Thanks, no.
How? Why? Genealogy isn’t a perfect fit, since genealogy transfers nothing. Genetics would be an explanation. Culture would be an explanation. Both have their problems. Genealogy is meaningless.
1 Like
Some Christians do.
“Does this mean we have original sin built into our genetic makeup? I’d suggest that since the time of Adam’s fall, it has been.”
Or through epigenes.
“However, in view of the developing science of epigenetics, it is possible that while sin is not inherited through the genes, nonetheless, it may be passed on through the epigenes.”
Google these 2 words:
Bible & Birthright
If it made any sense, we wouldn’t need the Bible.
All I find is stuff about Jacob and Esau. If you have a pot of message, please trot it out rather than tossing me coy hints.
If you made any sense, that would make for a better conversation. So very tired of this.
Wow. I suppose you are right. This is truly a minority position. I’ve yet to meet a scholar from any camp that thinks this. I suppose anything is possible on the internet.
I’d say it’s definitely a minority position, since most commonly original sin has been considered some kind of stain on the soul, or something similarly weird. But it’s marginal in the same way that YEC is marginal, since it’s held by some prominent groups and individuals. Norman Geisler and John Ankerberg aren’t exactly nobodies.
Leave it to @Jonathan_Burke to find the outliers exception that proves the rule 
.
In all seriousness, thank you for pointing out Henry Kendall. That ended up adding a lot to the book.
1 Like
You’re welcome. I think the continuity of your argument with Kendall’s findings will help those who feel uncomfortable with the idea of GAE as a modern apologetic dodge. Kendall’s work shows that the concept arose over 100 years ago completely outside the realm of Christian apologetics; Kendall’s thought experiment had nothing to do with evolution, rather he was concerned with the social implications.
1 Like
Scholars are also a distinct minority of Christians.
3 Likes
What baffles me is how can most Christians believe original sin is some kind of stain on the soul when most Christians believe that God creates every soul anew. You can reconcile original sin and traducianism, but I don’t see how it is to be reconciled with soul creationism, or pre-existence of the soul.
2 Likes
I guess they mash them up one way or another; my denomination doesn’t believe in original sin or the immortal soul. This is the trouble with doctrinal accretion, you end up with an increasingly large number of variously compatible beliefs which you then try to reconcile into a unified whole (which is what systematic theology is about). The earliest Christians didn’t have this problem, because they didn’t hold these beliefs.
2 Likes
Responding to a query about one unfathomable aspect of your beliefs by demanding an explanation for another equally unfathomable aspect only makes your beliefs look even more unsupportable.
1 Like
If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, you can read a few pages on the topic of how sin stains the soul, written by the patron saint of Peaceful Science, Thomas Aquinas. He has some real clangers.
" It was said to Solomon (Sirach 47:22): “Thou hast stained thy glory”: and it is written (Ephesians 5:27): “That He might present it to Himself a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle”: and in each case it is question of the stain of sin. Therefore a stain is the effect of sin."
“The stain of sin remains in the soul even when the act of sin is past. The reason for this is that the stain, as stated above (Article 1), denotes a blemish in the brightness of the soul, on account of its withdrawing from the light of reason or of the Divine law. And therefore so long as man remains out of this light, the stain of sin remains in him: but as soon as, moved by grace, he returns to the Divine light and to the light of reason, the stain is removed. For although the act of sin ceases, whereby man withdrew from the light of reason and of the Divine law, man does not at once return to the state in which he was before, and it is necessary that his will should have a movement contrary to the previous movement. Thus if one man be parted from another on account of some kind of movement, he is not reunited to him as soon as the movement ceases, but he needs to draw nigh to him and to return by a contrary movement.”
In a different Biblical story, one son disguises himself as the other sin and asks the blind father for the birthright. The father thinks he has given the birthright to the correct son.
But when the correct son finds out, the narrator doesnt offer any hope for correction: the father’s birthright went to the deceiver… seemingly because of the physical contact the deceiver made to get it.
If it was genetics, the correct son could NOT have been cheated. OR, if it was based names alone, the correct son also could NOT have been cheated.
No. Whatever the birthright is… not only did the incorrect son get it, the error could not be “taken back” or revised.
This is quite an odd transaction! Original Sin is a related but similarly odd transaction: it cannot be revised or taken back until the End of Days.
