Re: Re: Drawing Lines

J. McKiness (
Sat, 13 Jun 1998 11:29:13 -0500 (CDT)


On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 you ( wrote:

> John,
> In a message dated 6/12/98 5:46:19 PM, you (
> wrote:
> <<So I have a problem with the idea that the human line was "morally
> deteriorated" prior to Adam. Pre-Adam humans could have been just as nasty as
> we are but not sin just as slugs are incapable of sin. >>
> I'm out of my depth when discussing morality and sin in early humans. I draw
> my inferences about the moral degeneration of humans partly from Cain's fear
> that he would be murd ered when God banished him from the Garden. Cain's
> was justified as God recognized, because God placed a special protective mark
> on him. Cain's fear of being murdered in society speaks of a moral degenerate
> society.

This is all idle speculation, but couldn't Cain's fear have been due to
God judgement that he was to be a restless wanderer, without his clan to
protect him and unable to till the soil (in other words, not allowed to
settle and provide for himself and family as a farmer -- which is the
life he knew). Another justifiable fear would be fear of revenge by other

> I take it the sins of Pre-Adamic man were primarily sins against each other
> since Pre-Adamic man did not have a covenantal relationship to God as Adam
> did. The sin of Adam was of a higher order--direct defiance of God, and
> refusal to obey God. The breaking of the covenant. So I agree with you that
> "that Adam was the first man who could sin as he is the first who was given
> the choice to disobey God."

Does a dog sin when it fits and kills for food, sex, or position in the
pack? I say no and I would also say that if there were
pre-Adam humans they couldn't either. I do not see how any created thing
could sin if it has not be given the choice to choose against God. As I
read Genesis, Adam and Eve could only sin by eating the forbidden fruit.
They could do anything else at that point without sinning (including
cutting down the tree of knowledge :-) ).

> <<Remember that the first charge given to humanity in the 1st chapter of
> Genesis was to be fruitfully and multiply, which was the same as the charge
> given to all other organisms.>>
> You give only half of the first charge to humanity. The rest of the charge
> was to subdue the earth, "and have dominion...over every living thing that
> moves upon the earth." No other organisms were given this mandate.

Yes that is true I didn't mention that God did put humans at the top of
the food chain, but I do not read into that command/blessing that at that
point man was given moral or ethical responsibilities which to me comes
in the second chapter of Genesis (oh the games we (myself inluded)
can play with Scripture!). I believe that we have to look back at Genesis
through Jesus Christ (The Word of God made flesh) and prior to the eating
of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge ... He was the Tree of Life. Only
by choosing wrongly (choosing against the Word) could sin occur and "man"
become evil.

> Thanks for your comments,
> Bob

Thank you for opening this discussion, I believe it is an important topic
which like the misinterpretation of God's "good" with "perfection" has not
been adequately addressed and is leading some into silly views of the
pre-sin cosmos.