The search for Adam and Eve

[Hans Deventer]

Except that we tend to consider the word of God as in a different category than fables, faery tales, hero epics, etc. Would you suggest we put them all in a similar bucket?

Well, I would definitely argue that Jesus told stories (and He wasn't the only one in the Scriptures), but He Himself was as historical as it gets. We're Christians for a reason: it's about Him.

[David Troxler]

I completely agree, here. I've often said that I think Paul viewed Adam literally, but the 1-to-1 between him and Christ is simply a textual narrative which Paul uses to say what Paul wants to say. I think Paul would look at Tim Keller with bewilderment, slap him in the side of the head and asked (as my Youth pastor lovingly asked me), "are you some kinda moron?"

Paul's point was not to speak of a literal Adam. I think he viewed Adam literally, but did not need it, and did not rely upon it. He simply used the Adam narrative.

Thanks Ben.

One of the problems I was having with the original article stemmed from the brief quote attributed to Keller. I was trying to reconcile what I am sensing with his objections. Not that I am endorsing the slap upside the head, the rest of the matter, aided by Doug Ward's observations help me greatly.

dave t

[David Troxler]

I'm having difficulty remembering the importance of the "time" when God made man to be in His Own image. Man had been dust. Between one instant when he was dust and another point when he had been made in God's image, he was not yet in God's image: not quite. How long was that "time between"? We can superimpose a specific time, but the narrative isn't clear. Likely it wasn't intended to be clear.

As for the fall, our understanding for quite awhile has been that Adam represented us all. While it was not inevitable, it was representative. Original sin is not a biological, physical substantive thing, but a condition of the heart we "inherit" or have in common. Man chose to sin then, and so do we all. It is not the result of creation - for we were not created that way. We (represented by Adam - whether it was a single individual as commonly assumed, or the first, which could need to include more than one - on a broader scale that we have understood - Adam (mankind - the first Adam). That it might have happened to more than one then doesn't conflict with my own experience, because every person I have ever met has made the same choice. (Again, Adam represented us all - not well, but appropriately.) I would disagree with those who (might) maintain that the sin condition in man was a result of some sort of evolutionary process. Physical scientists who suggest that might benefit from a little broader theological understanding.

When Paul says "by one man sin entered into the world" even if his understanding was a single historic individual, his very premise would allow that to be a condition of mankind (resultant of the fall) solved in the second Adam.

Mind boggling to me is the idea that it might have happened simultaneously in various places - dna lines. It would be much easier to comprehend in the case of one individual in a single place. As it is, the case now being suggested requires a creative God who worked on a much broader scope. The more complicated, the more magnificent a creative God is revealed.

I really am open to corrective or alternative thoughts here.

Dennis-

Throughout this discussion I have been reminded of the Samson Agonistes/Everyman story. Having not read that in 30+ years my recollection is a bit sketchy, however, the image of Adam being the representative of all of us and his story ultimately being our own rings true.

Then, picturing Christ, the firstfruit of the dead being the representative of all the redeemed causes me to wonder about our being made new. I get Paul's picture of "as in Adam...so then in Christ..." Here I wonder if we have limited our understanding of newness. As someone else has already said in their post, when we look at this just from a physical understanding of life and death, we can only have one Adam and one Christ.

Spiritually, however, we are all Adam because of sin. Can we not also all be Christ (not in the sense of dying for the sins of another) but if we are all "little Christs" (Christian), can there not be a greater development in the makeup of our spiritual being? Just wondering aloud.

Now, if we can only find evidence of spiritual DNA....

dave t

[Benjamin Burch]

Except that we tend to consider the word of God as in a different category than fables, faery tales, hero epics, etc. Would you suggest we put them all in a similar bucket?

I don't think we can make that distinction. I think if you want to say we put Scripture in a different category than any other literature, in that it instructs us in faith and practice - yes.

But Scripture utilizes every literary form imaginable at the time, including fables and hero epics.

[Dennis M. Scott]

I don't think we can make that distinction. I think if you want to say we put Scripture in a different category than any other literature, in that it instructs us in faith and practice - yes.

