The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Bible verses to show we confirm Adam's sin by ours?

Evangelical Universalism
#41

That’s how I’ve always understood it & I’ve only just discovered that’s not the mainstream view :blush:

Again I’ve always (even before becoming an EU) thought that we ended up in a much better state than before the Fall. e.g. No longer just a garden but a huge glorious city, where no one will ever fall again.

I’m also yet to understand why the “knowledge of good and evil” is a bad thing, if God already possessed it :confused: I think the Original Sin was wanting to be God i.e. the one who decrees what is good and evil.

To me it seems to be:

very good - fall - redemption - perfection

Hmm… I can see Luke pointing out that this makes the fall a good/necessary thing… However, if Adam had chosen not to sin, I think (from our perspective within time) perhaps God would’ve gotten us to perfection another way. Mind you, I’m almost positive that if Adam hadn’t sinned, one of his children would’ve, which would’ve resulted in the same need for redemption of humanity! I think any being** (apart from God) with true free will inevitably/initially make mistakes & choices that are self-centred, until they experience the nasty consequences and by the Holy Spirit’s help repent & learn not to make them.

** I initially enrolled in Mechatronic Engineering at University, with the goal of getting into A.I. & robotics, however unfortunately I had a breakdown 3.25 years into the 4 year degree & had to transfer to Computing. Anyway, I’ve always had an interest in Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, etc.

#42

Perhaps both are right here? Perhaps this is not “either/or” but both/and?

Something fundamental about human nature changed on that day when Adam made his decision to eat the forbidden fruit AND we all follow in Adam’s footsteps and make that same decision ourselves.

Clearly our eternal destiny is different and superior to a simple “restoration to” the Garden of Eden. For one thing, Jesus said we neither marry nor are given in marriage. Jesus is the bridegroom and we, corporately, are the bride. So the whole intimacy thing will be vastly different and broader than our experiences thus far (including the first man and woman’s Garden of Eden experience)…

#43

I don’t think it was a matter of “good/evil” as much as it was a matter of God’s timing. Adam and Eve seemed to be immature beings. In C.S. Lewis’ “Perelandra” he portrays their “type” as being perfect in morality yet immature in regards to wisdom. They had a lot of learning to do. God forbid eating of the tree, I think, because they were not ready for it yet. They had to learn wisdom and obedience before they were ready for that kind of knowledge. That’s what the Holy Spirit does with us as well as He sanctifies us. Deeper knowledge and wisdom is given with greater obedience and devotion. So the sin wasn’t the knowledge of good and evil, it was disobeying their heavenly father and the arrogance that their “wisdom” (in deciding to eat of the tree NOW) was greater than almighty God’s.

#44

before they were kicked out of the garden, God gave them coats of skin.

On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples
a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine,
of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined.
7 And he will swallow up on this mountain
the** covering that is cast over all peoples,
the veil that is spread over all nations.**
8 He will swallow up death forever;
and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces,
and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth,
for the LORD has spoken.
9 It will be said on that day,
“Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us.
This is the LORD; we have waited for him;
let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation.”

The same word is used of the veil into the holy of holies, the veil that was torn when Christs flesh was torn
Heb 10:20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh,

sin is condemned in the flesh

as to paragraph 1) I believe the change was they were given flesh bodies to live in when they left the garden into the natural realm, what was reversed at the cross is He inaugurated a new way into the holy of holies (which I believe is what the garden represents) and the eventual ability to leave these flesh clothes, when we are given a new glorious body.

as to the types, yes it also is a type in that we all live in flesh clothes now, we bear the likeness of the earthy/adam, and we will all walk into the holy of holies/garden when the covering is taken away we will bear the image of the heavenly/adam

#45

Yes, that makes a lot of sense to me, thanks :slight_smile:

#46

I have to disagree, based on the fact that
]God promised “the day you eat of it you will surely die” /:m]
]it was (the only?) tree with seedless fruit. ALL trees and plants with seed-bearing fruit were permitted (Gen 1:29)/:m]
]God’s response to their eating was banishment from Garden intimacy with Him/:m]

Your observations about their immaturity are valid and the implications of their immaturity are interesting to ponder…
I have a friend who has floated the idea that the “forbidden” sterile fruit is a euphemism for the woman being seduced into sexual relations with the beautiful Lucifer (who became a snake post seducing the woman-aka phallic symbol). She says the same thing as you, that they were immature. It was not time for sexual consummation of their marriage. Note that there is no record of the consummation of their marriage nor pregnancy until post-forbidden-fruit-eating.

