What Was The Original Sin Adam & Eve Committed?

[grannymh]

I don’t know how many times I can try to explain myself. I have no issue understanding original sin, or God’s relationship to man.

Disobedience can literally mean anything. Any logical followup question to the statement “I disobeyed” would be “What did you do?” Obviously disobedience does not describe a specific action taken.

For a number of reasons, I do not have time to do a long post today.

I do want you to know that my intention, if I can complete it correctly, is to provide you with the available evidence regarding what the Catholic Church calls Original Sin. You will have the opportunity to examine this evidence at your leisure.

My goal is to use investigative journalism.

 

[spiderweb]

Thank you for your clarification and insight. My suggestion was not that the sin was not of pride and disobedience, but I’m merely pointing out the possibility that the Tree and the Fruit/Apple could be a metaphor for something else. Isn’t that at least possible? Based on my reasoning in the OP, I suggested that it could be sexual. I certainly am not fixated on that theory, and I know that the text does not suggest that it’s anything sexual. It’s merely just an idea.

But like I said, thank you for your insight.

It is extremely doubtful that it had anything to do with sexuality at all. They did not have the same disordered sexual desires that we do today demonstrated by their nakedness and were not ashamed.

If you are drawing this conclusion from the act that they covered themselves with fig leaves, than a similar parallel would be that all people at a nudist beach must not have any disordered sexual desires since they are not ashamed of their nakedness. It’s a faulty premise.

Even the actions of doing good things can be extremely sinful. Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for their seemingly good actions, but they were done out of pride. The intentions were the sins, not the actions themselves.

 

[Crusaderbear]

Could it be that the modern saying, “tasting the forbidden fruit” - which does have definite sexual overtones - is being projected onto the original biblical account?

 

[fhansen]

We know that the book of Genesis sometimes uses figurative language to describe real truths and real events. I have heard that many theologians hold that the actual original sin which Adam and Eve committed may not have been to literally eat an apple off a tree…

This sort of makes sense to me in a certain way: “Don’t eat the apple off this tree. Anything else? Go for it. But not this tree.” My response would probably be “Piece of cake!” --Especially with Adam’s heightened level of self-control. (I get there’s definitely more to it than that. I’m merely generalizing.)

So, many theologians believe that the actual sin was of a sexual nature. They also believe this is the reason sexual sins are so dangerous and easy to fall into. We can point the Blessed Mother’s words to children of Fatima that most people are in Hell because of sins of the flesh. It also sort of explains why virginity is held in such a high regard. Humans just have a certain weakness when it comes to their sexuality, so the ability to control it to the point of perpetual virginity is a great sign of self-mastery and love of God.

Does anyone have any ideas on this theory? I’d love to hear what people think.

Echoing others, the whole basic point of the creation and Fall narrative is that man needs God, relationship/communion with Him. When we don’t listen to and heed His voice, whether external or internal, in our consciences, man suffers; man dies the “death of the soul” as the Church terms it. There’s a vital connection between our having God’'s life in us and our having “life and life abundantly” (John 10:10), or having no real life at all, just the empty, temporary life inherited from our ancestors mentioned in 1 Pet 1:18.

Adam forfeited relationship with God, looking for something “more” that he feared might be withheld. We’re here now to regain the knowledge of God: that He exists, that He is good and trustworthy, that man needs Him desperately, that anything else can only be something less, something that distracts us from the awesome purpose He has for us. We’re here to learn, with the help of grace, how to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to learn at the same time why not doing so only brings pain and suffering. Then obedience flows, from it’s own accord, the right way. But He won’t force us to love or obey. Here’s St Basil on it:

**“If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.” **

 

[Tim_D]

Based on my reasoning in the OP, I suggested that it could be sexual… I know that the text does not suggest that it’s anything sexual. It’s merely just an idea.

Then that’s really a silly idea, isn’t it? You make the proposition that it was sexual, then state that you know that its not supported by the text, calling it “just an idea.”

