The doctrine of the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden is central to Christianity. Without it, Christians cannot convince people whose moral standards are high that they need Jesus. With it, they consign all humanity to eternity n hell as just punishment for a sin they didn't commit.. Below, we will look at this doctrine in a Bible study you will never hear in Sunday school.
Background
According to the Bible, the first man Adam was supposed to have disobeyed God by eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and now all of humanity deserves to pay for this man's sin with eternal damnation in hell.
Problem with the Fall of Man Story
The story of the Fall of Man is central to Christianity. Without it, the Church could not convince indigenous people that they need Jesus to save them from sin. Beginning with Paul, missionaries often encounter people whose moral code is obviously superior to that of many Christians. The idea that all humans somehow inherited a sin nature from Adam and therefore deserve hell was a masterful stroke. Many Christians are convinced that there is unquestionable justice in the idea that all of mankind should pay hellfire for the crime of being born. Yet, there are not one, but two fundamental problems inherent to the whole idea of the Fall of Man: 1. Adam had no way to know that what he was doing was wrong, 2. Paul is the only biblical writer who holds all humanity accountable for Adam’s sin.
Did God Set Adam Up?
Let’s visit Adam in the Garden of Eden. Jehovah creates this guy but does not give him the faculty to know good and evil. It doesn’t even say that Adam did not know how to distinguish good from evil. He simply had no concept that some things were good and some evil. Jehovah puts that knowledge in the fruit of a tree, then tells the man not to eat the fruit. Adam had no way to know that it was evil to disobey God. In fact, he obeyed everybody. Like a child, Adam did what God told him to do until somebody else came along and told him to do something else. There was no wrestling with his conscience—no acting against his better judgment. He had none.
Eve tells the serpent, “That‘s the forbidden fruit, which if we eat we die.” Apparently, it occurred to her that dying was perhaps something she did not want to do. But nothing had ever died in her world, so she had no real concept of death; otherwise, she would not have thought the fruit was useful for food and wisdom. If someone gave you a plate of carrots and told you it was poison, would you eat it? Would you say, “Well, poison or not, it’s still full of vitamins?” Only if you‘re a baby who doesn‘t really know what poison is.
Toddlers often don’t do what we tell them to do. They have to learn that obedience will keep them out of trouble and disobedience will land them into trouble. No parent would put a child in the electric chair the first time it disobeys. No one would treat their dog that way, much less a child. Yet, that’s all Adam was, a child with no life experience. He could have been taught. Life’s experiences could have developed his conscience. Instead, God issues the ultimate punishment
the first time Adam disobeys.
Adam's Punishment was Not Eternal
According to the Church, the ultimate payment for Adam’s sin is eternal damnation in hell. If that were the case, this ultimate punishment was not for Adam himself, for none of the punishments outlined for Adam in Genesis chapter 3 were eternal or spiritual. According to the Bible, Adam's punishment had a time limit "Until thou returnest to the ground." (Genesis 3:19). There's no wriggle room here for a spiritual interpretation of ground for it goes on to say "…for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return." The spirit doesn't return to the ground. The body does, so Adam's punishment was confined to his physical existence. Yet, according to the Church, the punishment levied on his descendants is spiritual depravity and eternal damnation. Where is the justice in this?
Paul Stands Alone
I did a search of every instance of the word "Adam" from Genesis to the Book of Acts, I could not find one reference linking us to Adam’s sin. Something so cataclysmic that it affects the entire human race, and yet, not one biblical writer thought it worth writing about? How odd. Actually, the whole concept could be called “Paulianity.” After all, he calls it his gospel (2 Timothy 2:8). Indeed, the concept of inherited sin is his gospel and does not exist anywhere else in the Bible outside his writings. The concept is not in the Old Testament. Moses decrees that “the fathers shall not be put to death for the sins of the sons, nor shall the sons be put to death for the sins of the fathers, but every man shall be put to death for his own sins.” (Deuteronomy 24:16) Obviously, Paul was not present when Jesus stood in the temple with the Old Testament scriptures and said that not one jot of it would be changed ‘til heaven and Earth pass away. (Matthew 5:18). Neither can I find the concept in any of the Gospels or the non-Pauline letters of the New Testament.
Yes, but what about the verse that says God visits the sins of the fathers on the sons to the third or fourth generation? (Numbers 14:18). What about it? You've just pointed to a scripture that contradicts what we just read in Deuteronomy. Thanks. To the third or fourth generation still doesn't establish an eternal inheritance of Adam's so-called sin nature to all humanity.
Preachers tell us we can’t pick and choose what we want to believe in the Bible. With this kind of contradiction, we have no other alternative. How does one agree with a book that does not agree with itself? How can Christians tell me that God never changes, and then when I see discrepancies in the Bible, they tell me that God did change? They tell us we are in a different dispensation now. Change by any other name…. So under the dispensation of law, I only had to worry about paying for my own sin, but under the dispensation of grace, I suddenly need a savior to save me from someone else’s sin, which I would not be held accountable for if Paul weren’t trying to convince indigenous people they need a savior when their moral standards are higher than Paul's folks. This makes no sense.
Background
According to the Bible, the first man Adam was supposed to have disobeyed God by eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and now all of humanity deserves to pay for this man's sin with eternal damnation in hell.
