Where did original sin come from ?

civic

Well-known member
Augustine and Pelagius

Augustine’s doctrine of Original Sin was born from his attempt to combat the heresy of Pelagianism. The controversy began in Rome when the British monk, Pelagius, opposed Augustine’s prayer: “Grant what you command, and command what you desire”. Pelagius was opposing the idea that the divine gift of grace was necessary to perform the will of God. Pelagius believed that if we are responsible for obeying the commandments of God, then we must all also have the ability to do so without divine aid. He went on to deny the doctrine of Ancestral Sin, arguing that the consequences of Adam’s sin are not passed on to the rest of mankind. Adam’s sin affected Adam alone, and thus infants at birth are in the same state as Adam was before the Fall.

Augustine took a starkly different view of the Fall, arguing that mankind is utterly sinful and incapable of good. Augustine believed that the state of Original Sin leaves us in such a condition that we are unable to refrain from sin. The ‘image of God’ in man (i.e., free will) was destroyed by the Fall. As much as we may choose to do good, our evil impulses pervert our free will and compel us to do evil. Therefore we are totally dependent upon grace.

So far did Augustine take his grim view of the human condition, that he argued not only that the Original Sin effects all of Adam’s descendants, but that each person is guilty of the Original Sin from birth (Original Guilt). Infants are therefore guilty of sin and thus infants who die before baptism, in which (according to Augustine) the guilt of Original Sin is removed, are condemned to perdition and cannot be saved. As if that was not bad enough, Augustine went on to formulate the doctrine of Predestination, which affirms that God has foreordained who will be saved and who will not.

Augustine prevailed and Pelagius was condemned as a heretic by Rome at the Council of Carthage in 418. It seemed that Pelagius’ views were more reprehensible to the Latin Church than the idea of predestination and babies burning in hell – views that the Latin Church was not only willing to tolerate, but even willing to champion as Orthodox doctrine!


St John Chrysostom

Between Augustine and Pelagius there appeared to be no middle-way in the West. A different view, however, was expressed in the East by Augustine’s contemporary, John Chrysostom. The dispute between Augustine and Pelagius had not reached the East, and so Chrysostom’s views were not so agitated by heated disputes and polemics. Were Chrysostom involved in the dispute between Augustine and Pelagius, perhaps his teaching on Ancestral Sin would have prevailed over both Pelagius and Augustine alike, but considering that the sole concern of the Latin Church seemed to be the condemnation of Pelagianism, it is probably more likely that he would have been condemned as semi-pelagian.https://pemptousia.com/2017/02/original-sin-orthodox-doctrine-or-heresy/#_edn1 Whatever the case, Chrysostom’s views on the subject have never enjoyed the attention they deserve, and the heated nature of the dispute in the West meant that the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’ as expounded by Augustine was regarded as the only safeguard against the heresy of Pelagianism.

Chrysostom, while claiming that all human beings are made in the image of God, believed that the Ancestral Sin brought corruptibility and death not only to Adam but to all his descendants, weakening his ability to grow into God’s likeness, but never destroying God’s image (free will). Chrysostom is a major voice within a consensus of Greek patristic writers who interpret the Fall as “an inheritance essentially of mortality rather than sinfulness, sinfulness being merely a consequence of mortality”.[ii] Chrysostom’s position is echoed, for example, by St Athanasius the Great and St Cyril of Alexandria, who claimed that we are not guilty of Adam’s sin, though we inherit a corrupted nature; but our free will remains intact. This Greek patristic interpretation is founded upon Romans 5:12: “As sin came into the world through one man, and through sin, death, so death spread to all men because all men have sinned”[iii]. John Meyendorff explains how the deficient Latin translation of the text may have contributed to such a stark difference in the Latin interpretation of the Ancestral Sin:

‘In this passage there is a major issue of translation. The last four Greek words were translated in Latin as in quo omnes peccaverunt (“in whom [i.e., in Adam] all men have sinned”), and this translation was used in the West to justify the guilt inherited from Adam and spread to his descendants. But such a meaning cannot be drawn from the original Greek’.[iv]

St Cyril of Alexandria explained the passage in this way:

