I did? Wouldn't it be so much easier to tell us the verse where Paul says we are all descended from Adam and Eve, or show us the verses I am supposed to be rewording?
I showed you the verses and you said Adam was a figure of speech which is absurd. The use of 'figure' has been described in detail and Paul speaks of Adam as the first man but with regards to sin, lineage was not an issue until the advent of Darwinism.
Interesting the way you use accusations of rhetoric to distract from the fact you didn't answer a single point I made, no attempt to justify your continuous quoting of commentaries when challenged to provide scriptural backing for you claims, no attempt to show where Paul teaches all mankind descended from Adam and Eve.
I did and you called it a figure of speech, shows how much you really studied the passage. Then you ask the same question again pretending it was not answered. It would not have occurred to Paul to argue that Adam was the first parent anymore then he would argue Abraham was the father of the Hebrews, it went without saying. The New Testament always speaks of Genesis as historical in character and reliable in content.
There are rules to a proper interpretation and you have abandoned them all.
Of course you just claim every time the NT always speak of Genesis it speaks of it as historical. All that tells us is that every time the NT speaks of Genesis you assume it is speaking historically. But you haven't shown that. Paul uses words like figure, allegorize and mystery to describe his interpretations of Genesis. Hardly the way people speak when they are giving historical interpretations. Even if you could show the NT interpreted the passages it quotes as literal historical events, it would not give the divine imprimatur you seem to imagine to your interpretation of other passages the NT never mentions.
Paul is speaking of a typology, figure does not mean parable, allegory or metaphor. What he is doing is comparing the historical Adam to the historical Jesus. It does have a devastating meaning for the Darwinian who pretends the doctrine of universal common descent is compatible with Christian theism. Only human lineage is at stake as a doctrinal issue and the requisite proof texts are more then adequate in dispelling the myth that we descended from apes.
Yes indeed Peter warns us that Paul can be difficult to understand and that is its easy twist his meaning. But that could refer to your interpretation of Paul just as easily as mine, and since I am the one who agrees with Peter that what Paul is saying is difficult to understand while you think his is simply interpreting Genesis historically, and since I am the one who can back my claims up with scripture, and you can't, perhaps you should be a bit more concerned Peter's warning really applies to you.
In your failed attempt to back your claim with Scripture you twisted the meaning of 'figure'. It's as simple as that, you lack the convictions of your beliefs since you don't acknowledge the clear meaning of the word used.
Speaking of twisting words, I never said Adam was a 'figure of speech'. Paul doesn't mention a literal Adam prefiguring Christ either, just that Adam is a figure of Christ. Paul may have thought of Adam as a historical figure, or as a purely figurative picture, he doesn't say, you certainly had both views in first century Judaism and unless Paul tells us, we have no way of knowing what his view on a historical Adam was. What we do know is that he interpreted Adam as a figure of Christ and that he saw the figurative interpretation of Adam as important enough to share with the Christians in Rome. Of course since all the verses you pointed out here are Paul's comparison of Adam and Christ, from the context, these are giving us a figurative comparison of Adam and Christ.
You start off by saying you never said Adam was a figure of speech and then argue that Adam was a figure of speech. That's not a figurative comparison, it's a typology. Adam being a real person and the first parent of humanity is explicitly used to build Paul's doctrine of 'justification by faith'.
On six different occasions Paul explicitly asserts that sin and death reign over all because of the one sin of the one man Adam: “through one man sin entered the world” (v. 12), “by the one man’s offense many died” (vs. 15), “the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation” (vs. 16), “by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one” (vs. 17), “through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation” (vs. 18), “by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (vs. 19).
Where did I ever say Adam was a figure of speech?
Assyrian said:
Paul's comparison of Adam and Christ, from the context, these are giving us a figurative comparison of Adam and Christ
You play fast and loose with semantics but you are obviously arguing that Paul meant Adam figuratively. This does not stand up to close scrutiny and a simple exegesis of the word he used bears this out.
I think you are mixing up a wide range of different meanings of the word tupos, nail prints, stamped out metal idols, forms of teaching and Christians being good examples are hardly typological interpretations. For that you need to look at passages like 1Pet 3:21 where Noah's Ark is seen as a symbolic picture of baptism, or Hebrews 8:5 and 9:24 where the OT law and the tabernacle's real meaning was as a symbolic representation of Jesus Christ his sacrifice and high priesthood in heaven. Hebrews uses terms like type, antitype, shadow, and parable (Heb 9:9) to describe how the OT law was a symbolic picture of Christ. Of course this is a theme that runs throughout the NT whether the word type is used or not, we see it in John the Baptist's description of Jesus as the lamb of God, or Paul describing the sabbaths and festivals as shadows whose reality is in Christ
.
The literal tabernacle was used as a typology for Christ, the literal Flood for the baptism that now saves us, the literal priesthood and the other allusions find their meaning in the person and work of Christ. Moses, Melchizedek, David and Abraham are all figures like Christ, that does not make them figures of speech. Your insistence on twisting the originally intended meaning of vital texts is staggering.
What is even more devastating to your argument is that you do the same thing with your own words.
You are trying to ignore the fact Paul saw Adam as a figure of Christ.
No I'm not, I'm showing you what I meant by Paul's use of the word 'figure' in his epistle to the Romans. You are stubbornly denying that a typology does not make the antecedent person figurative. You saw an exhaustive exegesis of the term used and it's the word we get 'type' from. It means an impression not a figure of speech.
