The Fallacy of Biblical Stories, Part 2: Adam & Eve
Welcome to Part 2 of my series exploring the veracity of some biblical stories. If you missed Part 1: The Great Flood & Noah's Ark , feel free to check it out and comment, thanks. The focus of this part will be on what is one of the most well known stories within the bible, Adam & Eve. The bible not only begins with Creation and the creation of Adam & Eve, but the story itself has been a significant influence to art, literature, and poetry. One thing to note is that while the story itself is central to the Abrahamistic religions, each religion seems to have a slightly different take on on the story with regards to the details and interpretations or meanings. For this article, I will focus on the "popular" version of the story (We'll ignore the whole Lilith thing) and break it down, looking at any evidence to determine the veracity of the story. As always, comments and thoughts are welcome. Please try to address the points made and remain on topic. Thank you.
So the story goes something like this : In the beginning (the Genesis account), after God created the Heavens and the Earth, he made a garden (Eden) on Earth where he proceeded to create the first man, Adam, from dust. Adam was bored and wanted some nookie, so God took one of Adam's ribs and created Eve (which makes Eve a transgendered clone of Adam). So Eve is walking around the Garden when a talking serpent (yes, a talking serpent) convinced Eve to eat fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil (the forbidden tree). It should be noted that God previously told Adam not to eat from that tree. God may be omnipotent, but he's apparently a poor landscape planner. He plants a tree in the garden that he does not want them eating from? That's like someone planting poison ivy in their own garden. It won't go well.
But apparently, Eve didn't get the memo about no fruit eating. So the serpent convinces Eve to eat the fruit from the tree. Eve, naked and holding the fruit, offers it to Adam. Adam, apparently being compelled by the power of boners (what else could possibly compel a guy to disobey God?) due to a naked Eve, eats the fruit too. They gain knowledge, including knowledge of evil, shame, and whatever else. As a result, God curses them, expels them from Eden, has angels guard Eden so they cannot reenter, and shows that he can really hold a grudge. And thus, the rest of the human race is born from them. At least Adam got his nookie.
Like I did in Part 1, let's look at the problems associated with the story and examine the evidence. As far as the story goes regarding God creating Adam from dust, if one wants to get reeaalllyy technical about it, that would be an accurate statement, as we are essentially composed of "star dust." All the elements that make us up was formed in stars: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, ect.. Also, whatever happened to the Garden of Eden?But I digress.
1. Evolution makes Adam & Eve impossible : According to Genesis, humans appeared suddenly and practically spontaneously, because God. Never mind that one would have to first prove there's a god to make that assertion credible. The lineage of the human species can be traced back millions of years via the fossil record. Fossils show a clear progression from our earliest species ancestors up to what is now modern humans. The Adam & Eve (whom I will abbreviate as A&E) story states that God created them (modern humans) as we are now. But that flies in the face of Evolutionary theory and there's no evidence that God poofed modern humans into existence.
2. Not enough genetic diversity for a viable population : According to the myth, A&E had 3 male offspring. So we have a starting human population composed of 4 males and 1 female. Correction: 3 males and 1 female (Cain and Abel had a, shall we say, falling out). According to some accounts, Cain & Abel had sisters (possibly from Eve, as she is the "mother of all"). So that evens the playing field a little. But now we're left with incestual nookie ( Giggity ) taking place to perpetuate the species. This poses a problem. Between A&E & family, the human population is now bottlenecked. There is not enough genetic diversity to make the species viable. As a result, generations resulting from inbreeding with cause homozygosity, thereby increasing the chances of progressive genetic problems and recessive traits to appear, which will leave an unhealthy population, less ability to adapt t environmental changes, and ultimately resulting in the reduction of biological fitness and the extinction of the species.