“How did many become sinners because of Adam?… How could we, who were not yet born, all be condemned with him, even though God said, ‘Neither the fathers shall be put to death because of their children, nor the children because of their fathers, but the soul which sins shall be put to death’? (cf. Deut. 24:18) … we became sinners through Adam’s disobedience in such manner as this: he was created for incorruptibility and life, and the manner of existence he had in the garden of delight was proper to holiness. His whole mind was continually beholding God; his body was tranquil and calm with all base pleasures being still. For there was no tumult of alien disturbances in it. But because he fell under sin and slipped into corruptibility, pleasures and filthiness assaulted the nature of the flesh, and in our members was unveiled a savage law. Our nature, then, became diseased by sin through the disobedience of one, that is, of Adam. Thus, all were made sinners, not by being co-transgressors with Adam,… but by being of his nature and falling under the law of sin… Human nature fell ill in Adam and subject to corruptibility through disobedience, and, therefore, the passions entered in”.[v]


St John Cassian

The East paid little attention to Augustine, and this was largely due to language barriers. For the Eastern Christians, serious theologians wrote in Greek, and they paid little heed to Latin writers. What opposition did come from the East came from some Eastern Orthodox theologians who, for one reason or another, found themselves living in the West. Amongst the most prominent was St John Cassian. St John opposed Augustine on four major points:

1) There were clearly instances where people had come to God of their own volition, who, while called by Christ and aided by divine grace, chose to change their ways (e.g. Matthew, Paul, Zacchaeus). Therefore, it is not grace alone that saves us, but also man’s willingness to repent.

2) After the Fall, Adam and his descendants retained a knowledge of good, and an impulse, however weakened, to pursue good. Man was not, as Augustine claimed, utterly depraved and incapable of good after the Fall.

3) The ‘Image’ of God in man is sick, but not dead. The divine image is in need of healing, but this healing requires synergy (the co-operation of man’s will with divine grace).

4) God wishes all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, so those who are not saved reject salvation against His will. Predestination should be understood as foreknowledge and not as foreordination.

The West condemned St John Cassian’s views as semi-pelagian, but for the Orthodox, Cassian is one of the foremost exponents of the Orthodox doctrine of theosis.[vi] His views were supported also by Theodoret of Antioch:

“There is need of both our efforts and divine aid. The grace of the Spirit is not vouchsafed to those who make no effort, and without grace our efforts can not collect the prize of virtue”.


The Ancestral Sin and Baptism


Augustine’s view of Original Sin was the reason also for his justification of infant baptism. Believing that babies are born guilty of sin, he argued that baptism was necessary for the babies’ salvation. He saw the innocence of infants purely in terms of their being physically too weak to commit sin, but equally guilty as adults of Adam’s sin.

The Greek Fathers, having a different view of the Fall and the Ancestral Sin, interpreted the purpose of infant baptism in another way, different in important respects from the familiar Augustinian and Reformed interpretations of the West. The Greek Fathers believed that newborn infants are innocents, wholly without sin. While infants inherit a human nature which, in its wholeness, is wounded by the Ancestral Sin, weakening the will and making each person prone to sin, they are innocent of sin nonetheless. In the fourth of his catechetical homilies on baptism, St John Chrysostom states, “We do baptise infants, although they are not guilty of any sins”. For the Greek Fathers, baptism, above all else, is an acceptance by the Church and entrance of the baptised person into the redeemed and sanctified Body of Christ, the beginning of a life spent in spiritual combat and instruction in holiness on the deepening journey to the Kingdom of God.

Considering the stark contrast between the Orthodox doctrine of the Ancestral Sin and the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin, and the different understanding of baptism that these doctrines lead to, is it not surprising that some Orthodox speak of baptism in Augustinian terms – of the forgiveness of Original Sin – especially considering that the Orthodox service for baptism makes not a single reference to it? The closest we come to mention of the Ancestral Sin (Πρωπατρορικό ἁμάρτημα) in baptism is in the first prayer of the Service for the Making of a Catechumen (which was originally completely separate from the service of Baptism): “Remove far from him/her that ancient error” (παλαιά πλάνη). If one of the main purposes of baptism was the forgiveness of Original Sin, surely it would be worth mentioning in the baptism service! But the idea of ‘Original Sin’ being “forgiven” is nowhere to be found in the Greek Fathers or in the hymns and prayers of the Orthodox Church. For it is an idea which is alien to Greek Patristic thought. The Ancestral Sin is a condition, primarily of mortality and corruptibility, which needs healing, an inherited ‘illness’ which means that free will – or ‘the Image of God’ as the Greek Fathers preferred to put it – though kept intact, is in need of divine grace in order to progress along the path to attaining God’s ‘likeness’, the path to theosis or ‘deification’.


