If Adam and Eve were a product of "evolutionism"....when, how and why did mankind fall?

[JIM]

No, the posts contradict themselves and it's in the thread, not my mind, but the attempted ad hominem is noted. If the imperfection is not in the flesh, then the flesh cannot be the source of most sin, nor can it suffer the negative results of sin. Neither will I collaborate further with any attempt to hijack the op and turn the thread into a debate on synergism.

Bye

The flesh is just as God created it. It was not "reworked" by Adam, Satan or God when Adam sinned.

Bye

 

[CrowCross]

No, the Bible says nothing of the sort. In fact the Bible doesn't even mention a "sin nature". { edit}

Got Questions describes the sin nature as follows:
The sin nature is that aspect in man that makes him rebellious against God. When we speak of the sin nature, we refer to the fact that we have a natural inclination to sin; given the choice to do God’s will or our own, we will naturally choose to do our own thing.

I don't know if I would expect to see those exact words in the bible. It sort-of sounds like the "trinity isn't mentioned in the bible argument" or "God the Son isn't mentioned in the bible....but from what is written in the bible it can be clearly inferred.

Would you be one of those christians that deny mankind's sin nature?

 

[CrowCross]

please clarify a few things for me: You said "Adam's sin" and not "Eve's sin"....is there any significance in that for you? If only Eve had sinned (and not Adam) would mankind still be "fallen"?...and vice versa?

That question can provoke a completely new subject.
Some say....and I say it's based upon speculation (but might be true)....that after Eve was disobedient and ate from the tree Adam knew Eves fate and ate because he wanted to remain with her.

 

[CrowCross]

The flesh is just as God created it. It was not "reworked" by Adam, Satan or God when Adam sinned.

Bye

Then what caused the increase pain in childbirth? Something in the flesh was changed...right?

 

[JIM]

Got Questions describes the sin nature as follows:
The sin nature is that aspect in man that makes him rebellious against God. When we speak of the sin nature, we refer to the fact that we have a natural inclination to sin; given the choice to do God’s will or our own, we will naturally choose to do our own thing.

Why does God Questions even bother to describe sin nature. It is not even a biblical term or concept.

I don't know if I would expect to see those exact words in the bible. It sort-of sounds like the "trinity isn't mentioned in the bible argument" or "God the Son isn't mentioned in the bible....but from what is written in the bible it can be clearly inferred.

No, not really. Trinity is at least a concept which one can point to in any number of passages of scripture. I do not believe that is true for the concept of sin nature.

Would you be one of those christians that deny mankind's sin nature?

Yes. That does not deny the fact that man has the "natural" inclination to disobey various commandments given man by God. No one disobeys every command and there is no command that everyone disobeys.

 

[JIM]

Then what caused the increase pain in childbirth? Something in the flesh was changed...right?

Not necessarily. It likely is simply an inherent condition like physical death that naturally occurred once they were rejected from the Garden. There was no occasion where it occurred in the Garden without pain. I am not sure, but I suspect that the pain is largely due to the outsized head of the human baby in relation to the rest of its body and the size of the female birth canal. There is no indication that any of that was changed from the original creation.

 

[CrowCross]

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

I don't understand what is behind the "Eve from Adam's side", but I am positive that men and women are spiritually on equal footing. After all, God said, that in Christ, there is neither male nor female (Gal 3:28).

I agree.
Gen 1 considers male and female together as ...man. Or I would say, mankind. Much like you evolutionist would say the evolution of "man" also meaning both male and female.
In Gen 2 the bible gives us more details on how God brought about "man"....male and female. God formed the female part of "man" from the males side or rib. It should be interesting to note that this is the furthest thing from what the T.o.E teaches.

 

[CrowCross]

Why does God Questions even bother to describe sin nature. It is not even a biblical term or concept.

???? Really??? The sin nature is that aspect in man that makes him rebellious against God. Are you claiming this doesn't exist and isn't a biblical concept?

No, not really. Trinity is at least a concept which one can point to in any number of passages of scripture. I do not believe that is true for the concept of sin nature.

Once again ????
Would you like a bunch of verses such as the following that show the CONCEPT of our sin nature???

Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?
Eph 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

....there are plenty more verses.

Yes. That does not deny the fact that man has the "natural" inclination to disobey various commandments given man by God. No one disobeys every command and there is no command that everyone disobeys.

tell us ...why do men sin against God?

 

[Rella]

Not necessarily. It likely is simply an inherent condition like physical death that naturally occurred once they were rejected from the Garden. There was no occasion where it occurred in the Garden without pain. I am not sure, but I suspect that the pain is largely due to the outsized head of the human baby in relation to the rest of its body and the size of the female birth canal. There is no indication that any of that was changed from the original creation.

Gen 3:16

To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”

I will greatly multiply your pain is a change.

 

[JIM]

Gen 3:16

To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”

I will greatly multiply your pain is a change.

OK

 

[CrowCross]

Gen 3:16

To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”

I will greatly multiply your pain is a change.

I agree...some sort of pain was required. Perhaps the pelvis shape was amongst that change.

 

[Arial]

Why does God Questions even bother to describe sin nature. It is not even a biblical term or concept.

Oh it is a biblical concept. Read the account of creation. Everything has a nature or it does not exist.

If "nature" is used of mankind to describe him---all biblical concepts aside---would say it could be said "It is the nature of humans to sin?" In the same sense of the word that one might say "It is the nature of wild beasts to sleep in the daytime, and search for food at night?

If so we do have an example of that in the Bible. Psalm 104.

And if it is not in the nature of man to sin---the why does he? Why does he violate his nature constantly all the days of his life?

 

[Josheb]

Why does God Questions even bother to describe sin nature. It is not even a biblical term or concept.

Oh it is a biblical concept. Read the account of creation. Everything has a nature or it does not exist.

For me it is a question of why we use, or should use, extra-biblical terms when we can use the language of scripture. Depending on what @JIM means by "biblical" (such appeals often create ambiguity), he may be correct because the phrase is not found in scripture but, on the other hand, @Arial is correct because the nature of humanity is individually and collectively sinful. The fact the phrase isn't found in scripture does not mean it can't be used any more than the fact the concept can be inferred does not mean the phrase should be used. Since the phrase the scriptures use is "flesh" (The New Testament Greek is "sarx"), it is accurate to say, "sinful flesh (Gk.: flesh of sin)." Dynamic translations like the NLT use the phrase "sinful nature" when the formal translations say "flesh." (see Romans 8:12, Galatians 5:17, or Colossians 2:13, for examples). It's worth noting the NIV used to use the phrase "sinful nature" but now uses "flesh" (my 1984 and 2005 copies of the NIV have "sinful nature" instead of "flesh" in all three of those verses). A generation raised on the NIV was trained to use "sinful nature."

It's one of the reasons I prefer the NAS and the ESV.

@JIM, the validity of "sinful flesh" was disputed earlier but verses like Psalm 38:3 and Romans 8:3 makes it clear flesh is sinful, both phrases and the concepts are valid, and it's firmly rooted in scripture (even if I prefer not to use the word "nature"). When the Bible speaks of something being "fleshly," it is always about something sinful. God made the flesh good (Gen. 1:31). Sin changes the flesh. The flesh is not as God created it.

That is why GotQuestions bothered to describe sin nature.

None of it, however, has anything to do with evolution.

 

[Arial]

For me it is a question of why we use, or should use, extra-biblical terms when we can use the language of scripture. Depending on what @JIM means by "biblical" (such appeals often create ambiguity), he may be correct because the phrase is not found in scripture but, on the other hand, @Arial is correct because the nature of humanity is individually and collectively sinful. The fact the phrase isn't found in scripture does not mean it can't be used any more than the fact the concept can be inferred does not mean the phrase should be used. Since the phrase the scriptures use is "flesh" (The New Testament Greek is "sarx"), it is accurate to say, "sinful flesh (Gk.: flesh of sin)." Dynamic translations like the NLT use the phrase "sinful nature" when the formal translations say "flesh." (see Romans 8:12, Galatians 5:17, or Colossians 2:13, for examples). It's worth noting the NIV used to use the phrase "sinful nature" but now uses "flesh" (my 1984 and 2005 copies of the NIV have "sinful nature" instead of "flesh" in all three of those verses). A generation raised on the NIV was trained to use "sinful nature."

It's one of the reasons I prefer the NAS and the ESV.

@JIM, the validity of "sinful flesh" was disputed earlier but verses like Psalm 38:3 and Romans 8:3 makes it clear flesh is sinful, both phrases and the concepts are valid, and it's firmly rooted in scripture (even if I prefer not to use the word "nature"). When the Bible speaks of something being "fleshly," it is always about something sinful. God made the flesh good (Gen. 1:31). Sin changes the flesh. The flesh is not as God created it.

That is why GotQuestions bothered to describe sin nature.

None of it, however, has anything to do with evolution.

Well done.

 

[LeviR]

For me it is a question of why we use, or should use, extra-biblical terms when we can use the language of scripture. Depending on what @JIM means by "biblical" (such appeals often create ambiguity), he may be correct because the phrase is not found in scripture but, on the other hand, @Arial is correct because the nature of humanity is individually and collectively sinful. The fact the phrase isn't found in scripture does not mean it can't be used any more than the fact the concept can be inferred does not mean the phrase should be used. Since the phrase the scriptures use is "flesh" (The New Testament Greek is "sarx"), it is accurate to say, "sinful flesh (Gk.: flesh of sin)." Dynamic translations like the NLT use the phrase "sinful nature" when the formal translations say "flesh." (see Romans 8:12, Galatians 5:17, or Colossians 2:13, for examples). It's worth noting the NIV used to use the phrase "sinful nature" but now uses "flesh" (my 1984 and 2005 copies of the NIV have "sinful nature" instead of "flesh" in all three of those verses). A generation raised on the NIV was trained to use "sinful nature."

It's one of the reasons I prefer the NAS and the ESV.

@JIM, the validity of "sinful flesh" was disputed earlier but verses like Psalm 38:3 and Romans 8:3 makes it clear flesh is sinful, both phrases and the concepts are valid, and it's firmly rooted in scripture (even if I prefer not to use the word "nature"). When the Bible speaks of something being "fleshly," it is always about something sinful. God made the flesh good (Gen. 1:31). Sin changes the flesh. The flesh is not as God created it.

That is why GotQuestions bothered to describe sin nature.

None of it, however, has anything to do with evolution.

Sin doesn’t change the flesh, it(sin) reveals it for what it is, sinful.

 

[Simons]

It's worth noting the NIV used to use the phrase "sinful nature" but now uses "flesh" (my 1984 and 2005 copies of the NIV have "sinful nature" instead of "flesh" in all three of those verses). A generation raised on the NIV was trained to use "sinful nature."

the NIV translators did that possibly because they recognized that sin is an immoral (spiritual) thing and flesh is a material thing and that there is an inconsistency in attributing a spiritual quality to a non-spiritual thing....so maybe they got that right. Perhaps "sinful nature" better communicates the intention of the author

but verses like Psalm 38:3 and Romans 8:3 makes it clear flesh is sinful, both phrases and the concepts are valid,

I don't see your claim validated (at all) by Psalms 38:3 and Romans 8:3 suffers from the interpretation problem of whether "flesh" would be better understood as "nature"

 

[Josheb]

I don't see your claim validated (at all) by Psalms 38:3 and Romans 8:3 suffers from the interpretation problem of whether "flesh" would be better understood as "nature"

The text of scripture states what the text of scripture states and what the text of scripture states is...

Psalm 38:3 Hebrew transliteration
No soundness in my flesh because of Your anger no health in my bones because of my sin.

The Hebrew "bisari" means flesh, not nature, and "ba'asamay" means "bone," "substance"," or "self."

Romans 8:3 Greek transliteration
For powerless the law in that it was weak through the flesh [sarkos] God of Himself having sent in likeness of the flesh [sarkos] of sin and for sin condemned in the flesh [sarki].

The word "flesh" is actually, factually, explicitly stated in the text of scripture. There is no need or warrant for "interpretation" of Romans 8:3. Connotatively, the word can mean nature," but denotatively the word means flesh. The verse can and should be read exactly as written, and understood that way. Conversely, the Greek word for "nature" is "phusis," not sarx.



The real problem here, however, is that the thread was taken off topic and it gets further and further off topic with each post debating the sinful nature. I do not want to be a part of that.

 

[Simons]

The text of scripture states what the text of scripture states and what the text of scripture states is...

With all due respect I believe that the Pharisees could have referenced Lev. 11 and said something like “the text of scripture states what the text of scripture states” for the purpose of dismissing these words from Jesus:

It is not what goes into the mouth of a man that makes him unclean and defiled, but what comes out of the mouth; this makes a man unclean and defiles [him].​

The real problem here, however, is that the thread was taken off topic and it gets further and further off topic with each post debating the sinful nature. I do not want to be a part of that.

I think you concern here is misplaced. The opening post asks how and why mankind fell…and I believe that the original poster has gone on to clarify that he believes the fall resulted in a sinful nature (for every man, woman and child) and a change in the flesh for Eve (a change that has been passed on to every man, woman and child)…..so the question of this thread entails how and why (according to evolutionary theory) every man, woman and child now possesses a sinful nature and how and why (according to evolutionary theory) every man, woman and child now possesses a different type of flesh than the flesh originally possessed by Adam and Eve. I don’t think it is possible to begin to answer the original question (of this thread) until it is explained:

• What do you mean by sinful nature; and
• How has human flesh been changed form the original

I suspect that the answer to the opening post will be:

1. evolutionary theory (for a theist) would not see a sinful nature as something that is mechanically passed on from generation to generation....rather "sinful nature" describes that reality that all will sin if given the opportunity

2. with a proper understanding of scripture, "flesh" should be understood to be amoral (and not immoral) and so flesh has not changed (from Eve to us)

 

[Carbon]

If Adam and Eve were a product of "evolutionism"....when, how and why did mankind fall?

Hmmm, I give up. How

 

[Carbon]

Where are the Theo-Evos? Can they answer the question?

what are Theo-Evos?