The Idols and False Notions have Taken Deep Root

mark kennedy · Dec 21, 2007

I am reposting this since it has gotten buried:

There are only two things a person really has to understand in order to make sense of the Bible, Adam sinned and Christ arose, everything hinges on those two defining events. Scoffers and skeptics have abandoned their seemingly endless barrage of attacks on the resurrection, the only reason I can find for it being, that the New Testament is invulnerable as history given the standards of internal, external and bibliographical testing. The only other way for the skeptic and the scoffer to go is further back into the dimmer and darker past, as far as their vain imaginations can take them and logic will allow. The pagan clerics did not evolve out of, and certainly did not repent of their dark mysticism and secret arts; their mythographers simply changed the story. In pagan mythology it is the elementals that gave rise to the gods, in modern times the blind naturalistic elements are seen as the artificer of order out of chaos with progressive complexity guided by pragmatic survivability it's only guide, whether elements or elementals the principle remains the same. In Genesis one there is a hymn of praise to the Almighty who formed the worlds from nothing, brought light from the darkness and ordered the natural world by the counsel of His will. Light and darkness are divided, land and water are separated, the expanse of the water below is raised into the heavens above and everything is created in a week and it didn't take all week. Each of the six stages of creation was complete in a day and not one of them took all day. By sunset of the seventh day, all life and the first man was formed by divine fiat, complete in all it's vast array.

There is only one theory of evolution that has any relevance to me as a Christian and there is not one but a multitude of speculative scenarios their mythographers write endlessly. The only one that it has any bearing on my theology, apart from sin there is no need for a Savior and apart from Adam and Eve, our first parents, there is no original sin. It would appear that there is no need for me to look long and hard for ways to discount and discredit common ancestry with regards to human evolution from prehistoric apes, if anything modern science has made that all too easy. In their zeal to produce the evidence for our transitional common ancestor they failed to provide the fossil evidence of the common ancestors of our chimpanzee and gorilla cousins to compare hominid fossils to. All of the evidence, they will tell you, points to a transitional ape giving rise to the Homo lineage but they have failed to produce a single one for the apes of Asia and Africa during the same time period. That is simply because all the ape fossils are in natural history museums marked Homo XXX. The fact that all the evidence is our ancestor should be telling us something, no other alternative was ever entertained, every ape fossil turned up in Asia and Africa was automatically declared the missing link. If they couldn't find a suitable candidate from genuine fossil finds a fraud would suffice as evidence until they could dig up enough ape bones to become the idols of the theater of the mind, as Sir Francis Bacon called it." The idols and false notions which are now in possession of the human understanding, and have taken deep root therein, not only so beset men's minds that truth can hardly find entrance, but even after entrance is obtained, they will again in the very instauration of the sciences meet and trouble us, unless men being forewarned of the danger fortify themselves as far as may be against their assaults." (Aphorisms Concerning the Interpretation of Nature and the Kingdom of Man, "The Idols of the Mind" From Novum Organum)

mark kennedy · Dec 21, 2007

Mallon said:
Argument from incredulity. I have provided you with articles in the past that go into some detail about the genetic basis for the evolution of the human brain. You've obviously ignored them, so here they are again:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2006-08-16-brain-evolution-gene_x.htm
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030050&ct=1

From the article:

The scientists still don't know specifically what the gene does. But they know that this same gene turns on in human fetuses at seven weeks after conception and then shuts down at 19 weeks, Haussler said.

They wouldn't be referring to this would they?

Abstract
The developmental and evolutionary mechanisms behind the emergence of human-specific brain features remain largely unknown. However, the recent ability to compare our genome to that of our closest relative, the chimpanzee, provides new avenues to link genetic and phenotypic changes in the evolution of the human brain. We devised a ranking of regions in the human genome that show significant evolutionary acceleration. Here we report that the most dramatic of these human accelerated regions, HAR1, is part of a novel RNA gene (HAR1F) that is expressed specifically in Cajal Retzius neurons in the developing human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks, a crucial period for cortical neuron specification and migration. HAR1F is co-expressed with reelin, a product of CajalRetzius neurons that is of fundamental importance in specifying the six-layer structure of the human cortex. HAR1 and the other human accelerated regions provide new candidates in the search for uniquely human biology.(An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans, Nature 14 September 2006)

News articles don't impress me when I have the actual paper right in front of me.

As for the PLoS article, did you miss this image?

Theology was decidedly non-scientific long before Darwin came along. History shows as much.

Your unfounded opinion noted.

And yet you just quoted him making reference to an "omnipotent Creator".
Darwin certainly lost his faith in God after the death of his daughter, but his theory of evolution was formulated well before then.

This is a guy who knew so much about how beneficial traits are inherited that he married his cousin. Then when they die he blames God, sounds like a role model to me.

