The Idols and False Notions have Taken Deep Root

[The Lady Kate]

I have to disagree that literal reading of the creation story reflects "Creationism". There is no such thing as a "literal" reading. Creationists - if you mean those people that believe in a 6000 years old earth - interpret the creation story not "literal" but bend it to fit their own belief. If you read it really "literal" you end up with a flat earth below a vault with stars fixed to it and water above it. Which was just the way a Jewish author of that time (600 BC) would describe creation.

Ah but our modern creationists have already reconciled that by handwaving away the inconvenient passages... once reality provided the overwheming evidence which even they couldn't ignore anymore.

 

[shernren]

Question 1.
Do you accept that I affirm the supernatural events of the New Testament as history? In fact, I affirm the supernatural events of the Old Testament outside the Pentateuch as history as well; I am currently considering my position on the Pentateuch as history, given certain details outside Genesis (such as that the 603 thousand Jewish men given in the Pentateuch would have taken several days to cross the Red Sea at any reasonable pace). Do you accept that? Do you admit that you cannot directly cite any statements of mine which are explicitly anti-supernaturalist?

And if so, do you accept that you cannot impeach my theology on the charge of anti-supernaturalism alone?

Question 2.
Do you answer "yes" to all questions on the list of six that was posed by PaladinValer? If so, do you acknowledge that this constitutes considerable mutual agreement between you and the TEs who have answered "yes"?

Do you believe that any individual answering "yes" to those six questions, and lives a life in accordance with such answers, does in fact believe in a complete and completely biblical gospel?

No response yet.

 

[crawfish]

I'm a firm believer in Justification by faith through grace alone. In Adam all sinned and are born with the Adamic nature.

Then I would suggest a softening of your tone here, because it suggests that you believe that grace is not adequate for our salvation in light of our different view of scripture, despite the fact that our faith in God as creator and Christ as our savior is strong.

 

[crawfish]

I have to disagree that literal reading of the creation story reflects "Creationism". There is no such thing as a "literal" reading. Creationists - if you mean those people that believe in a 6000 years old earth - interpret the creation story not "literal" but bend it to fit their own belief. If you read it really "literal" you end up with a flat earth below a vault with stars fixed to it and water above it. Which was just the way a Jewish author of that time (600 BC) would describe creation.

I do agree with you, and that is not what I was suggesting. Perhaps I could clarify by saying "a literal reading with 21st century insight".

 

[Assyrian]

Originally Posted by mark kennedy
You continue to deny this not for any theological reason or the context of the texts. You do it to compromise Scripture with secular science. The Scriptures are crystal clear on this:

Wherefore,[Stong's G1223 διά dia dee-ah' - A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through], [Thayer Definition: G5124 τοῦτο touto - that (thing), this (thing)] as [Thayer's G5618 ὥσπερ hōsper hoce'-per - just as, that is, exactly like] by (διά the channel of an act) one[Strong's G1520 εἷς heis hice (Including the neuter [etc.] ἕν hen); a primary numeral] man [Strong's G444 ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos anth'-ro-pos From G435 and ὤψ ōps (the countenance; from G3700) a human being: - certain, man.] sin [StrongsG266 ἁμαρτία hamartia ham-ar-tee'-ah - offence, sin (-ful)] entered [Thayer Definition: G1525 εἰσέρχομαι eiserchomai 1) to go out or come in: to enter] into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (Romans 5:12)
That is an exposition going back to the original Koine Greek. Why don't you read it this time and quit making foolish and reckless statements you know are not true.

Is it my imagination or the less basis you have in you argument, the more you attack people's motivations and insult them? Or is it just more noticeable when your arguments are empty?

Anyway lets have a look at your supposed exegesis. It is really amazing you would post something like that. Do you really think that was an argument?

We were talking about your we all sinned in Adam phrase and you saying there was a biblical basis for it.

The phrase comes from Augustine who got it from the latin translation of Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. Instead the latin said in whom all sinned, from which he developed the doctrine of all then sinned in Adam. You claim all sinned in Adam is not a mistranslation and offer an exegesis to Romans 5:12 to show the scriptures are 'crystal clear' on it.

