Then why don't you look at all scriptures? You focus on Paul and Adam. However, Genesis 1 is clear that God created men and women, both plural in the Hebrew, at the same time. By Genesis 1, there never was a single man.
Yes there was and his name was Adam, this could not be any clearer and unlike you I have studied this out. While the literary feature you are shamelessly misrepresenting, can mean a race or kind itself, a collective noun can mean an individual. Obviously in this context what is in mind here is an individual and his name was Adam. That's how Moses wrote it, Paul understood it and Christians have taught it for 2,000 years except when they want to accommodate Darwinism.
26. אדם 'ādām, man, mankind; be red. A collective noun, having no plural number, and therefore denoting either an individual of the kind, or the kind or race itself.(Albert Barnes Commentary)
It was more than that. Darwin did call Origins "one long argument", but that doesn't mean it was an argument against Special Creation.
Darwin defines the argument as against 'special creation':
In these works he (Lamarck) upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Preface, On the Origin of Species)
Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained namely, that each species has been independently created is erroneous. (Introduction, On the Origin of Species)
That's where you get the expression, 'one long argument' because that's all Darwinism is. It's one long argument against God as Creator.
It's based on secondary causes. At the time, Darwin based evolution firmly within natural theology. Here again is where you think "naturalistic assumptions" rule out God. Darwin and Christians don't think that way.
No he didn't, Darwin read Paley in college and simply accepted it the way Behe accepted Darwinism. Later in life Darwin began to question that then later rejected natural theology and instead refereed to 'natural law' as opposed to 'miraculous interposition' as he called it.
More importantly, you have neither the knowledge nor the credulity to speak for Darwin or Christianity at large since you are clearly misrepresenting both ways of thinking.
Yes, there is. Scripture is very clear in several places that you can't punish children for the sins of the fathers: Deut. 24:16, 2Chron.25:4, 2 Kings 14:6, Ezek. 18:20
I'm really not going to chase this paradox round the mulberry bush with you. The Scriptures make it clear that we are all sinners because of our first parents and this is explicit in both the Old and New Testaments.
Orthodox Christian doctrine is that Jesus died for our sins. And we sin because we sin, not because Adam did.
We sin because we sin....that explains everything...how did I miss it for so long?
It's embarrassing for me to dignify your posts with a response since you haven't made a single coherent point yet. I don't like theistic evolution and have very serious issues with it but don't believe for one minute I think you represent it. I just want that to be clear before we really start getting into this.
But that isn't what Genesis 3 says. Genesis 3 lays out very clearly the punishments and consequences of Adam and Eve's disobedience. Sin entering the world is not among them.
It doesn't say that Satan will go to hell either, that doesn't mean he is not. Your switching tangents so fast it's hard to track what kind of a point you were originally trying to make.
That isn't what Genesis 2-3 says. So if you are going by scripture and Paul is supposedly referring back to Genesis 2-3, then the conclusion is that Paul misinterpreted those chapters.
That is what it says and I trust Paul's exposition of Genesis far more then I do yours. In fact, I think you are simply disagreeing with both and believe neither.
Evolution offers a better explanation for man's fallen nature. The evidence God left us in His Creation tells us why we really have a tendency to sin. Genesis 2-3 is good allegory, but it really doesn't explain why we all sin.
Paul in Romans 1 is not talking about a 'tendency to sin', he is saying, 'all have sinned'. In Romans 5 he tells us why.
Adam and Eve were never married. They just lived together. Jesus is referring in Mark 10 and Matthew 19 to Genesis 1, not Genesis 2. He is referring to God creating humans men and women "in the beginning". Which God does create humans male and female "from the beginning" by evolution.
Adam and Ever were never married? There goes your last benefit of a doubt
Your absurdity is rivaled only by your audacity.
Adam is allegory because "adam" = dirt. We have a story of Dirt and Hearth in Genesis 2-3.
No, it's a proper name.
Do you really want to do that? You are setting up Christianity to be unfairly falsified if you do this.
Christianity stood on the testimony of Christ and the Apostles, in the power of the Holy Spirit, long before me and will survive me no matter what I 'set it up for'. You being silly.
And here is what creationists really care about: "the authority of Scripture". Aren't we supposed to care about God? Who do you worship, Mark? God or Scripture? In concentrating on the authority of scripture, aren't you forgetting the equal or greater authority of Creation?
I see no contradiction between the creation and the Creator. I worship the risen Savior who loved me and gave himself for me. The Incarnate Word, King of Kings and Lord of Lords that gives light to everyone who comes into the world (John 1:1-12), through whom, by whom and for whom the heavens and the earth was made.
What is infinitely more important is that creation never has equal or greater authority then the Creator. Were it not so absurd it would be blasphemous. You will not find that kind of a statement in any Christian creed or doctrine, certainly not the one that is recognized as valid on these boards.
Perhaps you would like to revise your statement.
