). They ate of the fruit and noticed that they were naked and were ashamed. The sense of fear comes before God ever speaks to them. In fact, the very first thing that God does when He finds them is to clothe them, which can be interpreted as an act of compassion for their fallen state, before He metes out their punishment for the transgression.

Deut. 32.8 said:
Having said all this, I must admit that I see little reason to adopt your interpretation. To suggest that the text on child-bearing applies only to Eve because only Eve is mentioned seems no more worthy a position than it would be to suggest that the text on eating dust and crawling on one's belly applies only to the offending snake because none other are referenced in this dictum.

Well, I had to concede that the punishment was hereditary for the snake, since God specifically says that it must crawl on its belly from now on, implying that it did not before.

You don't have to adopt my interpretation. I'm not sure that I buy it myself. But it is a possiblity latent in the text. For all I know, Eve's childbirth pains were a hundred times worse than my mother's. Or maybe they weren't. But I do know that snakes still tend to crawl on their bellies.

Deut. 32.8 said:
So, having first insisted on a somewhat unique ultra-literalism, you now decide to simply invest in the word "cursed" whatever might support your position? Where is there any indication that to be cursed necessarilly implies that your progeny are cursed? Is that what you find in Deuteronomy 27? Furthermore, the absence of the term implies nothing - it is used in neither Exodus 25:5 nor 34:7.

It does not necessarily imply that its progeny are cursed. But it did, at least to me, sound like a stronger punishment than God gives the man and the woman. My intent was to head off the argument that since the snake's punishment was clearly hereditary the woman's must be as well.

The "somewhat unique ultra-literalism" is literary exegesis - interpretation based on nothing other than the scripture itself. (Obviously, those who recognize the authority of a tradition would do exegesis differently.) It assumes that biblical scripture was carefully crafted to convey its message, and thus the choice of words is significant, as is what is not said. I just learned it last semester (from a Jewish professor at a Catholic university

) and am still not all that great at it yet. It's not that I think that this form of exegesis is "more true." I personally like it because it causes one to be aware of the assumptions that one unwittingly brings to the text. (Hence my glee at your statement about not encountering this argument before. It suggests that I was doing something right.)

But as I said, I'm new to this, and from your objections I see that I did mess up by invoking the curse (shoulda left well enough alone). See below:

Deut. 32.8 said:
Parenthetically, while Adam is never cursed, the ground is. NET Bible suggests: "For the ground to be cursed means that it will no longer yield its bounty as the blessing from God had promised. The whole creation, Paul writes in Rom 8:22, is still groaning under this curse, waiting for the day of redemption."

Yes, I noticed the ground being cursed before but didn't know what to do with that. I had wanted to say that the ground's loss of fertility was the natural consequence of the Fall, and not a punishment from God, but I thought the word "curse" precluded that argument. Your calling it to my attention again has actually shown me a way out! I had assumed that the curse on the snake was a punishment. But looking at the text more carefully, God makes two kinds of statements - things that have happened and things that He is going to do. My apologies in advance for using the KJV, but it's readily accesible online (and I can't quite afford Alter yet)

And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

(emphasis added) The curses are not necessarily punishments - neither of them. They may be the natural consequences of their disobedience, and God may just be proclaiming it because He knows the consequences and they don't. The only thing that God says that He is going to do is put emnity between snakes and humans (the seed of Eve) and multiply Eve's labor pains and make her subordinate to Adam.

Yeah, yeah. I'm sure you don't buy any of it.

Deut. 32.8 said:
All in all, while you make a formally correct observation, the position seems more wishful than warranted in my opinion.

Perhaps. But, remember that I don't believe that this story really happened, so there is no objective truth to be had here, imo. Nor do I personally recognize the spiritual authority over myself within either Christian or Talmudic traditions. So I don't see how this interpretation is any less valid. The only constraint that I see is that it be textually consistent. And you have helped me with that!

correction: God does not clothe A&E until after the "sentencing." doh!

Jayhawker Soule · Feb 1, 2005

I really like you! Thanks for the lesson.

Scott1 · Feb 1, 2005

Deut. 32.8 said:
"I will greatly multiply your pain ..."

To be sure, the Catholic Encyclopaedia writes:

I guess I was not clear the last time that you included something from Mr. Knight (New Advent) that he is not here to defend himself, so unless you were just posting this for fun.... you've gotta use AUTHORIZED Catholic dogma. The Catholic Encyclopedia is a good reference, but it is only that.

My quotes are from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.... you can read it online at several sites including the Vatican: www.vatican.va.

How to read the account of the fall
390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

Jayhawker Soule · Feb 1, 2005

SOGFPP said:
unless you were just posting this for fun.... you've gotta use AUTHORIZED Catholic dogma.

How to read the account of the fall
390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.

Scott, you previously wrote:

It is not a punishment..... our origins do not begin with a personal sin. It is a condition..... we all will sin. This condition we are born with.... unlike the nature of Adam and Eve before the fall.... is a broken one, prone to sin. I compare original sin to a disease (if that analogy helps).... we are all born sick.... and Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the remedy.

Nowhere is the term Catholic used. Nor were you simply offering an opinion. You were making an assertion about the meaning of the text, not about some interpretation of the meaning of the text.

I was responding to your assertion. I quoted the Catholic Encyclopaedia to indicate that my position what not altogether unsupported by Catholic works. I am not, however, particularly interested in a debate as to what constitutes 'real catholicism'.

For me, the options are not limited to "just posting this for fun" or "gotta use AUTHORIZED Catholic dogma", nor am I required to mindlessly obey instructions on "How to read the account". At the same time, I'm more than happy to listen to suggestions as to why one section of text shoud be deemed "figurative" but another otherwise.

As for comparing original sin to a disease, it is a disease created by and inflicted by YHWH, so "the analogy helps" only insofar as it suggests germ warfare as a metaphore for divine retribution. Again: "I will greatly multiply your pain ..."

Scott1 · Feb 1, 2005

Deut. 32.8 said:
I was responding to your assertion. I quoted the Catholic Encyclopaedia to indicate that my position what not altogether unsupported by Catholic works. I am not, however, particularly interested in a debate as to what constitutes 'real catholicism'.

Got ya.... point taken.

As for comparing original sin to a disease, it is a disease created by and inflicted by YHWH, so "the analogy helps" only insofar as it suggests germ warfare as a metaphore for divine retribution. Again: "I will greatly multiply your pain ..."

OK.... you choose to read the Bible and cherry pick the verses that seem to indicate an unmerciful, uncaring, vengeful God.... but, it is your right to do so.

Peace to you,
Scott

Jayhawker Soule · Feb 1, 2005

SOGFPP said:
OK.... you choose to read the Bible and cherry pick the verses that seem to indicate an unmerciful, uncaring, vengeful God.... but, it is your right to do so.

Well, gee whiz Scott, I wanted to quote 1 Samuel 18:27, but I thought you'd prefer something more relevant to the Fall. Quite frankly, to criticize quoting 3:15-17 as 'cherry-picking' is somewhere between inane and disingenuous.

SOGFPP said:
Peace to you, ...

And we know what that is ...

retrorich · Feb 3, 2005

Original Sin (again)

That topic is sinfully unoriginal.

Original Sin (again)

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --

Scott1

Well-Known Member

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --

Scott1

Well-Known Member

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --

retrorich

SUPER NOT-A-MOD