The false doctrine of "sinful nature"

GeneZ

Well-known member
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
Instead of arguing over the grammar and syntax ad infinitum ?

What do you conclude from your rendering of "Good Evil"?

What change will it bring to understanding this tree?
 

Slyzr

Member
The ancient Jews did not include words to be understood by its context.

If an ancient Jew walked outside his home and saw it was raining?

Going back inside he would not announce to those still inside.. "It is raining." Instead, he would simply state... "Raining."

They had an idiomatic way of expressing certain things.

Good-Evil did not need an "and" added to express what Jews automatically understood to be so.

Its like saying... Here is a kitchen sink. It can give to hot cold water.

This is the rub ......

And if an ancient Jew went out in the rain, came back into their house; soaked in rain

And said "raining" or even 'it is raining' .

The other members of the house would say, what / or not say?


sr

.













.
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
No, you are taking a well-known construction in Hebrew (at least to those of us who know the language) used to intensify verbal action and trying to extract some clever "spiritual" insight from it... there is nothing legitimate about this kind of unrestrained hermeneutic, particularly when it violates the plain sense of the narrative, which is a reference to the man's physical death should he eat fruit from the tree of knowledge.
Paul was not praying for a plain text reading understanding when he told the Philippians the following.......




"And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more
and more in knowledge and depth of insight." Philippians 1:9
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
This is the rub ......

And if an ancient Jew went out in the rain, came back into their house; soaked in rain

And said "raining" or even 'it is raining' .

The other members of the house would say, what / or not say?
OK! :giggle:

Let's say the house had a canopy over the entrance.

Mind trying again?

Its how they spoke.
 

Stephen

Active member
Are you implying you do not sin anymore?

The question doesn't make any sense in the context of this thread. Almost like you didn't read and comprehend the original post. I'm directly stating that Adam and Eve chose to sin and did sin without the aid of a so called "sin nature". They did it with the nature that God gave them and in the state that God called "very good".

To answer the question directly: I have a human nature, like Adam and Eve, and I am still prone to sin.
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
The question doesn't make any sense in the context of this thread. Almost like you didn't read and comprehend the original post. I'm directly stating that Adam and Eve chose to sin and did sin without the aid of a so called "sin nature". They did it with the nature that God gave them and in the state that God called "very good".

To answer the question directly: I have a human nature, like Adam and Eve, and I am still prone to sin.
Adam and Eve were created in the (shadow) image of God. They were not created with a fallen nature.

Before the fall they were prone to be tempted by a greater force who was evil. Sin was their choice.

Jesus had no fallen nature and was both temptable and not able to sin, depending upon which nature of His hypostatic union we look at.

Yet, to be able to die for man -- as a man -- in man's place? He needed to deny himself to his full right to operate in His Deity's powers which could not be tempted. (Philippians 2:6-8)
 
Last edited:

Slyzr

Member
Instead of arguing over the grammar and syntax ad infinitum ?

What do you conclude from your rendering of "Good Evil"?

What change will it bring to understanding this tree?

Not much ......

Their are used car salesmen, that want to take advantage.


As I child I thought they were being honest.

I did not understand.

sr
 

Slyzr

Member
OK! :giggle:

Let's say the house had a canopy over the entrance.

Mind trying again?

Its how they spoke.

When it is raining it is raining.

If it is not raining ..... it is not raining.

The people in the house are not ignorant to that.

Canopy or not.

sr
 
Last edited:

Stephen

Active member
Adam and Eve were created in the (shadow) image of God. They were not created with a fallen nature.

Before the fall they were prone to be tempted by a greater force who was evil. Sin was their choice.

First off, thanks. We are 6 pages into the thread and somebody finally takes an honest stab at responding to the OP.

Your answer is that
  1. they were tempted while they had the nature they were created with but could only be tempted by "a greater force who was evil".
  2. they chose to win with the nature they were created with.

If the so called "fallen nature" or "sin nature" wasn't necessary for them to sin, then this brings up interesting conclusions.
  • If Adam and Eve sinned without a "fallen nature" and we have a different nature than them
  • If we have a "fallen nature", then our relationship to temptation and sin is nothing like Adam and Eve's relationship to temptation and sin.

