Talk:Original sin

Robin Lane Fox's unauthorized version

Re User:Wran's wp:agf edit:

14:18, 23 August 2012‎ Wran (talk | contribs)‎ . . (60,720 bytes) (+129)‎ . . (corrections) updated since my last visit (undo)

Source for edit: Fox, Robin Lane (2006). The unauthorized version : truth and fiction in the Bible. London: Penguin. ISBN 9780141022963.

• Comment: I question using Robin Lane Fox's book unauthorized version as a wp:reliable source in the lede for the following reasons:

1. Why is this book published by the Penguin Group and not by an academic publishing house? Penguin is known to publish Pseudo-scholarship.
2. Why does the source given not have a page number?

LDS denominational views

The section “denominational views” is misleading in the section titled latter-day saints. This is mainly due to the differing views between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other restoration sects. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day, the largest of the groups, rejects the idea that culpability for original sin is inherited by the descendants of Adam and Eve. The passage would be correct if the term original sin were replaced with “Adam’s fall.” “Original guilt” and “original sin” are synonymous to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Exegesis in the history section?

The history section contains a paragraph arguing that the doctrine does not follow from the scriptures. The paragraph beginning "Genesis 3, the story of the Garden of Eden, makes no association between sex and the disobedience...". Is this in the appropriate section? Is it appropriate in the article at all? 217.180.201.228 (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

It's history in that it tells what the doctrine does not originate from (i.e., the idea that it has its origins in the Bible is a myth). But do you have an edit to suggest?Achar Sva (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

A myth? Please tell me the source. One thing is that Genesis is considered a myth and another thing is that those who raised the idea are a myth, Saint Augustine and the others are not a myth. Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say St Augustine is a myth, I said it's a myth that the idea of original sin has its origins in the Bible. I'll grant you that the English of that sentence is complex. Achar Sva (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"21.For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being. 22.For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life, " 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 (New American Bible)

I think it is pretty clear in the Bible that because of Adam's sin every man has become susceptible to death. Thus, although some later theories developed around this idea are clearly post-biblical (namely, Augustine's theory of hereditary moral guilt), to describe the whole doctrine as non-biblical in origin seems to be pretty radical. Potatín5 (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't me who said that original sin is post-biblical, it was our source. Achar Sva (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that at some points what the sources show is not that the doctrine of Original Sin as a whole is a post-biblical in origin, but that some elements associated with it are post-biblical. For example, our sources state concerning the passage Genesis 3: "the story of the Garden of Eden, makes no association between sex and the disobedience of Adam and Eve, nor is the serpent associated with Satan, nor are the words "sin," "transgression," "rebellion," or "guilt" mentioned". However, an association between sex and the disobedience is not an inherent element of the doctrine of Original Sin, but only the position of some historical theologians (e.g. Augustine), and it was even rejected later by Anselm.

A proper definition of the concept of Original Sin is that given by the Catholic Encyclopedia: "Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam." Here there is no reference to an association between sex and the disobedience or an identification of the serpent with Satan (as in the later Book of Wisdom), it's only the sin of Adam and Eve as described in Genesis 3 and its consequences. Potatín5 (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Apart from that, I am noting that some sources seem to give contradictory accounts on the history of Original Sin. For example, whereas Toews 2013, pp. 48–61 claims that Origen rejected the existence of a sinful state inherited from Adam, other sources, such as this one or the page 210 of this one claim the opposite. Likewise, whereas in one section of our article it is stated the Clement of Alexandria "propose that sin was inherited from Adam", in another section it is stated that he rejected the doctrine of Original Sin. Potatín5 (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

By the way, Genesis is not a myth, it's a book. It contains myths, but it is not, in itself, a myth. Achar Sva (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)