The Existence of Adam and Eve

Faith & Science Conversation
1

Did Adam and Eve exist? If Adam was not a real man, then sin did not enter the world through one man as Romans 5:12 states. How, then, did sin enter the world? Further, if the New Testament is wrong about how sin entered the world, what else is it wrong about? If Romans 5:12 is wrong, how do we know that the entirety of Romans 5:8–15 is not wrong? If the story of Adam and Eve is not to be taken literally—if they did not really exist—then there was no one to rebel, there was no fall into sin. Satan, the great deceiver, would like nothing better than for people to believe that the Bible should not be taken literally and that the story of the fall of man is a myth. Why? Because once we start denying parts of the Bible, we lose our trust in the Bible. Why should we believe anything God’s Word says if we cannot trust everything that it says?

Jesus taught that God created one man and one woman (Mark 10:6) and mentions Abel, a son of Adam and Eve in Luke 11:51. Was Jesus wrong in His beliefs? Or did Jesus know there were no literal Adam and Eve and He was simply accommodating His teaching to the beliefs of the people (i.e., lying)? If Jesus is wrong in His beliefs, He is not God. If Jesus is intentionally deceiving people, He is sinning and therefore cannot be the Savior (1 Peter 1:19).

That is why this is such a serious issue. To deny the literalness of Adam and Eve is to place oneself in opposition to Jesus and the apostle Paul. If one has the audacity to claim he is right and Jesus and Paul are wrong, then Jesus is a sinner, not God and not the Savior; the apostle Paul is a false prophet; and the Bible is not inspired, inerrant, or trustworthy.

The Bible clearly presents Adam and Eve as literal people who existed in a literal Garden of Eden. They literally rebelled against God, they literally believed Satan’s lie, and they were literally cast out of the Garden (Genesis 3:24). They had literal children, all of whom inherited the sin nature, and that nature was passed down to succeeding generations to this very day. Fortunately, God promised a literal Savior to redeem us from that sin nature (Genesis 3:15). That Savior is Jesus Christ, called the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45), who died on a literal cross and literally rose again. Those who believe in Christ will have literal salvation and spend eternity in a literal heaven.

Christians who deny the story of Adam and Eve essentially deny their own faith. Rejecting the literal interpretation of the Bible’s historical narratives is a slippery slope. If Adam and Eve did not exist, then were Cain and Abel not real? Did Seth exist, and did he father a godly line that led all the way to Abraham and eventually to Jesus Himself? Where in Luke’s genealogy (Luke 3:23–38) do the names stop referring to literal people and start referring to mythical characters? To dismiss Adam and Eve as non-literal is to deny the accuracy of Luke’s gospel, cast aspersions on Moses’ record, and remove the foundation of the rest of the Bible.

God’s Word claims to be true (Psalm 119:160). Jesus Christ declared God’s Word to be truth (John 17:17). All of God’s Word is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16-17). These declarations include the biblical account of Adam and Eve.

Got Questions Ministries

2

Rohan-Muni, please take a look at the book review I mentioned in your other post’s replies. It addresses your question directly.

3

I have a question for you.

It says sin entered because of Adam’s choice. Does that mean Eve did not sin first? Who sinned first according to genesis 3? Was it the snake who deceived Eve? Or Eve who convinced Adam to eat? It was it Adam who chose to listen to the woman who was tricked by a snake?

So if in genesis 3 it says Eve was the first person to sin how did sin enter through Adam? It’s only a contradiction if you demand a literal reading. But a nonliteral reading of genesis 3 allows Paul to hyperlink his story back to the Tanakh for the purpose preaching.

1 Like
4

No, he said he made humanity male and female. He was teaching about marriage, not creation.
KJV: But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

if you misrepresent this verse, why should we believe anything you say? At least that seems to be your position.

Perhaps that is a hyperbolic answer, as I am sure we can agree on a lot of theology, but illustrates how your statements seem to say that if someone does not agree with a certain interpretation of a part of the Bible put forth by an individual or group then they should logically reject the whole Bible. Unfortunately, many people accept that challenge and position, and do just that.

