gengwall

Well God talked about a future rebellion so this isn’t quite accurate and to think that Adam brought on us a sin nature that he didn’t share with us in, doesn’t seem to be what the Scriptures say. The “old man” or “old Adam” always refers to the nature of sin, no just one act of one specific man.

I think the first portion of your response is well summed up in the above. First, I certainly believe Adam shared the same nature of sin with us. But, that nature stems from his original sin. Any post garden sin may be inevitable, but the bible seems unconcerned with it. Now, I think you disagree. I think you are arguing that his future rebellion, i.e. his post garden sin, IS declared somewhere in Gen 3:22-24. Do you consider that the second witness? I disagree that that portends a future rebellion. The text specifically says two things about Adam in those verses:

1. That he “is become as one of us, to know good and evil”. But Eve also gained that knowledge so, while being spoken specifically about Adam in vs. 22, it is not a condition unique to Adam. If this portends rebellion, then Eve is as susceptible.

2. That he may “put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”. But this is not a sin.

I see nothing in verses 22-24 that talks about a future rebellion, only godly justifications for kicking him out. So, I still have not found the elusive second witness.

Now on to the specific sin of “rule”.

God predicted the sin which presumably was already in his heart due to his sin nature. If Adam did not sin in this way, then God was a false prophet. Therefore we know that Adam did sin and God was indeed a true prophet.

So you acknowledge that there is no second witness to this sin accusation. We know it is true simply because God prophesied it in Gen 3:16 and God is not a false profit. I agree! I would contend the same would be true of any sin Eve was prophesied to have.

But you follow…

God predicted his sin. But the words of God to Eve may not mean sin at all. There is a good and a bad definition. If God provides nothing else then the term, we cannot automatically provide the meaning of “sin” unless there is something else that requires us to charge her with sin.

I agree. But hypothetically, if we could demonstrate that this desire was sinful, would you agree that we could conclude that Eve was guilty of it even though there is no second witness, based solely on God’s prophesy. (You seem pretty convinced that Eve’s desire is not sinful, so I suspect you have no problem afirming my hypothetical).

I await your conclusion to the earlier comment.