I think you have three problems here, first you assume all of the passages treated as type are historical, then you assume being historical is an intrinsic part of typology. The third problem is you think you are basing your understanding of typology on the NT, when in fact you are drawing on 'rules of typology' that says types have to be historical events and characters, that date back to the 5th century. Assuming Paul used the word type according to 5th century rules of typology is an anachronism.
I am assuming nothing, the rules of interpretation are context, content and original intent. As many times as I have elaborated on this process to you and others I have yet to see any of you yield to the clear intent of the original writers. I thought this matched your argument perfectly:
Here's an example that illustrates the manner and selfish motivations some people exercise in trying to manipulate proper biblical interpretation:
Policeman: "I'm afraid you ran the stop sign at that last intersection."
Driver: "Well, ...that's an old sign so it doesn't apply to today."
Policeman: "You're required to come to a full stop, not just a rolling stop."
Driver: "That's just the kind of backwoods, fundamentalist interpretation that misses the loftier meaning behind road signs altogether. They're really just reminders for those reckless nuts out there to be careful."
Policeman: "May I see your license, please?"
Driver: "That sign was put there so long ago that we really have no idea what it originally meant. Trust me - the people who posted that sign were a different generation in a different time."
Policeman: "You have fifteen days to pay this fine or appear before the judge."
Driver: "But its message is so ambiguous that it doesn't even say what it is that I should stop. Doesn't that indicate that whoever was told to make that sign probably got it all screwed up?! Since when do we have to stop just because of some stupid sign painter? I read about those guys - I think one of them was a drunk!"
Policeman: "Have a nice day."
Driver: "Next time, if some judge really means for that to apply to me, I'll only believe it if he or she is standing here and tells me so in person!!"
Isn't one interpretation just as good as the next?
Typical of the modernist mindset.
The only example of first century Jewish typology we have is Philo which shows interesting parallels to NT, he saw types in the OT as picture of heavenly reality paralleling the NT view temple as a picture of the heavenly sanctuary, and OT types like Cain representing moral examples. Again this is very similar to Paul use of OT examples a types warning us about how we behave. Thing is, Philo was able to speak about all these types in the OT without any assumption the types had to be historical individuals, Philois famous for taking Genesis allegorically. Well maybe that is just Philo.
Nothing wrong with using an historical figure as an allegory.
However if we look at types in very early church writings we find the same thing. A type is a symbolic picture, not one that has to be historical.
That's not how Paul is using it and not how Church tradition has understood it. I'll let you finish your thought though.
In the Shepherd of Hermas, type is used to describe the beasts in apocalyptic visions, hardly literal animals. Justin Martyr used type interchangeably with symbol, mystery and parable and saw symbolic prophesies as types too. In first century Judaism and in the early church type were symbolic interpretations, they could be symbolic interpretations of literal people and events, but it could also refer to symbols that were not taken literal. There was no suggestion types had to be historical figures.
Never said they had to be, just that Paul is not using Adam as a figure of speech. Paul is not showing how they are similar, in fact he is contrasting them. They are alike in that in Adam all are made sinners
“through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation” (vs. 18)
That's original sin in a nut shell and it makes no sense if Adam had ancestors or contemporaries.
Adam is never used as a figure of speech or thought of as one, that much is clear. The Jewish writers often took Adam as a positive figure. Paul's understanding of Adam was that he was our first parent and his foundation of 'justification by faith' is built on it.
This would not of been an uncommon view in the 1st century. Paul is not starting some controversial revision, he is appealing to the common understanding of the Jews in Rome.
2 Esdras 3:7 (Apocrypha, a Jewish work around the time of Christ). Here Adam’s transgression leads to “death for him and his descendents.”
So they don't claim Paul said the entire human race is descended from Adam.
Instead of just saying 'it's not' you could actually show how Papias's point is inconsistent with the PCA's view of federal headship. Unless of course, you can't show it, you can only claim it isn't.
Do you really want to appeal to Papias's understanding of Adam? Catholics are prohibited by canon from denying the original sin was caused by Adam.
If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema. (The Council of Trent, Session 5)
Catholics are allowed to have a broad understanding of a lot of things with regards to evolution. Adam is not one of them.
It was actually the OP's phrase but you seemed happy to back up. You still seem to be suggesting Paul taught that we're all descendants of Adam and Eve, but that he just didn't use those precise words. Yet you have had plenty of opportunity to support this too, but have failed to do so. Instead you invent an argument I never made and claim I am the one trying to 'pretend'
Your arguing that 'figure' means figurative, that's not what the word means the way Paul is using it. In fact, it is never used that way.
Figurative interpretations of Genesis go back to the early church. While the CrEvo debate provides an opportunity to reexamine what Paul taught, but it certainly doesn't tell us what Paul meant. Papias interprets Romans 5 the same way the PCA does, while I was questioning the tradition doctrine of Original Sin back when I was a creationist. I can only assume you resort to such ad homs, because you cannot support you view with 'an honest exposition of the text'.
No you can't do an honest exposition of the text, that's your problem. I would have no problem being a theistic evolutionist if not for the way they treat Scripture.
Such a friendly wave after accusing me of twisting Paul's words
pity you cannot back up up your claims about what Paul meant from scripture.
You even twisted your own words the same way, that's the funny thing.
Right on dude, thanks for the exchange.
Grace and peace,
Mark
