WIXLIB

Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, NoA Survey of ViewsDiscussionWriterViewBerry, R. J.Professor ofGenetics (Retired)Born 1934Yes“A number of conservative scholars, while not taking the narrative of Genesis 2-3literally, find grounds in the New Testament for defending the historicity of Adam andEve. Berry, for example, writes: ‘Paul’s carefully constructed analogy between Adamand Christ depends on the equal historicity of both (Romans 5:12-19; see also 1Corinthians 15:21, 45) (R. J. Berry, ‘This Cursed Earth: Is “the Fall” Credible?’Science and Christian Belief, 11:1, 29-49)Bertolet, TimPastorBorn c. 1980Yes“Adam is not a symbol or a myth. He was not one who was chosen out of a mass ofalready existing humans nor was he the first at the apex of an evolutionary process.Rather God, through a special act of creation, fashioned him. How do we know? Webear his image. All human beings descend from him and are products of the dust. Paulaffirms a real Adam: a “man of dust.” There was a historical event where Adambecame a living being.”Bimson, John J.OT ScholarBorn c. 1950NoBird, Michael F.Theologian andNT ScholarBorn 1974Blocher, HenriTheologianBorn 1937YesBlomberg, CraigL.NT ScholarBorn 1955Yes, butnot thefirsthuman“Looking at ways in which such an account of humanity might be integrated with anevolutionary understanding of human origins, we found the model developed byRaymund Schwager more attractive than the ‘Neolithic Adam’ model. Not only isSchwager’s view more sensitive to the nature of the Genesis narrative (understood as asymbolic story or extended metaphor rich in mythological motifs), it also points toways in which the nature of sin and its spread may be understood psychologically andanthropologically.”“Because I am convinced by cosmology and geology that the earth is old and findnothing in Scripture to contradict that. I lean toward progressive creationism as themost biblically and scientifically satisfying option. Even so, I maintain belief in aliteral Adam and Eve for several reasons:” [genetics, genre, Paul in NT]“Though we feel uncomfortable with all the uncertainties when we try to correlatescientific data and the results of a sensible interpretation of Genesis 1.4, we maymaintain as plausible the hypothesis that the biblical Adam and Eve were the firstparents of our race, some 40,000 years ago.”“I would support an old-earth creationism and opt for a combination of progressivecreation and literary-framework approach to Genesis 1. I lean in the direction of[Derek] Kidner’s approach to Genesis 2-3 but am open to other proposals.”March 23, 2020YesPaul BrugginkRev. 1.5ReferenceReason for ViewJohn J. Bimson, “Doctrines ofthe Fall and Sin AfterDarwin,” in Michael S.Northcott and R. J. Berry(Eds.), Theology after Darwin(Milton Keynes: Paternoster,2009), p. 114Tim Bertolet, “The HistoricalAdam and Jesus'Resurrection,” Place for us-resurrection, July22, 2015John J. Bimson, “Doctrines ofthe Fall and Sin AfterDarwin,” in Michael S.Northcott and R. J. Berry(Eds.), Theology after Darwin(Milton Keynes: Paternoster,2009), p. 122Michael F. Bird, EvangelicalTheology: A Biblical andSystematic Introduction(Zondervan, 2013), p. 654Henri Blocher, Original Sin(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1997), p. 42.NT referencesCraig L. Blomberg, Can WeStill Believe the Bible: AnEvangelical Engagement withContemporary Questions(BrazosPress, 2014), p. 177Evolution with ahistorical AdamNT referencesEvolution withouthistorical AdamLiteral or literaryGenesisLiteral or literaryGenesis4