I cannot comprehend why you refuse to acknowledge that the sin of Adam & Eve is the same as our own sins; a desire to be an entity unto ourselves without having to answer for it. That is what we mean by the term “presumption” linked to disobedience. Certainly the piece of fruit is used as a literary device but the motive is still the same. Sin is when we refuse God’s will and pursue our own. I cannot fathom why you are so intrigued with the idea that it may have been related to sex. Some would say that you wouldn’t have to be Sigmund Freud to figure that one out.

 

[Tim_D]

Disobedience can literally mean anything. Any logical followup question to the statement “I disobeyed” would be “What did you do?” Obviously disobedience does not describe a specific action taken.

OK, I’ll grant you that. Then let’s look at it this way:

*Adam & Eve were disobedient to the divine command of God by eating of the tree from which they had been forbidden to eat. *

Is there really more to it than that?

 

[Melissa]

I realize this is an exercise in speculation and there is no teaching what the sin was. I’m asking for opinions on what the sin specifically was.

Obviously it was a sin of disobedience… what sin isn’t? Obviously Adam and Eve chose themselves over God —that’s the nature of sin. None of these statements really go to the gist of my question.

But see, that’s the point–disobedience is the root of all sin. Therefore, the original sin is disobedience/choosing “my will” over God’s. Sure there’s many variations on how we do this, but the origin of sin is disobedience, everything else is just the clothing.

 

[fhansen]

But see, that’s the point–disobedience is the root of all sin. Therefore, the original sin is disobedience/choosing “my will” over God’s. Sure there’s many variations on how we do this, but the origin of sin is disobedience, everything else is just the clothing.

Right, if God needed us to know something more specific He certainly could’ve revealed it. But the main point is that God said, ‘Don’t do this’, and Adam did.

 

[YADA]

Adam was told to protect the Garden
Adam was present when Eve was approached by the serpent.
The serpent said “surely you will not die” …But die is repeated in the Hebrew die die …So “die the death” might be a better translation

Adam’s sin was he did not protect Eve and the Garden from the serpent and failed to trust the Lord God …He feared death (which is separation from God) and thus separated himself and his descendent from God. You can call it pride, disobedience and a host of other sins …It’s probably some of all …And Eve was complicit …

IMHO …So thankful our God is forgiving and welcoming and loving …

 

[Tim_D]

Adam was present when Eve was approached by the serpent.

Adam’s sin was he did not protect Eve and the Garden from the serpent and failed to trust the Lord God …He feared death (which is separation from God)

None of this is supported by the text. Where do you get it?

 

[YADA]

None of this is supported by the text. Where do you get it?

Well - actually the scriptures

The woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it

And the Church -

St Paul and the tradition of the Church tell us that original sin is the sin of Adam. Thus one has to look to the text and see where this original sin is …

Like the Levites - Adam was given charge of Eden with the words “abodah and shamar” see Genesis 2:15 … abodah and shamar translate to “service and Charge” …

The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it

the Levites were to protect the sanctuary and the altar with their very lives - likewise Adam with Eden … in this respect Adam is the first born but also priestly.
Genesis 3:6 implies that Adam was with Eve … she does not eat and then come to Adam - but he witnesses the entire exchange. I am not a Greek scholar but from what I understand - when the serpent addresses Eve the serpent uses a second person plural which indicates that both Eve and Adam are there …

The serpent is not just a mere small snake like creature … The Hebrew word “nahash”, implies something much more deadly than a little snake - the sea dragon in Isaiah, sea monsters in Job and Revelation tells us the red dragon is the “ancient serpent” called Satan and Devil.

Thus if we look at what is really happening - we see that Adam failed a test of his love - not only of his love for Eve and the Garden entrusted into his care, but also his love [and trust in] for God. God gave Adam the responsibility of guarding the garden sanctuary, the dwelling place of God and man. Adam failed in his primary duty. He didn’t protect the garden or his wife or himself.

Hebrews 2:14-15

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage.

Adam feared to die the death - not an immediate death = as in the forbidden fruit was poisonous - but a spiritual death … Jesus specifically tells us in Matthew 10:28

Jesus: “And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna”

Adam failed to understand the difference.