3. Possible death from exposure : Once A&E we're expelled from Eden, they we're left out in the open, lightly clothed, but with no food, no supplies, and no shelter to protect themselves from the elements. Oh yeah, they we're fully mortal too. Sure they now had knowledge and let's assume that knowledge included basic survival skills like building a fire or shelter. They still had no medical care or provisions. Even a minor injury could be fatal, such as an infection from a scratch (I doubt A&E had their vaccinations). It's like if you were to suddenly find yourself deposited in the middle of nowhere with nothing but the clothes you are wearing. Would you be able to survive, let alone reproduce? Let's not forget that before the advent of modern medicine, the maternal/child mortality/morbidity rate was higher than it is today. Eve giving birth to 3 sons is like playing reproductive Russian Roulette. Now, I'm not saying this discredits the A&E story. It is certainly possible that they could have developed the means to continue surviving in the wild. But given the circumstances, the cards were stacked against them.
4. The A&E story is borrowed from other sources : Many biblical stories are borrowed from other sources and A&E is no different. Much like the Noah's Ark story, the A&E story borrows elements from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Basically, Gilgamesh had a plant of immortality which he lost due to a devious snake. He was also lonely so the gods created a companion for him. Also, a woman comes along and causes them to lose their idyllic lives. Is this starting to sound familiar?
So there we have it. The biggest nails in A&E's coffins is our knowledge of evolution and genetics. A literal 2 individuals could not have produced the entire human species. So perhaps it's best to treat the A&E story for what it is, a story and one which may convey some kind of morality tale. And it works just fine like that. But as a literal story, then it falls apart completely.
Tags
Who is online
107 visitors
Part 2 is now ready and posted for your perusal pleasure.
By the way, what's your next story, the 10 plagues in Egypt? Lately there are at least localized recent stories about huge swarms of locusts, destructive flooding, and not so localized although seemingly particularly aimed at the USA a vicious pandemic. Is God saying "Let Trump GO!!!"?
I haven't decided. Although the Plagues would be interesting. My first thought was maybe Jonah and the whale.
Perhaps Trump has "hardened his heart?" Lol
The plagues are a great one. So many rational explanations...but you do have to address them all at once !
Ok, I'll look into the plagues.
I suppose it depends on how lengthy the article becomes. I could break it down into its own 2 or 3 parter depending. But I would try to keep it brief, but to the point.
?
Did you have a question?
Seems by these stories that women are the root of all evil. Imagine that.
A bunch of dudes writing stories claiming women are the reason for the evils of the world. *please note the sarcasm*
In a version of Genesis, there is mention of Adam's first wife Lilith, who was supposedly turned into a demon, depending on the particular religious account. But these stories certain make women out to be inferior or subservient to man. That's a common theme in the Abrahamistic religions.
You're not entirely wrong.
I wonder what that story is
In Jewish mythology, Lilith was Adam's first wife and made from the same dirt and at the same time that Adam was. Essentially, Lilith was an equal to Adam in that regard. Notice how the christian version makes Eve a "byproduct" from Adam, implying she has less worth or value. So Lilith left Adam because he wanted her to be subservient to him. Lilith wasn't having that (she was the original feminist) and she shacked up with archangel Samael. Lilith also features in the Epic of Gilgamesh and also encounters a snake (another similarity with Genesis).
Thank you for the side-bar explanation. I'm not very familiar with the details of Judaism.
I wasn't going to get into a full blown narrative of the story. Only a brief narrative. I previously stated in the article I wasn't going to address the story of Lilith.
She's the reason for the name of the music festival Lilith Fair.
That is true. And remember how some religious conservatives became upset by that?
The Genesis 1 narrative begins with the creation of the universe and culminates with God's special creation of Adam and Eve. Historic Christianity holds that Adam and Eve were the first two humans, uniquely made in God's image, and that all humanity has descended from them. The biblical genealogies (both Old and New Testament), Jesus' teachings, and Paul's epistles all refer to Adam as a real individual.
