Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

What was Eve's sin in the garden?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 27, 2012 11:00:32 PM PST
brenda musik says:
I am looking for thoughts on what original sin was? No it wasn't eating an apple, there is much more depth there. After much studying and reading scriptures I am almost convinced that it was a sexual sin, which would explain why they covered their nakedness, etc.
Has anyone else done serious study of the topic?

Posted on Dec 28, 2012 12:05:12 AM PST
Newbomb Turk says:
brenda: "After much studying and reading scriptures I am almost convinced that it was a sexual sin..."

Why would you come to that conclusion?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 12:09:16 AM PST
tokolosi says:
Hi. Would you (or anyone else) provide the specific Biblical passage(s) that convinced you the sin of Eden was of a sexual nature? I've heard this assertion before but am not familiar with the verses that back this up. Thanks.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 12:19:48 AM PST
brenda musik says:
There are numerous reasons why I came to this conclusion....one the Bible refers Cain as "of that wicked one", immediately after the sin they knew they were naked and covered their private parts (why would they do that if they ate a piece of literal fruit? Wouldnt they have covered their mouths instead? two lines were created one evil the other the line that Christ would come from....Cain was never mentioned in the geneology of Adam--why not if it was his son....the Bible also makes reference to fallen angels having sex with women creating offspring of "mighty men" referred to as Nephalim (Goliath was one of them) and tons more reasons...I am a constant student and dont pretend to have all the answers but this is more than logical to me...

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 12:52:06 AM PST
tokolosi says:
So, it seems you're saying that the whole sex-is-the-original-Original-Sin angle is entirely an extrapolated interpretation. Not particularly convincing from my perspective. I was hoping for some specific verses I could peruse in context to better understand the assertion. Thanks anyway.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 2:16:03 AM PST
Acts5v29 says:
Good morning brenda,

The original sin was not sex, but choosing to act against God's guidance.

The tree was just an ordinary tree. Adam - surrounded by all things made good wondered what "not good" was like, and despite God's counsel it was persisting in him. So God designated a tree - just an ordinary tree - and said that he would have his answer by eating its fruit. He would have those thoughts, look at the tree, and the physical site of what God had said would be dangerous would make him turn away - and from the thoughts. (We do the same, placing a bar of chocolate on a sideboard to help strengthen the resolve of someone trying to give it up - it acts as a deterrent)

We see evil as a whole spectrum of monstrous acts by people - and they are - but in essence, "evil" in its true form is a conscious turning from God's guidance. In our time, we all do - but we have grown so used to the darker end of the spectrum that we think of evil as something truly horrible, rather than what it really is (see www.worshipJehovah.org/index.asp?bm=WhyEvil (*not* watchtower) for an answer and free PDF text)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 3:38:59 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 31, 2012 9:29:32 AM PST
When Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree they gained instant knowledge of things that had been kept from them that in their ignorance they thought they wanted to know.

And so they learned about pain, about death and yes, about shame.

Cain was branded the wicked for killing his brother and releasing jealousy into the world.

Cain bares the mark and all who kill their brothers well know this mark.

The Nephilim were cast out of heaven and so, whilst on earth, they satiated their carnal desires with mortal women.

This created an unholy offspring who needed to be wiped out by the great flood.

Don't get hung up on the sex thing.

Any obsession is not healthy.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 4:16:17 AM PST
M. Galishoff says:
Brenda

Original sin refers to the consequences upon mankind of our first parents disobedience. As Adam (man) was the federal head of all his descendents, that corruption he engendered upon his disobedience is passed on to all mankind as part of what we call our fallen nature. For example, we commonly say "to err is himan" but by that we are admitting that we are fallen in Adam. Adam was capable of sin but did not have to sin (posse non pecarre). We are sinful by nature without exception and it is not possible for us not to sin (non posse non pecarre). Christ incarnate was in the same ethical and moral state as Adam and He Did NOT sin. Therefore, by faith and grace His perfect righteousness is imputed unto the faithful. That is the critical point of Christ living the perfect life Adam and we never live.

Thus there is a differece between the "first sin" - that particular sin and the concept of "original sin" which is the human condition of sinfulness as a consequence of the actions of our first parents.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 4:37:35 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 28, 2012 4:38:32 AM PST
>>Christ incarnate was in the same ethical and moral state as Adam and He Did NOT sin.<<

I find myself disagreeing with this particular notion.

Jesus had his mission revealed to him in a world he became aware of gradually.

Adam had no way of knowing or understaning the implications of the concequences of his actions.

Jesus was totally aware of what was required of him and as Gods sacrifice, went willingly to his fate.

Childlike innocence is a long way from total acceptance by my calculations.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 4:41:16 AM PST
>>Thus there is a differece between the "first sin" - that particular sin and the concept of "original sin" which is the human condition of sinfulness as a consequence of the actions of our first parents. <<

I'm sorry, this confuses me also.

Is this a literal translation of the sins of the father or am I missing something?

Posted on Dec 28, 2012 4:45:18 AM PST
It also might be worth pointing out that it was the patriarchal nature of the early bible writers that engendered them shifting the blame onto poor Eve.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 4:47:08 AM PST
BV says:
Acts - "We do the same, placing a bar of chocolate on a sideboard to help strengthen the resolve of someone trying to give it up - it acts as a deterrent"

Don't try that with a liquor bottle!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 4:51:07 AM PST
BV says:
Buck - " it was the patriarchal nature of the early bible writers that engendered them shifting the blame onto poor Eve"

The teaching is that they were both at fault. Adam tried to pass the buck (sorry, no pun intended).

