Genesis, Adam and What the Scriptures Teach

[shernren]

We sin because we sin....that explains everything...how did I miss it for so long?

Well, mark, how else would you explain Romans 5:14?

Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. (Rom 5:14, ESV)

Paul explicitly states that everyone from Adam to Moses did not sin like Adam did. So how did they sin?

While we're at it, for Paul to single out the period from Adam to Moses means that Paul thought that everyone after Moses did sin like Adam did. So why the gap?

You didn't have a theology of original sin years ago when we last talked about this: have you improved yourself yet?

 

[Assyrian]

No it's really you who is misleading people, the translators are crystal clear when you understand the proper way the term is being used instead of twisting them to mean something else. Here are various translations:

New International Version (©1984)
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

New Living Translation (©2007)
Still, everyone died--from the time of Adam to the time of Moses--even those who did not disobey an explicit commandment of God, as Adam did. Now Adam is a symbol, a representation of Christ, who was yet to come.

English Standard Version (©2001)
Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

International Standard Version (©2008)
Nevertheless, death ruled from the time of Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the same way Adam did when he disobeyed. He is a foreshadowing of the one who would come.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Yet, death ruled from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin in the same way Adam did when he disobeyed. Adam is an image of the one who would come.

King James Bible
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.

American King James Version
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.

American Standard Version
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

Bible in Basic English
But still death had power from Adam till Moses, even over those who had not done wrong like Adam, who is a picture of him who was to come.

Douay-Rheims Bible
But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come.

Darby Bible Translation
but death reigned from Adam until Moses, even upon those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him to come.

English Revised Version
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

Webster's Bible Translation
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.

Weymouth New Testament
Yet Death reigned as king from Adam to Moses even over those who had not sinned, as Adam did, against Law. And in Adam we have a type of Him whose coming was still future.

World English Bible
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those whose sins weren't like Adam's disobedience, who is a foreshadowing of him who was to come.

Young's Literal Translation
but the death did reign from Adam till Moses, even upon those not having sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of him who is coming.
​

If you were quoting from the Biblos website you seem to have left out quite a few translations on the page. I have added them back in in navy. Curiously, you left out most of the ones that use the word 'figure'.

You really should watch when you claim the scripture are 'crystal clear' on something, it usually means you cannot see past your own preconceptions. Perhaps if you had paid more attention the translations you quoted it would have helped. The NLT's 'symbol' is very interesting, especially when the 1996 edition of the NLT only said "What a contrast between Adam and Christ" When their bible scholars wanted to move away from the paraphrase to a more accurate translation, they saw the meaning of tupos as symbolic.

The ISV have changed too, the 2001 edition said: He is a type of the one who would come, whereas the 2008 edition you quote has gone for 'foreshadowing'. This is a good word too and draws on the idea of what we see in the OT being a shadow of the reality in Christ Heb 8:5.

I know your not a King James only type, you like that translation because it agrees with what you are saying superficially. Like the scientific evidences it doesn't stand up under close scrutiny and yet evolutionists persist without so much as a blush.

The translation I usually quote for it the ERV or Good News. It was the Good New I quoted 2 posts ago.

Good News Translation 1992
But from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, death ruled over all human beings, even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam did when he disobeyed God's command. Adam was a figure of the one who was to come.
​

I quote them because they are good translations of the passage and avoid the sort of confusion you get into over typology.

No, what happened is the word was being used differently in 1611. They would have understood that it was a figure rather then figurative language. Of course no one would have been going around pretending Paul was being figurative so there was no problem.

You probably should write to the revision committee for the NLT, figure is bad enough, but symbol? That's heresy! The use of 'figure' to refer to a rhetorical figure dates back to the 14 century. It told you before, the words type and typology come from the Greek tupos, our word figure comes from figura the Latin for tupos.

Here Paul is using the exact same word in the exact same way:

Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, 5in spirit, in faith, in purity (I Tim 4:12)​

So where is the figurative language here? The truth is that you are being absurd but why don't you try to rationalize this one away as well.

Instead of claiming it is not figurative, why not show us how Jesus, the lamb of God was a literal sheep, that Christ literally was a rock wandering around Sinai and that he was literally the second man after Adam? And if there isn't figurative language in 1Tim 4:12 then Paul is not using the word in the exact same way, is he?

