Death before Adam & Eve's sin ?

[Kurieuo]

K,

But he's NOT dealing with original sin. As to your question, my paraphrase fits the flow of the book (much) better (as I've argued in some detail here), and especially the flow of chapters 5-8 better. (As an aside, you would do well to deny original sin, but that's another matter entirely.)

I agree Paul isn't purposefully dealing with original sin, but it is wrapped up in what Paul says -- for arguments sake, at least to those who believe in this doctrine. But that is not what Paul is dealing with.

And science has nothing to do with this passage.

Science has nothing to do with the passage, agreed. But I think it worth pointing out, since many YECs accuse OECs of interpreting through a lense of modern science, that in this particular passage it is a matter of Scriptural interpretation. If anything, strong YEC advocates like AiG use this passage to support no death pre-fall, and so seem motivated by this belief to cling onto the interpretation you advocate.

Sorry, I don't mean to stir up argument here... I'm fully happy to keep this in the realm of Romans translation alone.

Look, I've offered a translation that is grammatically correct -- it let's Paul complete his though. The standard translations (any of them -- the KJV, the NIV, the NASB, the ESV), they ALL have Paul's thought being interrupted. He ends up with a sentence fragment, which they explain away by saying that Paul just picks up his thought again in verse 18. But that's just not true. He doesn't pick up the thought in 18. It's a totally new sentence, and the word that begins in 18 is not found in 12.

Where Paul's parentheses actually ends, not all in fact agree. Take the RSV for example, the parentheses seems to finish at verse 14:

• 12 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned-- 13 sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

Clearly, it seems, there is a parentheses of sought here--at least to many theologians throughout history whether or not YEC.

Heck, some theologians even believe Paul has a parentheses from verses 15-17 within the main parentheses of verses 13-17. How messy is that?

In fact, it's the word Paul always uses to start a NEW section (oun, if you want to know -- it means, "Therefore"). So before you argue that the comparison in 5:12a is found somewhere in 13-17. you have to argue that it is NOT found in 12b, which to do that you have to argue (with modern translators) that Paul is a bad grammarian, that he has a sentence fragment here.

Ok, I agree Paul is starting a new section here -- that is, a new topic.

Verse 12 starts with "Wherefore" (KJV) or "Therefore" if you prefer -- and many read this as concerning what came before it -- not what follows thereafter. Many theologians however disagree as to even what v.12+ is referring to previously.

Some argue it goes all the way back to Romans 1 when Paul actually starts his discourse. Schofield would have this word referring back to Romans 3:19-23 to resume the discussion of the universality of sin.

Yet, I'm not sure that your focus on the "comparison" being found in the verse itself is complete or true... I don't really understand what you intend by "comparison" though, especially what makes the one/many not really a comparison as it kind of seems comparative.

However, regardless, let me take up the argument that Paul writes with bad grammar.

Reasoning and thought processes are often messy. Philosophical books are often anything but neat... because there is a lot of logic, reasoning and understanding an author needs to lay before hitting the reader with a conclusion/s that will appear sound. Parentheses can cover many chapters even until the conclusion. By that, I mean the thoughts being elaborated aren't always presented nice and neat and tend to jump around quite a bit as the author elaborates and explains more and more.

William Craig's book Time and Eternity is one such book you'd know. I was entirely lost throughout, wondering what he was driving at throughout all this A-Theory/B-Theory talk and chatter... and it wasn't until the conclusion chapter I realised I was just in one major "parenthesis" where Craig was actually educating the reader on both sides albeit with his own slants. Plantinga's Warranted Faith is another book that where text is anything but straight to the point. When one thinks deeply on an issue, thought processes are often messy, but digging into such messiness can provide understanding at the other end.

So... one should ask themselves, should Paul always write with a perfect literary style? As a literarian or grammatician, perhaps... but as a logician I wouldn't wish that upon the best philosopher of the world. And, dare say such would probably loose readers in their their train of thoughts if they did. I doubt you've kept perfect literary style in writing as a theologian, and I haven't either.

In fact, the more I write on boards, the more I realise writing a sharp, succict paragraph with em dashes or semi-columns often get digested much quicker without disrupting thought. Sound-bites with poor grammar often get read and understood more often than paragraphs of perfect grammar that I notice often draws little to no response.

Sales writing often isn't perfect, especially when trying to hook the reader quickly at the start. Parenthesis and point forms are used to reduce words and make the "baiting words" more sharp to the reader so they get caught.

The question then is, is Paul's messy writing acceptable given genre and person that he is? And I believe when speaking philosophically on theological matters that such writing is often acceptable. It is more important to get the substance of what you are saying clearly across than use perfect grammar.

Martin Lloyd-Jones elaborates on this wonderfullly in his commentary of the parenthesis in Romans vv.12-17:

Is this bad literary style? It is, but the Apostle frequently forgot all about style. Thank God that he did! Style has almost killed the Christian Church and her message, it seems to me. About a hundred years ago preachers began to get interested in style. They read Burke and Gibbon, and later began to read Macaulay, and imitate their style. The great idea was to have a cultured ministry, so the preachers began to write pleasing essays and homilies rather than sermons. The manner became more important than the matter, the style mattered more than the substance. The important thing was not so much the truth which was being declared, but the way in which is was declared. Nothing is further removed from the manner of the Apostle Paul. Carried away by the great rush of his thought and by the majesty of the conceptions, and filled with anxiety to convey the truth to the Church at Rome, he does not hesitate to introduce a parenthesis, and then another parenthesis within the major parenthesis. Nothing is more fatal than to think of the Apostle in terms of a mere literary man. He was an evangelist, a preacher, teacher and pastor who had to write in the midst of a busy and often harassed life, indeed often in prison. Moreover his letters are but synopses of what he would have stated at great length had he been with the people to whom he wrote. However, by the end of verse 17 he has finished his parenthesis and so our translators close the brackets.

Is style more important than substance? Perhaps to the grammatician, but definitely not in philosophy, and certainly not Christianity (unless one would like to turn back to the Old Convenant to be placed under the Law and rituals that foreshadowed and found their completion in the substance of Christ )

[Kurieuo]

1. Romans 5 begins an argument that concludes in Romans 8. The same subject matter is in view in both cases. Since the subject matter in Romans 8 is all creation, so too the subject matter in Romans 5 is all creation.

Don't you believe that the subject matter from chapter 5-8 is ultimately to do with "sanctification" rather than "creation"?

So the same subject matter that must be carried throughout all four chapters is "sanctification", and not specific points of reasoning that Paul uses to try get the point across such as "creation".

It could be that while Paul begins a new topic in Romans 5 that concludes in Romans 8, that "all of creation" is only used as way of illustrating Paul's points in chapter 8 that he did not intend earlier in chapter 5.

Note: I am not denying here like Rich does that Romans 8 doesn't refer to "all of creation." But, neither do I accept that this means there was no natural death prior to humanities sin.

"Frustration" (Mataiotays) as Rich notes, seems to be associated within the context of humanities' sin. Mix in the "birth pangs" of v22--which from Genesis is a curse upon humanity, specifically women--it seems the scope of the frustration caused to creation is that which is brought about by humanities' sin.

So for example, the depravity of humanity to say have sex with animals and spread of diseases that otherwise would not be spread... or to take advantage of animals for profit... or dig up oil and valuable resources polluting the environments and destroying ecosystems for profit and greed -- such frustrations are caused by the sins of humanity. And as such, all of creation can be seen as groaning to be delivered from such corruption.

While I am open to accept "all of creation" in Romans 8, I do not accept that just because Paul may have in mind "all of creation" that such must necessarily be the same in chapter 5. That's all.