But Scripture utilizes every literary form imaginable at the time, including fables and hero epics.

You are correct, and in fact those literary forms appear to have been employed to instruct us in faith and practice, which . . .

[Roland Hearn]

What I'm saying is that we should let the story speak for itself, rather than trying to re-present it according to our modern understanding of origins, etc. Nearly every other story we hear is allowed to speak for itself- true stories, fables, faery tales, hero epics, etc... There was a time when folks thought Hercules, Achilles, et al really existed and did the stuff the stories say about them. We don't believe that today, yet we don't try to come up with a more "scientific" version of the Nemean lion, or a "historical" understanding of what it means to be dipped in the River Styx.
I'm not 100% sure what we're supposed to learn from Genesis 3- I think the first theme to explore in it is God's grace (in letting them live), and there's obviously something about broken relationship in it as well, but I can read that without having to recast Adam and his wife as some kind of archetypal representation of our historical ancestors.

Sure Shea that does clarify a little and I fully get your point about trying to overlay science and origin narratives on the top of the story but I do think the story is speaking of origins. It is kind of hard to miss. I do think it is saying something and it is speaking about broken relationship and God as creator. My little anecdote probably is as far from the truth as any other but it is a part of being human to want to know where we come from. In truth the antagonism against evolutionary theory, IMHO, has less to do with a desperate fight for scriptural authenticity then it does about a fear of certain foundational self image concepts being undermined - that in the guise of scriptural inerrancy. We are never going to be able to minister to the inquiring mind with the kind of response that doesn't at least attempt to show how a story that is an imagery is at least in someway reflecting truth. The kinds of stories that you quoted as being allowed to "speak for themselves" actually have nothing to say to this day apart from entertainment. They have outlived their usefulness. Not so with the story of Adam and Eve and its reflection on sin, grace, and redemption. When we want to speak into someone's life the truth of grace begging the question doesn't help. The story clearly addresses the origin of sin and broken relationship. And so we come back to the original question. It is not a mute point the difference between sin as en evolved state and sin as a choice there are serious ramifications. The biblical story of Adam and Eve is at least a starting point for trying to address that. I do not believe it is literally true but I do believe it has worth and the worth is more than simply "it is what it is." I do not need it to be allegorical, I don't need it to be historical, I certainly don't need it to fanciful. It says something about the human condition, the origin of sin and relationship and it is not good enough to hide our own uncertainty behind "let it speak for itself" because I think that is a given. But what is it saying?

[Shea Zellweger]

Except that we tend to consider the word of God as in a different category than fables, faery tales, hero epics, etc. Would you suggest we put them all in a similar bucket?

I think once you put aside the possibility of the story being literal, then yes, these are the most logical categories. This is where having faith in inspiration becomes very helpful- if I don't believe God inspired the Bible, then it becomes just another cultural mythology and collection of stories. Thankfully, I do believe that God inspired the Bible, so although it's a cultural mythology, it is the cultural mythology which God selected to tell humans about the relationship between them and God.

I do not need it to be allegorical,

As long as you're willing to say that...
[/QUOTE] But what is it saying?[/QUOTE]
I'm with you all the way on this. I do think the story is about a broken relationship, between Adam and his wife, and between the two of them and God. But although it's set "in the beginning," I don't think it's about the origin of sin. I think on the broadest scale what the story tells us is that even in ideal conditions, and in constant relationship with God, people ultimately choose to leave that relationship.

Based on dating for the story (pretty sure it's Priestly source, ca. 500 BCE), there IS an allegorical way to read it, but not in regard to science. Adam and Eve could represent Israel, choosing to break relationship with God on the advice of some foreign influence, and being expelled from Canaa. The author(s), then, would be calling Israel to rid itself of foreign influences in hopes of restoring that relationship.

Either of these readings are directly applicable today, allow the story (and author) to speak for itself, and do not overlay any contemporary scientific understandings. They are far from the only two readings that do so, but they are the two I prefer.