Common ancestry is well substantiated by the pattern of nested hierarchies into which all life falls. Common ancestry is an unavoidable outcome of this organization. If you want to say that common ancestry is unsubstantiated, you would have to show that life does not fit within nested hierarchies, thereby doing away with taxonomy as we know it (from Linnaeus on).

What are the heirarchies based on? They have to be based of evidence and the evidence is telling us accelerated evolution in the hominid line. What modern science fails to provide is a genetic basis for human brain evolution from that of apes. No demonstrated or directly observed proof then you have supposition.

I think you mean to say you trust your fallible human interpretation of Scripture over scientific consensus.

I mean I trust the clear testimony of Scripture over that of secular humanists who care nothing about sound exegesis.

Acknowleding that you are not a scientist is not an attack on your character. It is a fact.

Using it as an argument is an ad hominem and argument form authority is a dual fallacy.

You might have a point with reference to my appealing to the work of hundreds of thousands of scholars over the centuries who have agreed that "God did it" is not a scientific explanation.

You are talking in generalities and hyperbole, now who is being sloppy?

But, then again, I respect their formal education and qualifications, and would never be so brazen as to think I could overthrow the entire scientific paradigm without first becoming intimately familiar with it, myself.

The Reformers took on the status quo and won, the result was the Scientific Revolution. You can win, it is only a coward who refuses based on whether or not you think you have the numbers to win. You fight the status quo when they are wrong and for no other reason, regardless of the outcome.

Sitting in front of one's computer reading Wikipedia articles and AiG newsletters all day is no substitute for hard-earned experience and credibility. Maybe it's time for you to consider that perhaps the world's scientists agree for a valid reason?

Maybe you would consider that the Bible and the peer reviewed scientific literature I have studied extensively is legitimate as primary source material and your vague generalities are nothing but a compromise with the spirit of the age.

So much for Sunday school.

Best of luck in life fighting a monster that doesn't exist. Hopefully you'll be able to look back on your life and feel that you've accomplished something. I just don't buy into those conspiracy theories.

Anyhow, I suspect this will be my last post before Christmas, so Merry Christmas to everyone, and I'll see you in the New Year!

A very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you as well. I have something under the tree for you guys but you won't get it until after the New Year.

Grace and peace,
Mark

crawfish · Dec 21, 2007

Mark Kennedy said:
I am reposting this since it has gotten buried:

Great. Thanks for reposting. Do we need to repost all seven previous pages on why you're wrong?

mark kennedy · Dec 21, 2007

crawfish said:
Great. Thanks for reposting. Do we need to repost all seven previous pages on why you're wrong?

Why bother, you didn't read any of it the first time.

gluadys · Dec 21, 2007

mark kennedy said:
apart from sin there is no need for a Savior and apart from Adam and Eve, our first parents, there is no original sin.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with this. But if I take your complete position correctly, you seem to be saying that without original sin, there is no sin PERIOD.

Is this your position? Do you see no difference between original sin and sinful acts? Do you contend that no one other than Adam has ever sinned? Or that without Adam's sin, no one else could sin?

If this is offbase, can you show me where I am misunderstanding you?

mark kennedy · Dec 21, 2007

gluadys said:
I don't think anyone here disagrees with this. But if I take your complete position correctly, you seem to be saying that without original sin, there is no sin PERIOD.

Adam and Eve committed the original sin, the Scriptures are clear on this. If this is some metaphor then Christ died for nothing because my kids do not inherit my sin. If I go out tonight and shoot someone my offspring do not face criminal prosecution. In Adam all sinned, Paul is crystal clear that this is why there was a need for the second Adam.

Is this your position?

Roughly.

Do you see no difference between original sin and sinful acts?

Not in the causative sense, no.

Do you contend that no one other than Adam has ever sinned?

No, just that when Adam ate we did not fast.

Or that without Adam's sin, no one else could sin?

It's impossible to say since Adam sinned and we inherited that sin.

If this is offbase, can you show me where I am misunderstanding you?

Romans 5 my dear, it's a primary proof text for the original sin. It is irrefutable and undeniable. Paul was a Creationist in every way that term is meaningful.

Assyrian · Dec 21, 2007

mark kennedy said:
You do realize that Paul wrote in Koine Greek Right!!!!!!!!!

Did you miss the bit where I said:

Assyrian said:
It would help if you actually presented any evidence the Vulgate's translation was accurate rather than simply blustering that it is correct. I have not come across any English translation from the Greek that agrees with Wycliffe's or the Rheims Douay's translations of the Vulgate, so apparently all the Greek experts on all the translation committees that dealt with Romans 5:12 reject the Vulgate's rendering too.
. εφ ω ... παντες .. ημαρτον
because ... all.... .. sinned
The key part is εφ ω which is a Greek phrase which meant 'on the condition that' in classical Greek, in koine Greek the phrase took on the meaning 'because' which we see in practically all modern translations.

I think it is hilarious the way you try to suggest I might not realise the New Testament was written in Greek, when my whole point is that while Paul's epistle was written in Greek, Augustine got his 'all sinned in Adam' from a Latin translation, a mistranslation of the original.

