An Original-Sin conundrum

[christosdavid]

That was thorough. And I’m thoroughly impressed. You appear to have studied this stuff.

When I was a kid and did wrong, if my father caught me he would give me a lecture. By the time it was done, I’d forgotten exactly what I did wrong, so probably went out and did it again to get clear on the matter.

But when my mother caught me, she just told me to wait until my father got home. When he did, she told him to give me a few whacks. He wanted dinner and a generally peaceable evening after a hard day’s work, so of course he took me in the basement. But by then I’d forgotten what I was being spanked for.

Here I am again, in the basement. Except for hearsay and occasional exposure to unexpected information, I know about as much about ancient biblical history as you probably do about physics, so I’m not clear on what I wrote that was incorrect.

I did figure out from your comments that based upon timing considerations, Plato could not have been the source of the paired creation stories in Genesis. That was a guess, apparently not a good one. Anything else? Please do not be subtle or indirect— just correct and teach me.

If you don’t quote or reference Julius Wellhausen as if I should have the slightest idea who he is, I promise not to reference either Louis de Broglie or my neighborhood bartender, Elmer Blivet, as if you ought to know their opinions on anything at all.

Thanks!

P.S. My book isn’t about biblical history. That would be folly. It is simply the description of a theory which integrates theology and physics.

I’m going to check it tomorrow and remove any references I may have been ignorant enough to make about biblical history.

lol! you aren’t in trouble. But clearly you need to do more research than a couple of guys brought the genesis account back from Babylon, which wasn’t particularly influenced by greece.

Sorry, Wellhausen (19th C) was the inital scholar who proposed that there were different sources for the Biblical Material of the OT (J = Jahwist; E= Elohist; D= Deuteronomist; and P= Priestly sources of material which are all now included in the canon).

The reason I used his name (hopefully not in vain) was to demonstrate that there are critical scholars who follow him and developed his theories (Martin Noth c.1945) that cannot allow such an **ahistoric **understanding of how and where Israel wrote and redacted the material which it possessed by Alexander’s time which can be viewed in the translation of the OT into Greek in Alexandria (the LXX = Septuagint because it was translated by 72 Jewish elders at Ptolemy’s direction).

my hope in this post is simply to inform you that there is widely known things about the bible and its formation. At least by scholars. You ought to take these into account or else critical readers of your book in seeing that you dont have substance in these claims will ignore other sections of your work where you may well have more merit.



PS. An easy reference may help. A critical/historical book (written by a Protestant but Im sure you dont mind) is George W. Ramsey, The Quest for the Historical Israel; Reconstructing Israel’s Early History, Atlanta, JohnKnox Press, 1981.

 

[razredge]

If creation isn’t inherently good, than I’d suggest there really can’t be any good-and therefore no evil (moral or otherwise) to contrast it with.

Firstly, who says creation isn’t inherently good? Or by good do you actually mean ‘perfect’?

Regardless, it is a false dichtomy - God may well grant us the ability to perceive ‘the good’ independently of how good or evil the world may be

 

[fhansen]

Firstly, who says creation isn’t inherently good? Or by good do you actually mean ‘perfect’?

Regardless, it is a false dichtomy - God may well grant us the ability to perceive ‘the good’ independently of how good or evil the world may be

In the story of the fall, I’d suggest the players were in the midst of good primarily because sin (opposition to the will of God) had not yet entered their world. After it did, they were to come, literally, to know good and evil as their world had changed-they now expereinced the absence of God (perfect goodness) in a manner they hadn’t before.

In any case, you seemed to be relating my term “good creation” to “young earth creationism”?

 

[razredge]

In any case, you seemed to be relating my term “good creation” to “young earth creationism”?

No, I am not equating anything with anything; all my posts hold true for belief in evolution/ID and an old earth along with literal belief in the Adam & Eve story.

In the story of the fall, I’d suggest the players were in the midst of good primarily because sin (opposition to the will of God) had not yet entered their world. After it did, they were to come, literally, to know good and evil as their world had changed-they now expereinced the absence of God (perfect goodness) in a manner they hadn’t before.

Yes, that would makes sense with regards to their apprehension of moral evil, but not for natural evil as death and suffering existed long before Adam & Eve existed

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

No, I am not equating anything with anything; all my posts hold true for belief in evolution/ID and an old earth along with literal belief in the Adam & Eve story.

Yes, that would makes sense with regards to their apprehension of moral evil, but not for natural evil as death and suffering existed long before Adam & Eve existed

…

 

[fhansen]

No, I am not equating anything with anything; all my posts hold true for belief in evolution/ID and an old earth along with literal belief in the Adam & Eve story.

