> General Discussions
one mans sin
dave:
In Gen. 2-3 this it is said that man fell. Should I believe(as I do) that God causes all things then in these two chapters man did not fall, man being made spiritually weak just full filled. And Paul writes Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
And we are told in Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. There is no mention of sin here. Now we know that sin means missing the mark, but should what happened in Gen. 3 be in God's plan and purpose there was no fall and no sin?
Now the first time sin is mentioned in the Bible is Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. And not again until Gen 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;(don't if that is important)
Keeping this thinking when Cain slew Abel, this was still a God caused event, but now we have the word sin involved and Rom. 5:12. I have held in my reasoning that the entire Bible is a parable(I think Ray mentioned something like that would not digress) and WHAT IF man..Gen. 2:7 woman Gen.2:22 and two sons Gen. 4:1-2 are speaking of that one man but that knowledge of good and evil was growing? The warning 2:17, godly/self, 3:6, conceiving 4:1, personalities 4:3-4, jealousy 4:5 murder 4:8 carnality has its foothold 4:12 no more of Cain line but is still woven in when we come to another recorded creation of man. Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel all were the one man.
Okay I'm ready for some correction, reproof, and learning. :)
mharrell08:
--- Quote from: micah7:9 on July 28, 2012, 01:21:47 PM ---And we are told in Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. There is no mention of sin here. Now we know that sin means missing the mark, but should what happened in Gen. 3 be in God's plan and purpose there was no fall and no sin?
--- End quote ---
Gen 3:11 ...Have you eaten from the tree of which I (God) commanded you that you should not eat?
This passage mentions the act of sin, though it doesn't use the word 'sin'. Just because God planned for man to fall short of His commandments, does not mean man did not sin. That unsound thinking could be applied to every human being who has ever lived, seeing that God planned for every man that has lived to fall short of His righteousness. Would we then say that no man has sinned since it was part of God's plan?
Marques
dave:
--- Quote from: mharrell08 on July 28, 2012, 01:37:20 PM ---
--- Quote from: micah7:9 on July 28, 2012, 01:21:47 PM ---And we are told in Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. There is no mention of sin here. Now we know that sin means missing the mark, but should what happened in Gen. 3 be in God's plan and purpose there was no fall and no sin?
--- End quote ---
Gen 3:11 ...Have you eaten from the tree of which I (God) commanded you that you should not eat?
This passage mentions the act of sin, though it doesn't use the word 'sin'. Just because God planned for man to fall short of His commandments, does not mean man did not sin. That unsound thinking could be applied to every human being who has ever lived, seeing that God planned for every man that has lived to fall short of His righteousness. Would we then say that no man has sinned since it was part of God's plan?
Marques
--- End quote ---
No to your question, still don't really understand, "though it doesn't use the word 'sin'" no it does not use the word sin, but the writer was pretty definitive in chp. 4 when speaking about what was in Cain's heart. I'm just considering that just as the woman already was in the sway before she ate, that the act consummated when man killed another.
I suppose then I am saying that the disobedience was not named a sin, but it was, even tho it is not called that until Cain?
mharrell08:
--- Quote from: micah7:9 on July 28, 2012, 02:50:03 PM ---No to your question, still don't really understand, "though it doesn't use the word 'sin'" no it does not use the word sin, but the writer was pretty definitive in chp. 4 when speaking about what was in Cain's heart. I'm just considering that just as the woman already was in the sway before she ate, that the act consummated when man killed another.
I suppose then I am saying that the disobedience was not named a sin, but it was, even tho it is not called that until Cain?
--- End quote ---
Micah7:9, obviously it was a sin to disobey a direct commandment from God. We need to be a little more mature when reading the scriptures and not look at them as children do. Not every teaching in the scriptures is definitive with no leeway to misinterpret, as a matter of fact, few truths of the scripture are. If there were, more people would believe.
The scriptures don't say anything about Eve being 'in the sway', they state that Eve fell into transgression:
1 Tim 2:14 ...the woman being deceived, fell into transgression [Gk. to overstep, neglect, violate, transgress]
Marques
dave:
Fine.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version