Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve
According to the Bible (Genesis 2:7), this is how humanity began: "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." God then called the man Adam, and later created Eve from Adam's rib.
Polls by Gallup and the Pew Research Center find that four out of 10 Americans believe this account. It's a central tenet for much of conservative Christianity, from evangelicals to confessional churches such as the Christian Reformed Church.
But now some conservative scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account. Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: "That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all."...
That is weird that some Evangelicals question the existence of Adam and Eve considering that Evangelicals believe in a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible. The Catholic Church is not even that crazy to deny the existence of Adam and Eve.
I think it's important we rememeber why the stars were created. They were created to give light to the Earth at night and to be used for navigation. I have no problem with God creating stars who are full and functioning at the very moment of creation. Just as Adam was a man who could talk and reason, so it would be with stars. They were meant to shine light on us because God gave them to us. He can bend his rules any way he pleases. Whatever light we see, we see light God has created.
Please define "conservative scholars"! If they are publicly stating that they can no longer believe the Genesis account, they are the proverbial scholar that we are warned about in Romans 1:22, "Professing to be wise, they became fools." Listen. The people in the Genesis account are real people with real identities with real God-breathed souls. Paul speaks of Adam as being the first man - if you throw that account out, you are throwing Paul out - if you throw Paul out, an Apostle appointed by Christ, then you have thrown out your salvation as there is certainly no faith left and no Bible to base it on... your choice.. what say ye? As for me, I stand with God's Word, the Bible!
CV wrote: To think that when Jesus said Adam existed, that would have settled it?
Come to think of it, on so many issues, we "christians" and "evangelicals" stand in direct contradiction to what Jesus says, I'm beginning to doubt if Jesus was Christian!
"...I'm beginning to doubt if Jesus was Christian!"
Very interesting observation CV! But that is exactly what questioning the Old Testament suggests. It is also to imply that Jesus Christ was either ignorant, indifferent, or a liar. What a dreadful position to put ourselves in, but even worse, what a terrible position to put Jesus Christ in.
Ps 119:160 "Thy word [is] true [from] the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments [endureth] for ever."
Isn't it very troubling that those who come up with these "headline titles" often leave out pertinent words? This is very misleading, but it does have the tendency to draw attention to the article. This particular article is mistitled:
"Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve."
Wouldn't it have been much closer to the truth to have said, "Some Evangelicals Question..." or "Some apostate evangelicals Question..."
To simply say, "Evangelicals Question..." is to imply something which is untrue and it ought to upset those who hold to the truth of the Bible and the truth in principle.
Mike wrote: Jesus didn't seem to have a problem with the Genesis account. Perhaps the problem these alleged evangelicals have is with him.
That is right.
Joh 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. Joh 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. Joh 5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
Bibliophile wrote: One thing we can say is you cannot tell on the basis of the Bible that the world is 6,000 years old. â€śIf you look at the world that God has made, there are some clues that the Earth may be older than that ...
What would you have said if you stood on day one of Adams creation, a fully grown man and not a baby, (the same for the universe)?
â€śGod has left clues in the world He has made. His invisible qualities are clearly seen so that men are without excuse (Romans).
â€śThere are people who say the earth is 6,000 years old based predominately on genealogies (in Genesis). They come up with a time grid that they can measure from Adam to the time of the Second Adam, Jesus Christ. The problem with that is the genealogies are incomplete. And we know [this] by testing Scripture in light of Scripture ... One thing we can say is you cannot tell on the basis of the Bible that the world is 6,000 years old.
â€śIf you look at the world that God has made, there are some clues that the Earth may be older than that ...
â€śFor example, we face the reality that nothing travels faster than the speed of light. And that billions of light years separate us from distinct galaxies. And that leads logically to the [conclusion] that the age of the Universe is measured in billions rather than thousands of years.â€ť
Joe the Protestant wrote: Wow! You had best stay with your so called science and not attempt Hermenutics. You obviously don't know what you are doing in that area. None of those scriptues say the earth is the center. Not to mention the most basic element of sound interpretaion, have for 2,000 plus yrs. recognized when poetic language is being used and when literal language is being used. You believe the T.V weather don't you. The weather man said Sun Rise would be at such a time. Yet we know the sum does not rise, the Earth spins. It's the language of Phenomena.
You hit the nail on the head with the mention of sound princilpes of interpretation. I reaaly belive that those who are pressing hard for an allegorical Adam and Eve, are not doing so out of a sincere desire to discover biblical truth, as much as a desire not to look foolish to the current scientific world.
Don't worry about people not taking the whole of your posts into consideration by taking a secondary, or tertiary comment and making a cavil. Some people are just reactionary. And many, probably due to the phenomena of the Google age, have lost, or never developed the ablilty to do close sustained reasoning, such as used to be requsite for seminary training.
priscilla-4 wrote: Serious question... I am not undermining God in anyway. I believe the fall of man and the salvation throufh Jesus Christ. But, what would happen if Adam and eve were proven to be not real? What would that do to Christianity? And if we were to say we should take that story in a metaphorical sense.. then in the bible, what do we take literally and what do we not take literally?
It would destroy a foundation of the Bible and if the foundations be destroyed...
Also, if folks are led to disbelieve the first Adam, why would they believe in the last?
Serious question... I am not undermining God in anyway. I believe the fall of man and the salvation throufh Jesus Christ. But, what would happen if Adam and eve were proven to be not real? What would that do to Christianity? And if we were to say we should take that story in a metaphorical sense.. then in the bible, what do we take literally and what do we not take literally?
Arminianist pick at the bible when it talks about the majesty of God and the sureness of His word.
But yet they will pick up the newspaper and read "Sunrise" & "Sunset" times and not have a major scientific meltdown. Why? Does Romy sun make an exceptional orbit around the earth to "rise" and "set"?
Without exception, everyone of those buying into this view is Arminian. It started subtly by saying it was simply literal vs metaphorical creation. Now it's whether Adam existed. This undermines the original sin. (Were not "that dead" anyways?) It undermines the work of redemption on the cross. It undermines both Jesus and Paul, since they both make explicit statements about a literal Adam and a literal fall. You're left with either these Arminians don't believe in Christ, or they cannot accept the inerrancy of those statements.
How can someone not accept by faith the supernatural work of God in creation because it's not scientifically viable, then come to the resurrection by faith? The next stop is to deny the cross. Arminianism is inconsistent, that's why they quote Calvin and not Jesus. Jesus spoke of Adam.
If you're an Arminian, please ditch it. If you keep quenching the Spirit, there will come a time when God will leave you to your dillusions.
Also, I recommend not using Wikipedia or any open-source encyclopedia for controversial topics. These internet encyclopedias are a battle ground. Better to do your own, slow study. Usually, you'll find that there is oh so much more involved that what is represented by a few online editors.
fromold wrote: You sure??? "The first information about the heliocentric views of Nicolaus Copernicus were circulated in manuscript. Although only in manuscript, Copernicus' ideas were well known among astronomers and others. His ideas contradicted the then-prevailing understanding of the Bible. In the King James Bible Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the Lord] Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."" (Wiki)
Read the Whole comment I wrote my myopic friend. Your selective editing is very close to misrepresentation.
(1) Romish cosmology was influnenced primarily by Greek cosmology in this flat earth issue.
(2) Christianity (if that's what you want to call the Romish church) being wrong once doesn't guarantee Xtianity being wrong again. That's a logical fallacy. Besides, that was an observation of the present universe not a guess about the past.