Sure would explain why Adam was so eager to eat the fruit she handed him without so much as a peep of objection! :open_mouth:

#47

To attribute sex to Satan’s inventiveness - I think, is monstrous. Given that Satan would have pretty much fiddled around with the bodies of Adam and Eve, effectively remaking the whole body’s hormone system, neurological system, and even given them the complicated complimentary organs between their legs. I think God would have noticed that Satan was not just touching his children’s “no-no zones” but effectively giving them “no-no zones”. That and, God invented their sexes, therefore would have invented their parts - and not for an idle function, he most certainly would have invented their sexual purposes in their physical bodies as well.

But more importantly, I can only state that if “eating the fruit” was “having sex with the Devil” then Adam is a homosexual, having “tasted the proverbial fruit of the snake” :confused:

I would also put quite a vast blame on God for letting his daughter Eve be effectively raped (as she wouldn’t have known any better being innocent; nigh statutory rape, in my honest opinion) by The Adversary, the rebel of whom he surely knew was present. I’d also be quite displeased considering that by The Adversary in the very primordial realm of innocence, God allowed such a vicious, irreparable defilement; and also allowed Eve’s virginity to be effectively stolen from both Adam and Eve, the very thought of it is a curse on the name of God, in my honest opinion.

I can see Adam and Eve being subject to sin for learning reasons, but God forbid from the highest seat of his throne that it should ever have come about by any such idea as “Serpent Seed Theology”.

“I damn the doctrine with a violent damning.” My poetic way of saying; “Euuuck!”

#48

It was not Satan who spoke the consequences over the first couple, it was God. So if monthly menstruation (which my mother referred to as “the curse”), PMS, menopause, labor pains, and male rule all happened post-forbidden-fruit-eating right alongside “the day you eat of it you shall surely die” it does not seem a stretch to me that there was a fundamental hormonal change reflected in Gen 3:16.

My friend also sees SoS as a looking back into the garden. Solomon is the villain of the story. TBH, the way SoS is usually taught in evangelical circles makes me sick to my stomach. To think that the God who I know could hold up Solomon as a role model for marriage
is monstrous!

Being coveted for a harem is not “love”.
“threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number. My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her.” Song 6:8 What kind of god who would have His Word validating a paradigm like that?

In the Song of Solomon there is a repeating refrain:
“Awake not love before its time”
as well as talk by the brothers of walling in (protecting) their “virgin sister who has no breasts”, and the suggestion of her violation when she went into the city “The watchmen that went about the city found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the keepers of the walls took away my veil from me.” SoS 5:7

I believe Solomon was given wisdom and insight. But I also believe he was an awful husband! And it makes sense to me that a wise man who was such a relationship failure as he was, would have humbly made himself the villain of his play. It really makes sense out of SoS.

ETA: The view that the original sin was sexual in nature has a long history: newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Adam_and_Eve

(Not saying it is my view, but I do think there is some pretty strong biblical support: the couple’s sudden awareness of their nakedness and covering up their genitals, no record of marital consummation pre-eating-forbidden-fruit, and God’s pronouncements over the woman- which are related to her sexuality- in Gen 3:16)

Are we (and God) intended to be monogamous?
#49

I’d rather reject the whole account in Genesis before accepting the interpretation presented before me, in all perfect honesty.

It thoroughly obliterates God as being even half way decent, Biblically speaking. It would be tantamount to him selling Eve as a prostitute to the Devil, given that he planted the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil to begin with.

That being said; I think the whole interpretation is thin at best, fallacious entirely. The Knowledge of Good and Evil is hardly brought about by having sex, and having sex hardly makes one “as gods” knowing good from evil. The doctrine, I am convinced, is gross; and exalts the Devil more than God. The doctrine also doesn’t account for anything else in the Genesis account - all it does is strainfully try to equate eating fruit with spreading your legs; which I would say is a perverse man-made fabrication of a doctrine.

There are many more interpretations that are superior in dealing with the actual events presented by the account. Serpent Seed Theology, in my opinion, is full of agenda and my spirit rails against the very idea of it.