Problem with the Fall of Man Story
The story of the Fall of Man is central to Christianity. Without it, the Church could not convince indigenous people that they need Jesus to save them from sin. Beginning with Paul, missionaries often encounter people whose moral code is obviously superior to that of many Christians. The idea that all humans somehow inherited a sin nature from Adam and therefore deserve hell was a masterful stroke. Many Christians are convinced that there is unquestionable justice in the idea that all of mankind should pay hellfire for the crime of being born. Yet, there are not one, but two fundamental problems inherent to the whole idea of the Fall of Man: 1. Adam had no way to know that what he was doing was wrong, 2. Paul is the only biblical writer who holds all humanity accountable for Adam’s sin.
Did God Set Adam Up?
Let’s visit Adam in the Garden of Eden. Jehovah creates this guy but does not give him the faculty to know good and evil. It doesn’t even say that Adam did not know how to distinguish good from evil. He simply had no concept that some things were good and some evil. Jehovah puts that knowledge in the fruit of a tree, then tells the man not to eat the fruit. Adam had no way to know that it was evil to disobey God. In fact, he obeyed everybody. Like a child, Adam did what God told him to do until somebody else came along and told him to do something else. There was no wrestling with his conscience—no acting against his better judgment. He had none.
Eve tells the serpent, “That‘s the forbidden fruit, which if we eat we die.” Apparently, it occurred to her that dying was perhaps something she did not want to do. But nothing had ever died in her world, so she had no real concept of death; otherwise, she would not have thought the fruit was useful for food and wisdom. If someone gave you a plate of carrots and told you it was poison, would you eat it? Would you say, “Well, poison or not, it’s still full of vitamins?” Only if you‘re a baby who doesn‘t really know what poison is.
Toddlers often don’t do what we tell them to do. They have to learn that obedience will keep them out of trouble and disobedience will land them into trouble. No parent would put a child in the electric chair the first time it disobeys. No one would treat their dog that way, much less a child. Yet, that’s all Adam was, a child with no life experience. He could have been taught. Life’s experiences could have developed his conscience. Instead, God issues the ultimate punishment
the first time Adam disobeys.
Adam's Punishment was Not Eternal
According to the Church, the ultimate payment for Adam’s sin is eternal damnation in hell. If that were the case, this ultimate punishment was not for Adam himself, for none of the punishments outlined for Adam in Genesis chapter 3 were eternal or spiritual. According to the Bible, Adam's punishment had a time limit "Until thou returnest to the ground." (Genesis 3:19). There's no wriggle room here for a spiritual interpretation of ground for it goes on to say "…for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return." The spirit doesn't return to the ground. The body does, so Adam's punishment was confined to his physical existence. Yet, according to the Church, the punishment levied on his descendants is spiritual depravity and eternal damnation. Where is the justice in this?
Paul Stands Alone
I did a search of every instance of the word "Adam" from Genesis to the Book of Acts, I could not find one reference linking us to Adam’s sin. Something so cataclysmic that it affects the entire human race, and yet, not one biblical writer thought it worth writing about? How odd. Actually, the whole concept could be called “Paulianity.” After all, he calls it his gospel (2 Timothy 2:8). Indeed, the concept of inherited sin is his gospel and does not exist anywhere else in the Bible outside his writings. The concept is not in the Old Testament. Moses decrees that “the fathers shall not be put to death for the sins of the sons, nor shall the sons be put to death for the sins of the fathers, but every man shall be put to death for his own sins.” (Deuteronomy 24:16) Obviously, Paul was not present when Jesus stood in the temple with the Old Testament scriptures and said that not one jot of it would be changed ‘til heaven and Earth pass away. (Matthew 5:18). Neither can I find the concept in any of the Gospels or the non-Pauline letters of the New Testament.
Yes, but what about the verse that says God visits the sins of the fathers on the sons to the third or fourth generation? (Numbers 14:18). What about it? You've just pointed to a scripture that contradicts what we just read in Deuteronomy. Thanks. To the third or fourth generation still doesn't establish an eternal inheritance of Adam's so-called sin nature to all humanity.
Preachers tell us we can’t pick and choose what we want to believe in the Bible. With this kind of contradiction, we have no other alternative. How does one agree with a book that does not agree with itself? How can Christians tell me that God never changes, and then when I see discrepancies in the Bible, they tell me that God did change? They tell us we are in a different dispensation now. Change by any other name…. So under the dispensation of law, I only had to worry about paying for my own sin, but under the dispensation of grace, I suddenly need a savior to save me from someone else’s sin, which I would not be held accountable for if Paul weren’t trying to convince indigenous people they need a savior when their moral standards are higher than Paul's folks. This makes no sense.
The god who allows children to be raped out of respect for the free will choice of the rapist, but punishes gay men for engaging in mutually consensual sex couldn't possibly be responsible for an intelligently designed universe.
I may defend your right to free speech, but i won't help you pass out flyers.
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.
--Voltaire
Nietzsche isn't dead. How do I know he lives? He lives in my mind.
I may defend your right to free speech, but i won't help you pass out flyers.
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.
--Voltaire
Nietzsche isn't dead. How do I know he lives? He lives in my mind.
![[Image: dcep7c.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i46.tinypic.com%2Fdcep7c.jpg)
