Question about Adam & Eve?

[BobRyan]

HP: Now here is a fine example of one that is not afraid to use their intellect in spite of the so-called orthodox views of most denominations.

Indeed we do inherit a fallen nature, but the word nature speaks directly to the physical. We are born physically depraved with a proclivity to sin, but sin is not formulated in the physical, and is not passed on by the physical, for sin is an act of the will. The ‘soul’ that sinneth, it shall surely die. The physical serves as a proclivity, or a formidable influence to sin, but sin is again, an act of the will. Sin is a willlful transgression of a known commandment of God.

We inherit physical depravity from Adam as his offspring, but God holds everyman accountable for their own sins and not that of another.

"inclination" - "proclivity" --

Let's say that someone with a "proclivity" or "inclination" to sin - comes to Christ and is born again. According to 2Cor 5 he is " a new creation". According to Romans 7 this results in "WAR within" where "Sin IN ME" is at war with "my mind" that now WANTS to do right.

#1. Does the born-again Christian STILL have a "proclivity" to sin?

#2. If so - then why do they need the NEW Birth since both before and after the new birth they either sin or do not sin - on the same basis?

#3. Did they have the SAME "war within" PRIOR to the New Birth as before??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: "inclination" - "proclivity" --

Let's say that someone with a "proclivity" or "inclination" to sin - comes to Christ and is born again. According to 2Cor 5 he is " a new creation". According to Romans 7 this results in "WAR within" where "Sin IN ME" is at war with "my mind" that now WANTS to do right.

#1. Does the born-again Christian STILL have a "proclivity" to sin?

HP: I would say yes.

BR: #2. If so - then why do they need the NEW Birth since both before and after the new birth they either sin or do not sin - on the same basis?

HP: The new birth purifies our heart from sins that are past. Just because one has a proclivity to sin, is not synonymous with the yielding to that proclivity which is the sin. It is NOT sin to be tempted to sin from a physical propensity, but rather sin is achieved when we voluntarily without force or coercion, yield our wills to the selfish indulgence of the influence or proclivity. One indeed can sin after salvation in the same manner that one sinned before salvation, for Scripture tells us that we sin when we are drawn away of our own lusts and enticed. If one sins subsequent to salvation, he needs to fulfill once again the conditions of forgiveness to maintain a right relationship with God, i.e., repentace and faith.

BR: #3. Did they have the SAME "war within" PRIOR to the New Birth as before??

HP: That question makes no sense to me as it is worded. Can you possibly state it in another way?

 

[bmerr]

#1. Does the born-again Christian STILL have a "proclivity" to sin?

Bob,

bmerr here. Yes, since our inclination to sin is rooted in the desire to satisfy the appetites of the flesh.

#2. If so - then why do they need the NEW Birth since both before and after the new birth they either sin or do not sin - on the same basis?

It's not on the same basis. A non-Christian only knows what he wants. He may know that some of these things are wrong, but he violates his consience and does them anyway. He has no battle, since his only desire is to please himself.

A Christian knows what he wants, but he also knows what God has commanded. Herein lies the war between the flesh and the Spirit. The Christian has the desire to please God and himself. The battle is won when we please ourselves in ways that God has approved.

#3. Did they have the SAME "war within" PRIOR to the New Birth as before??

No, since before, the conscience is the only barrier to doing wrong, and it can be beat down to the point of being seared, as with a hot iron (1 Tim 4:2).

After being born of water and of the Spirit, both the word of God and the revived conscience must be overcome, and sadly, they all too often are.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Yokobo]

A Different Perspective...

I didn't read the entire thread, but I read enough to see that everyone is assuming the instance that Adam and Eve were two specific human beings. But I propose a different viewpoint of the situation. What if Adam were simply a name representative of all males alive at the time and Eve a name representative of all women alive at the time? Could not the Garden of Eden be a name representative of the perfection and flawlessness of all of Creation instead of a 6 x 6 plot of land somewhere in Iraq? Could the fruit not be representative of the inticement of "knowing" from sinning? This all seems very plausible, indeed. This could explain the idea of God saying that now women would experience pain during childbirth. Women would have known that childbirth was painless until sin entered. I mean, what's the point of punishment for sin if you didn't know "how good you had it" before? That doesn't make sense. Also, if Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel were the only ones populating the earth who was Cain so afraid of in Gen. 4:13-15. Who was God prtecting him from? Could there not have been many more people, even numbering in the thousands, that populated the known world? And Cain's wife, where did she come from? The entire story seems to make much more logical sense if it viewed as an allegory instead of so literally. Besides, God remains the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, right? Then why would He populate the world through incest and then say it was wrong later?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Yokobo: Besides, God remains the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, right? Then why would He populate the world through incest and then say it was wrong later?