OK, does that allow for the Church’s literal interpretation of the same story which includes the notion that Adam & Eve were destined for physical immortality and could’ve achieved this end had they not sinned?

 

[razredge]

OK, does that allow for the Church’s literal interpretation of the same story which includes the notion that Adam & Eve were destined for physical immortality and could’ve achieved this end had they not sinned?

Sorry, I should’ve phrased my last post differently -“my posts deal with those who hold to belief in evolution/ID and an old earth along with a literal, historical interpretation of the Adam & Eve story.”
I do not hold that view myself due to the many problems with it.

 

[greylorn]

lol! you aren’t in trouble. But clearly you need to do more research than a couple of guys brought the genesis account back from Babylon, which wasn’t particularly influenced by greece.

Sorry, Wellhausen (19th C) was the inital scholar who proposed that there were different sources for the Biblical Material of the OT (J = Jahwist; E= Elohist; D= Deuteronomist; and P= Priestly sources of material which are all now included in the canon).

The reason I used his name (hopefully not in vain) was to demonstrate that there are critical scholars who follow him and developed his theories (Martin Noth c.1945) that cannot allow such an **ahistoric **understanding of how and where Israel wrote and redacted the material which it possessed by Alexander’s time which can be viewed in the translation of the OT into Greek in Alexandria (the LXX = Septuagint because it was translated by 72 Jewish elders at Ptolemy’s direction).

my hope in this post is simply to inform you that there is widely known things about the bible and its formation. At least by scholars. You ought to take these into account or else critical readers of your book in seeing that you dont have substance in these claims will ignore other sections of your work where you may well have more merit.



PS. An easy reference may help. A critical/historical book (written by a Protestant but Im sure you dont mind) is George W. Ramsey, The Quest for the Historical Israel; Reconstructing Israel’s Early History, Atlanta, JohnKnox Press, 1981.

Thanks for the elucidation. I don’t expect to be reading the book you referenced anytime soon, because my primary interest is in the causes of creation and the origin/nature of consciousness. Biblical stuff comes up now and then because of the conflicts between doctrinal science and religion on such issues.

Nonetheless, I do have a serious source for the comment you objected to. About five years ago I had a Catholic ladyfriend, very devout lady. My ideas got her interested in learning her religion more deeply. Since I agreed to participate, she signed us both up for a weekly class in O.T. Bible History, given at her Church by a retired priest and scholar whose name I only recall as Father Charlie. He was the one from whom I learned that, (repeating for clarity), the pair of separate creation tales in Genesis were each written by separate Jewish writers, one living in the north of Babylon during the captivity, the other living in the south. They picked up their separate versions in Babylon, with regional variations, and upon their return got them added to the Hebrew bible. They were placed at the beginning to satisfy chronological order, rather than historical order.

Some Catholics in the class objected to this claim, so Fr. Charlie pointed out the verses in Genesis where the 2nd writer stepped in, and later out, pointing out the stylistic differences between the two that were obvious to any scholar, which remain through many translations.

He also read from his reference book, a thick tome written by a serious expert in these things. (F. Charlie did take these things seriously.) The book mentioned that the original Genesis tale had appeared in Greece earlier, and suggested that the Babylonians had gotten them from this source because of various elements of similarity, which he listed.

I took down the book title with anticipation of buying one for myself, but my enthusiasm for doing that went away when I saw its price tag. Somewhere in my files I have this information (I knew you’d ask), but retrieving it will require that I resurrect the computer I was using at the time, which is not high on my project list right now. I could call the ex-ladyfriend and get Fr. Charlie’s phone number, or I could call the Church, but that seems a lot of bother for information which, as best I can tell, will not make any difference to anyone.

I don’t generally use hearsay information without labeling it accordingly, but this reference seemed credible to me. There appears to be a lot of dissent in all areas of human history, the natural consequence of man’s tendency to make things up, so I’m not surprised that different experts have different opinions.

Incidentally, the book title you referenced did not strike any previously fired neurons in my brain, so was not the book F. Charlie referenced. Whatever it is, I expect that you’ve heard of it. Sorry that I cannot provide more specific information. However, if you would want to research that book, I will look for the title when I resurrect that old computer (there is other information in it that I want). If you really, really want the title, I can call the church and see if Fr. Charlie remains accessible. (Please say that it’s not all that important.)

I appreciate your concern that I don’t put off readers of my book, but don’t think that this will be a problem. Its theme is an alternative theory of every fundamental idea about the beginning, which operates from the premise that all existing theories are incorrect. It will inevitably ruffle some feathers. I expect everyone who has adopted a belief system, whether atheist or religious, to object to just about everything it proposes, so a non-standard version of Biblical history will be lost amid more vociferous complaints.