Certainly, if you take Adam non-literally, you are correct that you have to rethink the fall and original sin, but keep in mind that the fall and original sin are not clearly and specifically defined in the text of the Bible, but are man made doctrines that are derived by certain interpretations of scripture.

1 Like
5

We all sin individually. If I were the only person God created, I would sin, and Jesus would still have sacrificed his life to rescue me. And sin would have come into the earth through one man, me – it would not have needed to be Adam. Sin has entered the world through every one of us.

1 Like
6

There seems to be trade offs either way. Certainly some like Richard find it very difficult to navigate all the bad implications they see in taking the story as one of real events. Others like myself see very little of worth in the story when it is reduced to nothing but vague metaphor.

Incorrect. It says nothing of the sort.

6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’

Jesus does NOT say one man and one woman!

So even though I believe Adam and Eve existed, what you are claiming Jesus said is simply not true. I even believe Adam and Eve were the first human beings, just not the first homo sapiens. They were the ones God spoke to and awakened the human mind in them. But there is nothing in what Jesus said to support the creationist magical creation story.

Satan would like nothing more than for people to believe the lies of creationists and thus to ignore everything God is telling us in the earth and sky.

Why? Because once we start listening to what God says in the earth and sky, using the brain God gave us to think about things, then Satan has a much more difficult time using the church to convince good people to do evil things.

Incorrect. Literally it was a talking snake. And two people cowering in fear is most certainly not the story of any kind of rebellion. You are making stuff up and rewriting the story making a laughing stock of your claims of how important it is to take the story literally.

I notice how you don’t even try to give a Bible passage for this one because nothing like this is in the Bible. Do you even read the Bible yourself or do you parrot what other people have told you it says?

Depends on what you think sin is. If you think sin is disobedience and going against a command of God then it would be Eve, who ate of the fruit first But if you think sin consists of self-destructive habits, as I do, then it would be Adam, who start blaming everyone but himself for his mistake.

Growing up in the post Holocaust world where obedience could not possibly be equated with goodness, I could never see any truth to Christianity with that first definition of sin.

7

Having had my name mentioned (although not notified) I may as well pitch my actual viewpoint.

I do see harm in taking the Garden at face value and as history. I also cannot see how any scientist or believer in science could accept that the whole human race could come from a gene pool of 2. Everyone knows the danger of inbreeding…
Adam and Eve are meant to be the foundes of the Israelite rae. Even that does not compute genetically but it does change the theology.
Jesus refers to Adam and eve in a theological usage. The Bible uses them as a basis for genealogy. Neither of these is contradicted if the Garden itself and the story around it is fabricated and theological only…
There has been so much wrangling and discussion over this that I am reluctant to repeat it all here.
Suffuce it to say, that i do not see a need for the Garden to be real. And I do not see that it must be real for the bible to retain its value and authority.

Richard

1 Like
8

Between inspired, inerrant, infallible wooden literalism and lying is metaphor. And faith built on on everything to the left of lying. Jesus had such faith. And created yet more metaphor. How could He not? Nobody is lying, nobody ever lied, from God on down, apart from the obvious lying characters in the stories.

You are missing the point along with every other Evangelical (and Catholic for that matter).

9

So what is the point? To agree with you perhaps?

I think you will find the Catholic faith much closer to yours than you give credit.

Yes, I am Evangelical. Does that make me a false prophet/preacher in your eyes? What is it that I preach in terms of the Gospel that you disapprove of? I still preach Christ crucified and raised for the forgiveness of sins. It is only the nature of that sin that we really disagree on. Do you really think that the nature of sin, or the prevalence of sin is so important? Or perhaps you are one who thinks that a person cannot be good if they are not a Christian?

I know many who are far better in terms of behaviour and ethics who are not professing Christians. And many so-called Christians who use their faith as a weapon or an excuse to deride and put down others.

Richard

I know who I prefer to associate with.

Richard

10

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.