Jonathan Sarfati – Genesis: Bible Authors Believed it to be History

Ever had someone tell you, ‘You’re missing the whole point! The purpose of Genesis is to teach that God is our Creator. We should not be divisive over the small details. Genesis teaches the theological truth of “Who?” and “Why?” not about the “How?” and “When?”’ Or else they say that the Bible is a book for faith and morality, not history.

An obvious answer is, why should we trust Genesis when it says God created if we can’t trust it on the details? After all, Jesus told Nicodemus, ‘I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?’ (John 3:12). So if Genesis can’t be trusted on an earthly thing, such as Earth’s age, the sequence of creative acts upon it, or the Flood that covered it, then why trust it on a heavenly thing such as who the Creator was? Also, if Genesis 1 were merely meant to tell us that God is creator, then why simply not stop at verse 1, all that’s necessary to state this?

However, the critic has overlooked something even more important—Genesis is written as real history. This is why the rest of the Bible treats the events, people and time sequences as real history, not parables, poetry or allegory.

What does the rest of Scripture say?

The age and unique creation of Adam and Eve mattered to Jesus

When teaching about marriage, Jesus said:

‘But at the beginning of creation God “made them male and female. … For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one’ (Mark 10:6–8).

Here, Jesus quoted Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 about a real first man and first woman who became the first couple, and this was the basis for marriage between one man and one woman today. Not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or more than two people. Evolution teaches instead that a whole population of humans evolved from a population of ape-like creatures.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Terry Mortenson – Adam, Morality, the Gospel, and the Authority of Scripture

Introduction

In the preceding chapters several important propositions have been thoroughly established.

1. Genesis 1–11 clearly teaches, and the rest of the Bible confirms, that God supernaturally created Adam from dust and Eve from his rib (not from any pre-existing living creature) on the sixth literal 24-hour day of history a little over 6,000 years ago.

2. All humans are uniquely made in the image of God and all humans who have ever lived are descended from Adam and Eve, regardless of their language, skin color, eye shape, etc. There is only one race — Adam’s race.

3. Until the 20th century, this was the universal belief of Bible-believing Christians about Adam (except for some in the late 19th century who after denying any chronological value to the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 pushed back the date of Adam’s creation several tens of thousands of years).

4. The fossil evidence does not support the idea of human evolution, but rather confirms Genesis. Controlled by a naturalistic (i.e., atheistic) worldview, the evolutionists have misinterpreted the evidence. The public has been deceived by imaginative art and relentless dogmatic claims that do not survive careful scrutiny.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

John MacArthur – The First Adam, the Last Adam, and the Gospel

Was Adam a Real Person?

The church has historically affirmed that Adam was a historical man, yet with the acceptance of evolutionary science, some now claim that this is not the case. Those who believe that the earth is millions or billions of years old will not accept that God fully formed the human Adam a few days after creating the universe. However, Genesis presents Adam as a real historical man, not the result of eons of evolution.

The simplest and most natural interpretation of Genesis 1 declares that God created the specific person Adam on the sixth day of creation. Genesis 2 then offers more detail on the creation of Adam and Eve. Adam’s connection with other historical persons supports the claim that he was indeed a specific person. Adam is the father of Cain, Abel, and Seth (Gen. 4:1–2, 25; 5:1–3). Adam is also said to have had conjugal relations with his wife Eve to bear Cain and Seth, and Genesis 5:3 further states that Adam fathered Seth at age 130. These details cannot be legitimately identified as poetic or figurative language describing something other than reality.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Terry Mortenson – When Was Adam Created?

Introduction

When did Adam come into existence? Evolutionists say Homo sapiens came into existence 200,000 to 400,000 years ago (depending on which evolutionist you consult, because they do not all agree on what a Homo sapiens is). Can we harmonize that with the teaching of God’s Word? Today, many Christians, including many leaders and scholars, think they can.

From my reading and interaction with old-earth creationists of all varieties in 25 countries over the last 35 years, I think one reason many of them think they can harmonize the two is that they have not paid very careful attention to the relevant biblical texts. They have just assumed that the scientists have proven the age of the creation to be billions of years and the age of mankind to be many tens or hundreds of thousands of years. They often recite the mantra that “the Bible is not a science textbook” (thereby confusing the vital difference between origin science and operation science, as discussed in this book’s introduction). Therefore, it is claimed, the Bible does not deal with the issue of the age of mankind or even how man came into existence.

