The false doctrine of "sinful nature"

Stephen

Active member
There is this notion that sometimes crops up that humans have this "sinful nature" that is somehow a result of Adam and Eve eating from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Did you ever notice that one of the properties of the tree is that it was a tree of "the knowledge of Good"? If your doctrine precludes the idea that they have the knowledge of "good" and know only of "evil" after eating the fruit, please go back and read what the description of the tree is.

If we accept the idea that Adam and Eve had a "sinful" nature after they ate from the tree, and that their nature before the fall was "sinful", then when did the switch occur?



What nature did Adam and Eve have at the moment they they desired to sin?
  • sinful
  • not sinful
If Adam and Eve did have a "sinful" nature when they desired to sin, then some outside force acted on Adam and Eve to change their nature from "not sinful" to "sinful" prior to their desire to sin. The banishment from the garden and loss of access to the tree of life is because the nature of Adam and Eve were tampered with, not because they freely chose.

If Adam and Eve did not have a "sinful" nature when they desired to sin, then they desired sin without "sinful" nature.



What nature did Adam and Eve have the moment their desire to sin matured and they sinned?
  • sinful
  • not sinful

If Adam and Eve did have a "sinful" nature when they sinned, then some outside force acted on Adam and Eve to change their nature from "not sinful" to "sinful" before they sinned. The banishment from the garden and loss of access to the tree of life is because the nature of Adam and Eve were tampered with, not because they freely chose.

If Adam and Eve had a "not sinful" nature when they sinned, then they sinned without the "sinful" nature.



Conclusion: Either Adam and Eve either sinned
  • Without this thing called a "sinful" nature and likewise, so do we. The change is that we no longer have access to tree of life. (My view BTW)
or
  • With this thing called a "sinful" nature, and some out side force changed their nature from "not sinful" to "sinful". As a consequence they sinned and Adam and Eve are not to blame.
 

Gary Mac

Member
There is this notion that sometimes crops up that humans have this "sinful nature" that is somehow a result of Adam and Eve eating from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Did you ever notice that one of the properties of the tree is that it was a tree of "the knowledge of Good"? If your doctrine precludes the idea that they have the knowledge of "good" and know only of "evil" after eating the fruit, please go back and read what the description of the tree is.

If we accept the idea that Adam and Eve had a "sinful" nature after they ate from the tree, and that their nature before the fall was "sinful", then when did the switch occur?



What nature did Adam and Eve have at the moment they they desired to sin?
  • sinful
  • not sinful
If Adam and Eve did have a "sinful" nature when they desired to sin, then some outside force acted on Adam and Eve to change their nature from "not sinful" to "sinful" prior to their desire to sin. The banishment from the garden and loss of access to the tree of life is because the nature of Adam and Eve were tampered with, not because they freely chose.

If Adam and Eve did not have a "sinful" nature when they desired to sin, then they desired sin without "sinful" nature.



What nature did Adam and Eve have the moment their desire to sin matured and they sinned?
  • sinful
  • not sinful

If Adam and Eve did have a "sinful" nature when they sinned, then some outside force acted on Adam and Eve to change their nature from "not sinful" to "sinful" before they sinned. The banishment from the garden and loss of access to the tree of life is because the nature of Adam and Eve were tampered with, not because they freely chose.

If Adam and Eve had a "not sinful" nature when they sinned, then they sinned without the "sinful" nature.



Conclusion: Either Adam and Eve either sinned
  • Without this thing called a "sinful" nature and likewise, so do we. The change is that we no longer have access to tree of life. (My view BTW)
or
  • With this thing called a "sinful" nature, and some out side force changed their nature from "not sinful" to "sinful". As a consequence they sinned and Adam and Eve are not to blame.
it is the same fruit Jesus said take and eat ye all of it, get it inside you. There is no wat to know what evil is unless you know what it is to be good as your Father in heaven is good.
 

Slyzr

Member
IMO ... it is more like the tree of good evil.

NOT two fruits.


"good and evil" .. is not in the text.

Trees typically do NOT produce two fruits.

sr
 

Gary Mac

Member
IMO ... it is more like the tree of good evil.

NOT two fruits.


"good and evil" .. is not in the text.