 

[Tim_D]

Well - actually the scriptures

And the Church -

St Paul and the tradition of the Church tell us that original sin is the sin of Adam. Thus one has to look to the text and see where this original sin is …

Like the Levites - Adam was given charge of Eden with the words “abodah and shamar” see Genesis 2:15 … abodah and shamar translate to “service and Charge” …

the Levites were to protect the sanctuary and the altar with their very lives - likewise Adam with Eden … in this respect Adam is the first born but also priestly.
Genesis 3:6 implies that Adam was with Eve … she does not eat and then come to Adam - but he witnesses the entire exchange. I am not a Greek scholar but from what I understand - when the serpent addresses Eve the serpent uses a second person plural which indicates that both Eve and Adam are there …

The serpent is not just a mere small snake like creature … The Hebrew word “nahash”, implies something much more deadly than a little snake - the sea dragon in Isaiah, sea monsters in Job and Revelation tells us the red dragon is the “ancient serpent” called Satan and Devil.

Thus if we look at what is really happening - we see that Adam failed a test of his love - not only of his love for Eve and the Garden entrusted into his care, but also his love [and trust in] for God. God gave Adam the responsibility of guarding the garden sanctuary, the dwelling place of God and man. Adam failed in his primary duty. He didn’t protect the garden or his wife or himself.

Hebrews 2:14-15

Adam feared to die the death - not an immediate death = as in the forbidden fruit was poisonous - but a spiritual death … Jesus specifically tells us in Matthew 10:28

Adam failed to understand the difference.

That is a lot of extrapolation.

 

[Tim_D]

Also, many translations use “gave to her husband” instead of “her husband who was with her.”

 

[YADA]

Also, many translations use “gave to her husband” instead of “her husband who was with her.”

Well - this is from the USCCB website
usccb.org/bible/genesis/3

6
The woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it

You can argue a different interpretation - and a different translation - what I have been told is the devil addresses Eve in the plural - which implies another - there is only Adam as another …

Some translations - at least - state that Adam is with her … and the Scriptures and Church tradition tell us that sin entered the world through Adam …

We are told that Husbands should love their wives - even laying down their lives - just as Jesus loved the Church.

You can call it a lot of extrapolation … but there is deep meaning in understanding the scriptures and salvation history …

Adam failed [even if he was not with Eve at the time] to protect the Garden and his wife from Satan. In opposition to a direct command to care for the Garden … that is where Adam failed … the action that illustrates that failure was eating the forbidden fruit.

Adam feared physical death and brought spiritual death upon himself and his descendants - through disobedience and that disobedience is far more than a mere piece of fruit IMHO

Happy Easter - He is Risen - Hallelujah

 

[grannymh]

Well - actually the scriptures

And the Church -

St Paul and the tradition of the Church tell us that original sin is the sin of Adam. Thus one has to look to the text and see where this original sin is …

Genesis: 1: 27-28, which is supported by Genesis 2: 15-17; Genesis 3: 5;
Genesis 3: 8; and Genesis 3: 11

 

[jimkhong]

OP here. God bless you. I appreciate your opinion

In my original post I was looking for something more specific than “disobedience” (all sins are disobedience). I also think it goes without saying that Original Sin is he action which shattered the relationship between Divinty and Humanity. But what was that particular “action”? That’s my question.

Many theologians posit that the sin was of a sexual nature. In particular, I heard this on an interview on CA Live recently. I get what original sin is and what happened.

IMO, it’s like going to confession and saying “Father, I sinned against God…” he’d be completely right to follow up with: "Alright, what did you do?

I think we should take care not to confuse the Original Sin with the act of sin.

The Original Sin is not an act committed by Adam & Eve. While they did commit a sin of disobedience, that is not the Original Sin transmitted to all of us. To say that would be to hold us guilty of a sin of an ancestor.
Catechism no 404:

How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. and that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

Catholic teaching is that the Original Sin is rather a state that is transmitted (i.e., contracted), not an act that inherited (i.,e consequence of a committed act). That state is one of a fallen nature, pushing us away from communion with God.
Catechism no 400:

The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history

The redemption of Jesus’ death, washing away the Original Sin, liberates us from that fallen state of being out of communion with God and brings us back our original state of communion with God and his creation. The redemptive cleansing of the Original Sin is not a forgiveness of the act committed by Adam & Eve.