Your insistence that I be the explainer to you of all the strange stuff in the Bible is paradoxical: you think I “should have” the ability to make it clear to you, even though I dont hold many if these things to be historically correct or even sensible.
Every time you get angry with me or disappointed, I revisit the idea that your expectations are unreasonable and misplaced.
What is this “different Biblical story” if it isn’t Jacob and Esau?
How do you know it’s related? How do you know it can’t be revised, etc.? And how (the real question, which you ignore) is it transmitted?
There is no such insistence, only a question about original sin. If you can’t answer the question, just say so. That’s a completely acceptable response. Otherwise it appears as if you are making a claim to esoteric, incommunicable knowledge.
1 Like
Ask a Trinitarian Christian. Discussions with you are too much like rugby, played without a mouthguard.
Not following here. Why must you be so excruciating?
2 Likes
Because I don’t feel like you are asking me questions out of curiosity … I feel like you are walking me to an executioner.
To clarify my earlier posting, I got “birthright” confused with “blessing”. Jacob had already purchased this birthright… but then he used DECEPTION to acquire his father’s blessing. According to the story, the blessing could not be revoked… similar to Original Sin issued by God to Adam.
Gen 27:12-37
My father peradventure will feel me, and I shall seem to him as a deceiver; and I shall bring a curse upon me, and not a blessing.
And his mother said unto him, Upon me be thy curse, my son: only obey my voice, and go fetch me them. And he went, and fetched, and brought them to his mother: and his mother made savoury meat, such as his father loved.
And Rebekah took goodly raiment of her eldest son Esau, which were with her in the house, and put them upon Jacob her younger son: And she put the skins of the kids of the goats upon his hands, and upon the smooth of his neck: And she gave the savoury meat and the bread, which she had prepared, into the hand of her son Jacob.
And he came unto his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I; who art thou, my son?
And Jacob said unto his father, I am Esau thy firstborn; I have done according as thou badest me: arise, I pray thee, sit and eat of my venison, that thy soul may bless me.
And Isaac said unto his son, How is it that thou hast found it so quickly, my son? And he said, Because the LORD thy God brought it to me. And Isaac said unto Jacob, Come near, I pray thee, that I may feel thee, my son, whether thou be my very son Esau or not.
And Jacob went near unto Isaac his father; and he felt him, and said, The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau. And he discerned him not, because his hands were hairy, as his brother Esau’s hands: so he blessed him.
And he said, Art thou my very son Esau? And he said, I am. And he said, Bring it near to me, and I will eat of my son’s venison, that my soul may bless thee. And he brought it near to him, and he did eat: and he brought him wine, and he drank.
And his father Isaac said unto him, Come near now, and kiss me, my son. And he came near, and kissed him: and he smelled the smell of his raiment, and blessed him, and said, See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which the LORD hath blessed:
Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine:
Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.
And it came to pass, as soon as Isaac had made an end of blessing Jacob, and Jacob was yet scarce gone out from the presence of Isaac his father, that Esau his brother came in from his hunting.
And he also had made savoury meat, and brought it unto his father, and said unto his father, Let my father arise, and eat of his son’s venison, that thy soul may bless me.
And Isaac his father said unto him, Who art thou? And he said, I am thy son, thy firstborn Esau. And Isaac trembled very exceedingly, and said, Who? where is he that hath taken venison, and brought it me, and I have eaten of all before thou camest, and have blessed him? yea, and he shall be blessed.
And when Esau heard the words of his father, he cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry, and said unto his father, Bless me, even me also, O my father. And he said, Thy brother came with subtilty, and hath taken away thy blessing.
And he said, Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing. And he said, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?
And Isaac answered and said unto Esau, Behold, I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants; and with corn and wine have I sustained him: and what shall I do now unto thee, my son? And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father? bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept.
[END OF EXCERPT]
Why the extensive quote? Why should either birthright or blessing be considered analogous to original sin? And wasn’t that an extremely silly story?
John,
I have no idea how to answer your questions. I don’t think you are asking the RIGHT questions.
A better question to ask is:
"Do I think it was intentional to put Isaac in a situation where once the blessing was given, he couldn’t retract or amend it - - much like when God cursed humanity for eating the fruit, He was/is unable to reverse the curse?"
My answer would be "Yes, I think it was intentional."