Genetic, linguistic and pathogen studies support a historical Adam and Eve. This research indicates that humanity arose 1) recently (within the last hundred thousand years or so), 2) at a single location (close to where Bible scholars place the Garden of Eden), and 3) from a small population, arguably as small as a single pair. Much scientific work remains to be done toward refining details, but ample evidence supports the historic Christian idea that all humanity descended from two historical persons, Adam and Eve. https://reasons.org/explore/publications/rtb-101/historical-adam
That's merely what they say. There is nothing offered outside of that or the bible to substantiate such a claim.
That contradicts your YEC view.
Wrong! Paleontological evidence suggests humanity first arose in Africa and migrated from there.
Which as I pointed out in the article is evolutionarily impossible, as there would be bottlenecking of the species and a loss of biological fitness.
Too bad actual scientific evidence refutes that.
As a lover of the movies, I've long believed that life imitates art as much as art imitates life. Have the Jules Verne and H.G.Wells novels not already established that? What of Dick Tracy's watch phone? - a 7 year old girl I helped with her English last year was wearing one. In any event, for a Sci-Fi explanation of the A&E story, I will put together two movies - the 1978 Superman movie and the 1949 movie The Blue Lagoon.
Krypton, the planetary home of the infant Superman is about to explode so his parents put him into a space ship that carries him to Earth, where he not only survives, but thrives. Develop that image into a pair of children with above-average strengths and skills being sent to our planet.
Now shift your thoughts to the 1949 movie The Blue Lagoon, about a young boy and girl being the sole survivors of a shipwreck, and washed up onto a deserted tropical island. They survive, build a shelter, eat the natural produce and grow older, fall in love and have a child - i.e. start giving birth to a whole new generation.
Do you not see the similarities? An open mind can even consider the possibilities. This theory answers your concern about evolution, and provides an at least fictional example of survival and reproduction.
The main problem here, as least with the Blue Lagoon, is the lack of genetic diversity to make the species viable. Under the BL circumstances, to perpetuate the species, inbreeding is necessary. But that will lead to problems and eventually extinction.
As for Superman, he's more of a castaway. At least he has an earthful of females to choose from (Looking at you Lois Lane) and the human species was already well established by the time of his arrival. But his Kryptonian DNA influence will lessen to some degree with each generation after he sires children with Lois Lane. Although, in the comics, Superman's son's power are still developing and adapting and it's been stated that his mixed parentage has the potential to make him more powerful that superman. But I'm not sure of that refers to physical strength or the entire power set. Only in comics, right?
How did the comics get around the fact that species generally (there are exceptions) can't interbreed? Different numbers of chromosomes, and so forth?
This is the comics. Anyone can bang anyone of any race. It can be assumed that any species that is a bipedal hominid has DNA similar enough to produce viable progeny.
Ah. I never read the comics, or not many of them. Not to the point where Clark and Lois had kids, anyway. So I didn't know if they had addressed that point.
Absolutely, Sandy. LOL
It gets hard to keep up and keep track. Especially when the comics gets rebooted or retconned every so often.
There have been stories on the internet now and then about depraved men who were arrested attempting to accomplish production of a Centaur. LOL
What if it turned out as a reverse centaur: head of a horse and the body of a human?
I guess anything is possible...
The all knowing and all powerful God makes the Garden of Eden a perfect place except he puts a trap in it, that being omnipotent, he has to know that what he created in his own image will get into, Then he lets his former top assistant, that he had a falling out with, get loose in the perfect place and cleverly disguised as a talking snake he tricks the creature he made from the rib of his perfect creation into eating an apple that contains what God did not want his top level creation, that he gave dominion of all other creatures, to know.
And what became of the Garden of Eden after Adam and Eve were kicked out? After making a perfect place (and great trap) Did God just let it become an overgrown abandoned jungle?
And why did God want to keep secrets from what he made in his own image?
The logical fails of the story are numerous. All the more reason to take it as just a story.
If you were given knowledge of everything, would you strive to learn more? If everything was made easy, would you attempt to take dangerous chances?
