An open invitation to debate

[DialecticSkeptic]

If you look at what was presented, it does not violate the asymmetry principle. There is definitely NOT a large amount of material required to consider where a wife for Cane came from.

That is not what the misinformation assymetry principle says anyway. One may utter a single sentence, "Cain's wife was one of his sisters." Consistent with the aforementioned principle, it takes a lot more than one sentence to correct the error communicated in that single sentence.

Strike one.

Making a blanket statement that there had to be millions of people on earth prior to Adam and Eve because Cain was afraid and he found a wife, ...

My assertion that there were millions of people on Earth at the time of Adam and Eve is not based on Cain being afraid or finding a wife. It is consistent with that biblical material, but not based on it.

Strike two.

... while at the same time claiming the language of Genesis is poetic and not literal is a bit oxymoronic.

I have not claimed that the language of Genesis is poetic and not literal.

Strike three. You're out.

We are only a few sentences into your response and, so far, none of it has addressed what I've actually argued or said.

Speculation at most.

I made a sincere and detailed exegetical argument for Adam being the first man archetypally, not literally, just as Christ was the second man archetypally, not literally, and your response was a hand-waving and dismissive three words.

The evidence is mounting that you are not arguing in good faith.

[In Mark 10:6 and Matt 19:4,] the creator himself confirms creation and not evolution.

What Christ said in these passages was a reference to Genesis. On my view—which I thought you were addressing—the events of Genesis unfolded starting roughly 6,000 years ago, the beginning of redemptive history.

Natural history, on the other hand, began much, much longer ago.

If you want to tackle my view, you have to take seriously the distinction between redemptive history and natural history. On my view, the Bible is about redemptive history (see the redemptive-historical hermeneutic).

There surely is an aspect to this, in terms of depravity and regeneration. However, taking that to mean there were pre-Adamic men and women who were sinless is just a big stretch of your imagination.

My assertion that there were millions of people on Earth at the time of Adam and Eve is also not based on Pauline portrayals of Adam and Christ in archetypal terms. It is becoming unmistakable that you don't understand the view you are presuming to critically scrutinize.

He is talking about the flesh and Spirit.

The apostle Paul is doing a bit more than that. To see what it looks like when he talks about the flesh and the spirit, see Galatians 5:16-26 and Romans 8:1-11.

Here, Paul is talking about the natural, earthly old humanity "in Adam" versus the spiritual, heavenly new humanity "in Christ" (i.e., covenant union and federal headship). Yes, Adam is the first man—archetypally. If you want to say that he was also the first man literally, support for that view will not be found in this epistle to the church in Corinth.

[Paul is talking about] man born with sinful flesh because of Adam, [not because of] millions of people before Adam.

Yes, which is precisely what I believe. Again, I'm really starting to think you don't understand the view you're presuming to critically scrutinize.

You drift far, far away from the doctrine of depravity and that of a spiritual rebirth and reconciliation to God.

Your strawman caricature of my view may drift away from that.

The view I actually hold, though, stands firm in covenant theology and the doctrines of grace.

What you attempted to show was definitely NOT convincing, ...

That is to be expected, since I wasn't trying to convince anyone.

My aim was to defend this view against criticisms leveled against it, not convince anyone of it.

... nor did it provide proof of millions of redeemed pre-Adamic people.

That is to be expected, since I wasn't trying to provide proof of millions of redeemed pre-Adamic people.

My aim was to prove that Paul was portraying Adam as the first man archtypally, not literally, just as Christ was the second man archetypally, not literally.

Explicit? Where? Why not reference it?

Because I had presumed you were already familiar with it: Genesis 5:4, "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters." (My preferred translation says the same thing: "The length of time Adam lived after he became the father of Seth was 800 years; during this time he had other sons and daughters.)

I put it to you that you are removing God from creation ...

First, accepting the science of evolution does not remove God from creation any more than accepting the science of human reproduction removes his hand from the womb.

Second, I am a conservative (practically fundamentalist) Christian evangelical and a creationist, so don't put that to me. Put it somewhere else. It has no place here.

I put it to you that you are removing God from creation, and you are trying to nullify creation in favor of an unbiblical evolutionary view.

It is you, sir, who is treating this as a zero-sum game, wherein gains for one view mean losses for the other view.

