The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Creation

Creation
It is becoming increasingly more common for theologians to embrace evolution. When the subject of a literal Adam and Eve come up, they say they believe in a literal Adam and Eve as well as the fall. However, they add that they realize that it holds a huge problem if Adam and Eve are indeed the first people on the earth. So they believe that Adam and Eve were not the first people created. Rather than just the first people mentioned in Scripture.
I believe however that this is taking outside sources, in order not to look foolish in the eyes of the world to interpret Scripture. I believe this is just bad hermeneutics and see no Scriptural support to doing so.
I know most on this board believe in the literal 6/24 hour creation. But I am seeking more support to the points I have made above. This is basically because from time to time, I am asked my opinion on this matter and I want to be able to give a reasoned apologetic without needing to show articles etc… where that isn’t possible. Any information you can provide would be helpful.
I am of course going to be looking at more Scripture and articles (both from this site and other areas).
Thank you in advance
Tom

The rejection of the historical 6 24-hour day creation view is of course nothing new. Pressure from the world has turned many otherwise very orthodox men to accept godless "science" for one reason or another. B.B. Warfield is probably one of the more well known men who departed from once holding to the historical view. In our day, a number of "esteemed professors" have gone the same way; John Frame and Vern Poythress immediately come to mind among several others.

Let me put it simply which is often the best way to answer such biblical questions. When I read Genesis 1, the literal 6 day 24 -hour understanding SCREAMS off the page. We are to use the Historico-Grammatico hermeneutic to interpret Scripture, for it is Scripture's own method of interpretation. Thus, one must ask how those who heard Moses speak of the creation would understand "And the evening and the morning were the first day... second day... third day... etc." Would anyone have thought to themselves that each of the "days" (yom) was 3 billion years? Or would any have had the notiion that there were not 6 days, but rather only 3 days consisting of two parts? Another point that needs to be considered is that the length of days is not isolated to the Genesis account. God, through Moses mentions the 6 days in Exodus 20:6-8 in the Ten Commandments to establish the Sabbath. Exodus 20:11 (ASV) "for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Once again, one must ask, Did any of the hearers conclude that they must work 6 "eras" consisting of 3 billion +/- days before they could rest and that rest would be 3 billion +/- years long? And just one more simple thought to end my musings on these 'alternate' views, which fyi, the OPC has officially decreed are ALL compatible and are allowed by the WCF. Now there's a puzzle I challenge anyone to solve. But the OPC's "Hermeneutic of Truth" says that the sheep are to trust their souls to the professionals and don't try relying upon their own understanding, even if they have the indwelling Spirit of God Who Jesus promised would lead them into all truth. Anyway, I digress....Could it be possible that despite the fact that God has raised up some extremely gifted men who were mighty in the Scriptures throughout the history of the Church, never mind actually inspiring men to speak and write the very words of God, they were all wrong without exception on the matter of God's creating the earth and all that exists upon it? Are we to believe that until most recently the entire Church was in error in their understanding of God's simple words describing how He created all things...Gen 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day., etc."

To repeat... When "I" read the Genesis account, it SCREAMS in 6 24-hour days did the LORD God create the heavens and the earth and all that was upon it by the word of His mouth, ex nihilo, for His own glory and for the enjoyment of man. God willing, no amount of so-called "science" will ever persuade me to abandon my position based upon simple faith and preserved by the indwelling Spirit. Is there anything too hard for God?

Pilgrim
Great response!
I think when you said : "so called science" , you said it correctly. For the problem is not science itself. It has more to do with the presupposition of the evolutionary scientists themselves on where they take the observable evidences.

Have you got anything more specific to say about the points I made in my opening post?
Tom

What "problems" are to be found if Adam and Eve were the first human beings? IF, just for the sake of argument, other humans existed before them, wouldn't the same problems be true for whoever was first? Any and all forms of evolution have insurmountable problems, the most serious is that there isn't enough time to explain how everything came out of nothing, or even that organic life sprang out of inorganic matter and then developed to the sophistication that the world now exists. To me, one has to possess far more than the faith a Christian has in believing that the sovereign God created all things according to His infinite and perfect good pleasure. Believing in an Easter Bunny, Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy is far easier than evolutionary theory regardless in what form it is presented.

All good points, but I guess I was looking to build on what I already said. Hermeneutics and the principle of sola-scriptura are important. I see absolutely no place in Scripture to justify adding other people before the creation of Adam and Eve; just for the sake of accommodating the latest evolutionary theory. The onus should be on them to prove from the pages of Scripture that evolution is true. Yet do so in a way that outside sources do not in any way interpret Scripture.
Lest I am misunderstood Pilgrim, as I said what you said are very good points and perhaps I can use them. However, as most of the time when I am discussing something like this, all I might have is my cell phone that has a Bible and my knowledge that I have gained from studying the subject.
That being the case, I need to make it as brief and as reasoned as possible with the time I have. Then if possible I might be able to steer the person in the direction of more applicable information on the subject.
Tom

Here's another point, using the Presuppositional Apologetic, regarding a pre-Adamic race (btw, I believe this subject has been discussed on this board some time ago.). IF there was a race of men who existed before Adam, then the following truths would be insurmountable problems for those who advocate it:

1. Scripture clearly teaches that sin was introduced into the human race by Adam... and Eve.
2. Thus, any human who might have existed before Adam was without sin and thus righteous.
3. Since no sin would have existed among those in this alleged pre-Adamic race, then there was no death (cf. Rom 5:12, 6:23; 1Cor 5:21; Jam 1:15).
4. Therefore those who lived prior to the Fall would have eternal life and would be alive today and living on this earth.

