The false doctrine of "sinful nature"

Slyzr

Member
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
Same thing ....

All you said in your first response was the text had an AND.

Which it does ......

However, you never said the AND was between good and evil.



Now then, we have been round and round on this.

And you STILL have not shown the AND between good evil; the name of the tree was good evil.

It's the same thing ......

Then the good evil shows ...... good and evil for their prioria.

IT IS STILL THE TREE OF GOOD EVIL.

sr
 
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Active member
Now then, we have been round and round on this.

And you STILL have not shown the AND between good evil.

I demonstrated this from my very first post... and I will attempt to do so one final time and step you through it since you obviously don't know how to read Hebrew. The language is read from right to left and the expression 'and' does not exist in Hebrew as a stand-alone word, it is the letter vav (ו) and used in this sense is only found prefixed to other words... in this case it is prefixed to the word 'evil' (רע) and an interlinear would typically render the English as 'and-evil' with a hyphen between the words to show that the single Hebrew word is rendered into English by two words. The entire phrase is טוב ורע --- the word טוב translates 'good' and the word ורע translates 'and evil'. These two Hebrew words translate into the three English words 'good and evil'. I would encourage you to learn the language as it will enrich your reading of the biblical texts, but until you do learn it to refrain from offering up comments... or at the very least accept correction when it is offered by those more knowledgeable.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Slyzr

Member
I demonstrated this from my very first post... and I will attempt to do so one final time and step you through it since you obviously don't know how to read Hebrew. The language is read from right to left and the expression 'and' does not exist in Hebrew as a stand-alone word, it is the letter vav (ו) and used in this sense is only found prefixed to other words... in this case it is prefixed to the word 'evil' (רע) and an interlinear would typically render the English as 'and-evil' with a hyphen between the words to show that the single Hebrew word is rendered into English by two words. The entire phrase is טוב ורע --- the word טוב translates 'good' and the word ורע translates 'and evil'. These two Hebrew words translate into the three English words 'good and evil'. I would encourage you to learn the language as it will enrich your reading of the biblical texts, but until you do learn it to refrain from offering up comments... or at the very least accept correction when it is offered by those more knowledgeable.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
One cant know what good is least he knows what evil is. Evil is of self, good is of Love. Seems you guys cant distinguish between the two
 

e v e

Well-known 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.
the tree is a realm ... an evil realm whose “good and evil“ are of the satanic mindset.

Not God’s good.

That tree has a different view than He does as to what is evil and what is good.



the tree cannot be detached from it’s context: that it’s telling us what is good and evil “according to the evil realm”.
 

e v e

Well-known 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
the fruit of the tree is dualism-thinking.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
the tree is a realm ... an evil realm whose “good and evil“ are of the satanic mindset.

Not God’s good.

That tree has a different view than He does as to what is evil and what is good.



the tree cannot be detached from it’s context: that it’s telling us what is good and evil “according to the evil realm”.
Seems knowledge is evil for you. Jesus gained this same knowledge in Matt 3:16 and people of Jesus day said he had that same evil knowledge so they had him crucified for that knowledge. You are not thinking this through your thinking is all upside down just as those who said Jesus was blasphemer for this same knowledge when he became like God to know this difference just as Adam did. Just as with these you cant see what you are doing they didnt know what the do either and you will argue with God about that knowledge until you go to a grave without it. .
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
its definitely a consciousness and belongs to the evil realm.
Only for those who has not gained the knowledge it offers. You cant see the good because you are only of the evil part of it. You cant even know what is evil until you know what is good. Not even Jesus knew this difference until God came to Him and opened it all up to him by His Spirit, See Matt 3:16, This is the knowledge you are not willing to accept from God.
 

Sethproton

Well-known 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.
Yes. I also have wondered where the church came up with the concept of the sin nature as opposed to the nature Adam was created with. Along with that, some don't think Jesus had to battle with that inborn nature. They think He was born in the same state as Adam. I agree with them on that, but then so was I. As you mentioned, if Adam had not yet fallen and received a sin nature, how was he able to sin?
 

En Hakkore

Active member
the fruit of the tree is dualism-thinking.
The narrative implies it is physical fruit that bestows upon those who eat of it knowledge, specifically that of good and evil, and that this knowledge was supposed to be the purview of the gods... by eating of it, the man and his wife transgressed the boundary that had been established between humanity and deity.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
If we accept the idea that Adam and Eve had a "sinful" nature after they ate from the tree,
But since Adam and Eve had THE SAME HUMAN NATURE before AND after they ate from the tree, that you and I have always had, there's nothing to be discussed.
 

e v e

Well-known member
The narrative implies it is physical fruit that bestows upon those who eat of it knowledge, specifically that of good and evil, and that this knowledge was supposed to be the purview of the gods... by eating of it, the man and his wife transgressed the boundary that had been established between humanity and deity.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
Genesis did not happen on this earth... so no.
 

e v e

Well-known member
Yes. I also have wondered where the church came up with the concept of the sin nature as opposed to the nature Adam was created with. Along with that, some don't think Jesus had to battle with that inborn nature. They think He was born in the same state as Adam. I agree with them on that, but then so was I. As you mentioned, if Adam had not yet fallen and received a sin nature, how was he able to sin?
adam had eden nature, of God’s creation. the sin realm was the void he intervened upon. And it’s that realm adam ate of, which is the type of reality we are in now (death/this current fallen world.)
 
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Active member
Genesis did not happen on this earth... so no.
The garden in which this tree was situated is located in proximity to rivers, two of which are identified as the Tigris and the Euphrates... these and reference to place names (Assyria, for example) anchor the narrative here in this world in a known geographic locale. You are certainly welcome to believe otherwise, but we would then have very little common ground on which to have fruitful (pun very much intended) dialogue...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

e v e

Well-known member
Seems knowledge is evil for you. Jesus gained this same knowledge in Matt 3:16 and people of Jesus day said he had that same evil knowledge so they had him crucified for that knowledge. You are not thinking this through your thinking is all upside down just as those who said Jesus was blasphemer for this same knowledge when he became like God to know this difference just as Adam did. Just as with these you cant see what you are doing they didnt know what the do either and you will argue with God about that knowledge until you go to a grave without it. .
God’s realm understands all the below terms / archetypes differently. The sin realm (the tree of knowledge of good and evil) just recodes or refills all those terms.

realm
tree
good
evil
knowledge
sin
God
mind
spirit
physical
spiritual
man
soul
 

e v e

Well-known member
The garden in which this tree was situated is located in proximity to rivers, two of which are identified as the Tigris and the Euphrates... these and reference to place names (Assyria, for example) anchor the narrative here in this world in a known geographic locale. You are certainly welcome to believe otherwise, but we would then have very little common ground on which to have fruitful (pun very much intended) dialogue...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
But not on this earth, though the names are the same.
 
Top