On 12 Sept, Dave Campbell wrote:
>>What I often have difficult understanding is that if the story of Adam and
>>Eve are allegorical and that they did not literally exist (I believe the
>>word Adam can loosely be translated as "man" or "human" in today's
>>politically correct language) who can one say was the first biblical person
>>had a real existence?
>
> Probably the most important evidence that Adam is intended as an individual
> comes from Paul's epistles, rather than Genesis. Jesus' role as a second
> Adam (Rom. 5, etc.) makes more sense if Adam is an individual (though is
> not totally incompatable with a more figurative view). This agrees with
> the molecular evidence for a very small population as the common ancestor
> of all modern humans.
> I don't know of any archaeological confirmation of a specific individual's
> name until the monarchy, though the cultures mentioned earlier certainly
> existed.
>
There is a greater issue than science in the question of whether Adam
was real or not. That is the question of sin. I am joining this
discussion late, and perhaps someone has already mentioned this, but
if Adam was not an individual, from where did sin come? If evolution
was the producer of humanity, there is no direct source of the
concept of sin, hence no need of a savior, hence Jesus cannot be the
Savior of the World, as He claimed to be. Hence, Jesus was not
factual or accurate, hence He could not be God.
In one sense, the question of Adam and Eve is fundamental to the
Gospel of the Bible. If there is no sin, the Bible is wrong and
Christianity is a sham.
William M. Frix
Assistant Professor, Electrical Engineering
Box 3021
John Brown University
Siloam Springs, AR 72761
Phone: (501) 524-7466
FAX: (501) 524-9548
EMAIL: wfrix@engr.jbu.edu