In 1Tim 4:12 Paul is encouraging a man he knew, to be a positive role model so others could copy his actual behaviour.
In 1Cor 10 Paul is taking a passage of the OT and using it as an example of what not to do, and while some of the things mentioned should literally not be practised by the Corinthians, the idolatry and revelry, Paul also took aspects of the OT account crossing the Red Sea the pillar of cloud, Moses striking water form the rock, and used them as metaphorical pictures of the New Covenant.

Paul was using the exact same word, but not necessarily in the same way.

I know you think I'm being facetious but I'm actually quite serious,

Sadly I did not think you were being facetious, you really do seem to believe the bitter venom of your condemnations. Still, your last accusation was almost funny "is it ok for TEs to purposely misrepresent what the Scriptures teach". Thinking we are misrepresenting scripture is one thing, do you seriously think we are doing it on purpose too?

neither the language or the context in Genesis or Romans supports your interpretation, falsely so called.

That's strange because I have been the one who is able to back my interpretation up from scripture, whereas all you have been able to manage is argument by assertion and name calling.

I think you are being used, that's really what I think. Darwinians fear believers because they are vastly outnumbered and the natural reason of most people concludes either an intelligent designer or a Creator. Believe anything you like about fossils and old dirt, it makes no difference to me. Just don't use those snake oil sales tactics to sell me an interpretation of the Scriptures that I know is false. It's a waste of time and it makes you look foolish.

Have a nice day
Mark

Yes could be a vast conspiracy motivated by fear, or it could be that you are the one with the scripture interpretation that doesn't hold up.

 

[mark kennedy]

If you were quoting from the Biblos website you seem to have left out quite a few translations on the page. I have added them back in in navy. Curiously, you left out most of the ones that use the word 'figure'.

The meaning of the original word is 'type' indicating that the translation 'figure' means pattern. The various ways it is translated indicate exactly that and you never answered my question. The exact same word translated 'figure' in Romans 1:12 is used here:

Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. (1Ti 4:12)​

Clearly this means a pattern, the imagery is that of a die cast:

G5179 τύπος tupos too'-pos

From G5180; a die (as struck), that is, (by implication) a stamp or scar; by analogy a shape, that is, a statue, (figuratively) style or resemblance; specifically a sampler (“type&#8221, that is, a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning): - en- (ex-) ample, fashion, figure, form, manner, pattern, print. (Strong's)​

[ 1,,G5179, tupos ]
primarily denoted a blow" (from a root tup---, seen also in tupto, "to strike"), hence,

(a) an impression, the mark of a "blow," John 20:25;
(b) the "impress" of a seal, the stamp made by a die, a figure, image, Acts 7:43;
(c) a "form" or mold, Romans 6:17 (See RV);
(d) the sense or substance of a letter, Acts 23:25;
(e) "an ensample," pattern, Acts 7:44; Hebrews 8:5, "pattern;" in an ethical sense, 1 Corinthians 10:6; Philippians 3:17; 1 Thessalonians 1:7; 2 Thessalonians 3:9; 1 Timothy 4:12, RV, "ensample;" Titus 2:7, RV, "ensample," for AV, "pattern;" 1 Peter 5:3; in a doctrinal sense, a type, Romans 5:14.​

See EXAMPLE, FASHION, FIGURE, FORM, MANNER, PATTERN, PRINT. (Vine's)

Where is the figurative language in 1 Timothy 4:12? Obviously Paul is not speaking of Timothy as a metaphor.

You really should watch when you claim the scripture are 'crystal clear' on something, it usually means you cannot see past your own preconceptions.

You really need to stop correcting me when I'm right. The meaning of the word is crystal clear and it's not my misconception that has prolonged this discussion but your determination to change the meaning of the word from a pattern to a metaphor based on a preconception of your's, not mine.

Perhaps if you had paid more attention the translations you quoted it would have helped....

...The ISV have changed too, the 2001 edition said: [/FONT]He is a type of the one who would come, whereas the 2008 edition you quote has gone for 'foreshadowing'. This is a good word too and draws on the idea of what we see in the OT being a shadow of the reality in Christ Heb 8:5.

You obviously didn't look closely enough, the word used in Heb. 8:5 is similar in meaning and the translation looks very close but it's a different word:

[ 3,,G5262, hupodeigma ]

lit., "that which is shown" (from hupo, "under," and deiknumi, "to show"), hence,
(a) "a figure, copy," Hebrews 8:5, RV, "copy," for AV, "example;" Hebrews 9:23;
(b) "an example," whether for imitation, John 13:15; James 5:10, or for warning, Hebrews 4:11; 2 Peter 2:6, RV, "example." See EXAMPLE, PATTERN. (Vine's)​

The translation I usually quote for it the ERV or Good News. It was the Good New I quoted 2 posts ago.