Jesus had no fallen nature and was both temptable and not able to sin, depending upon which nature of His hypostatic union we look at.

If I read this right, Jesus, with no "fallen nature" like Adam and Eve, could only be tempted by "a greater force than himself who was evil".

My question to you is what force do you think that is?

Yet, to be able to die for man, as a man, in man's place? He needed to deny himself to his full right to operate in His Deity's powers which could not be tempted. (Philippians 2:6-8)

While I suppose this sort of thing is necessary doctrine for some theologies, if Jesus could only be tempted by a force greater than himself, he couldn't be tempted at all (assuming you think he is "God" by this).
 

John t

Active member
The LXX is a fraud

You have absolutely ZERO level of understanding, even after I write it on a sixth grade reading level.

The LXX is a document in history, and it is valuable for Jews and Christians to study. Get over yourself, and deal with FACTS and not the FICTION of your cult.
The Septuagint often is represented as Roman numerals: “LXX” (L [50] + X [10] + X [10] = 70). According to Philo, Josephus, the Letter of Aristeas, and rabbinic sources, King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–247 BC) assembled 70 (or 72) translators to render the Law of Moses into Greek. In the most limited sense, “Septuagint” refers just to this project, which covered the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.​

Although the usage is imprecise, “Septuagint” (and the abbreviation “LXX”) is a convenient term generally used to refer to any or all of the Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible, as well as several other Jewish religious books written in Greek (Tov, Textual Criticism, 135). Sometimes the term “Old Greek” (OG) is used to describe the “oldest recoverable form of the Greek text of a particular book” (McLay, Septuagint in New Testament Research, 7), while “Septuagint” is used to refer to a collection of books.​


Johnston, J. W. (2016). Septuagint. In J. D. Barry, D. Bomar, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, D. Mangum, C. Sinclair Wolcott, … W. Widder (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
When it is raining it is raining.

If it is not raining ..... it is not raining.

The people in the house are not ignorant to that.

Canopy or not.

sr


This is done for the sake of your line of reasoning...

Let's say modern day folks spoke like the ancient Jews once did.

The kids have beren playing video games in doors all day, oblivious to the world.

In walks dad, he opens the door to the kids room. Pokes his hear inside, and says.."raining."
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
You have absolutely ZERO level of understanding, even after I write it on a sixth grade reading level.

The LXX is a document in history, and it is valuable for Jews and Christians to study. Get over yourself, and deal with FACTS and not the FICTION of your cult.
The Septuagint often is represented as Roman numerals: “LXX” (L [50] + X [10] + X [10] = 70). According to Philo, Josephus, the Letter of Aristeas, and rabbinic sources, King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–247 BC) assembled 70 (or 72) translators to render the Law of Moses into Greek. In the most limited sense, “Septuagint” refers just to this project, which covered the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.​

Although the usage is imprecise, “Septuagint” (and the abbreviation “LXX”) is a convenient term generally used to refer to any or all of the Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible, as well as several other Jewish religious books written in Greek (Tov, Textual Criticism, 135). Sometimes the term “Old Greek” (OG) is used to describe the “oldest recoverable form of the Greek text of a particular book” (McLay, Septuagint in New Testament Research, 7), while “Septuagint” is used to refer to a collection of books.​


Johnston, J. W. (2016). Septuagint. In J. D. Barry, D. Bomar, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, D. Mangum, C. Sinclair Wolcott, … W. Widder (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
The LXX has been a great help in understanding of tenses that the Greek can convey with exactness, that one's not knowing the idiomatic ways of Jewish thinking in the Hebrew text would reveal.
 

Slyzr

Member
This is done for the sake of your line of reasoning...

Let's say modern day folks spoke like the ancient Jews once did.

The kids have beren playing video games in doors all day, oblivious to the world.

In walks dad, he opens the door to the kids room. Pokes his hear inside, and says.."raining."

Bit of disconnect on that one bro.

