And yet you haven't offered any rationale for why, in direct contradiction to the thinking of the writers of the Scripture who you say are inspired, you think Adam and Eve are a fiction. Are you content simply to dismiss the import of the biblical lineages as wrong? That hardly seems thoughtful or reasonable.
For one, and quite obviously, is science which proves that the world is much older and different from what the creation story/s allow. Which brings me on to my second point, which is that there appears to be two different stories written in different styles. The first is alot like a poem and the second is alot like a myth. Various problems come up because of these two stories if taken literally and also Genesis 2 and 3 don't naturally lead to Paul's understanding of them if you read them without knowledge of Paul.
Back to evolution; do you think that Genesis would have the stories of the Big Bang and Evolution if they were true? I am pretty sure it wouldn't. The main point of the Bible isn't to give a science or even an exact history lesson, even though history is helpful to the overall point. It seems to me that the overall point of the Bible is to reveal God and bring us closer to God. The story of the Big Bang might tell us about a deist God but it doesn't tell us what we need to know. The Creation story does give us insight into God though and so I find that it makes most sense for the Bible to have a metaphorical story of creation in it if science is right.
On what basis is he wrong about the reality of Adam? Why is he incorrect in thinking Adam is real? And if he is wrong in this respect, why isn't he also wrong about the spiritual point he makes based upon his belief in a real-life guy named Adam? How can you choose to believe the spiritual point he is making but not the factual basis out of which that point is made? In fact, if Adam wasn't real 1Corinthians 15:45-47 makes little sense at all.
I think the spiritual truth is more real than the physical point being made. It would make sense that Paul knew the spiritual significance of Jesus reguardless of Adam, but Adam was a helpful way to help others understand what the sacrifice of Christ means to them.
As for
1 Corinthians 15:45-47 I would say the primary point of that section is to say that we will have spiritual bodies after death. If Adam can be understood as a general representative of all humans it is still true that the natural comes first and the spiritual afterwards.
Please show how you arrive at this thinking from Paul's writings. Christ's death and resurrection are unnecessary if the curse of Adam's sin doesn't exist, which must be true if Adam himself never really existed. The parallel Paul draws between Adam and Christ falls apart completely if Adam is fictional. Paul writes,
Why is a curse necessary for Christ's death and resurrection to mean anything? Even if we didn't have a story about a man in a garden we would still sin and still be removed from God. I think my point is even may by your verse from Paul below.
Romans 5:12
12 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:
It says that death is upon all men because all have sinned, not because of Adam. Adam may have brought it into the world, but he isn't the cause of each indivudals death. Even if there were no Adam our first sin would enter sin into our own lives and by sin also spiritual death and the need for a saviour.
This is a lie if Adam was just a fantasy. How could sin have come into the world through someone who never existed? The advent of sin into the world dissolves into confusion and mystery if Adam and Eve did not as real, living beings actually choose it.
For it to be a lie Paul would have had to have known he was wrong. I don't think he did. Even if he did I wouldn't say it was a lie. Many people change their beliefs when talking to certain people and say things they actually consider untrue for the sake of the overall point being made. For example I did it above on the with the assumption that sin causes death. I only clarified that I meant spiritual death because I thought it would cause problem in this discussion later on.
Romans 5:18-19
18 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.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
If Adam did not exist, then how could "by one man's disobedience many be made sinners"?
Obviously the verses above are exaggerations though used to get the point across. If Adams sin condemned all and the free gift of Christ gives lifes then universal salvation is true reguardless of beliefs of actions.
Some of my explanations may be too anti-infallibility for you, but I do believe you can believe the Bible is infallible and that the earth is very old at the same time. I did it.
If Adam and his disobedience did not exist, then where did sin originate? And if neither Adam nor his sin truly existed, then why is Paul drawing a direct parallel between Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness? The parallel is meaningless if there was no Adam and his sin by which we are all cursed.
As I have said above, we are all are the originators of our own sin and Adam is the figure head for the human race. His fall represents what we all go through.
Remember, "interpretation" means saying as exactly as possible what the writer wrote in one's own words. It is not giving a new, personal meaning to what a writer has written, which is what you seem to be trying to do.
Some common interpretations of the Bible don't give us the exact meaning that someone reading it in greek would. If they did then the Bible wouldn't flow properly and would make it more complecated for the average person. For example all the words for hell don't just mean hell but would mean different things to people at the time.
Anyway, I think the main point that is being made is the most important one, not the others on the side which are just there to prop up the main point. For example, my main point in this discussion is that Adam wasn't real and this is based on science. The rest of the points I am making are only important so far as they help my main point. I am unsure about these side arguments, but my main argument (science) I am very sure of. The same could be true of Paul. He is very sure of the resurrection.... perhaps less so about Adams reality.
Christ's sacrifice for sin on the cross reached forward and backward in time as a payment for sin. The OT saints were saved by Christ's work on the cross as surely as a believer in Christ is saved by it today. But they did not have the gospel upon which to believe in their time. Instead, they had a "shadow of things to come" in the sacrifices, rituals, and commandments given to them by God. Today, however, the Bible makes it clear that there is now only one way to God and that Way is Christ.
Could only the jews be saved before Christ? What about before Abraham? The 'good news' of God only seems to restrict salvation if conscious belief in a jewish man is necessary. I think it is fair to assume that before Abraham (at least) all people could be saved because Abraham was just one of the many people who existed on earth. Do the promises of God to one people become a curse to another? If salvation suddenly changes to needing certain beliefs then in many places in the world they had more hope to be saved before Christ (or Abraham) then after. I hope you see the point I am trying to make..... I am trying to do it in as few words as possible.