I don’t expect to find any other biblical references in my manuscript, but if I do during final review, I will PM a copy to you for review if you are willing. I value expertise.

Speaking of which, a friend who fancies himself to be a serious student of Egyptian history claimed that at the time of the Exodus, the Jews had no written language. Any info on that?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Other than the bible, there is no record of exodus.

 

[greylorn]

Other than the bible, there is no record of exodus.

One of the cable documentary channels (History?) has run a piece on the Exodus which showed some excellent and fascinating evidence. I do not recall the name of the piece.

Another piece did a credible job of describing the seven plagues which triggered the exodus.

However, they did not show any evidence from within Egypt that the Jews were ever there. This suggests to me the possibility that the Jews escaped from some other place or kingdom. Can’t imagine where or what it might have been though.

 

[greylorn]

Other than the bible, there is no record of exodus.

One of the cable documentary channels (History?) has run a piece on the Exodus which showed some excellent and fascinating evidence. I do not recall the name of the piece.

Another piece did a credible job of describing the seven plagues which triggered the exodus.

However, they did not show any evidence from within Egypt that the Jews were ever there. This suggests to me the possibility that the Jews escaped from some other place or kingdom. Can’t imagine where or what it might have been though.

 

[greylorn]

…clearly you need to do more research than a couple of guys brought the genesis account back from Babylon, which wasn’t particularly influenced by greece.

Our exchange was such fun that it distracted me from a question I had meant to ask which will be right at the top of your knowledge—

Is it correct to state that Augustine codified the Original Sin concept?

Thanks!

 

[razredge]

Our exchange was such fun that it distracted me from a question I had meant to ask which will be right at the top of your knowledge—

Is it correct to state that Augustine codified the Original Sin concept?

Thanks!

Yes, though it was first developed by Paul. However the Church didn’t accept all of St Augustine’s views on Original Sin so the doctrine as formulated by him has changed somewhat over the centuries.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Yes, though it was first developed by Paul. However the Church didn’t accept all of St Augustine’s views on Original Sin so the doctrine as formulated by him has changed somewhat over the centuries.

Paul should have never been in a place to develop anything. But, if that is what God wants, so be it. Just don’t expect me to drink the kool aid.

 

[razredge]

Paul should have never been in a place to develop anything. But, if that is what God wants, so be it. Just don’t expect me to drink the kool aid.

Well, that was him trying to make sense of the purpose of Jesus’ life & death, so you can’t really blame him (especially as he didn’t have modern science to tell him that the Creation account is not literal)

 

[buffalo]

Other than the bible, there is no record of exodus.

One has to look in the right place:


Jebel el Lawz

 

[benedictus2]

What was Christ’s real purpose in showing up on planet earth?

It cannot be to absolve mankind of “original sin.” because that concept was not invented until centuries after Christ’s death, by Augustine.

The Jews to whom Christ preached had no concept of original sin. In fact, the Genesis tale which laid its foundation only became part of Jewish lore after it was introduced by two separate scribes returning from the Babylonian captivity, where they picked up separate versions of the Genesis tale from the Babylonians, who’d gotten them from some Greeks. The Captivity ended only a few centuries B.C.

It makes little sense, to me anyway, that Christ’s purpose was to absolve mankind of a pseudo-sin which no human had never heard of. By my reading, the three useful N.T. books make no mention of original sin. What was Christ’s purpose, really?

So because the term original sin was coined only by St Augustine therefore there was no original sin?

Let me ask, because primitive people had no concept of the other galaxies and the big bang therefore there are no other galaxies and the big bang must not be true?

I think you need to re-think your position or at least re-phrase it because it is simply nonsensical.

 

[fred_conty]

What was Christ’s real purpose in showing up on planet earth?

It cannot be to absolve mankind of “original sin.” because that concept was not invented until centuries after Christ’s death, by Augustine.

The Jews to whom Christ preached had no concept of original sin. In fact, the Genesis tale which laid its foundation only became part of Jewish lore after it was introduced by two separate scribes returning from the Babylonian captivity, where they picked up separate versions of the Genesis tale from the Babylonians, who’d gotten them from some Greeks. The Captivity ended only a few centuries B.C.

It makes little sense, to me anyway, that Christ’s purpose was to absolve mankind of a pseudo-sin which no human had never heard of. By my reading, the three useful N.T. books make no mention of original sin. What was Christ’s purpose, really?

Read a couple of pages here will help to answer your questions.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Adam