Is the concept of Original Sin fair?

[Metatron]

I have some concerns about the fairness of Original Sin and would be interested other forum members opinion on this issue.

One of my concerns deals with the account as presented in Genesis. God tells Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil otherwise he will die. Later of course, Adam and Eve are seduced by that rascally serpent, God banishes them from Eden, and death is brought into the world, etc. The problem I have with this is that by definition, not having yet partaken of the famous apple, Adam and Eve have no concept of good and evil and indeed the threat of death is meaningless to them since they also would have no understanding of what death is! Adam and Eve are innocents who have no moral compass with which to make the decision. Its like telling a toddler who has never been disciplined not to eat the really neat looking poisoned candy and then walking away and seeing what happens.


Another thing that bugs me is the implied concept of inheritability of sin, i.e. Adam and Eve sin so everyone else to the umpteenth generation is equally culpable and has a one-way ticket punched to the Really Hot Place. Where is the personal responsibility in that? Indeed, where is free will if the punishment is already in place without a decision having been made? I would think that God at least would want to punish you for the sins that YOU have committed.

Thank you for your time.

[Goat]

Nothing you copied on over is of any relavence what so ever. The majority of bibiclal scholars still say that it was written in the second century b.c.e. No amount of words from Geisler, or McDowel will change that.

Uh huh. Every study Bible I have, which were reviewed and edited by legitimate theologians and scholars, have Daniel as the author. Daniel is even identified as the author in Daniel 9:2 and 10:2. Perhaps someday your late-daters will join mainstream scholarship.

You have yet to demonstrate your claims. I say that it was written.. there is internal evidence it was written during that time frame. There is NO evidence it existed before that time frame. You will not find a reference to The Book of Daniel from before the second century. You will find references AFTER it that say it was older, (from Josephus), but josephus was not very accurate.

And, I suspect your defininition of a 'legitimate theologan and scholar' is one that promotes the concept of the bible being 100% accurate, and anybody else is immedately hand waved off as being 'liberal'.

The Jewish Study Bible says that it was written in it's final version in 164 BCE, and it does not say that 9:2-3 was older.. it just says that it means that certain texts that eventually became part of the Prophets was studied at the time of it's writing.

There certainly is enough evidence to show that the Book of Daniel was not written by Daniel. The fact that the Jews who put it in the Tanakh put it in the Kethuvim rather than the Nevi'im is strong evidence to me that they knew it was a later work too.

[Easyrider]

[Goat]

[Easyrider]

[Goat]

[Easyrider]

No, I am not. For example, you have not been able to back upthe claim by Wilson that the Book of Daniel was in the propehts at all.

Sure I did - Josephus. All you could do was engage in denial.

You have not been able to explain away any of the bad history that is in Daniel..

Pick your best one (1) and make your case. Just your BEST ONE, for I have many things to do.

So, when are you going to give evidence, not spin?

Let's see your best ONE, Goat. Bring that bad boy on so I can decimate it.

[Goat]

No, I am not. For example, you have not been able to backup the claim by Wilson that the Book of Daniel was in the prophets at all.

Sure I did - Josephus. All you could do was engage in denial.

You have not been able to explain away any of the bad history that is in Daniel..

Pick your best one (1) and make your case. Just your BEST ONE, for I have many things to do.

So, when are you going to give evidence, not spin?

Let's see your best ONE, Goat. Bring that bad boy on so I can decimate it.

Well, I am not sure what good it will do. You don't seem to so much as debate as throw web sites at me. .. which often do not say what you seem to think they say.

So, I am sure you will give a nonsense spin on this, and try to hand wave it away with some made up 'fact', but Daniel
named Belshazzar as the son off Nebecenezzer, while we know from Babylonian documents he was the son of Nabonidus. Let me guess, and you will do the good old 'But that just mean he was in the line of Nebecenezzer', when the text of Daniel is quite plan that it is meant that he is literally the son of Neb, rather than just a descendant of it. The context makes that quite clear in the text though. Not that context means anything to you anyway.

So, how about some actual evidence that the Book of Daniel existed before 170 bce. A nice quote from somebody before that time would be nice.

Or, are you going to ignore that request?

[Cathar1950]

[Easyrider]

[Goat]