Historical Adam and Eve

Historical Adam & Eve

Enns vs Swamidass

Address the notion that modern science on human origins undermines the reliability of the Bible.

• Two Approaches
  1. Contextualize the way we read Genesis (ANE)
  2. Re-frame the discussion and the data (Swamidass)
• How would each respond?
  • “Modern genetic science rules out a historical Adam and Eve?”
    • Enns’ conclusion
  • “Scientific and biblical models of human origins are incompatible”
    • Swamidass’ conclusion
  • “Biblical literalism is not an option for responsibly reading Genesis 2-3 on Adam and Eve”
• Contextualize: Some of Enns’ concluding theses are illustrative

  1. Thesis 1: Literalism is not an option

     either/or thinking is bad

  2. Thesis 2: Scientific and biblical models of human origins are, strictly speaking, incompatible because they speak a different “language.” They cannot be reconciled, and there is no “Adam” to be found in an evolutionary scheme.

  3. Thesis 3: The Adam story in Genesis reflects its acient Near Eastern setting and should be read that way.

  4. Thesis 4: There are two creation stories in Genesis: the Adam story is probably the older and was subsumed under Genesis 1 after the exile in order to tell the Israel’s story.

     Whose grammatical / historical context?

  5. Thesis 5: The Israel-centered focus of the Adam story can also be seen in its similarity to Proverbs: the story of Adam is about failure to fear God and attain wise maturity.

     Does help address the question: does science overturns the bible?

  6. Thesis 6: God’s solution through the resurrection of Christ reveals the deep, foundational plight of the human condition, and Paul expresses that fact in the biblical idiom available to him.

  7. Thesis 7: A proper view of inspiration will embrace the fact that God speaks by means of the cultural idiom of the authors—whether it be the author of Genesis in describing origins or how Paul would later come to understand Genesis. Both reflect the setting and limitations of the cultural moment.

  8. Thesis 8: The root of the conflict for many Christians is not scientific or even theological, but group identity and fear of losing what it offers.

  9. Thesis 9: A true rapprochement between evolution and Christianity requires a synthesis, not simply adding evolution to existing theological formulations.

• Re-framing: Biologos vs RTB vs Todd Wood vs Swamidass

  Framing is important - don’t need to accept how the question is framed

Reading Points

• Co-Adamism and the open door of Genesis 4

  • Swamidass’ outside Garden intermarry -> mixed genetic code
  • What if they built the cities centuries later?
  • Chronological issue? “Behold, you have driven me today…” could mean “someday”
  • Adam’s Ancestors: Race, Religion, and the Politics of Human Origins (book rec)
• Pre-Adamism - before Adam - La Peyrère
  • Sin before Adam? Took on moral significant before Adam, then must be people
• Romans 5:12-14
  • Talks about who? Adam
  • If we restrict content to Adam & Eve and their lineage - are the people outside the Garden guilty?
  • Babies are guilty if they are descendants of Adam

• Does Genesis present a single primordial couple?
  • Human race could not be derived from one couple
  • Method I: Max 4 gene forms
  • Method II: Focused on alu repeats
  • Method III: Blocks of genes

Enns Article

• Literalist interpretation not viable
• Adam is the key theological figure – not hold to historicity standards
• Specifically Gen 2-3 is older – substituted Gen 1
• Proper synthesis of evolution and theology

Swamidass Article

• Genealogy implies genetic ancestry
• Universal genealogical (UGA) 3000 years
• UAG unobservable
• Humans outside of the garden
• Defining human in scientific & theological spheres

Origin Discussion

• Define terms “literal” statements are variable
• Don’t be limited to what was told
• Whose grammatical-historical method is used?

Co-Adamism

• Who are the people Cain feared?
• Heiser against co-Adamism & pre-Adamism due to the way it was used
  • Human / sub-humanism