Conclusion


Bearing in mind the significant differences between the Orthodox and the Augustinian views of ‘Original Sin’, it surprises me that some Orthodox Christians are so quick to employ the term, claiming that the Orthodox Church holds to the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’, and qualifying this simply by saying that it does not embrace the doctrine of ‘Original Guilt’. I do not think that this is adequate for expounding the Orthodox position on Original Sin. Although Augustine was recognised as a saint by the Orthodox Church,[vii] it has never accepted his teaching on Original Sin. If what I have written above is correct, then the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin is wholly un-Orthodox, and it led, I believe, to a whole series of heresies in the Latin Church, such as Predestination, Purgatory, Limbo and the Immaculate Conception. We Orthodox would do well to distance ourselves from the well-known Augustinian position on Original Sin by employing a less familiar term: Ancestral Sin. It is not merely a case of semantics. For an erroneous understanding of this doctrine has serious repercussions for our understanding of sin and the Fall, for grace and free will, for baptism, the human condition and man’s deification. In short, how we understand the Ancestral Sin has direct implications for our whole soteriology – our understanding of the salvation of man and the world.https://pemptousia.com/2017/02/original-sin-orthodox-doctrine-or-heresy/

hope this helps !!!
 
Good historical record..

I believe we inherit the Adamic corrupted, imperfect spirit by the male 'spiritual gene' if you will, not by the female or mother. And that's why this was not the case with Yahshua's (renewed Adamic spirit) conception with Mariam and his Father, of the one and only Spirit of purity and holiness.
 
his sin was that adam went to work for
the enemy realm

and abandoned eve

and gave us over to the demon nations
(daniels oven)


which demons imprisoned us in
this their foreign land and
its animal body

(their type of 'nature')
 
Good historical record..

I believe we inherit the Adamic corrupted, imperfect spirit by the male 'spiritual gene' if you will, not by the female or mother. And that's why this was not the case with Yahshua's (renewed Adamic spirit) conception with Mariam and his Father, of the one and only Spirit of purity and holiness.
different father
 
ImCo:

Scriptures and their exegesis to explain that HE would never create those HE knew would end in hell:
Deuteronomy 32:4 "The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He.

Psalm 145:17 The LORD is righteous in all His ways And kind in all His deeds.

1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

I contend that our GOD who is loving and kind, righteous and just and faithful to HIS creation to be this way for them WOULD NEVER create anyone to go to hell for any reason.

Does HE not do all for HIS own pleasure? Yet Psalm 5:4 You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil; with you the wicked cannot dwell. I contend that if this psalm is true, HE would never have created the evil reprobate for HIS pleasure because HE takes no pleasure in evil.

Also HE takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked or of anyone;
Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, so how can HE created them knowing their end in eternal death???

And finally, to will them to a life of evil, suffering and hell is contrary to Lamentations 3:33 For He does not willingly afflict or grieve the sons of men. If HE is not willing to punish evil, how could HE willingly create people to end in eternal punishment?

Therefore the only way we can become sinners without it being by HIS will is if it were by our free will as aware and knowledgeable people, making a real choice to accept or to reject HIM by faith, untainted by the enslaving power of sin which destroys our free will.

No sinner has a free will. Born sinful into this sinful world is therefore a clear indication (a proof for some) that we had an existence before our conception into mankind when we were truly innocent and chose to put our faith in HIM or against HIM and made our choice to be sinful in HIS eyes.

Pre-Conception Existence theology (PCE) contends that no one but Adam is guilty of Adam's sin and that it is a blasphemy to believe that the GOD who is love would create anyone as sinful in Adam, as disgustingly corrupt sinners by 1. making them human in Adam and 2. by forcing us (without our choice) to inherit that something sinful that keeps us out of heaven until we are redeemed and repentant.

No one is guilty of any sin they did not choose by their free will to do for without mens rea there can be no guilt. GOD is not a house divided that cannot stand by hating evil and at the same time setting up a system of creating HIS bride as evil and going to hell unless HE intervenes in HIS own system.