WriterViewWere Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, NoA Survey of ViewsDiscussion“The Genesis account of Original Sin by an individual Adam is borne witness throughtwo thousand years of Christian miracles, singularly instanced in the resurrection ofJesus Christ, the Redeemer promised by God after the Fall. This is the foundation forbelief by Christians that two literal first parents, Adam and Eve, actually existed at thebeginning of human history. Regardless of how literally or figuratively one may readGenesis itself, thus is established the rational credibility of a literal Adam and Eve — acredibility which comports perfectly with what philosophy demonstrates about theneed for a first true human being, and what theology teaches about the first truehumans being the biblical Adam and Eve, from whom all true human beings arebiologically descended.”“That being the case, those of us who seek fidelity to the fathers should likewiserefrain from overly conflating Scripture with science, in order to bring realisticexpectations to each. This means that we would have no reason to manipulate orignore scientific findings that do not appear to accord with the Genesis accounts, sincethey operate on a different register. This separation is important for us because, unlikethe fathers, we do have data that would make a sheerly scientific and historicalinterpretation of Genesis 1-3 well nigh impossible, despite some modern authors’ bestefforts.”“I am currently inclined to the view that Adam was, in fact, a historical figure. At thesame time, the fact that I say I am “inclined” toward this view indicates that I do notsee this belief as central to the orthodox Christian faith.”Bonnette, DennisPhilosopherBorn c. 1944’Roman CatholicYesBouteneff, PeterC.TheologianBorn c. 1961OrthodoxNoBoyd, GregTheologian andPastorBorn 1957MaybeBrunner, EmilTheologian1889 - 1966No“It has been popular among many 20th century theologians, particularly those usuallylabeled "Neo-orthodox," to deny the historicity of Adam. Emil Brunner spoke of Adamas mythical, not historical. What Genesis 3 gives us, Brunner said, is story but nothistory.”Buchanan, ScottChemicalEngineerBorn c. 1950No“We have shown that the uproar over the loss of a specially-created Adam and Eve hasno basis. The vaunted covenantal headship of Adam is not taught in the Bible at all,and the two big Pauline references to the Fall (I Cor 15 and Romans 5) are incidentaladd-ons to Paul’s main discussions, not stand-alone teachings. Adam’s sin is barelymentioned anywhere else in the entire Bible, except of course in Genesis 3. The wholerest of the New Testament, including Jesus’ teachings, develops the universalsinfulness of mankind quite apart from Adam.”March 23, 2020Paul BrugginkRev. 1.5ReferenceReason for ViewDennis Bonnette, “TheRational Credibility of aLiteral Adam and Eve,”Espíritu, LXIV (2015), 303320 (318)Literal or literaryGenesisPeter C. Bouteneff,Beginnings: Ancient ChristianReadings of the BiblicalCreation Narratives(BakerAcademic, 2008), p.183Evolution withouthistorical AdamGregory A. Boyd, “Whetheror Not There was a HistoricalAdam, Our Faith Is Secure,”in Four Views on HistoricalAdam (Zondervan, 2013), p.255Robert B. Strimple, “WasAdam ource/was-adamhistoricalScott Buchanan, “Adam, theFall, and Evolution:Christianity Today andWORLD Push the tianity-today-and-worldget-it-wrong/Not requireddoctrinallyGenesis not literalhistoryNot requireddoctrinally5

WriterViewBurge, TedPhysicist andTheologianc. 1925 - 2010NoByl, JohnAstronomerBorn c. 1947YesCaneday, A. B.NT ScholarBorn c. 1965YesClouser, RoyPhilosopherBorn 1937Yes, butnot thefirsthumanCole-Turner, RonTheologianBorn 1948NoColling, RichardG.BiologistBorn c. 1954NoMarch 23, 2020Were Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, NoA Survey of ViewsDiscussion“Apart from some general considerations, such as the implication that sin angers Godand leads to punishment, sometimes tempered with mercy, there is not much evidencein these [Genesis] stories concerning what Christians should believe today. Some aremost unlikely to be based on historical events. . . These stories depend on the deepseated beliefs of the writers and give evidence of how much more developed is theNew Testament understanding of God” (p. 98).“. The Bible clearly teaches that Adam and Eve were the first humans, from whom allother humans descend. Consider, for example, "Then the Lord God said, it is not goodfor man to be alone, I will make a helper fit for him" (Gen.2:18); "The man calledwife's name Eve, for she was the mother of all living" (Gen.3:20). After the Flood, itwas of Adam's offspring, Noah's sons, that it is stated, "from these the people of thewhole earth dispersed" (Gen.9:19). Moreover, Paul states, "he made from one manevery nation of mankind to live on the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26).”“If Adam was not the first human and progenitor of all humanity, as Genesis and theapostle Paul affirm, then the gospel of Jesus Christ inescapably fall suspect—becausethe Gospel of Luke unambiguously traces the genealogy of Jesus Christ back throughJoseph, who was thought to be his father, all the way back through Enos, to Seth, thento Adam, and finally to God (Luke 3:18).”“I definitely take Adam and Eve to be real people, namely, the first to be offered acovenant by God. But not only does Genesis not say they were the first humans or thatall humans descended from them, but in Rom. 5 Paul refers to the fact that beforeAdam "sin was already in the world" but God didn't hold it against them becausewhere He has given no law (covenant) He does not hold people responsible forworshipping false gods. Augustine has not served us well join these points, and theresult has been a lot of needless agonizing by Xns who take science seriously but alsowant to be faithful to God's Word.”“Concerning the idea of an historical Adam and Eve, our claim is simply that Christiantheology has nothing to fear from their disappearance. The end of Adam and Eve ashistorical figures is a gift to Christianity. They have never been the main point ofChristian theology, and for theology to cling to them today is itself a dead end.”“Strict literal interpretations of Biblical accounts that proclaim the creation of the firstman to be from the actual physical dust of the earth are equally dubious. Such literalthinking is perhaps technically and scientifically accurate, since we are all creatures ofcarbon. However, when it is combined with the section describing the creation of thefirst woman from a rib of a man, these stories raise serious and understandablequestions in the minds of many as to their real purpose.”Paul BrugginkRev. 1.5ReferenceReason for ViewTed Burge, Science & theBible: Evidence-BasedChristian Belief (Philadelphia:Templeton Foundation Press,2005)Genesis not literalhistoryJohn Byl, “Combining Adamand ombining-adam-andevolution.html,October 31, 2013Literal or literaryGenesisA. B. Caneday, “TheLanguage of God and Adam’sGenesis & Historicity inPaul’s Gospel,” SouthernBaptist Journal of Theology,15.1 (2011), p. 27Roy Clouser, comment inAmerican ScientificAffiliation Open Forum topic“Historical Adam: Yes or pic 1140247&page 1#post 1172608, Nov. 9,2015Ron Cole-Turner, The End ofAdam and Eve: Theology andthe Science of Human Origins(Pittsburgh: Theology PlusPublishing, 2016), p. 174Richard G. Colling, RandomDesigner: Created from Chaosto Connect with the Creator(Bourbonnais, IL: 2004), p.113Doctrinal necessityNot requireddoctrinallyEvolution withouthistorical AdamGenesis not literalhistory6