HP:I am just curious as to when and where ‘God’ said it was wrong to populate through what you term as ‘incest?’

Do not jump to any conclusions as to what I feel is right or wrong under certain circumstances. Just the same, where does “God say it is wrong?”

 

[Yokobo]

HP:I am just curious as to when and where ‘God’ said it was wrong to populate through what you term as ‘incest?’

Do not jump to any conclusions as to what I feel is right or wrong under certain circumstances. Just the same, where does “God say it is wrong?”

Well, Deut. 27:20-23 for example. If you need more I'm sure they're there somewhere.

 

[bmerr]

I didn't read the entire thread, but I read enough to see that everyone is assuming the instance that Adam and Eve were two specific human beings.

Yokobo,

bmerr here. Most of us have reached the conclusion that Adam and Eve were two specific human beings because we (for the most part) believe that the Genesis account of Creation is literally "How it all got started".

It seems to me that to view the Creation account as an allegory leaves one with far more unanswered questions. Where did man come from if Genesis is just an allegory?

I mean, what's the point of punishment for sin if you didn't know "how good you had it" before? That doesn't make sense.

Eve would, with every child she bore, be thinking, "It didn't have to be this hard!" Like I said in an earlier post, having sex before marriage means that one would never know what it would have been like to have waited. That one will always have to wonder what it would have been like to do things God's way.

Also, if Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel were the only ones populating the earth who was Cain so afraid of in Gen. 4:13-15. Who was God protecting him from?

Abel, Cain, and Seth are the only children of Adam and Eve that are named, but there were certainly many more of them, both male and female. See Gen 5:4.

Could there not have been many more people, even numbering in the thousands, that populated the known world? And Cain's wife, where did she come from?

If there were, we still have to determine where all of these people came from. Gen 3:20 says that Eve was the "mother of all living". Either she was, or she wasn't.

Cain's wife would have been one of his sisters. Marrying close kin was not prohibited until Lev 18:6-ff. This would be after a couple thousand years of corruption of the gene pool due to sin.

Before this, Abraham married his half sister, and was not condemned by God, and this after the earth's population was sufficiently large to make it unnecessary to do so.

God's unchanging Divine Nature is constant. His commands to man have changed in the different dispensations of grace, Patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[BobRyan]

Preach it BMERR

 

[BobRyan]

I didn't read the entire thread, but I read enough to see that everyone is assuming the instance that Adam and Eve were two specific human beings.

The Bible is a "house of cards" destroy Genesis and you destroy the Gospel itself.

But I propose a different viewpoint of the situation. What if Adam were simply a name representative of all males alive at the time and Eve a name representative of all women alive at the time?

How many of "all males" came into being BEFORE any females came into being???

Or are you saying that God created a "flock of males" and then a "flock of females"???

Could not the Garden of Eden be a name representative of the perfection and flawlessness of all of Creation instead of a 6 x 6 plot of land somewhere in Iraq?

It has location in the Bible as well as specific rivers and the Angel stands outside the entrance to the garden barring the way back ... you have to rewrite a lot of Bible to go where you are going sir.

And you have to "want to go there" BEFORE reading the Bible "eisegete your way to the text" rather than letting the Bible speak for itself.

Could the fruit not be representative of the inticement of "knowing" from sinning? This all seems very plausible, indeed. This could explain the idea of God saying that now women would experience pain during childbirth. Women would have known that childbirth was painless until sin entered.

That makes no sense at all.

A number of large animals give birth painlessly (for example Polar Bears) - God added the curse of "pain in childbirth" for humans.

I mean, what's the point of punishment for sin if you didn't know "how good you had it" before? That doesn't make sense.

The Bible does not say that Adam was too stupid to know a good thing when he saw it. The fact that Lucifer fell or that Adam fell says nothing about their being too ignorant to remains sinless holy and in perfect health.

God said "you shall surely die" Eve references that in Gen 3 as a very BAD thing.

Satan does NOT counter in Gen 3 with "dying aint so bad - why don't you give it a try".

Rather Satan DENIES that the Word of God is actually ACCURATE. Satan says that "Die" may not really mean DEAD in this case. He argues that god just used that symbol term to "scare them". He argues that the advantages far outweigh the "scare" that God gave them.

And Cain's wife, where did she come from? The entire story seems to make much more logical sense if it viewed as an allegory instead of so literally. Besides, God remains the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, right? Then why would He populate the world through incest and then say it was wrong later?

Abraham married his half-sister.

Jacob married his cousin AND his cousin's sister.

NONE of that was permitted in Levitcus.

Cain married a sister - trying to rewrite the Bible to get around that does not solve your problem because you run into it again with Abraham and with Jacob.

In Christ,

bob