Good News Translation 1992
But from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, death ruled over all human beings, even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam did when he disobeyed God's command. Adam was a figure of the one who was to come.
​

I quote them because they are good translations of the passage and avoid the sort of confusion you get into over typology.

First of all the Good News Bible is a paraphrase, not a translation. More importantly your approach is not clearing up confusion it is perpetuating it. Even in English the meaning of the word 'figure' is determined by the context. A machinist might use a prototype to create a die cast pattern which is the exact meaning of the word Paul is using. It can also be used to speak of a figure of speech like a metaphor or a parable, what the word means is determined by the context and when you are translating from the original Greek the word being translated has it's own meaning.

I don't know why you are determined to pursue this when your point was refuted a long time ago. I am continually annoyed with theistic evolutionists who correct me when I know for a fact that I am right. The proof being evident and obvious they argue endlessly for wrong conclusions and yet never admit to their error. This speaks volumes for why their credulity is highly questionable. If I can't trust you with something I do know, why would I ever trust you on a matter that is questionable?

You probably should write to the revision committee for the NLT, figure is bad enough, but symbol? That's heresy! The use of 'figure' to refer to a rhetorical figure dates back to the 14 century. It told you before, the words type and typology come from the Greek tupos, our word figure comes from figura the Latin for tupos.

You should probably refer the the source material you have already been exposed to repeatedly.

Instead of claiming it is not figurative, why not show us how Jesus, the lamb of God was a literal sheep, that Christ literally was a rock wandering around Sinai and that he was literally the second man after Adam? And if there isn't figurative language in 1Tim 4:12 then Paul is not using the word in the exact same way, is he?

Paul is using the exact same form of the word in the exact same way. Calling Christ the Lamb of God is more of a title then a type. Any discerning exposition of the requisite texts could bear this out and has but you are stubbornly imposing a meaning upon the texts.

In 1Tim 4:12 Paul is encouraging a man he knew, to be a positive role model so others could copy his actual behaviour.

Thus a pattern, which is consistent with how Paul uses the word in Romans 5:12 indicating Adam is a pattern, not a figure of speech.

In 1Cor 10 Paul is taking a passage of the OT and using it as an example of what not to do, and while some of the things mentioned should literally not be practised by the Corinthians, the idolatry and revelry, Paul also took aspects of the OT account crossing the Red Sea the pillar of cloud, Moses striking water form the rock, and used them as metaphorical pictures of the New Covenant.

In I Cor. 10 Paul uses another form of the word you are misrepresenting the meaning for:

tupoi

1 Cor 10:6, here it means literal idolaters are examples of what not to do.
1 Cor 10:11, here it means literal people who murmured, same meaning.​

The passages above used of examples you should not follow, below it is used to indicate that leaders are to be examples not rulers:

1 Pe 5:3, here it means literal leaders of the church are examples not Lords.​

Paul was using the exact same word, but not necessarily in the same way.

These passages are using the exact same word in the exact same way. When the meaning of the word is changed slightly the form of the word is changed slightly but the essential meaning is unchanged. What is more when the exact same form is used the exact same meaning is intended. In the variation used in I Cor. 10 and I Peter 5 it simply means example, the exact same word is being used in the exact same way.

Sadly I did not think you were being facetious, you really do seem to believe the bitter venom of your condemnations. Still, your last accusation was almost funny "is it ok for TEs to purposely misrepresent what the Scriptures teach". Thinking we are misrepresenting scripture is one thing, do you seriously think we are doing it on purpose too?

I don't know what to think, the facts and evidence right in front of you, you still argue. This has happened again and again when looking at the scientific literature and sometimes I will use something I'm 100% sure of to check your abilities and candor. This example does not serve to convince me that you are to be trusted, regardless of your motives.

That's strange because I have been the one who is able to back my interpretation up from scripture, whereas all you have been able to manage is argument by assertion and name calling.

Nonsense, I have supported my contentions with relevant and credible source material and continually cross referenced it with parallel sources. Every single time the meaning of the word has been 'type, pattern, example', every single time you have denied the clear meaning of the text. My assertions are neither fallacious nor or they from some private interpretation. Words mean things and the word in question has a clear and distinct meaning you have flatly denied without good cause.

Yes could be a vast conspiracy motivated by fear, or it could be that you are the one with the scripture interpretation that doesn't hold up.