Adam and Eve is a story of genetics and heritage, from the first "married" couple how to strengthen your people through breeding and to enrich your offspring and beyond with inheritance. There is also a prophecy involved much like the Noah story, in which Noah knew ahead of time that there would be a flood and took steps to survive it, Adam and Eve it took even longer, many thousands of years, but man finally figured out the rib that Adam is missing that Eve has.
That missing rib thing would mean that Eve is a clone (a female clone of a male original, no less) and that Adam was reproducing with his own clone.
Interesting story of genetics, there.
A transgendered clone of Adam.
We learn things everyday and continue to strive to learn new things. Even though A&E gained knowledge from the tree, they clearly didn't have knowledge of everything. Otherwise, we would already know everything.
Except inbreeding does not necessarily strengthen a species. It reduces biological fitness over time.
Then man should not have an even number of ribs.
That made me guffaw when I read that.
Glad you liked it. But it would be correct, right?
What you missed there is the part about Adam's rib being a prophecy and also the part about the first "married" couple not the first humans.
sSo given the choice of having everything given to you or taking on the burden of striving for more, we chose the latter, this is the life lesson of A&E, there was no Garden of Eden.
Again there was no inbreeding, they were the first married couple not the first humans, they were selecting mates for their offspring through more arranged marriages.
Then man should not have an even number of ribs. And this is the prophecy I was referencing, like you said, they didn't know everything and man wouldn't gain the knowledge for several millennia later, so the easiest to understand was a rib not deoxy"RIB"oneucleic acid. Otherwise why not create Eve from more dirt, Adam's hair, toenail, or whatever. Adam is XY and Eve XX, man is missing DNA that woman has.
It wasn't really a choice either. We we're deceived into burden.
I tend to agree.
Then that discredits the notion of original sin. If Adam and his descendants were cursed with original sin, then anybody else alive at the should not have it. So original sin cannot be applied to all of mankind. But the concept of original sin is a silly one anyway. It also doesn't make sense that God would create A&E and have them live in an idyllic environments, but create anyone else without the same consideration. Almost as if other humans besides A&E were just an afterthought. That's like a parent playing favorites with their children or a pet owner abandoning their pets. Another factor is, even if there were other people around for procreation purposes, there is nothing to suggest that the available population was large enough to maintain species viability.
It makes no sense that a supposedly omnipotent god would need "construction material" to create man to begin with. After all, this is the same deity that created the universe from nothing, which seems like a significantly bigger job.
So god created humans before A&E? That seems to contradict some interpretations of the Genesis story, which only further diminishes the veracity of the story
Yes.
I assume that's your reply to my question about god creating other humans. Of course, your view on that doesn't coincide with other beliefs or interpretations of the story. Not to mention it doesn't address the points made if that really were the case.
Wouldn't women technically be missing DNA that a man has? The Y is only available through male lineage, X is derived from both and passed through the generations. That's why, despite the documentation of Native American direct ancestors, I do not have any measurable NA DNA; the male lineage (XY) muddled it and "watered it down" so to speak. If it were a direct female (XX) lineage, I would likely have measurable NA DNA. That's my BASIC understanding of how DNA works.
It was reply to your question; "Glad you liked it. But it would be correct, right?" Stating you're correct.
Sorry, i was looking at bccrane's post when I replied to yours. My mistake. I wan't paying enough attention.
Also, the XY chromosome makeup is present in all mammals, not just humans. So the idea that man is "missing" DNA is absurd and outright refuted by that fact.
At least you seem to have a basic understanding. I doubt the same can be said for everyone. But genetics itself is a complicated subject.
Yes, Genetics is very complicated. Even the experts don't understand it all just yet.
True. But they do know the genetic complications and defects which can result from inbreeding. That's why it makes the whole A&E story implausible.
Maternal lineage tracing is more accurate due to mitochondrial DNA. This is DNA that exists outside the nucleus of the cell that we all have, but we inherited it from our mothers, as the mitochondrial DNA in sperm cells is destroyed at the time of fertilization. Mitochondrial DNA does not undergo meiosis, meaning that it isn't combined with paternal mitochondrial DNA. Other than replication errors, a mother passes her mitochondrial DNA as an exact copy to all of her offspring.
However, you should have nuclear DNA that reveals NA heritage. The X and Y chromosomes are only 2 out of our full complement of 46.
An interesting thing to note is that mitochondria have their own unique genome, which suggests the mitochondria probably invaded another prokaryotic cell billions of years ago, probably not long after life arose on Earth. But both cells enjoyed a symbiotic relationship. Isn't evolution awesome?
It is.
That is, unless one (hilariously) thinks evolution is "pseudoscience and a worldwide conspiracy perpetrated by godless scientists."
Did Adam and Eve really exist? Did all humanity originate from a single pair? These questions are not peripheral topics for an academic debate; they are central to the Christian faith.
Toward this end, recent advances in molecular genetics are quite provocative. As Hugh Ross and I discuss in Who Was Adam?, numerous studies indicate that humanity originated: (1) recently (around 100,000 years ago, plus or minus 20,000 years or so); (2) at a single location (East Africa)—close to where some Bible scholars think the Garden of Eden was located; and (3) from a small population
of individuals.
Moreover, analysis of mitochondrial DNA(which provides insight into the origin of the maternal lineage) indicates that humanity traces back to a single ancestral sequence that could be interpreted as a single woman. Likewise, characterization of Y-chromosomal DNA(which provides insight into the origin of the
paternal lineage) indicates that all men trace their origin back to a single ancestral sequence that could be interpreted as a single man.
These astounding results harmonize with a traditional reading of the biblical account of human origins, and suggest that Adam and Eve likely existed as real persons who gave rise to all of humanity.
But Did Adam and Eve Exist? Population Size
Others have challenged this interpretation, arguing that the genetic data shows that humanity arose from thousands of individuals, not two.1 The chief basis for this claim comes from estimates of the ancestral population size of humans based on genetic diversity.
It is possible to estimate the effective population size of any ancestral group from genetic diversity of present-day populations if the mutation rate is known. As discussed in Who Was Adam?, a number of these types of studies do indeed indicate that humans stem from a small population, on the
order of a few hundred to a few thousand.2
Skeptics of the traditional reading of the biblical account of human origins uncritically accept these results. They argue that the data indicate humanity experienced a genetic bottleneck, with the population collapsing to a relatively small number of individuals. Consequently humanity arose from the thousands of survivors, not a primeval pair.
Critics also point to other methods to model the size of the ancestral population that do not depend on mutations, but on other types of processes to generate genetic diversity.3Studies employing these techniques also seem to indicate that humanity arose from population sizes on the order of a few thousand individuals.
What Was the Population Size, Really?
In the face of this challenge, it is important to recognize that population sizes generated by these methods are merely estimates, not hard and fast values. The reason: the mathematical models are highly idealized, generating differing estimates based on a number of factors. As a case in point consider two studies discussed in Who Was Adam? One, reported in 2003 by a Russian and U.S. research team, examined DNA sequence elements called short tandem repeats at 377 locations in the human genome for 1,056 individuals that represented 52 population groups. On the basis of this analysis, they concluded that humanity originated from a single point of origin (apparently Africa), from a small population (~2,000 or less) between 71,000 and 142,000 years ago.4 Although this conclusion was consistent with that of an earlier study of short tandem repeats, the population size estimate from the earlier study was around 500 individuals.5 The reason for the difference (of about 1,500) was due to a varying sample size and number of locations in the human genome that were studied.
Did humanity originate from a single pair? Even though population estimates reveal that humanity originated from several hundred to several thousand individuals based on mathematical models, it could well be the case that these models overestimate the original numbers for the first humans.