To me, this is not a zero-sum game. Understanding more about the science of human reproduction does not take anything away from my theological conviction that God knits us together in the womb (but rather adds to it). Same thing applies to evolution: Accepting that view takes nothing away from my theological conviction that God is the creator and sustainer of the entire cosmos (but rather adds to it).

Moreover, what I am defending is evolutionary creationism, which is a theological view that deals with how to understand the science and history of evolution from within a biblical world-view. I am definitely nullifying young-earth creationism, to be sure, but I am a passionate and vocal old-earth creationist whose evolutionary view answers to the biblical Christianity contained in the confessional standards of the Reformed church.

You are trying to "create" a scenario wherein all unbelievers can justify their unbelief.

That is a disgusting accusation and unbecoming of a Christian brother.

And this proves, beyond doubt, that you don't have the foggiest idea about what I believe. I mean, you're talking to a Van Tilian presuppositionalist.

You are trying your very best to say these things have not been made by God but rather by chance and without a designer.

Again, this is further proof that you don't understand the first thing about what I believe. You are just throwing one wildly inaccurate accusation after another, and in a manner that is utterly devoid of the love of Christ.

"Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples—if you have love for one another" (John 13:34-35).

We already have an accuser of the brethren. Don't do this, sir.

I will leave you to your false belief system and you trying to justify such.

The false belief system you described was an inaccurate caricature of my view ...

... which remains unaddressed.

 

[makesends]

It turns out that this question is one that we creationists have never asked. We just assumed they did and imposed that assumption on the text—and THEN delved into arguments about whether "yom" refers to 24-hour days or indefinite ages and so forth. But running with an assumption imposed on the text is not a literal interpretation—it's not an interpretation at all, period. It doesn't even ask the question, much less attempt an answer. In fact, it is a failure to even recognize that a question should be asked here.

I've always considered the first verse to be absolutely literal, in that yes, in the beginning, God did create (ex nihilo) the heavens and the earth. But the accounts following have me thinking that those following verses are more-or-less of the same method as how God made Adam out of dust —God rearranging matter, small or large, into pretty much what we have today.

 

[TB2]

But what really grabbed my attention was his argument that, essentially, creationists have not provided a literal interpretation of Genesis. It barely qualifies as an interpretation at all. (This is not what he said but rather my summation thereof.) Creationists make a lot of about interpreting Genesis literally but the stark reality is that they don't. That was a shocking wake-up call for me, as a creationist.

Yes! Noticed that too. Literal when convenient to them, but reject when not like solid firmament on Day 2, "windows of heaven," etc.

They also reject the plain, literal understanding of Gen 2.14 that identifies the Pre-Flood Tigris River in relation to the Post-Flood ancient capital city of Assyria, Ashur whose ruins are still visible today (I think you already saw that example on "Why the Fossil Record Can't Be To Noah's Flood"). But I also recently noticed another example of not following the literal based on YECs recent claim about the fossil record. See Example 2 in this post.

But the case that he was making (vis-a-vis the cosmic temple) dovetailed very nicely with the view presented by Gregory K. Beale in The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004)

Yup

An alternative book that I would highly recommend to you, one which was equally groundbreaking and influencial, is S. Joshua Swamidass, The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019).

Thank you for your recommendations and thoughts on the books. I haven't read Criag's book either but have reason most of the Lost World series. My one criticism of Lost World of Genesis 1 is I think Walton takes the functional a bit too far. Granted, he says they didn't deny material origins, just that functional was more important, but then proceeds to argue as if they didn't seem to believe in actual material origins at all. Functional, yes, but throughout and only, don't see how that can be maintained.

Have read Beale's book too and temple cosmology ideas. One of my brothers studied under Beale (who apparently likes gardening and has landscaped his own 'temple model' of sorts. My brother discovered on his own that Hebrew words used to describe Adam's role/function in garden are same as that for Levitical priests. Excitedly told Beale who said 'Already saw it, published on it,' lol. (Walton's Lost World of Adam & Eve also talks about it)

*This is probably the single most convincing explanation to me now. Evidence seems to support more than anything (*saying this does not invalidate temple cosmology view; that's obviously part of Genesis 1-3 too; many levels to the account). Have conversed with Dr Johnston quite a bit on it. Great guy, very friendly, personable, willing to dialogue.