It is not an interpretation, it's the clear meaning of the word. Repeatedly the clear meaning of the word has been shown to you and repeatedly you have denied it while heaping your fallacious reasonings one on top of the other.

Once again I will show you the clear meaning of the text from credible Christian scholarship making an in depth exposition of the original:

τύπος has many meanings, among the most common being image, pattern or model, and type. In the last sense it means a person or thing prefiguring a future person or thing, e.g., Adam as a type of Christ, Ro. v. 14. ἀντίτυπος, as used in 1 Pet. iii. 21, is by Thayer and many others thought to correspond to τύπος as its counterpart, in the sense which the English word antitype suggests. By Cremer it is rather given the meaning image.​

(New Testament Synonyms by George Ricker Berry. See Thayers)

How many times do you have to be shown your wrong before you stop correcting a factual statement? This time your ad hominem attack failed miserably but the bad part is, no matter how wrong you are you are under no compulsion to admit it. Your arguing for an erroneous statement already soundly refuted. It would not be so bad if it were not so constant. You could have let it go and moved on to another point but you are working from a false assumption that creationists are ignorant. You are wrong about the meaning of the word Paul used in Romans 5:12 and you are wrong about us. Not that I expect you have the ability to admit either.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[crawfish]

How many times do you have to be shown your wrong before you stop correcting a factual statement? This time your ad hominem attack failed miserably but the bad part is, no matter how wrong you are you are under no compulsion to admit it. Your arguing for an erroneous statement already soundly refuted. It would not be so bad if it were not so constant. You could have let it go and moved on to another point but you are working from a false assumption that creationists are ignorant. You are wrong about the meaning of the word Paul used in Romans 5:12 and you are wrong about us. Not that I expect you have the ability to admit either.

I'm guessing once would suffice.

You think your unyielding, self-assured manner is a strength, but you are wrong. It's a weakness that blinds you to truth that you haven't yet seen. I suggest you find a little humility, brother.

Grace and peace,

Chris

 

[Assyrian]

The meaning of the original word is 'type' indicating that the translation 'figure' means pattern.

No the word is tupos, one of whose meanings is type but tupos has a wide range of different meanings in Greek and so is translated by a range of different English words with different meanings.

Listen Mark, languages are not your strong point and you seem to know next to nothing about koine Greek. You really shouldn't be trying to make up you own definitions of Greek words, especially armed with only very basic dictionaries like Strong's and Vines. You are even going in the wrong direction. You take the very limited explanation of tupos in Strong's and Vines and try to reduce it down further to a single meaning. Now that is understandable for someone trying to get to grips with an unfamiliar language but in reality the meaning of tupos is even broader than you see in Strong's and Vines. Remember when I showed you just part of the explanation of tupos in Gingrich & Danker? Here it is again.

The various ways it is translated indicate exactly that and you never answered my question.

Sorry if I missed it, what was your question again?

The exact same word translated 'figure' in Romans 1:12 is used here:

Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity. (1Ti 4:12)​

Clearly this means a pattern, the imagery is that of a die cast:

Don't confuse the etymology of the word with how it is being used. Maybe the first few time the word was used with that meaning the imagery was intended too, later with use it just becomes an ordinary meaning of the word. Don't forget too, when a word is used in a new context with a new meaning, the new meaning is extended from the previous meaning, not the original etymology. When they started calling commanders of balloons 'pilots', it was because a pilot was the man who steered a ship, not because the word came from a steering oar pedotes, and before that podos a foot.

So if you really want to understand the meaning of tupos, look up how it was used in a decent lexicon, don't try to guess the meaning from its etymology. And try not to confuse different uses of the same word.

G5179 τύπος tupos too'-pos

From G5180; a die (as struck), that is, (by implication) a stamp or scar; by analogy a shape, that is, a statue, (figuratively) style or resemblance; specifically a sampler (“type&#8221, that is, a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning): - en- (ex-) ample, fashion, figure, form, manner, pattern, print. (Strong's)​

[ 1,,G5179, tupos ]
primarily denoted a blow" (from a root tup---, seen also in tupto, "to strike"), hence,

(a) an impression, the mark of a "blow," John 20:25;
(b) the "impress" of a seal, the stamp made by a die, a figure, image, Acts 7:43;
(c) a "form" or mold, Romans 6:17 (See RV);
(d) the sense or substance of a letter, Acts 23:25;
(e) "an ensample," pattern, Acts 7:44; Hebrews 8:5, "pattern;" in an ethical sense, 1 Corinthians 10:6; Philippians 3:17; 1 Thessalonians 1:7; 2 Thessalonians 3:9; 1 Timothy 4:12, RV, "ensample;" Titus 2:7, RV, "ensample," for AV, "pattern;" 1 Peter 5:3; in a doctrinal sense, a type, Romans 5:14.​

See EXAMPLE, FASHION, FIGURE, FORM, MANNER, PATTERN, PRINT. (Vine's)

Notice how even Vines tells you a meaning of tupos is the doctrinal concept of a 'type'?

