Original Sin/Ancestral Sin

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

I did not mean "BY" their innocence per se, but because they have not the comprehension of their sinfulness, Christ, through the cross, makes the difference in spite of a willful acceptance of Him.

I agree, just pulling your chain a bit. lol

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Adino

Steve, I think we agree that Christ alone was sinlessly perfect.

The point I made earlier was that man is not only in need of being justified of all the sins he has ever committed and/or ever will commit, but that he is in need of being justified of the very nature of sin which engenders his sinful deeds. He is in need of being justified of something he had at birth.

Do you agree?

I have contemplated that theory? Is man born sinful or is man born with a nature that is turned toward sin?
I knwo we have a nature we recieve at birth that own it's own will certainly sin but is it sinful at birth or as an infant?
These questions have been in mind for years.

Hey Brother, I bet you also believe that a literal tree could give knowledge of good and evil to someone... the tree itself had a mind to KNOW WITH? You really believe that?

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I believe it was an actual tree...

Genesis 3:24
After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Genesis 2:9
And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I don't know if it has spiritual implications but the physical seems apparent.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Dr. Vaughn

Hey Brother, I bet you also believe that a literal tree could give knowledge of good and evil to someone... the tree itself had a mind to KNOW WITH? You really believe that?

Genesis 2:9
And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I believe there were all kinds of trees that had fruit that was good to eat in the first part of the verse I see no reason to allegorize the second half of the verse. As for the tree having a mind of its own, I don't know what kind of herbs you have been enjoying lately but giving the tree a mind wasn't any part of what I said.

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Genesis 2:9
And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I believe there were all kinds of trees that had fruit that was good to eat in the first part of the verse I see no reason to allegorize the second half of the verse. As for the tree having a mind of its own, I don't know what kind of herbs you have been enjoying lately but giving the tree a mind wasn't any part of what I said.

Oh yes you did brother... when you state that these trees are literal and fail to see where there were trees that were good for food and then you see another set of trees in the midst of the garden,, they were seperated from the trees good for food..... if the tree of life was a literal tree like the proverbial fountain of youth... then the tree of KNOWLEDGE.. the tree that GIVES KNOWLEGE when eaten must also be a literal tree..... So, now trees come up out of the ground with the ability to KNOW about GOOD & EVIL....
is this what you propose?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Dr. Vaughn

Hey Brother, I bet you also believe that a literal tree could give knowledge of good and evil to someone... the tree itself had a mind to KNOW WITH? You really believe that?

Originally Posted by Dr. Vaughn

Oh yes you did brother... when you state that these trees are literal and fail to see where there were trees that were good for food and then you see another set of trees in the midst of the garden,, they were seperated from the trees good for food..... if the tree of life was a literal tree like the proverbial fountain of youth... then the tree of KNOWLEDGE.. the tree that GIVES KNOWLEGE when eaten must also be a literal tree..... So, now trees come up out of the ground with the ability to KNOW about GOOD & EVIL....
is this what you propose?

No sir, I said they were literal trees, not separated but right there in the middle of the Garden. You can jump to whatever conclusion you like but the result of eating the fruit would bring the knowledge of good and evil and the eating of the tree of life brings life.

Genesis 2:16-17
"You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Sounds like a real tree to me. You can eat here, but not here.


6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

Originally Posted by Baron1710

No sir, I said they were literal trees, not separated but right there in the middle of the Garden. You can jump to whatever conclusion you like but the result of eating the fruit would bring the knowledge of good and evil and the eating of the tree of life brings life.

Genesis 2:16-17
"You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Sounds like a real tree to me. You can eat here, but not here.


6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

Hey brother I bet you also believe that the beast that John saw coming up out of the sea is a literal sea monster..... or even better than that what about the "axe being laid to the root of the trees" if we follow your example then we must also believe those are literal tress

Or the blind man who saw men as "trees walking"

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Dr. Vaughn

Hey brother I bet you also believe that the beast that John saw coming up out of the sea is a literal sea monster..... or even better than that what about the "axe being laid to the root of the trees" if we follow your example then we must also believe those are literal tress

Or the blind man who saw men as "trees walking"

That's not even a worthy straw man. To jump to the furthest Scripture in time and force an interpretation on apocalyptic literature based on how I interpret narrative is not even worthy of being considered a valid argument. Nothing about the first 3 chapters of Genesis appears to be anything but literal. Was Adam literal? Eve? God?

[Steve Epley]

Moses the TRUE prophet opposed to Branham the FALSE prophet said the trees grew OUT OF THE GROUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I prefer Moses over Bill any day of the week.
But since you raised the subject what or who was the tree of knowledge?

Was the Garden of Eden a real literal place?

[bkstokes]

Here

We go again -- It is the old serpeant seed debate.