[
Replying to Base12 in post #24]
But aren't you saying that McClellan is the Hebrew scholar and that you think he makes a good case? Or are you just saying you like the conclusion McClellan offers and since he's a scholar, you will use him as support, but you don't actually understand why he thinks that?
The second option is clearly fallacious reasoning, so I hope it's the first. If it is the first, then that would mean you were able to understand the logic of the case and felt it sound, so you should be able to lay it out for us to analyze its soundness.
From everything else I'm looking at, scholars say the paronomastic infinitive is used to emphasize a concept, not denote literal meanings. So, in Gen 2:17, whatever death means, the author is focusing our attention on that. And, contextually, the rest of the Bible does seem to talk about a death that isn't a physical death (such as in Deut 30:19), as well as spending eternity with God so both of those options (spiritual death and becoming mortal) are still on the table.
Then as the narrative unfolds we don't have any direct mention of a second adam or second woman, but continuity between the same individual eating the fruit, not physically dying but having a broken relationship with God, and living for many days after that, but eventually dying.
You say you aren't adding anything to the text and just taking it for what is says, but the text doesn't directly claim a second adam or a second wife, among other things you've claimed. So, this "not adding to" or "not taking away" must be more than just a literal reading of the words; you think the context (including clues within other verses) lead us to yours being the better take. And all interpretations do this; texts must be interpreted. And all interpretations would logically result in counter interpretations tweaking something in the text here or there (although not necessarily just to fit some pre-conceived theology). Thus, we need to analyze the actual reasons one should come to the conclusion we are offering as the best interpretation.
