Creationists often accuse Theistic Evolutionists of not taking the Bible literally, while it is them who do not read Genesis as it is.
They are not taking Genesis as historical narratives and pay only lipservice to supernatural events. The rise of Liberal Theology which is actually
secular humanism put in theological terms, either deemphasised or catagorically rejected the supernatural. The philosophical existentialism of Paul Tillich is essentially atheistic and yet he has an elaborate dialectic that reduces the God of the Bible to an abstraction. In other words they simply redefine God as a figment of our own imagination and reduces the Bible to a mythical metaphore. That is the entire objective of Theistic Evolution, to redefine 'theistic' to something even agnostics and atheists would find appealing.
I think Christians starved for academic credibility have been taken in by this philosophy and are used as pawns to attack creationism. Thats all TEs do and that's all TE is designed to do. What they don't realize is that they have compromised with the spirit of the age and taken in by an atheistic philosophy who will continue to rationalize and academically define the theistic element down to a debased theology that has absolutely nothing to do with God. In short, your next but instead of building bridges to evangelicals and fundamentalists they build these intellectual seige ramps that they intend to use on you as well. It's a Faustian bargin, you can never be satisfied with theistic explanation for anything.
The straightforward reading of Genesis 4:13-15 has Cain being sent to another land, and fearing a group of people who were unrelated to him. If the only other people who existed were Adam and Eve, then who was Cain afraid of? And more specifically, where did Cain's wife come from?
She was one of his sisters, even as late as the time of Abraham it was still praticed to marry within your own family. The bottlenecks that lead to genetic mutations as the result of inbreeding did not start creating birth defects for a number of generations. For someone suggesting a straightforward reading of the text you are getting it pretty twisted and supposing things it simple does not say. The genelogy begins with Seth but Seth is born after Cain, Abel and according to Josephus, “The number of Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.” (
F. Josephus, The Complete Works of Josephus). Do you guys ever ask Creationist what they actually think before poniticating these rationalizations.
Normally, creationists will point out that because Adam was 130 when he begat Seth, the time period from Cain's birth to Abel's death may have been 100 years, allowing for plenty of time for other children of Adam and Eve to marry and have children. Thus by the time Abel was killed, there existed many descendants of Adam. Yet this completely mangles the Biblical chronology. The only other children that Adam and Eve are said to have had came after Seth (Genesis 5:4).
No what mangles the passage is the fact that you are oblivious to the fact that Cain and Able were born before Seth, in fact if you had even bothered to carefully read the passage you would have learned:
And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. (Genesis 4:25)
In fact, Genesis 5 is not the first geneology, the first one is here in Genesis 4:
And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech. And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah. (Genesis 4: 18-22)
Good ole' TEs, you care so much about getting your discussion of the text right that you don't even bother to read it.
Furthermore, the creationist interpretation has Adam being 30 years old when Cain was born -- which is atypical of that era. Seth was 105 before he had his first child; Enosh 90, Jared 162 and Methusaleh 187. Based on this evidence, one can reasonably speculate that Adam was over 100 when he begat his first child. This would render the creationist assumption that before Seth, Adam and Eve had other children besides Cain and Abel, to be wishful thinking at best.
Again you are jumping to conclusions based on generalties. The geneology in Genesis 5 does not say that Adam started begating at 130. What it says is that he begat Seth and that is well after his begating had been going on for an unknown, but no doubt, ample amount of time to beget for as many as a hundred years
Creationists will further point out that Eve "was the mother of all living." However, the fire of Sodom is also said to have "destroyed them all." The fire did not wipe out everyone in the world, but only those in Sodom. Likewise, Eve did not mother everyone in the world, only those in Eden (or whichever region she was located). A similar refutation can be made for "there was not a man to till the ground".
There was no man to till the ground because Adam was not created yet, you are not refuting anything, you are shamelessly twisting what the Bible says. Sodom would not be mentioned until after the Flood and it was founded by one of the sons of Ham (Gen. 10:19). You could look it up if you were actaully baseing any of this on what the Bible actually says.
When Paul said that through one man sin came into the world, presumably he meant that Adam was the first man to sin by disobeying God. Once again, it does not mean that sin was biologically transmitted to every human being who now exists.
Ok, so it's just a coincidence that Adam is the first man and all of his decendants are under the curse of sin and death.
For since by [a] man came death, by [a] Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive (1 Corinthians 15:21–22).
“And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth,” (Acts 17:26)
The New Testament writers clearly believed that Adam was the first man which is why in Lukes geneology he is refered to as the 'son of god' in that he had no human lineage.
Moreover, if necessary, I could name five noted Bible scholars who agree with me.
Is that right? Five noted scholars who agree with you! Wow! I had no idea that you were so credible. I don't know how you have been associated with actual scholars but you haven't even read the passages you are ponificating to creationists about. You set up a strawman and beat the stuffings out of it, that's all.
I have 2,000 years of Christian and 5,000 years of Jewish scholarship supporting my view including Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, Luke who is regarded as an historian of the highest rank according by
William Ramsey. Even the Council of Trent affirmed that Adam was the first man and that we are under the curse of sin and death because of him.
‘Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned’ (Romans 5:12).
Am I to suppose that Theistic Evolutionists affirm justification by faith based on Paul's teachings when they reject his clear statements regarding it's necessity? If it is believed that the first Adam is a myth then why not the second one? Biblical authority is undermined and that is the whole objective.
The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth authored by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable ‘ramp’ leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor freeway (John 5:39).
10 dangers of theistic evolution