Johnston, Gordon H. "Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian creation myths." BIBLIOTHECA SACRA-DALLAS- 165.658 (2008): 178.

(Copy and paste into Google Scholar and several free pdfs will show up that you can download)

Here's another good one

Marlowe, W. Creighton. "Patterns, parallels, and poetics in Genesis 1." The Journal of Inductive Biblical Studies 3.1 (2016): 3.

 

[TB2]

I've always considered the first verse to be absolutely literal, in that yes, in the beginning, God did create (ex nihilo) the heavens and the earth. But the accounts following have me thinking that those following verses are more-or-less of the same method as how God made Adam out of dust —God rearranging matter, small or large, into pretty much what we have today.

I always thought ex nihilo too, now I'm not sure. Not denying ex nihilo, just not sure (and that's not to say I don't accept the literal God created it all, because obviously God did). I didn't realize how that opening verse Gen 1.1 has some grammar ambiguities and because of that there are four possible ways to interpret. Here's from Wenham's commentary on Genesis:

"1–3 “In the beginning God created.” The stark simplicity of this, the traditional translation, disguises a complex and protracted debate about the correct interpretation of vv 1–3. Four possible understandings of the syntax of these verses have been defended.

1. V 1 is a temporal clause subordinate to the main clause in v 2: “In the beginning when God created . . . , the earth was without form. . . .”

2. V 1 is a temporal clause subordinate to the main clause in v 3 (v 2 is a parenthetic comment). “In the beginning when God created . . . (now the earth was formless) God said. . . .”

3. V 1 is a main clause, summarizing all the events described in vv 2–31. It is a title to the chapter as a whole, and could be rendered “In the beginning God was the creator of heaven and earth.” What being creator of heaven and earth means is then explained in more detail in vv 2–31.

4. V 1 is a main clause describing the first act of creation. Vv 2 and 3 describe subsequent phases in God’s creative activity. This is the traditional view adopted in our translation. Theologically these different translations are of great consequence, for apart from #4, the translations all presuppose the existence of chaotic preexistent matter before the work of creation began. The arguments for and against these translations must now be reviewed."

"God is without peer and competitor. He does not have to establish his power in struggle with other members of a polytheistic pantheon. The sun and moon are his handiwork, not his rivals. His word is supreme: a simple fiat is sufficient. He speaks and it is done. Word and deed reveal his omnipotence. Although the Hebrew verb “create” does not necessarily connote creatio ex nihilo, the overall thrust of the narrative implies that God had this ability: the idea of a demiurge modeling pre-existing matter is far removed from this account [Here’s the part I was looking for. So, the Hebrew word doesn't necessarily connote ex nihilo; but if I recall the word in the Septuagint Greek translation of the OT contains the sense of ex nihilo] While God has no equals, Gen 1:26, “Let us make man,” and maybe 2:1, “all their host,” do seem to presuppose the existence of other angelic beings, but this is quite distinct from polytheism. In keeping with its earthly/human orientation the story says nothing about the origin of the angels."

 

[makesends]

I always thought ex nihilo too, now I'm not sure. Not denying ex nihilo, just not sure (and that's not to say I don't accept the literal God created it all, because obviously God did). I didn't realize how that opening verse Gen 1.1 has some grammar ambiguities and because of that there are four possible ways to interpret. Here's from Wenham's commentary on Genesis:

"1–3 “In the beginning God created.” The stark simplicity of this, the traditional translation, disguises a complex and protracted debate about the correct interpretation of vv 1–3. Four possible understandings of the syntax of these verses have been defended.

1. V 1 is a temporal clause subordinate to the main clause in v 2: “In the beginning when God created . . . , the earth was without form. . . .”

2. V 1 is a temporal clause subordinate to the main clause in v 3 (v 2 is a parenthetic comment). “In the beginning when God created . . . (now the earth was formless) God said. . . .”

3. V 1 is a main clause, summarizing all the events described in vv 2–31. It is a title to the chapter as a whole, and could be rendered “In the beginning God was the creator of heaven and earth.” What being creator of heaven and earth means is then explained in more detail in vv 2–31.

