Pohle, *God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural* pt. 2, ch. 2, §3, art. 4, 1. claims: >It is a controverted question among theologians whether \[1\] original sin derives solely from Adam or \[2\] from both Adam and Eve as its efficient cause Which theologians held position #1, and which held position #2? Position #1 would seem to imply that Eve never had Original Sin, though she certainly committed an actual sin (of pride) by transgressing God's command. Position #2 would have to explain how Eve inherited or shared in Adam's sin. I'm not asking whether Adam or Eve is more culpable , but whether Adam alone or Adam with Eve is the cause of their children inheriting Original Sin.

Obviously, the temptation began only after Eve spoke with Satan. Prior to that, it seems Adam and Eve had no trouble avoiding the forbidden tree, even though it stood in the midst of the garden. At least, we have no record suggesting they felt any temptation. However, it was only after Eve's conversation with Satan that she saw the tree as attractive and its fruit as desirable for food. So, why didn’t the all-knowing God — who surely knew that Satan’s words would have triggered temptation — give them a commandment not to speak to him? EDIT: Ok, here we go again: I want to know the perspectives on this matter from the Catholicism, the Orthodoxy, and the main-stream Protestantism (which is believers in Christ who besides addressing God the Father, also address Jesus in their prayers).

> Ge 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely **die**. (KJV) The penalty for sin is death. > Ge 3/19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. **For dust you are and to dust you will return**.” Death means going back to the dust of the ground. Ao, Will Adam and Eve be resurrected to **eternal life ** and why do you answer that way? This question is for mainstream evangelicals. ----- > John 17:3 And this is **life eternal**, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (KJV)

The devil deceived Eve into eating what was forbidden. She then persuaded Adam to do likewise. After eating, they gained knowledge of good and evil. It is my view that God's true intentions, his omnibenevolence, is presented in the Ten Commandments and the Bible. Basically they are a moral guide to overcome the sin we all inherited from Adam and Eve. But what was Eve's situation before the bite? Did she have knowledge of good and evil? Was she pure still and acting as God meant her to act? Why is gaining knowledge of good and evil in the devil's advantage? Because she had no knowledge of the bad yet? She knew the good neither. Wasn't it a great gift then, the devil gave her with the apple? What gain had the devil to give her knowledge of the good? If Eve had no knowledge of good, how she could act good? By divine instinct? What was in it for the evil devil Satan, disguised as a luring snake? Was this, as the fallen angle, his way to take revenge on God? By letting people know what is bad? At the same time he gave knowledge of the good. Wasn't it better to give Eve knowledge of the bad only?

God is known as very just and he likes to have mercy on people. God doesn't want people to inherit sins of their parents. So why did we inherit this very sin? What is so special about the sin of Adam and Eve? I feel like that it's against justice because we didn't make it. It's also against having mercy because we inherited a sin which leads to death.

Is it possible to know the language that Adam and Eve spoke? I am not interested in "how did Adam and then Eve, learned to speak" , but rather is it possible to know the language that was spoken by Adam and Eve from an historical viewpoint or at least how close we can get to an original source? We see in the Book of Genesis that the whole world spoke one tongue prior to the destruction of the Tower of Babel: >The Tower of Babel > Genesis 11:1-9 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. > 3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” > 5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” >8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth. Have any Christian scholars or mystics have any possible hints as to what Adam’s language actually may have looked like?

Was man not going to multiply the earth before he decided maybe Eve!!

Genesis 2:18, 2:21-24 NIV > YHWH God said, “**It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a > helper suitable for him.**" > > So YHWH God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he > was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the > place with flesh. Then **YHWH God made a woman from the rib he had > taken out of the man**, and he brought her to the man. > > The man said, > > “**This is now bone of my bones > and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ > for she was taken out of man.**” > > That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his > wife, **and they become one flesh.** I'm told that everything on earth is a symbolic shadow or type of the things in heaven, that it was not good for God to be alone as it was not good for man to be alone. That Adam being set up as the caretaker and guardian of Eden represents God, who is the caretaker and guardian of heaven. That Eve being brought forth out of Adam to be his helper represents Christ, who was brought forth out of God to be his helper. I'm told that in Proverbs 8, the Son is poetically described as Lady Wisdom, the consort of God. As God's wife, he is described as being created by God as the first of his works in Proverbs 8:22, being "brought forth" from God in Proverbs 8:25, and the "master workman" as the helper of God in Proverbs 8:30, resonating with Christ being the one "through whom" God made all things. That Eve is the consort of Adam, his wife, who was created and brought forth from Adam as his "helper". In like manner, Christ was brought forth from God as his consort Wisdom as the Logos. And that as Adam goes into Eve to produce fleshly offspring (sons of men), so God goes into Christ to produce spiritual offspring (sons of God). As Eve came from Adam as "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh", so Christ was from God and a spiritual body from a spiritual body, that Christ was fashioned from the very spiritual flesh and bones of God, for he was taken out of God as Light from the Light. So my question is, do Adam and Eve symbolize God and Christ?

The short list of hereditary diseases includes color blindness, down syndrome, hemophilia, sickle cell disease, and albinism. The short list of sexually transmitted diseases includes chancroid, chlamydia, gonorrhea, herpes, HIV/AIDS, human papillomavirus/genital warts and syphilis. All of these diseases require that another person has previously had them, either your parents or your sexual partner. Humanity begins with Adam and Eve, who must have carried all of these diseases to pass them on to their offspring. Did God created Adam and Eve loaded with all those diseases? How do Catholics explain this situation?

(Note that this is the same Question as https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/104555 , but asking for a different group's views.) Hereditary diseases include color blindness, Down's syndrome, hemophilia, sickle cell disease, and albinism. Sexually transmitted diseases includes chlamydia, gonorrhea, herpes, HIV/AIDS, and syphilis, at least some of which can also be transmitted from parent to child. All of these diseases require that another person — either a parent or sexual partner — has previously had the condition. If all of humanity starts from Adam and Eve, this implies that Adam and Eve must have carried all of these diseases in order for them to be passed on to their offspring. Did God created Adam and Eve loaded with all those diseases? How do Christians which deny Common Descent and believe that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve some few thousand years ago explain this situation?

In Catholic doctrine, both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition teach that Jesus Christ died specifically for the expiation of our sins. Historical Christianity professes that God became a man by way of Incarnation to restore man's fallen nature to full communion with the Godhead. > Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all > people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life > for all people. (*Romans 5:18*) > > > > > For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that > whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."For > God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that > the world might be saved through Him.… (*John 3:16*) > The Nicene-Constantinopalitan Creed professes: > ...for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was > incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.. The current Catholic Catechism states about man's specific responsibility for "nailing" Jesus to the Cross with our sin: > **All sinners were the authors of Christ's Passion** > > **Paragraph 598** In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that "sinners > were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the > divine Redeemer endured." Taking into account the fact that our > sins affect Christ himself, the Church does not hesitate to impute > to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted > upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often > burdened the Jews alone: > > *We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the > cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify > the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him > up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is > greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness > of the Apostle, "None of the rulers of this age understood this; for > if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." We, > however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in > some way seem to lay violent hands on him*.(1) > > *Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins*.(2) > > 1. Roman Catechism I, 5, 11; cf. Heb 6:6; 1 Cor 2:8. > 2. St. Francis of Assisi, Admonitio 5, 3. The Church *also* teaches that God gave man free will...beginning with Adam. > **MAN'S FREEDOM** > > **Paragraph 1730** God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. > "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' > so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain > his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."(1) > > Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will > and is master over his acts.(2) > > **MAN'S FIRST SIN** > > **Paragraph 397** Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's > command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.(3) All subsequent > sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his > goodness. > > **Paragraph 398** In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against > the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his > own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be > fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to > "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance > with God".(4) > > > 1. GS 17; Sir 15:14. > 2. St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 4,4,3:PG 7/1,983. > 3. Cf. Gen 3:1-11; Rom 5:19. > 4. St. Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua: PG 91,1156C; cf. Gen 3:5. ---------- **However, paradoxically speaking...** Scripture *also* explicitly teaches that Jesus Christ is God - who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. > In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word > was God. He was with God in the beginning. (*John 1:1-2*) > > Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. *(Hebrews > 13:8*) The Miaphysite heresy - **which holds that the human nature and pre-incarnate divine nature of Christ were united as one divine human nature from the point of the Incarnation onward** - was officially denounced at the Council of Chalcedon. The Confession of Chalcedon provides a clear statement on the human and divine nature of Christ: > We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach > people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the > same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and > truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial > [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and > consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like > unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according > to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our > salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to > the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be > acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, > inseparably; (ν δύο φύσεσιν συγχύτως, τρέπτως, διαιρέτως, χωρίστως – > in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) > the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, > but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring > in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted > or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only > begotten God (μονογεν Θεόν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the > prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the > Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy > Fathers has handed down to us. **Considering all this...it seems to me that, although the Incarnation is a temporally necessary for Man's salvation, it ultimately is eternal in essence since the essence of God eternally transcends time.** **Question:** If Adam, by exercising his free will, had chosen *not* to partake of the forbidden fruit (a.k.a. Original Sin), **would the Incarnation still have taken place due to God's omnipresence?** I'm looking for authoritative Catholic/Orthodox teaching about this subject.

Eating a [fruit](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:3&version=NIV)\* is not even a real wicked deed like killing somebody or something. Why did this whole sin thing get started with something so innocuous that by today's standard it wouldn't even be considered a sin? \* I'm pretty sure it was a fig.