Of course you completely ignore all the evidence I present showing Augustine was quoting a Latin translation when he gave us the 'all sinned in Adam doctrine'. In fact you ignore 4/5 of my post and you don't seem to actually address any of my points. But then you don't have a leg to stand on so it is hardly surprising.

(Large section left out by Mark)

This translation of of Rom 5:2 'in whom all sinned', is wrong and has been rejected by the Eastern orthodox church and by all our bible translators who translate it 'because all sinned'.

Click to expand...

Show me in the original.

I have, look at the post I quoted.

Now why don't you answer my points?
(1) That Augustine was quoting from a Latin translation.
(2) That this translation is wrong
(3) That the translation has been rejected by the Eastern orthodox church (who should understand Greek)
(4) That it has been rejected by all our bible translator who translate the phrase 'because all sinned'.

I say your 'we all sinned in Adam' is based on a bad translation and can't be found in scripture
You reply instead, it's not complicated exegesis to understand that Adam means the first human being.

Click to expand...

The statement remains uncontradicted.

Which statement is uncontradicted? You original 'we all sinned in Adam' which you have never provided any scriptural basis for?
Or your non sequitur attempt to support that doctrine by claiming Adam means the first human being?

Absolutely

Instead of justifying your non sequitur, you simply repeat the claim I am incoherent for pointing it out.

and what is more, I accuse you of knowing the clear meaning of the text.

I do. And any English translation from the Greek will tell you what it means too, death spread to all men because al sinned.

What is the word in the original, I'll need the original and the lexicon or dictionary you got the definition from.

The word in the original is אדם adam. It comes from a root that means ruddy and is a hebrew word for man, in Ugaritic it means 'people'. I have looked at it in Strongs, BDB, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, and Genesius. Your problem is not the dictionaries you use but understanding how they work. You think you dictionary somehow defines the meaning of Adam as 'the first human being'. Which would make it kind of absurd for Paul to call Jesus the last Adam if Adam is defined as 'first human being'

No, the meaning of adam is 'man'. It is also used as a proper name. It was the name of Adam, who your dictionary describes as the first human being. But that is a question of interpretation not of linguistics. There is nothing in the etymology or meaning of adam that says 'first human being'. It simply means man and this Hebrew word for man was also used a personal name of a character we read about in Genesis. They interpret this literally, but their interpretation of Adam and the Eden account as literal has nothing to do with the meaning of the Hebrew word or the definition of adam.

As for Adam being a proper name in Gen 2, the NLT and RSV don't use Adam as a proper name until Gen 3:17 while the NRSV, Young's Literal Translation and Greens Literal Version first use Adam as a name in Gen 4:25. The first time Adam is actually referred to as a name is in Gen 5:2 He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. So instead of Adam being the name of the first human being, the bible tells us it was God's name for the first human being

Click to expand...

Baloney, Adam is used in Scripture as a proper name and as a word meaning 'man':

Just what I have been saying.

However the issue of when Adam is used as a proper name and when it is used to mean man depends on grammar and context rather than dictionary definition. However they are very hard to distinguish which is why the different translations vary so much. It is really odd is you think that a literal Adam is so foundational to the Gospel, that it would be so difficult to tell when the bible is using his name. Of course it makes perfect sense if Adam if a figurative picture of the human race, of Man.

It was very interesting to the way you edited my quote. In the other quotes you preserved the coloured highlights. you dropped them in this one, and more important you somehow manage to cut off the last letter of the last word, which makes all the difference.

As for Adam being a proper name in Gen 2, the NLT and RSV don't use Adam as a proper name until Gen 3:17 while the NRSV, Young's Literal Translation and Greens Literal Version first use Adam as a name in Gen 4:25. The first time Adam is actually referred to as a name is in Gen 5:2 He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. So instead of Adam being the name of the first human being, the bible tells us it was God's name for the first human beings.

Not only do you not address the argument, no surprise there, but you really seem to want to stick you fingers in you ears and ignore the fact that it was people, human beings, God called by the name Adam.

Strong's: אדם 'âdâm aw-dawm' The same as H120; Adam, the name of the first man.
In H121 in can also mean man so don't equivocate since there is a discernible difference.

No there isn't. It is exactly the same word.

Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam (H121). In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

זֶ֣ה סֵ֔פֶר תֹּולְדֹ֖ת אָדָ֑ם בְּיֹ֗ום בְּרֹ֤א אֱלֹהִים֙ אָדָ֔ם בִּדְמ֥וּת אֱלֹהִ֖ים עָשָׂ֥ה אֹתֹֽו׃

How is that any different from:
Lev 24:17 And he that killeth any man (H120) shall surely be put to death. (YLT smiteth any soul of man)
וְאִ֕ישׁ כִּ֥י יַכֶּ֖ה כָּל־נֶ֣פֶשׁ אָדָ֑ם מֹ֖ות יוּמָֽת׃

Or
Deut 4:28 And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's (H120) hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.
וַעֲבַדְתֶּמ־שָׁ֣ם אֱלֹהִ֔ים מַעֲשֵׂ֖ה יְדֵ֣י אָדָ֑ם עֵ֣ץ וָאֶ֔בֶן אֲשֶׁ֤ר לֹֽא־יִרְאוּן֙ וְלֹ֣א יִשְׁמְע֔וּן וְלֹ֥א יֹֽאכְל֖וּן וְלֹ֥א יְרִיחֻֽן׃

Is
1Chron 1:1 Adam (H121), Sheth, Enosh,
אָדָ֥ם שֵׁ֖ת אֱנֹֽושׁ׃

Different from
Gen 4:25 And Adam (H120) knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
וַיֵּ֨דַע אָדָ֥ם עֹוד֙ אֶת־אִשְׁתֹּ֔ו וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּ֔ן וַתִּקְרָ֥א אֶת־שְׁמֹ֖ו שֵׁ֑ת כִּ֣י שָֽׁת־לִ֤י אֱלֹהִים֙ זֶ֣רַע אַחֵ֔ר תַּ֣חַת הֶ֔בֶל כִּ֥י הֲרָגֹ֖ו קָֽיִן׃

Or
Pro 24:30 I went by the field of the slothful, and by the vineyard of the man (H120) void of understanding;
עַל־שְׂדֵ֣ה אִישׁ־עָצֵ֣ל עָבַ֑רְתִּי וְעַל־֝כֶּ֗רֶם אָדָ֥ם חֲסַר־לֵֽב׃

No it's not. There is a world of difference between Adam being the first human being and the doctrine that we all sinned in Adam.

Click to expand...

Paul said otherwise, in Adam all sinned, you may not like that but it's never the less a fact.

You claim it is a fact and yet you have never show us where Paul said it. It was Augustine who said in Adam all sinned, and he got that from his mistranslated Latin translation not from what Paul said.

And you still do not justify your claim 'Adam was the first human being' is the same thing as 'all sinned in Adam'. Claiming Paul said so is simply making up your own bible.

One is based on a simple literal interpetation of scripture, the other has no scriptural basis and came from a Latin mistranslation

Click to expand...

.
The KJV and the NIV are based on the original, you know that right?

Exactly. Augustine's Latin mistranslation said 'in whom all sinned' in quo omnes peccaverunt. The KJV and the NIV are based on the original Greek and contradict the Latin. The KJV says for that all have sinned. The NIV says because all sinned.

No one cared until the Peligian heresy cropped up, then it was addressed. The question of whether or not Adam was our first parent never occurred to anyone. The Eastern Orthodox reject Augustine's doctrine for completely unrelated reasons. You are chasing the wind.

Even The Catholic church admit the Greek Orthodox rejected the Latin translation Augustine used because they knew the Greek better. And if as you say, the question of whether or not Adam was our first parent never occurred to anyone before the Pelagian heresy, then it doesn't say a lot for you idea of Adam being fundamental to the Gospel. And if these questions never occurred to anyone before then, Augustine's 'all sinned in Adam' was an idea that had never occurred to anyone before the Pelagian controversy.

I have had quite enough of this, I don't care about the Vulgate. Either you go into the original or I will and if I do you will never hear the end of it.

I have been asking you to show where 'all sinned in Adam' is in the bible. But you never do. All we have had is you claiming to have given exegeses on it, or trying to switch subject to 'Adam was the first human being' instead. Does this mean you are eventually going to get around to it?

I am not surprised you are sick of hearing about the Vulgate. It must be very disturbing for you that your key doctrine, the basis for you whole understanding of the gospel, was actually take from a bad Latin translation. But that is the fact. There is no mention of 'all sinned in Adam' before Augustine came up with it, and he took it from his Latin translation of Romans 5:12, a translation that has been completely rejected by every English bible version I have seen, unless it was a translation of the Latin like the old Catholic Douay Rheims. And even though the Vulgate was the Catholic bible for so long, even the Catholic church recognises its translation of Romans 5:12 was wrong.

gluadys · Dec 21, 2007

mark kennedy said:
Adam and Eve committed the original sin, the Scriptures are clear on this. If this is some metaphor then Christ died for nothing because my kids do not inherit my sin.

That would apply to Adam's kids too, would it not? I am puzzled by what point you are making here.

If I go out tonight and shoot someone my offspring do not face criminal prosecution. In Adam all sinned, Paul is crystal clear that this is why there was a need for the second Adam.

Well, that it the point at issue. I see Paul saying that all have sinned. I see Paul saying that death entered through Adam's sin and spread to all because all sinned. I don't see Paul saying that we sinned in Adam.

Not in the causative sense, no.

I am not particularly interested in the causative sense, but in the practical sense. Isn't a sinful act sinful whatever the cause?