WriterCollins, C. JohnOT ScholarBorn 1954ViewYes, butnot thefirsthumanWere Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, NoA Survey of ViewsDiscussion“Adam and Eve are at the headwaters of the human race. This follows from the unifiedexperience of humankind. . . . If someone should become convinced that that therewere, if fact, more human beings than just Adam and Eve at the beginning ofhumankind, then in order to maintain good sense, he or she should envision thesehumans as a single tribe of closely related members.”Collins, Francis S.PhysicianGeneticistBorn 1950Collins, RobinPhilosopherBorn c. 1962No (?)“Many sacred texts do indeed carry the clear marks of eyewitness history, and asbelievers we must hold fast to these truths. Others, such as the stories of Job andJonah, and of Adam and Eve, frankly do not carry the same historical ring” (p. 209).Yes“I would suggest that ‘Adam’ should also be understood as having a historicalreference, as also representing what could be called the ‘stem-father’ of the humanrace. In evolutionary terms, such a ‘stem-father’ would be the first group of evolvinghominids who gained moral and spiritual awareness. ” (p. 486)Conway Morris,SimonPaleontologistBorn 1951No (?)“In his [Simon Conway Morris’s] understanding of evolution, God’s creation isincredibly rich and fertile, producing not just life but human life. He doesn’t claim anyproof of the existence of God, but he does think belief in God is congruent with whatevolution reveals.”Cootsona, GregFormer Pastor,Lecturer inReligious Studiesand HumanitiesBorn c. 1962No“In fact, the doctrine of creation makes two primary affirmations: we are created inGod’s image, and the world is not fully consistent with God’s intentions. We can alsobe open to reading the Bible and seeing Adam as a type and representative for allhumanity. Put simply, Christians believe God created us and our world. We canremain open as to how this was accomplished it and avoid dictating the best way forGod to create. Instead we are to look concretely and openly at the evidence as to howGod has created (in this case, largely through the evolutionary processes). And weconfess as Christians that, like Adam, we are created good, but we have chosen to beseparated from God, and therefore we have responded to redemption in Jesus Christ.”March 23, 2020Paul BrugginkRev. 1.5ReferenceC. John Collins, “A HistoricalAdam: Old-Earth CreationView,” in Matthew Barrett &Ardel B. Caneday, Four Viewson the Historical Adam(Zondervan, 2013), p. 172.Francis S. Collins, TheLanguage of God: A ScientistPresents Evidence for Belief(New York: Free Press, 2006)Robin Collins, “Evolution andOriginal Sin,” in Perspectiveson an Evolving Creation,Keith Miller, Editor (GrandRapids: William B.Eerdsmans, 2003)Tim Stafford, The AdamQuest: Eleven Scientists whoHeld on to a Strong Faithwhile Wrestling with theMystery of Human Origins(Thomas Nelson, 2013), p.180Greg Cootsona, “Darwin,Adam, and the Fall: MyContribution to the HistoricalAdam win-adam-and-fallmy-contribution-to.html,July 08, 2014Reason for ViewDoctrinal necessityGenesis not literalhistoryEvolution with ahistorical AdamGenesis not literalhistoryEvolution withouthistorical Adam7