GOD is not a spring of life giving water who at the same time pours suffering and death upon the innocent who have broken no law forcing them to face eternal hell. There is no such thing as Adam's original sin being inherited, a most unloving situation!

GOD is light. Light cannot create darkness.
GOD is love. Love cannot create evil.
A good tree cannot put forth rotten fruit, Matthew 7:18
A stream of life giving water cannot put forth salt or brackish water, James 3:11
Psalm 5:4 You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil; with you the wicked cannot dwell.
proving HE would never create evil by any means or by any system or through/by any surrogate such as Adam.
 
ImCo:

Scriptures and their exegesis to explain that HE would never create those HE knew would end in hell:
Deuteronomy 32:4 "The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He.

Psalm 145:17 The LORD is righteous in all His ways And kind in all His deeds.

1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

I contend that our GOD who is loving and kind, righteous and just and faithful to HIS creation to be this way for them WOULD NEVER create anyone to go to hell for any reason.

Does HE not do all for HIS own pleasure? Yet Psalm 5:4 You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil; with you the wicked cannot dwell. I contend that if this psalm is true, HE would never have created the evil reprobate for HIS pleasure because HE takes no pleasure in evil.

Also HE takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked or of anyone;
Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, so how can HE created them knowing their end in eternal death???

And finally, to will them to a life of evil, suffering and hell is contrary to Lamentations 3:33 For He does not willingly afflict or grieve the sons of men. If HE is not willing to punish evil, how could HE willingly create people to end in eternal punishment?

Therefore the only way we can become sinners without it being by HIS will is if it were by our free will as aware and knowledgeable people, making a real choice to accept or to reject HIM by faith, untainted by the enslaving power of sin which destroys our free will.

No sinner has a free will. Born sinful into this sinful world is therefore a clear indication (a proof for some) that we had an existence before our conception into mankind when we were truly innocent and chose to put our faith in HIM or against HIM and made our choice to be sinful in HIS eyes.

Pre-Conception Existence theology (PCE) contends that no one but Adam is guilty of Adam's sin and that it is a blasphemy to believe that the GOD who is love would create anyone as sinful in Adam, as disgustingly corrupt sinners by 1. making them human in Adam and 2. by forcing us (without our choice) to inherit that something sinful that keeps us out of heaven until we are redeemed and repentant.

No one is guilty of any sin they did not choose by their free will to do for without mens rea there can be no guilt. GOD is not a house divided that cannot stand by hating evil and at the same time setting up a system of creating HIS bride as evil and going to hell unless HE intervenes in HIS own system.

GOD is not a spring of life giving water who at the same time pours suffering and death upon the innocent who have broken no law forcing them to face eternal hell. There is no such thing as Adam's original sin being inherited, a most unloving situation!

GOD is light. Light cannot create darkness.
GOD is love. Love cannot create evil.
A good tree cannot put forth rotten fruit, Matthew 7:18
A stream of life giving water cannot put forth salt or brackish water, James 3:11
Psalm 5:4 You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil; with you the wicked cannot dwell.
proving HE would never create evil by any means or by any system or through/by any surrogate such as Adam.
Thanks for such a well thought out and biblical response. I love the fact its not your opinion but provided plenty of scripture that supports your points about the good character of our God.
 
Original sin is a very difficult subject that just about every Christian denomination has had to face. The fall of man is so clearly taught in Scripture that we Just cannot get around it. There are few, if any, Christians who argue that man is not fallen. Without acknowledging that we are fallen, we cannot acknowledge that we are sinners. If we do not acknowledge that we are sinners, we can hardly come to Christ as our Savior. Admitting our fallenness is a prerequisite for coming to Christ.
 
I found this very interesting. That the same word used for sin is also used for punishment.

2403 חַטָּאָה, חַטָּאת [chattaʾah, chattaʾth /khat·taw·aw/] n f. From 2398; TWOT 638e; GK 2632 and 2633; 296 occurrences; AV translates as “sin” 182 times, “sin offering” 116 times, “punishment” three times, “purification for sin” twice, “purifying” once, “sinful” once, and “sinner” once. 1 sin, sinful. 2 sin, sin offering. 2A sin. 2B condition of sin, guilt of sin. 2C punishment for sin. 2D sin-offering. 2E purification from sins of ceremonial uncleanness.
James Strong, Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon
 
Pre-Conception Existence theology (PCE)

Someone wrote in response to this "I love the fact its not your opinion but provided plenty of scripture that supports your points about the good character of our God."