[neo-x]

Jac,

Rick, my whole argument is that it is NOT obvious. If the passage in Isaiah is to be taken literally, then that shows that it won't be necessary in that ecosystem, and YECs have long argued that it isn't necessary in this ecosystem either. You don't get to just assert that death is necessary. You have to argue that. Look at the way the conversation would go:

YEC: Was there death before Adam's sin?
OEC: Yes.
YEC: Why?
OEC: Because death is necessary.
YEC: Will there be death in Christ's millennial kingdom?
OEC: No.
YEC: But I thought you just said death was necessary?
OEC: I was talking about the original creation.
YEC: So death was necessary in the original creation, but it won't be necessary when Christ reigns?
OEC: Right.
YEC: Why was it necessary before but it won't be then?

You see the problem here? If we grant that death will NOT be necessary in Christ's kingdom, then anything you say to explain how that could be true demonstrates that death is NOT necessary and could be applied to the pre-Fallen world. In other words, here is the OEC argument for death before the Fall:

1. Any and all ecosystems for any temporary, physical world will necessarily include death
2. The world prior to the Fall was temporary and physical
3. Therefore, the world prior to the Fall included death.

But the problem here is that if Christ's millennial reign does not require death, then (1) is proven false. It is NOT true that any and all ecosytems for any temporary, physical world necessary include death. We know that because we know of one such world that does not include death, and that will be Christ's millennial reign. So if you are going to argue that Christ's kingdom won't include death but that Adam's did (pre-Fall in particular), you need to account for the difference.

That's all I'm trying to say -- if we grant that Christ's kingdom will be a world without death, then you can't say that death is a necessary part of any natural world. And if you do say that death is a necessary part of any natural world, then you cannot say that there will be no death in Christ's kingdom.

I don't think that's a problem at all. Death would ALWAYS be present as long as we have physical bodies as in we have now. Be that Christ's millennial kingdom or creation, it doesn't matter.

[Jac3510]

Sorry, I don't mean to stir up argument here... I'm fully happy to keep this in the realm of Romans translation alone.

No reason to apologize, but yes, let's just keep it here. I think we can make a lot more progress that way.

Where Paul's parentheses actually ends, not all in fact agree. Take the RSV for example, the parentheses seems to finish at verse 14:

• 12 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned-- 13 sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

Clearly, it seems, there is a parentheses of sought here--at least to many theologians throughout history whether or not YEC.

Heck, some theologians even believe Paul has a parentheses from verses 15-17 within the main parentheses of verses 13-17. How messy is that?

In fact, it's the word Paul always uses to start a NEW section (oun, if you want to know -- it means, "Therefore"). So before you argue that the comparison in 5:12a is found somewhere in 13-17. you have to argue that it is NOT found in 12b, which to do that you have to argue (with modern translators) that Paul is a bad grammarian, that he has a sentence fragment here.

Ok, I agree Paul is starting a new section here -- that is, a new topic.

Verse 12 starts with "Wherefore" (KJV) or "Therefore" if you prefer -- and many read this as concerning what came before it -- not what follows thereafter. Many theologians however disagree as to even what v.12+ is referring to previously.

Some argue it goes all the way back to Romans 1 when Paul actually starts his discourse. Schofield would have this word referring back to Romans 3:19-23 to resume the discussion of the universality of sin.

Yet, I'm not sure that your focus on the "comparison" being found in the verse itself is complete or true... I don't really understand what you intend by "comparison" though, especially what makes the one/many not really a comparison as it kind of seems comparative.

I understand that all the translations disagree. And I completely understand why you'd be less inclined to adopt my view. I mean, if I'm just one guy making this claim and all the translators take it another way, why should you side with me?

Still, with that said, I'll assert that I'm right and all the translators are wrong, and that for a common reason. They all take the word kai at the beginning of the second half of the verse and translate it "and" rather than "even." Here's the verse transliterated so you can see what I mean:

• dia toutou hosper dia henos anthropou he harmartia eis ton kosmon eiselthen kai dea tes hamartias ho thanatos kai houtos eis pantas anthropous ho thanatos dielthen eph ho pantes hemarton

Now, the word I put in bold there is translated "and" by all the translations. So the KJV renders it:

• 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:

The problem when you render that as "and' is that you make the verse an incomplete sentence, and in doing so, you destroy the comparison between the first and second clause. I'll demonstrate that in just a second, but I think you can see how that is the case if you just read the verse in the KJV (or any other translation, for that matter) out loud. The whole verse becomes the first part of a comparison that he never formally finishes, and that's why the translators can't decide where the "parenthesis" ends.

On the other hand, translate that kai as "even." Even outside of my more nuanced translation, read the KJV with that one change:

• Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; even so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

You should immediately be able to tell a difference in the translation. This is now a complete sentence. Verse 12 does not need to be viewed as a parenthesis that interrupts Paul's thought. And if you want to know whether or not kai can be translated "even," check any lexicon. Here's the strong's link if you prefer.

So, it CAN be translated as "even." But WHY should we translate it that way? The simple reason is that it makes better sense of the grammar, and that for two reasons. First, as already noted, is that translating it this way has Paul completing his thought. All that messiness about where the parenthesis stops immediately goes away. Second, this is the ONLY way to preserve the comparison in the verse between the two clauses, because if you translate it with an "and," then the entire sentence becomes one giant dependent clause that begins with a comparative particle but never offers the second term to which the first is compared. That would be like starting a sentence with "if" and never getting around to offering a "then." And sense it preserves the contrast, we ought to so translate it.

But how do we know that there is a contrast? Put simply, the grammar requires it. Here's the Greek transliteration again with the modified KJV rendering under it. The words in bold are the comparative terms I'm talking about:

• dia toutou hosper dia henos anthropou he harmartia eis ton kosmon eiselthen kai dea tes hamartias ho thanatos kai houtos eis pantas anthropous ho thanatos dielthen eph ho pantes hemarton
  
  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; even so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

So the words we are interested in are hosper ("as") and houtos (so). It's just important that you are aware of the fact that these are comparative terms. Hosper introduces the first dependent clause, and houtos introduces that to which the first is compared. In fact, if you want to see this EXACT grammatical construction used by Paul, look no further than seven verses down in 5:19. Here, again, is the Greek transliteration and the KJV rendering with the comparatives in bold:

• hosper gar dia tes parakoes tou henos anthropou hamartoloi katestathesan hoi polloi houtos kai dia tes hupakoes tou henos dikaioi katastatheontai hoi polloi
  
  For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

The comparative n 5:19 is clear. The first clause says that Adam's disobedience made us sinners; the second clause says Christ's obedience made us righteous. The two are compared--just as Adam, in the same manner Christ. Again, we see the first clause is the better understood and used to explain the second. That's the way all comparatives work when they are in this grammatical construction.

Going back to 5:12, if you render the kai as "and," you totally lose the comparison, because taking it that way ("conjunctively" if you want the technical term) makes the second clause part of the first, and since it is part of it, there is no comparison. When you take kai as "even," you preserve the hosper . . . houtos comparative structure, have Paul actually write a complete sentence, and avoid the messy and unanswerable questions about where the supposed parenthesis ends. Indeed, you get rid of the parenthesis entirely!

So, for all those reasons, I assert my translation is correct, and any understanding of Rom 5:12 must take the comparatives seriously. Since rendering kosmos as "humanity" does not take the comparatives seriously but results in a mere tautology (in addition to the other facts that such a rendering ignores the flow of the argument of both the section (chapters 5-8) and the whole book, as well as introduces linguistic problems with finding justification for taking the word metonymically with absolutely no warrant for doing so), that rendering ought to be rejected. By all lines of evidence, Paul clearly has the whole world in mind when he uses the word kosmos.

However, regardless, let me take up the argument that Paul writes with bad grammar.

Reasoning and thought processes are often messy. Philosophical books are often anything but neat... because there is a lot of logic, reasoning and understanding an author needs to lay before hitting the reader with a conclusion/s that will appear sound. Parentheses can cover many chapters even until the conclusion. By that, I mean the thoughts being elaborated aren't always presented nice and neat and tend to jump around quite a bit as the author elaborates and explains more and more.