And it is important to note that an origin of humanity from a small population is consistent with the existence of a historical Adam and Eve who gave rise to all of humanity. After their creation the biblical text teaches that they procreated––having many sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4). Given the limitations of the methods, could it be that the population estimates are reporting on the population structure of humans some time after their creation, when the population would have been small, on the order of a few thousand? Additionally, skeptics who claim that humanity came from thousands of individuals and not two assume that Adam and Eve were genetically identical. Yet, there is no hint of that idea in Scripture. When Eve is created, God takes material from Adam’s side and rebuilds (bānâ in the original Hebrew) it. Part of this process could have involved the introduction of genetic differences into Eve’s genome that made Adam and Eve genetically heterogeneous.
As with the mouflon sheep, if natural selection drove an increase in genetic diversity in humans, then the estimates of the original population sizes of humanity would be artificially high.
We All Like Sheep?
In 2007 a research team reported on the genetic diversity of wild mouflon sheep on one of the islands that are part of the Kerguelen sub-Antarctic archipelago.6This group of sheep provided researchers with an unprecedented opportunity to study the effects of population dynamics on genetic diversity in small populations.
In 1957 a male and female yearling were placed onto Haute Island (an island in the Kerguelen Archipelago). These two sheep were taken from a captive population in France. By the beginning of the 1970s, the number had grown to 100 individuals and peaked at 700 sheep in 1977. Since that time the population has fluctuated in a cyclical manner between 250 and 700 members. Given that the population began with only two individuals (the founder effect), has experienced cyclical changes in the population size, and was isolated on an island, the researchers expected very low genetic diversity (measured as heterozygosity).
Using mathematical models, the heterozygosity of a population can be computed at any point in time from the heterozygosity of the ancestral population (which was known for the original mouflon pair) and the original population size. What the researchers discovered, however, when they measured this quantity directly for the sheep on Haute Island was that it exceeded the predictions made by the models by up to a factor of 4. In other words, the models underestimated the genetic diversity of the actual population.
The researchers explained this discrepancy by speculating that natural selection drives the increase in genetic diversity, since an increase in genetic variability increases the survivability of the population.
Consequently, if these same models were used to estimate the effective sizes of the ancestral population from the measured genetic diversity at any point in time, they would have overestimated the original population size as much larger than two individuals.
Lastly, the primary reason to think that humanity arose from a single pair does not rest on population estimates, but the fact that the Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA sequences sampled from humans alive today trace back to single ancestral sequences. Again, these can be understood as reflecting an origin from a single man and single woman.
One Lucky Mother, One Lucky Father?
Even though the genetic data traces humanity’s origin back to a single woman and man, evolutionary biologists are quick to assert that mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam were not the first humans. Rather, according to them, many “Eves” and “Adams” existed.7 Accordingly, mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam were the lucky ones whose genetic material just happened to survive. The genetic lines of the other first humans were lost over time.
While this explanation is not out of the realm of possibility, it is highly contrived. It would work if only a few of the first humans reproduced, or were allowed to reproduce. If the data is simply taken at face value, the biblical model is the more parsimonious explanation.
Even though evolutionary biologists offer ways to explain away the implications of the human population genetic data, these explanations—entrenched in naturalism—are not necessarily superior to an interpretation that fully squares with the biblical account. The scientific case for the biblical Adam and Eve stands firm.
Y-chromosome Adam? How Do They Relate to Genesis?” The Biologos Forum, accessed September
17, 2010. https://reasons.org/explore/publications/tnrtb/read/tnrtb/2010/10/01/were-they-real-the-scientific-case-for-adam-and-eve
Agreed.
I saw another show about the Egyptian Pharaohs.
I know, I watch a lot of weird history shows...
Anyway, they were showing how inbreeding from the Pharaohs and royal families degraded not only their physical health but their mental health. They think some started to have deformities.
Having to have only royal blood led to their degradation.
This is well known and documented in some European Royal families, especially the Habsburg family from the 14-1700's. Each generation developed increasingly severe facial deformities as a result.
Exactly. Bloodlines should be like a cocktail: mix in other ingredients from time to time. If you do straight up shots, you're going to get drunk and fall on your ass pretty quick, Lol
Not just facial deformities. Charles II of Spain was so frail that he didn't walk until he was 4, and was likely sterile. Given that his jaw was so deformed he had trouble speaking or eating, sterility was probably a good thing biologically, if not dynastically.
Perfect examples of decreased biological fitness due to inbreeding.
They're pretty sure King Tut did. He was a bit of a genetic mess.
Yeah, I think it was his father that was a total mess too.
When they showed statues of his true self, he was a mess. The weird belly , posture and facial features.
Hemophilia too. Look at the tsars.
Not the only time this is suggested in the bible.
Indeed. The biblical writers seemed to have certain fetishes.
What do you guys think would be a good topic for Part 3: Jonah and the Whale, the 10 plagues of Egypt, the Tower of Babel, or something else you want to explore? I'm open to suggestions.
Plague seems timely.
You're not the first to suggest that.
Plagues are always fun to refute. And more people probably believe in that story than the tower of babel.
True. Although, the Jonah/whale story is also fun, but probably the easiest to refute.
I'd vote for the Jonah story, it should be a cakewalk to refute and have much more comedic potential.
The story practically refutes itself. The comical part would be the attempts to support the story. But I'll give a fair chance.
Given the current plague going on, I'd say run with the 10 "plagues". Will be fun.
I'm thinking I'll do that. I was considering doing the Jonah story first, since it will probably be shorter and easier to analyze, thereby not requiring much time. Addressing each plague might take significantly longer. But a cursory glance at them looks to be easily explained from an objective viewpoint. Perhaps I'll write it this weekend if I have time.
I’ve been investigating murders for over 20 years, and along the way, I’ve learned to appreciate the importance of language selection. Consider the following three statements:
“The Nuggets killed the Lakers last night. They beat ‘em by 25 points.”
“I love this comic; he always kills me!”
“I deeply regret killing my wife, and I wish I could turn back time.”
All three declarations acknowledge the proper definition of the word “kill,” yet only one of these statements is likely to be of interest to a jury in a murder trial. Every time we assess someone’s use of language, we must first examine the context in which the words were spoken. As a 35-year-old skeptic, reading the Bible thoroughly for the first time, I found myself examining the words of Scripture in an attempt to understand Moses’ meaning related to the first two characters in the Biblical narrative: Adam and Eve. Were they real human beings? Were they allegorical figures described by Moses in an attempt to illustrate the plight of early man? Were they written figuratively to represent all of humankind? I knew from my professional work as a detective that the surest way to understand a statement was simply to examine its context and to compare it to other proclamations made by the suspect. As a skeptical seeker, I took the same approach with Adam and Eve. After examining every passage of Scripture, I found the following:
Adam and Eve Were Regarded As Real People
In the earliest accounts of Adam and Eve, Moses described them singularly (in contrast to his plural descriptions of other animal groups). The waters were teeming with swarms of living creatures and the skies were filled with birds (Genesis 1:20); the earth was bringing forth living creatures after their kind (v.24), filling with beasts and cattle. God created with great plurality in every category of creature except humans. Adam and Eve were described as singular individuals. It’s difficult to consider them allegorically or representatively, given that Moses failed to use language that could assist us to do so.
Adam and Eve Responded As Real People
Moses also described Adam and Eve’s behavior in a manner consistent with the behavior of real people. Moses put specific words on their lips as they interacted in the Garden, and like other real people, Adam and Eve responded to one another (and to God). Adam and Eve gave birth to specific individuals, and Moses intentionally noted the age of Adam when some of his children were born (Genesis 5:3-4). Adam’s offspring (Cain, Abel, and Seth, for example) were identified by name and had a personal history of their own, just as we would expect if they, too, were real people.