[Thomas Oord]

I've only been able to read a few posts in this thread. But I think some of you will be interested in Michael Ruse's June 10 Huffington Post essay, "Adam and Eve Didn't Exist. Get Over It!" He wrote it in light of the Christianity Today article.

Although his rhetoric can be a bit harsh, I agree with the main point Michael is making...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae..._b_874982.html

Tom

[Paul DeBaufer]

I've only been able to read a few posts in this thread. But I think some of you will be interested in Michael Ruse's June 10 Huffington Post essay, "Adam and Eve Didn't Exist. Get Over It!" He wrote it in light of the Christianity Today article.

Although his rhetoric can be a bit harsh, I agree with the main point Michael is making...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae..._b_874982.html

Tom

All in all a very good article.

I love this sentence from the Huffington Post article: "the disappearance of a literal Adam and Eve is not only possible but something of a relief" and his clean-up, "When did a Nobel Prize winner ever change his or her mind in the face of a reinterpretation of the Trinity? It may be true that this is a one-way process, but in no way does this imply that theology is inferior. The changes are part of theology."

[Jon Bemis]

After reading both articles, I think both make valid points. But thought this point from the Christianity Today article was especially good:

"At this juncture, we counsel patience. We don't need another fundamentalist reaction against science. We need instead a positive interdisciplinary engagement that recognizes the good will of all involved and that creative thinking takes time. In the long run, it may be the humility of our scholars as much as their technical expertise that will bring us to deeper knowledge of the truth."

[Hans Deventer]

After reading both articles, I think both make valid points. But thought this point from the Christianity Today article was especially good:

What is at stake?

First, the entire story of what is wrong with the world hinges on the disobedient exercise of the will by the first humans. The problem with the human race is not its dearth of insight but its misshapen will.

I agree with the latter, but don't see how the former would require an historical first couple.

Second, the entire story of salvation hinges on the obedience of the Second Adam.

Agreed. But I'm not buying the theory that in order for Jesus to fulfil the role of the Second Adam, we'd need an historical first one.

Hebrew thought offers one clue to resolving this tension: the corporate nature of humanity. Scripture often calls groups of people by the name of their historical head. Israel is an obvious example. So are Canaan and Cush.

Makes sense.

Thus, some have suggested—as does John Collins in Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Crossway, 2011)—that if both biblical and scientific clues suggest a larger population contemporary with Adam and Eve (Whom did Cain marry? Whom did God protect him from?), we can still conceive of Adam and Eve as leaders of that original population. That suggestion has the virtue of embracing both a prehistoric couple and a prehistoric population.

Could be. I'd like to add:

Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם‎, Arabic: آدم‎) in Biblical (as well as modern) Hebrew is sometimes used as the personal name of an individual and at other times in a generic sense meaning "mankind", in the same way as the earlier Canaanite 'adam'.

[Shea Zellweger]

Could be. I'd like to add:

Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם‎, Arabic: آدم‎) in Biblical (as well as modern) Hebrew is sometimes used as the personal name of an individual and at other times in a generic sense meaning "mankind", in the same way as the earlier Canaanite 'adam'.

Again I will point out that while the word is used in the broader sense elsewhere, the narrative of Genesis 2-3 is clearly referring to an individual. If one wishes to make Adam an allegorical representation of humanity, that's fine, but the Adam of the story is definitely an individual human, and the word is not being used to refer to "mankind."

[Jon Bemis]

Again I will point out that while the word is used in the broader sense elsewhere, the narrative of Genesis 2-3 is clearly referring to an individual. If one wishes to make Adam an allegorical representation of humanity, that's fine, but the Adam of the story is definitely an individual human, and the word is not being used to refer to "mankind."

Pretty much how I understand it too.

[Hans Deventer]

Again I will point out that while the word is used in the broader sense elsewhere, the narrative of Genesis 2-3 is clearly referring to an individual. If one wishes to make Adam an allegorical representation of humanity, that's fine, but the Adam of the story is definitely an individual human, and the word is not being used to refer to "mankind."

