Do you think I'm wrong, Jac? I certainly *could* be wrong, but am certainly *not* definately wrong
1. The NIV: "So it is written (Paul is not making a theological statement: Paul is reiterating Genesis 2: 7), 'the first Adam became a living being'; the last Adam, a life giving spirit." The NIV, for me, is the most thorough and conscientious compilation ever undertaken.
2. See above.
3. On the contrary, Paul - my hero second to Jesus - expresses "...the first Adam...".
4. Why not? Surely the glory of Christ is the saviour of *all* men? Why would Christ not be the saviour of other men? This makes no sense when considering the whole nature and purpose of Christ Jesus.
Regarding (1), I'm not sure what either my or your opinion of the NIV has to do with the discussion.
Regarding (2), I'm not sure what "the above" has to do with anything. I made a specific grammatical argument based on the Greek text. The words "man" and "Adam" are distinguished. Paul uses BOTH words. He says "the first" (ho protos
) "man" (anthropos
) "Adam" (adam
) . . . thus, while you may make the argument that the Hebrew word adm
, which means "mankind", refers to men generally, Paul clarifies here that the first human being was named Adam.
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.
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.
No doubt obvious to you, Jac, but not to me I'm sorry to say. Why would you expect a narrative of another existent civilisation? The bible explicitly deals with our God's people. Why would you dismiss a potential existent society on the basis of an absence from text?
I'm not expecting a narrative of another civilization. I'm expecting non-exclusive language if the traditional view is incorrect. If this is really such an open matter, then I'm expecting for other people to have come to a similar conclusion. Further, note your statement that the text deals "explicitly with God's people." Well, there's another answer for your (4) above.
Jac, I've briefly looked at your blog, and I love your reasoning techniques to pieces, so I'm treading very carefully in "crossing swords" with you
, but you and I are *way* apart on the narraitive of Cain: Let's try to deal with this - although a solution is practically impossible due to the lack of expansion
1. Cain and God agree that Cain is at risk of reprisals.
2. Cain might be at risk from other siblings.
3. Cain is the only existent sibling (according to scripture) left on the earth.
4. There must be an already existent creation for which Cain and God feared reprisals.
I am willing to rationally believe that the stigma of attacking one's own brother, which leads to the slaughter of Abel, was enough (even in this day and age, let alone in a more youthfull and moral age) to put Cain at genuine risk of outrage among a co-exitent society that would have viewed such an act as abhorent.
So the risk to Cain from an existent community(or plural) is still, for me, the most plausible of opinions.
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).
As to your four points:
(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!
(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.
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."
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.
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.