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 4:59:48 AM PST
So what is the likely scenario?

Did they both wake up one morning, look at each other and say "You thinking what I'm thinking?"

Did they both take it in their hands, look into each others eyes and munch down together?

"You go."

"No, you go".

(Well, he didn't pass it to me.)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 6:52:21 AM PST
M. Galishoff says:
Buck

Adam was not in a state of childlike innocence. I believe this is a misunderstanding that is common. Adam had a very keen understanding as is illustrated by his ability to name the animals God brought before him (by understanding their essence and finding the name that captured that essence) and by understanding that none among them were his helpmate. He also understood God and saw Him face to face and understood the law of works decreed by God: "do this and live, do that and die." The innocence was not experiencing the consequences of sin. How long Adam remained in his pre fallen state is unknown.

Posted on Dec 28, 2012 6:52:50 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 28, 2012 6:55:12 AM PST
Ambulocetus says:
The story is a myth, so we have to be careful not to go interpreting it like a newspaper article. I don't mean this dismissively, but you can't be too literal when the latter part of the story involves a talking snake.

Adam and Eve did not have knowledge of good and evil, so they could not have known that disobeying God was evil. They could only know that God, their maker, said to do one thing, while the serpent said to do another (perhaps the serpent is an allegory for our individual will, insofar as this conflicts with what is really required of us in a given situation?).

The "sin" of Adam and Eve, then, was not a failure to follow some rule or to do a good thing instead of a bad thing: instead, it was a choice to be a choosing being. And choosing beings, rather than going by instinct, suffer strife and confusion. Instead of simply taking what comes as it comes, they develop agriculture and food industries. Instead of having pain when it comes and not having pain when it goes, humans can anticipate, ruminate upon, and remember pain. This explains the punishments meted out to God for Adam and Eve's decision to be choosing beings. It also explains the passing of the buck: the woman made me decide to be a choosing being! The serpent made me do it! The choice to be a choosing being is not like the choice to eat chicken instead of beef: it is a sort of choice that is prior to real, human subjectivity and choices of the more ordinary sort. Thus, to Adam and Eve, it felt as if the choice was made for them by someone else. Hence the blaming.

Yes, it's a facile interpretation. So is every other. A myth like this is a Rorschach test, where the movement between different interpretive possibilities, rather than the decision to accept one particular interpretation is definitive, is what's important.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 6:53:38 AM PST
M. Galishoff says:
Buck

"original sin" is a theological concept that is based upon Scripture. It does not mean the first sin. It is a matter of definitions. Again, a common misunderstanding because few delve into the doctrine.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 6:54:39 AM PST
M. Galishoff says:
Daniel

It is not a myth. It may resemble Saga (a narrative describing historical events) but not myth as strictly defined.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 7:00:03 AM PST
Acts5v29 says:
Its worse than you imagine - after all my yester-when years in ivory towers, I still cannot hold drink. Some might call it a waste of a good education.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 7:16:19 AM PST
BV says:
Buck - "So what is the likely scenario?"

If Eve did indeed make the suggestion to Adam to indulge, Adam should have known better. After all, he was supposed to be the "teacher" - he was there first. Perhaps deep down Adam wanted to do it, and just blamed eve on a reflex - something many people do today. He could have just owned up to it like a man. People often like to place the blame on someone else to cover themselves - I guess Adam was the first to do it!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 7:20:56 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 28, 2012 7:23:27 AM PST
Acts5v29 says:
Perhaps Adam saw there was no harm to Eve and thgouth that he was safe to eat it too - not knowing that the harm was to his conscience, and would only affect his physique over the years as he lived separate from Almighty God.

Its worth remembering that having done so - and having been asked by Almighty God why they were hiding because of nakedness - Adam's manner toward Almighty God became accusatory: "This woman whom *You* gave to me: she did this". This would be a sign of the potential downward path which a damaged conscience could induce him to follow.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 7:43:30 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 28, 2012 8:13:21 AM PST
>>Adam had a very keen understanding as is illustrated by his ability to name the animals God brought before him.....<<

You have never seen a child name an animal?

My neice used to call butterfly's "Flutterby's". I already think she did a better job than Adam right there.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 7:50:58 AM PST
>>....."do this and live, do that and die.".....<<

Adam and Eve did not know about death until they ate of the fruit. That was part of the knowledge it contained.

Sure God and Adam spent plenty of time chin wagging and generally shooting the breeze but death was never discussed until God put that tree there with that big, juicy, tempting fruit.

At least God could have given the human race a chance by putting all that knowledge inside a coconut.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 7:55:27 AM PST
>>Yes, it's a facile interpretation.<<

You condemn yourself with your own words to readily.

I found it a most edifying response and at least as good as any other interpretation I have heard.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 28, 2012 7:59:08 AM PST
>>"original sin" is a theological concept that is based upon Scripture. It does not mean the first sin.<<

You seem to want to make a distinction between these two that I need clairifed before I feel I can discuss this point any further.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 76 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  61
Total posts:  1900
Initial post:  Dec 27, 2012
Latest post:  Feb 27, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions