Which is it? Is it based on tradition, or is it based on Moses and Paul, because neither Moses nor Paul ever mention 'Original Sin' or ever suggested we sinned when Adam did, while you favourite quote 'we all sinned in Adam' is simply a human tradition that dates back to a bad translation into Latin.
Baloney, Moses describes the historical narrative and Paul affirms the event in no uncertain terms. I have seen it in the original and never read it in the Latin. Don't you know that it is the original that is canonical and not the translation?
Amazing the way you switch subjects back and forth. I say that Moses and Paul never mentioned original sin or suggested we sinned when Adam did. You reply "Moses describes the historical narrative". What has that got to do with it? Even if Moses did consider the creation account literal, which is doubtful, it still does not justify your claiming Moses as a basis for your 'all sinned in Adam' Original Sin doctrine, neither Moses nor Paul ever say that.
And if you have seen 'all sinned in Adam' in the original, why don't you tell us where the verse is? Unless you can do that, I can only conclude you got it from it's actual source, Augustine and the mistranslation into Latin of Romans 5:12. Augustine tells us he got "
all then sinned in Adam" from Romans 5:12 and quotes the Latin Vulgate
in quo omnes peccaverunt (in whom all have sinned). It is a mistranslation. The original says
εφ ω παντες ημαρτον, because all sinned. So how do you get all sinned in Adam from the original when the phrase dates back to Augustine got it from a Latin mistranslation?
Because you cites 11 Church fathers which establishes Creationism as a traditional doctrine. That's how!
Actually Augustine would never qualify as a modern Creationist because he did not take the Genesis days literally and he believed using your scriptural interpetation to argue against science was 'disgraceful and dangerous' and brought the gospel into disrepute.
And it is not Creationism he was trying to establish as a doctrine with his 11 church fathers, but his doctrine of original sin. However he only succeeded in establishing it as Catholic Doctrine. The Churches in the East never accepted his view. Why should they when it is really based on a bad Latin translation?
Once again you are assuming this without any supporting evidence. I say again, I have seen it in the original and it's not complicated exegesis to understand that Adam means the first human being.
Switch again. What have you seen in the original?
We all sinned in Adam?
Or
Adam means the first human being?
Anyway Adam means a man or mankind too. In fact when Genesis talks about God wiping out the human race in the flood the human race is describe as 'the Adam whom I have created' Gen 6:5&6. It is circular exegesis to say Adam means the first human being therefore the Genesis account is a historical narrative because the dictionary description of adam as the name of the first human being is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis to start with.
But that is all beside the point. The issue is not Adam being the first human being, but that we all sinned in Adam.
I don't care about the Vulgate, I know where he got the English translation and it was not the Latin. It was translated, primarily by William Tyndale and John Wycliffe not the Vulgate.
What??? Augustine got the verse from Tyndale?
Ok my head has stopped spinning.
Incidentally, while it is bizzare to suggest that Augustine got his
all sinned in Adam from Wycliffe, have you looked at what wiki tells us about Wycliffe in the link you gave?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_WycliffeWycliffe set himself to the task. While it is not possible exactly to define his part in the translation which was based on the Vulgate there is no doubt that it was his initiative, and that the success of the project was due to his leadership.
You can see how
Wycliffe followed the Vulgate in his translation of Romans 5:12 and so deth passide forth in to alle men, in which man alle men synneden. Tyndale corrected the error and reverted to the original Greek meaning in his translation And so deeth went over all men in somoche that all men synned.
The real question is why you don't accept Creationism as a Christian doctrine. I don't care about Augustine and certainly don't wholeheartedly embrace RCC doctrine unconditionally. What I do appreciate is scholarship and the TE perspective is unheard of in a Christian context before the advent of TOE.
Heliocentric interpretation of scripture were unheard of before before the Copernicus. But that is no argument against it. As far as I know you accept the new interpetation of the geocentric passages without question.
TE is a bit different from the heliocentric controversy. Figurative interpretations of Genesis, which is the issue here, have been around since the beginning of the church. They were common in first century Judaism, both the helenistic Philo of Alexandria and the Jerusalem priest Josephus, interpreted Genesis figuratively. Church fathers like Augustine and Origen, and Catholic theologians like Aquinas and Anselm all interpreted the Genesis days figuratively. These is the same Augustine you were quoting yourself earlier and whose doctrine on original sin you quote every time you say we all sinned in Adam.
