I reject "Because" as a translation of the Greek eph ho. That interpretation is based largely on Augustine's writings on Romans. Augustine, however, didn't know Greek, and his interpretation is based on the Latin text. The Greek text is better read "upon which," or perhaps more loosely, "therefore." "Death spread to all men, therefore all sin."
I agree that a lot of the problems we have with this verse date back to Augustine and his Latin text. However what the Latin says is
in quo omnes peccaverunt,
in whom all sinned. It was where he got the whole idea of Original Sin, death spread to all men because all sinned in Adam. But as you point out, that is not what the Greek says. However we do know what the phrase
eph ho means, it was a Greek phrase that means 'for this reason that', or simply, 'because'. That is the way modern translations put it. Death spread to all men because all sinned. Paul says the same thing about himself in Rom 7:9
I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. Death spread to Paul when Paul sinned.
Death is a consequence of one sin, not each man's sin, and only entered the world after that sin. Given Paul's later reference to the creation being subjected to futility, it stands to reason that "the world" extends beyond only men, encompassing "the creation."
Actually Paul says nothing about the futility creation is subject to being a result of the fall. To get back to the Calvinist approach, Paul simply says it was God's sovereign choice, not that God was punishing the world for man's sin, or that creation fell when man did. God's sovereign choice to subject creation to futility works just as well if God subject creation to futility and the bondage to decay from the the very first life on earth. It was God choice how to create life.
This is a tangent, but it's simply not wrong to say the sun moves around the earth, relative to the position of the earth. All motion is relative.
Acceleration isn't. Which requires more energy, to run around an elephant or to swing an elephant around you?
But the real difference is that the point of these passages is not to tell us something about the sun. The point of Genesis, however, is indeed to tell us something about creation. Geocentrism or Heliocentrism are not Christian doctrines, but Creation, Anthropology, and Hamartiology are Christian doctrines. And the fact remains, prior to Darwinism, no one would ever come up with versions of these doctrines which could even accomodate evolutionary theories of biogenesis, either from scripture or from Church traditions.
Actually, people felt some very serious doctrines were challenged by heliocentrism, the inspiration and trustworthiness of scripture for one, as Cardinal Bellarmine said about Galileo if scripture is wrong about this how can you trust it about the virgin birth? Personally I would rather find out if my interpretation is right or not, rather that build any doctrines on a misinterpretation.
Do not underestimate the challenge heliocentrism presented to the church coming to terms with new science that contradicted an unquestioned and seemingly obvious literal interpetation, or the challenge of searching out new ways to read these passages. They faced the same struggle we do with evolution and the age of the earth. We should learn from them.
But really, I don't know any important doctrines that are effected by either the age of the earth or evolution. I believe God is the Creator who made the heavens and the earth and all that in them. The only question is his timetable he used and the processes involved, but there is no doctrine telling us how God created life, in fact some of the church fathers suggested God endowed earth with the ability to produce life, and as we have seen there were church fathers and scholars through the ages who didn't take the days of Genesis literally.
Adam and Eve are not an issue either, I know plenty of Christians who accept evolution and think A&E were literal historical individuals. I don't, but that is because I don't think the scriptures are meant to be understood literally, not because of evolution. Is it a foundational Christian doctrine that Adam was made of clay? Does it make the slightest difference if this is as metaphorical as when the bible says God made us from clay?
I know Christians who accept evolution and believe in Original Sin, I don't, but it is not because of science or my interpretation of Genesis, it is because I don't think Augustine's doctrine is a good interpretation of Romans 5:12.
