Every few years, it seems, a wave of people connected (in various ways) with the Church declare they have stopped believing in Adam and Eve as historical people. It seems like we’re in one of those times again. I saw this today and figured it was good to repost here. By Kevin Deyoung:
In recent years, several self-proclaimed evangelicals, or those associated with evangelical institutions, have called into question the historicity of Adam and Eve. It is said that because of genomic research we can no longer believe in a first man called Adam from whom the entire human race has descended… Let me suggest ten reasons why we should believe that Adam was a true historical person and the first human being.
1. The Bible does not put an artificial wedge between history and theology. Of course, Genesis is not a history textbook or a science textbook, but that is far from saying we ought to separate the theological wheat from the historical chaff. Such a division owes to the Enlightenment more than the Bible.
2. The biblical story of creation is meant to supplant other ancient creation stories more than imitate them. Moses wants to show God’s people “this is how things really happened.” The Pentateuch is full of warnings against compromise with the pagan culture. It would be surprising, then, for Genesis to start with one more mythical account of creation like the rest of the ANE [Ancient Near East].
3. The opening chapters of Genesis are stylized, but they show no signs of being poetry. Compare Genesis 1 with Psalm 104, for example, and you’ll see how different these texts are. It’s simply not accurate to call Genesis poetry. And even if it were, who says poetry has to be less historically accurate?
4. There is a seamless strand of history from Adam in Genesis 2 to Abraham in Genesis 12. You can’t set Genesis 1-11 aside as prehistory, not in the sense of being less than historically true as we normally understand those terms. Moses deliberately connects Abram with all the history that comes before him, all the way back to Adam and Eve in the garden.
5. The genealogies in 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3 treat Adam as historical.
6. Paul believed in a historical Adam (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45-49). Even some revisionists are honest enough to admit this; they simply maintain that Paul (and Luke) were wrong.
7. The weight of the history of interpretation points to the historicity of Adam. The literature of second temple Judaism affirmed an historical Adam. The history of the church’s interpretation also assumes it.
8. Without a common descent we lose any firm basis for believing that all people regardless of race or ethnicity have the same nature, the same inherent dignity, the same image of God, the same sin problem, and that despite our divisions we are all part of the same family coming from the same parents.
9. Without a historical Adam, Paul’s doctrine of original sin and guilt does not hold together.
10. Without a historical Adam, Paul’s doctrine of the second Adam does not hold together. [See 1 Corinthians 15]
In other words, if there’s no Adam and Eve, Jesus makes no sense….
You should add a “like” option to the blog, cause I do.
11. Acts 17:26-27: “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;”
12. Jude 14: “Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam…”
13. Without a historical Adam, we would loose our foundation of male / female distinction and unity (from the 1 became 2 -> so shall the two become one by leaving and cleaving).
[insert double like here]
Yeah, I’m not really sure how any Christian would benefit from making the creation of Adam and Eve an allegory. It would essentially weaken all doctrine the Scripture teaches. And just think of how many more problems would arise if Adam wasn’t the first human and didn’t sin before having children…
– If Adam and Eve represented the human race at the beginning before the fall, then does that mean that the entire race disobeyed God by eating the fruit?
– Or did God punish the whole human race because an individual sinned who wasn’t the father of the whole race?
– Why would God waste time making up a fictional creation story to portray Himself as the Creator when He could just tell us how He created us?
– why would God speak about His covenant with Adam in other passages if he wasn’t real? (like Hosea 6)
It’s one thing for someone who rejects the Gospel to say that the Bible is wrong/lies about the first human Adam. But, what reason would the Christian ever have for holding on to this false doctrine? Any ideas?
Nic, one of the reasons some might conclude this is based on reconciling evolution with a creator. For instance, Francis Collins– who wrote “The Language of God” (among others), proposing what he calls “biologos”– who is the head of the HGP (human genome project). Others, find the story to be an absurd explanation for the state of the world today: So that, because a snake tricked a woman and she ate a piece of fruit that was forbidden now all of humanity/creation suffers? Some find this to be an inconsistant portrait of a benevolent creator. Some, simply view the genesis story as an ancient story, written through an ancient worldview, for an ancient audience, and thus not the scientific age.
Ah, got it. So, basically it allows them to accept the “science” that they are being taught while holding onto the faith that they have been brought up in. It sounds like it could be an early step – if not the first step, depending on the individual’s experience – to unbelief.
All of genetics says that two common ancestors is impossible; that is why people subscribe. Doesn’t necessarily call into question the historicity of them, just the idea of common ancestry to two individuals alone.
Hey Trevor! “All of genetics”…? Big statement! But then, I’m not currently read up on genetics. But I feel like I would have heard that before. For sure, there are geneticists who disagree, right? And what of those who say that, based on what we know of genetics, random selection of chance mutation couldn’t have led to the life we see now (much less life from non-life)? But I guess that’s changing the discussion, and again, I’m not versed in it right now. What do you, personally, say? (Oh, and if you run across any helpful info in your travels, please send it my way.) Be blessed!