Not in the story, no. But then there is always the question how to interpret the story. And as long as I hear no serious solutions for the question where the people came from that Cain went to, I tend to take the story of the individual "Adam" as representative for my story and yours and the rest of mankind's.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Cain's wife: I've always wanted to preach on this and title my sermon, "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner." Sure, bring her home to meet the parents. Boy, are they going to be surprised!

[Shea Zellweger]

Not in the story, no. But then there is always the question how to interpret the story. And as long as I hear no serious solutions for the question where the people came from that Cain went to, I tend to take the story of the individual "Adam" as representative for my story and yours and the rest of mankind's.

I think I see where you're going with the Cain thing, but not sure that the one necessarily follows from the other. The question of where Cain's wife came from doesn't really seem to have any bearing on whether Adam "represents" you or me or anyone else. One can understand Adam and Eve as having been mythological, or as having been 2 people among many, without needing them to be representative. See the first interpretation I offered in post #62.

[Hans Deventer]

I think I see where you're going with the Cain thing, but not sure that the one necessarily follows from the other. The question of where Cain's wife came from doesn't really seem to have any bearing on whether Adam "represents" you or me or anyone else.

I didn't claim it did. I just tried to say that the story of Adam's family, even in the Scriptures, doesn't seem to be the story of the only people alive at the time. So my point was that though the story is about individuals, we might very well interpret it more broadly since it doesn't appear to be historical. Now whether or not we actually should interpret it as representative is another story , but one that does make sense to me. That's all I'm saying.

[Roland Hearn]

I think once you put aside the possibility of the story being literal, then yes, these are the most logical categories. This is where having faith in inspiration becomes very helpful- if I don't believe God inspired the Bible, then it becomes just another cultural mythology and collection of stories. Thankfully, I do believe that God inspired the Bible, so although it's a cultural mythology, it is the cultural mythology which God selected to tell humans about the relationship between them and God.



As long as you're willing to say that...
But what is it saying?
I'm with you all the way on this. I do think the story is about a broken relationship, between Adam and his wife, and between the two of them and God. But although it's set "in the beginning," I don't think it's about the origin of sin. I think on the broadest scale what the story tells us is that even in ideal conditions, and in constant relationship with God, people ultimately choose to leave that relationship.

Based on dating for the story (pretty sure it's Priestly source, ca. 500 BCE), there IS an allegorical way to read it, but not in regard to science. Adam and Eve could represent Israel, choosing to break relationship with God on the advice of some foreign influence, and being expelled from Canaa. The author(s), then, would be calling Israel to rid itself of foreign influences in hopes of restoring that relationship.

Either of these readings are directly applicable today, allow the story (and author) to speak for itself, and do not overlay any contemporary scientific understandings. They are far from the only two readings that do so, but they are the two I prefer.

I'm not going to go much farther with this because I think we have pretty much exhausted this discussion. However I'll say this: the idea that the story of Adam and Eve can have anything at all to do with scientific explanations is laughable. The story resonates with early historic reflections on existential questions. To suggest it is purely national I think is to miss the need for prehistoric and early historic people to address those questions. There is hardly a culture anywhere that doesn't have such stories and they almost all have some kind of national/race/locale representation but they answer the deeper question of where do I come from? Of course the story of Israel is located in the Adam story because for the Israelites they were the centre of humanity. Their history was the true history of humanity and all other humanity reflected the repercussions of deviation from God's path and that started with Adam. God's redemption for humanity started with him selecting from the children of Adam a people that would bring salvation to all of humanity. So the ideas of the origins of humanity, the origins of sin and the purity of Israel are all so intimately connected it is of no benefit at all to try and separate them. However I think that the ideas of Cain's wife and wanderings among hostile people suggests that even in their mythology there was an understanding that "something else" was happening in terms of the human story. I think modern science has no need at all to attempt to be reconciled with this story of beginnings. But, the issue of sin, that I started my series of posts with, does draw significant implications from whether or not we see sin as a biological reality and a part of evolution or as a choice to resist the love of God. I think the Adam story has something to say about that.

