Recently a movement in some Christian circles is saying that the Bible is not literally true regarding Adam and Eve. People are doubting 1) that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, 2) that the Bible is literally accurate in what it says about Adam and Eve, and 3) that the whole human race descended from one couple. So there are various “alternatives” to believing Genesis that have been put forward.

One way is to take the early chapters of Genesis as mythological or allegorical. This is a very convenient copout because it means you can ignore the details of the text and take the meaning to be whatever symbolic concept seems convenient. From this kind of approach, different people may get different applications from the text and you would not expect there to be complete agreement between various Scripture passages about Adam and Eve, because none of them are taken as historical anyway. Indeed this is sometimes how scholars approach many things in the Old Testament since they have trouble believing the miracles and they question the historicity of much of the Old Testament. I think this whole approach is a serious mistake and that it mishandles God’s word. God revealed Truth to mankind using language and so we can do better than this sloppy approach.

The new challenge to believing in a real Adam and Eve comes from evolutionary genetics research. The idea goes something like this. Modern homo sapiens, according to evolution, did not all arrive at all our modern characteristics from one couple. It took a sizable population of maybe at least 10,000 so that some characteristics came from some and some from others. The evolutionists are hoping in chance, numbers, and time to provide the right combination of traits in our genome to make ape-man intermediates into humans. They do not allow for the possibility of God miraculously creating the first man and woman by design. With miraculous creation as Genesis 2 describes, there is no need for a sizable population at the start. Rather, the consequence of the Genesis record is that humans were created with an initially perfect genome, without mutations and with plenty of variability for what humans needed all built-in from the start. Then over the course of history, humans lost genetic information in the genome. With initially long life spans about 10 times that of us today, every married couple could have many kids with a variety of characteristics. Then there was a genetic bottleneck at the time of Noah’s Flood because the human population was reduced to 8 people. This is not just a story, according to Genesis, or even according to Jesus or the Apostle Paul. This is our history, our genesis, if you will. This does have implications for genetics and there is new evidence that this explains some aspects of human genetics beautifully.

So, another view that has been proposed on Adam and Eve is that long ago perhaps 2 million years ago there were some neolithic primative people who were farmers. God chose a pair of them to know him in a personal way. This pair of chosen primatives and their descendants have been called Homo Divinus. (You can laugh at this point if you want to.) These would have been anatomically modern humans but were very ignorant until God called them. So God developed a relationship with certain individuals as his chosen people among the many primatives. They learned and developed somehow with God’s help into more enlightened and capable people who had a faith similar to the ancient Jews. This may be a quaint idea but it will not make sense in a Christian world view.

I’d recommend reading the following blog entry commenting on this Homo Divinus idea by a well known evolutionary scientist, Jerry Coyne. CLICK TO GO TO Jerry Coyne is a well known scientist from the University of Chicago, from the department of Ecology and Evolution. Coyne has a number of very valid criticisms of this idea that I agree with. But there is another way of looking at the genetics that apparently Dr. Coyne does not know or accept. The evidence does not disprove the Bible. Scientists have learned wrong ways of approaching the problems. Science has to be rethought regarding origins and history. There is progress in this by young age creationists who have found they don’t have to turn to illogical ideas like the above to deal with the evidence. See this article by Robert Carter for a taste of this.
Dr. Coyne made an interesting point about the Homo Divinus idea above, “Of course there’s still a historical problem here: how did this pair of annointed farmers bring the curse of sin on humanity by contravening God’s will?” Dr. Coyne seems to reject Genesis altogether, but he raises a good point. Without a literal Adam and Eve, there is no explanation for what went wrong with the human race to make us need a savior!

Scripture is clear in teaching that Adam and Eve were real people. We cannot give up on the early chapters of Genesis about Adam & Eve, the Fall, and the Flood. First of all, if Adam was not a real person, why does Genesis 5 give his age? Also, who was Seth and Cain? 1 Chronicles 1 also lists Adam in the longest geneology in the Bible, thus implying he was a real person. Hosea 6:7 also mentions Adam. The New Testament mentions Adam even more than the Old Testament. In Luke 3:38 Adam is listed in Jesus’ geneology. In Romans 5:14 Adam is mentioned in the same sentence with Moses. Do we also question the existence of Moses? The Apostle Paul refers to Adam explicitly as the “first man” in 1 Corinthians 15 and in 1 Timothy 2:13 Paul says Adam was formed first, then Eve. So clearly the Apostle Paul accepted Genesis literally about Adam and Eve. Furthermore, there is no way you can make the creation of Adam and Eve from Genesis 2 agree with evolution.

We must resist Christian scholars or Christian scientists who confuse other Christians by questioning the early chapters of Genesis. The Bible hangs together logically and it is more certain and more authoritative than science. We can believe what it says, because God is able to do as He says.

One of my favorite books in the Old Testament is Ecclesiastes, written by King Solomon of ancient Israel.  Solomon was well known in the ancient world for his wisdom and his riches.  But when his sons took over the kingdom after him, the kingdom of Israel split into two nations and went downhill dramatically.  Following are some of my thoughts on the book of Ecclesiastes.  If you haven’t read it, give it a read.  It is a book sometimes misunderstood I think.