William Craig's book Time and Eternity is one such book you'd know. I was entirely lost throughout, wondering what he was driving at throughout all this A-Theory/B-Theory talk and chatter... and it wasn't until the conclusion chapter I realised I was just in one major "parenthesis" where Craig was actually educating the reader on both sides albeit with his own slants. Plantinga's Warranted Faith is another book that where text is anything but straight to the point. When one thinks deeply on an issue, thought processes are often messy, but digging into such messiness can provide understanding at the other end.

So... one should ask themselves, should Paul always write with a perfect literary style? As a literarian or grammatician, perhaps... but as a logician I wouldn't wish that upon the best philosopher of the world. And, dare say such would probably loose readers in their their train of thoughts if they did. I doubt you've kept perfect literary style in writing as a theologian, and I haven't either.

In fact, the more I write on boards, the more I realise writing a sharp, succict paragraph with em dashes or semi-columns often get digested much quicker without disrupting thought. Sound-bites with poor grammar often get read and understood more often than paragraphs of perfect grammar that I notice often draws little to no response.

Sales writing often isn't perfect, especially when trying to hook the reader quickly at the start. Parenthesis and point forms are used to reduce words and make the "baiting words" more sharp to the reader so they get caught.

The question then is, is Paul's messy writing acceptable given genre and person that he is? And I believe when speaking philosophically on theological matters that such writing is often acceptable. It is more important to get the substance of what you are saying clearly across than use perfect grammar.

Martin Lloyd-Jones elaborates on this wonderfullly in his commentary of the parenthesis in Romans vv.12-17:

Is this bad literary style? It is, but the Apostle frequently forgot all about style. Thank God that he did! Style has almost killed the Christian Church and her message, it seems to me. About a hundred years ago preachers began to get interested in style. They read Burke and Gibbon, and later began to read Macaulay, and imitate their style. The great idea was to have a cultured ministry, so the preachers began to write pleasing essays and homilies rather than sermons. The manner became more important than the matter, the style mattered more than the substance. The important thing was not so much the truth which was being declared, but the way in which is was declared. Nothing is further removed from the manner of the Apostle Paul. Carried away by the great rush of his thought and by the majesty of the conceptions, and filled with anxiety to convey the truth to the Church at Rome, he does not hesitate to introduce a parenthesis, and then another parenthesis within the major parenthesis. Nothing is more fatal than to think of the Apostle in terms of a mere literary man. He was an evangelist, a preacher, teacher and pastor who had to write in the midst of a busy and often harassed life, indeed often in prison. Moreover his letters are but synopses of what he would have stated at great length had he been with the people to whom he wrote. However, by the end of verse 17 he has finished his parenthesis and so our translators close the brackets.

Is style more important than substance? Perhaps to the grammatician, but definitely not in philosophy, and certainly not Christianity (unless one would like to turn back to the Old Convenant to be placed under the Law and rituals that foreshadowed and found their completion in the substance of Christ )

[/quote]
First, I think we should be careful about comparing the writers of Scripture with modern writers of theology. Paul, after all, wrote under inspiration. If I'm going to take your argument seriously, why require him to be a good grammarian at all? Again, Eph 2:8-9 says "it" is a gift, so why not take "it" to refer to "faith"? Granted, the grammar doesn't allow that, but if "style [is not] more important than substance" and if "style is only important "to the grammatician, but definitely not in philosophy, ad certainly not Christianity," then you can't appeal to that fact.

I, on the other hand, think that God used human language to convey His message, and that He did used it correctly. Grammar, after all, is the means by which we figure out what something actually means. You can't just dispatch with grammar when it doesn't fit with your preconceived ideology or theology. Now, if you can show me some instances in which the grammar is impossible to reconcile, then we can appeal to Jones' arguments and ask why the author did not feel the need to constrain himself to the proper rules of communication. But shy of such instances, this is just a bald assertion. And even if you can provide such instances, it seems obviously clear to me that if we can offer two renderings and one makes the sentence grammatically correct and the other grammatically incorrect, then we should adopt the former rather than the latter on the strength of that fact alone!

So, I've given a lot of reasons for my rendering of Rom 5:12. Tell me, K--do you have any reason for taking it in the popular way, the way that violates standard grammar?

[Kurieuo]

Yet, I'm not sure that your focus on the "comparison" being found in the verse itself is complete or true... I don't really understand what you intend by "comparison" though, especially what makes the one/many not really a comparison as it kind of seems comparative.

I understand that all the translations disagree. And I completely understand why you'd be less inclined to adopt my view. I mean, if I'm just one guy making this claim and all the translators take it another way, why should you side with me?

Still, with that said, I'll assert that I'm right and all the translators are wrong, and that for a common reason. They all take the word kai at the beginning of the second half of the verse and translate it "and" rather than "even." Here's the verse transliterated so you can see what I mean:

• dia toutou hosper dia henos anthropou he harmartia eis ton kosmon eiselthen kai dea tes hamartias ho thanatos kai houtos eis pantas anthropous ho thanatos dielthen eph ho pantes hemarton

Now, the word I put in bold there is translated "and" by all the translations. So the KJV renders it:

• 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:

The problem when you render that as "and' is that you make the verse an incomplete sentence, and in doing so, you destroy the comparison between the first and second clause. I'll demonstrate that in just a second, but I think you can see how that is the case if you just read the verse in the KJV (or any other translation, for that matter) out loud. The whole verse becomes the first part of a comparison that he never formally finishes, and that's why the translators can't decide where the "parenthesis" ends.

On the other hand, translate that kai as "even." Even outside of my more nuanced translation, read the KJV with that one change:

• Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; even so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

You should immediately be able to tell a difference in the translation. This is now a complete sentence. Verse 12 does not need to be viewed as a parenthesis that interrupts Paul's thought. And if you want to know whether or not kai can be translated "even," check any lexicon. Here's the strong's link if you prefer.

I don't really have an issue so far, although I'd like to ask all the translators across all versions why they placed the conjunction "and"... every version I've read has it. So there must be some good reason why they prefer the parenthesis rather than a completed sentence? Something isn't adding up, and I don't expect you'd elaborate on any weakness to your own interpretation, but what are your ideas on why this is the case?

That said, I actually have no issue either way. And I'm becoming confused about what the fuss is about. Hang on... let me re-go over what this is all about (although you can't see me re-reading... some time passes... )

Hmm... reading the original verse, even your updated version, it isn't apparently obvious what the fuss is all about. But, your paraphrasing draws out the issue, however that is some major re-wording. So to re-quote your paraphrasing:

• 1. "Death came into humanity in the same way it came to humans: by sin."
  2. "Death came into the whole creation in the same way it comes to humans: by sin."

Perhaps why I don't see a tautology, because I'm interpreting "world" as simply "the world" and humanity is included in that.

You are however causing a dualism of sorts. Either it is "humanity" or "whole creation"... and I don't kosmos intends to be exclusive or cause such a dualism.

Let's examine your non-paraphrased translation:

• Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; even so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Now, what we have here is a failure to elaborate on an issue important to us: whether death existed pre-fall. Verse 12 can be interpreted two ways.

Firstly, my preference considering I believe death existed in the world pre-fall:

• 1. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and [the] death [of man] by sin; even so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Versus what you'd prefer as a YEC:

• 2. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death [to all of creation] by sin; even so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

However, what Paul intends in this verse alone is rather vague. Paul elaborates more deeply in the verses that follow, which clearly have humanity in focus and I think lends support to the first translation.

You might argue that because "the world" is "all of creation" that "death" should be predicated upon "all of creation". But, this is by no means clear. Why would death not be predicated instead upon "man", especially since death is brought about "by [man's] sin".