No, just that when Adam ate we did not fast.

To me, this only makes sense if Adam is figurative. I cannot make any sense of us being present if Adam is an actual historical figure. To me, the only meaningful way that I can eat what Adam ate is by virtue of me being Adam because I am a human being and that is the meaning of "adam". i.e. "adam" is humanity and Adam is a metaphor for humanity.

I cannot eat what someone else ate.

It's impossible to say since Adam sinned and we inherited that sin.

Why would it be impossible to say? If Adam, without inheriting original sin could sin, why could not any human being sin without inheriting original sin? What would prevent any human like Adam from succumbing to temptation, whether or not Adam himself did?

Romans 5 my dear, it's a primary proof text for the original sin.

The doctrine of original sin is not the problem. It is how you relate sin to original sin and us to Adam that is problematical.

I cannot see for the life of me why any sinner would not need a Redeemer, with or without the factor of original sin.

So I cannot understand your claim that without original sin, Christ died for nothing.

mark kennedy · Dec 21, 2007

Assyrian said:
Did you miss the bit where I said:

It would help if you actually presented any evidence the Vulgate's translation was accurate rather than simply blustering that it is correct. I have not come across any English translation from the Greek that agrees with Wycliffe's or the Rheims Douay's translations of the Vulgate, so apparently all the Greek experts on all the translation committees that dealt with Romans 5:12 reject the Vulgate's rendering too.
. εφ ω ... παντες .. ημαρτον
because ... all.... .. sinned

What on earth are you getting to, we will have to wait.

I think it is hilarious the way you try to suggest I might not realise the New Testament was written in Greek, when my whole point is that while Paul's epistle was written in Greek, Augustine got his 'all sinned in Adam' from a Latin translation, a mistranslation of the original.

I find it telling that you are taking the long way around the original.

Of course you completely ignore all the evidence I present showing Augustine was quoting a Latin translation when he gave us the 'all sinned in Adam doctrine'. In fact you ignore 4/5 of my post and you don't seem to actually address any of my points. But then you don't have a leg to stand on so it is hardly surprising.

We are still in circles around the main point.

I have, look at the post I quoted.

Another tangent.

Now why don't you answer my points?
(1) That Augustine was quoting from a Latin translation.

Because I have the original.

(2) That this translation is wrong
(3) That the translation has been rejected by the Eastern orthodox church (who should understand Greek)
(4) That it has been rejected by all our bible translator who translate the phrase 'because all sinned'.

There is not reference to the original in any of this nonsense.

Which statement is uncontradicted? You original 'we all sinned in Adam' which you have never provided any scriptural basis for?

Except the Scriptures themselves.

Or your non sequitur attempt to support that doctrine by claiming Adam means the first human being?

It follows from Moses and Paul, you are arguing in circles.

Instead of justifying your non sequitur, you simply repeat the claim I am incoherent for pointing it out.

I need not do much, you are doing it all by arguing in circles around a point that does not exist.

I do. And any English translation from the Greek will tell you what it means too, death spread to all men because al sinned.

You mean all sinned and that means in Adam.

The word in the original is אדם adam. It comes from a root that means ruddy and is a hebrew word for man, in Ugaritic it means 'people'. I have looked at it in Strongs, BDB, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, and Genesius.

Of course you mean Genesis and I am not disputing the meaning of the name of Adam.

Your problem is not the dictionaries you use but understanding how they work. You think you dictionary somehow defines the meaning of Adam as 'the first human being'.

Your problem is that you want me to doubt the clear meaning of the verse and the dictionaries I reference. Your problem is that you access neither and you are making a fool of yourself.

Which would make it kind of absurd for Paul to call Jesus the last Adam if Adam is defined as 'first human being'

It would make it absurd to call Jesus the second Adam if there was not a first.

No, the meaning of adam is 'man'. It is also used as a proper name. It was the name of Adam, who your dictionary describes as the first human being. But that is a question of interpretation not of linguistics.

Adam is a man and a proper name. That has been defended and you have nothing to defend your rationalization.

There is nothing in the etymology or meaning of adam that says 'first human being'.

Nothing except the context and content of the actual word being used.

It simply means man and this Hebrew word for man was also used a personal name of a character we read about in Genesis. They interpret this literally, but their interpretation of Adam and the Eden account as literal has nothing to do with the meaning of the Hebrew word or the definition of adam.

It simple means Adam, the first man. That is what it means and you continue to argue in circles around the clear meaning of the text.

Just what I have been saying.

You have not said anything as far as I can tell.

However the issue of when Adam is used as a proper name and when it is used to mean man depends on grammar and context rather than dictionary definition. However they are very hard to distinguish which is why the different translations vary so much. It is really odd is you think that a literal Adam is so foundational to the Gospel, that it would be so difficult to tell when the bible is using his name. Of course it makes perfect sense if Adam if a figurative picture of the human race, of Man.