Another reason that a great many Christians think that the age of man and the universe does not matter and that the scientific establishment’s view does not conflict with Scripture is because they or their teachers have been influenced by William Henry Green.1 The famous Old Testament professor at Princeton Theological Seminary wrote an article in 1890 in which he argued that “the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 were not intended to be used, and cannot properly be used, for the construction of a chronology.”2 He concluded that “the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world.”3 In other words, Green contended, the Bible is silent about the age of man and also the age of the earth and universe, so scientists are free to determine these ages according to the scientific evidence, and Christians need not reject or fear any date so determined.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Russell Grigg – Pre-Adamic Man: Were there Human Beings on Earth before Adam?

jungle

Could there have been human creatures, commonly called ‘pre-Adamites’, living on Earth before God created Adam? Many readers, no doubt, will think this a foolish question, but it is, in fact, the belief of many evangelicals. And leading ‘progressive creationist’ Hugh Ross teaches something similar when he says that “bipedal, tool-using, large-brained primates roamed Earth for hundreds of thousands (perhaps a million) years”.

Ross does not believe in biological evolution, although he accepts cosmic and geologic evolution and the evolutionary timescale. He also believes in the same general sequence of events and the same order of appearance as evolutionists. Although he believes that God made Adam from the dust, he also accepts the evolutionists’ long-age interpretation of the fossil record. But human fossils are found ‘dated’ earlier than Adam’s genealogies could possibly allow. This requires Ross to postulate the existence of creatures with human-like characteristics, but ‘spiritless’ (see Skull Wars).2,3 Ross says, “… these creatures went extinct before Adam and Eve came on the scene.”

Why did they ‘become extinct’? According to Ross, because the world was a place of death, violence and decay for hundreds of thousands/millions of years before the Curse recorded in Genesis 3:14–19. He makes the extraordinary statement: “The step-by-step approach to bipedal primate creation that we can see in the recent fossil record may reasonably reflect God’s understanding of the difficulty other life-forms would encounter in adapting to sinful humans.”

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Andrew Sibley – Adam as the Protoplast: Views from the Early Church in Response to the Archetypal View

adam-eve

Modern theologians concerned with harmonising Christian belief with the theory of evolution question the historicity of Adam and Eve as the first-formed individuals and seminal heads of the whole human race. Instead, Adam and Eve are seen as federal heads, or archetypes of humanity according to John Walton — just one couple amongst other humans alive at the time. But are such scholars being consistent with the intention of the biblical authors and readings of the Bible from Church tradition? In his Rejoinder in Four Views on the Historical Adam, Walton suggests that the Church Fathers did not have access to modern interpretive tools, and their exegetical objectives are suspect.

However, in holding in balance the literal and symbolic readings of Scripture they were more in harmony with Hebraic exegesis than dualistic Hellenistic readings that emphasise the figurative and reject the literal. As noted in a previous paper, Genesis 2:7 uses the Hebrew word yatsar (to form) to indicate the creation of Adam from the dust of the ground and this has consequences for our understanding of the text. In the LXX yatsar is translated using the Greek verb plassō (πλάσσω) meaning to form, mould or shape, as an artist working in clay in Genesis 2:7. “And the Lord God formed [Greek: ἔπλασεν, eplasen] man”. Although, in the LXX there is some fluidity in the use of words and on occasions yatsar is translated as poieō (Greek ποιέω, in English: to do, to make) in the LXX. The word πλάσσω is, however, used in the New Testament and amongst many of the Church Fathers when it speaks of Adam as the first-formed man, or the protoplast of mankind.

This paper will explore and discuss comments by the Church Fathers in relation to Adam and Eve as the first-formed individuals and ancestors of all humans. It is of course relevant to note that protoplast is used amongst the Church Fathers in a different sense than that of modern biology.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Simon Turpin – Genesis 2: Defending the Supernatural Creation of Adam

adam-and-eve

Today, there is a significant paradigm shift taking place within the evangelical academy in its approach to understanding the identity of Adam. Due to a mixture of biblical and secular reasons, an increasing number of evangelical scholars are beginning to deny the supernatural creation of Adam. Genesis 2:4–25 clearly identifies Adam as the first man who was supernaturally created with no direct animal forbearers. The following paper offers an answer to the biblical and textual objections given by prominent theologians who reject this view of Adam.

It is probably safe to say that the combination of Darwin’s model of evolution in Origin of Species and the rise of uniformitarian science in the 1800s has influenced the understanding of Genesis 1–11 more than anything else. Jewish scholar Louis Jacobs acknowledges this with regards to the interpretation of Adam:

There is no doubt that until the nineteenth century Adam and Eve were held to be historical figures, but with the discovery of the great age of the earth…many modern Jews [and Gentiles] have tended…to read the story as a myth.