Where is the Scriptural support for Pre-Conception Existence theology?

Did the person who responded even bother to READ the post he said was "such a well thought out and biblical response" I wonder, when there is literally no defense whatsoever for this?



What does the Bible say about the pre-existence of souls?​


The Bible says nothing about the pre-existence of souls because this is a man-made idea with no basis in truth. The Bible makes it clear that every human being is a unique creation of God (Genesis 2:7; Zechariah 12:1; Jeremiah 1:5). Each unique human soul begins at conception (Psalm 139:13–16; Isaiah 44:24) and will continue forever because we are created as eternal beings (Genesis 9:6; Isaiah 40:28; Matthew 25:46).

The concept of pre-existence cannot be followed to its logical conclusion. Pre-existence means one of three things: (1) the soul has always existed, (2) the soul was created at a previous time and waited, incorporeal, until it could inhabit a body on earth, or (3) the soul inhabited another body in the past and transmigrated to its current body. If (1) is true and souls have always existed, then human beings are also part of God, uncreated and self-determined. This concept is clearly contrary to the Bible’s claims that there is no other God but Yahweh (Genesis 5:1; 1 Timothy 2:5; 1 John 4:12; Malachi 2:10; 1 Corinthians 8:5–6). If (2) is true and a soul waited in a heavenly nursery prior to earthly birth, then Genesis 2:7 is wrong: “The Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” The words “man became” indicate a definite beginning in which Adam’s soul and body came to life at the same time. If (3) is true, and a soul inhabited another body in a bygone era, then at what point was the soul created and for what purpose? The Bible is clear that each person will answer for his or her own life (Revelation 20:13; Romans 2:6; Jeremiah 32:19). When the previous body died, where did the soul go? Hebrews 9:27 says, “It is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.” This applies to everyone.

The Bible refers to death as a time when a person was “gathered to his people” (Deuteronomy 32:50; Numbers 20:24). This indicates that, at death, a person’s soul leaves his body and joins those who have gone before him. In Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31), the soul of Lazarus departed to the “bosom of Abraham” (verse 22). The soul of the rich man was in torment (verse 23). Neither of those souls re-inhabited another body, nor is there any indication that their souls had pre-existed. They each received the consequences of their life’s choices (verse 25). At the resurrection, we will be reunited with our original bodies in glorified form (1 Corinthians 15:42; Philippians 3:21). If pre-existence in another body were possible, which body would the soul inhabit?

Jesus is the only baby born into this world who existed before His birth (John 1:1; 17:5; Colossians 1:17). When John the Baptist saw Jesus, he declared, “This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me’” (John 1:30). John was conceived six months before Jesus (Luke 1:26, 36), yet he indicated that Jesus existed before he did. If John had pre-existed, he could not have made that claim. Jesus, as God, existed as one with the Father since the beginning. He told the Jewish authorities, “Before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:57–58). His human birth was a unique event never replicated on any level. God did know our names before we were created, because He is omniscient and dwells outside of time (Ephesians 1:4; Revelation 13:8). But we are each individuals; we are unique souls placed in unique bodies, and we will all stand before God to give an account of the unique earthly lives we were given (Romans 14:10; Revelation 22:12).
 
Where is the Scriptural support for Pre-Conception Existence theology?
I have quoted few verses here and yet you still claim there is no scriptural support ?? because your opinion is that they can mean something else??

I wonder, when there is literally no defense whatsoever for this?
4000 years of the theory that humans are created on earth having pushed down and cancelled the theory of our pre-conception existence (PCE) so well that no one who is not attuned to it will ever see it in scripture but will only see the favourite prevailing theory. So deeply is orthodoxy set into our psyche that the church learns it by rote and claims it as a truth inviolable.

No defence?? Or a proper defence that is ignored?
Some 50 years of modern research and study have provided us over 3 dozen verses that can be read as support for pce theology without doing any damage to the words or the meaning of the words in the verses but only offers a new interpretation of the verse from the ordinary orthodox pov. We contend that the meaning is open to those looking for it but hidden by orthodoxy and common usage.

