Was Adam sinless before the Fall?

[Singalphile]

morbo3000,

Yes, I like to look at things fresh without reading our traditional (or non-traditional) theological concepts into it. I also don't take a very strong stance regarding history or myth. I default towards history or a symbolic, stylized retelling, though.

So, from a literary sense, "sin" is missing from Genesis because Adam does not go from a sinless state to a sinful state. He goes from a "don't do this" state to a "he did this" state. Everything else we have is reading theological language back into the story. And this is true whether or not the story is historical or myth.

The account does state that man (Adam and Eve) went from not having the-knowledge-of-good-and-evil to having the-knowledge-of-good and-evil. That is a pretty strong theme, I think, and I think it argues against the idea that Adam and Eve had perhaps already been sinners before this particular sin, as if this sin was the straw that broke the camels back. (By "sin", I mean an immoral or disobedient action.)

Have a good day all! I'm going to start it by being late to work.

[steve7150]

and I think it argues against the idea that Adam and Eve had perhaps already been sinners before this particular sin,










I think it goes against them being responsible for sin rather then being sinless. Eve actually lied about saying God told her not to touch the tree or Adam lied to her about God's instructions. Also Eve's reaction toward the tree was lustfulness which according to Jesus was sin.

[robbyyoung]

Eve actually lied about saying God told her not to touch the tree or Adam lied to her about God's instructions.

Hi steve7150,

Yes, this is possible, however, what also is possible is not having the full account or narrative on God's instructions in Gen 2:17. It's not until Gen 3:3 we get more information concerning the matter, if this is a viable possibility. I think it has merit because this sort of thing happens throughout the bible. For example; something that comes to mind in the NT notes, if it wasn't for the gospel of Matthew, Mark & Luke, we would have never heard of the mount of transfiguration, if we solely relied upon John's gospel.

God Bless.

[darinhouston]

Darin,

That's weird. You just said what I was going to say before I could say it.

Ha!. Then I must be on solid ground.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Singalphile]

The account does state that man (Adam and Eve) went from not having the-knowledge-of-good-and-evil to having the-knowledge-of-good and-evil. That is a pretty strong theme, I think, and I think it argues against the idea that Adam and Eve had perhaps already been sinners before this particular sin ....

I think it goes against them being responsible for sin rather then being sinless.

Perhaps. That phrase - "knowing good and evil" - is a bit difficult. From reading around a little, I think it must not have been a necessarily bad thing.

Eve actually lied about saying God told her not to touch the tree or Adam lied to her about God's instructions. Also Eve's reaction toward the tree was lustfulness which according to Jesus was sin.

I think those are debatable points. But either way, that's all a part of the short Genesis 3 story, "the fall", if you will. The question, I think, is whether they had sinned before Genesis 3. It still doesn't seem to me that the story - literal or metaphorical or somewhere in between - leaves much room for that, but ....

[morbo3000]

Dizerner: I think you have a very low view of inspiration that may be coloring your perspective.

That's neither here nor there. Genesis either says something or it doesn't. If anything a lower view would help get at the text because it wouldn't be as prone to reading later developments into it.

Singalphile: From reading around a little, I think it must not have been a necessarily bad thing.

Me too. When I posted, I was going out on a limb with no prior research except my sparse familiarity with Canannite origin myths. Afterwards, I started reading some Jewish authors, and some make many of the same points. In Richard Elliot Friedman's commentary on the Torah, he writes:

2:9 "tree of knowledge of good and bad. Not good and "evil" as this is usually understood and translated. "Evil" suggests that this is strictly moral knowledge. But the Hebrew word has a much wider range of meaning than that. This may mean knowledge of what is morally good and bad, or it may mean qualities of good and bad in all realms: morality, aesthetics, utility, pleasure and pain and so on. It may mean that things are good or bad in themselves and that when one eats from the tree one acquires the ability to see these qualities... Perhaps the meaning was clear to the ancient reader who knew the immediate connotations of the words. It is not clear to us in the text of the story as it has survived."

Later regarding verse 3:14ff

Stories in Genesis frequently develop etiologies - explanations of the origins of names and practices. In Genesis 3, we have
1. The story of why snakes do not have legs.
2. The etiology of the perceived natural enmity between humans and snakes
3. The etiology of man's domination of woman in the world in which this story was composed.
4. The author's etiology of woman's being drawn to man and..
5. man's mating with woman.
6. The etiologies of clothing
7. labor pain in childbirth
8. work
9. knowledge of good and bad
10. death

The Genesis creation story does not, of necessity, have the dualistic sinless/sinner concept in it. This can certainly be debated, especially if you include Paul's use of the story. But it is well within the realm of scholarship, both Christian and Jewish, to make the claim that this dualism is missing from the text.