Seems like we are talking past each other.

sr
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
If the so called "fallen nature" or "sin nature" wasn't necessary for them to sin, then this brings up interesting conclusions.
  • If Adam and Eve sinned without a "fallen nature" and we have a different nature than them
  • If we have a "fallen nature", then our relationship to temptation and sin is nothing like Adam and Eve's relationship to temptation and sin.
Adam and the woman were not tempted by sin. They were tempt by Evil. And, tempted by a power higher than themselves. But, since God's command was so simple? If they chose to obey it would have been simple enough to follow.

The fruit itself did not tempt them. The thought that they could become like the Lord is what did it. The very same evil that Lucifer felt towards the Lord when he had his famous "I will's." For Lucifer wanted to be like the Most High.


While I suppose this sort of thing is necessary doctrine for some theologies, if Jesus could only be tempted by a force greater than himself, he couldn't be tempted at all (assuming you think he is "God" by this).

He gave gave up his right to operate in the powers of Deity .(Philippians 2:6-8)

He volunteered to do so.

As a result? He remained functioning only in the power granted him by his second nature. That nature was his soul It was the soul of Jehovah to be exact. For, you see.. The Lord God of Israel was always having two natures in union. The Incarnation was simply manifesting one of those natures in a body. His Deity needed to remain in neutral as to maintain being as a man!


Here... Even in the OT it reveals the two natures of the Son of God.




And they began to remove the foreign gods from their midst and to serve Jehovah,
so that his soul became impatient because of the trouble of Israel.
Jdges 10:16



Jehovah himself examines the righteous one as well as the wicked one,
and anyone loving violence his soul certainly hates."
Ps 11:5



“Bring no more futile sacrifices; Incense is an abomination to Me.
The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies—
I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting. Your New Moons
and your appointed feasts My soul hates; They are a trouble to Me,
I am weary of bearing them.. I
sa 1:13-14​



God is not Soul! God is spirit in essence!

Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship
the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father
seeks.
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

John 4:23-24


God's essence is not soul. The Lord God of Israel was being two distinct natures in union.

That very soul was the soul that became as "man." when he entered the body provided by Mary.


grace and peace!
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
Bit of disconnect on that one bro.

Seems like we are talking past each other.

sr
Come out of the rain then. Your reasoning is all wet.

You can not even grasp such simple concepts? How are you going to expound on what is deep?
 

En Hakkore

Active member
You ever hear of a dual fulfillment prophecy?
Is that where the plain reading of a text is found wanting and therefore an esoteric understanding, its deviation from the plain sense limited only by the extent of the creativity and imagination of the interpreter, is read into it? I trust the phrasing of my question reveals sufficiently what I think of such a hermeneutic...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

En Hakkore

Active member
You're trapped.
Trapped? Where? How so?

Just like those who try to deny Genesis 1:2.
Deny what about Gen 1:2?

I have learned from men who know how to exegete. Some could teach you.

Stop being a bully. That's all you are being at this point.
Not sure why you feel bullied by an educated critique of your position... that is often how people learn. Your failure to engage the substance of my post to you is duly noted...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

En Hakkore

Active member
You said it was a translation issue.

That there is no "and", in Hebrew.
Here's what I actually said:

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...

The bold and underlined portion is a critical clarification intended to guide you in your interlinear to where the 'and' does exist... as a prefix to the word 'evil'.

You seemed to imply, / a hyphen would probably be acceptable; good-evil.
I implied nothing of the sort. Again, here's what I actually said about the hyphen:

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 hyphen serves a purpose only in an interlinear (not a translation) in order to show the English reader that a single Hebrew word corresponds to two (sometimes more) words in English... in this case טוב ורע = 'good' [Hebrew word 1] 'and-evil' [Hebrew word 2] in your interlinear and is translated into English as 'good and evil'. Do you see the blue underlined enlarged letter? --- that is the AND in the clause.

Seriously .... your post was weird.

You were kind agreeing with me .....
No, I am not agreeing in any way with your claim there is no 'and' in the clause... that claim is incorrect as anyone who knows Hebrew or can properly follow along in an interlinear will tell you.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Top