The post-enlightenment emphasis on rationalism (i.e., man’s reason as authority as opposed to God’s reason as authority), together with the rise of biblical criticism and evolutionary ideas, has laid the foundation for the debate on the subject of the historicity of Adam and whether he was the sole progenitor of the human race. Consequently, critical scholars have long denied the historicity of Adam, as have neo-orthodox theologians. Karl Barth, for example, believed Genesis 1–3 was neither myth nor history but a saga and denied that Adam was a historical figure. Instead, he preferred to see Adam as being a symbol for everyone.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Simon Turpin – How Do Some Among You Say There Is No Adam?

adam-and-eve

1 Corinthians 15: Adam and the Gospel

Introduction: Greek Philosophy and the Rejection of Adam

The Apostle Paul often found himself in a cultural context in which he had to deal with many objections to the Christian faith. In 1 Corinthians 15, for example, the Corinthian congregation was questioning the future resurrection of believers: “How do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Corinthians 15:12).

The Corinthians struggled with the idea of a bodily resurrection because it did not fit into their cultural worldview. The city of Corinth was permeated with Greek philosophy. The Greeks loved speculative philosophy and were proud of their intellect as they sought after and trusted in the “wisdom of men” (1 Corinthians 1:22, 2:5). In their own wisdom, some of the Corinthians rejected the resurrection from the dead because of the Greek idea of the immortality of the soul apart from the body. Many saw the body (matter) as corrupt and not worthy of any form of immortality, and therefore mocked the idea that it would be resurrected (Acts 17:32).

Two thousand years later, not much has changed. Just as the culture in Paul’s day was permeated with Greek philosophy, so it is today. The worldview that undergirds Darwinian evolutionary thought is essentially Greek at its core.1 Many Christians are still integrating Greek philosophy into Christianity; however we have just given it the name science rather than philosophy.

Whereas Paul specifically asked how the Corinthians could say there is no resurrection, today’s Christians must ask, “How do some among you say there is no Adam?” Because Greek thinking has been synthesized with biblical thinking, it is becoming increasingly popular among many evangelicals to reject a historical Adam.2 Theistic evolutionist Denis Lamoureux believes not only that Adam never existed, but also that this fact has no impact whatsoever on the foundational beliefs of Christianity. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 15:1–7 he states:

This is the Gospel as stated in the Bible, and there is no mention whatsoever of Adam and whether or not he existed. Christian faith is founded on Jesus, not Adam…We must also separate, and not conflate, the historical reality of Jesus and His death and bodily resurrection from the fact that Adam never existed.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Michael Boling – Lessons From the Garden: Existence, Relationships, and Processes – The Tragedy of Sin

quotescover-JPG-60

Something happened in Genesis 3 that shifted the course of history and impacted the entire universe. It seemed like such an innocent or unimportant action as after all, what is the big deal with eating something? We all need to eat right? Shouldn’t we as humans be able to decide for ourselves our own actions and what we believe to be right and wrong, if there even is such a thing?

Such a series of questions is potentially what was going through the minds of Adam and Eve as they pondered the tempting words of Ha-Satan that fateful day in the Garden. Whatever type of food grew on the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was being talked up with God’s command to not partake of that tree being questioned. Adam and Eve both gave in to the lure and the lies of the enemy, thus disobeying God’s singular and clear command of “Do not eat”. As a covenant, God’s command to Adam and Eve had two consequences attached to it – Do not eat and you will live; Eat and dying you shall die. Disobedience of God’s commands is noted throughout Scripture as sin. Thus, the actions of Adam and Eve in disobeying God was sin and their sinful deed thrust the entire created order into disarray just as God had declared it would if they disobeyed His command.

As we continue to examine the threefold issue of existence, relationships, and processes, we have moved from a state of perfection to a place where sin has impacted the entire construct of the universe. Our current existence is perfectly described in Romans 8:22 which states, “For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.” Why does it groan? It groans under the weight and impact of the consequences of sin.

