While doubts about Adam’s historicity are hardly surprising in a secular society that largely rejects the authority of the Bible, it has surprised some to see debate about this issue occur among Bible-believing Christians.
…”Adam then, was a special creation of God, whether God formed him literally “from the dust of the ground” and then “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” [Gen. 2:7 NIV], or whether this is the biblical way of saying that he was created out of an already existing hominid. The vital truth we cannot surrender is that, though our bodies are related to the primates, we ourselves in our fundamental identity are related to God.” —evangelical theologian John Stott (emphasis, Gary’s)
–Josh and Sean McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, pp. 423, 427
Gary: Wow! And I mean, WOW! Having grown up in evangelicalism, I never in my life imagined that American evangelical Christians would attempt to splice Creationism into Darwinian evolution!!!
Why do they even bother?
Why not just admit that science is right, and drop the “Invisible Superhero in the Sky” nonsense?
Here is a link which explains why most Christians are unwilling to do this: Subjective personal perceptions and experiences are more convincing to believers than objective evidence.
End of post.
7 thoughts on “Some Evangelicals Now Believe that God May Have Created Adam Out of an Existing Hominid. Wow!”
I hate to say it, but you’re very badly out of touch with what most Christians really believe…
I mean, I probably personally know some Christian (although I don’t know who) that thinks that God literally created Adam from the dust, but… I really can’t think of one that I know personally. Most everybody I know figures some type of evolutionary process was involved, except that the spirit given to Man was different than that given to animals, or, in some cases, that God gave Man a spirit, and animals don’t have a spirit…
I’m pretty sure it’s only fundamentalists and literalists that think otherwise…
This isn’t new Gary. I read about that in my teens reading CS Lewis. I don’t subscribe to it but it’s not a new idea.
Science isn’t in conflict with God. He would have created all the rules that science discovers and describes.
If anything, the illogical nature of a godless universe is a massive pointer to a God, without Whom there is no reason or truth or logic…
But realize this, Liam: If one decides in advance that his or her supernatural worldview (whatever it is) is true, one can always “harmonize” the scientific and historical evidence to fit that worldview. And this is what the moderate and liberal members of every religion on the planet have done: Instead of reading their holy books in a strict literal sense, they reinterpret it to keep up with the advances of science.
It’s silly. Why bother? Answer: They don’t want to give up their security blanket (their invisible, all-powerful, imaginary friend in the sky).
LikeLiked by 1 person
So because ftbond doesn’t personally (probably) know any Christians, there aren’t any real Christians that believe in Adam as the first, created human. I guess, by the same token, that as I don’t know any Muslims personally, it also means there’s really no-one who believes in Allah.
As well as Jesus (Matt 19.4-6) and Paul (1 Corinthians 15:44–49), there are thousands of modern Christians who believe Adam was a real person, specially created from dust by God (here’s some: https://www.compellingtruth.org/Adam-and-Eve-story.html; https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/adam-and-eve/defense-of-historical-adam/)
It’s disingenuous and dishonest to dismiss such believers just because you don’t personally know them, or because they are ‘fundamentalists’. They are Christians who believe in an historical Adam whether you like it or not.
The argument that God used evolution to create humans doesn’t really wash either, Liam, As apologists are fond of saying, evolution is an impersonal, chance process that relies on the survival of the best adapted, mass suffering for the vast majority, sex and death. What sort of God sets such a process in motion? Certainly not one that can claim to be ‘Love’ (1 John 4.8).
I am amazed Gary continues to let you two comment on here. You castigate him for the simplicity of his arguments, when in fact they’re perfectly reasonable, while your own, I’m sorry to say, are pompous and shallow.
I didn’t say a single thing about whether Christians believed (or not) in an “historical” Adam.
An “historical Adam” could simply mean the first creature that was infused with a “human” spirit.
I’d really like to suggest that you read more carefully, and don’t waste your time by arguing against statements that have simply not been made by anyone.