Ok, I checked my notes and I have no scriptures that says how we became sinners who are condemned. All such are the orthodox position about Adam. All my scriptures are of the Hidden variety in which the meaning must be inferred from interpretation and context.

You know what I mean when I call them HIDDEN because this is the way some of our favourite doctrines were not taught openly but were hidden for centuries:
- the Deity of the Messiah,
- the teaching that the OT was NOT the end of all scripture, as per Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.,
- that God would incarnate as a man,
- that the Messiah would be an intermediary for prayer,
- nor any hint of Adamic sin before the NT.
without even getting into the words for doctrine that we use that are not in scripture: Trinity, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, incarnation, rapture...

So, scriptural doctrine without having a precise scriptural reference is a time honoured procedure, and depends upon rightly dividing the word of truth aka the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

So, there you go. I have scriptures
about Adam being a sinner before Eve,
about a new revelation coming in the end days,
about people being sown, not created into this world,
about people going back, ie, returning to somewhere when they die, about people knowing ALL the truth,
about the judgement being postponed,
etc. When is enough?

Did you know that there are at least 22 allusions to hidden mysteries in this world that are yet to be revealed if we are to have full knowledge of the ways of our LORD? That day is coming: Ephesians 4:13 ...until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Luke 10:21 At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.
No one considers this might refer to Christian theologians...

John 16:12 "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate your attempt to support your view.

Eve above also supports this aberrant view.

I don't find it convincing.
 
Pre-existence means one of three things: (1) the soul has always existed, (2) the soul was created at a previous time and waited, incorporeal, until it could inhabit a body on earth, or (3) the soul inhabited another body in the past and transmigrated to its current body.
PCE as I know it contends for only (2) so all arguments about 1 and 3 are moot from my pov.

If (2) is true and a soul waited in a heavenly nursery prior to earthly birth, then Genesis 2:7 is wrong: “The Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” The words “man became” indicate a definite beginning in which Adam’s soul and body came to life at the same time.
The scornful ‘heavenly nursery’ refers to Sheol in heaven for our creation but then moved to deep inside the earth at its creation. The quoted interpreted opinion ignores Matt 13:36-39 which explains how we got here. The explanation of a metaphor / parable cannot contain more metaphor or it is a mere extension of the metaphor, not an explanation of it at all. To sow cannot mean to create since the devil sows also so it must be used in its ordinary meaning of to move from place of storage to a place of growth. This is highly supported (some contend it is proven) by Psalm 9:17 The wicked will RETURN to Sheol—all the nations who forget God.
Return
- Strong’s H7725 shûb (shoob)
A primitive root; to turn back, to retreat;

To return can imply they go back to a place they were before but which they have left and this place is identified as Sheol. Since Sheol is a place of spirits, not bodies, we see the movement of spirits from Sheol to earth into a body and then back again, adding to the concept in the parable of the weeds that we are all sown into this world, not created, here.

So the nursery idea is a little off as they are in prison (1 Peter 3:18–22) before they are loosed into the earth to live together with the sinful but good ie elect seed to teach them to eschew evil and to become holy, Matt 13:27-30 so the judgement will not pull them up too.

The Bible makes it clear that every human being is a unique creation of God (Genesis 2:7; Zechariah 12:1;

Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.
The verse tell us how the spirit of man is moved from Sheol to his earthly body, by or on the breath of GOD. It says nothing against the creation of each unique person in Sheol pre-earth then being sown into the unique body prepared for it on earth.

Zechariah 12:1 This is the burden of the word of the LORD concerning Israel. Thus declares the LORD, who stretches out the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth, who forms the spirit of man within him:

To form
- 3335 [e], yatsar
Definition
earthen, fashion, form, frame, maker, potter, purpose
Probably identical with yatsar (through the squeezing into shape); ((compare yatsa')); to mould into a form; especially as a potter; figuratively, to determine (i.e. Form a resolution) -- X earthen, fashion, form, frame, make(-r), potter, purpose.

Use of yatsar is never accepted as referring to a creation by a decree of creation ex nihilo, so it fits perfectly with the spirit of a man being put into the new unique body at conception as a finishing touch of its formation.

So, as I have repeatedly said: I do not offer a new scripture but I do offer a new interpretation contra to the orthodox way of interpreting scripture that conforms properly to what is written, sometimes even better than the orthodox efforts such as changing to return to mean its opposite, to turn aside into...

