Silence.....your observations are very profound.Hi Joel,
I have read a few commentaries that say Romans 5:12 should be translated "Therefore just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because of which (death) all sinned -" This would seem to indicate that we sin because we are dead, not that we are dead as a result of sinning. In this veiw Adam sinned and brought death into the world, but from then on death reigned over him and his descendants, leaving them no option but to be sinners. 1 Cor.15:56 seems to follow a similar line of thought. "The sting of death is sin." If death were the result of sin, you would think that it would read "The sting of sin is death".
Romans 5:19 also seems to point to a "sin nature" or "sin problem" in mankind being something laid at one man's feet, Adam. "For as by one man's disobedience many were made (passive) sinners....". 5:6 also says "For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."
But at the same time there is James 1:15 that speaks of sin becoming full grown and then bringing forth death, implying that the reverse can also the case. I wonder if it could be that some scriptures are speaking of death as a process of a principle in action, and other scriptures speaking of death as the state of being without physical life which is the result of the forgoing process. Could this be why Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree, "dying you shall die"? Why did God give the leeway of one day as the time frame for the sentence to be carried out? Why not say, as soon as you eat from the tree you will die?
In reference to your opening question about whether Adam and Eve "lost" something in the fall that resulted in their children being considered short of the mark (sinners) as a result of that loss, or whether they "acquired" something that was passed on to their descendants that results in the same thing, I don't know. When sin entered something else left. (sinlessness)
It is interesting how the first mention in scripture of an emotional state relative to humans is a negative statement. "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed". The absence of something is noted, not the presence of something.
Also interesting is how the results of Adam and Eve's disobedience are described. The first thing is that their eyes are opened. But instead of saying they knew good and evil like the nachash had told Eve they would, it says when their eyes were opened all they knew was that they were naked. They then made coverings for themselves from fig leaves. (We had a fig tree in our back yard at my parent's house and I can tell you fig leaves are covered with tiny fibers that are very irritating to skin. Makes you wonder why they chose them as a clothing material.) They could no longer bear to be in the presence of the Lord when He came near and hid from Him. Once the Lord had questioned Adam, Eve, and the serpent, and pronounced the judgement of each Genesis 3:21 says the Lord made tunics of skin and clothed them. It doesn't say what had happened to the fig leaves, whether the Lord removed them, Adam and/or Eve did it, or whether the coats of skins went on over the top of the fig leaves. It also doesn't say how the Lord appeared to them when He clothed them. They had hid from Him in fear before, maybe they had to face their fear. That is one of the things about the bible sometimes. There is a lot that is not spelled out. I guess there is a good reason for that though.
I would ask you to look at the word, disobedience, in Romans 5:19.
What does it say?
Does it have anything to do with "hearing right" vs. "hearing wrong"?
Is disobedience "acting wrong".....or.....first "hearing wrong"?
What do you think?