Evidence for God from Science

A few of us were discussing theology after our men's group this morning, and we mused upon topics related to Adam and Eve, The Fall, etc. It was articulated that Adam and Eve's eating fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not their FIRST sin, but merely a SUBSEQUENT and THIRD one. Their first sin was in believing in the lies of the serpent/the devil instead of what God had told them. Their second sin was desiring to become gods themselves, based upon the lies of the serpent. And so, eating of the forbidden fruit was third in a chain of sins that had catastrophic implications for mankind. So sins lead to more sins - no surprise there.

Might be the only time kids could have truthfully blamed something on their parents, though they themselves merely continued the inescapable family "tradition."

Also an interesting question: COULD Adam and Eve not have sinned BEFORE the above sins? If sin is missing God's marks and standards, did they have to have KNOWLEDGE of sinful behavior in order to sin? I say no - that they COULD have sinned, and in fact had OPPORTUNITIES to sin, long before the enticing "snack" in the Garden.

Any thoughts out there?

Their first sin was THE original sin, the one that we all "inherited" and that is what CAUSED them to eat of the tree of knowledge.
That is the sin of pride, the sin of wanting to be God or perhaps more correctly in our case ( and theirs as well), of wanting to "do it all ourselves" without God (which amounts to the same thing as wanting to be/like God).

It was the eating that got them banned, kicked out of the Garden but the eating of the fruit wasn't what caused them to sin.
They sin because they were, well, human.
Sure they were tempted, so was Jesus but He resisted and won, they didn't resist because they WANTED to be like God.
Jesus' resistence of temptation is quite an amazing story.
IF He was aware of his existence before His incarnation, then the temptation would have been MORE intense and at the same time, less intense.
More because he KNEW the true awesomeness of being God and less because He KNEW that Satan had nothing to offer Him.

Is unbelief itself a sin, or does it rather result in sin? I know that sin is commonly defined as missing the mark [of God's standard]. I agree with that. But sin, especially in the OT, is constantly couched in terms of actions. Let me quote from some word studies I put on my blog last year:

• “Sin” is a common word in Christian circles. Preachers, teachers, and lay people use it regularly, but how many people have taken the time to look up what it actually means? We all understand that it means doing something that is “wrong.” But what do we mean by “wrong”? We’re going to spend a few days looking at the various Greek and Hebrew words that help us understand the biblical concept of “sin.” We will need several days for the simple reason that there are some twenty words used in both languages to describe this concept! When we compare this to the fact that the Bible only uses three words to describe grace, it becomes apparent how seriously God wants His children to know exactly what He means by “sin.”
  
  Today, we will look at the two most basic words for sin: hata and hamartano.
  
  Hata is the basic word for sin in the Old Testament and essentially means “to miss the mark.” The word picture is an archer shooting at a target and missing his goal. The mark or goal we are shooting for is to live according to God’s will. When we act contrary to that, we miss that mark and fall short of His standards, which is to say, we sin. For that reason, those who miss God’s mark even once are called “sinners.” It is instructive that missing the mark is not merely a passive missing, but also includes the idea of hitting the wrong target. Sin is not just failing to get something right. It is actively doing something removed from what God demands.
  
  Hamartano is the Greek equivalent of hata. Again, it is a broad word that is used to refer to sin generally, and understands that sin to be any act that misses God’s standards. Thus, when the New Testament asserts that Jesus was without sin, it is literally saying that Jesus never once in His entire life missed the mark of God’s perfection in any of His actions.
  
  When studying the other words the biblical authors use to help us understand the various nuances of “sin,” this basic meaning of missing a mark must always be kept in mind. The mark is nothing less than God’s perfection and is best summed up as “righteousness.” When we understand these words, Paul’s statement in Rom 3:23 rings all the more true: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
  
  ....
  
  As we continue our word study on the concept of sin, we will look at a few words commonly translated “evil” or “wicked.” In Hebrew, the main word is ra. The Greek New Testament uses two words: kakos and poneros.
  
  The easiest way to define ra is by its opposite. It is frequently set against the word tob, which means “good.” Thus, Moses says, “See, I set before you today life and good [tob], and death and evil [ra]” (Deut. 30:15, my translation). Ra is that which is harmful, bad, and undesirable. When one suffers ra, it can have the idea of “calamity” or “misfortune.” On the other hand, when one practices ra, it means “wickedness.” In this, we see the deep connection between sin and its harmful effects. This is not to say that an act is only ra if it produces obviously harmful results. Humans have a tendency to rationalize their actions and weigh consequences differently. Therefore, the Old Testament frequently speaks of those who practice ra in the eyes of the Lord.
  
  Of particular interest is the OT concept that a person who practices ra will be destroyed, for not only is God against him, but so is the very order of life itself (Deut. 31:29; Prov. 13:17; Isa. 31:2, etc.). As a result of this, God calls such men to turn from their wickedness, which will result in their salvation, not from Hell, but from ra’s impact. The OT consistently warns its readers against embracing wickedness and, in fact, counsels hating it as a way to avoid its consequences.
  
  Kakos is the Greek equivalent of ra. Like its Hebrew counterpart, it can be defined by its opposition to the good (agathos). In the NT, again, the idea of trouble or misfortune is present (Matt. 6:34) and is even applied to disease (Mk. 1:32). When practicing kakos, the idea is moral evil, wickedness, or of causing damage (1 Pet. 3:13, etc.). Again, the practical implications of sin and evil are evident.
  
