Over the next few weeks or months I will be doing some reading on the “historicity” of Adam. I have chosen two dialog partners: C. John Collins through his book Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? Who They Were and Why You Should Care and Peter Enns through his book The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins. I know there are other books available, but I wanted to maintain focus so I picked two works of medium length that promote opposing positions—at least I think they do. Collins defends the historicity of Adam (and Eve) and Enns does not. I know these two share a high view of Scripture which matters to me as an evangelical.
Now that I have completed John H. Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One it is time to move from the doctrine of creation to its more precise anthropological sub-category.
This Catholic’s perspective on the matter is interesting:
Essentially, he says that, properly understood, a single ancestral pair is not necessarily incompatible with evolutionary science. He then creatively reinterprets the Genesis narrative. I’m not completely sure if I buy all of it, but it’s worth considering.
That was an interesting post and I strained my brain to follow–not because the author was unclear, but because his argument was complex. It seems his aim is different than that of evangelicals who try to reconcile Scripture with science. He aims to reconcile the traditions the church with science.
Comments are closed.