It means a proper name in the New Testament because if it didn't it would be anthropos not Adam.

It was very interesting to the way you edited my quote. In the other quotes you preserved the coloured highlights. you dropped them in this one, and more important you somehow manage to cut off the last letter of the last word, which makes all the difference.
As for Adam being a proper name in Gen 2, the NLT and RSV don't use Adam as a proper name until Gen 3:17 while the NRSV, Young's Literal Translation and Greens Literal Version first use Adam as a name in Gen 4:25. The first time Adam is actually referred to as a name is in Gen 5:2 He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. So instead of Adam being the name of the first human being, the bible tells us it was God's name for the first human beings.
Not only do you not address the argument, no surprise there, but you really seem to want to stick you fingers in you ears and ignore the fact that it was people, human beings, God called by the name Adam.

God called the first man by name 'Adam'.

No there isn't. It is exactly the same word.

No it's not. There are two different words used in the Greek in the text in question. You will eat this when the truth comes out.

Calminian · Dec 21, 2007

gluadys said:
Well, that it the point at issue. I see Paul saying that all have sinned. I see Paul saying that death entered through Adam's sin and spread to all because all sinned. I don't see Paul saying that we sinned in Adam.

Certainly you believe we died in Adam?

1Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

You don't deny original sin, right? That we're born in sin due to Adam's original sin?

Psa. 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

gluadys · Dec 21, 2007

Calminian said:
Certainly you believe we died in Adam?

1Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

"die" yes, that is what Paul says. "sinned" no (and that is what mark has repeatedly said). I die because I sin, not because Adam sinned. I need a Redeemer because I sinned, not because Adam sinned.

Adam's sin brought death into the world. It did not bring my sin into the world. My sin brought death upon me.

You don't deny original sin, right?

Not at all.

Calminian · Dec 22, 2007

gluadys said:
"die" yes, that is what Paul says. "sinned" no (and that is what mark has repeatedly said). I die because I sin, not because Adam sinned. I need a Redeemer because I sinned, not because Adam sinned.

Adam's sin brought death into the world. It did not bring my sin into the world. My sin brought death upon me.

Not at all.

Okay, so you don't believe that your natural tendency toward sin is the result of Adam's sin?

gluadys · Dec 22, 2007

Calminian said:
Okay, so you don't believe that your natural tendency toward sin is the result of Adam's sin?

Sure, but that is not the point at issue here. Mark has been saying that when Adam sinned we sinned. I don't believe that. Nor do I believe scripture supports that.

A sinful nature is one thing. A sinful act is another. Adam's sin is not my sin and my sin is not Adam's sin.

Mark is conflating sinful nature (original sin) and sinful acts in such as way as to claim Christ's sacrifice had no redeeming purpose in respect of sinful acts other than Adam's.

chaoschristian · Dec 22, 2007

gluadys said:
Mark is conflating sinful nature (original sin) and sinful acts in such as way as to claim Christ's sacrifice had no redeeming purpose in respect of sinful acts other than Adam's.

I think what Mark is really espousing is a biologically inherited sin that was passed directly from Adam to all subsequent generations.

crawfish · Dec 22, 2007

mark kennedy said:
Why bother, you didn't read any of it the first time.

You wound me, sir. I've read every post in this thread. Most just once, of course.

stumpjumper · Dec 22, 2007

chaoschristian said:
I think what Mark is really espousing is a biologically inherited sin that was passed directly from Adam to all subsequent generations.

So he's like, uh, a Lamarckian

Assyrian · Dec 22, 2007

mark kennedy said:
What on earth are you getting to, we will have to wait.

I find it telling that you are taking the long way around the original.

We are still in circles around the main point.

Another tangent.

Because I have the original.

There is not reference to the original in any of this nonsense.

Except the Scriptures themselves.

It follows from Moses and Paul, you are arguing in circles.

I need not do much, you are doing it all by arguing in circles around a point that does not exist.

Not a single meaningful response in the whole lot.

I do. And any English translation from the Greek will tell you what it means too, death spread to all men because all sinned.

Click to expand...

You mean all sinned

Typo corrected

and that means in Adam.

No it doesn't. 'All sinned' means everyone has broken God's laws.

'In Adam' means either inside the body of someone called Adam, or 'is part of a figurative picture of the human race', in Hebrew 'in adam', b'adm, is a common phrase in the OT Hebrew, which is usually translated 'among man' or 'among mankind'.

But which ever way you understand it, 'all sinned' does not mean 'in Adam'. They are two different phrases that mean different things.

The word in the original is אדם adam. It comes from a root that means ruddy and is a hebrew word for man, in Ugaritic it means 'people'. I have looked at it in Strongs, BDB, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, and Genesius.

Click to expand...

Of course you mean Genesis

No I mean H.W.F Gesenius's Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament.

and I am not disputing the meaning of the name of Adam.

Good.

Your problem is that you want me to doubt the clear meaning of the verse and the dictionaries I reference. Your problem is that you access neither and you are making a fool of yourself.

