I posted my last before I read your prior.

“Adam and Eve did not have a different nature pre-fall. However the choice to sin with one’s eyes wide open to the full knowledge of what you are doing in rebellion against God has a tragic consequence and that is a change in nature. When Adam sinned his nature changed from one capable of sin to one bent on sin with a full enslavement to sin.” Cheryl, #422.

Cheryl, in your first sentence you say Adam and Eve did NOT have a different nature pre-fall and in yur last sentence you say Adam’s nature changed. That is completely contradictory.

Further, you say his nature went from capable to sinning to bent on sinning. Where does the bible explicitly say that in the Genesis account or anywhere?

Finally, the consequence or description of having the choice to sin with a greater knowledge of the consequences is NOT a changed nature; it is changed knowledge base. Learning more does not necessarily change one’s nature. It does increase one’s knowledge and/or awareness.

Greg, thanks for the brief background info. That is very interesting and helpful.

Lin, excellent question points and thanks for the links!

Pink, #390, you say that Eve’s sin was eating/breaking God’s command. My issue is not and never has been that her deception is her get-out-of-jail-free card in terms of trying to pin rebellion on her. I get that. My point has been and is the one Geng is also making, in part, and that is that whatever enabled Adam to sin at the fall, was also in Eve, and if one says it wasn’t, then Adam and Eve were NOT created equally in God’s image, and if one says they WERE created equally in God’s image, then Eve had the same capabilities to sin as did Adam, whether she used them identically, (same way, same time, etc.) or not.

And further, as Geng is also questioning, Adam already HAD this ability to sin at/leading up to the fall, obviously, because he did sin, yet Cheryl has indeed claimed that the sin nature had its inception at the Fall, as a result of the actions there. Finally, it seems abundantly clear that Adam (and Eve, IMO) was totally capable of making sinful choices without the additional help of possessing a sin nature.

Kay, #406: Adam also simply disobeyed. That would be a sin of disobedience. We know God tells us that those who love Him will obey Him. Perhaps it could also be the sin of idolatry-loving one’s own way more than loving God’s way. Human nature; many sinful choices and actions.

Pinklight, #402, you ask, “what is the nature of a rebel? Sin?” The nature of a rebel is a human nature though the rebel may have developed a rebellious character or set of responses. You are still not differentiating between an intrinisic nature, i.e. what one is born with and never loses during one’s earthly life, versus one’s character or habits, i.e. those things which become part of a person’s characteristics but which are reversible or changeable-and which a person may not have been born with.

Regarding Eve’s desire being ‘to her husband’ which is how the interlinear translates it, I would really like to hear a scholarly, knowledgeable person’s take on what it means to have a ‘desire TO your husband’. That is an awkward way of saying ‘desire for a husband’. I think there is a reason why it is ‘to’ and not ‘for’.

I see absolutely nothing stated in the text about Adam or anyone else developing/now having a sin nature. It is completely and totally absent. Would God have not stated something clearly that was this monumental? Why does everyone read it into the text? If, as egals, we claim to be so careful about what is and isn’t clearly evident and stated in the text regarding women and their ‘roles’, then why do we just jump right in there on this one and pronounce that there is, indeed, such a thing as a sin nature showing up here? It is like the emperor’s new clothes, if you ask me.

If, as is stated above in #390, Eve sinned by eating the fruit and breaking God’s command (1 sin) and we might say, by offering it to Adam and presenting a stumbling,tempting opportunity to him (second sin?-after all, Jesus had harsh words to say about those who cause others to stumble-i.e. little children), then Eve is at least half way or all the way to having sinned the same number of times as Adam, at this point, and this would certainly qualify her for a sin nature, too. I mean, one or two times-what’s the big difference when we are ‘developing a sin nature’?

As for developing a sin nature due to a long enough list of episodes of sin, I only read of two-God says to Adam, because you have hearkened unto the voice of your wife (1) and have eaten of the tree (2). How can two instances be enough to develop an entire nature? If I had a child who rebelled twice, I would in no way conclude they had a rebellious nature-not at the point of having rebelled only twice! There are some children who ‘only rebel’ a few times, and when they receive punishment, etc. for it, never do such things again.

In fact, as I read out the rest of the account about Adam, he is only mentioned a couple more times and those are only minimal factual accounts of him knowing his wife and fathering Cain and Abel. There is no further explicit documentation of Adam continuing to rebel any more than there is of Eve. He is only documented, then, as sinning twice. That hardly is a massive habit-forming number of episodes. (Even if we ‘add a few’ by saying Adam sinned by blaming God and Eve, that is still only a total of 4 episodes. If repeated occurrences is what it takes to make something as deeply ingrained as a ‘nature’, I would hardly think 4 would be an adequate number of times to develop such a thing.

