# Understanding the Historical Context of Adam and Eve
Written on
The Cosmological Perspective of the Bible
A question posed by a friend in a Facebook group caught my attention: were Adam and Eve actual historical figures? Typically, I shy away from such discussions, but I felt compelled to respond. The inquiry was a deep one, likely requiring more than a quick reply. Addressing theological matters can be sensitive, as I learned from one of my former pastors, so it’s important to approach the topic with care.
Initially, I firmly believed that Adam and Eve were real individuals. The Biblical narrative begins with the creation of the first man and woman in the Garden of Eden, where life was idyllic until they consumed the forbidden fruit, leading to their exile and the introduction of Original Sin into humanity. God’s promise of a future Messiah who would conquer the serpent and restore humanity's relationship with God is a central theme, as noted in Genesis 3:15. While Christians recognize Jesus as that Messiah, Jews are still awaiting his arrival. Regardless, the promise originates with Adam and Eve.
As a believer, grappling with the notion that Adam and Eve may not have been historical figures was initially unsettling. The rationale for Jesus’s crucifixion was to eliminate Original Sin. If Adam and Eve are not genuine, then the Fall—and consequently Original Sin—ceases to exist. This raises further questions about the crucifixion of Jesus and its significance. Such inquiries can lead some individuals to reevaluate their faith, which explains why many Christians resist a non-literal interpretation of Genesis chapters 1 and 2.
Today, I find that whether Adam and Eve were real or not does not sway my belief in Jesus. I don't require a literal Adam and Eve in a tangible Garden to recognize my need for salvation. The teachings of Jesus demonstrate my shortcomings in relation to God’s glory. How can I explain my sinful nature if Adam and Eve weren’t real? I don’t have all the answers, but I acknowledge the reality of sin within me, and to me, Jesus represents the only path to redemption. This is the foundation of my faith.
Having undergone significant phases of questioning and rebuilding my beliefs, I understand the fear that accompanies such a journey. Along the way, I’ve come to realize that not everything in the Bible necessitates a literal interpretation. Unavoidably, I recognized that scientific evidence does not align with a strict reading of Genesis chapters 1 and 2. I fear that unless the church reconciles with scientific understanding, it may struggle to endure in the coming decades. Thus, I will begin by discussing scientific evidence and the necessity of prioritizing evidence over doctrine.
Scientific Evidence and Its Implications
One of the most significant challenges to the existence of Adam and Eve stems from the Theory of Evolution, which many Christians reject outright. An entire sector has emerged dedicated to disputing evolutionary theory. I recall a conversation during college where someone referenced Neanderthal suborbital ridges as proof of evolution. I retorted, “Are you suggesting I should place my faith in suborbital ridges instead of the Bible?” Had it been solely about those ridges, I might have maintained my belief.
However, even aside from evolutionary theory, substantial discrepancies exist between scientific findings and the Genesis account. Consider the following comparisons:
Genesis: The Earth is roughly 6,000–7,000 years old.
Science: The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.
Genesis: The universe is about 6,000–7,000 years old.
Science: The universe is around 14 billion years old.
Genesis: A dome exists above the atmosphere, containing a body of water.
Science: There is no dome; just dark space above the atmosphere.
Genesis: Celestial bodies move within this dome.
Science: The moon is approximately 238,000 miles from Earth, and the sun is 93 million miles away.
Genesis: The Earth is flat, supported by pillars.
Science: The Earth is spherical, with no defined edges.
Genesis: The first humans appeared 6,000–7,000 years ago.
Science: The earliest humans emerged between 300,000 and 700,000 years ago.
Genesis: The first life forms were plants.
Science: The first life was microorganisms, which later evolved into more complex forms.
Genesis: Adam lived to be 930 years old.
Science: No skeletal remains of individuals over 900 years old have been found.
These points reveal a vast difference, extending far beyond mere suborbital ridges. After much contemplation, I can no longer support a literal interpretation of Genesis 1–11. I once believed that if any scientific claims contradicted the Bible, the Bible must prevail. But while the Bible is rooted in faith, science is founded on evidence, which is why it holds validity.
Scientific claims must be substantiated by evidence, and anyone can investigate that evidence. The scientific community has evolved its theories based on new findings. The historical understanding of dinosaurs has transformed as fresh evidence emerged. The church must also adapt to new insights; failure to do so risks losing credibility with future generations.
Reconciling Science and Scripture
What accounts for the significant differences between the Biblical creation narrative and scientific understanding? The Bible was composed at a time when there was no access to telescopes, microscopes, fossil records, or the scientific method. The descriptions of the universe were based on the common knowledge of the era. If we had lived back then, the Genesis account would have seemed entirely plausible.
The shift likely began with Galileo’s discoveries through the telescope, revealing that the Earth orbits the sun, not vice versa. For this, he faced excommunication threats for challenging the Biblical interpretation of the cosmos. Although he recanted to remain within the church, he could not unsee what he had observed. Many have since confirmed Galileo’s findings, leading to a new understanding.
Galileo adjusted his interpretation of the Bible in light of new evidence, and so did countless others. Today, we accept that the Earth revolves around the sun, making it hard to fathom the turmoil this caused during Galileo’s time. Engaging with a creationist about evolution can offer a glimpse of this tension.
Nevertheless, Galileo maintained his fundamental Christian beliefs. Reviewing the Apostle’s Creed, he would have affirmed each tenet, asserting, “I believe all of this. I’m merely saying that my observations through the telescope provide a different understanding.” The church’s response was to discourage observation—an approach that proved ineffective then and remains so today.
Conclusion
While there’s much more to explore, I will summarize my key points. Some individuals adhere to a literal interpretation of Genesis out of fear that if it’s not accurate, the validity of the entire Bible is compromised. Others think that if Genesis doesn’t accurately depict the universe’s origins, the rest of the Bible is invalid. I believe both perspectives are flawed.
The Bible should not serve as a scientific textbook. Its purpose is to guide us in understanding God’s nature and teaching us to love one another. Scientific inquiries about the universe’s origins should be left to the experts in that field, who possess superior tools for such explorations. If science concludes that the Earth revolves around the sun, we should accept it based on the evidence provided.
If scientific discoveries contradict a specific religious belief regarding the physical universe, I advocate following Galileo’s lead. Embrace new information and assess its compatibility with previous beliefs. This might involve interpreting certain passages metaphorically. The tale of Adam and Eve resonates with human nature; children often gravitate toward forbidden things and tend to shift blame when they err. In contrast to surrounding creation myths, the Genesis account stands as a critique of Babylonian deities.
The encouraging news is that science has not disproven any tenets of the Apostle’s Creed, as far as I can discern. Thus, let science fulfill its role. The Bible is not a substitute for scientific inquiry.
While it may sound admirable to claim belief in the Bible over scientific evidence, denying evidence equates to denying reality. I doubt this aligns with God’s intentions for us. Would you trust a physician whose medical texts predate the discovery of germs or viruses? If they dismissed the existence of these pathogens because they aren’t mentioned in Scripture, I would certainly walk away.
Originally published at http://davidandersontheauthor.com on March 20, 2023.