4. V 1 is a main clause describing the first act of creation. Vv 2 and 3 describe subsequent phases in God’s creative activity. This is the traditional view adopted in our translation. Theologically these different translations are of great consequence, for apart from #4, the translations all presuppose the existence of chaotic preexistent matter before the work of creation began. The arguments for and against these translations must now be reviewed."

"God is without peer and competitor. He does not have to establish his power in struggle with other members of a polytheistic pantheon. The sun and moon are his handiwork, not his rivals. His word is supreme: a simple fiat is sufficient. He speaks and it is done. Word and deed reveal his omnipotence. Although the Hebrew verb “create” does not necessarily connote creatio ex nihilo, the overall thrust of the narrative implies that God had this ability: the idea of a demiurge modeling pre-existing matter is far removed from this account [Here’s the part I was looking for. So, the Hebrew word doesn't necessarily connote ex nihilo; but if I recall the word in the Septuagint Greek translation of the OT contains the sense of ex nihilo] While God has no equals, Gen 1:26, “Let us make man,” and maybe 2:1, “all their host,” do seem to presuppose the existence of other angelic beings, but this is quite distinct from polytheism. In keeping with its earthly/human orientation the story says nothing about the origin of the angels."

As expressed in your list of 4 ways to interpret Genesis 1: 1-3, #1 is compatible with #4, it seems to me. To me, anyhow, it doesn't imply that God came upon (discovered) pre-existing material to form into the heavens and the earth.

God is indeed without peer or competitor. But to me, Omnipotence implies more than most people consider. Some believers seem to presuppose that "the way of things" —i.e. universal principles, math/logic, and perhaps the most basic: Fact itself— seem to govern God in some way, as opposed to being his 'inventions'. Within that mindset, I see then, that WE instinctively presume that OUR thoughts can be substantive, while denying God himself that position.

If God is subject to, or secondary to, anything besides himself, he is not God.

 

[donadams]

Did we evolve from apes?
Thanks

 

[Sereni-tea]

My one criticism of Lost World of Genesis 1 is I think Walton takes the functional a bit too far. Granted, he says they didn't deny material origins, just that functional was more important, but then proceeds to argue as if they didn't seem to believe in actual material origins at all. Functional, yes, but throughout and only, don't see how that can be maintained.

Interesting that you should say this as this was my thoughts exactly.

 

[Manfred]

That is not what the misinformation assymetry principle says anyway. One may utter a single sentence, "Cain's wife was one of his sisters." Consistent with the aforementioned principle, it takes a lot more than one sentence to correct the error communicated in that single sentence.

Strike one.




My assertion that there were millions of people on Earth at the time of Adam and Eve is not based on Cain being afraid or finding a wife. It is consistent with that biblical material, but not based on it.

Strike two.




I have not claimed that the language of Genesis is poetic and not literal.

Strike three. You're out.

We are only a few sentences into your response and, so far, none of it has addressed what I've actually argued or said.




I made a sincere and detailed exegetical argument for Adam being the first man archetypally, not literally, just as Christ was the second man archetypally, not literally, and your response was a hand-waving and dismissive three words.

The evidence is mounting that you are not arguing in good faith.




What Christ said in these passages was a reference to Genesis. On my view—which I thought you were addressing—the events of Genesis unfolded starting roughly 6,000 years ago, the beginning of redemptive history.

Natural history, on the other hand, began much, much longer ago.

If you want to tackle my view, you have to take seriously the distinction between redemptive history and natural history. On my view, the Bible is about redemptive history (see the redemptive-historical hermeneutic).




My assertion that there were millions of people on Earth at the time of Adam and Eve is also not based on Pauline portrayals of Adam and Christ in archetypal terms. It is becoming unmistakable that you don't understand the view you are presuming to critically scrutinize.




The apostle Paul is doing a bit more than that. To see what it looks like when he talks about the flesh and the spirit, see Galatians 5:16-26 and Romans 8:1-11.

Here, Paul is talking about the natural, earthly old humanity "in Adam" versus the spiritual, heavenly new humanity "in Christ" (i.e., covenant union and federal headship). Yes, Adam is the first man—archetypally. If you want to say that he was also the first man literally, support for that view will not be found in this epistle to the church in Corinth.




Yes, which is precisely what I believe. Again, I'm really starting to think you don't understand the view you're presuming to critically scrutinize.




Your strawman caricature of my view may drift away from that.

The view I actually hold, though, stands firm in covenant theology and the doctrines of grace.




That is to be expected, since I wasn't trying to convince anyone.

My aim was to defend this view against criticisms leveled against it, not convince anyone of it.




That is to be expected, since I wasn't trying to provide proof of millions of redeemed pre-Adamic people.

My aim was to prove that Paul was portraying Adam as the first man archtypally, not literally, just as Christ was the second man archetypally, not literally.




Because I had presumed you were already familiar with it: Genesis 5:4, "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters." (My preferred translation says the same thing: "The length of time Adam lived after he became the father of Seth was 800 years; during this time he had other sons and daughters.)




First, accepting the science of evolution does not remove God from creation any more than accepting the science of human reproduction removes his hand from the womb.

Second, I am a conservative (practically fundamentalist) Christian evangelical and a creationist, so don't put that to me. Put it somewhere else. It has no place here.




It is you, sir, who is treating this as a zero-sum game, wherein gains for one view mean losses for the other view.

To me, this is not a zero-sum game. Understanding more about the science of human reproduction does not take anything away from my theological conviction that God knits us together in the womb (but rather adds to it). Same thing applies to evolution: Accepting that view takes nothing away from my theological conviction that God is the creator and sustainer of the entire cosmos (but rather adds to it).

Moreover, what I am defending is evolutionary creationism, which is a theological view that deals with how to understand the science and history of evolution from within a biblical world-view. I am definitely nullifying young-earth creationism, to be sure, but I am a passionate and vocal old-earth creationist whose evolutionary view answers to the biblical Christianity contained in the confessional standards of the Reformed church.




That is a disgusting accusation and unbecoming of a Christian brother.

And this proves, beyond doubt, that you don't have the foggiest idea about what I believe. I mean, you're talking to a Van Tilian presuppositionalist.




Again, this is further proof that you don't understand the first thing about what I believe. You are just throwing one wildly inaccurate accusation after another, and in a manner that is utterly devoid of the love of Christ.

"Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples—if you have love for one another" (John 13:34-35).

We already have an accuser of the brethren. Don't do this, sir.




The false belief system you described was an inaccurate caricature of my view ...

... which remains unaddressed.

I can understand your anger by my misrepresenting your belief system.

However, you have made no effort to expound on how your belief system differs from the world view held by evolutionists.

Further, you seem to be making a mockery of man created in the image of God, and at one point even allured to animals worshiping Him in any way similar to that of humanity.

You further flatly deny that Eve is indeed the Mother of all the living, and place millions of others as Mothers of all the living.

Further, you have to clarify how your view does not contradict Romans 1, and how the words of Jesus should be reconciled with your view.

 

[TB2]

Did we evolve from apes?
Thanks

From modern apes, no. Shared common ancestry.

 

[Manfred]

I can understand your anger by my misrepresenting your belief system.

However, you have made no effort to expound on how your belief system differs from the world view held by evolutionists.

Further, you seem to be making a mockery of man created in the image of God, and at one point even allured to animals worshiping Him in any way similar to that of humanity.

You further flatly deny that Eve is indeed the Mother of all the living, and place millions of others as Mothers of all the living.

Further, you have to clarify how your view does not contradict Romans 1, and how the words of Jesus should be reconciled with your view.

@DialecticSkeptic
In this response, I did not add my apology for misrepresenting your belief system or making a caricature of what it is.
For this I do apologize, as there is nothing more "unfair" than a complete misrepresentation of an actual belief system.

That said, I have not made a study of evolution through/by creation or whatever the correct term is, and felt/feel that your views hold/have a strong resemblance to the world view held by evolutionists who are Godless, as you (I presume again?) base the evidence of your theories on a world view and not a Biblical view.

 

[TB2]

resemblance to the world view held by evolutionists who are Godless, as you (I presume again?) base the evidence of your theories on a world view and not a Biblical view.

In fairness, there are *lots* of scientists (i.e., "evolutionists"--which is a creationist term and bit of a slur; scientists don't call themselves "evolutionists") who are believers. Doesn't automatically make one "godless."

