Taking a short break from homework, I’d just like to bring forth a thought that I’ve had recently regarding the historicity of Adam and Eve. This is not going to be a historical argument like one may infer from the title. so be warned that this is an argument from Biblical inspiration.
Recall that I’m not a creationist, but a theistic evolutionist — someone who believes that God, for his own reasons, chose to use the mechanism of evolution to produce life on earth. I as many others over the years have found no reason to have a strictly literal reading of Genesis 1. I recently did a study of the Hebrew terms found in the creation account for my series on the Trinity and discovered that the Hebrew word Adam is not only a proper name but the generic term for all mankind. This was something I took to heart quickly. I once heard William Lane Craig say in his Defenders podcast that he believed the text commits us to the literal existence of a historical Adam and Eve. But given this new idea that the names could have just been a symbolic representation of the entire species, I felt no need to burden myself with the additional contention of the historicity of the two.
But I believe I’ve found the passage from where WLC was drawing his conclusion that we must believe in them as historical rather than mythical. In Matthew 1 and Luke 3, the genealogy of Jesus is given as proof that Jesus is the son of David as was predicted. Matthew stops at Abraham as one can expect if the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not literal history as I believe. But on the other hand, Luke goes all the way back to Adam and lists them as Jesus’s ancestors. So if we are to preserve the Bible’s accuracy, should we not also contend that Adam and Eve were historical figures even if not in the way Genesis 1 states?
Do you think this is a valid reason for me to change my view? Is there a way around this problem? I’d love some feed back on what I think is an interesting thought.
Tags: Adam and Eve, Creation, evolution
Thanks for stating that when “reality and doctrines contradict, doctrine is right!” Joe
I your share your opinion, that Adam could well refer to humanity as a whole and that stories involving Adam are figurative.
I would keep in mind that when geneologies are listed in the bible, saying that x was the son of y only implies that x was a direct descendant of y. It is common practice in a number of places in the bible to skip generations when listing geneologies. For this reason, when Luke says that Seth is the son of Adam, he could be saying that Seth was a real person who was a son of humanity dating back to before geneological records began.
It could also be that the library Luke visited for Geneological records got it wrong, and somewhere along the line, somebody made up the first few descendants of King David. Steve
Joe: you make the mistake of assuming that I was talking to you in this post when I wasn’t, I even gave a warning stating that it would be a theological argument in favor of Adam and Eve.
And you strawman my position. Here I make the assumption that the doctrine of inspiration is a fact and the argument was directed at Christians from a Christian. So rather it is when, reality contradicts reality I must take the steps to resolve the supposed contradiction.
Thanks for your comments and BTW you have a cool first name.
Steve: thanks for your comment. Isaac
This has recently been the topic of discussion on another blog I visit. You may find the following link helpful:
http://proginosko.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/was-adam-a-real-historical-individual/
It gives 12 reasons from Scripture that taken together seem to provide a strong case for the historicity of Adam.
Also, a theistic evolution perspective on creation does not automatically negate belief in a historical Adam and Eve. Take for example this paper by pastor Tim Keller, who argues for a TE position that is compatible with a historical Fall and a literal Adam and Eve:
http://www.biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf
Blessings,
~Ken Kendalf