Neither am IJac3510 wrote:Regarding (1), I'm not sure what either my or your opinion of the NIV has to do with the discussion..
Yes, "...the first man Adam..." - my apologies - so Paul concurs with Gen 2: 7, and which I have no problem with at all. Indeed, from the start I have expressed my belief that the man Adam gave man a living soul.Jac3510 wrote:Regarding (3), no, Paul says "the first MAN, Adam." Look at the Greek. You can do so yourself here. You will be able to follow it even if you don't read Greek...
I don't understand your thinking here, Jac...? The man Adam gave mankind a living soul, Christ is the saviour of all mankind. What if we were to look at Gen 1 as the "prior spirit creation"... would that wash with you?Jac3510 wrote:Regarding (4), because Adam is the "first" man, as you are so fond of pointing out. If there were other people before Adam, then he either would not have been the first, or they would not have been men (that is, mankind). Yet Christ is the savior of MAN (anthropos). He's the savior of the Adamic race....
It was a pleasure to read, Jac.Jac3510 wrote:I appreciate your kind words with regard to the blog. But, no worries, a solution is not impossible because while there is little expansion, there is the presence of exclusive language (look, again, at 1 Cor 15:45, as already described).....
I think a solution is impossible, Jac, as the author never saw fit to elaborate, and we are left with the impreession that Cain is the only existent sibling left on the earth. The third son, Seth, came when Adam was 130 years of age "...After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters..." So we get to Gen 5 before we are informed of Seth, and then the folloow on of other brothers and sisters. I believe the narrative of Cain in Gen 4, if we are looking for a solution, has to lead us to believe of co-existent people.
No, but alternately do you have a text that says there are other siblings? Or even a passage to vaguely suggest this? The narrative more than vaguely hints to a co-existent people.Jac3510 wrote:(3) Disagree. What evidence do you have of this? Do you have a text that says he was the only other sibling? And even if he were, how would this matter, for could not future children have had just as much desire to avenge Abel's death as anyone else, especially given your idea that non-Adamic people could have been so incensed by the event!
I think my argument has gone beyond the "incest" question - it doesn't really trouble me as I believe incest wasn't necessary - and focuses entirely on the suggestion of the narrative. I seems clear to me that the narrative presupposes another existent people. If it seems clear to be, but not to you, then perhaps we should have a cup of coffee together, call it a truce, and chat about something elseJac3510 wrote:(4) "There must have been" are very strong words. Where do you get that idea? It is certainly not true that there must have been. You've presented no argument to the case at all. The best you've provided is an incredulity based on your rejection of early incest, which we gave a plausible explanation a long time ago.!
Paul, I believe, is simply reading it the way I am reading it. The man Adam is the first spiritual man, the first of God's chosen. Back to the Cain narrative, I believe my take on this is far more plausible. I really don't see any suggestion or hint of other brothers and sisters. I'm not trying to fit scripture to my interpretation, rather I'm giving my interpretation to scripture, and i can't see how my interpretation is less rational than yours.Jac3510 wrote:(Your conclusion, then, is unwarranted. For something to be plausible--and certainly more plausible than another position--it has to best fit the evidence. The straight-forward reading of the text provides prima facie evidence for the traditional understanding, and the history of interpretation proves that to be the case, and 1 Cor 15:45 shows that Paul took this passage the traditional way as well. Against this, you have the objection to insect . . . that hardly counts as "more plausible."
I disagree- rationality is the name of the game, and I believe I'm being perfectly rationalJac3510 wrote:(Now, you may say, "Granted my lack of evidence, I still prefer to believe this for moral reasons." That's fine. It's not exactly rational. It's an emotional reading of the text. It's what you want it to say (or, in this case, not say), but that's fine. I can't tell you how the text looks to you. But when talking about more objective issues such as what is more plausible, then you simply are incorrect on this.
Gotcha! I see how you mean in terms of the "second man". I'm sorry to labour the point, but Adam, for me, is the first of God's chosen people. I could easily read this your way, and it would perhaps be tempting if it were not for the presupposition of other existent human beings. This doesn't mean I'm skewing scripture to fit my view, it means that yes, 1 Corinth 15: 45 makes me pause, but this one passage alone, erroneously tied in with Gen 2: 7, cannot be presented as the killer quote to disprove what Genesis 1 and 2 appears to suggest. But hey, I could be completely upside down on this whole issue, Jac.Jac3510 wrote:(Finally, a note about Gman's oddball source . . . 1 Cor 15:47 does refer to Christ as the "second man," but that is in context of 1 Cor 15:45, not the other way around. What Paul is doing is painting a theological picture. For him, there are only two men: Adam and Christ. Those who are "in Adam" will perish (see 1 Cor 15:22 which is in the context!), whereas those who are "in Christ" will live. In any case, 15:45 still stands. Mankind is distinguished from the individual Adam, and Paul goes out of his way to state that Adam was the first human being in that he quotes, and modifies, Gen 2:7. Adam, then, was the first man, which means that there were no other civilizations.