Is man created pure (without sin the first time?)

[faith]

As I understand Christianity believe that human sin is inherited. (please correct me if I am wrong). From the first man, Adam, after he ate the "forbidden" fruit. Since then all mankind are not free from sins.

Now the question is:
Remember the first time before Adam actually ate the "forbidden" apple? when the serpent (devil) tempted them into thinking they will be as GODs (Gen 3:5) and they eventually ate it. If men are without sins (pure) in the first place, then they should not have been tempted to eat them. I hope people understand what I am trying to say here?? You can put it this way: Do Men start to have sin since they ate the fruit? or even before it??

I really believe that when GOD create man in the first place, he is not really all good and pure. He actually already had sin in him. (So it is not after he ate the fruit.) Eating the fruit only give him knowledge of good and evil. Some Christian actually believe it is since the time, Adam ate the fruit, then, we all inherited the sins from him. Of course, I could be wrong....

Feel free to give your comment

[winner]

when God create Adam, he is in God's image (Genesis 1: 26-27).. so of course as God's image, Adam originally was pure and had no sin, he has no sinfull nature. it's by his own freewill choice Adam had committed sin.

but we're all born in this world in Adam's image (Genesis 5: 3), so we inherited the sinfull nature from Adam (since Adam had choose to commit sin). There was such a degradation from Adam to us. Even though indirectly we're still God's image, but we're also Adam's image. not like Adam who was created purely in God's image.

hope my explanation does make sense and usefull.. and hopefully is correct also hehehe.. i am not a pastor, you know

[faith]

Originally Posted by winner

when God create Adam, he is in God's image (Genesis 1: 26-27).. so of course as God's image, Adam originally was pure and had no sin, he has no sinfull nature. it's by his own freewill choice Adam had committed sin.

but we're all born in this world in Adam's image (Genesis 5: 3), so we inherited the sinfull nature from Adam (since Adam had choose to commit sin). There was such a degradation from Adam to us. Even though indirectly we're still God's image, but we're also Adam's image. not like Adam who was created purely in God's image.

hope my explanation does make sense and usefull.. and hopefully is correct also hehehe.. i am not a pastor, you know

You see this is the part that puzzle me, if he has no sin, then he shouldnt have greed or highly ambitious to be better than GOD???? Of course you may say that having ambition, for example if I want to be a president, there is nothing wrong with that. But this is different (dont you think?? to be better and beat the GOD himself??) What I am referring to is the intention that he has in the first place???? If he doesnt has the ambition to beat GOD, no matter how much the devil tempt him, he would not have eaten the fruit.

I understand that we are created in the image of GOD...but that is not necessarily we have the same exact characteristic of GOD is it?? well at least it seemed not HIS perfect purity. hmmm..let me see...I think you know computer well, let me give you an example of a computer. Let's say you build a new computer, and image the entire drive to the new computer. I am sure the new computer, despite having almost the whole windows and its application the same, it may still not be the same. Why? cause maybe it's hardware not the same...the CPU, RAM, HDD..etc... Of course you may say you can by building the same configuration in every details. But that would defied the purpose, since even in the bible it does not say that GOD make Man just in the same exact entity (at least we know we are made of sand and dust?).

[empowered]

Faith... this time not so much love

I recall what you said before, viz., If men are without sins (pure) in the first place, then they should not have been tempted to eat them.

Such is a weak argument at its best. If my reading of your statement is correct, then you're assuming that just because someone is tempted, then the person is with sin. My objection is that what about Jesus. The Bible clearly says that he indeed is tempted, and yet just because he is tempted or ever be tempted, should we conclude that he is with sin???

I hope you clarify your thought, or else the whole arguments you've presented would become rather misleading.

Looking forward to loving you more...

[faith]

Originally Posted by empowered

Faith... this time not so much love

I recall what you said before, viz., If men are without sins (pure) in the first place, then they should not have been tempted to eat them.

Such is a weak argument at its best. If my reading of your statement is correct, then you're assuming that just because someone is tempted, then the person is with sin. My objection is that what about Jesus. The Bible clearly says that he indeed is tempted, and yet just because he is tempted or ever be tempted, should we conclude that he is with sin???

I hope you clarify your thought, or else the whole arguments you've presented would become rather misleading.

Looking forward to loving you more...

My dear beloved brother in Christ (assuming you are a guy), I believe you do not comprehend or misunderstand the point I am trying to make here. I have to apologize, I believe I am really bad at trying to express myself. Hopefully with the argument below, you will see a clearer picture:


There is nothing wrong with wishing to have something. For example if I want to be a doctor. I love helping and healing other people. Of course there is no sin here...cause you have a good intention here. What I am saying, when Adam was told by the serpent, of what GOD like power he can have by eating the fruit, I am sure behind his heart, he has the greed for power. Now what happen if a rich man (who has almost everything) say I want to be a senator so that I will have more power and respected. Do you think this rich man has no "greed" behind his heart?? Now of course I can be wrong, is greed not a sin?

As for your Jesus reference, the following quote must be the story you are referring: (Mathew 4:1)
"Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the dessert to be tempted by the devil"
I have highlighted the term "to be tempted" for you to analyze carefully. I have checked every version of bible (including King James, and New English Version, just in case if there is a difference in translation) there is no statement that state Jesus "is tempted". I am sure you know there is a big difference in meaning between the term "to be tempted" and "being tempted". (Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.)

From the above statement, I 100% believe (sorry have to disagree with you) that Jesus is NOT tempted in anyway cause he is pure from sin. It is also important for you to know that he has "no greed" for power to proof to anyone. He is the true SON of GOD and acknowledge HIS position to HIS father in heaven. (Mat 4:10) "away from me Satan! For it is written: worship the Lord your GOD and serve him only." Jesus clearly indicate our status that we should "serve" HIM (GOD) (Not to be served by HIM or to be like HIM).


My brother "empowered" behold to this statement: (as I have also in the process of learning) :

(Mat 5:44) "But I tell you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

Brother, I know my argument may not be pleasing in your heart, but there is no reason for us to loose any of those love. Please not love me just because it pleases you, but we must do what pleases the LORD..AMIN.

[empowered]

Faith... got you!

I could have guessed that you would use Matt 4 as the main reference, but that passage was not in my head

See HEBREWS 2:18.

I really want to know what your thought is on this passage. Thus, is it possible for one to be tempted, and yet still remain pure (without sin)??? Your answer will determine where you are at.

But for me, it is too early to conclude that just because one could be tempted, one is with sin. This will betray the nature of Christ really badly.

Before this Christ-temptation arguments could be settled, no further arguments could be proceeded.

But hey, you are still lovely

[faith]

Originally Posted by empowered

Faith... got you!

I could have guessed that you would use Matt 4 as the main reference, but that passage was not in my head.

See HEBREWS 2:18.

I really want to know what your thought is on this passage. Thus, is it possible for one to be tempted, and yet still remain pure (without sin)??? Your answer will determine where you are at.

But for me, it is too early to conclude that just because one could be tempted, one is with sin. This will betray the nature of Christ really badly.

Before this Christ-temptation arguments could be settled, no further arguments could be proceeded.

But hey, you are still lovely

Behold brother and rejoice! God has given us new lesson for us to study and think once more! For I do not believe in such thing as a coincidence, for everything must be planned by our GOD. (Dont be I will try to explain carefully below)

Heb 2:18 (the new translation verion) : "because he himself suffered when he
was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted." --> yes brother you are correct to think Jesus was tempted here.

Heb 2:18 (King James Version): "For in that, he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." For those that wondering what "succour" mean? it is "to help when it need the most" ---> Arent we surprise in our finding??? I even check my wife King James Version (thinking that mine could be mistaken), and found it is the same. Dont worry brother there are other statement too that is different, so this is not the only one.

But before this, I would like to sincerely apologize to Rev. Han-han (jg tersinggung), that I do not intent to criticize him or anyone in this forum. Rev. Han-han quoted (indonesian version I assumed): " UJILAH AKU Firman TUHAN semesta alam. AKU AKAN MEMBUKAKAN BAGIMU TINGKAP-TINGKAP LANGIT DAN MENCURAHKAN BERKAT KEPADAMU SAMPAI BERKELIMPAHAN."

(Mal 3:10 New translation): "Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this, " says the Lord almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have enough room for it." ---> well it is obvious Rev. Han-han is not wrong in here...cause he quoted from (I assumed) the indonesian version of the new translation.

Now here is what the King James version state: "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, said the Lord...(sorry just to cut short)" ---> the word used here is "prove me" now. Think carefully now...(pls not emotion ok...use our heart!")

Here is the definition of King James version an authorized English translation of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and first published in 1611 by the Church of England. Now please understand, I am not trying to point that King James is the only one right nor whether the new translation is wrong. The new translation purposes is to make it easier for normal people to understand the Bible (basic english). I suppose if you read King James version before, you know what I mean.

I know that some of you that read this, may think "hey Faith, I think you just trying to make yourself a point!" Now here is another quote from the bible that make me believe the King James version is right!

(Mat 4:7) "Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shall not tempt the LORD thy GOD."

I always believe that we should not or can not tempt or test our GOD in anyway, whether it is for good or bad. As what Jesus said (Mat 4:10) " Get thee hence (or in simple english mean BEGONE!) Satan! For it is written Thou shalt worship the LORD thy GOD, and him only shalt thou serve." This statement clearly indicate our position to serve GOD, thus I believe we do not have the right to test/tempt HIM in anyway.

Now brother, the big new issue that is brought by this matter is "translations of the bible can bring much disagreement and confusion." I believe the only way you find the truth is to do the following:

1. *Cool your heart* and Pray to the father for guidance.
2. God true point and meaning in the bible normally will not only be available in a single verse in a single book. It will be repeated or supported.
3. God true word will not contradict or will make perfect sense!



PS: Before I conclude this posting, I just want to clarify one thing! I DO NOT post in this forum for the sake of debating, pointing that I am right, questioning the bible or any authority. My intention is so that people in this forum may voice out their opinion, and hopefully learn something from that issues. I sincerely apologized to anyone I have offended in anyway...by my postings. Thank you.

Originally Posted by empowered

But hey, you are still lovely

Brother, if I am a woman....I will be so happy with you and impressed, muuuaaaah...hahahahhahaa...just joking...

[faith]

Originally Posted by empowered

But for me, it is too early to conclude that just because one could be tempted, one is with sin. This will betray the nature of Christ really badly.

Just to add to the above thought that I have,

My dear brother "empowered", cant you see what I am trying to refer? It is not whether one could be or maybe tempted that is a sin. It is the heart that is the question in sin!

I believe I have given some examples in my prior posting. But I suppose it is my bad again, that I can not make it clearer. Let me try again.

I love to eat ice-cream. My wife intentionally buy the ice-cream and eat it right in front of me in trying to tempt me. WOW....so hootttt man....that I was sooooo tempted to eat the ice-cream. Now tell me...have I sin?? Of course NOT.

I do not question the process that is being tempted is the SIN....but deep in his heart...or to be clearer....is the purpose and intention that is SIN.

...."Speaking of ice-cream.....want to have some together so we can cool those head and heart together...."

[empowered]

Salam damai, my brother Faith.
It is not true if you think I hate you or am trying to put you on the spot. I am NOT like that, you know. In fact, I am a nice guy, once you know me, surely you can justify what I just said about myself, hehehe...

But well, there are several things need to be clarified here:

1. Both the NIV and the King James Version (KJV) of Hebrews 2:18 are identical in meaning. Guaranteed! I repeat, whether it is read, "He was tempted" (so the NIV) or "being tempted" (so the KJV), they are one in meaning. Trust me. Why am I so sure? Because the original text will tell you that such is rather the case. As such, according to the context of Hebrews 2, Christ did suffer because he was tempted.

2. True, God can't be tempted in anyways, as James 1:13 makes it clear. But this second Adam as the Man-God or vice versa, he certainly can. And yet, he remains pure (without sin). I think we have no problem with this concept? Isn't it?

3. From there, I am very hesitant to conclude that the first Adam was created with sin. Why? Because such would betray Genesis 1:31. Now I am quoting the NKJV which reads, "Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day (i.e., after the creation of Adam)."

4. Since God declares that what he had created is very good, it implies that Adam was created without sin. By way of application, to say that Adam was with sin the first time he was created would also suggest that God created sin, a view which is totally inconceivable, even heretic at best! (Compare and contrast Romans 5; hopefully you’ll get some insights).

5. You are right in pointing out that "KJV is not the only one right nor the NIV is wrong." But you are not quite right in asserting that "the new translation purpose is to make it easier for normal people to understand the Bible (basic English)," and that you encourage others to read the KJV first, and following that may one consult other translations. By saying this, you just over simplify the matter. Frankly speaking, I am less persuaded that the KJV should be the first place to begin a bible study, as you suggested. Why’s that? You’re right in saying that the KJV was the official endorsed authorized….Bible during the reign of Henry VIII. But there are many other true stories surrounding that period, which people do not really take into consideration. To make my point clear, the KJV was produced largely from the Byzantine family, (well, in this context, it’s not that important what family it was). On the other hand, there existed the Alexandrian text type consist of more than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (you may regard them as Kijang and Honda, in order to make it simpler ). Further, Greek papyri from the second and third century, none of which reflects Byzantine readings, are mostly mixed Alexandrian and Western P75., one of the earliest manuscripts we possess (200), is astonishingly close to Vaticanus! And before I forgot, have you ever heard about “Pengakuan Iman Nicea (Nicene Creed) ” which states that we believe in the person and work of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? The Church fathers who produced this amazing statement of faith cited every part of text type EXCEPT the Byzantine! That’s quite sick, hey?! But that is some reasons why I do not believe that the KJV should be the first place to begin a Bible study. The KJV is good, but so are others.

6. Speaking of ice cream, you'll never know what kind of person I am till you see how I react toward ice cream. You can tell about the person from the way they eat! Right or right?

Waiting to be treated with Gelato... Riviera juga boleh.... huahahaha

[faith]

Behold brothers and sisters, for I have found some light in my head. *knock knock, Rev 3:20* Praise be the Lord for my puzzle has been solved! GOD has given me answers to the question I have.

I do not believe that the key to that is from the words that have been spoken from my own very mouth. In my prior post, I have mentioned that when translations of the bible can bring much disagreement and confusion." I believe the only way you find the truth is to do the following:

1. *Cool your heart* and Pray to the father for guidance.
2. God true point and meaning in the bible normally will not only be available in a single verse in a single book. It will be repeated or supported.
3. God true word will not contradict or will make perfect sense!

And kudos to you my brother for you have the credit for making me see the light. Cause you have mentioned Gen 1:31. Your word has reminded me of the above 3 principles. I have to follow the number 2 and 3 rules. Having done some more research and study to find the supporting verse, I have found Gen 3:22. It says: “and the Lord GOD said, behold the men is become as one of us now, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”. This very verse has already answered the question that man only know sin after he ate the fruit! It is therefore, man do not sin by eating the fruit (I am referring to the act of disobey GOD warning), but by having ate the fruit (cause it contains knowledge of both good and evil/sin). Thus GOD actually removed Adam and Eve from the garden.

However, the following question still stuck in my head “then how the sinful intent Adam has when he wanted to be GOD?” To be honest I have to give this site a credit: http://members.aol.com/rsigrace/fall.html (feel free to read them).

There was never any intention in Adam. He was all good, should I say “similar to newly born baby that is innocent that is being lead to evil way”. Another way to put it in worldly word “he was just like some dumb goodies who know nothing but good, may be do not even know how to make a phone call from the public phone”. Some may argue that “even a baby has inherited sin”. Yes that is true, the baby has the knowledge of good and evil (or should I say has the potential to be evil) but he/she has still to learn on how to use them. Of course Adam, is different from the baby because he is the first man, and he is the one that inherit those sins to us.

Now brother cause I have rejoiced for the answer GOD has enlightened me, I shall gladly answers to your question:

First of all, I really regret that I may have given you the wrong impression. For I have never feel been put in the spot (I will feel very lonely you know ) nor have I feel being hated by you. Maybe it because of the verse I have put as “you should love thy enemy or blessed those who prosecute you”, that make you think I hate you and otherwise. It is not my brother. I was sincerely joking on the word you have given me “loving me more” or should I say “less love”. I assume by saying love more or less, I must have displeases you in some way. I hope this will be our last misunderstanding, and let us then continue our way to please the LORD together.

1. Brother, I hope this statement will give you some light just like I do:

“Jesus was tempted eating the fruit by the devil” (of course this is just an example)
“Jesus was being tempted to eat the fruit by the devil”

From the above statement, (I may be wrong of course), the first statement indicates that one action has been taken, and the other is not. So is it safe for me to say, that one has committed the sin, and the other is not. So how can they be the same in meaning?? (Of course the Jesus example is just for illustration, so please do not say that I said Jesus is a sinner.) Besides if you analyze all my previous postings I have never said Jesus was tempted or has committed the sin? (but you did my brother?)

2. Brother, if you have mentioned James 1:13 “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of GOD: for GOD cannot be tempted with evil, neither he tempteth he any man”. Arent you contradicting the verse itself by saying GOD was tempted by Evil? Now I am sure you believe Jesus is GOD regardless he is in man formed (or like you said MAN-GOD or otherwise). I am also sure that you would agree that SATAN is the father of all EVIL? Now remember your first posting when you say "The Bible clearly says that he indeed is tempted". So if all this put together, I would say you believe that GOD was indeed tempted by EVIL?? All I was trying to tell you before is the otherwise. I was saying the bible never say HE was tempted, but being tempted instead. I believe I have already explained in 1.

Of course now if you put the word "Can" then it will have different meaning altogether. Then I would say, yes GOD can be tempted...BUT only if he allows it. However people may say James 1:13 said GOD can not be tempted by Evil?
Well that's true?? but the verse also never say if he allows it or not?? of course it says can not *it is assuming GOD do not allow*

????? hmmmm....enough headache already?? hehehehe

3. As for your number 3 and 4 questions, I believed have come to a conclusion.

5. As for King James vs any other translation, forgive me if I once again give the wrong impression. I do not mean to give any preference as to which bible we should use best. If you look at my prior answer carefully, I did say “here is a quote that make me believe King James is right.” Thus the word of GOD himself (Mat 4:7) that convince me the KJV is right. (not because it is older or authorized by any man, including the king (for King is also mortal, and not free from sin)). The reason why I say the new translation is written to make easier for normal people to understand is because I do not want people to also think it is wrong! No matter what, I always believe that translations is made by Men (cause he is not perfect) and bound to make mistake. However if you use the 3 principles I have mentioned above, I am sure you will find the light.

6. Hehehe…now come to the best part brother! You seem to enjoy ice-cream too, I have to thank you for helping me see the light, shall we meet? And have cool head and heart together?? In one condition, that we keep our little secret identity alone….hehehehe *hmmm….how come it sound like Superman movie??? * If agree, you can send me some private message ok?? *hmmm…let me see, if my wife around??*


PS: Just want to add some notice to the reader of this forum (sorry not you my brother), please do not take it as if when I post something, it is for sure my own 100% belief. Sometime I may be puzzle too (that is why I post it, so that I can find answers…ding dong!), however I am a person who belief in factual proof or logical reason (cant help it, I am still a man) before I will accept any valid reasoning.