Even in Paul’s argument, Adam is a representative figure. Why can’t Adam have been intended by the Genesis writer as a representative figure? Adam could very well be the same sort of figure the serpent was. None of them have to be historical. Paul is explaining how the story works in light of Jesus. Why assume Paul assumed a historical Adam?

Jesus claimed that it was necessary for the Son of Man to suffer before he entered his glory and inherited the kingdom. Does that mean that Daniel’s vision was of a historical Son of Man? Shall we also imagine historical beasts on a Mediterranean beach?

“Adam and the Son of Man are different,” you might say. We all know that the Son of Man was simply a representative figure in Daniel’s vision that Jesus was using to explain his own story. Adam was not the same sort of figure. He was REAL. He was HISTORICAL.

But maybe he wasn’t. And maybe he was never intended to be understood that way. And maybe Paul never understood him that way.

Just thinking out loud.

Good question. I don’t have any great understanding of Greek. That should come more in the 2013-2014 academic year when I take up Greek. All I know is that the word we translate as God-breathed (or ‘inspired’ in older versions) is theopneustos. I’m not exactly sure if it means a) that Scripture is the direct product of God’s breathing (spiriting) out or b) that God breathed out upon Scripture to give it it’s life-giving character. I suppose that I would lean towards option B, since that seems to be what happened as we read the account of God breathing out into Adam and Jesus breathing out upon the disciples. They already ‘existed’, but the life-giving spirit came upon them subsequently. So, with Scripture, it was written and (as Kenton Sparks argues) God breathed upon it to adopt it as his life-giving text.

But it’s only just some theo-philosophising.

Sorry I’m a bit late with this question. I like what you have stated here. If I understand correctly, you are saying the God-breathed nature of Scripture comes in it’s soteriological focus in Jesus Christ. But what I hear many evangelicals argue, especially to highlight the aspect of inerrancy, is that Scripture makes such statements:

Ps 12:6 – the words of the Lord are flawless
Ps 18:30 – As for God, his way is perfect: The Lord’s word is flawless (connecting God’s way & word as both perfect & flawless)
Prov 30:5 – Every word of God is flawless

The argument goes something like this: Scripture is the word of God and God’s word is perfect/flawless. Therefore every jot & tittle of Scripture is perfect & flawless.

I have some thoughts on this, but was interested in your thoughts.

If I understand your question correctly, it’s a good question: Is Scripture itself the product of God’s breathing (spiriting) out or did God breathe out upon Scripture? One points to Scripture being the direct product and one points to a product to which God subsequently breathed out upon. I don’t know much of anything about Greek. I’ve simply looked at that word theopneustos. Perhaps Daniel could share some thoughts?

There is also a “Mitochondrial Eve,” the source of every living human being’s mitochondrial DNA. Unfortunately, statistical estimates put Y Chromosomal Adam at 200,000 years ago or less and Mitochondrial Eve at 237,000 years ago or more. These are cute names for these two ancestors, but I don’t think their existence has any theological significance.