What are the the common explanations in the Oriental Orthodoxy, the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and in the main-stream Protestantism (I mean those protestant believers who besides praying to the Father also pray directly to Jesus) on the reason why Adam and Eve were created naked by God? On one hand, we see throughout the whole Bible that angels are never naked. They are always dressed in bright and white robes. In the book of Revelation we see that in the eternal future all the saints will be wearing white robes. On the other hand, God said, after creating humans, that all the things that He had just created were "very good". So what is really "very good"? Is it to be naked or to be clothed in white robes? If robes, then why Adam and Eve were not originally created that way, that is, with white robes on?

The Bible quotes God assaying: >And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." (Genesis 2:15-17) The Bible goes on to quote Eve and the serpent talking: >3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons. (3:3-7) Now the devil tells Eve that she will not die and that she will gain the knowledge of good and evil. Which happens from what the Bible describes. God also specified that they will die on the day that they touch the tree, which does not happen, so it wasn't truth that God told Eve. Even if God said it as a metaphor, it was a metaphor that neither Adam nor Eve understood, because Eve told the serpent they they will surely die. And God is all-knowing, so he had to know that they will misunderstand him. So, he deliberately told a metaphor, which he knew was going to be understood literally, and he knew it would be taken as literal interpretation. In either way God provided Eve with misleading information. (It could be a possibility that something is lost in translation, but if not, it would take interpreting the text completely opposite to what is written in order to come to a different conclusion - and if we do, then why bother taking the rest of the Scripture as it is written?) Does this mean that we must redefine our definition of lying? Maybe lying excludes lying to children for example to save them from a greater harm (like taking drugs for example) If something is too complicated to explain to a child, maybe the Bible suggests that it's OK to lie to them. I feel like a lot of parents already do that making up stories to keep their children from making noise in church (for example). Telling them that if they misbehave the ghost will get them etc. Or maybe lying overall means something else in the 10 commandments. I really wonder about that, because I see situations when it might be good to tell a lie. I'm Polish, so I always think of the story If I was holding a Jew in my house and Nazis would come in asking if I had any Jews in the house. I know that I couldn't tell the truth. So I just wonder If God lied? If so, is lying sometimes ok according to this passage? If God doesn't lie, then what is the definition of lying? If God told the truth that they would die, then is devil lying that they will not die? I'm only interested in the Catholic perspective of this scripture as I was raised Catholic and this question bothered me for most of my life.

I've stumbled multiple times across the claim that Adam and Eve were clothed in light before the fall, and afterward they saw their nakedess not merely as a new form of enlightenment ("Suddenly I feel like I should put on some clothes!") but rather visual change had occurred. What original sources contain this information to make it such that some commonly believe this?

2 Nephi 2:23 states > And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have > remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no > misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. Often, it is said that Adam and Eve *could* not of had children, based on this verse. But the verse says *would*, not *could*. Are there any other verses or latter day saint doctrine explaining whether or not they *could* have children?

According to Luke's genealogy Jesus is the 76th great grandchild of Adam . But in the holy bible how many years elapse between the creation of Adam and the birth of Jesus? I have googled the question, but I do not believe the answers given by google to be accurate. All the answers point to a time period of around 4000 years which would bring us back to only 4000BC. However according to Wikipedia Adam was 930 years old when he died, Seth was 912, Enos was 905, Kenan was 910, Mahalalel was 895. Therefore we still have around 71 generations left to go and we are already beyond the 4000BC period.

Does Young Earth Creationism teach that Adam and Eve only had a concept of morality after the fall, once they had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? If so, would they have been unaccountable for their actions before the fall?

If Original Sin is Adam's sin, did Eve have Original Sin? If so, then how did she "catch" it from Adam? Or is her (and women's) punishment in Gen. 3:16 only due to her actual sin of pride, and not to her having Original Sin? cf. "Did Original Sin derive solely from Adam or from both Adam and Eve? "

Adam was not with Eve when she ate the fruit Satan offered her. He did not hear the conversation, otherwise, God in His response would have said that Adam listened to the serpent, but God said that he listened to his wife. Gen 3:17: > And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; This opinion is the basis for my understanding of this comparison. I do not wish to discuss this aspect of the situation. I state it here merely to illustrate my understanding of Genesis 3:6 and its translation, from which my question originates. Gen 3:6: > And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband **with her [?]** and he did eat. Just as Adam was not deceived, neither was Jesus deceived, Jesus did not sin. Adam was not deceived but partook to help Eve. 1 Tim 2:14: > And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Jesus partook of flesh and blood to help us. The Church is referred to as a Crown of thorns to Jesus in Prov 12:4, just as a wife is a crown to her husband: > A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones. The Bride of Christ is Jesus's "Crown" as I complete the comparison from John 19:5: > Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! John 3:16: > For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Another observation: What other situation could Paul have been referring to when he referred to the "husband" as the savior or the marriage? Ephesians 5:23 (KJV): > For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body This appears in all aspects to be accurate. Showing unnecessary deference to Eve/woman-kind by suggesting that Adam was "with her" at that time is merely an attempt to allude to a shared sense of guilt and does not justify distorting scripture, in my opinion. **Hence my question**: Did Adam join Eve in disobedience to save her?