You post:

Wherefore,[Stong's G1223 διά dia dee-ah' - A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through], [Thayer Definition: G5124 τοῦτο touto - that (thing), this (thing)]
as [Thayer's G5618 ὥσπερ hōsper hoce'-per - just as, that is, exactly like]
by (διά the channel of an act)
one[Strong's G1520 εἷς heis hice (Including the neuter [etc.] ἕν hen); a primary numeral]
man [Strong's G444 ἄνθρωπος anthrōpos anth'-ro-pos From G435 and ὤψ ōps (the countenance; from G3700) a human being: - certain, man.]
sin [StrongsG266 ἁμαρτία hamartia ham-ar-tee'-ah - offence, sin (-ful)]
entered [Thayer Definition: G1525 εἰσέρχομαι eiserchomai 1) to go out or come in: to enter]
into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (Romans 5:12)

You completely ignore the last phrase, the one we were discussing, the one Augustine got his original sin doctrine from. Do you think that if you produce an incoherent word soup of the first part of the verse people will not notice you haven't said anything meaningful about the phrase the doctrine came from?

And you need to do a bit more than shove Strong's and Thayer's definitions into the text and call it an exegesis.

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?

No he didn't, the passage is actually more straightforward in the Greek then it would have been in the Latin.

Yet you never get around to showing where this straightforward meaning is in the text. Straightforward yet missed by all the bible translators who reject the Vulgate's interpetation say it means 'because all sinned'.

When Cyprian of Carthage started promoting infant baptism as a cure from Adam’s sin. He immediately had to defend it against the charge of novelty. As shown, it was not the church’s understanding that infants were in need of cleansing from sin. At the time, however, no major theological counter-thesis was offered. It was not until Pelegius started preaching in the early 5th century that the orthodox church was forced to define the doctrine of "Original Sin". Pelegius, who up to this point had been an orthodox bishop and writer, propounded that Adam’s sin had absolutely no effect on his offspring, and that every individual had the potential to live a perfect and holy life. Pelegius asserted that man was by nature good, and could, by his own will and accord, live pleasingly before God. This extreme position, threatened the very necessity for the sacrifice and atonement of Christ. If justification was by the law, then Christ died in vain (Galatians 2:21). Early Church.net on Baptism
Until the fifth century there was no need for the original sin doctrine, it was understood to be the result of Adam's sin. It was not until Pelegius denied the sin of Adam that a counter-thesis was needed. So when you dismiss the clear teaching of Scripture have have made the same error as Pelegius. If did not originate with Adam then it is possible to be righteous by you own works, in which case Christ died for nothing.

In other words no one thought of Original Sin and 'everyone sinning in Adam' before the 5th century. Read the rest of the article you quote. Before Cyprian of Carthage started preaching infant baptism, church fathers thought infants were innocent. Augustine's 'we all sinned in Adam' doctrine was a fifth century invention.

Nonsense, Augustine was a creationist and there is nothing in his writings to lead one to conclude that Adam was a figure of speech. Now you are twisting the words of Augustine to suit your worldview and that is disgraceful and dangerous.

Unlike Creationists who believe there is only one way to interpretation Genesis - their literal six day interpretation, Augustine believed there were different valid ways to interpret scripture, particularly Genesis, but when science showed one of the interpretations was wrong it clearly was never the intention of scripture in the first place, people who hold onto a bad interpretation that has been shown to be wrong by science and use their interpretation to argue against what non Christians know and understand to be the case, bring the gospel into disrepute.

Augustine, the Literal Meaning of Genesis. vol. 1
Chapter 19

On interpreting the mind of the sacred writer. Christians should not talk nonsense to unbelievers.

38. Let us suppose that in explaining the words, "And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and light was made," one man thinks that it was material light that was made, and another that it was spiritual. As to the actual existence of "spiritual light" in a spiritual creature, our faith leaves no doubt; as to the existence of material light, celestial or supercelestial, even existing before the heavens, a light which could have been followed by night, there will be nothing in such a supposition contrary to the faith until un-erring truth gives the lie to it. And if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy Scripture but was an opinion pro-posed by man in his ignorance. On the other hand, if reason should prove that this opinion is unquestionably true, it will still be uncertain whether this sense was intended by the sacred writer when he used the words quoted above, or whether he meant something else no less true. Andif the general drift of the passage shows that the sacred writer did not intend this teaching, the other, which he did intend, will not thereby be false; indeed, it will be true and more worth knowing. On the other hand, if the tenor of the words of Scripture does not militate against our taking this teaching as the mind of the writer, we shall still have to enquire whether he could not have meant something else besides. And if we find that he could have meant something else also, it will not be clear which of the two meanings he intended. And there is no difficulty if he is thought to have wished both interpretations if both are supported by clear indications in the context.

39. Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

You call Augustine a Creationist, but Creationism is an approach to scripture he called disgraceful and dangerous.

 

[Assyrian]

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?

You can say that until your blue in the face and it won't magically be true because you do. It's not translated from the Latin, it's translated from the Greek. There was a lot of debate between Protestants and Catholics about concupiscence which is Latin in origin but irrelevant to this discussion.

You do realise Augustine wrote in Latin, that his 'all then sinned in Adam' that you get your doctrine from was written in Latin, and quoted the Latin translation of Roman 5:12 as a basis?

Here is what Augustine said:
Contra duas Epistolas Pelagianorum, lib. iv. c. 7:
Nam et sic sanctus Hilarius intellexit quod scriptum est, in quo omnes peccaverunt: ait enim, 'In quo, id est in Adam omnes peccaverunt.' Deinde addidit: 'Manifestum est in Adam omnes peccasse quasi in massâ; ipse enim per peccatum corruptus, quos genuit omnes nati sunt sub peccato.' Haec scribens Hilarius sine ambiguitate commonuit, quomodo intelligendum esset, in quo omnes peccaverunt.

Here is the Latin translation of Roman 5:12 propterea sicut per unum hominem in hunc mundum peccatum intravit et per peccatum mors et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit in quo omnes peccaverunt

This translation of of Rom 5:2 'in whom all sinned', is wrong and has been rejected by the Eastern orthodox church and by all our bible translators who translate it 'because all sinned'.

It is even rejected by the Catholic Church.

In a modern translation the Pauline text reads as follows: "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom 5:12). In the original Greek we read: eph o pantes emarton, an expression which was translated in the old Latin Vulgate as: in quo omnes peccaverunt, "in whom (a single man) all sinned." But what the Vulgate translates as "in whom," from the very beginning the Greeks clearly understood in the sense of "because" or "inasmuch."This sense is now generally accepted by modern translations.

You just going to get increasingly incoherent, look at the original.

I say your 'we all sinned in Adam' is based on a bad translation and can't be found in scripture
You reply instead, it's not complicated exegesis to understand that Adam means the first human being.
And you accuse me of being incoherent?

Adam can be used other ways but in Romans and Genesis 2 it's a proper name of the first man.

That's if you interpret Adam literally, but the name does not mean 'first human being' it means 'man'.

As for Adam being a proper name in Gen 2, the NLT and RSV don't use Adam as a proper name until Gen 3:17 while the NRSV, Young's Literal Translation and Greens Literal Version first use Adam as a name in Gen 4:25. The first time Adam is actually referred to as a name is in Gen 5:2 He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. So instead of Adam being the name of the first human being, the bible tells us it was God's name for the first human beings.

It's the same issue.

No it's not. There is a world of difference between Adam being the first human being and the doctrine that we all sinned in Adam. One is based on a simple literal interpetation of scripture, the other has no scriptural basis and came from a Latin mistranslation. You may confuse the two because the doctrine of 'all sinned in Adam' needs a literal Adam to start with, but it goes way beyond it, and many who take Adam literally, from modern TEs to the traditional interpretation of the Eastern Orthodox, reject Augustine's doctrine that not only was Adam the first human being but that we all sinned in him when he did.

Mark: I don't care about the Vulgate, I know where he got the English translationand it was not the Latin. It was translated, primarily by William Tyndale and John Wycliffe not the Vulgate.
Assyrian: What??? Augustine got the verse from Tyndale?
Mark: No, we got the English version from Tyndale and Wycliff, if you actually read this posts you would know that.

I read the posts. We were talking about you quoting Augustine and Aquinas and Augustine getting his 'all sinned in Adam' doctrine from the Vulgate:

I used to be a Catholic, I recognise the doctrine you are preaching, it is the one I was taught before I started looking to scripture for my doctrine rather than tradition. You favourite quote is a doctrine that goes way back, not to the NT, but to a bad translation of Romans 5:12 into Latin. Of course you can't find it in scripture, and it is unsurprising in a way you find the greatest support in the writing of Augustine and Aquinas. What is surprising is that an evangelical would cling so strongly to Catholic tradition and to the arguements of Augustine and Aquinas in support of a teaching based on a mistranslation.