I could go on this way for the entire opinion piece but it is too long. If anyone would ask me about my interpretation of any particular verse from this article or anywhere at all, I am glad to share.
 
Eve, of course!!! She ate first, and then Adam followed up. The only that made it "Original" was that it was the FIRST SIN. Simple as that. All the rest of the foolishness is nothing but "theology".
Ummm, didn't the serpent enter the garden with the evil intent to seduce Eve and make her estranged from YHWH? Were his lies not a sin?

IF Eve or the serpent sinned first into the garden, how do you explain that Adam brought sin into this world?
 
Ummm, didn't the serpent enter the garden with the evil intent to seduce Eve and make her estranged from YHWH? Were his lies not a sin?
Not a "HUMAN SIN" - so didn't count. Satan "Blew it" before the Adamic creation even happened.
IF Eve or the serpent sinned first into the garden, how do you explain that Adam brought sin into this world?
Adam was a MAN and what a woman did, didn't count. Biblically, Eve was "Deceived", but Adam went in knowing full well what he was doing, and what God had told him.
 
Last edited:
I believe in a very strict Biblical view of the origin of sin, and how it applies to all born in the flesh for this present world.

1 John 3:8
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil;
for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
KJV

Heb 2:14-15
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same;
that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
KJV


Apostle John in the above was not pointing to the sin of Adam and Eve as the origin of sin. He was pointing to the devil himself, but when? Obviously, the devil sinning from the beginning had to have been sometime prior to Adam and Eve, as the devil was already in his role as adversary against God when he tempted Adam and Eve to sin. That means Biblically, we need to move back in time before Adam and Eve in order to Biblically understand the origin of sin.

In Ezekiel 28, God was giving a parable using the prince of Tyrus and king of Tyrus. There God pointed directly to Satan himself using that prince and king as 'types'. God said He originally made Satan 'perfect in his ways'. Per that parable Satan even originally served God right at His Altar, and then iniquity was found in him because Satan tried to set himself up as God, coveting God's throne, which it was his job to guard as a covering cherub.

That was when, and how, sin first entered in, not with Adam and Eve, but by Satan coveting God's throne, wanting to be worshiped as God. The very first sin in the flesh was by Adam and Eve in God's Garden, but the very first sin, the original sin, was by Satan coveting God's throne in the old world, the world prior to Adam and Eve.

We don't hear this idea being preached very often in today's Church, but it is very important to understand. The reason is because at the end of this world, God is going to allow Satan to do the same kind of rebellion he did in coveting God's throne that he did in that old world. That is what Lord Jesus and His Apostles warnings about the coming Antichrist/false Messiah are about for the end of this world, and we are almost in it today with his appearing here on earth in plain sight, working great signs and wonders, and raining fire down from heaven to the earth in the sight of men.
 
his sin was that adam went to work for
the enemy realm

and abandoned eve
Wow... I read it that to leave her to the tender mercies of GOD when she fell to the serpent's seductions felt like abandonment...so he joined her in sin and the consequences of sin out of love for her.
 
Wow... I read it that to leave her to the tender mercies of GOD when she fell to the serpent's seductions felt like abandonment...so he joined her in sin and the consequences of sin out of love for her.
the lucifer chapter is about adam.
 
When Eve ate, Adam's decision was already made.

They both sinned together, they were one flesh.
the reason is that male directs female, and eve listened to adam.
Adam got the direction not to eat.. and adam ate...


by one flesh in the OT is meant npsh,
which is the God's type of nature, in paradise, in the other reality...
which we became separated from.

the term npsh refers to both body and soul, as they are the same thing in hebrew...

whereas now, because of adam, here on this earth
the flesh is a different type of nature than is the soul.

the fall had cosmological effects, literal effects, and these will be undone,
which is what prophets and rev say, when the sky rolls back and the sun goes dark...
and this earth is destroyed..
and this was foreshadowed at the cross...when the sun went dark...

God would never destroy His creation. He declared it good...
and does not change His thinking...
however, His reality was affected by adam...
and that is why we are affected too
since we are born into the corrupt situation,
which is this body and this earth.

His souls will return to our Paradise soon...
and be restored to God's type of nature
 
Back
Top Bottom