This predication of "death" upon "man" also fulfills the "comparison" requirement that you highlight, for example: "Although one man sinned and death was a consequence to that man, even so death came to all men for all sinned." -- and this is the crux of what I'm reading in Paul's words. Nonetheless, while we experience death on account of one man, we receive the gift of righteousness through the one Jesus Christ (v17).

Furthermore, it doesn't seem clear to me that "the world" means anything other than "the world". Like we should be a "light of the world" rather than a "light of all of creation" or a "light of all humanity" -- clearly "world" fits better. The meaning of "the world" isn't necessarily to be objectified into "creatures" or "humans", but rather remain in abstraction form of the physical reality we're in and experience (if that makes sense??).

However, regardless, let me take up the argument that Paul writes with bad grammar.
...
Martin Lloyd-Jones elaborates on this wonderfullly in his commentary of the parenthesis in Romans vv.12-17:

Is this bad literary style? It is, but the Apostle frequently forgot all about style. Thank God that he did! Style has almost killed the Christian Church and her message, it seems to me. About a hundred years ago preachers began to get interested in style. They read Burke and Gibbon, and later began to read Macaulay, and imitate their style. The great idea was to have a cultured ministry, so the preachers began to write pleasing essays and homilies rather than sermons. The manner became more important than the matter, the style mattered more than the substance. The important thing was not so much the truth which was being declared, but the way in which is was declared. Nothing is further removed from the manner of the Apostle Paul. Carried away by the great rush of his thought and by the majesty of the conceptions, and filled with anxiety to convey the truth to the Church at Rome, he does not hesitate to introduce a parenthesis, and then another parenthesis within the major parenthesis. Nothing is more fatal than to think of the Apostle in terms of a mere literary man. He was an evangelist, a preacher, teacher and pastor who had to write in the midst of a busy and often harassed life, indeed often in prison. Moreover his letters are but synopses of what he would have stated at great length had he been with the people to whom he wrote. However, by the end of verse 17 he has finished his parenthesis and so our translators close the brackets.

Is style more important than substance? Perhaps to the grammatician, but definitely not in philosophy, and certainly not Christianity (unless one would like to turn back to the Old Convenant to be placed under the Law and rituals that foreshadowed and found their completion in the substance of Christ )

First, I think we should be careful about comparing the writers of Scripture with modern writers of theology. Paul, after all, wrote under inspiration. If I'm going to take your argument seriously, why require him to be a good grammarian at all? Again, Eph 2:8-9 says "it" is a gift, so why not take "it" to refer to "faith"? Granted, the grammar doesn't allow that, but if "style [is not] more important than substance" and if "style is only important "to the grammatician, but definitely not in philosophy, ad certainly not Christianity," then you can't appeal to that fact.

I, on the other hand, think that God used human language to convey His message, and that He did used it correctly. Grammar, after all, is the means by which we figure out what something actually means. You can't just dispatch with grammar when it doesn't fit with your preconceived ideology or theology. Now, if you can show me some instances in which the grammar is impossible to reconcile, then we can appeal to Jones' arguments and ask why the author did not feel the need to constrain himself to the proper rules of communication. But shy of such instances, this is just a bald assertion. And even if you can provide such instances, it seems obviously clear to me that if we can offer two renderings and one makes the sentence grammatically correct and the other grammatically incorrect, then we should adopt the former rather than the latter on the strength of that fact alone!

Firstly, on "inspiration" and by extension "Biblical inerrancy", God still uses the voice and style of the authors to convey inerrant truth. This is quite clearly evident with the various individual styles of the Gospels authors - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

You know, I once thought that because God ultimately authored the Bible, that the text should glow or some kind of divine magic of sorts. Now smart phones and iPads have made that a reality!

But seriously, to bring in what should/should not be covered by Biblical inerrancy, I'm quite happy with the Chicago statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Article VIII states: "We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared."

So if Paul's literary style is considered by modern literary critics to be poor with his use parentheses, whether or not there is one or more at the end of v12, what is important is that God uses Paul's style as a vehicle for divine revelation. Heck, language itself has flaws. Mind-melds are a much more efficient method of communicating not just knowledge, but experiences... I may say that with some jest, but also with some seriousness. God is God after all, but He chose the frailty of human language, specifically Hebrew which has quite restrictive vocabulary and Greek. But such we believe was God's chosen vehicle for special revelation rather than some "Ark of Special Revelation" that possesses mind-melding capabilities upon human touch.

In any case, I'm fine (at least for now) with accepting Paul's use of parenthesis end of v12, or v12 being a completed sentence.

So, I've given a lot of reasons for my rendering of Rom 5:12. Tell me, K--do you have any reason for taking it in the popular way, the way that violates standard grammar?

Well, I do perhaps still lean towards the parenthesis.

For me, it just seems more right of Paul's writing style -- and fits more logically with my often back-to-front dyslexic thinking. For all its poorness in literary style, I seem to follow Paul better -- it's like he's inviting us to dig deeper into his thoughts. Whereas if v12 just has a full stop... why I could just stop reading. But there is more! And there is a lot of substance to reflect upon... and I can relate to it better, the earnestness and passion to convey truth like how Martin Lloyd-Jones says it in my quote of him.

Furthermore, you're going against every single translation. You might be right, and you certainly have much soundness to your justification. But the weight of authority isn't with your translation. So unless I have some motivation to interpret otherwise, then I'll accept what's before me. However, yours does appear sound. But it is also being fed to me and I'm not someone who can determine pros/cons, because while I can look up a lexicon I truly have no foundation in NT Greek.

At the end of the day, it doesn't bother me to accept your slight changes (without the paraphrasing)... or to accept the parenthesis.

[Jac3510]

I don't really have an issue so far, although I'd like to ask all the translators across all versions why they placed the conjunction "and"... every version I've read has it. So there must be some good reason why they prefer the parenthesis rather than a completed sentence? Something isn't adding up, and I don't expect you'd elaborate on any weakness to your own interpretation, but what are your ideas on why this is the case?

Yes, I do. Although the answer I'll suggest probably seems at first glance so silly as to be dismissible out of hand. But it is there, all the same, and that reason is just this: tradition.

One of the first things I learned when studying Greek (and again when studying Hebrew) is that translators of modern versions do start with the Greek (or Hebrew), but they tend to give deference to previous translations in a great majority of the cases. In practice, that means that if a particular verse or word has long been mistranslated, the mistranslation is likely to stay, especially if that particular verse has not been at the center of serious debate. That's even more true when it comes to popular verses because--and this is the part no one wants to hear, but it is sadly true--Bible translations have to sell. Think about your own experience. When you look at a new translation, what do you do? I bet you pick up the Bible and flip to a few of your favorite verses and see how they are rendered, don't you? If that verse is radically different from what you are used to seeing, you are less likely to buy that Bible. Translators and editors know that, so, again, they give deference where possible for commercial purposes. And when ALL the major translations have a particular reading, it puts even MORE pressure on the editing committee to conform. You may not like that, but it's true. There is, sadly, a business side of the Bible translation world.

The other reason I think for this is that when there is a MAJOR translation issue in a verse, minor issues tend to get pushed to the side. Now, nothing seems to be more minor than the rendering of kai. That, after all, is the most common word in the NT. On the other hand, the rendering of the final clause, eph ho pantes hemarton, is the subject of massive debate. The ICC spends about four or five pages of its comments on this verse discussing that one clause if I remember correctly, and most of the academic papers I have found addressing Rom 5:12 are centered on the how to understand that clause. When they finally settle their views on that, they scholars are just ready to move on. They neither think about nor have the energy to debate other issues in that verse.

So, it's for those kinds of reasons that the common mistranslation is so popular. I'm hoping to publish an article next year on this verse to maybe get a conversation going among Greek experts, and maybe we'll see some changes. Who knows?

You are however causing a dualism of sorts. Either it is "humanity" or "whole creation"... and I don't kosmos intends to be exclusive or cause such a dualism.

