That's a lot of work. . .
First of all, the domain here is morality.
We are not (totally) morally "free," we are moral "free agents" capable of executing freely.
It's not about the Oxford Dictionary, it's about Greek and Roman philosophy.
Precisely, in total agreement with Oxford.
And mankind enjoys that freedom in many things, but he cannot choose to be sinless.
And that is precisely the philosophical difference between "free" and "free agent."
Precisely, "free agents" are not free in all things, only the "free" are such.
And the NT denies mankind is "free" in that regard (John 8:34-36).
Which assumption on your part the NT denies.
And which assumption is the meaning of "free" as distinct from "free agent."
Which makes him a "free agent," capable of acting freely, but not capable of choosing to be sinless.
However, it is not my logic, it is the teaching of the NT, "He who sins is a slave to sin." (John 8:34; Galatians 3:22). Slaves aren't free. No one can execute a choice to be sinless.
Because both you and Plantinga are ignoring the context of John 8:34, where Jesus continues,
"Those whom the Son sets free are free indeed." (John 8:36)
It's about sin. . .and the freedom from sin.
It's about those who sin being slaves. . .and those whom the Son sets free--not those who set themselves free--being free indeed.
It's about not being free. . .but being a slave in regard to sin, and
it's about true freedom from sin being only in the Son.
It's about those apart from the Son not being truly free.
That is the NT teaching on "free will," Plantinga not-with-standing.
It's not complicated.
Those in the Son are free indeed.
Those who are not in the Son are not free from sin.
Man's logic and manufactured human reasoning not-with-standing.
Feel free to exegete Romans 5:12-15
being true to its context which are the following facts,
reconciling them in a consistent manner:
1) sin "was in the world" (Romans 5:12),
2) sin being transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), where there is no law there being no guilt of sin charged to anyone (Romans 4:15), there being no law between Adam and Moses, therefore, there being no guilt of sin (transgression) to charge to anyone (Romans 5:13), and
"nevertheless (physical) death reigned from the time of Adam to Moses over those who did not sin" (Romans 5:14),
3) so guilt of what sin was charged to them between Adam and Moses, which caused physical death to reign over them all? (see v.15, 18)
Strawman. . .no one claims "original sin" is in the Greek, just as no one claims "Trinity" is in the Greek.
But they do claim the concepts so named are both taught in the Greek.
There is nothing reasonable about it . .it contradicts, "death reigned over those who did not sin." (Romans 5:14)
And Koine Greek is a strawman. . .the scholars who translate the NIV, etc. today are as up-to-date on Koine Greek as is anyone.
the scholars who translate the NIV, etc. today are as up-to-date on Koine Greek as is anyone
So what? At best this is but a truism for the NASB, NKJV, New Living Translation, and many other translations, but this does not render the translations correct.
Indeed, the NIV doesn’t emphasize a “literal translation” but instead a “thought for thought” translation. In contrast, the NASB does emphasize a literal translation, thereby, in part, explaining the difference between the NIV and the NASB. For a list of differences, see
NIV VS NASB Bible Translation: (11 Epic Differences To Know)
So what is dispositive of different interpretations? What is dispositive as to the correct, accurate, original meaning? Evidence, such as the Greek meaning of the words, context, word usage, style, etcetera.
Merely asserting one side has “scholars,” as you do and irrationally think this is evidentiary support for the NIV interpretation you find palatable, doesn’t render your view or that is the NIV as correct, accurate, the original meaning.
Evidence, such as the original Greek meaning, word usage indicating a meaning and likely use of that meaning, writing style, context, structure, is what matters.
Which you fantastically fail to rely upon. Rather, you invoke, without, apparently, any critical thought as to whether what you’ve read from the NIV is a correct interpretation of the Greek.
Feel free to exegete Romans 5:12-15
being true to its context which are the following facts,
reconciling them in a consistent manner:
Easy, for anyone who reads and speaks Greek, for anyone who does not, does a lot of research, does “a lot of work” and not merely accept what they are spoon fed by the NIV, NASB, or any other translation. Ya know, evidence matters, something absent from your posts, as you ignore the Greek meaning of words, ignore the use of metaphors, word usage, etcetera.
There are two propositions Paul is discussing. This is important to reach a proper understand of the meaning.
Paul asserts sin entered the world through one man (cf. 1 Cor. 15: 21–22). The word κόσμον (kosmon, world) focuses on humanity here, as the Greek meaning includes “inhabitants of the earth” and the one man is obviously Adam. Death (θάνατος, thanatos) is not perceived as a natural result of living in the world. Instead, it became a reality “through sin” (διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, dia tēs hamartias). In addition, Paul wasn’t referring to exclusively a physical death but a spiritual death.
The phrase “all sinned” is referring to every human being personally sinned.
The verb ἁμαρτάνειν (hamartanein, to sin) doesn’t refer to people sinning as a result of inheriting a corrupt nature from Adam. Why? This Greek verb doesn’t mean “to become corrupt.”
And the verb ἁμαρτάνειν with the subject πάντες does not lend any support to your view of “the sin people committed corporately in Adam.” Why? Word usage.
“The verb refers regularly to voluntary sin people commit in their own persons (cf. 2: 12; 3: 23; see Wilckens 1978: 316–17; Käsemann 1980: 148–49; Jüngel 1963: 51–52; Fitzmyer 1993c: 417).” Thomas R. Schreiner.
Now, the contentious dialogue has been over the phrase “ἐϕʼ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον (eph’ hō pantes hēmarton)” literally “death spread to all people.”
“ἐϕʼ ᾧ” is of vital importance to a proper understanding of the meaning. The reason is two propositions are forged by “ἐϕʼ ᾧ”. Understanding ἐϕʼ ᾧ as “upon the basis of which” is consistent with the text and theology.
A proper reading of the Greek is, “On the basis of death entering the world through Adam all people sinned.” Adam’s descendants sin as result of death entering the world through Adam. I’m other words, “Our alienation and separation from God are due to Adam’s sin, and thus we sin as a result of being born into the world separated from God’s life. The notion that we are “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2: 1; cf. Eph. 2: 5; Col. 2: 13) should be interpreted similarly.”
This view, with supporting evidende, leaves no room for your flawed “original sin” view you expressed.