Trees typically do NOT produce two fruits.

sr
In Gods kingdom it isnt a tree at all, it is Spirit, His kingdom is Spirit and man is the temple of. The tree is only a metaphor
 

Slyzr

Member
Like the spirit does not have a tree.

dugh ..... the spirit is all about the tree.

you are not addressing the op.

sr
 

Gary Mac

Member
Like the spirit does not have a tree.

dugh ..... the spirit is all about the tree.

you are not addressing the op.

sr
Actually the tree is all about Spirit. A tree cant give you anything spiritually. It is Spirit that opens up knowledge. This is exactly what happened in Adam by Gods Spirit when he became like Him to know this difference. , In Abraham by Gods Spirit, in Moses by Gods Spirit in Jesus in Matt 3:16 was opened to him by Gods Spirit, 120 in an upper room gained knowledge by His Spirit. A tree is not God as you think it is. .
 

Tiburon

Member
Actually the tree is all about Spirit. A tree cant give you anything spiritually. It is Spirit that opens up knowledge. This is exactly what happened in Adam by Gods Spirit when he became like Him to know this difference. , In Abraham by Gods Spirit, in Moses by Gods Spirit in Jesus in Matt 3:16 was opened to him by Gods Spirit, 120 in an upper room gained knowledge by His Spirit. A tree is not God as you think it is. .
Where does it mention spirit?
 

Gary Mac

Member
Where does it mention spirit?
You are kidding right? You cannot read where Gods Spirit moved across the waters, land, formed light, formed dark. Surely you have read the book? But then with that question I guess not. You really do not know that God is Spirit do you?
 

Tiburon

Member
You are kidding right? You cannot read where Gods Spirit moved across the waters, land, formed light, formed dark. Surely you have read the book? But then with that question I guess not. You really do not know that God is Spirit do you?
So you're extrapolating from "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." to everything being about spirit. What then makes the Tree of knowledge any more special than an orange or a cabbage?
 

Gary Mac

Member
So you're extrapolating from "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." to everything being about spirit. What then makes the Tree of knowledge any more special than an orange or a cabbage?
Orange or cabbage is material, knowledge is not material. You really cannot decipher that difference ? Gosh even Adam found this difference. Gen 3:22.

God is a Spirit, His kingdom is Spirit, everything about Him is Spirit and man is the temple of. It doesn't come with observation, it is within you, or is supposed to be. See Jesus in Luke 17:21-22. You really do not know that God is Spirit do you?

Read Matt 3:16. Can you not see that God came to Jesus by His Spirit and opened all of His knowledge to him just as He did in Adam, Abraham, Moses, 120. So I take it that your god is not spirit?
 
Last edited:

Slyzr

Member
The nature of your question is unclear... perhaps you could clarify. Thanks.



I'm no expert in dendrology, but I suspect naturally the answer would be no, but possibly with some engineering on our part. Why do you ask?

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Same question .......

Is their an AND between good evil in the Hebrew texts in question?

You initially said there was an AND ......

But did not answer the between part .....

sr
 
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Active member
Is their an AND between good evil in the Hebrew texts in question?

You were claiming there was.

I re-challenged you on that point .....

And you have yet to answer.

I didn't answer because your question wasn't clear. Is there an 'and' between 'good' and 'evil' in the Hebrew of 2:9 and 2:17 where there is reference to a tree of knowledge? Yes... which is what I pointed out to you in my very first post since you seemed to be claiming there wasn't. There's nothing to challenge... the text is what it is and I presume you have the requisite resources and skills in Hebrew to verify it. If not, you shouldn't be making claims about texts and a language you don't understand...

What is dendrology?

The study of trees.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Slyzr

Member
/
I didn't answer because your question wasn't clear. Is there an 'and' between 'good' and 'evil' in the Hebrew of 2:9 and 2:17 where there is reference to a tree of knowledge? Yes... which is what I pointed out to you in my very first post since you seemed to be claiming there wasn't. There's nothing to challenge... the text is what it is and I presume you have the requisite resources and skills in Hebrew to verify it. If not, you shouldn't be making claims about texts and a language you don't understand...



I re-checked .....

Not seeing the AND between good evil.

sr
 

En Hakkore

Active member
I re-checked .....

Not seeing the AND between good evil.
I pointed the 'and' out to you in my first post... see the blue underscored vav. If you don't recognize that as 'and' then all you've demonstrated is you lack even a rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew. Further conversation is pointless...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Top