Adam and Eve Were Recorded As Real People
Moses placed Adam in genealogies alongside other specific individuals who we acknowledge as real, historic human beings. Moses repeatedly recorded the historic lineage of important people (like Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, and Terah) with the expression, “These are the generations of….” Adam was no exception. Moses used this same expression when recording the generations of Adam in Genesis 5:1. Other authors of Scripture repeated this inclusion in the lineage of real humans. Adam appeared in the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 1:1, in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:38), and in Jude’s reference to Enoch (Jude 1:14). These genealogies and references recorded the names of specific, real individuals, and Adam was included in their ranks.
Adam and Eve Were Referenced As Real People
Throughout the Old and New Testament, writers of Scripture referred to Adam as though he was a real person and not an allegory or representative of mankind. Job offered Adam as an example of someone who attempted to hide his sin (Job 31:33). Hosea offered Adam as a specific example of someone who broke his covenant with God (Hosea 6:7). In the New Testament, Paul repeatedly referenced Adam as a real person, calling him the “first man” (1 Corinthians 15:45), and describing both Adam and Eve as specific individuals (1 Timothy 2:13,14).
Adam and Eve Were Held Responsible As Real People
The historic Christian doctrines of sin and salvation hinge on the real existence of Adam as an individual human being, responsible for the introduction of sin into the world. In Romans 5, Paul wrote that sin entered the world “through the one man (Adam)” (verse 12) and that life was (and is) given “through the one man, Jesus Christ” (verse 17). Jesus, as a real man, serves as the remedy for sin; the responsibility for this sin was another real man, Adam. In the context of Paul’s divinely inspired teaching, Adam was every bit as real as Jesus.
Recent genetic research is challenging the notion that all humanity emerged from a single pair of humans, and some Christians are starting to rethink their interpretation of Adam and Eve in response to this challenge. The number of unanswered questions continues to grow. How reliable are the scientific conclusions? How can Adam and Eve be the source of all humanity if genetic research seems to indicate a much larger original group? Is there an interpretation of Scripture that can reconcile this apparent contradiction?
As Christians work to reconcile the nature of scientific evidence with the claims of the Bible, one thing is clear: The writers of Scripture describe Adam and Eve as real, historic individuals. CLICK TO TWEET
I’ve learned an important truth over the years as a detective: Every case has unanswered questions, and we successfully prosecute suspects in spite of this reality. We first acknowledge what is evidentially clear, and thensearch for reasonable explanations in the areas that are less certain. As Christians work to reconcile the nature of scientific evidence with the claims of the Bible, one thing is evidentially clear: The writers of Scripture describe Adam and Eve as real, historic individuals. We must begin here and then search for reasonable explanations in the areas that are less certain.
This article first appeared in SALVO, Issue 26.
J. Warner Wallace is a Dateline featured Cold-Case Detective, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Adj. Professor of Christian Apologetics at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, author of Cold-Case Christianity, God’s Crime Scene, and Forensic Faith, and creator of the Case Makers Academy for kids. https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/the-biblical-case-for-adam-and-eve/
This settles it. Adam and Eve were real people in their time and were the first two humans on this Earth placed here by God who created them on the 6th day of creation week.
What is your supporting argument? If your argument is:
Then your argument is nothing more than 'because some people believe they were real'.
Settles what? You haven't settled anything.
That's nice. Prove it!
Basically, all that is being said in a nutshell is that A&E were referenced in a story which some people believed. Therefore, they must have been real. By that same rationalization, one could say Harry Potter is real because there stories about him, which people have referenced, and there the characters responded as shown in the story. Harry Potter's home address is even given in the story. The problem is, the so-called "skeptic" looked at scripture (A bunch of stories) and didn't look at the science behind the story.
Confirmation bias.
Yes.
And with that we are all the product of incest. Hell of a god they have there.
The Fallacy of Biblical Stories, Part 3: The 10 Plagues of Egypt is now posted.