1. IF those who believe that Adam and Eve were not the first of mankind argue that God would be guilty of creating the sin of incest so as to populate the world, the same would be true of whoever they think was the very first man and woman. They might try and argue that God created dozens, hundreds or even thousands of humans ex nihilo which they may claim avoids the incest problem. But, that creates an even more serious obstacle in that none of those created would be intimately related to each other and share the same type of existence to the angels and therefore there would be no "oneness" among them.

Of course, as you mentioned, and which should be foremost in anyone's mind, there is absolutely no biblical support for any such foolish idea(s) that God created a pre-Adamic race. Contrariwise, we have the divinely inspired, infallible and inerrant written Word of God which clearly teaches that Adam was the first human being and all the human race came from him and Eve who was created out of Adam. We are given what we are to know and that which isn't revealed God has determined to be non-essential for His people to know. (Deut 29:29)

Pilgrim
This is excellent!
If I remember correctly from reading one article from a theistic evolution source. They would agree with your number 1. They agree that sin came through Adam.
On your number 2. They would probably say that it would be theoretically possible for every other person besides Adam and Eve, and their offspring to be without sin. But the moment they mixed with any of the offspring of Adam and Eve, the curse would fall on them as well.
Yet, I find that reasoning flawed in the fact that based on their beliefs, mankind would have been around thousands, perhaps even millions of years, before Adam and Eve came on the scene. Thus the population even at that time would have been enormous given there was no death. Therefore, it would have taken 10s of thousands of years after Adam and Eve, for the curse to have fallen on all mankind.
Then there is the problem of the flood. We see from Scripture that Noah was the only righteous man in the world at that time, so God had Noah build an ark to save Noah and his family as well as two of every species on the planet. Therefore, either God killed off millions and perhaps billions of people who were sinless; because they had yet to be affected by the curse. Or perhaps this is one of the reasons why theistic evolutionists insist it was not a global flood? So they would be spared the plight of those who have been affected by the curse.
This of course leaves us with some major problems.
1. We see no mention of sinless people who lived forever after the flood in either Scripture, or any other writing or folklore handed down by people.
2. Even if we grant them their claim that man has been around for millions of years. There must have been people who were still around during the time of Jesus came on the scene, whom did not require Christ’s righteousness imputed to them, because they were without sin. Why do we not hear about this, even with only a few thousand years separating now from back then?
The more I think about this issue, the more problems come to mind. Given that, I see less problems being an atheistic evolutionist than a theistic evolutionist; unless of course I am missing something? Maybe that is one reason why atheists do not give much credibility to theistic evolutionists?
Wow! It is a whole lot easier believing in the literal 6/24 hour day biblical view.
What do you think, am I all wet in my thinking.
Tom

Yes, as I wrote... one of the major problems with a pre-Adamic race is there would have been no sin and thus no death, which you obviously see compounds into other problems. There is yet another major problem with this theistic evolutionary pre-Adamic race nonsense. IF the human race actually occurred via 'natural means/selection' then de facto, these individuals had no soul, for it is God who creates the soul, it being a spiritual thing. So, they were not actually human, but rather they were simply a 'higher class' of animal. Of course, isn't that what most non-creationists/non-Christian people believe even today? The femi-Nazis most definitely classify males in that manner. And of course, the pro-death/abortion advocates have been touting that idea for decades... It is not a human child growing in a woman's womb, it's a fetus, a glob of cells, a nothing and thus it can be disposed of without any guilt being associated with the procedure.

As you might expect from me I firmly believe that evolution, theistic or otherwise, is an impossibility on its face, even without Scripture. Any view other than a 6-day 24-hour view in my mind is a denial of God Himself as per Romans 1. Contrary views express a hatred of God and the substitution of the truth with a lie. Some/many will doubtless say I am being way too harsh in my description of those who reject the historic, confessional view. But I see no way around to one coming to that conclusion given the overwhelming evidence in Scripture concerning a literal, ex nihilo, 6-day 24-hour creation and all that is dependent upon it. For some, to deny this doctrine, it is a major and serious error and contrary to their confessed faith. For the majority it is nothing less than a denial of the one true God and evidence of their unregenerate state.

That's my view and I'm sticking to it!

The concept of there being a pre Adam race would have to include the error of the so called Gap Theory, and there are also Theistic Evolutionists who would see God either using evolution to shape the original life he created on earth, or else that he allowed Adam to be born as a full human from ape parents then?

Of course, this theory breaks down as the scriptures teach that God created all after their own kind, and also that there would be no actual death until sin entered into creation!

Pilgrim
Again another excellent reply.
You mentioned abortion. Have you heard that some of the top abortionists, no long just call the baby and bunch of cells. In fact many are saying that they should concede that the baby is fully human.
Yet, and I think in a way what they say after that is even worse. They say things like "So what? The mothers right to do what she wants with her child trumps the babies right!"

Tom

Their views and actions are not to be a surprise since God, through the Apostle Paul, tells us that this and similar evils are God's judgment upon the world.

JesusFan
Unfortunately you are correct. There are people that believe a mother should have that right until the child is about two years old.
Tom

At least they would be logical in how they apply what they hold to and with!