Let's examine your non-paraphrased translation:

• Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; even so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Now, what we have here is a failure to elaborate on an issue important to us: whether death existed pre-fall. Verse 12 can be interpreted two ways.

Firstly, my preference considering I believe death existed in the world pre-fall:

• 1. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and [the] death [of man] by sin; even so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Versus what you'd prefer as a YEC:

• 2. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death [to all of creation] by sin; even so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

First, just as a matter of form, can we leave YEC and OEC out of this? I'm not so naive as to think that those issues aren't in the back of our minds, but I hope you recognize that we ought not let our preexisting commitment to some particular theology drive either our interpretation of or far less our translation of a text. Agreed?

Let me start by saying that your understanding in (1) is much better than the argument I usually hear that looks up kosmos is the lexicon and says, "Since kosmos can refer to humanity, that's the way it ought to be taken in this verse." You seem to be taking kosmos in its normal, non-figurative sense of "the whole world" and you are finding the limitation of death to humanity in the word "death." I don't agree with that limitation, but I want to emphasize that I think that's a more honest approach, and those who do deny that this verse assumes that there was no death of any kind before the Fall would do well to adopt your argument.

Now let me say why I don't find it persuasive. There three reasons. First, while it is conceptually and grammatically feasible to read the clause "and [the] death [of man]," the fact that those words are absent the Greek means that you have to see those words as implied by the context. I'll leave you to make the argument for that implication, but, honestly, I just don't see it, and given that lack of warrant, I can't adopt that reading.

Second, in adopting that reading, you are destroying one of the major features of this text, namely, the personification of both death and sin. If you are going to be consistent, you should read the verse as follows:

• Wherefore, as by one man sin [of men] entered into the world, and [the] death [of man] by sin [of men]; even so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

That may seem reasonable in this verse, but it really mucks up the verses immediately following. Be de-personifying death in this verse, you de-personify it in all the rest; but that means that sin and death can't "reign," because only person's "reign." In fact, however, Paul doesn't just speak of "sin" and "death" in Rom 5:12. He speaks of he harmartia and ho thanatos[/i]. The words in bold are the definite article, and one of the most common uses of the definite article is to indicate abstract nouns. To make Paul's meaning by using the definite article clear in English, we might modify the KJV rendering a bit as follows:

• 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

Notice that I have capitalized the words Sin and Death in the first clause. I do that because Paul is personifying them. Death and Sin are enemies that need to be defeated. They reign over men, but Christ is the one who comes to destroy those enemies and set them free. Your rendering weakens that comparison which is so essential to the rest of the argument.

Thirdly, as I've been arguing all along, your rendering completely destroys the comparison Paul is making here. Let me put the clauses that are being compared side by side using your rendering:

• A. As (hosper) by one man sin [of men] entered into the world, and [the] death [of man] by sin [of men]
  B. Even so (kai houtos) death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

So the first clause starts by invoking man's death through his sin; the second clause invokes man's death through his sin. So what is the comparison between the two? You're just saying, "In the same way men died by their sin, men die by their sin."

There is NO comparison here. This isn't just bad style on Paul's point. This is bad grammar (exactly the same problem I have with Reformed theologians who insist that faith is a gift on the basis of Eph 2:8-9). You need to see that hosper . . . houtos are comparative terms. The ONLY way to preserve your rendering is to ignore houtos, render kai as "and," and thereby introduce one long opening clause for comparison and never give the second half of the comparison. That's what all the major translations do, but it just makes a mockery out of the text.

So for all of those reasons, I have to reject your rendering. Paul is invoking sin and death in a personified way and showing their place in all of creation. That goes to your next point:

However, what Paul intends in this verse alone is rather vague. Paul elaborates more deeply in the verses that follow, which clearly have humanity in focus and I think lends support to the first translation.

You might argue that because "the world" is "all of creation" that "death" should be predicated upon "all of creation". But, this is by no means clear. Why would death not be predicated instead upon "man", especially since death is brought about "by [man's] sin".

This predication of "death" upon "man" also fulfills the "comparison" requirement that you highlight, for example: "Even though one man sinned and death was a consequence to that man, even so death came to all men for all sinned." -- and this is the crux of what I'm reading in Paul's words. Nonetheless, while we experience death on account of one man, we receive the gift of righteousness through the one Jesus Christ (v17).

Furthermore, it doesn't seem clear to me that "the world" means anything other than "the world". Like we should be a "light of the world" rather than a "light of all of creation" or a "light of all humanity" -- clearly "world" fits better. The meaning of "the world" isn't necessarily to be objectified into "creatures" or "humans", but rather remain in abstraction form of the physical reality we're in and experience (if that makes sense??).

What Paul is saying is NOT vague on my rendering. It's really important that you see that in any comparative, the first is the better known and is the basis for understanding the second. I don't know if you've seen this yet, but Paul uses no less than seven times over the next nine verses. They are:

• not as (hos) . . . so also (houtos). 15
  for if (ei) . . . how much more (pallo mallon)v. 15
  not as (hos). . . (so also (houtos)) v. 16
  for if (ei). . . how much more (pallo mallon)v. 17
  (just) as (hos). . . so also (houtos)v. 18
  just as (hosper). . . so also (houtos)v. 19
  just as (hosper). . . so also (houtos) v. 21

So you know the only difference in hos and hosper is a matter of intensity. They are essentially the same word. So for you to accept all of these contrasts in the section immediately following 5:12 but to reject the same grammatical construction in our verse is just inconsistent and wreaks of eisogesis. We simply have to accept the fact that contrast is a major feature of this section, and so ANY interpretation of 5:12 MUST make contrast a major feature. I want to know then, what contrast do YOU see between the hosper and houtos clause in verse 12?

That's why I said what Paul is talking about is anything but vague. Let's further analyze those seven occurrences. In ALL of them, the first clause (hos, hosper, and ei clauses, respectively) is the better understood and is used to explain the second clause (houtos and [/i] pallo mallon[/i], respectively). To take just one example--the first so I can avoid charges of cherry picking:

• But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift

Everyone already understood the offense. They got the reality of sin, not only experientially but through their preexisting theology. What they did not get was the free gift. What needed to be explained was not that people are sinners, but rather than salvation is a free gift. I readily grant that in our culture today the exact opposite is true. We more readily grasp the free gift than we do the fact that we are sinners. But in that culture, the first clause was taken for granted by everyone. That's why Paul used it.

The same is true for ALL seven of the comparisons. Paul starts with the better known and compares it to the lesser known to teach us something about the lesser known. And he is doing exactly the same thing in Rom 5:12. There, the better known fact is that sin entered the world through Adam's sin, and that through that sin, death came into the world as well. That was a common theological belief in first century Judaism. The belief is the one that I hold, that death came into THE WORLD (not just humans) with Adam. What Paul is trying to get the Romans to see is that they die for the same reason all of creation is dying. They knew why all of creation was dying. Because sin was in the world. What they needed to understand was that they, as individuals, were dying for the same reason--sin was in their lives. THAT is the comparison. And that, by the way, is the argument of the entire section. In the next section (what translations regard wrongly as a parenthesis), Paul contrasts the "gift" of Adam with gift of Christ, pointing out that humans defeat Death by defeating Christ who defeated Sin. In chapter six, he asks if sin is defeated if we ought to live in it, and he says no -- we should regard ourselves as dead to it since it no longer has power over us. In chapter seven, he presses that by pointing out that freedom from sin means freedom from the law. We are slaves now only to Christ. But then he asks in 7:14ff, how is all of this true? If I've really defeated sin in Christ, why do I still commit it and thus die? Why does Paul himself so suffer? He points out that sin resides in this body--that so long as we live right now, sin lives in our flesh. So he asks a question: "who will deliver me from this body of death?" Remember, death reigns through sin, and this body is sold to sin even though sin is defeated. So how is he to be rescued? And the answer comes immediately: "I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!" Jesus will deliver us from the body of death, and He will do that by giving us a body of life not sold under sin.

Chapter eight then starts by telling us that there is no condemnation to those in Christ--we KNOW that we will someday receive our bodies of life and we will be finally free from sin and therefore finally free from death. He exhorts us in that chapter, then, to walk by the spirit and not be the flesh, for to walk by the spirit is life and to walk by the flesh is death. Those who walk by the spirit receive a special blessing--they get to be called "sons of God," while those believers who walk by the flesh are merely children of God. Paul then picks up on the idea he first introduced in 5:12, namely, the condemnation and redemption of all creation. ALL of creation is under a curse right now (which goes back to 12a--death is in the WHOLE WORLD). The world is decaying (the result of death), but when the Sons of God are revealed in their glorified state, the entire creation will celebrate because, at that time, the curse will be lifted (which, of course, harkens back to Genesis 3, which is the basis for Paul's claim in Rom 5:12a). Death will be finally defeated because Sin will be no more. Thus, just as through one man Sin and Death entered the world putting it under a curse, so through the righteousness of one man, Sin and Death are defeated and the world is released from its curse.

So we see that Paul's argument is not merely about sanctification in this section. It is about the defeat of Death and Sin in the entire world. It is about the undoing of the curse of Genesis 3. We are exhorted there to walk in our coming victory even in this life. We are to regard Death and Sin as already defeated, powerless over us. That's where we get the notion of sanctification from, but sanctification is there only because the real emphasis is on the obliteration of the curse.

But if you deny the curse over the entire world, then that whole argument goes away. Rom 8:19-21 come out of nowhere and don't contribute to the argument. 5:12a is vague and completely ignores the theology of the first century. The contrast is destroyed, making Paul a bad grammarian and the exegete inconsistent in his analysis. On every way you turn, the evidence is profoundly against the view that the death of humanity is all that is in view in 5:12a. It's just an incorrect view, K.

[PaulSacramento]

Romans 5:12-19
http://bible.org/article/i%E2%80%99m-fa ... ans-512-19

An exert:

Paul has explained in v. 12 that all humans are inseparably identified in sin with their natural head, Adam, not only physically, but also spiritually. When Adam sinned, all sinned; when Adam received spiritual death, all received spiritual death, because all were physically present in Adam when he sinned. F. F. Bruce states it well:

“To Paul, Adam was more than a historical individual, the first man; he was also what his name means in Hebrew - ‘humanity.’ The whole of humanity is viewed as having existed at first in Adam. . .human beings are mortal before they commit any sin, so that the mortality of the race is the result of the original racial sin. . . It is not simply because Adam is the ancestor of mankind that all are said to have sinned in his sin (otherwise it might be argued that because Abraham believed God all his descendants were necessarily involved in his belief); it is because Adam is mankind.”18

[Jac3510]

Romans 5:12-19
http://bible.org/article/i%E2%80%99m-fa ... ans-512-19

From the article:

• Because of the righteousness provided through Jesus Christ (in vv. 1-11) Paul begins this comparison section with a protasis (but he doesn’t give the apodosis to the comparison until v. 18)

Already I can tell that he's not taking the grammar seriously. He just assumes the parenthesis with complete disregard to the grammar of verse twelve. The protasis does start in 12a, and that with the word hosper. Does he bother mentioning the word houtos later in that same verse? No. Does he bother mentioning that the exact same grammatical construction is found nearly half a dozen times between in 5:12-21? Nope. And, in fact, while he says the apodosis is given in v. 18, he is wrong. No such apodosis is given in 18. To the contrary, it starts with its OWN protasis:

• Therefore just as (hos - a form of the same word introducing the protasis in 5:12) one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so (houtos - the apodosis for this verse, not for v. 12, and the same word for the apodosis in v. 12) one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all

It's a very shallow piece.

The shallowness is further noted by what he says here:

• “Sinned” (h{marton) is also emphasizing a past completed action, but rather than stressing the beginning of the action, it stresses the event as a whole and affirms that it happened—simply, “all sinned.”7

The footnote says, "I take this to be a comprehensive aorist indicative—'all sinned.'" This is just wrong for several reasons.

1. If Paul was trying to emphasize a past completed action, he would have used the perfect tense. That what that tense is for;
2. I expect this is theologically motivated, which is confirmed when he goes on to get into the "federal headship" debate. While he rightly rejects that view, he spends several paragraphs trying to find a way out of the logical problem he has created for himself (namely, how can you and I be said to have sinned when Adam sinned?). He finally settles, as almost every does who gets themselves into this debate, by appealing to Heb 7:9-10, which is supposed to teach that the actions of an ancestor can be applied in some mysterious way to the descendant. There are two problems with this defense:
a. The verse doesn't say what it is used to say. It does not say that Levi was actually in Abraham. In fact, the author says explicitly that he was only in Abraham "so to speak." To try to base a doctrine on a figurative expression is extremely weak; and
b. It is just bad hermeneutics to appeal to Hebrews in order to understand Romans. Do you think that the original recipients of Romans had already read and digested Hebrews before they read Paul's epistle? Of course not.
As such, this defense fails, and there is no way out of the logical problem. This shows that this view is, if nothing else, logically self-contradictory. It also violates the clear teaching of Scripture elsewhere (Deut 5:9; Ezek 18:20, etc.) By the way, this goes to the issue I mentioned to K above about translators spending all their time worrying about one issue and talking about it to no end and, in the process, ignoring other issues. So thanks for illustrating that point for me; and
3. "Sinned" here should not be taken as a comprehensive aorist. It should be taken as a gnomic aorist, and that for several reasons. First, a comprehensive aorist creates all the problems we just mentioned. It really is amazing how much ink is spilled with theologians trying to account for that. Second, look at Rom 3:23. Here's the KJV rendering:

• For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Notice how "sinned" is translated. It's given a perfective aspect--all have sinned. And this is preached that every person alive has sinned already, and we point then to all the sins we commit. Again, all major translations agree with this rendering--the NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, etc. The problem is this is the exact same word here as it is in Rom 5:12--same tense and everything. Look what happens if you try to render it as a comprehensive aorist in that verse:

• For all sinned and come short of the glory of God

It's not even all that clear what that means. It would be clearer if Paul said that all sinned and "came (or fell) short." But he uses the PRESENT tense. You know what this tells me? That Paul is using a gnomic aorist: "The aorist indicative is occasionally used to present a timeless, general fact. When it does so, it does not refer to a particular event that did happen, but to a generic event that does happen. Normally, it is translated like a simple present tense." So, Rom 3:23 ought to be rendered:

• For all SIN and fall short of the glory of God

And that is something that is absolutely true, very powerfully stated, and I would submit makes much more sense of the overall context there in chapter 3. Likewise, in Rom 5:12, the word is, again, a gnomic aorist. The phrase should be rendered, "For all sin." (Again, Paul has absolutely nothing in mind about any so called original sin. That's a doctrine invented by Augustine, and he had much worse translational problems here than whether this aorist is comprehensive or gnomic, which isn't surprising. Augustine didn't even know Greek!).

As such, the article you posted is the same kind of argument we see in most discussions about this verse. It ignores the grammar of the sentence and focuses instead on trying to figure out the supposed parenthesis and solving the non-existent problem of how you and I can be imputed with Adam's sin. It just doesn't deal with the issues I'm raising at all.

EDIT:

Because you quoted the excerpt from Bruce:

Paul has explained in v. 12 that all humans are inseparably identified in sin with their natural head, Adam, not only physically, but also spiritually. When Adam sinned, all sinned; when Adam received spiritual death, all received spiritual death, because all were physically present in Adam when he sinned. F. F. Bruce states it well:

“To Paul, Adam was more than a historical individual, the first man; he was also what his name means in Hebrew - ‘humanity.’ The whole of humanity is viewed as having existed at first in Adam. . .human beings are mortal before they commit any sin, so that the mortality of the race is the result of the original racial sin. . . It is not simply because Adam is the ancestor of mankind that all are said to have sinned in his sin (otherwise it might be argued that because Abraham believed God all his descendants were necessarily involved in his belief); it is because Adam is mankind.”18

This is just the sort of Calvinistic dribble I was getting at when I talked about theological bias in translation. This whole thing sounds like a nice theological statement except for several facts:

1. It is based entirely on ONE very vague verse (Rom 5:12)--vague if it means what they say it to mean, anyway--and ONE verse that doesn't even say what proponents say it says (Heb 7:9-10);
2. It presumes, contrary to Scripture, that the sins of fathers are imputed to children;
3. It creates undue theological difficulties when it comes to the eternal destinies of children;
4. It is at the root of belief in baptismal regeneration, which contradicts the gospel;
5. The flow of the book of Romans generally and the passage in question specifically go against this view;
6. It presumes the widespread understanding of a belief that was completely non-existent in Paul's day (namely, that all humanity was spiritually present in Adam); and
7. The grammar is against it.

It's just a terrible rendering, and we would do well to drop it. Immediately.

[PaulSacramento]

I knew you'd like that article.
LOL

[Kurieuo]

I only have short bursts of time, so I figure I'll respond to your post section by section... as time allows rather than do it all in one go (just incase you wonder why I don't respond to everything).

I don't really have an issue so far, although I'd like to ask all the translators across all versions why they placed the conjunction "and"... every version I've read has it. So there must be some good reason why they prefer the parenthesis rather than a completed sentence? Something isn't adding up, and I don't expect you'd elaborate on any weakness to your own interpretation, but what are your ideas on why this is the case?

Yes, I do. Although the answer I'll suggest probably seems at first glance so silly as to be dismissible out of hand. But it is there, all the same, and that reason is just this: tradition.

One of the first things I learned when studying Greek (and again when studying Hebrew) is that translators of modern versions do start with the Greek (or Hebrew), but they tend to give deference to previous translations in a great majority of the cases. In practice, that means that if a particular verse or word has long been mistranslated, the mistranslation is likely to stay, especially if that particular verse has not been at the center of serious debate. That's even more true when it comes to popular verses because--and this is the part no one wants to hear, but it is sadly true--Bible translations have to sell. Think about your own experience. When you look at a new translation, what do you do? I bet you pick up the Bible and flip to a few of your favorite verses and see how they are rendered, don't you? If that verse is radically different from what you are used to seeing, you are less likely to buy that Bible. Translators and editors know that, so, again, they give deference where possible for commercial purposes. And when ALL the major translations have a particular reading, it puts even MORE pressure on the editing committee to conform. You may not like that, but it's true. There is, sadly, a business side of the Bible translation world.

The other reason I think for this is that when there is a MAJOR translation issue in a verse, minor issues tend to get pushed to the side. Now, nothing seems to be more minor than the rendering of kai. That, after all, is the most common word in the NT. On the other hand, the rendering of the final clause, eph ho pantes hemarton, is the subject of massive debate. The ICC spends about four or five pages of its comments on this verse discussing that one clause if I remember correctly, and most of the academic papers I have found addressing Rom 5:12 are centered on the how to understand that clause. When they finally settle their views on that, they scholars are just ready to move on. They neither think about nor have the energy to debate other issues in that verse.

So, it's for those kinds of reasons that the common mistranslation is so popular. I'm hoping to publish an article next year on this verse to maybe get a conversation going among Greek experts, and maybe we'll see some changes. Who knows?

It is my opinion that people are just lazy.

Personally, I think we've got very good translations. And if you're going to the level theologians like us do, then you're better off paying attention to the original language anyhow. No translation can beat the original language...

I think you have something in putting forward marketability... any new translation is very likely to try tap into the market share in the money of Bibles sold since there is perhaps little need for a new translation. So I get your "Commercial-value"... but... with Rom 5:12 it's not really one of those verses people pay attention to other than as you point out--the ending... So to keep with the "previous" translations so as to not rock the boat, I don't think that really would be in the mind of translators.

Rather, the fact many translations almost have identical English translations across many verses -- this says to me the translators are lazy. Perhaps not lazy, so-much-as thinking themselves efficient in "cheating" off previous translations, and then simply reviewing the translations against the original language to come up with what they think are better ones. But, translators would probably have to meet deadlines by those paying them their wage also... business is business. Although I really don't know how is works with modern Bible translations, but I expect translators might have such pressures to just get it done on time and within budget.

Anyway, I think you might be better arguing that perhaps it is just laziness, or to be more efficient to meet deadlines and business pressures, that translations often borrow from others. After all, to do a cold translation from scratch, I imagine with proper research and the like, such would take half a decade at best... Businessmen would want to see returns as soon as possible.

Still... given no translation has what you translate -- the weight of authority is against you. But then I'm not one to just accept an argument based on authority, so you're safe in that I'll listen to and think on your reasoning.

[Jac3510]

K,

I think you make a good point on "cheating." I can attest that it is difficult to read the GNT and not have an English rendition in the back of your mind, and it is impossible not to let that rending with which you are already familiar affect your own translation unless you make a conscious effort to do so. That's likely what is behind the broad agreement on Rom 5:12. I didn't really mean to imply that publishers were afraid that if they translated 5:12 differently (especially the first half) then their Bibles would sell. I was simply making a point that translation is as much a business as it is honest scholarship, and so--like you say--we need to do what we can to work with the original languages when discussing these issues, regardless of what the translations say.

Anyway, take your time in getting through all of this. I was just cleared (as I was typing this response, actually) to use Rom 5:12-21 for analysis in a class I'm taking. The end result will be a paper I hope I'll be able to publish. All that is to say that this will be heavy on my mind for awhile yet, and I'll put a link to the pre-print when it's done. And, of course, I'll take a heavy look at the real authorities in this area, namely, the critical commentaries on Romans. Translations are fine, but we really need to be looking at what scholars who specialize in these areas and provide their own translations have to say on the matter.

[Kurieuo]

Hi Jac, just letting you know this thread isn't lost on me. Been extremely inundated with work this past month... But things should start freeing up soon.

[Celt]

This has proven to be a lot of info., and great comments. Thanks to all.

[Kurieuo]

Hi Jac,

Been a while coming this one, but finally... back into it shall I?

Now let me say why I don't find it persuasive. There three reasons. First, while it is conceptually and grammatically feasible to read the clause "and [the] death [of man]," the fact that those words are absent the Greek means that you have to see those words as implied by the context. I'll leave you to make the argument for that implication, but, honestly, I just don't see it, and given that lack of warrant, I can't adopt that reading.

Second, in adopting that reading, you are destroying one of the major features of this text, namely, the personification of both death and sin. If you are going to be consistent, you should read the verse as follows:

Wherefore, as by one man sin [of men] entered into the world, and [the] death [of man] by sin [of men]; even so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.
That may seem reasonable in this verse, but it really mucks up the verses immediately following. Be de-personifying death in this verse, you de-personify it in all the rest; but that means that sin and death can't "reign," because only person's "reign." In fact, however, Paul doesn't just speak of "sin" and "death" in Rom 5:12. He speaks of he harmartia and ho thanatos[/i]. The words in bold are the definite article, and one of the most common uses of the definite article is to indicate abstract nouns. To make Paul's meaning by using the definite article clear in English, we might modify the KJV rendering a bit as follows:

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
Notice that I have capitalized the words Sin and Death in the first clause. I do that because Paul is personifying them. Death and Sin are enemies that need to be defeated. They reign over men, but Christ is the one who comes to destroy those enemies and set them free. Your rendering weakens that comparison which is so essential to the rest of the argument.

Jac, notice I added two renditions: one with "and [the] death [of man] by sin" and another "and death [to all creation] by sin". Either way, both de-personalise the terms.

You and Scripture have convinced me though. I can understand that Sin and Death are in fact Personalised by Paul. Yet, such personalisation does not remove who/what they are to be applied to. You're counter is really a non-issue for I am simply highlighting two scenarios. If Death doesn't have a relationship to anything, then Death is devoid of any meaning. To whom or what does Death visit -- humanity or creation/creatures?

It is your affirmation that "Paul is invoking sin and death in a personified way and showing their place in all of creation." But, it's not hard for me to likewise verbose that "Paul is invoking sin and death in a personalised way to show how they came to cover all of humanity from one man". Just because one might say it is in "a personified way" doesn't make it so any more than your novice Atheist thinking a square circle is something God should be able to muster.

Let me say, however, that I accept your critique. But this rules out both OEC and YEC interpreters who may read more into the text to try and support their position on death in creation. Does that seem fair to you?

Yet, in my previous post, I notice that I didn't end my thought process there...

Rather, I actually continued saying,

• "it doesn't seem clear to me that "the world" means anything other than "the world". Like we should be a "light of the world" rather than a "light of all of creation" or a "light of all humanity" -- clearly "world" fits better. The meaning of "the world" isn't necessarily to be objectified into "creatures" or "humans", but rather remain in abstraction form of the physical reality we're in and experience (if that makes sense??). "

In other words, to either force "world" to mean "all of creation" or "all of humanity" is eisegesis -- reading our own meaning into the text. Why don't we just take it at its plain reading to mean "world".

In fact, you might find this kind of funny. My now 5 yo daughter jokes with me every so often, including earlier today, that she loves me the most in all the universe. And I say, "really, you love me more than Mummy?" And she responds laughing, no, all the universe not people in it. And so, even in her own understanding, if it could be applied to the context of "kosmos" in v.12 -- it doesn't even have to mean any kind of life -- but rather more simply that Death made an entrance into the world, much like entering a house. Which actually fits it with Paul's personification of Sin and Death.

Such an interpretation is neither for nor against YEC or OEC views on death. And I feel content with taking this middle ground, that it is in fact all that is meant. Any thing more, does feel to be reading into the text something that isn't there.

And so we have:

"Wherefore, as by one man Sin entered into our world, and Death by Sin; even so Death passed upon all men for all have sinned."

Under this interpretation, it seems to me that v.12 does little to convey one way or another whether death of "man" is intended or death "to all creation". It is rather quite neutral about such matters, neither supporting YEC nor OEC.

To add your personification argument, if to applying death to "man" destroys the personification of Death as Paul intends, then so too applying death to "all of creation". The sword cuts both ways.

So as much as either of us might like to push it... whether this has any bearing of death either pre/post-fall is a matter of our own reading into the text. Unless either of us perform some eisegesis, v.12 actually ends up seeming quite neutral. I think I'm just restating this in different ways, but I am just quite convinced of the neutrality now.

What Paul is saying is NOT vague on my rendering. It's really important that you see that in any comparative, the first is the better known and is the basis for understanding the second. I don't know if you've seen this yet, but Paul uses no less than seven times over the next nine verses. They are:

not as (hos) . . . so also (houtos). 15
for if (ei) . . . how much more (pallo mallon)v. 15
not as (hos). . . (so also (houtos)) v. 16
for if (ei). . . how much more (pallo mallon)v. 17
(just) as (hos). . . so also (houtos)v. 18
just as (hosper). . . so also (houtos)v. 19
just as (hosper). . . so also (houtos) v. 21

So you know the only difference in hos and hosper is a matter of intensity. They are essentially the same word. So for you to accept all of these contrasts in the section immediately following 5:12 but to reject the same grammatical construction in our verse is just inconsistent and wreaks of eisogesis. We simply have to accept the fact that contrast is a major feature of this section, and so ANY interpretation of 5:12 MUST make contrast a major feature. I want to know then, what contrast do YOU see between the hosper and houtos clause in verse 12?

Re-reading our exchanges here five months ago, I did not pay attention to the comparative phrasing in the verses that followed. I believe I was confused about what you were meaning by "comparative", but now I can fully see it.

However, I did pay attention to the content if not the structural phrasing. And, given the verses that you cite which follow a "hos[per]/houtos" phrasing, I cannot in the life of me see how in any context that v.12 could mean "all of creation" as in applying to all creatures without some eisegesis.

I want to congratulate you though, as you've given me a lightbulb moment in pointing to the verses that follow.

In the verses that proceed, clearly they follow the same comparative phrasing... look at the actual content and not simply the structural phrasing, Paul is basically stating a similar matter in a variety of ways -- taking the reader from something easier to grasp, and expanding to a more advanced understanding. I'd assume Paul does this so as to keep the reader following his reasoning to the end rather than confusing them.

The constant comparative phrasing, also lends credence to your exegesis that v.12 should indeed be a comparative sentence. So I am happy to concede your rendition here. You should definitely exemplify these verses in your recent paper (if you have I wouldn't know as I haven't yet read it). They form a strong argument for your v.12 translation as a completed sentence.

In fact, what I'm about to provide strengthens your interpretation even more... because there is actually a pattern I can see to Paul's "hosper/houtos" phraseology.

I wonder, if you have closely evaluated the content in each "comparative" verse here? For looking at the content, one gains I think the key to unlocking the hosper/houtos comparison in v.12. For each verse we see the following:

• v. 15 "But not as the offense, so also is the free gift."
  
  v.16 (houtos' does not exist but the comparison is nonetheless evident): "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."
  
  v.18 Therefore as (hos) by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even (kai) so (houtos) by the righteousness of onethe free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.:
  
  v.19 For as (hosper) by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so (houtos kai) by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
  
  v. 21 That as (hosper) sin hath reigned unto death, even (kai) so (houtos) might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

These "comparative" phraseology seem to go from a simple to more advanced and somewhat complex understanding. Paul adds and expands upon more as he goes along. His desire, obviously to not loose the reader, but lead them to the end of his logic with a full understanding. Here are some of the comparisons (hos[per] vs. houtos) I see:

- "offense" vs. "free gift" (v.15)
- "one offence to judgement of all men" vs. "Christ's righteous act to free gift of life to all mean" (v.18)
- "one man's disobedience making many sinners" to "one person's making many righteous" (v.19)
- "Sin reigning unto death" vs. "Grace reigning unto eternal life via Jesus Christ". (v.21)

One can see the comparisons generally divulge a little more information each time, from v.15 right up until v.21.

There is an "offense" to "free gift" that pervades the content and this starts off as a quite simple comparison in v.15 to something more complex. Likewise, there is a "one" to "many" that pervades the content. While, we have a simple comparative introduction of "offense" vs "free gift" (v.15), interestingly there is no simple comparative (hos[per]/houtos) of the "one" vs "many".

Which pushes one to look earlier, and we actually find in our v.12 which reads:

• Wherefore, as (hosper) by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so (houtos) death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

Ah-huh! Here it is, as one ought to expect if paying attention to the pattern Paul is using to enlighten the reader with more and more information -- a simple comparison of the sin and death entering into the world by "one man" vs death passing upon "all men".

So let's take this down from the top:

• v12 introduces the "one" to "many" comparison;
• v15 introduces "offence" to "gift" comparison;
• v18 compares the "offence leading to judgement of all" to "righteous act leading to free gift to all";
• v19 restates this with different accentuations, starting with "one man's disobedience" (notice the one to many now forms a linchpin in both hos[per]/houtos comparisons in v18 & v19 -- these are more complex comparisons built from v12 and v15 and all inbetween)
• v.21 is the final completion now everyone is clear on the one to many attribution of "sin" and "righteousness"

As previously mentioned, I'm yet to read your paper. If you haven't added this stuff I've just gone over though... it would really, at least in my opinion, strengthen your interpretation of v.12 being a completed sentence. Perhaps you'd also desire a concession that death comes upon all creation, but unless some eisegesis happens matters are quite neutral. Does that really matter though? In any case, congratulations.