Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Adam and sin entering the world. | Rom 5:12 | Huron | 108658 | ||
I've been reading Romans. In Chapter 5, verse 12 it discusses how sin entered the world through Adam. Anyone have any insight into how exactly? Was sin inherited through Adam, or was Adam a representative so to speak? | ||||||
2 | Adam and sin entering the world. | Rom 5:12 | Emmaus | 108664 | ||
Huron, This explaination may be of some help or interest regadring your question. "How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man". By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act. 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. The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)and at the Council of Trent (1546)." Paragraphs 404-406 of The Catechism of the catholic Church Emmaus |
||||||
3 | Adam and sin entering the world. | Rom 5:12 | clinzey | 108666 | ||
I do not see how making a choice could affect human nature. It is not plausible that one man made a choice to do wrong and thus cursed humanity. We all have the power to choose to do right or wrong actions. We can all sin or be righteous. The Adam of the Genesis narrative is simply symbolic of humanity's plight - when we have perfection we still blow it because we make unrighteous decisions. While some may view this as an attack on the authority of the Bible, it is not. The Bible is still authoritative, even if some aspects are symbolic and not literal historical accounts. |
||||||
4 | Adam and sin entering the world. | Rom 5:12 | Hank | 108678 | ||
Clinzey - Strongly and vigorously I come forth in disagreement with you that the Genesis account of Adam is symbolic. You further assert, "The Bible is still authoritative, even if some aspects of it are symbolic and not literal historical accounts." The Bible is a long and complex compendium of a large number of separate books and encompasses a broad spectrum of literary types, some of which are indeed meant to be viewed as less than literal, or if you will, as symbolic. I'm speaking of certain poetic passages (e.g., in Psalms) and of certain apocalytic passages in, for example, the book of Revelation. But on what premise do you base your assertion that the creation story of Genesis is symbolic? Tell me on what basis you derive the idea that Genesis begins with symbolism. Prove if you can that the Bible is not historically and factually accurate. Are we being prudent and wise to use symbolism as a scapegoat to explain away the parts of Scripture that we don't understand or don't agree with? What about, for example, Jesus' miracles? Were they real or symbolic? How can Scripture be "authoritative" if it is laced with myths and fables? I shall appreciate your entering a post that backs with facts what you have given as mere opinion and conjecture. --Hank | ||||||
5 | Adam and sin entering the world. | Rom 5:12 | kichmon | 108687 | ||
The first two chapters of the Bible contain two irreconcilable accounts of the creation.According to the first account, man and woman were created together as the crown and climax of creation, after the birds and animals, whereas according to the second account the creation of man preceded the creation of the animals and birds while the creation of woman followed their creation..' In chaper 2 both the details and the order of the events of creation (insofar as they are mentioned in it, for the narrator deals briefly with everything except what relates directly to man) differ from the statements of chapter 1. "The earth, instead of emerging from the waters (as in 1:9) is represented as being first dry (2:5), too dry in fact to support vegetation: the first step in the process of filling it with living forms is the creation of man (2:7),then follows that of beasts and birds (v.19) and lastly that of woman (v 21); obviously a different order from that of chapter 1'The first general difference the critics note IS THE DIFFERENT USAGE IN DIVINE NAMES. It is a fact that chapter 1 uses ELOHIM EXCLUSIVELY, WHILE CHAPTER TWO USES JEHOVAH-ELOHIM. THE SECOND MAJOR DIFFERENCE THE CRITICS POINT OUT IS THE DIFFERENT CONCEPTION OF GOD. The first account sees God as majestic and dignified, aloof from creation, while the second views God as having HUMAN LIKE traits, such as walking, speaking and ACTING LIKE A MAN. The latter account, therefore is characterized by anphropomorphism. The third general difference noted, which is hard to completely distinguish from the first two, is actually a compound of different vocabulary, style and grammar. Elohim, in the first account, is the name of the Universal God . He is dignified, aloof. The style of the first account is measured and precise. The vocabulary is distinctive; Elohim creates, calls into being, rests, ceases to make. In the second account, Jehovah, A PERSONAL GOD, the NATIONALIST God, is in direct touch with HIS creation. He forms, breathes, plants, makes. The style is more personal, story telling,with its own vocabulary." Based on the Bible, the Genesis account is symbolic or false. Either we are to accept that the Bible is in error and contradictory or we must say that this Genesis account is symbolic and the two stories each give us truths. |
||||||
6 | Adam and sin entering the world. | Rom 5:12 | BradK | 108691 | ||
kichmon (context or Chochma): Your higher criticism notwithstanding, non of the objections are without explanation nor do they in any remote sense invalidate Genesis. You dogmatically state that "Based on the Bible, the Genesis account is symbolic or false. Either we are to accept that the Bible is in error and contradictory or we must say that this Genesis account is symbolic and the two stories each give us truths." How about a third option: The Genesis account is historically factual and true! The Bible and it's books either stand as a whole they fall. I chose to believe Christ when He states in John 17:17 that "Sanctify them in truth,Thy Word is truth". The fact that He quotes from and refers to Many OT people and events gives validity to the entire canon of Scripture. However, it all hinges on His Diety and Resurrection. As the apostle Paul writes "But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. ( 1 Cor. 15:13-17) Speaking The Truth In Love, BradK |
||||||
7 | Adam and sin entering the world. | Rom 5:12 | clinzey | 108768 | ||
Brad, that verse from John 17:17 is a good one isn't it? But I don't think that Jesus is talking about written words being historically factual, which is what kichmon and were talking about. We're talking about stories that have significant value even if they might not be fact - the kind of thing you could video tape. The fact that Jesus quotes from the OT does not necessarily make it historically true (and let's not forget that Jesus did not quote from the Hebrew OT, but from the Greek Septuagint). It does mean that they have always been recognized as stories that bring us to a fuller knowledge of God. They accomplish this if they are factual or not - but they don't by necessity have to be true. It's like the story of Job. While it appears in our Old Testament, did you know that the story is actully much older? And it appears in other civinlations and religions before it was adapted to the Jewish faith. Nevertheless, it still helps us understand God and ourselves better. And it has been accepted into our canon. Because one part may be less than literal does not bring the whole faith tumbling down. Our God is not a house of cards. He is God. |
||||||