Evolution And The Original Sin

[Guest]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1876461' date='May 27 2009, 03:51 AM']Where do giants come from today? There is a medical condition that causes [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantism"]giantism[/url]. Like with [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_the_giant"]Andre the Giant[/url]. [/quote]

True.

But it seems as if Genesis is implying something different then just a medical condition.

[i]Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.

Genesis 6:1-4[/i]

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1876464' date='May 27 2009, 08:59 AM']True.

But it seems as if Genesis is implying something different then just a medical condition.

[i]Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.

Genesis 6:1-4[/i][/quote]
But again, "sons of God" doesn't necessarily denote angels, as it could again be figurative language. I don't claim to know for certain, just giving other explanations.

[Guest]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1876468' date='May 27 2009, 04:10 AM']But again, "sons of God" doesn't necessarily denote angels, as it could again be figurative language. I don't claim to know for certain, just giving other explanations. [/quote]

I agree I'm not saying what I have heard taught is right. I study with the shepherds chapel on t.v. and they seem to be good teachers of the word. They teach the 3 earth age theory and also teach about satan, adam and eve having sexual relations after their eyes were opened from the tree of knowledge and they became like God. They also teach against the rapture theory and seem to be pretty in line with what the church teaches on grace, faith, and works. They do put a high emphasis on the Bible though and believe all the answers to the past and the future are included in it.

From Pastor Murray :

Serpent Seed

What about teaching Serpent Seed? I make no apology for teaching the Word of God. In Matthew 13, our Lord and Saviour explains the Parable of the Sower directly to His disciples. He is very explicit about exactly who the sower of the bad seed really is. Matthew 13:37-39 states, "He (Jesus) answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; the enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels."


Let no one tell you Christ was speaking in a parable here for He was carefully explaining to His disciples the real meaning of the parable He had previously spoken to the multitude. He talked with them in private, and He used language that a child could understand. Christ's teaching of the seed of the devil (or serpent) was nothing new, it was taught from the beginning of Scripture - Genesis.


In Genesis 3:15 God is speaking to the serpent, "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his heel." The bruising of the heel took place when Christ was nailed to the Cross. And finally, for those who still want further proof as to who the serpent really is; we read in Revelation 12:9, "and the great Dragon was cast out, that old Serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world." Now can anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear have any doubt or confusion about Satan's own seed?

Edited May 27, 2009 by Guest

[MithLuin]

You have to be very careful in associating the first sin with sexual relations between Adam and Eve. It is possible to interpret Genesis to say that they were virgins before the fall - possible, but not necessary. Adam and Eve were husband and wife, living in perfect communion with God prior to the Fall. Thus...there is no reason to suspect that a sexual relationship between them would have been sinful in any way. The explanation of marriage ('for this reason, a man leaves his mother and father...and the two become one flesh') occurs [i]before[/i] the account of the Fall.

Some commentators have indeed claimed that Adam and Eve were virgins in their state of innocence. I'm going to forget which Church Father I have in mind now, though...perhaps Iraneus? But regardless, you can certainly claim that Adam and Eve did not know one another in that way until after the Fall.

But the Fall itself was not a sexual sin, nor a sexual temptation. It was disobedience to God, and the temptation was to become like God - some combination of envy and pride. The reason Adam and Eve's eyes were opened to their nakedness after the Fall was because disrupting their relationship with God (as all sin certainly does), they also disrupted their relationship with one another. Suddenly, the barriers of fear and shame were present, whereas before, Adam and Eve would not have experienced these things. That is why their nakedness changed meaning, and they were suddenly acutely aware of it.

It is also theologically valid to claim that Adam and Eve were husband and wife, in a consummated relationship, prior to the Fall. Pope John Paul II makes this interpretation in his Theology of the Body - the first 20 audiences are a thorough exegesis on the opening chapters of Genesis. If you are interested, I will find the audience where he discusses this topic.

[Guest]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1876483' date='May 27 2009, 04:50 AM']You have to be very careful in associating the first sin with sexual relations between Adam and Eve. It is possible to interpret Genesis to say that they were virgins before the fall - possible, but not necessary. Adam and Eve were husband and wife, living in perfect communion with God prior to the Fall. Thus...there is no reason to suspect that a sexual relationship between them would have been sinful in any way. The explanation of marriage ('for this reason, a man leaves his mother and father...and the two become one flesh') occurs [i]before[/i] the account of the Fall.

Some commentators have indeed claimed that Adam and Eve were virgins in their state of innocence. I'm going to forget which Church Father I have in mind now, though...perhaps Iraneus? But regardless, you can certainly claim that Adam and Eve did not know one another in that way until after the Fall.

But the Fall itself was not a sexual sin, nor a sexual temptation. It was disobedience to God, and the temptation was to become like God - some combination of envy and pride. The reason Adam and Eve's eyes were opened to their nakedness after the Fall was because disrupting their relationship with God (as all sin certainly does), they also disrupted their relationship with one another. Suddenly, the barriers of fear and shame were present, whereas before, Adam and Eve would not have experienced these things. That is why their nakedness changed meaning, and they were suddenly acutely aware of it.