How interesting that a book of the Bible should start out with the words, “Meaningless, meaningless, . . . everything is meaningless (Eccl. 1:2).”  The book of Ecclesiastes is a very thought-provoking book.  It is written I think from the perspective of Solomon, who, late in his life, was looking back with some regrets.  I suspect he was trying to write something to get through to people with a sort of secular mindset.  Late in the life of Solomon was a bad time in the history of Israel.  After Solomon’s sons grew up the kingdom split into Northern and Southern kingdoms under their leadership.  Solomon’s sons did not lead the nation to follow God.  I suspect Solomon looked with angst on what was happening to the nation and to the lives of his sons.  So, Solomon wrote something that you might think of as preevangelism, something intended to get the reader to think about the meaning of life.  Ecclesiastes makes you think about what you’re living for and what really makes life worth living.  It seems to me Solomon sort of switches perspectives sometimes throughout the book, sometimes writing from the “secular” or unbelieving mindset, and sometimes from the believing mindset.  Thus, Ecclesiastes makes its points in sometimes subtle ways.  If you don’t see what it is implying about God it can seem like a depressing read.  Especially the first two chapters.  But there is a good and encouraging message from Ecclesiastes.

Chapter 1 in verse 9 has the well known verse saying “there is nothing new under the sun.”  It mentions the various cycles of life in nature and the fact the man sort of goes through an endless repetitive routine in living his life.  When you view it on this level and consider only the material side of life, it can appear very empty and futile.  I think Ecclesiastes should be viewed similar to the Proverbs.  There are statements in Proverbs that should not be taken as absolutely true in all circumstances, but they are generally true in many cases.  It is making generalizations that are not intended as absolute statements that apply to all people everywhere all the time.  (Not everything in the Bible can be taken this way, but Proverbs and Ecclesiastes can be.)  Then there are other types of statements in Ecclesiastes that are expressions of feeling about how life seems, not meant to be taken as actual fact about the world.   Thus, in understanding Ecclesiastes we must understand it is making generalizations from a particular perspective.  Also, because it changes perspective, almost like changing worldviews, it looks at life in different ways in turn.

In the end of chapter 1 and on into chapter 2 Solomon comments about how even seeking wisdom and knowledge as well as seeking pleasure can seem meaningless.  In understanding the injustices of life and all the ways that life falls short of what it should be, there is sorrow.  This may be what Solomon implied in 1:18, “with much wisdom comes much sorrow.”  Yet seeking pleasure and having everything a man’s heart desires doesn’t satisfy either.  Chapter 2 verse 17 says Solomon hated life!  Solomon was fantastically rich and had owned everything and done everything a man could ask for.  In 2:2 Solomon says laughter is foolish and asks “what does pleasure accomplish?”  Even accomplishing great building projects did not satisfy.  The thing that is missing is a spiritual element that will be hinted at in later chapters of Ecclesiastes.  Solomon eventually comes to the conclusion that what makes life meaningful is to accept the good things given to us by God and live a life of obedience to Him (see Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).

In some sections of Ecclesiastes Solomon looks at things from a kind of cynical angle that is very centered on only this life, as if our Earthly existence is all there is.  And the way he describes life in those sections does not seem to acknowledge God but treats earthly life as if God doesn’t really have relevance.  But in other sections he acknowledges God and does treat life as if God is relevant and as if there is more to life than what we sense in this life.  Chapter 3 of Ecclesiastes is like this.  3:1 starts out “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven.”  Who’s perspective is this?  Does this make sense from a human perspective?  I don’t think so.  Continuing on to verse 10 it describes the burden God has laid on men.  Then in v 11 it says He (God) has “made everything beautiful in its time.”  This is suggesting God’s providential purpose in events that seem mystifying to us.  So, when it refers to “a time for everything“, or “a time for . . . ” particular things, I think the real point is that there is a purpose in all kinds of things in life.  Both the good and the bad things that people do are wrapped into God’s providential purpose for history.  God has “set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done . . . .(Eccl. 3:11)”  Sometimes people have taken this list of “a time for ” this and that to be a sort of implication that everything is ok, as if there is no right and wrong.  But verses 2-8 do not deny right and wrong.  Man has a burden of responsibility to do what’s right even though all types of things will happen around us which God allows.  We have responsibiltiy, but God is still sovereign.  This chapter is I think Solomon presenting the wonder of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility in comparison and contrast.  Verses 15 and 17 also both mention accountability to God as the judge of men.  So Solomon says the best you can do in this life is to enjoy the work God has given you and live life acknowledging Him.  Why does God want men (3:18-19) to realize that they are like the animals, that they have the same material fate as the animals?  Verse 21 sounds like a statement that an agnostic would make.  (I was once an agnostic.)  It’s like saying “who knows what happens after you die?”  I think this is a way of saying God wants people to see beyond our material life and realize this life does matter.  That we are not just animals and there is something eternal that matters for us.

Chapter 5 seems to be about having a healthy attitude toward possessions, money, and government.  The pursuit of material possessions and riches is an empty thing.  The more you have the more you want, unless you learn to have contentment with what you have.  If you have more money, you spend more and so people have a tendancy to run out of money however much they make.  We must learn to stop the spiraling pursuit before it destroys us.  Who sleeps better, the one who engages in hard physical labor but only has enough to live or the rich person, who has all kinds of things they have dreamed of having?  It is often the poor laborer who sleeps better and has more peace.  When you have less you learn contentment better.  The answer to the emptiness of the material pursuit is to appreciate what you have as a gift from God.  Thus, Solomon says “when God gives any man wealth and possessions, and enables him to enjoy them, to accept his lot and be happy in his work—this is a gift of God. He seldom reflects on the days of his life, because God keeps him occupied with gladness of heart. (Eccl. 5:19) ”  Be content with what you have.  How long did it take Solomon to learn this?  A lifetime apparently.

Ecclesiastes is written to help people ask spiritual questions about what life is all about.