I don’t mean to sound so harsh, but having come across this doctrine before I can only express my true opinion on it; which is nothing short of bitterest antipathy.

#50

You seem extremely emotional about this. Frankly its the first I ever heard of this as a “doctrine”. Not sure about Chris- if she heard a teacher or not. I’m just looking at the biblical evidence:

  1. they didn’t appear to notice they were naked until after eating the forbidden fruit
  2. they covered their genitals
  3. the “consequences” upon the woman in Gen 3:16, mention increasing conception and pain in childbirth, as well as increased desire for her husband, all of which seem pretty related to sex to me
  4. Lucifer was extremely beautiful and was turned into a snake- which is a common phallic symbol in many cultures
  5. the fruit of the tree from which they ate had no seeds/ was sterile Gen 1:29
  6. There is no record that Adam knew his wife nor that she conceived prior to the eating of the forbidden fruit
  7. SoS uses Garden and fruit eating metaphorically for sexual activities, (and I personally agree with Andy Bannister that = Chapter 7 is about the insatiable LUST and ability to seduce of the Solomon (satan?) character, not about healthy marital oneness)

Note that I am NOT saying Cain is Satan’s seed nor that some groups of people are decended from Satan (I found an article based on your doctrinal reference on Wiki). The fruit they ate was STERILE, could NOT reproduce (Gen 1:29)

Perhaps they were immature and it was not time for them to have sex yet? Clearly God ordained “Be fruitful and multipy” and “you shall become one flesh”, but there is simply no record of it until post forbidden fruit eating (I don’t call it “the Fall” because the Bible doesn’t).

#51

Lefein,

I’m out of this. Really busy with school. I don’t have any vested interest nor emotion in this, just interested in where the evidence points. But I gather I hit some sore spot with you and I’m sorry for whatever it is that is hurting.

Much Love,
Gem

#52

Lucifer is a man. Satan is not. Satan is a liar from the beginning, Lucifer “fell”.

Lucifer is Adam

#53

Do you find in the text that God "planted the TOKOGAE?

My experience with sex, within a nearly 30 year marriage, is that it can be good or evil. WITHIN MARRIAGE, It can be exploitative, abusive, and prostitutional or it can be a means of the most incredible deep intimacy and connection. I can feel when there is LUST. I used to be able to tell instantly if he had been using porn. (He stopped that and other habits to save the marriage)

To me, the idea that God gave the woman increased desire for her husband and increased conception is beautiful- kind of like beauty from ashes. I can’t even imagine what human relationships would be like if we mated only seasonally like most mammals, if female humans had no sexual desire for males except when we were fertile… Genesis 3:16 is not a CURSE. It is consequences. And the consequences are redemptive and have beautiful aspects straight from the hand of a God of immeasurable love…

#54

:question:

Any Scriptures for that?

#55

I’m starting from the point that most people do in that these are the main verses which support Lucifer=satan=the cherub in the garden, thus a fallen angel

Isa 14:12 How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!

the word translated (wrongly)lucifer (which is latin btw, not greek, should give you a hint its use as a proper name is wrong) is heylel/light bearer, adam is the light bearer, as he was the bearer of the image of El

Here is the translation in Nasb
How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!

Rev 22
I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star!

I don’t feel comfortable with the same title being given to Christ as Satan do you? (Venus is the star in view here in both passages which is the first brightest star seen in the morning), but Adam is a type of the one to come, so having the same title isn’t such a stretch.

Isa 14:16 Those who see you will gaze at you, And consider you, saying: ‘Is this the** man **who made the earth tremble, Who shook kingdoms,

as in Adam all die, through the one man came the transgression, a man made the earth tremble

He is also the king of babylon, babylon is the kingdom of this world, the fleshly desires vs. the kingdom of the spirit of the second man Christ the new Jerusalem (literal Jerusalem is called egypt and sodom)

Eze 28:12 “Son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD,
“You had the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

perfection=
tok-neeth’
Origin: from 08506
Reference: TWOT - 2511b
PrtSpch: noun feminime
In Hebrew: tynkt 2
In NET: pattern 1, perfection 1
In AV: sum 1, pattern 1
Count: 2
Definition: 1) measurement, pattern, proportion

heres the only other place this word is used in the bible
Eze 43:10 As for you, son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, so that they will be ashamed of their sins and measure the pattern.

what is the temple of God? Our body the living stones, and the whole temple the entire ecclesia (assembly), God does not dwell in temples made of human hands, adam is a type or pattern of Christ who was the tabernacle walking around
“and the word became flesh and tabernacled among us”

Eze
15“You were blameless in your ways
From the day you were created
Until unrighteousness was found in you.

