Ed

Umm.... you totally missed the point, you are not going deep enough. This has nothing to do with the evidence for evolution but rather deals with epistemology.

Quote:

Ed: No, crystal formation is orderly because of the orderly structure of the molecules. You need to answer where THAT order came from. lp: One does not need much fancy structure in order to produce ordered crystals. Closely packing spheres together can easily produce crystal structure.

Yes, but the close packing needs to be orderly. So where does that come from?

Quote:

lp: (Ed' belief that the Nazis had been wicked because they had departed from Biblical literalism and supposedly did not believe in "moral absolutes"...) The trouble is that there has been a long history of Christian anti-Semitism, justified by the belief that the Jews have committed some great sins.

I have never denied that, but the problem is that the majority of Nazi leadership was not Christian so in actuality it had little or nothing to do with Christianity.

Quote:

lp: In fact, Ed's defenses of the genocidal massacres of the early Old Testament are remarkably similar to the views of many anti-Semites about Jews -- that they bear collective guilt for this or that great sin -- executing Jesus Christ, hammering nails through Communion wafers, using the blood of Christian children in Matzohs, being crooked capitalists, giving the world Communism, corrupting culture, dragging Germany into defeat in the 1914-1918 war, lusting after nice Nordic women, etc.

The big difference being that the Amalekites had actually done many horrible things while the Jews had not.

Quote:

lp: Jesus Christ being Jewish is no counterargument, because an anti-Semite would say that Jews are wicked for having turned their backs on their Messiah.

Actually many Germans at the time believed that Jesus was not Jewish. This shows how far they had drifted from orthodox Christianity.

Quote:

lp: And the Nazis were BIG believers in their own brand of "moral absolutes".

So are atheistic humanists.

Quote:

Ed: See my post above about why suffering is good if evolution is true. lp: Evolution just is, and is not a moral statement.

So that means that suffering just is, and is not "bad". Therefore why rail against Nazis and orthodox Christianity?

lpetrich

Ed:
If you run cosmological history in reverse you come to a point with no dimensions, this plainly implies that matter and space did not exist at that point.

That's only for CLASSICAL general relativity. Quantum-gravity effects are expected to intervene before that point.

... verse 1 states God created the heavens and the earth, this conjunctive phrase means the universe so the sun and stars began to come into existence at the same time as the earth.

Except that Genesis 1 clearly states that they have their origin in a later creation day, with the stars being an afterthought.

The rest of Genesis 1 is written from the perspective of a hypothetical earthbound observer, so he would not be able to see the sun and stars until after the atmosphere cleared which was of course much later than the formation of the earth.

Except that G1 does not clearly state that.

lpetrich

(the question of the existence of the external world...)

I infer it from how many of my sensations are independent of my volition.

(Close-packed spheres occupying a crystal lattice)
Yes, but the close packing needs to be orderly. So where does that come from?

It comes from the mathematics of sphere packing. The "Kepler Conjecture" states that the closest packing will be a lattice arrangement, but it has been proved only recently.

And where do you think that crystal-lattice structures come from? Some elves who put molecules in lattice patterns?

The big difference being that the Amalekites had actually done many horrible things while the Jews had not.

However, considering the Bible's writers objective on this subject is like considering the Nazis to be objective about Jews or George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein to be objective about each other.

Actually many Germans at the time believed that Jesus was not Jewish. This shows how far they had drifted from orthodox Christianity.

Depends on how one defines "orthodox Christianity".

Starboy

Don't forget about group theory.

Ed

Well then you have a very poor memory. Not in a single argument have I abandoned the scriptures.

Quote:

jtb: But the "God of the Bible" is actually very easy to understand, once you realize that he's a fictional character written by multiple authors. The good bits of the Bible were written by good people: the bad bits, by bad people. The mistake you keep making is your assumption that the bad bits are somehow negated by good bits elsewhere in the Bible. If one chapter describes an evil and vindictive God, then it's pointless to refer to a different book and quote that author's belief that God is good. That is out-of-context: the context, in analyzing scripture, is what THAT AUTHOR is saying, not what the Bible as a whole is saying.

No, since the Christian view of scripture is that as a whole it is God's word, the principle that scripture interprets scripture applies, ie difficult passages are interpreted by clear passages. Also there are passages that teach overarching principles such as Romans 6:23 and 3:9-23 and specific passages are interpreted in the light of these overarching principles.

Quote:

jtb: The theist does NOT know that logic works, or that it has any relationship to any hypothetical "real world" even if it APPEARS to work within his own mind. Ed: He doesnt KNOW it works but it IS a rational assumption given that without logic you cannot even think. jtb: And an atheist can make the SAME assumption, for the SAME reason. The difference is that, having made this assumption, the atheist can then use these faculties to investigate WHY they work, and come up with a more complete answer than the theist can. Ed: Yes, he can assume that logic works but he cannot reason out of himself to the existence of a subject-object correlation because he denies the existence of a personal creator whereby a correlation would have been established. jtb: EVOLUTION establishes the subject-object correlation, as a survival trait. This has been explained to you, many times. Therefore, in claiming that the atheist CANNOT rationalize a subject-object correlation, you are LYING again. Ed: No, first you have to establish that the evidence for evolution or any thing outside of the person actually exists and is not a dream. jtb: Ed, YOU do not know if an external reality exists. NOBODY knows if an external reality exists. We must all ASSUME that an external reality exists. However, once this ASSUMPTION has actually been made, both the theist AND the atheist can start to use their faculties to investigate WHY those faculties exist. And the atheist gets better answers than the theist gets.

No, see my January 31 post where I start with my own existence and logically extrapolate to the existence of an objective reality.

Quote:

Ed: But you have still not established that all this evidence is not part of just a realistic dream (see above about subject-object correlation). jtb: Neither have YOU. But I have good reason to trust subject-object correlation, UNLIKE you. I don't believe in the existence of a being that is capable of generating this delusion: you do. The Bible says that God sends delusions, and will play cruel tricks even on his own followers (Book of Job). Ed: Yes, I have. See my post where I reason starting with my own existence and logically demonstrate that subject-object correlation was established at creation. jtb: No, you are lying AGAIN. You have never "demonstrated" any such thing, you have merely CLAIMED it. As you have never demonstrated that subject-object correlation wasn't caused by EVOLUTION, then you cannot claim to have established the true cause.

Fraid so, see my January 31 post where I start with my own existence and logically extrapolate to the existence of an objective reality.

Quote:

Ed: I think I have demonstrated that for a theist he is acting rationally to believe that an external reality exists, see above. While the atheist does not have a rational basis for believing that an external reality exists. jtb: This statement is false, and you know it. Therefore you are lying again. Ed: No, see above. jtb: The statement IS false. Therefore you ARE lying. Ed: Nope it is true, read around page 15 I believe. jtb: I CORRECTED your error on page 15. I think what we're seeing here is a new form of idolatry, the "doctrine of Eddian infallibility". You expect me to accept that your assertions are true because they're on this thread. Anything you type becomes a "scripture" for you.

Sorry, not page 15, page 18, see my January 31 post.

Quote:

jtb: Why should I wish to "prove" such obvious nonsense? OF COURSE there are natural laws! OF COURSE that's how crystals form! The "obviously false" statement is your claim that "order only comes from a Mind". Crystal formation is an example of an orderly process that does not require the intervention of a human mind, or any other known mind. There's NO reason to assume that natural laws require INTELLIGENCE. You have it backwards: intelligence arose from natural laws (evolution). Ed: No, crystal formation is orderly because of the orderly structure of the molecules. You need to answer where THAT order came from. jtb: No, I do not. YOU are the one claiming, with absolutely NO evidence whatsoever, that "order only comes from a mind". I can just as easily go "new-age" and assert without evidence that order only comes from crystals. At least crystals are older than minds, so it makes more sense than YOUR version.

No, crystals have never been observed producing order, only minds have.

Quote:

Ed: What explanation? You just erroneously accused him of being a fundie. That is the extent of your explanation. It is possible that the genealogy that mentions the ages of the patriarchs may not have gaps in them. But the evidence points to all the others as having them. jtb: There is NO evidence that the gaps were DELIBERATE. Again you're having problems accepting that the Bible is an inconsistent compilation of many accounts, from many authors, in various states of corruption.

Fraid so, reread my Dr. Green posts.

Quote:

jtb: Kershaw's biography of Hitler doesn't change the FACT that the Nazis were predominantly Christians (at least 85% of Nazi Party members). Ed: I was referring to the Nazi leadership, but even the ordinary members that claimed to be christians were not orthodox christians who accepted the authority of the scriptures. The majority of Christian churches and groups had been strongly influenced by Wellhausen and liberal theologians to the point that they thought the scriptures were full of errors and no longer believed in moral absolutes. jtb: It is a FACT that the scriptures are full of errors. But I note that you have still not addressed the absurdity of your position: that the Nazis "went bad" because they LOST belief in the literal truth of the doctrine that the Jews were all sinners deserving of death, and condemned to fry for eternity in the Lake of Fire for their rejection of Jesus!

There is no such doctrine that applies to ALL jews.

Quote:

jtb: This is the definition of "genocide", from www.mirriamwebster.com: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group". The massacre of the Amalekites (a racial, political and cultural group) WAS genocide. jtb: It is clear FROM THE BIBLE that the Amalekites were killed because they were members of that group. Ed: No, it plainly was not racial because they were of the same race as the hebrews, ie Semitic. And God didnt care about their politics or culture except where it violated the rights of other human beings. That does not fit genocide. Otherwise locking up thieves would be considered genocide because they belong to a culture of thievery. jtb: The Amalekites who were "punished" had NOT violated the rights of other human beings. The Bible makes it clear that they were killed for being members of a CULTURAL GROUP that was accused of this. That is GENOCIDE.

In their culture they committed many atrocities, ie child abandonment, possibly human sacrifice, mistreatment of women, and etc.

Quote:

Ed: Notice God never mentioned individuals, he used the term "Amalekites". This was primarily for national guilt, only secondarily individual guilt. jtb: What the freak is "national guilt"??? A nation isn't a PERSON. Ed: But God deals with both individuals and nations in similar ways. jtb: Because he was invented by HUMANS who lack the ability (and the inclination) to identify and punish the ACTUAL perpetrators of crimes.

No, the evidence points to him not being invented by humans.

Quote:

Ed: These nations were cut off to prevent the corruption of Israel and the rest of the world see Deut. 20:16-18. jtb: After FOUR HUNDRED YEARS of this "corruption"? Ed: Its called a grace period. jtb: And we have already explained why this is baloney. ENTIRE GENERATIONS lived long and happy lives in this "grace period". When it came to an end, the perpetrators were long dead, and "God's punishment" fell on those who did NOT deserve it. As usual.

They did deserve it, see above about overarching principles.

Quote:

Ed: See my post above about why suffering is good if evolution is true. jtb: Evolution IS true. But that doesn't make suffering "good", it's simply a fact of life. WE are not the ones claiming that this whole setup was arranged by an "omnipotent and omnibenevolent" being.

If it led to humans having greater survivability, wouldnt it be considered good?

Quote:

Ed: No see my post where I demonstrate the rationality of his existence using the Law of Causality. And see my post above where if evolution is true, evil does not exist. jtb: You have never addressed the simple fact that evolution IS a "sufficient cause". And there are plenty of "evils" that serve no useful evolutionary purpose. Evolution "requires" only that those whose genes make them poorly suited to their environment do not reproduce. It does not "require" them to suffer, nor does it "require" deaths which aren't due to genetic factors.

So is that what evil is? When something happens that serves no useful evolutionary purpose? What about an "evil" that does serve a useful evolutionary purpose? Does that mean it is actually a good? And your third sentence is a tautology. How do you know which organisms have genes that make them poorly suited to their environment? They are the ones that don't reproduce, right? If it does not require them to suffer then why do the organisms that fail to reproduce usually DO suffer? Also how do you know when a death is not due to genetic factors?

Jack the Bodiless

Apologetic nonsense. The WATERS existed before the Big Bang, in your interpretation! According to Genesis, this planet was created in Chapter 1, verse 1: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth". If you wish to abandon the Bible here, you're left with no point where the Earth IS created (and no point where the oceans are created either).

And then there are the premature appearances of grass, whales, birds...
Martin Bormann was not "the majority".
The Bible doesn't say that those Amalekites who were killed had done ANY "horrible things". You have INVENTED that claim.
WE are not the ones arguing that evolution is a system designed by an omnibenevolent being.
The imaginary crimes of the Amalekites, the imaginary death penalty for non-adulterous rape, the bogus claims about the Genesis creation sequence...
You are not INTERPRETING difficult passages with clear passages. You are assuming that passages you DON'T LIKE are false, by referring to other passages that you DO LIKE.

However, by using New Testament passages to "correct" Old Testament ones, you are saying that the Bible was WRONG for centuries, until the NT was written!
This is what you said:
You did not explain how the theist can "look around with the rational assumption that other objects exist", and you lied when you claimed that the theist can do this but the atheist cannot.
There is no post, on January 31st or any other date, in which you demonstrated that subject-object correlation wasn't caused by EVOLUTION.
False. Crystals have been observed producing order: "seeding" more crystal formation. Also, if they produced minds in my "crystal religion", then it's hardly surprising that minds did not observe the process!

Many other processes have also been observed producing order. The sorting of pebbles by wave action on a beach, for instance.
...In which you failed to demonstrate that the gaps were deliberate.
Rejection of Jesus isn't necessarily a sin?

Jesus was lying when he said "I am the Way"?
And the Jews also committed many atrocities, including human sacrifice and the mistreatment of women. But that was NOT the reason the Amalekites were killed. The Bible is clear on what the reason was. But you have abandoned scripture.
No, it doesn't. God was invented by humans.
You really can't keep your story straight, can you?
It would be BETTER if the suffering wasn't necessary. But we don't live in a perfect world. Certainly not one run by a benevolent and omnipotent being!
You appear to be babbling here. I have never attempted to define "evil" as "something that serves no evolutionary purpose". Nor have I attempted to claim that everything that serves this purpose is "good". And it's perfectly obvious that the genes of some creatures make them poorly suited to their environments: you think that a cheetah born blind will survive?

Ed

But I don't rail against gravity. You rail against suffering and death however. What is the difference if both just ARE?

Quote:

jtb: I am NOT the one who is arguing that the present setup was "designed" by an "omnipotent and omnibenevolent" being!

But I never said that suffering and death were designed for humans.

Quote:

jtb: It is absolutely clear FROM THE BIBLE. The Abraham-David-Jesus linkup is IMMEDIATELY followed by the DETAILED genealogy. The author is plainly saying "Jesus was descended from David who was descended from Abraham, and here's the actual genealogy which shows HOW." Ed: Exactly. One is a brief summarized genealogy to introduce a more detailed genealogy. jtb: ...So why are you claiming that the DETAILED genealogy is deliberately left incomplete?

It is detailed but not exhaustive, as explained earlier.

Quote:

jtb: Then they did a VERY poor job of it. The Bible still contains references to polytheism in the Old Testament, Ed: Of course it does, all of the surrounding nations were polytheistic. And as time went on, even some of the jews rejected God became polytheistic themselves. jtb: The Jews were originally polytheistic, and the Bible still contains verses which acknowledge the existence of other gods.

No, the jews as well as other societies were originally monotheistic. Which verses?

[quote]
jtb: and even in the NT Matthew ascribes "prophecies" to the wrong prophet.

Ed: Where?

Quote:

Ed: There were names deliberately left out in the Sumerian King list. See W.F. Albright, BASOR, No. 88(1942). Also the leaving out of names to establish patterns like groups of 14 was a fairly common jewish practice in NT times. See A.L. Williams, "Christian Evidences for Jewish People." And it was a well known practice to include only people of significance in ancient genealogies. jtb: "It's true because Christian apologists say so". You will have to do better than that, Ed.

Wrong. These were scholars recognized as highly competent by both believer and non-believer alike. Especially Dr. W.F. Albright.

Quote:

jtb: The author DID include the information which allows the Flood to be dated as surely as the Exodus can be dated. Ed: Where? jtb: BOTH are dated from the genealogies: from the age of each person when he "begat" the next.

No, the bible specifically dates the Exodus from specific events but nowhere does it teach that you can add up the ages of the patriarchs to determine the date of the flood.

Quote:

Ed: Nomadic peoples generally do not leave many archaelogical traces behind. So we would not expect to find much of anything in the Sinai desert where they wanderings took place. As far as the exodus occupation of Canaan, fairly recently archaeologists John J. Bimson and David Livingston have provided evidence that the Middle Bronze Age dates should be shifted down approximately 100 years or so from 1550 BC to 1420 BC. When this is done there is almost a perfect correlation between the archaeological evidence and the biblical account. See Biblical Archaeology Review 13 no. 5 (1987), "Redating the Exodus". jtb: There is NO archaeological evidence of the Exodus. There aren't any relevant artifacts to re-date!

That is true because of the reason cited above about nomadic travelers. But it can be correlated with the conquest of Canaan as demonstrated in the above citation in BAR

Quote:

jtb: You're missing the point that, according to Exodus, the Jews were NOT a nomadic people. They were slaves! Slaves aren't nomadic!

They were temporarily nomadic for 40 years during the exodus.

Quote:

jtb: We're talking about a mass migration of many thousands of people, which left no trace of its passage.

See above about nomads.

Quote:

Ed: Yes animals can adapt up to a certain point, but they do not have a true will. For example, no normal hungry animal will refuse food, but a normal hungry human can and will in some cases, ie food strikes, diets, etc. jtb: A hungry animal WILL refuse food if it has a reason to do so. In fact, a "hunger strike" is one means of detecting that a pet is unhappy about something.

No, if a pet dog or cat refuses to eat it means it is either physically or mentally sick.

Quote:

Ed: But you have never explained WHY "we all deserve death, including children". This is nonsense. It doesn't suddenly "make sense" just because Paul says it!

It is God speaking thru Paul, and the reason why is because God is so morally pure that a being that harbors even the smallest amount of sin cannot be in his immediate presence without immediately dying.

Quote:

jtb: There was NO research into the actual racial abilities of the Jews during the rise of Nazism. The only vaguely "scientific" Nazi research on race involved such things as measurement of physiological characteristics (size and shape of facial features etc). In the later stages of the Holocaust, Mengele experimented on the Jews at Auschwitz, but obviously Nazi anti-semitism could not have been based on his findings. Ed: Their research was mainly just psychiatrical and anthropological written studies. jtb: ...Which do NOT show that the Jews actually WERE an inferior race!

It apparently convinced them, of course their conclusion was foregone no matter what data they accumulated.

Quote:

jtb: Because they AREN'T!

I know!

Quote:

jtb: Nietzche wasn't a Nazi. Are you now going to label everyone who reads Nietzche a "Nazi"? Ed: No, but their thought was strongly influenced by his writings on things such as religion. jtb: Yes, and by other things too, including Christianity. Nietzche was't an anti-Semite. And he was an atheist. The Nazis were anti-Semites (due to Christianity, NOT Nietzche) and were mostly Christian.

No, most were anti-christians, and their reading Nietzche helped convince them that Christianity was for the weak.

Quote:

jtb: You are arguing that the Nazi Christians "went bad" and started stuffing Jews into ovens because they no longer accepted the literal truth of the doctrine that the Jews would burn in the Lake of Fire! Ed: Actually many of the people killed by the Nazis WERE believers. And you have my explanation reversed, the Nazis "went bad" because they no longer believed that God would send THEM into the Lake of Fire for slaughtering human beings. They thought he was just a myth, sound familiar? BTW, the lake of fire is a symbol for hell, there is probably not an actual lake of fire in hell. jtb: Were the Israelites sent into the Lake of Fire for killing the Amalekites?

No, because they did not do anything wrong as I demonstrated above.

Quote:

jtb: Remember, the Nazis were convinced that God was on THEIR side. Every Wehrmacht soldier carried the motto "Gott Mit Uns" (God With Us). They were doing GOD's work. They did NOT think he was a myth.

But for most of them the term God was pantheistic not theistic, see my scholarly references in my earlier posts.

Quote:

jtb: ...But now YOU are saying that part of Christian doctrine was a myth? Does that mean that YOU are becoming a Nazi, Ed?

No, it is called apocalyptic literature which is highly symbolic, the lake of fire was symbolic of hell.

lpetrich

(On the Biblical genealogies...)
Ed:
It is detailed but not exhaustive, as explained earlier.

Except that the Bible itself does not warn that many genealogy members are skipped over.

(early societies polytheistic...)
No, the jews as well as other societies were originally monotheistic. Which verses?

Except that that is just plain wrong. The earliest documented religions feature many deities.

No, the bible specifically dates the Exodus from specific events but nowhere does it teach that you can add up the ages of the patriarchs to determine the date of the flood.

Except that the patriarchs and the Exodus and the Conquest are most likely mythical, even if loosely based on some real history here and there. See the recent book The Bible Unearthed for details.

It is God speaking thru Paul, and the reason why is because God is so morally pure that a being that harbors even the smallest amount of sin cannot be in his immediate presence without immediately dying.

Ah, yes. God has super thin skin.