All TEs accept the doctrine of Creation, which was firmly established in the creeds at a time when there were church fathers who dismissed the literal interpetation of the Genesis days as childish and ignorant. Do not confuse the doctrine of Creation with Creationism.
It's the lack of righteousness and holiness based on a single event in human history. That is exactly what the article says and exactly what Christians have been teaching for 2,000 years.
That's watering down your doctrine considerable from 'we all sinned in Adam'. Wiki actually says:
In the history of Christianity this condition has been characterized in ways ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency to something as drastic as total depravity.
First of all I am not an apologist for the RCC. Second of all I can cite all the Christian scholarship you need in support of the doctrine of original sin going all the way back to Paul and Moses. Split the semantical hairs all you like but the Scriptures are crystal clear and you can believe the historical narrative of Genesis or you can believe the Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common ancestry but you cannot have it both ways. It's Moses and Paul or it's Darwin, there is not third choice.
For someone who isn't an apologist for the Catholic Church, you sure quote the Catholic Encyclopedia a lot, and quote it as authoritative too. Like is said it is odd behaviour for an evangelical.
Anyway if you think I am splitting semantical hairs please point it out. The issue of original sin is not a question of Darwin or the bible, but of what the bible tells us about human nature and sin. Your argument sound like the one a few centuries ago where heliocentrism was misrepresented as choosing between Copernicus and the bible.
In fact it is a choice between a bad interpretation of the bible and one that doesn't contradict the world God created. Don't forget the figurative interpetation of Genesis has been around since the early church.
No it's not a mistranslation, that is not only untrue it's pure undiluted ignorance to insist that it is. Now either you look at the original or you have nothing.
I have looked at the original, and the version Augustine used was a mistranslation. English translations based on the original Greek say 'because all sinned',
because BBE, Complete Apostles' Bible, ESV, GNB, ISV, NKJV, NASB, NET, NIV, RSVA, NRSV, WEB
for NLT
inasmuch LITV
for that KJV, YLT.
While translations based on the Vulgate that Augustine used say:
Douay Rheims: in whom all have sinned.
Wycliffe:
in which man alle men synneden
Sorry Mark you need to do more than just claim the Vulgate's rendering of Romans 5:12 is not a mistranslation.
That sounds like a challenge, no problem. Would you consider arguing this formally. Just the exposition of the proof texts from the original. Put you money where you mouth is and drop me a PM if you actually have the courage of your convictions.
No I am just asking for some of that exegesis you keep talking about. You claim your 'all sinned in Adam' is foundational to the gospel and crystal clear in scripture, it should be easy to present the evidence in this thread. So far all you have done is claim to have presented it.
Technically you are not twisting my words, you are twisting Paul's You have not offered a shred of supporting evidence that the passage was mistranslated.
There's the evidence of all the modern versions that say
because all sinned instead of
in whom all sinned. Maybe they are all twisting Paul's words too and we should go back to the Catholic church's Vulgate. Then you say you are not trying to defend Catholicism
I know what you are doing, you are trying to get me to defend Catholicism knowing full well I am an evangelical but I am wise to these tricks.
I am just surprised an evangelical would end up quoting Aquinas and the Catholic Encyclopedia as authorities. You find yourself in an incongruous position and you want to blame me. I don't want you to defend them. I would be more than happy if you drop them, I would be even happier of you dropped the Catholic Original Sin doctrine you think disproves TE.
Look at the original and if you are convinced that the passage was translated wrong then we can deal with this in depth and formally. Otherwise I would have to conclude that your worldview has polluted your theology and I have no remedy for that.
It would help if you actually presented any evidence the Vulgate's translation was accurate rather than simply blustering that it is correct. I have not come across any English translation from the Greek that agrees with Wycliffe's or the Rheims Douay's translations of the Vulgate, so apparently all the Greek experts on all the translation committees that dealt with Romans 5:12 reject the Vulgate's rendering too.
. εφ ω ... παντες .. ημαρτον
because ... all... . .. sinned
The key part is
εφ ω which is a Greek phrase which meant 'on the condition that' in classical Greek, in koine Greek the phrase took on the meaning 'because' which we see in practically all modern translations.