John 8:44 You people are from your father the devil, and you want to do what your father desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies.

thats a start, I can post more later, gotta go now

#56

That’s OK. That was plenty for me to get the idea.

rhm, with all due respect, I’m afraid I have to distance myself from that method of hermeneutics. Seems to me, one could use biblical word associations that way to construct a thread between just about anything…

So, despite the fact that both you and I are rocks (you are redhotmagma and I am gem) and God is a rock, we are not God, nor are we the same. Nor are Adam and Lucifer IMO.

#57

word study is a foundation of biblical study. The purpose is to help us understand what a word means which we can’t fully understand with our very limited knowledge of biblical languages. There are translational errors, or lost in translation. Every translator is translating from a bias called their world view. So to check the accuracy of a translation, or to get a fuller understanding of what a word means, you check it in other context.

a topical study helps us to see a thread of thought throughout the entire bible, which is the full context of anything written in the bible. You will have a very difficult time trying to understand any doctrine fully without one. Try explaining UR to someone without a topical study, using scripture.

I have combined the two a topical and word study, those were examples, not the whole enchilada

You may not like my conclusions, fine, I don’t care. You can continue believing Eve had sex with a fallen angel.

Or even better, why don’t you tell me where I’m wrong, instead of making generalities, and distancing yourself from my hermaneutics, which as a side note hermaneutics = hermes/thoth the god of (carnal) wisdom + neutics (not sure what neutics is exactly but the hermes part is the point)

Blessings,
Jeremy

#58

I agree and love word study and have learned a tremendous amount from word study.

Here’s where we differ. I was trained that “context is king” and that the best (only good) way of preaching is exegetical preaching.

The reason I did not speak further is to avoid hurting your feelings which I have apparently done anyway.

The first woman ( I don’t refer to her as “Eve” because she was not named that until her husband dubbed her that post- forbidden -fruit-eating)

DID her partaking of the forbidden fruit upon the seduction of the serpent involve a sexual act???

** I don’t know,** but I think it is a possibility. And I think there are some details in the text which support the theory as I have stated above.

I’m not sure why some people find this so incredibly more offensive than the traditional view in which the perfect first woman is viewed as easily deceived (aka stupid and gullible) and responsible for the destruction of the race. I prefer the sexual theory. It’s more logical.

Here’s a kind of a parable by Liz Curtis Higgs which I think captures the seduction involved

#59

The sexual theory is, in my opinion, as disgusting as the doctrine of Eternal Damnation, and just as full of agenda as the Eternal Damnation doctrine.

I feel that it makes God look like a careless father figure who purposefully set the events in motion for his daughter to be defiled, and it makes Eve look like a prostitute. It also makes Adam out to be a homosexual - as he ate the serpent’s fruit too.

I feel that it doesn’t make any sense regarding the rest of the Genesis account, and it doesn’t make sense regarding the nature of sin, which basically pins every thing down to “Humans wanted to have sex” instead of “Humans wanted to become as gods; disobey, know good from evil, etc”. It makes marital sex look like Satan’s little invention, and it makes God’s gift of human sexuality, a Devil’s curse, it means that Satan had to have basically remade the human body as well. It practically makes Man into Satan’s creation, rather than God’s.

The Genesis account presents innocent Edenic human beings as being disobedient to God by eating a piece of fruit, not of mating with Satan.

It is a doctrine that I am convinced, could only have been invented by sexually repressed persons trying to hide a foul deed or foul intentions in their own hearts under the guise of theology. I say it is a doctrine invented to control, much like ETC.

The misuse of sex is grievous, and a Devil’s poison; but it is not the root of all evil. And God invented multiplication amongst the species (sex) - not Satan.

If the traditional view supposedly makes “Eve” look like a gullible idiot who doomed the race, the sexual theory makes her look like a gullible, idiotic harlot who doomed the race. I’d rather she had been perhaps a little ignorant than be an ignorant harlot.

#60

<edits made to the post above to seem less harsh, as that is not my intent even when being blunt>