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.

The issue here is not the historicity of Adam, though it is not well supported by Luke who only referred to the genealogy as 'supposed', or Paul who compared Adam and Christ on a figuratively level in Romans 5 and 1Cor 15. We have discussed that at different times. But it is a non issue. Many TEs accept a literal Adam. The issue is your claim that Christ's death is meaningless unless we all sinned in Adam, and that any TE who doesn't accept your Vulgate based all sinned in Adam, is theological bankrupt.

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.

I say Augustine got the 'all sinned in Adam' doctrine from the Latin, and you reply I know where he got the English translation and it was not the Latin. Who is the 'he' you are talking about if not Augustine, except that it is bizarre to claim Augustine got a translation from Wycliffe and Tyndale. Now you say it is we got the English version from Tyndale and Wycliffe. But what has that to do with discussing Augustine and the latin translation he got the all sinned in Adam doctrine from?
I can only assume you are trying to spin a web of incomprehensible non sequiturs to avoid the fact you cannot provide any scriptural justification for the doctrine.

That ought to do it, look at it in the original because the Protestant Reformers all held that Adam was the first man, specially created.

They also believed scripture taught the sun went round the earth, but what has that to do with anything? The issue is not whether Adam was the first man but whether we 'all sinned in Adam'. The reformers were deeply influenced by Augustine, Luther was an Augustinian monk, so it isn't surprising some of his ideas were passed on, but the fact remains the all sinned in Adam doctrine was Augustine's idea and came from a bad translation into Latin. It is not in the original. If it was you would have shown it to us by now.

 

[busterdog]

Speaking of respect for beliefs, have you read the title of this thread? Let's not make martyrs of the culpable.

You mean its adhominem to say a belief is false?

You mean saying your belief is false is lack of respect?

You guys are just sloppy with your terms.

I recognize your scientific acheivement and intelligence. I have given credit for the elegance of the evolutionary model and even big bang. But both are false.

The literal of fall of a man named Adam is a reasonable doctrine. Its rejection is a false one.

 

[Mallon]

You guys are just sloppy with your terms.

Speaking of being sloppy with terms, you're applauding someone who said:

theology is science

Are you sure you still want to label us as having no respect and being sloppy with words? Because it seems to me that if you're commending someone who equates theology with science, and who has earned a reputation for being invective, the shoe might be on the other foot!

 

[shernren]

We were talking about your we all sinned in Adam phrase and you saying there was a biblical basis for it.

The phrase comes from Augustine who got it from the latin translation of Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. Instead the latin said in whom all sinned, from which he developed the doctrine of all then sinned in Adam. You claim all sinned in Adam is not a mistranslation and offer an exegesis to Romans 5:12 to show the scriptures are 'crystal clear' on it.

... Do you think that if you produce an incoherent word soup of the first part of the verse people will not notice you haven't said anything meaningful about the phrase the doctrine came from?

And you need to do a bit more than shove Strong's and Thayer's definitions into the text and call it an exegesis.

Yet you never get around to showing where this straightforward meaning is in the text. Straightforward yet missed by all the bible translators who reject the Vulgate's interpetation say it means 'because all sinned'.

For what it's worth, here's some Greek soup for the last bit of that verse.

Wherefore,1223, 5124 as5618 by1223 one1520 man444 sin266 entered1525 into1519 the3588 world,2889 and2532 death2288 by1223 sin;266 and2532 so3779 death2288 passed1330 upon1519 all3956 men,444 for1909 that3739 all3956 have sinned:264
(Romans 5:12 KJV+)

(emphasis added)

G1909
ἐπί
epi
ep-ee'
A primary preposition properly meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution [with the genitive case], that is, over, upon, etc.; of rest (with the dative case) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, upon, etc.: - about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, [where-]) fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-) on (behalf of) over, (by, for) the space of, through (-out), (un-) to (-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively).

G3739
ὅς, ἥ, ὅ
hos hē ho
hos, hay, ho
Probably a primary word (or perhaps a form of the article G3588); the relative (sometimes demonstrative) pronoun, who, which, what, that: - one, (an-, the) other, some, that, what, which, who (-m, -se), etc. See also G3757.

G3956
πᾶς
pas
pas
Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

G264
ἁμαρτάνω
hamartanō
ham-ar-tan'-o
Perhaps from G1 (as a negative particle) and the base of G3313; properly to miss the mark (and so not share in the prize), that is, (figuratively) to err, especially (morally) to sin: - for your faults, offend, sin, trespass.

Both in the original and in any responsible English translation, "Adam" simply isn't there in the verse.

 

[busterdog]

Speaking of being sloppy with terms, you're applauding someone who said:

Are you sure you still want to label us as having no respect and being sloppy with words? Because it seems to me that if you're commending someone who equates theology with science, and who has earned a reputation for being invective, the shoe might be on the other foot!

Assuming Mark is wrong, as you have taken him out of context, two wrongs making a right is rather a lame approach. Not unique, mind you. You guys always refuse to face yourselves and your mistakes. Why not just apologize?

 

[Mallon]

Assuming Mark is wrong, as you have taken him out of context, two wrongs making a right is rather a lame approach.

I'm not trying to right whatever wrongs you think the local evolutionary creationists have committed against mark. I'm simply saying that it seems hypocritical that you should scold some people for being disrespectful/careless, while praising others who do the same.

You guys always refuse to face yourselves and your mistakes. Why not just apologize?

What, specifically, would you like me to apologize for?

 

[mark kennedy]

You do realise Augustine wrote in Latin, that his 'all then sinned in Adam' that you get your doctrine from was written in Latin, and quoted the Latin translation of Roman 5:12 as a basis?

You do realize that Paul wrote in Koine Greek Right!!!!!!!!!

This translation of of Rom 5:2 'in whom all sinned', is wrong and has been rejected by the Eastern orthodox church and by all our bible translators who translate it 'because all sinned'.

Show me in the original.

I say your 'we all sinned in Adam' is based on a bad translation and can't be found in scripture
You reply instead, it's not complicated exegesis to understand that Adam means the first human being.

The statement remains uncontradicted.

And you accuse me of being incoherent?

Absolutely and what is more, I accuse you of knowing the clear meaning of the text.

That's if you interpret Adam literally, but the name does not mean 'first human being' it means 'man'.

What is the word in the original, I'll need the original and the lexicon or dictionary you got the definition from.

As for Adam being a proper name in Gen 2, the NLT and RSV don't use Adam as a proper name until Gen 3:17 while the NRSV, Young's Literal Translation and Greens Literal Version first use Adam as a name in Gen 4:25. The first time Adam is actually referred to as a name is in Gen 5:2 He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. So instead of Adam being the name of the first human being, the bible tells us it was God's name for the first human being

Baloney, Adam is used in Scripture as a proper name and as a word meaning 'man':

Strong's: אדם 'âdâm aw-dawm' The same as H120; Adam, the name of the first man.​

In H121 in can also mean man so don't equivocate since there is a discernible difference.

No it's not. There is a world of difference between Adam being the first human being and the doctrine that we all sinned in Adam.

Paul said otherwise, in Adam all sinned, you may not like that but it's never the less a fact.

One is based on a simple literal interpetation of scripture, the other has no scriptural basis and came from a Latin mistranslation.

The KJV and the NIV are based on the original, you know that right?

You may confuse the two because the doctrine of 'all sinned in Adam' needs a literal Adam to start with, but it goes way beyond it, and many who take Adam literally, from modern TEs to the traditional interpretation of the Eastern Orthodox, reject Augustine's doctrine that not only was Adam the first human being but that we all sinned in him when he did.

No one cared until the Peligian heresy cropped up, then it was addressed. The question of whether or not Adam was our first parent never occurred to anyone. The Eastern Orthodox reject Augustine's doctrine for completely unrelated reasons. You are chasing the wind.

I have had quite enough of this, I don't care about the Vulgate. Either you go into the original or I will and if I do you will never hear the end of it.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm not trying to right whatever wrongs you think the local evolutionary creationists have committed against mark. I'm simply saying that it seems hypocritical that you should scold some people for being disrespectful/careless, while praising others who do the same.

Paul was a Creationist in every way that the term has any meaning. You cannot have it both ways, you cannot condemn Creationism as being religious and then pretend there is no Scriptural basis.

You just called this man a hypocrite, that is a flame unless you justify it. Your wrong Mallon and I think you realize that.

What, specifically, would you like me to apologize for?

Start with the name calling.

 

[chaoschristian]

The reason the Vulgate translation is more important in this instance, rather than the original Koine Greek, is because it was the Latin translation that Augustine used to formulate his stance, that said same stance that you are now advocating.

Father Augustine didn't pull from the Koine Greek, he pulled from the Latin.

The Latin is in error.

Paul in that in Adam all sinned, you may not like that but it's never the less a fact.

This is in error. Paul does not say that at all.

 

[chaoschristian]

Paul was a Creationist in every way that the term has any meaning. You cannot have it both ways, you cannot condemn Creationism as being religious and then pretend there is no Scriptural basis.

Calling Paul a Creationist (with a capital C no less) is a bit anachronistic and stretching it a bit, don't you think?

St. Paul was never exposed to our modern perspective, which is informed by science and quite removed any notions of the physical world that he may have had. I doubt that he gave the matter much thought anyway considering that he was expectant and anticipating the imminent return of Christ within his own time.

It is therefore not possible for you to say that Paul wouldn't have been a TE/CE if he had a knowledge and understanding of modern science.

Creationist, in every connotation of the word as I believe you are using it, may or may not apply to Paul. You cannot categorically assert it without also confessing that such an assertion is nothing more than speculation.

 

[mark kennedy]

Calling Paul a Creationist (with a capital C no less) is a bit anachronistic and stretching it a bit, don't you think?

No, all the New Testament writers were Creationists.

St. Paul was never exposed to our modern perspective, which is informed by science and quite removed any notions of the physical world that he may have had. I doubt that he gave the matter much thought anyway considering that he was expectant and anticipating the imminent return of Christ within his own time.

Paul shunned worldly wisdom because all he did was preach the cross. He did this deliberately:

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. (ICor. 1:23,24)​

It is therefore not possible for you to say that Paul wouldn't have been a TE/CE if he had a knowledge and understanding of modern science.

It is impossible to say that Paul was not a Creationist in every way that the word is meaningful.

Creationist, in every connotation of the word as I believe you are using it, may or may not apply to Paul. You cannot categorically assert it without also confessing that such an assertion is nothing more than speculation.

We know from the Scriptures that the New Testament writers were Creationists. We know from the Scriptures that Moses was a Creationist as were the prophets. We know that Darwinism is just one long argument against special creation.

I'm not speculating, I know this for a fact.

 

[mark kennedy]

The reason the Vulgate translation is more important in this instance, rather than the original Koine Greek, is because it was the Latin translation that Augustine used to formulate his stance, that said same stance that you are now advocating.

Nonsense! There is nothing in the Koine Greek that contracts the original sin doctrine, the original sin doctrine is based on it.

Father Augustine didn't pull from the Koine Greek, he pulled from the Latin.

The Latin is in error.

Paul didn't, you will never get past that point.

This is in error. Paul does not say that at all.

That's a lie.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (Romans 5:12-18)​

 

[chaoschristian]

It's always interesting attempting to communicate with you Mark.

I need to go eat dinner.

Maybe I'll be back if I pray for patience.

 

[Mallon]

Paul was a Creationist in every way that the term has any meaning. You cannot have it both ways, you cannot condemn Creationism as being religious and then pretend there is no Scriptural basis.

I fully admit there is a Scriptural basis for young-earth creationism (what I presume you're calling capital-c "Creationism"). But the point that evolutionary creationists bring up, which I haven't seen addressed in any coherent manner, is that the Scriptural basis for young-earth creationism is besides the point of Genesis. The Bible espouses many out-of-date facets of cosmology, yet the fact that the earth doesn't have a solid dome made of hammered metal above it doesn't detract from the fact that God created the heavens. So repeating the YEC chorus that there is a Scriptural basis for a young earth doesn't refute accomodationalism.

You just called this man a hypocrite, that is a flame unless you justify it.

I did in post #248.

Start with the name calling.

Where did I call anyone a name?

 

[crawfish]

We know from the Scriptures that the New Testament writers were Creationists. We know from the Scriptures that Moses was a Creationist as were the prophets. We know that Darwinism is just one long argument against special creation.

I'm not speculating, I know this for a fact.

The term "creationism" had no meaning to the bible authors. There was no alternate knowledge to contradict what they'd been taught. It is highly likely they were also geocentrists and flat earthers as well.

Of course, the authors tended to follow the prevailing opinion of creation of the society that they lived in. In that way, they were definitely theistic evolutionists.