Again name calling instead of content.

It would make it absurd to call Jesus the second Adam if there was not a first.

That depends on whether Paul was treating Adam as a figure of Christ in 1Cor 15, like he said he was doing in Romans 5 (Rom 5:14). But that does not answer the problem if you say 'Adam means the first human being', then calling Jesus the second Adam becomes an oxymoronic Jesus is the second first human being. Correct that, Paul called Jesus the last Adam, 'the last first human being' is even worse.

But you have already said you are 'not disputing the meaning of the name of Adam', so I don't see why you are still trying to defend the point.

Adam is a man and a proper name. That has been defended and you have nothing to defend your rationalization.

No the word adam means man and is also a proper name. The question of whether Adam was a literal human being has nothing to do with the dictionary meaning of adam. Nice sleight of hand though.

Anyway let's not forget your whole introduction of this point was to try to distract from defending 'all sinned in Adam', which you have never defended.

Nothing except the context and content of the actual word being used.

In other words the interpetation of the passages, not the meaning of Adam.

It simply means man and this Hebrew word for man was also used a personal name of a character we read about in Genesis. They interpret this literally, but their interpretation of Adam and the Eden account as literal has nothing to do with the meaning of the Hebrew word or the definition of adam.

Click to expand...

It simple means Adam, the first man. That is what it means and you continue to argue in circles around the clear meaning of the text.

Your problem is you think a dictionary will tell you if a text is literal or not.

You have not said anything as far as I can tell.

I have said the basis for death spreading to all men is found in Romans 5:12 because all sinned.

I have said that the term use in this verse εφ ω is a phrase that meant 'on the condition that' in classical Greek, while in the koine Greek Paul used the phrase took on the meaning 'because'.

I have said that this was mistranslated into Latin as 'in whom' which Augustine mistakenly thought referred back to Adam.

I have said that the Greek scholars of every modern translation I have read, who translate this passage from Greek realise it means 'because' rather than 'in whom' and translate it:
'because' BBE, Complete Apostles' Bible, ESV, GNB, ISV, NKJV, NASB, NET, NIV, RSVA, NRSV, WEB
'for' NLT
'inasmuch' LITV
'for that' KJV, YLT

I have said that your doctrine 'we all sinned in Adam' comes from Augustine and his Latin mistranslation of Rom 5:12, to which you just stick you fingers in your ears and say you don't care about the vulgate or Latin.

I have said your 'we all sinned in Adam' is not in the bible, and you have never been able to defend it, you have never shown where this foundational phrase for your theology and understanding of the gospel is to be found in scripture.

However the issue of when Adam is used as a proper name and when it is used to mean man depends on grammar and context rather than dictionary definition. However they are very hard to distinguish which is why the different translations vary so much. It is really odd is you think that a literal Adam is so foundational to the Gospel, that it would be so difficult to tell when the bible is using his name. Of course it makes perfect sense if Adam if a figurative picture of the human race, of Man.

Click to expand...

It means a proper name in the New Testament because if it didn't it would be anthropos not Adam.

Proper name does not mean literal.

And of course you don't address my point about the difficulty of knowing there Adam means man or is used as a proper name in Genesis.

It was very interesting to the way you edited my quote. In the other quotes you preserved the coloured highlights. you dropped them in this one, and more important you somehow manage to cut off the last letter of the last word, which makes all the difference.
As for Adam being a proper name in Gen 2, the NLT and RSV don't use Adam as a proper name until Gen 3:17 while the NRSV, Young's Literal Translation and Greens Literal Version first use Adam as a name in Gen 4:25. The first time Adam is actually referred to as a name is in Gen 5:2 He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. So instead of Adam being the name of the first human being, the bible tells us it was God's name for the first human beings.
Not only do you not address the argument, no surprise there, but you really seem to want to stick you fingers in you ears and ignore the fact that it was people, human beings, God called by the name Adam.

Click to expand...

God called the first man by name 'Adam'.

And God addressed Jerusalem as though she was an orphan girl he rescued (Ezek 16).

And of course you don't address my point about about Gen 5:2 and Adam being God's name the the people he created.

Strong's: אדם 'âdâm aw-dawm' The same as H120; Adam, the name of the first man.
In H121 in can also mean man so don't equivocate since there is a discernible difference.

Click to expand...

No there isn't. It is exactly the same word.

Click to expand...

No it's not. There are two different words used in the Greek in the text in question. You will eat this when the truth comes out.

You do realise אדם is Hebrew not Greek?

And of course you ignore all the examples I have shown you where H120 is exactly the same word as H121 even down to the vowel pointings.

mark kennedy · Dec 22, 2007

gluadys said:
"die" yes, that is what Paul says. "sinned" no (and that is what mark has repeatedly said). I die because I sin, not because Adam sinned. I need a Redeemer because I sinned, not because Adam sinned.

