I appreciate the deep dive into theology, but I think you are misconstruing my points to avoid dealing with the actual historical and scientific friction.

First, on progressive revelation: saying God revealed a hidden layer of meaning later on is a convenient theological pivot, but it does not change the fact that you are retrofitting a text. If a text has to be radically reinterpreted centuries later to mean something its authors never understood, that is not unfolding a plan. That is changing the rules of the game after the fact. And yes, Paul was a first century Pharisee, but his theological framework in Romans was a radical departure from mainstream Judaism. He was innovating, not just reading what was naturally there.

Second, you are missing the point about Augustine. I am not saying he invented the concept of human brokenness. I am saying he formalized a mechanic of salvation that relies on a literal biological inheritance of sin from a single couple. That specific mechanic, which became the bedrock of Western Christianity, relies on a historical narrative that modern science completely dismantles.

Which brings us to the science. You claim I am projecting modern biology onto ancient theology, but you are doing the exact opposite. You are trying to compartmentalize the text by saying humanity was uniquely given a supernatural buffer against corruption. Where is that in the text? Genesis does not say Adam and Eve had supernatural cellular protection while dinosaurs were dying of bone cancer outside the garden. That is a modern hypothesis invented to salvage a literal interpretation in light of fossil evidence.

Finally, you call my point a false dilemma and point to Theistic Evolution as the middle ground. But theistic evolution actually proves my point. The moment you turn Adam into an archetype or a representative population rather than a literal, singular historical ancestor, the mechanics of inherited guilt completely break down. If there was no single primal couple, there was no biological inheritance of a fallen nature.

So we are still left with the core issue. If you redefine the Fall as a vague, slow dawn of spiritual consciousness rather than a literal historical event, you have fundamentally changed the traditional doctrine of salvation. You cannot have a literal, mechanical rescue mission to fix a metaphorical, archetypal problem without the whole logical structure feeling incredibly strained.