God made a covenant with Adam in the Garden – do not eat of the tree and you will live; eat of the tree and dying you shall die. In breaking the terms of that agreement by sinning against God’s command, Adam introduced a drastic change to humanity’s existence. No longer would man live in perfect harmony with nature and his fellow man with eternal physical life being the norm. In sinning, Adam and Eve were removed from the Garden and from the physical presence of their Creator. Instead of tending a lush Garden and having dominion over creation, thorns, thistles, and enmity between, man and fellow man and man and creation was the new norm. The travails of childbirth was the new norm. Furthermore, our existence now included a constant battle between the seed of Ha-Satan and the seed of the woman, a constant struggle against not just the daily battle to survive physically, but also spiritually. Our very existence post-sin experienced a dramatic shift from a place of perfection to the groaning we now see all around us.

This alteration of our existence post-sin also has a massive impact on relationships. As we noted above, man was removed from the Garden and from the physical presence of God. Sin impacts our relationship with God. He is holy and that which is not holy cannot enter His presence. We fight the constant battle of the lure of the flesh versus obedience to God’s commands for righteous living. Our hearts chase after evil rather than being in passionate love with our Creator. We have a broken relationship with our God that needs mending. Sin also impacts our relationship with our fellow human beings. God gave us His commands so that we might understand what it means to love God and others. When we watch the evening news, it is evident that man’s relationship with man is marred by murder, lust, envy, jealousy, rage, theft, adultery with these just being the tip of the iceberg regarding man’s inhumanity to man. Our relationships with others are broken and need mending.

Finally, we come to the issue of processes. Earlier I mentioned the aspect of God’s covenant with Adam that if he disobeyed God’s command, dying he would die. Sin introduced the process of death and decay. The Hebrew verb construct in Genesis 2:17 speaks of the process of dying that will assuredly result in the finality of death at a future point. In the Garden, the process was one of life without death and decay. Post-sin, we know experience all around us a much different reality, one of things wearing out (i.e. decay) and that of physical death. The processes of life need mending.

If this seems like somewhat of a depressing post let me assure you that it is just that very thing. Understanding the past reality of perfection in the Garden and understanding the present reality of a universe that is marred by the impact of sin allows us to grasp what the promise of redemption and restoration is all about. Moreover, if we do not understand what we are redeemed from and why we need to be restored and what that redemption and restoration will look like, we truly are missing the entire flow of the biblical message. I noted that our existence needs mending, our relationships need mending, and that the processes of life need mending. God promised in Genesis 3:15 that One would come to deal with Ha-Satan so that this mess we now endure would be fixed. The One who came is Yeshua our Messiah. He is our Redeemer.

In the next and final post in this series, we will take a look at what this redemption is all about and how our existence, relationships, and the processes of life will be mended forevermore.

Please follow and like us:
0

David Garner – Uncreating Adam: Part Two

Historical-Adam-cover RESIZED_2_1

Marriage, History and Theology

With magisterial grace, the Bible weds Christian theology to the male/female distinctions in God’s creation of marriage. Space permits only a brief consideration of this mysterious and intricate knot.

Adam and Eve are one flesh, but they are not one person. Their union is vital and real, yet for that to be the case, their distinct identities endure. Adam is not Eve, and Eve is not Adam. This personal and gender distinction is a sine qua non of marriage itself.

Many have argued for heterosexual marriage, with a degree of measurable success, from anatomical differences between the genders. Others have noted patterns in the psychological and emotional distinctions between then sexes, finding rich complementarity dependent upon embedded gender diversity. United by divine institution, these marvelously distinct genders become one flesh. But their one flesh solidarity does not obviate their differences. Marriage makes two gloriously one, but preserves the distinctiveness of the two in this dynamic of mysterious oneness.

But there is much more involved here in the case for heterosexual marriage. The vitality of gender distinction extends beyond the institution of marriage itself. Woven into the fabric of our binary, heterosexual gender distinctions lies a divinely-revealed theological treasure. God imbues his design of the marital relationship with covenantal, relational (and eschatological!) significance, making the visible human institution a walking sermon of divine love for fallen man.

With impenetrable yet discernible intimacy (see Ephesians 5:18–33), God consistently expresses his love for his people in marital terms. This divine–and amazing—love culminates in his Son Jesus Christ who sacrificially, permanently, and intimately loves his Bride.

Christ Jesus is Head of his Church and as such, stays distinct from her. Adam is not Eve. Christ is not his Church. Thus, union with Christ does not involve conflation or confusion with Christ. Christ remains Head of the Church, and the Church becomes his Bride. Note well. This not Self-love, but the most selfless of loves. Christ does not die for himself, but for his Bride. Christ is not the Church, and the Church is not Christ. His pursuit of his Church involves no self-preservation; it does entail a staggering sacrifice for his Bride!

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0