That creates a theological can of worms since all have sinned. Paul makes it clear that it was the sin of Adam that is antecedent to our guilt before God:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 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. (Romans 5:12-14)

Sin entered through one man and that man is Adam. That is clear and there is nothing in the text supporting your statement. Now if you wanted to argue that sin was not imputed by Adam's transgression there are some interesting theological points to be made. The fact is that sin was there from Adam to Moses and the law simply exposed what was there from the beginning.

Adam's sin brought death into the world. It did not bring my sin into the world. My sin brought death upon me.

Death came because Adam sinned, you are a sinner because Adam sinned. There is nothing in the New Testament supporting what you are saying, in fact, you are directly contradicted by Paul. Saying it's not true over and over might win you some points with the TEs on here but I know the book of Romans.

gluadys · Dec 22, 2007

mark kennedy said:
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 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. (Romans 5:12-14)

Now if you wanted to argue that sin was not imputed by Adam's transgression there are some interesting theological points to be made.

Interesting indeed, since Paul makes exactly that point, that sin is NOT imputed when there is no law.

Death indeed reigns, not in the absence of sin, which is in the world, but in the absence of the imputation of sin, as no law had yet revealed it.

Death came because Adam sinned, you are a sinner because Adam sinned.

So my sins are nothing? My sins do not make me guilty before God? My sins do not require atonement? My sins do not require confession or absolution?

What kind of nonsense is this?

How can Jesus say "Go and sin no more" if our sins are nothing? Why do the apostles insist that once free of the bondage of sin, we are not to continue sinning? By your theology, it would be perfectly ok for the ransomed to continue sinning, since there is no need to atone for actual sin.

but I know the book of Romans.

I think you delude yourself.

Assyrian · Dec 22, 2007

mark kennedy said:
chaoschristian said:

The reason the Vulgate translation is more important in this instance, rather than the original Koine Greek, is because it was the Latin translation that Augustine used to formulate his stance, that said same stance that you are now advocating.

Click to expand...

Nonsense! There is nothing in the Koine Greek that contracts the original sin doctrine, the original sin doctrine is based on it.

Well Augustine's 'all sinned in Adam' doctrine is based on his Latin translation not the koine. But we need a stronger basis than 'nothing contradicts the doctrine' in the koine Greek. We need to actually see the 'all sinned in Adam' doctrine in the original Greek, rather than claim it is not contradicted there. And it simply isn't there. A doctrine needs a firmer foundation than being based on a mistranslation and getting by because nothing contradicts it. We need to base our understanding of sin on what the bible says, not human traditions we don't think are contradicted.

Personally I think it is contradicted by God's revelation of himself in the ten commandments. Exodus 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, How many generations ago do you think the sin of Adam was? Why do you think he is still visiting Adam's iniquity on us when God himself says he doesn't? You claim Moses supports you 'all sinned in Adam' doctrine. He most certainly does not.

Father Augustine didn't pull from the Koine Greek, he pulled from the Latin.

The Latin is in error.

Click to expand...

Paul didn't, you will never get past that point.

Paul didn't say we all sinned in Adam, you will never get past that point.

Mark: Paul said otherwise, in Adam all sinned, you may not like that but it's never the less a fact.

Click to expand...

chaoschristian: This is in error. Paul does not say that at all.

Click to expand...

That's a lie.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 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. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (Romans 5:12-18)

So where is the bit where it says 'in Adam all sinned'? You called CC a liar over it, and you post a passage of scripture that is supposed to say 'in Adam all sinned' so where is it? Where does it say that when Adam sinned, we were all part of him, and we sinned too?

The parts you highlight in bold say death came through one man, and death reigned because of one man. It is possible to interpret that literally as a single individual. It is also possible to interpret it figuratively, because as Paul says (my highlight in green), he is interpreting Adam as a figure of Christ. It is an allegorical comparison Paul is making here, so there is no real basis to claim death literally did reign by one. One what? One man? One figurative picture of the sinfulness of humanity? One person whose sin stands as a model for all our sins? Remember Paul is talking in allegory here.

But even if you take it literally, where does it say we all sinned in Adam? Paul gives the reason death spread to all men, not because we all sinned in Adam, but because we all sinned. The AV expresses this in their old fashioned English (navy highlight) for that all have sinned more modern translations say because all sinned. That is the reason we all come under the judgment described in Genesis, not because we all sinned in Adam, the bible never says that, but because we all sinned.

The Idols and False Notions have Taken Deep Root

Is Adam being specially created and our first parent essential doctrine?

Yes, directly tied to the Gospel and original sin.

No, Adam is just a mythical symbol for humanity

Yes and No (elaborate at will)

Neither yes or not (suggest another alternative)

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Veteran

Natura non facit saltum

Legend

Natura non facit saltum

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Legend

Natura non facit saltum

Senior Veteran

Legend

Senior Veteran

Legend

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Left the river, made it to the sea

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Natura non facit saltum

Legend

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency