RickD wrote:And I agree that Adam's sin brought death into the world. The world of humanity.
No Jac. Paul's point is that human death can be overcome by Christ. Unless you're saying animals can have eternal life by believing on Christ.
Jac wrote:
We just read Romans differently. I take Romans 8:19-21 to refer to non-human creation, and there is a difference in having "eternal life" and never dying, say, in the jaws of a lion.
Jac, I don't take that to mean only human creation.
Then I think you haven't thought very deeply about the connection between Romans 5 and Romans 8. I'll say more about that below.
Jac, read this passage, and tell me why you think it pertains to all animals.
Romans 5:1-21:
.
.
.
Jac, if you want to claim animal death is a result of Adam's sin, then you need to make the case from somewhere else. Romans 5 is clearly talking about human death and human redemption.
You are reading animal death into Romans 5. There is no mention of animal death whatsoever. If you can't be honest about this...
I don't agree that "Romans 5 is clearly talking about human death and human redemption." Asserting that it is doesn't make your case. I can say that it is
clearly referring to the totality of creation -- does that make me any more or less correct?
Now, I'm not going to write out an exegesis of Romans 5:12. I've done that elsewhere, and it is rather lengthy. You can read the main entries
here and
here (though you'll have to forgive the board on the second link, as it killed the Greek text, for whatever reason). The bottom line, however, for those links are as follows:
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.
2. That all creation is in view in Romans 5 is evident by the verse itself. Unfortunately, this is one of those very rare cases where you have to get into the Greek to see it. Without getting into it in detail, just go to Biblegateway.com and note how Rom 5:12 is either an awkward sentence or a sentence fragment in all of the major translations. I've suggested the following translation:
- Because of this, just as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, in the same way death passed to all men, because all [men] sin.
The important thing here is the contrast between the two key phrases, "Just as . . ." and "even in . . .". I'll offer two paraphrases that highlight the contrast, the first taking seeing only human death in view and the second universal death:
- 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."
It should be evident that the first understanding doesn't say much . . . it's something of a tautology. The second, however, has meaning, real meaning. The second takes the grammar of the verse seriously. Specifically, it takes the comparative phrases seriously. Since one perfectly acceptable rendition of
kosmos is "the entire world," you cannot accuse me of reading INTO the text a particular meaning here. I'm just selecting the meaning that best seems to fit in the linguistic context. I, however, would suggest (gently) that you are reading your theology INTO the text here, because while it is true that "humanity" is an acceptable translation of
kosmos, that's only because
kosmos refers to humanity
by figure of speech (specifically, metonymy -- so "dish" refers not to the whole plate, but the food on it; so by figure of speech,
kosmos can, at times, refer not to the whole creation but a part of it, namely, humanity). The problem here is that if you are going to take a term figuratively, then you need linguistic or contextual reasons to argue that the author is not being literal. In this case, no such markers exist, and since no such markers exist, the only place we can justify the figure is your own theology.
So . . . with all respect . . . the only way to get humanity only out of Romans 5:12 is if you just don't read it very closely, divorce it from its broader argument, and import your own theology into the passage.
Again, that's just the highlights. Do check out the two posts I linked to (both from the same thread) for some details.
edit:
I don't want to overdo it, but I think the grammatical point is really important. I found what I think is a particularly good short explanation of the issue
here where I said:
- the comparative is NOT between consequence and result. That wouldn't be a comparative, anyway. Grammatically, that would be a simple if/then and would require a causal word. What you actually have are two DISTINCT statements. Look at them again:
1. Death came into the world;
2. Death comes to all men.
That is what we are comparing. Paul starts with the a better known fact ("just as") . . . the better known fact to his audience is that sin entered the world and then death came through sin. Using their understanding of THAT, he explains to them that ON THAT BASIS, death comes to all men--what basis? That all men sin. Let's use a modern example.
Suppose you were trying to explain to someone how we know that God exists, and you are using the moral argument. You say this:
"Ok, John . . . imagine you get caught speeding. You were doing a hundred miles an hour in a fifty. The judge asks you if you are guilty. Now, it doesn't matter that you followed all the other laws of the road, like having on your turn signal and stopping at red lights, does it? You are guilty before him and will be sentenced accordingly, right? Just like that, in the same way, when you stand before God, it won't matter how good you have been, because you will have broke some of His laws, and will be sentenced accordingly!"
Now, look what you are doing here. You are making a comparison. First, you appeal to something John already understands to help him get something he doesn't understand. You show him something about the modern legal system. Then, comparing the God to the modern legal system (Just as . . . in the same way) you bring the point across you want him to see.
That is exactly what Paul is doing here. He starts with the well known fact that death came into the world through sin. That his readers get. They know that this world is dying because of sin. On the basis of THAT, he wants them to understand the second half: that they die FOR THE SAME REASON: their own sin. Can you see how your rendering makes Paul's point totally absurd? In your view, Paul is appealing to their knowledge that men die because of their sin to explain to them that men die for their own sin. It's tautological. It makes no sense. It's pointless.
There's just no way to see Paul as talking about humanity in 5:12a. It totally butchers not only the argument he is making in that verse, but it butchers the argument he is making in Romans 5-8--and all of that by invoking a perfectly legitimate word in a figurative way without any suggestion on Paul's part that he is using it figuratively. Really . . . shy of very strong reasons to the contrary, it is abundantly clear that Paul has the entire world in mind in 5:12a.
I'll get to the rest of your post later. My brain is tired. And, that "Carnivorous animals " thread is one of my favorites. I'll read you arguments again in that thread. Maybe this time they'll be convincing. 
). But I hope you would agree that if we can translate the passage without making Paul a bad grammarian and letting him complete his thought, that is preferable.