Where is the figurative language in 1 Timothy 4:12? Obviously Paul is not speaking of Timothy as a metaphor.

don't tell me you are still confusing describing someone with a metaphor and thinking they were metaphorical? When John the Baptist called Jesus the lamb of God, he was using a typological metaphor to describe Jesus, he was not describing Jesus as a metaphor. Incidentally, in case you did not notice the original usage of tupos, the imprint from a metal die to describe someone being a good influence on people is a metaphor. At least its original usage was metaphorical. But that is a different meaning to tupos being the interpretation of picture in the OT telling us about the NT. Now we could discuss how the two ideas are related, but you have your fingers stuck to deeply in you ears to make any meaningful progress.

There is no point asking where is the metaphor in 1Timothy 4:12, it is a different use to the typology in John 1:12, Romans 5, 1Cor 10 and 1Cor 15. What you need to do is explain the metaphor in the NT typology I have asked you about, John calling Jesus a sheep, Paul saying Christ was a rock wandering around Sinai, and that Adam and Jesus were the first man and the second man.

You really need to stop correcting me when I'm right.

The meaning of the word is crystal clear and it's not my misconception that has prolonged this discussion but your determination to change the meaning of the word from a pattern to a metaphor based on a preconception of your's, not mine.

Pity you cannot explain all the metaphors in NT typology then.

The ISV have changed too, the 2001 edition said: He is a type of the one who would come, whereas the 2008 edition you quote has gone for 'foreshadowing'. This is a good word too and draws on the idea of what we see in the OT being a shadow of the reality in Christ Heb 8:5.

You obviously didn't look closely enough, the word used in Heb. 8:5 is similar in meaning and the translation looks very close but it's a different word:

[ 3,,G5262, hupodeigma ]

lit., "that which is shown" (from hupo, "under," and deiknumi, "to show"), hence,
(a) "a figure, copy," Hebrews 8:5, RV, "copy," for AV, "example;" Hebrews 9:23;
(b) "an example," whether for imitation, John 13:15; James 5:10, or for warning, Hebrews 4:11; 2 Peter 2:6, RV, "example." See EXAMPLE, PATTERN. (Vine's)​

Oh dear if you are going someone didn't look closely enough, you real should look at it very closely yourself.
Heb 8:5 They serve a copy (hupodeigma) and shadow (skia) of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern (tupos) that was shown you on the mountain."
You are quite right copy, example in the AV, is hupodeigma but that isn't what I was talking about, tupos is further down. The OT law and tabernacle are based on the tupos in heaven and are a shadow of the reality we have in Christ, hence the ISV's interpretation of tupos as of foreshadowing.

First of all the Good News Bible is a paraphrase, not a translation.

Actually it is one of the first of the dynamic equivalence translations, and it changed its name from Good News Bible to the Good News Translation because it is a translation not a paraphrase.

More importantly your approach is not clearing up confusion it is perpetuating it. Even in English the meaning of the word 'figure' is determined by the context. A machinist might use a prototype to create a die cast pattern which is the exact meaning of the word Paul is using. It can also be used to speak of a figure of speech like a metaphor or a parable, what the word means is determined by the context and when you are translating from the original Greek the word being translated has it's own meaning.

Exactly. And if you look at typology in the NT you see people and stories in the OT being used as metaphorical pictures of Christ and the new covenant, Jesus is the lamb of God, Jesus was the rock wandering after the Israelites, we are the temple of God.

I don't know why you are determined to pursue this when your point was refuted a long time ago. I am continually annoyed with theistic evolutionists who correct me when I know for a fact that I am right. The proof being evident and obvious they argue endlessly for wrong conclusions and yet never admit to their error. This speaks volumes for why their credulity is highly questionable. If I can't trust you with something I do know, why would I ever trust you on a matter that is questionable?

