Sorry for the long delay. I'm not long back from NY - It's all about the Windy Apple. But all I could think about is getting right back to you!
Neither am I necessarily "from Adam's lineage" but I am still presented with the everyday potential to sin. Please explain how you can hypothetically accept an exitent people and yet suggest they are not under the scrutiny of our God? Your logic here simply does not fit mine; Christ came to save ALL people; not just Jews but gentiles too. Man's original "sin" literally opened his eyes and showed him the way. And this affected the whole of mankind. Just as Christ's sacrifice was to save ALL mankind, so Man's original "sin" brings together all mankind. How could you logically have an existent people NOT subject to the power of God? Isn't that demeaning God? Isn't that questioning his compassion and his power?Byblos wrote:I did not say that at all. All I said is that since they are not born to a fallen nature (because they are not from Adam's lineage) it's quite possible their inherent nature allows them not to sin and therefore not be in need for a savior. But if there exists such a people, indeed if only one person, then Christ's sacrifice is no longer needed. One can learn from such people how to save one's self..
Perhaps Paul was speaking of his own nations of people past and present. Perhaps Paul really is saying what it looks like he might be saying. Who knows? But it does not erase the evidence.Byblos wrote:Not sure exactly what you mean by 'Adam the man is not explicitly mentioned until Genesis 4'. Genesis 3:20 begs to differ with you. Here it is from different versions:
Adam is not a proper name in the biblical text. God does not name him Adam, and neither does man name himself Adam. Hence me acknowledging Genesis 4 as the explicit moment when the man (Adam, let's call him) is mentioned specifically and in a manner which is "doing". Eve is explicitly named by Adam, and if you read this text philosophically, it is a rather glorious statement; it is beautiful. Adam has just been admonished by God for his "sin" and has been shown in no uncertain terms that he is just a man, and (when compared to God) powerless at that. So man is exonerating the woman, he is placing her above even himself: She is the mother of all living. Maybe the man seriously believes, in his moment of ecstacy, that Eve truly is the only woman alive; maybe he thinks Eve will be the first woman to give birth; maybe he is claiming Eve to be the mother of all living in his line. Whatever, the text does not explain away the fact that Genesis indicates another people.Byblos wrote:NIV wrote:Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.NASB wrote:Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.KJV wrote:And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living..ASV wrote:And the man called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
It means a specific man, but man isn't mentioned specifically. I hope you know what I mean by this.Byblos wrote:Where it says 'the man' instead of 'Adam', to whom do you think the reference is if not to Adam? Considering they mention his wife Eve, being the mother of all living. So no, I don't know what you mean that 'Adam the man' is not mentioned until Gen 4. Please elaborate. .
It ends nothing. You, I fear, are taking things too literally and too seriously; a philosophical and nonliteral look is often required. You have no grounds whatsoever to insist as fact that Eve is the only woman. I'm truly ready to open this debate right up again, Byblos, as I am astonished at such claims. Please tell me from whence Cain's wife came ? And please, if you are going to mention phantom siblings born in between Cain and Abel, then explain why Cain and Abel are the only siblings focused upon? And please explain how the "feud" between Cain and Abel is a classic feud between two warring and competing brothers? The kind of classic competition for attention that you get from two brothers? And the classic case of the elder brother, being the pride and joy, resenting the newborn? Please tell me where you think a whole load of other siblings fit into this classical, perhaps prototypical scene of the two (and only two) brothers competing?Byblos wrote:Besides which, it really is irrelevant to the discussion. The mere fact that Eve is proclaimed to be the mother of all living should end it right there. How could there possibly be other non-adamic races when Eve is said to be the mother of all? That, my friend, is what makes no sense whatever, unless of course you want to argue that Eve bore children from other than Adam. .
KJV wrote:And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.
Note the KJV goes even further: 'one blood'.
Byblos, I've left the KJV in so as to point out how, along with the Catholic church itself. the KJV sometimes has a tendency to go its own way with things. Where it thinks it has the right to exaggerate the text is beyond me. It is things like this which turn me away from this particular book.
I look forward to a robust debate on this once more, seeing as it won't go away