 

[makesends]

Further, you seem to be making a mockery of man created in the image of God, and at one point even allured to animals worshiping Him in any way similar to that of humanity.

If from God's POV the reference to Adam is at some point in what we consider aeons, there is no mockery. If evolution is how God made Adam, that is how he did it. I see too many problems with the evolutionary way to agree with it, but mockery is not one of them.

 

[Manfred]

In fairness, there are *lots* of scientists (i.e., "evolutionists"--which is a creationist term and bit of a slur; scientists don't call themselves "evolutionists") who are believers. Doesn't automatically make one "godless."

No doubt. And if it came across different then I apologize for not articulating myself better.
Believers who hold to the theory of evolution is understandable as I have met and conversed with at least two.
What I want to understand is how you distinguish your belief in the theory of evolution from that of the carnal minded.

 

[CrowCross]

In fairness, there are *lots* of scientists (i.e., "evolutionists"--which is a creationist term and bit of a slur; scientists don't call themselves "evolutionists") who are believers. Doesn't automatically make one "godless."

It appears you have exchanged your god for a "mutation".

Is this the same mutation that caused mankind to sin?

 

[Manfred]

If from God's POV the reference to Adam is at some point in what we consider aeons, there is no mockery. If evolution is how God made Adam, that is how he did it. I see too many problems with the evolutionary way to agree with it, but mockery is not one of them.

My words sound harsh.
If you want to understand my POV listen to this:

 

[donadams]

From modern apes, no. Shared common ancestry.

Then not at all!

If we evolved from apes there could not be any apes

What is the cause of evolution? The force and power behind it for those who believe in it?

Evolution just a tool of atheists
Atheists do not reject the concept of God but use atheism to eliminate the “real core issues” the moral law of God!
Thanks

 

[TB2]

No doubt. And if it came across different then I apologize for not articulating myself better.
Believers who hold to the theory of evolution is understandable as I have met and conversed with at least two.
What I want to understand is how you distinguish your belief in the theory of evolution from that of the carnal minded.

Carnal minded I take to mean more the ethical, theological works of the flesh. God gave us a mind to reason and think logically. And most things in science are just reporting findings. And that's all I try to do. Just report what's been found, discovered.

Scripture must be interpreted in its own original context, so modern science has little to no relevance. So I always try to compartmentalize: "this is what science says," and "this is what Scripture says." Sometimes they line up, sometimes they don't. When they don't and there seems no solution then I think it's best to acknowledge we don't know instead of trying to force science and Scripture to harmonize which ends up distorting both.

It's not what we want to hear. We want answers. Perhaps that's part of the lesson. Somethings we know and/or can figure out. Somethings we can't. I have yet to see a conflict between science and Scripture that affects the theological message, and more often than not the "solution" or harmonization may solve a conflict, but still miss or detract from the overall theological point

 

[TB2]

If we evolved from apes there could not be any apes

We didn't evolve from modern apes. Shared ancestry is different from the old obsolete idea of something evolving "into" something else. Individuals don't evolve, populations do.

What is the cause of evolution? The force and power behind it for those who believe in it?

In the past few decades a significant amount of evidence has come to light showing genome evolution is largely under biological control and organisms have built in "evolvability" mechanisms. A whole has been discovered of natural genetic engineering going on all around on within and between taxa. This has made the evidence for evolution stronger, but the origin of life (and the initial origin of these in built genetic engineering mechanisms all the more difficult to explain." It seems impossible to originate life without a supernatural Creator.

Evolution just a tool of atheists
Atheists do not reject the concept of God but use atheism to eliminate the “real core issues” the moral law of God!

Evolutionary biology is pretty neutral. I find the real core issues of morality happen in the person independent of their day job.

 

[CrowCross]

We didn't evolve from modern apes. Shared ancestry is different from the old obsolete idea of something evolving "into" something else. Individuals don't evolve, populations do.

When did the population fall into sin? How did the population fall into sin?

The bible tells us when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil....no mention of a population falling.

 

[TB2]

When did the population fall into sin? How did the population fall into sin?

The bible tells us when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil....no mention of a population falling.

No population falling into sin. That's not what Scripture teaches. Adam & Eve's disobedience.