“Sin, Satan and the Snake”
One can help when thinking about sin to go back the Genesis account. Genesis 3 takes an enormous and a very important role in the history and the understanding of the intrusion of sin. It lays in sequence the transgression and its consequence, which is constructed in two parts: part one brings to us the transgression, 3:1—7, and part two the chastisement, 3:8—24.7 Nevertheless, the concentration of this exposition will be on part one. Throughout the Scriptures one sees a tentative correlation between passages; some say that Ezek 28:11—19 may have some connection to that of Gen 3.8 One can say that modernist scholars have considered the accounts of the creation and the enticement to be folklore. Some scholars may argue …show more content…
Augustine of Hippo was the first one who came out with the idea of “Original sin” he eagerly taught that the Adamic nature of sin is transmitted to humankind through genes and biological forms, resulting in humanity becoming what he called a massa damnata, which means “mass of perdition, condemned crowd.”10 When Adam sinned, humankind was cursed to carry a burden, a sinful nature. Adam and Eve, via sexual reproduction, recreated human nature. On the other hand, Brunner thinks other wise. In his book Dogmatic he states that this idea is foreign in the theology and the narrative of the Holy Scriptures. Furthermore, Brunner says that Augustine based this theory on two verses of the Bible. First of all, Psalms 51:5, where David states the words: “Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me.” (Ps. 51:5; [NRSV]). Which simply should be translated from the Hebrew “I am a sinful son of a sinful mother.”11 This particular interpretation of the Greek dismisses the idea that sin is past on at conception to the next generation says Brunner. In addition to that, Augustine used one passage from the New Testament to support this doctrine, Romans 5:12. Brunner explains that Augustine mistranslated the phrase“in quo omnes peccaverunt,” Augustine changed “in quo” to say, “in Lumbis Adami.” To which several contemporary scholars agreed that this was a misinterpretation of the text. Perhaps, Augustine could have tried to manipulate the text to say what he wanted to
One can help when thinking about sin to go back the Genesis account. Genesis 3 takes an enormous and a very important role in the history and the understanding of the intrusion of sin. It lays in sequence the transgression and its consequence, which is constructed in two parts: part one brings to us the transgression, 3:1—7, and part two the chastisement, 3:8—24.7 Nevertheless, the concentration of this exposition will be on part one. Throughout the Scriptures one sees a tentative correlation between passages; some say that Ezek 28:11—19 may have some connection to that of Gen 3.8 One can say that modernist scholars have considered the accounts of the creation and the enticement to be folklore. Some scholars may argue …show more content…
Augustine of Hippo was the first one who came out with the idea of “Original sin” he eagerly taught that the Adamic nature of sin is transmitted to humankind through genes and biological forms, resulting in humanity becoming what he called a massa damnata, which means “mass of perdition, condemned crowd.”10 When Adam sinned, humankind was cursed to carry a burden, a sinful nature. Adam and Eve, via sexual reproduction, recreated human nature. On the other hand, Brunner thinks other wise. In his book Dogmatic he states that this idea is foreign in the theology and the narrative of the Holy Scriptures. Furthermore, Brunner says that Augustine based this theory on two verses of the Bible. First of all, Psalms 51:5, where David states the words: “Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me.” (Ps. 51:5; [NRSV]). Which simply should be translated from the Hebrew “I am a sinful son of a sinful mother.”11 This particular interpretation of the Greek dismisses the idea that sin is past on at conception to the next generation says Brunner. In addition to that, Augustine used one passage from the New Testament to support this doctrine, Romans 5:12. Brunner explains that Augustine mistranslated the phrase“in quo omnes peccaverunt,” Augustine changed “in quo” to say, “in Lumbis Adami.” To which several contemporary scholars agreed that this was a misinterpretation of the text. Perhaps, Augustine could have tried to manipulate the text to say what he wanted to