Brian, I am also feeling my way around the subject. Half way through Francis Collins “the language of God,” and I think its worth a read. I should mention that he rejects intelligent design, as well. Also, you can find info on his website BioLogos. From what i’ve engaged in his work, he is certainly a warm hearted brother. I was particularly touched by how he interacted with Chris Hitchens over the years. Hitchens had some very good things to say about him in his last days of life, especially as Collins worked to find a cure for Hitchens specific to his genetic makeup. Worth looking into, and reading. Also, I have been turned onto John Polkinghorne, who is very worth engaging. Also, on the biblical studies side of the discussion, finding myself with tremper longman (provisionaly, i might add). Reading, and enjoying his work, lately. Let me know what you find/are finding in your searching. Your aged critical eye is a help.
Where is Grace Amadio when you need her?
Yeah I will endorse Polkinghorne. As a physicist he’s brilliant. 40 years of study and teaching and a PhD in Mathematical, Theoretical, and Quantum physics; his stuff is awesome. He manages to relate quantum mechanics to different doctrines, it’s really neat. “Questions of Truth” and “Science and Theology” are classic Polkinghorne reads.
It is a big statement, but I should clarify. When I say “all of genetics” I mean the vast majority of geneticists. Even Scientists who reject a Neo-Darwinian explanation of origins for the most part concede that common ancestry to two individuals is extremely unlikely if not impossible. ID people will say mostly the same thing. Dembski posits something like a retroactive atonement to allow for death pre-Adam/Eve, and he spoke at CCPhilly I believe at one point. Unfortunately most people discount anything from the scientific establishment based on paranoia that the information is really just a vehicle in disguise for Neo-Darwinism/Humanism. The only “Scientists” I’ve read or heard of in discussion/debates that accept a two-person ancestry are people from far-right orgs like AiG, etc. (They said in an essay, genes were “cleaner” back then probably, since sin wasn’t in Adam and Eve’s DNA, so it took several generations for the genetic code to become fallen, so harmful mutations/inbreeding wasn’t a concern. What???)
As far as readings go, readings from Genetics Journals are the only thing more dry to read than my Calculus textbook. If you can get access to like Oxford journals online, search “Ancestry” stuff, but it’s painful to read.
I am not Afraid at the prospect of trusting Mathematical/Scientific information. We trust Calculus to tell us that the natural logarithm of 0 is 1, we don’t say “Ehhh, it’s not in the Bible, so we can’t really know.” (If I put that on my exams, I have a feeling I’d be back in Philly sooner that expected!) So why if massive amounts of research tells you one thing, is it more reasonable to posit conspiracy within the establishment than to examine the information, and “test all things, and hold to what is good”? Do I think the University system and mainstream media may be biased left: absolutely. But I don’t think it’s productive to adopt a universal anti-math/science mentality, because we throw out the baby…the baby’s 5 year old brother, and the babysitter..out with the bathwater. And the byproduct are young people that close their eyes to information, stick their fingers in their ears, and yell, as if to not have the ending of a movie spoiled, so to speak. I want to open my eyes, take my fingers out of my ears, and listen to what people are saying and try to engage them. I think the strict dichotomy between Theology and Science has contributed in many ways to the phenomenon of like half of 18 year-olds leaving the church based on their exposure to the university system, etc.
That being said, there are some things that make me uncomfortable at the idea of relinquishing Adam and Eve as historical sole ancestors. But I have to ask myself if it’s based simply upon church-tradition? Or is it Reason? or conviction? At this point I have to resign myself to say I don’t really know. There are convincing data on one side, and theological issues on the other, which leaves me undecided, and uncomfortable. But I guess the beauty is that I can be a steward of my mind and explore the challenges while still communing with Christ-followers like this, and discourse together!
I’ll definitely try to get some Journals to you or something, and any other pertinent articles, and you do the same for me! Blessings!
“All of genetics” IS a big statement, and it turns out there is nothing in the human genome that would rule out common ancestry. In fact, the traceable history linking human generations is one of the primary evidences that even agressive atheists such as Richard Dawkins point to to illustrate a genetic fountainhead. (The reasons why Richard Dawkins is wrong about nearly everything else will have to wait for another discussion thread…) Human genomic DNA is complicated in humans by recombination events that shuffle genes and make them harder to trace, but mitochondrial DNA provides a much purer transcript. This DNA is passed as a plasmid in the egg cell’s mitochondria and passed virtually unaltered down the maternal line. The line of mitochondrial DNA can indeed be traced back to a focal individual. To postulate two (or more) separate spontaneous eruptions of sentient life on our planet stretches the generous limits of probability; most atheists are not even so bold. (Even if you got that far, how do you evolve gender?) The emerging field on epigenetics has cast even greater aspersions on the idea that the marvel of programming represented by the human brain could have arisen by any means other than intelligent purpose and creative energy. Only 1% of the human genome codes for protein; scientists are only beginning to discover the function of the other 99%. I can’t speak for math and I certainly can’t speak for physics, but I do believe that genetics as a science points to a deeply involved Creator. It is inconsistent to believe that a God who wrote the 10 Commandments with His finger (metaphor or not, supernatural action is implied) would be aloof in the inscription man’s genome. If God Himself stepped into time and space to walk this earth, there is no precedent to assume that He took an aloof role in Creation by winding up natural selection and then standing back to watch it run. I am also reading “The Language of God” (courtesy of J. Cordon) and there is much that can be said about his views… Collins is more correct on certain points than others. But anyway, THAT is a discussion for another time! My point was: Modern genetics and Adam are not inconsistent, and neither are science and the Bible. (The literally interpreted Bible, no less. See Reson #3 above.)