In fact, the more I look at the whole passage, I simply see Eve blaming the serpent for beguiling her, and Adam blaming Eve for giving him the fruit, and God saying, ‘because you did thus and such, this is what is going to happen.’ Period. No mention of sin natures. No further mention of Adam or Eve sinning. The consequences are monumental, of course. But the account is simple. I don’t want to hang more pots and pans onto the wagon than are already there.

Pink, there are goblins out because I JUST typed #383 in my last reply and it came out as #380!!!!! I have no idea, either! 🙂

380-that’s a hoot!!!! LOL!

Pink, it is a tad after 2 a.m. where I hail from. After all the effort that went into my flaming success here, my brain cells need some down time so I am going to call it a day! Thanks for bearing with me and have a great evening!!!

YAAAAYYYYYYYY!!!! It worked, Houston, it worked!!!!!

OK, I am going to try again, and this way we WILL have a real live #380, also! LOL

like a rose garden, new skin clothing, or fig newtons.

Let’s see if this works. Those examples were funny, by the way! 🙂

OK, Pink, you really have me snowed now! Where’s #380? I am just trying to master blue quotes and you are into TIME TRAVEL!!!!

I would say Adam had a human nature, and a sin habit (or one or more sinful habits and a developed sinful character-neither of which would be automatically inherited by nor conferred upon his progeny).

Hey Pink, I am not ABOUT to judge you for using caps for emphasis (I do, too), when I can’t even hang a pair of blue quotation marks on my walls!!!! LOL!

Nature to me implies something intrinsic to one’s being rather than a character trait that results from repetitive behavior. When a person rides a horse repetitively and becomes excellent at it, it in no way has any intrinsic impact on that person’s progeny. They aren’t born with a horse-riding nature. They will likely pick it up from their environment if their parent with the excellent horse-riding skills-due to his or her repeated practice-influences them, but it won’t automatically be an inborn trait or nature. Likewise, if I sin in a certain way repetitively, let’s say I gamble for example(if we choose to label gambling as a sin), it in no way imparts a ‘gambling’ nature to my children. They might pick up the habit themselves if they practice it as I have done, but they won’t be ‘born with’ a gambling nature just because I chose to gamble. It will be easier for them to adopt a gambling habit if they are surrounded by it, as is the case with any sin, but that doesn’t automatically imply that a nature to do so is inherent in their makeup at birth.

<Lemme see if the arrow key appears when I type it. Last time I typed it, it did not show up.

There you are Pink! Try throwing me that life preserver again! 🙂

344, Pinklight, the bible doesn’t elaborate on why she desired him, but I cannot yet imagine it was for no reason-why did she desire him, for his blue/green/brown eyes? For the way he made her feel? Because he was tall, dark, and handsome? Short, blond, and ___? I don’t know what it was, but it is the why, the reason, or the motive, since there most certainly had to be one, that I am curious about. I don’t know if it is possible that Eve-or anyone-just desires someone without a reason. She may not have desired him for what he could do for her or provide for her in terms of material items or skills, etc. It may have been something else. At any rate, her motive still matters. I would love to know what a skilled and qualified grammarian, linguist, translator, etc. would have to say about this text. I am none of those. I can only go at it with my limited abilities.

Cheryl, how about a link to a tutorial on doing the magical blue quotation mark thingies with the actual intended quote successfully planted between them for any future non-techies like myself? :O I need ALL the steps, as though I had never ever even been in a ‘kitchen’ before. The most basic recipe.

It must be my finger tips. They must be full of sin nature tonight! LOL Oh, dear. Save me someone! I am sinking deep into the mire of ineptitude here! I am slinking lower and lower into my seat as I type this.

I am glad no one else is online right now! LOL Ok, do I have to type the whole quote or can I import it by highlighting somehow?

Pink, thanks for the tutorial! Where in the process do I highlight the text I want to quote? 🙂

We can, indeed, just conclude her desire is for her husband (presuming a good reason), but that would be odd-to me- when we read the rest of God’s descriptions/predictions being negative in His statement to Adam and Eve. It just doesn’t square up. We can go back and look at some of the arguments against a benign conclusion about Eve’s desire, that have been listed previously.

Pinklight, in #351. If you say, and I quote (I wish I knew how to do that nice blue quotation mark thing! It would be such a timesaver!:)
Your quote: “I’d say his first sinful act was made out of choice”,. Then, are you saying his subsequent sinful acts were NOT made out of choice? If not, then where did those later sinful acts come from? This is the problem many unbelievers (and believers) have who question why they are accountable for actions/sins they do if they were born with (didn’t choose to have) a sinful nature that forces or compels them beyond their abilities to do sinful things. We know God says we are each accountable for our own actions, so those who question this have an extremely valid point.

Even if you say his first sin was his choice, he evidently didn’t need a sinful nature to do it. If he didn’t need a sinful nature to commit one sin, I don’t see where he or anyone else needs a sinful nature to commit more than one sin. If we say his subsequent sins were NOT choice (fault), then we have a real problem. Whose choice were they (the subsequent sins)?

349, I don’t think having a ‘track record’, i.e. multiple sins, was necessarily what got Adam in hot water. It seems clear to me that it only took one sin to be in hot water; it just so happens he had several. I don’t see God mentioning or referring explicitly to a track record, but rather, simply, to sin.

You say, ‘…having been deceived one time (sin once)’. Are you classifying Eve’s deception as sin?

347 It is true that it says her desire shall be for Adam. Period. However, it does not say whether this is a pure desire or an impure desire. Both are possible. I can say my desire is for my husband. Period. But that doesn’t state why I have a desire for him. It is the ‘why’ that is critical here, and it is unstated. There is always a ‘why’ or a motive for desiring someone. The fact that it is unstated does not mean we can immediately conclude the reason is either pure or impure. We have to look at the whole context.

As for it sounding like modern reasons are being imported, I can’t speak for others, but if I even try to imagine what Eve’s reasons for desiring Adam might have been, my guesses could include things like security, companionship, practical help (with the children or with just living and getting sustainance and shelter, clubbing wild beasts, etc.), physical pleasure, and so forth. Again, a person can have good or bad motives for wanting these things. They might be looking more to their husband for these things than they are looking to God. Who knows? Motive is key. We have to try to discern hers by the greater context. We can’t just conclude that her motives are pure because we think they are or because we think ours would be in similar circumstances.

I find it very intriguing that God said her desire would be for her husband, of all things. He said nothing about her desire for God, Himself, or for any number of other things. I wonder why or why not? I am not saying I have the exact answer to that; I am saying I don’t think it is a given that her desire is necessarily good.

Pinklight, per #345, Adam’s rebellion and other sins could simply be referred to as his sinful acts. His nature can still simply be his human nature. After all, at some point, he did his first sinful act, and so it would have to be said that this first sinful act came out of what-his sinful nature or his human nature? If we say his first sinful act was born of a sinful nature, then we have to conclude that God created Adam (and Eve) with a sinful nature. If we conclude however, that God only created Adam (and Eve) with a human nature, then we have to conclude that it is possible to choose to sin without having a sinful nature-that indeed, all we need to sin is a human nature and some free will.

Pinklight,
I don’t know if I can say definitively that Eve’s desire is connected to her pain in childbirth any more than we can say Adam’s rule is connected to the ground being cursed and Adam’s having to work it now. It is the word ‘yet’ that makes you think this, I know. It isn’t the only possible logical conclusion.

As for Eve’s track record, all track records begin somewhere. Adam’s began earlier with his choices, Eve’s could be stated as having begun with her deception (the point at which she veered ‘of the path’)-which also bore consequences even though it was deception and not blatant willful rebellion.

It is true that Eve didn’t stay deceived, but that by no means inoculates her from the consequences of her actions born of deception.

As for seeing the possibility for a woman’s desire for her husband being evil or wrong; yes, I can easily see it. We see it all the time in women who desire husbands for their money, for their ability to help father children, for their ability to lend status, for their ‘name’ or fame, etc. Not all that wives may desire their husbands for is always good or right. It is the motivation behind the wife’s desire that determines the righteousness or lack thereof of her desire.

I also continue to be surprised to see the term ‘sin nature’ bandied about so freely, as though it were somehow explicitly or even implicitly stated in the passages we are addressing. It is no more explicit nor implicit than are the terms ‘head’, ‘headship’, ‘authority over’, etc., as pertaining to Adam and Eve, as the comps try to say are ‘right there in the context’. I can understand why it might be very tempting to think it is there, in either case, but it is NOT there, and that is what deserves our attention.