I think you problem is the way you have convinced yourself you are right. Now most people think they are right, that is normal. But you should at least be able to recognise when you aren't doing terrible well in a discussion. You still haven't been able to show, if typology is literal, how Jesus, the lamb of God was a literal sheep, how Christ literally was a rock wandering around Sinai and how he was literally the second man after Adam. And yet you have convinced yourself that you have refuted me?

You should probably refer the the source material you have already been exposed to repeatedly.

You quoted source material to show the rhetorical use of 'figure' came in later than the 14th century?

Paul is using the exact same form of the word in the exact same way.

Because words have only one meaning the bible?

Calling Christ the Lamb of God is more of a title then a type. Any discerning exposition of the requisite texts could bear this out and has but you are stubbornly imposing a meaning upon the texts.

So you don't think the passover lamb was a typological picture of Jesus? You have come a long way from being the defender of traditional theology there Mark. You don't think John the baptist was referring to the passover lamb, or at very least the temple sacrifices when he called Jesus the lamb of God? You don't think John meant that Jesus was the fulfillment and true meaning of these OT sacrifices? It may be a title, you have still to show it isn't typological and it isn't a metaphor.

Thus a pattern, which is consistent with how Paul uses the word in Romans 5:12 indicating Adam is a pattern, not a figure of speech.

Right, so Adam was a moral example for Jesus in speech, conduct, love, faith, and purity?

In I Cor. 10 Paul uses another form of the word you are misrepresenting the meaning for:

tupoi

tupoi is simply the plural of tupos.

1 Cor 10:6, here it means literal idolaters are examples of what not to do.
1 Cor 10:11, here it means literal people who murmured, same meaning.​

The passages above used of examples you should not follow, below it is used to indicate that leaders are to be examples not rulers:

1 Pe 5:3, here it means literal leaders of the church are examples not Lords.​

You have yet to show that them being literal idolaters and literal murmurers is intrinsic to the meaning of tupos, but that is an argument for another day. You certainly didn't deal with the question when I brought it up before. For this discussion what you need to look at it actually says in 1Cor 10:6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did.

Paul doesn't say these people are examples, or even the literal people are examples, he says 'these things'. What things? Crossing the Red sea which he interprets as a metaphorical picture of baptism, the rock the Israelites drank from he interprets as drinking from Christ. Paul uses the Israelites dying in the wilderness as a warning to the church, but only after he interprets the events of their lives metaphorically. In 1Cor the tupos is an event in the OT which is interpreted metaphorically to apply it to the Christ and the church. In 1Pet 5:3 it is people, Christians leaders Peter is writing to, being a good example to their flock.

These passages are using the exact same word in the exact same way. When the meaning of the word is changed slightly the form of the word is changed slightly but the essential meaning is unchanged. What is more when the exact same form is used the exact same meaning is intended. In the variation used in I Cor. 10 and I Peter 5 it simply means example, the exact same word is being used in the exact same way.

You can say that as many time as you like, I have shown you it isn't true. Tell me, if the meaning is unchanged, why do Gingrich & Danker list them as different meanings?

I don't know what to think, the facts and evidence right in front of you, you still argue. This has happened again and again when looking at the scientific literature and sometimes I will use something I'm 100% sure of to check your abilities and candor. This example does not serve to convince me that you are to be trusted, regardless of your motives.

Perhaps it is you 100% confidence in your own rightness you should not trust.

Nonsense, I have supported my contentions with relevant and credible source material and continually cross referenced it with parallel sources. Every single time the meaning of the word has been 'type, pattern, example', every single time you have denied the clear meaning of the text...

Isn't it strange Gingrich & Danker take so long defining a word with one single meaning every time it is used. Must be wanting to sell big books.

...
Once again I will show you the clear meaning of the text from credible Christian scholarship making an in depth exposition of the original:

τύπος has many meanings, among the most common being image, pattern or model, and type. In the last sense it means a person or thing prefiguring a future person or thing, e.g., Adam as a type of Christ, Ro. v. 14. ἀντίτυπος, as used in 1 Pet. iii. 21, is by Thayer and many others thought to correspond to τύπος as its counterpart, in the sense which the English word antitype suggests. By Cremer it is rather given the meaning image.​

(New Testament Synonyms by George Ricker Berry. See Thayers)

You see, its there in the texts you quote too. But you need to start looking up more scholarly works if you want to understand the range of meanings of tupos.

How many times do you have to be shown your wrong

Once would do. ................ (thanks crawfish I see you got there ahead of me )

...It would not be so bad if it were not so constant...

If you keep making the same baseless claims, why shouldn't I will keep showing the holes in it?