Wow, that was great. I should correct myself again haha, everything that I have read(short of AiG stuff), has said overtly or implied that the two-individual Adam/Eve ancestry is an incomplete explanation. Now that being said, it would ridiculous to say that my limited readings have covered the entire scope of genetics, evidenced by above. I’d be really interested, Grace, if you could forward me any articles/books saying the things you said. What I’ve read was either very technical, or scientists writing for laymen.
Also, a lot of the Christian guys I’ve read on the subject don’t necessarily dispute the historicity of Adam/Eve, but more that they account for all of the human race(I think the link I posted above takes that view).
I really have no idea what I think at this point, but I can say that I’ve yet to see anything along the lines of what you’re saying from Christian/Non-Christians alike challenging what people are saying and I’d be really interested to look into it further.
As far as Math/Physics, I love reading Polkinghorne and John Lennox is a new one I’m liking, both of whom are believers(I’m going to see Lennox speak at Harvard a week from today!). But some of the stuff from atheists is interesting too like Stephen Wolfram(yeah, the guy who made Mathematica haha)and Hawking and Brian Greene’s stuff is interesting too but it all makes my head hurt lol.
I’d say there’s nothing wrong with treating science as science, and like someone already said here, just because the Bible doesn’t speak on it directly doesn’t mean it’s not true.
BUT – if the Spirit has revealed the truth of Christ to you (like He did to the Galatian church) and He wrote a book filled with that truth for you to follow, to abandon a literal and historical Adam throws everything that comes after it – and probably before it – out the window, as Nelson so plainly put it earlier. It also makes God a liar.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t grapple with science or that we should put any science that suggests itself against the Bible into an intellectual garbage disposal; but we should, when needing to take a stance between the two, stand with the Holy Spirit (Who knows all things and cannot lie!) and not with the spiritually unregenerated scientists who don’t know how much they don’t know.
Hey Trevor! Here is the link to an article about DNA tracing in humans:
http://www.annualreviews.org.libproxy.temple.edu/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.genet.41.110306.130407
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18076332 (If it won’t open, try from PubMed here. You might have to use your university’s library to access it without paying.)
This one is a pretty technical article, but if you just look over the figures there is an obvious “funneling” of both mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA trees to converge on a common ancestor. I read the article you linked to in your prior post and at the very bottom there is a link to FAQs regarding Y- and mitochondrial DNA (they foresaw the questions!). BioLogos concedes that all humans share two focal ancestors, one maternal and one paternal, but they then theorize that these two individuals were two of thousands and lived at separate times in separate places. The article includes this puzzling sentence, “However, these studies are all clear: during the bottleneck, there were several thousand individuals, not two.” Besides the fact that the data does not clearly support this hypothesis, this makes no logical sense. “There were never less then several thousand people on earth. Ever.” Wouldn’t two humans, or even one, have HAD to be first? Did they all fortuitously mutate at exactly the same time? Our genome has been subject to entropy for thousands of years; information has been lost and not gained. The article discusses linked genes as if they are always inherited together, but map units are a reflection of recombination frequency and genes CAN be separated even if they usually are not. So many of these genetic time-mapping studies use mutation rate calculations that are little more than arbitrary; there is no reason to assume a constant rate of mutation and no way to project rates per million years when genetics as a field is only a few decades old; there is no precedent for such extrapolations. Technical articles’ methods sections should always be examined before you accept their conclusions; calculations are often based on certain pre-suppositions that the data cannot support. There are lots of articles out there and I would be happy to send you more on this or other questions… If you have not read or listened to the late great A.E. Wilder-Smith, you might find his material helpful. He had 3 earned Ph.D.s and his works are neither highly technical nor overly-simplified; it is not cutting-edge science (He died in the 90s, I believe), but he provides a good framework for how to correctly integrate science and faith. I am not an expert by any means, but as a student of science I do think about these sorts of questions as I study, and I think that the Fall makes no sense if we did not descend from two original humans. Sin was to be passed down the generations along with the promise of the coming Redeemer; this was the covenant between two individuals and God- only one line was involved. If one lineage sinned and the other several thousand individuals on earth did not, did those others remain perfect with no need for redemption? Who then received the promise of the coming Redeemer? It gets extremely complicated, especially since science has not even furnished sufficiently compelling evidence to suggest that such a scenario ever existed. Our two purest threads of genetic evidence tell us what we would expect them to if Adam and Eve were literal historical figures. Thanks for sharing your thoughts; I will keep reading articles and let you know what I find!
In case anyone notices or wonders, after discussing it with Trevor I deleted a link he had in the above comment. If anyone has questions about this, I’d be more than happy to speak with you about it. Just email me, or better yet, if you’re local, see me at church tomorrow…Peace!