| original sin|
Wow, lots of complicated stuff on original sin. Especially when it is so clear what Original sin is. Genesis 1:29 says that we are given "every seed bearing plant for food". This is the Only order we are given. Similarly, in science protohumans, the Australeopithicus Afarensis, were herbivores. Then they became scavengers and began developing the tools of the hunt, from which came war. Genesis 9:3 clearly indicates that God meant us to be herbivores! and points out the "hardness of our hearts" towards other living things.
The evolution to hunting required narrower hips for running, and guess what, this caused women to have increased pain in childbirth. Cause and effect! Original Sin brought down an abundance of ugly behaviors that complicated or lives and made us ignorant of "every seed bearing plant." Herein lies the key to health and peace.
After mankind became hunters, they became cannibals and descended into a very long history of debauchery. We would have discovered agriculture a very long time ago if we had not made this choice to go against God.
This is what Genesis tells us. We had clear and simple orders at first on how to live. We broke with these orders and then things got ugly; we compounded one sin with many. First was Adam, then Cain and Abel (Homo Erectus and Australeopithicus Robustus) Next Erectus kills Able, and later Seth, the Neanderthals, comes and replaces the one who died.
The biblical story and scientific story are two sides of the same coin. You can't get the whole story without examining all the evidence!
| 2003/11/3 17:03|
Ex-England colony of Australia
| Re: original sin|
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
| 2003/11/3 18:38||Profile|
yes we were given dominion, and we have been doing a very lousy job of it. the only clear command, from a behavioral standpoint, was to not eat animals.
| 2003/11/4 12:52|
Tallahassee, FL, USA
| Re: original sin|
Your theory has too many holes both biblically and scientifically. First of all, your idea that Seth represents Neanderthal man and developed into modern man is not scientifically plausible.
Recent examinations of Neanderthal DNA have shown that they apparently were not linked to modern man, and made no contribution to our gene pool. http://www.mcjonline.com/news/00/20000404a.htm
Secondly, this view does violence to the Genesis account in many more ways than one. A particular point of oversight is that God gave man permission to eat meat after the flood had changed the makeup of the world:
Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood (Gen 9:3-4).
I'm sorry, but your explanation cannot be true scientifically and is even more impossible biblically. I have no problem with your eating only vegetables, but it is ignorant to suggest that eating meat has or had anything to do with Original Sin or that it is sinful now.
| 2003/11/4 15:00||Profile|
I didn't say that Seth became modern man, just that the three brothers mentioned in the Bible correspond with the three main branches of protoman advanced by evolutionary scientists: Astraleopithicus afarensis, Homo Erectus, Neanderthal. We arose from HE and the role of Neanderthals is not clearly understood at this time. It is interesting that many scientists believe that the Neaderthals were the first to speak. Similarly, at the time of Seth, man begins to "call upon the name of the Lord."
Man may have been given permission to eat animals in Genesis 9:3 but God pointed out that it was only because of the hardness of our hearts.
Have you considered that the flood destroyed all of mankind except for Noah's family and that the Out of Africa theory tells us that we are all descendents of one small clan?
Then Noah plants a vineyard and mankind descovers agriculture.
There are many more points to this story and some day I will get around to putting them up on a web site. At the present time, there are too many competing activities.
| 2003/11/12 15:37|
Speaking of Noah and what he ate...
Please read Genesis 9:3.
| 2003/11/12 17:01||Profile|
Amen Mary, here is Genesis 9:3
3Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.
There is nothing here about hardness of heart, infact out of all the inhabitants of the earth before the flood, I would say that Noah had a soft heart in comparison to the rest whose every intent of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.
God says here that he has given them all things even as the green herbs.
Jake, are you a vegetarian? If you are for what reason?
| 2003/12/9 9:15||Profile|
Genesis 9: The FEAR and DREAD of you shall fall upon all wild animals on earth, on all the birds of heaven, on everything that moves upon the ground and all fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. Every creature that lives and moves shall be food for you; I give you them all, as once I gave you green plants.
This tells us that originally God restricted mankinds diet to green plants! We violated this command and fell into sin.
| 2003/12/9 9:38|
So did jesus sin when He ate meat?
| 2003/12/9 10:02||Profile|
Jake wrote:This tells us that This tells us that originally God restricted mankinds diet to green plants! We violated this command and fell into sin. ! We violated this command and fell into sin.
As with all your posts Jake, you mix up revelation with speculation. But you can't add your speculation without rejecting the revelation. The revelation of Gen 1-3 is quite clearly that that originally God restricted mankinds diet to green plants. Now how can you justify accepting that bit of the revelation while, at the same time, rejecting the rest?
The revelation states quite simply that man disobeyed God in the question of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As it is referred to as 'fruit' we can only conclude that Adam and Eve did not breach their vegetarian diet. ;-) As a result of Adam's part in this rebellion mankind was banished from God's immediate presence. According to what we have in the Book inspired by the Spirit, Adam lived, sinned and died a vegetarian.
So you will see that there was no connection of any kind between a change in basic diet and Adam's falling into sin.
Now, will you tell me again that the 'inward witness told you'? Here's another little selection of good, clear thinking, Barclay. He is referring to the holy scriptures:
we do look upon them as the only fit outward judge of controversies among Christians; and that whatsoever doctrine is contrary to their testimony, may therefore justly be rejected as false. And, for our parts, we are very willing that all our doctrines and practices be tried by them; which we never refused, nor ever shall, in all controversies with our adversaries, as the judge and test. We shall also be very willing to admit it as a positive certain maxim, that whatsoever any do, pretending to the Spirit, which is contrary to the scriptures, be accounted and reckoned a delusion of the devil. For as we never lay claim to the Spirit's leadings, that we may cover ourselves in anything that is evil; so we know, that as every evil contradicts the scriptures, so it doth also the Spirit in the first place, from which the scriptures came, and whose motions can never contradict one another, though they may appear sometimes to be contradictory to the blind eye of the natural man, as Paul and James seem to contradict one another.
(Emphasis is Barlclay's own)
I draw you attention again to original Quaker theology "the Spirit and the scriptures can never contradict one another" According to Barclays criteria above your speculations are justly to be rejected as false and a delusion of the devil. This is strong stuff but those early Quakers knew they were on solid ground
| 2003/12/9 10:12||Profile|