  Poneros can refer to sickness and even worthlessness, but it is also used ethically in the sense of being opposed to God. Particularly interesting is that Satan is called ho poneros, “the evil one.” Like kakos and the Hebrew ra, it appears that the practical impacts of sin are highlighted in this word, though the focus in poneros seems to be tilted toward ethical evil.
  
  This category of words from both the Old and New Testaments demonstrate that God’s view of sin is not arbitrary. To miss the mark is to engage in thoughts or activity that is harmful or destructive. We should not, however, assume that something is only sinful because it is harmful, for God is said to bring about harm in response to sin. Rather, the harm flows from the sin, and therefore, God wants us to avoid sin for our own well-being.
  
  ...
  
  Our study on sin continues by examining three more words that highlight the guilt associated with it: awon, anomia, and adikia.
  
  Awon is a Hebrew word that emphasizes trouble, sorrow, or emptiness. A general word for sin, it, like ra, focuses on the pain sin brings. An example of this is found in Gen. 35:18, where Rachel names Benjamin “Ben-oni” (oni is a derivative of awon), or literally “son of my trouble,” with her dying breath. Moral guilt, however, is not absent from its meaning. It is also used to refer to idolatry and even of idols themselves, as in Hos. 5:8, where Hosea calls Bethel (lit. “house of God”) Beth-Awon, meaning “house of idols.” The connection to idolatry probably is due to the fact that awon is closely associated with the Hebrew word for “nothingness” or “non-existence.” Likewise, in 1 Sam. 3:13, God promises to judge Eli for the iniquity of his sons. Ultimately, their awon brought about not only their deaths, but the death of Eli as well.
  
  It is not surprising, then, that guilt associated with sin is a major idea of awon. As such, sacrifices had to be offered so that it could be forgiven (Lev. 5:1, etc.). The ultimate sacrifice was found in Jesus Christ, as predicted by Isaiah in Isa 53:6, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (KJV) The word for “gone astray” is taah, which has the idea of wandering away. Isaiah is saying that in wandering away from God’s righteousness, all had sinned and brought trouble and evil (awon). Yet rather than punishing us for this sin, God laid it all on His own Son at the Cross.
  
  Adikia is a New Testament word that literally means “unrighteous.” It some places, this word is used to translate awon. Therefore, passages like Rom. 1:18 and 2 Pet. 2:13 speak of God’s wrath being poured out on adikia. It also means “unjust” (Luke 18:6) and thus “workers of iniquity” (Luke 13:27).
  
  Anomia literally means “no law” or “lawlessness.” John equates sin with lawlessness in 1 John 3:4, and Jesus says that lawlessness or iniquity begins in the heart (Matt. 24:12). One who breaks God’s law is just as guilty before God as one who breaks man’s law is before a human judge.
  
  The differences between awon and adikia and anomia are not that great. The latter two are virtually synonymous, and the differences between the Greek and Hebrew words show the difference in the way they thought. The Greek mind was more abstract, whereas the Hebrew mind was more concrete. For the Hebrew, awon speaks of the guilt and trouble that comes from sin. For the Greek, adikia and anomia speak of the guilt and punishment that come from breaking the law. In both cases, the sinner is condemned and, if not forgiven, must be dealt with as justice demands. The Gospel, then, emphasizes how God’s justice was satisfied by the Cross of Christ.

So I point out all that to argue that while it seems obvious enough that unbelief in and of itself is sin, the biblical view of sin seems to me more focused on the act. There could be some very deep reasons for this. It may be that unbelief is not so much the idea behind what Adam and Eve did, but rather a refusing to trust; but if so, trust (unlike belief) is something we will. Likewise, denying our trust would be something we will. But if that is true, I'm not all that sure how something we will could be so abstract . . . it may be that the denial of trust comes in the action itself.

For some biblical support for this, see James 1:15. Lust brings forth sin. But lust would entail disbelief so far as we are talking about it here. Adam and Eve lusted (were enticed by their own desires) to be like God, to have what God had forbidden. We could argue that if they really believed God, then they wouldn't have wanted the fruit (couldn't we?). How could you be enticed by something you see is worthless? (But note that I can imagine some counter arguments here.) In any case, it is not being enticed or even the lusting for what is forbidden that is the sin, but James says that said lust produces sin. I think we can see that rather evidently in the Garden.

ANYWAY

So all that aside, even if we grant that unbelief is a sin (which I don't necessarily deny--I'm still thinking on that and have been for awhile), I would just say that, misnomer or not, I think "original sin" is probably just a false doctrine. Here I openly admit that I'm denying Augustine. But I simply see no textual basis for arguing that any one of us were imputed with Adam's sin. I see us inheriting Adam's image (Gen 5:3), but not his sin. We die for our own sin, not his. So, personally, I don't get too caught up in the whole debate . . .

Just my $.02.

Romans 5: 18-19

"Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous."

Seems clear we inherited something - and it ain't good!

Philip wrote:Romans 5: 18-19

"Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous."

Seems clear we inherited something - and it ain't good!

We inherited the notion of wanting to be "independent" of God though we MUST be dependent of Him.
Much like an infant "fights" it's parents trying to feed it or change it or put it to sleep, we fight God taking care of us, sustaining us.
We want to do it on our own without realizing ( and sometimes in spite of that realization) that we CAN'T do it without god because when we do, like that infant, we end up f'en everything up.
We inherited disobdience to God's will, even though obeying that will is what makes us fully human.

What Paul said.

Notice is says that we became siners. Like Adam, we sin. We pay the prices for our own sin, for Adam's. In short, what we inherit a corrupted nature; that is not the same as saying we were imputed with Adam's sin.

But again, full disclosure, that's a minority view. I just think the majority is wrong and that they have absolutely no textual basis for their position.