I did in my last post. Your definition of "similitude" which is "exact same" cannot be justified and it is that false definition upon which your whole interpretation of Romans 5:12-14 hangs.
This argument is laughable it is so bad.
Barnes Notes said:After the similitude … - In the same way; in like manner. The expression “after the similitude” is an Hebraism, denoting in like manner, or as. The difference between their case and that of Adam was plainly that Adam had a revealed and positive law. They had not. They had only the law of nature, or of tradition. The giving of a law to Adam, and again to the world by Moses, were two great epochs between which no such event had occurred. The race wandered without revelation. The difference contemplated is not that Adam was an actual sinner, and that they had sinned only by imputation. For,
(1)The expression “to sin by imputation” is unintelligible, and conveys no idea.
(2)The apostle makes no such distinction, and conveys no such idea.
(3)His very object is different. It is to show that they were actual sinners; that they transgressed law; and the proof of this is that they died.
(4)It is utterly absurd to suppose that people from the time of Adam to Moses were sinners only by imputation. All history is against it; nor is there the slightest ground of plausibility in such a supposition.
Albert Barnes correctly shows that Romans 5:14 argues against Original Sin because it says men from Adam to Moses did not sin in a similar or like way as Adam.
Your argument is that they sinned in EXACTLY the same way as Adam. You can't get any more similar than that.
Your argument is plain foolish and nobody is buying it. Give it up. You are obviously playing word games.
Last edited by a moderator: