Thank you for going through the trouble and offering this very convincing line of reasoning which agrees with Posth and all the other hopeless romantics like John146, I think, and maybe Shakespeare. But only if we assume the premise as we can only speculate upon that which we aren't told, and it is Bruce' Leiter position to refrain from speculation so maybe he has it the most right? Maybe. Maybe not, but I can't seem to help it. As you pointed out being a type of Christ refers somehow to at least one aspect of Christ and I believe this is that his actions affect the rest of mankind. What I do not know, because we are not told it, is whether he possessed any fruit of the Spirit that is inherent in Jesus, such as love. Yes, Adam may have possessed a lesser? degree of it and misplaced it in Eve, hence the commandment, "if you love mother or father, etc. more than Me..." or he may have inspired the commandment, "value others more than yourselves."
Yes, we should not forget that Adam was innocent before proven guilty, but neither forget that Jesus cannot be proven guilty of anything.
If we are going to really examine the text honestly, and take the text in light of other passages of scripture... we get what we get.
Hopeless Romantics?
Adam loved Eve... that's in the Bible.
God Loves us... that's in the Bible.
Christ loved us enough to die for us... that's in the Bible.
Lots of people love lots of people... that's in the Bible.
People in love say and do "romantic" things... that's in the Bible.
Both romance and romantic ideas are in the Bible.
Regarding Speculation:
1.) Logical Inference:
To logically infer or deduce the implications of a passage, with full consideration of the rest of scripture, is not equal to speculation.
(This is how we arrive at most doctrine, such as the trinity.)
2.) Explanatory Power:
When multiple explanations are available for an outcome, to choose the one with the greatest explanatory power is not equal to pure speculation.
(This is also a part of how we arrive at most doctrine, because it's foundational to hermeneutics. It's also how we do science.)
3.) Romantic View:
To discard a contrary view, by merely labeling it with a dismissive term, such as "romantic", isn't a logical rebuttal.
a.) Casting a view in a bad light through disparaging language doesn't constitute a rebuttal.
b.) Furthermore, the state of being "romantic" should not, in any way, even be considered as a negative thing. Romance is deeply ingrained in scripture, from beginning to end... it is part of human life, and part of scripture.
c.) If by "romantic" you did not mean "romantic love", but merely "fanciful" - then you would, by necessity of your own claim, be obligated to prove the opposing view is fanciful. We can't just dismiss a a view by disparaging it with unkind terms. Disparagement is not a rebuttal.
d.) I don't believe you meant any unkindness in any this... but we are just constantly surrounded by this tactic of dismissive language. It's all around us, even in scholarly works at times, so we often employ it without realizing it. I'm sure I do it too. And if I have, then I apologize.
Mem,
I think I've said everything on this topic that I have time for.
It's been fun, and you raised a lot of interesting points... it's always good to talk about scripture.
I'm going to exit the thread, but you are always welcome to message me in pm.
God Bless.
.