(the Nazis...)
No, most were anti-christians, and their reading Nietzche helped convince them that Christianity was for the weak.

Seems like Ed only reads fundie and quasi-fundie literature. I've read more broadly, and the Nazis tended to prefer Nazified versions of Xianity.

No, it is called apocalyptic literature which is highly symbolic, the lake of fire was symbolic of hell.

Except that the Book of Revelation does not contain a disclaimer stating "Much of this book is intended symbolically instead of literal word-for-word".

Jack the Bodiless

Just how many times do I have to repeat that I am NOT the one who is arguing that the present setup was "designed" by an "omnipotent and omnibenevolent" being! before this simple fact begins to percolate through your neutronium skull?
According to your religion, the whole setup was designed by God.
A convenient fiction.
No, they were polytheistic. El was part of a family, he had a wife and kids. The Jews did not become monotheistic until the Babylonian captivity, when Zoroastrianism was imposed on them. Relics of Jewish polytheism include the use of the plural in Genesis, and the power of the Egyptian priests in Exodus.
You have been referred to the SAB many times before. Look it up for yourself, in the False Prophecies section.
When kings are left out of genealogies, it's because they were unpopular (this happened to some Egyptian pharaohs). But, in order to push back the date of the Flood, you require almost ALL of the names to be omitted!
Where does the Bible date Exodus without referring to genealogies?

And nowhere does the Bible teach that a DATED genealogy cannot be trusted.
There is no evidence of the EXODUS. Evidence of "conquest" isn't evidence of the EXODUS.
Thousands of people don't just suddenly gain the magical ability to pass without leaving a trace just by calling themselves "nomads"!

Nomads leave little trace because they travel in SMALL GROUPS.
And the same applies to a human. Humans desperate enough to go on hunger strike are "mentally sick". A pet that refuses to eat because it's unhappy is "mentally sick".
It still doesn't make sense. Not only is God not "morally pure", but there is no reason why the proximity of a "morally pure" being should cause death. Nor does it explain why "we all deserve death, including children", whether God is nearby or not.
Because of Christianity, yes.
No, they were mostly Christian. Lying about this won't change reality, Ed.
The Nazis did what the Israelites did. Therefore the Nazis did not do anything wrong either?
No, they were ordinary German Lutherans and Catholics.
There is no indication of this in the Bible. Therefore you're doing what the Nazis did.

Ed

Although the lawbreaker doesnt like representative government, it is still the best form. And in this case our representative was a perfect match.

Quote:

Ed: Yes animals can adapt up to a certain point, but they do not have a true will. For example, no normal hungry animal will refuse food, but a normal hungry human can and will in some cases, ie food strikes, diets, etc. ng: Your example is unfair. Animals obviously are not capable of abstract thinking and therefore refusing food when hungry is not within their intelectual capacity. But this is a question of degree and not a fundamental difference.

Many posters on this website think that chimps are capable of abstract thinking and yet they will not refuse food when hungry. So intelligence is not necessarily tied to a true will.

Quote:

ng: To be fair take a mentally deficient human. Such a human will also be incapable of refusing food when hungry. Take a human who has never been thought to speak and would therefore have no cultural heritage .... then you would have a fair comparison.

Deaf mutes cannot speak and yet they have a culture and can choose to refuse food when hungry. But I am primarily referring to normal healthy humans.

Quote:

Ed: The overall teaching of scripture regarding death for all humans is in Romans 6:23 and Romans 3:9-23. We all deserve death including children but sometimes the timing of childrens deaths is used as a punishment of the parents. I have never denied this and that is what the passage you quote refers to. ng: You are talking about Paul who first persecuted CHristians and then felt a great sense of guilty. Paul needed a great sin from which all of humanity had to be saved from and he found in the Genesis story. Note that Jesus never even once referred to the Genesis story as the reason for his mission on earth. Nor does any part of the old testament speak about this. This is strictly speaking Paul's invention. It is baseless.

Although OT believers may not have known exactly how they received their sinful natures they plainly knew that they were sinners as evidenced by knowing that all of the animal sacrifices in OT were instituted because of their sins. In God's progressive revelation he did not reveal the details until Paul. Also Genesis 6:5 refers to our inherited sinful nature, so they knew they had one they just didnt know exactly how they got it. And Jesus told them that he came to take away their sin, but since he knew that Paul would be going into more detail later on he didnt need to explain how they got their sinful nature.