It is also theologically valid to claim that Adam and Eve were husband and wife, in a consummated relationship, prior to the Fall. Pope John Paul II makes this interpretation in his Theology of the Body - the first 20 audiences are a thorough exegesis on the opening chapters of Genesis. If you are interested, I will find the audience where he discusses this topic.[/quote]


I agree with all this. [i]I'm not saying sex was the cause of the fall. The cause of the fall was partaking in the tree of knowledge[/i]. This is what caused their eyes to be opened and become like God knowing good and evil. Satan tempted adam and eve to eat from this tree. Once they did they fell from grace. This is where I have heard taught that satan had sexual relations with eve which gave birth to cain. If it were not for satan tempting adam and eve to eat the tree of knowledge there would of been no way for them to sin. It was through the tree of knowledge of good and evil satan was able to bring death into the world. And [i]perhaps [/i] start his seed line that gave birth to the giants and ect.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Guest

[Guest]

What for sure has to be established is the original sin was the eating of the tree of knowledge, which in turn opened up adam and eves eyes to good and evil. This is not a figurative tree but a real tree that was in the garden of edon and I imagine still present all over the earth today. It is also argued by scholars that it is the same tree in revelation which is the tree of life which leaves provide medicine for all the nations in Heaven.

[i]Genesis 2:16 The Lord God gave man this order : You are free to eat from any tree from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.[/i]

Edited May 27, 2009 by Guest

[Guest]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1876483' date='May 27 2009, 04:50 AM']You have to be very careful in associating the first sin with sexual relations between Adam and Eve.[/quote]

I had to quote this because I'm not sure where you thought I implied this. Anyways like I said in the previous post I agree with everyting you're saying. In no way do I think sex between adam and eve had anything to do with original sin. Godbless.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Guest

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1876484' date='May 27 2009, 09:55 AM']I agree with all this. [i]I'm not saying sex was the cause of the fall. The cause of the fall was partaking in the tree of knowledge[/i]. This is what caused their eyes to be opened and become like God knowing good and evil. Satan tempted adam and eve to eat from this tree. Once they did they fell from grace. This is where I have heard taught that satan had sexual relations with eve which gave birth to cain. If it were not for satan tempting adam and eve to eat the tree of knowledge there would of been no way for them to sin. It was through the tree of knowledge of good and evil satan was able to bring death into the world. And [i]perhaps [/i] start his seed line that gave birth to the giants and ect.[/quote]
But that goes against Genesis 4:1 [quote]1Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, "I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD."[/quote] (Interesting note: "the man" in Hebrew is ha-adam). Anyway, the point is that Cain is not the son of Satan. The "seed" of Satan doesn't mean his biological offspring, but sowing the seeds of sin. IE: by tempting Eve, he caused her and Adam to doubt God and to sin against God by being disobedient. That, in my opinion, is the actual "seed" of Satan.

[Guest]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1876490' date='May 27 2009, 05:25 AM']But that goes against Genesis 4:1 (Interesting note: "the man" in Hebrew is ha-adam). Anyway, the point is that Cain is not the son of Satan. The "seed" of Satan doesn't mean his biological offspring, but sowing the seeds of sin. IE: by tempting Eve, he caused her and Adam to doubt God and to sin against God by being disobedient. That, in my opinion, is the actual "seed" of Satan.[/quote]

Great point. Thank you for that. Godbless !

It's late and what I meant to say in previous post was, that through the eating of the tree of knowledge and the fall, the sons of God (perhaps angels) were able to have children with women and give birth to the giants that genesis talks about.

[i]Genesis 6:1-4

Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.[/i]

Edited May 27, 2009 by Guest

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1876491' date='May 27 2009, 10:28 AM']Great point. Thank you for that. Godbless ![/quote]
Glad to help. God bless.

[Guest]

One of the topics of this thread though is original sin. And there is no question that was the literal eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That is one thing I got right.

[kafka]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1876464' date='May 27 2009, 03:59 AM']True.

But it seems as if Genesis is implying something different then just a medical condition.

[i]Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown.

Genesis 6:1-4[/i][/quote]


[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1876468' date='May 27 2009, 04:10 AM']But again, "sons of God" doesn't necessarily denote angels, as it could again be figurative language. I don't claim to know for certain, just giving other explanations. [/quote]
Hi D-boy, Arch-cat, and Mith. I just took the time to look up Conte's commentary on the first few verses of Chapter Six of Genesis. Its interesting:

[Genesis 6]

{6:1} And when men began to be multiplied upon the earth, and daughters were born to them,
{6:2} the sons of God, seeing that the daughters of men were beautiful, took to themselves wives from all whom they chose.

~ Augustine and others say that this passage refers to the lineages of Seth and Cain, the one being holy and close to God, and the other living apart from God. My suggestion is a more generalized version of what Augustine said, namely, that the sons of God are those who stayed close to God in their lives, and the sons of men are those who lived merely secular lives. In the Bible, the term 'sons of' does not necessarily connotate lineage. For example, those who commit adultery are called, 'sons of adulterers,' not because their parents were also adulterers, but because they act as if they were sons of adultery personified. There were, in ancient times, prior to any organized religion as we have today, some who were holy, who lived close to God, and who, as a result, lived long lives. But these sons of God were attracted to women who were not holy, who lived secular lives. Thus God generally limits the length of our lives because of sin.

~ The giants were perhaps those who were giants in their mental stature, not so much in their physical stature. There may also have been stark differences in the physical characteristics of different groups of people, due to small gene pools, in groups separated by tribe or lineage. Some groups may have been markedly larger or stronger than others. The sons of the sons of God and the daughters of men were mighty because God blesses the offspring of those who are holy.

{6:3} And God said: “My spirit shall not remain in man forever, because he is flesh. And so his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
{6:4} Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they conceived, these became the powerful ones of ancient times, men of renown.
[url="http://www.sacredbible.org/studybible/OT-01_Genesis.htm#6"]http://www.sacredbible.org/studybible/OT-01_Genesis.htm#6[/url]

[Archaeology cat]

Thanks, Kafka - makes sense to me.