WriterViewWere Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, NoA Survey of ViewsDiscussionReferenceReason for ViewCraig, WilliamLanePhilosopherBorn 1949Yes“The really hard part for that, though, is that Jesus and Paul seemed to take it literally.They seem to think that there really was such a person as Adam in which case you’dhave to either say that they were wrong (which raises all kinds of problems) or youcould say that this was just a part of their incidental beliefs but not part of what theyactually taught. For example, Paul may well have believed that the Earth was flat forall we know. . . . It is a really difficult problem as to how you are going to sort thisout. For that reason, I am inclined to stick with the literal Adam and Eve untilabsolutely forced by the evidence to abandon that view. I think we are far from thatpoint.”William Lane Craig, “TheHistorical Adam and al-adam-and-eve,02-01-2015NT referencesCrisp, OliverTheologianBorn 1972No“Traditionally, Christians have thought that our first parents sinned, and weinherited the consequences of their transgression in original sin. That pictureseems rather more difficult to square with current scientific views about humanorigins and the size of breeding populations of humans (which are much largerthan one pair at any one time). But suppose humans developed from otherhominids. At some time in their development the members of this early humancommunity come to know God (perhaps it is a moment in time, perhaps ithappens over the course of some time). However, through some primeval actor acts of dereliction these early humans come to be estranged from God, amoral condition that is passed on to succeeding generations of humanity.”Oliver Crisp, “Original Sinand Human human-origins,February 23, 2016Evolution withouthistorical AdamCunningham,ConorTheologian &PhilosopherBorn 1972No“We understand Adam only in virtue of the one true Adam, or, to put it more strongly,the only Adam. Thus all such talk of whether Adam was historically real or not (whichatheists such as Dawkins deny and creationists affirm) rests on atheistic presumptions.These presuppositions, it happens, are also profoundly fundamentalist (an antidote tothis might be to force both ultra-Darwinists and creationists to read the Song of Songsliterally). Adam, the idea of a Fall, and so on can be revealed only in Christ—if we areto remain faithful to the Church Fathers. It is folly to interpret the Fall or the existenceof Adam in either positivistic terms or strictly historical terms, in the sense that there isno Fall before Christ.” (p. 378)“The existence of a genuine first human couple and a first act of disobedience againstGod have been challenged. In defense of both population genetics and a historicalAdam and Eve, the described model illustrates how both the biblical and geneticrecords can be accounted for by interbreeding between hominids and the offspring of agenuine first human couple. The model preserves and understanding of a first sin(whether original or ancestral) as described both in Genesis and in the writings of Paul,and also potentially resolves the biblical conundrums of who Cain was afraid of inGenesis 3 [sic], and the enigmatic identity of the “Sons of God” and the Nephilim inGenesis 6.Conor Cunningham, Darwin’sPious Idea: Why the UltraDarwinists and CreationistsBoth Get It Wrong (GrandRapids: Eerdsmans, 2010)Not requireddoctrinallyGregg Davidson, “Genetics,the Nephilim, and theHistoricity of Adam,”Perspectives on Science andChristian Faith, Vol. 67, No. 1(March 2015, 24-34)Evolution with ahistorical AdamDavidson, GreggGeologistBorn 1963March 23, 2020Yes, butnot thefirsthumanPaul BrugginkRev. 1.58

WriterViewDay, Allan J.PhysiologistBorn 1927NoDeaneDrummond, CeliaTheologianBorn 1956NoDembski, WilliamMathematician,Philosopher andTheologianBorn 1960DeYoung, KevinTheologian &PastorBorn 1977YesDomning, DarylP.Paleontologist,Anatomist, andEvolutionaryBiologistBorn 1947NoMarch 23, 2020YesWere Adam and Eve historical? Yes, Maybe, NoA Survey of ViewsDiscussion“It is therefore possible to envisage two ‘Biblical Adams’, the first a generic Adam,humanity, in Gen. 1-3, with a more definitive historic individual Adam taking shape inGen. 4 and beyond. The generations of historical (Neolithic) A

Mar 23, 2020 · Gregg R. Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Zondervan, 2011), p. 360. Doctrinal necessity Beall, Todd S. OT Scholar Born 1952 Yes “The evidence throughout the Scripture is that Adam and Eve are historical persons created uniquely by God as the univ