[David Graham]

Yeah, I think I'm with Roland on this.......

It's a story which "explains" the origins of humanity, sin and human suffering, that we "receive by faith", even though in reality, science may tell us "how" humanity came into being. (I do suspect however, that science may well prove a common "ape" ancestor of us all.)

Yet, theologically, we can always say: "well our original ancestors sinned and we have inherited their sinful nature, BUT, in Christ (the second Adam, the first to rise from the dead) we can have a new beginning, free from the overlord of sin and death, to obtain life in all of its fullness forever".

[Pete Vecchi]

I believe God created humanity to be in relationship to God and to find the fulfillment we seek only in God. Separation comes as a result of us trying to find fulfillment on our own (whether in selfishness or altruism). When we take on the individual task of self-fulfillment we discover we're more empty than we were before. When we (illogically) give up our selfish desires for self-less love, we find fulfillment in the God of self-less love and the relationship for which we were created.

Altruism is really an attempt at self-fulfillment - an added element of our selfish desire to feel good. So it's not a matter of selfishness vs altruism, but the tension between our desire for pleasure and our ability to give up that desire for God.

I agree with all this.

Edit: By the way, I just started looking at this thread today, and the above quote is from post number 14. After I posted (pre-edit), I saw that my post was number 77. I stopped reading at post # 14, just because there's way too much reading for me to get into in posts 15-76 right now...

[Steven Burton]

So why is Cain so afraid of other people coming after him when he murdered his brother?

[Shea Zellweger]

So why is Cain so afraid of other people coming after him when he murdered his brother?

help me make the connection Steve... this post doesn't really fit the flow of the thread thus far so far as I can tell. It's definitely an important question when addressing the text, but there are already some prepared answers for those who wish to read the passage as literal history- Adam and Eve had "many other sons and daughters"... could be some of those; God created additional people; Cain doesn't understand the world well enough to know any better; etc.

[Steven Burton]

See post 70.

[Dennis Bratcher]

So why is Cain so afraid of other people coming after him when he murdered his brother?

Could you clarify the question? The Genesis narrative seems quite clear:

4:14 ". . . and anyone who meets me may kill me."

If the question is, “who were these other people?”, then the answer is that the text does not say. If we provide a concrete answer we move into speculation beyond what the text allows. We must be honest enough to admit that.

It does seem obvious that the biblical narrative assumes that there are other people living in other places, both from this passage and the account of Cain finding a wife from “the land of Nod, east of Eden” (4:16). That tells us that this narrative is not an historical account about ultimate origins (in spite of the Greek name of the book, Genesis). Rather it focuses on a representative couple as a way to talk about humanity in general, and the story of God and humanity. Recall, the Hebrew word adam is a generic term for “man”, and so “humanity” or “people.” It is only used as a proper name in a derivative sense, and then not until late in the creation narratives (4:25 or 5:1).

In other words, to try to read this story as a historical account leaves us with questions for which the only answers are speculation and guesses, some of which drift into the ludicrous. Read as theology, the narrative is a coherent and compact story of the nature of humanity and the nature of God in his interaction with human beings at their worst.

Grace and peace,

Dennis B.

[Steven Burton]

Well when the conversation entered into the fighting between was he the first and father of all or was he metaphorical I usually throw that question into the mix. And as Shea pointed out so nicely they had other kids which means....... If we are looking at it as some due in a literal sense.

And Shea trust me you are not the only one that gets confused by my random questions thrown in or comments. I tend to create pictures of connecting things that seem to some as abstract and can not be made into a picture/concrete. I have been told that I can do Abstract concept = concrete/picture concept. Where it seems like it would be an Abstract concept =/= concrete/picture concept. I do seem to lean some towards concrete/picture at times when I am unsure. (= means bridge)

[Paul DeBaufer]

Did Adam and Eve exist?

No.

from this article I read today Adam, Eve & the Bible

[Jon Bemis]

from this article I read today Adam, Eve & the Bible

Another article that explores the possibility Adam and Eve were not actual historical persons from Christianity Today.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Some conservative Evangelicals are having a "Galileo moment" in this article. Maybe it is time to realize that the narrative is as Ben said here

[Paul DeBaufer]

Karl Giberson clarifies his position based on questions he received in today's NPR interview. The Bible is a Library Not a Book Maybe this will help.

[David Troxler]

Another article that explores the possibility Adam and Eve were not actual historical persons from Christianity Today.

Hi Jon, that's the same article this thread began with.

[David Morris]

One cannot look at evidence that doesn't exist.

I'm really not trying to push one view over another. I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and there is an equally appalling lack of empirical evidence for that one as well. That is what faith is all about.

I personally don't care whether there was ever a real Adam and Eve or not.

So we are quick to say that, due to the lack of empiric evidence, it is a fact that Adam and Eve (as Genesis tells it) didn't exist.

Then when that same lack of empiric evidence exists for the resurrection of Christ, it would be absolutely heretical to say it must not of happened?

In the name of science, isn't truth only that which can be proven and seen?

[Jon Bemis]

Hi Jon, that's the same article this thread began with.

You know, I thought it looked vaguely familiar.

[Ryan Scott]

So we are quick to say that, due to the lack of empiric evidence, it is a fact that Adam and Eve (as Genesis tells it) didn't exist.

Then when that same lack of empiric evidence exists for the resurrection of Christ, it would be absolutely heretical to say it must not of happened?

In the name of science, isn't truth only that which can be proven and seen?

I didn't say they don't exist. I don't know. I also said it's perfectly acceptable to believe they did exist. I just said there's no evidence to support the claim.

There are only two faith claims I find foundational to my faith - that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and that the Holy Spirit is active in the world. My only evidence for either is purely experiential.

I don't think there were two people named Adam and Eve, but there were people who first understood their relationship to God and those people sinned in a way that has real consequences for the world hereafter. There's a real difference between the theological position of "first people" and the biological/historical consequences of Adam and Eve.

[Doug Ward]

So we are quick to say that, due to the lack of empiric evidence, it is a fact that Adam and Eve (as Genesis tells it) didn't exist.

Then when that same lack of empiric evidence exists for the resurrection of Christ, it would be absolutely heretical to say it must not of happened?

In the name of science, isn't truth only that which can be proven and seen?

This has been claimed a few times in this thread now, but it is not true. We have a little more evidence of the resurrection than we have for Adam and Eve, actually much more. One can approach these two events differently. Neither can be empirically proven, but one has far more evidence than the other.

[Todd Erickson]

So we are quick to say that, due to the lack of empiric evidence, it is a fact that Adam and Eve (as Genesis tells it) didn't exist.

Then when that same lack of empiric evidence exists for the resurrection of Christ, it would be absolutely heretical to say it must not of happened?

In the name of science, isn't truth only that which can be proven and seen?

From a sheerly biblical standpoint, the problem is this:

There are plenty of bits in the NT about how our faith depends on the resurrection of Christ.

There is not a single statement, anywhere in the bible, stating that our faith or relationship with Christ depends on a literal Adam and Eve. We have decided doctrinally that it does, but nobody anywhere in the bible is actually asking us to do so.

[Ryan Scott]

We have decided doctrinally that it does,

I'm not even sure we have. I don't know too many doctrines (other than, as was mentioned, a Penal Substitution theory of atonement) that rely on a real, physical Adam and Eve. We may have decided they were important colloquially and even connected our colloquial understanding to our doctrines, but they're not doctrinally necessary.

[David Morris]

From a sheerly biblical standpoint, the problem is this:

There are plenty of bits in the NT about how our faith depends on the resurrection of Christ.

There is not a single statement, anywhere in the bible, stating that our faith or relationship with Christ depends on a literal Adam and Eve. We have decided doctrinally that it does, but nobody anywhere in the bible is actually asking us to do so.

Todd, I agree with your assessment that you won't find anything in the Bible that states how our relationship with Christ is dependent on a literal Adam and Eve. There is plenty of NT support about how our faith depends on the resurrection of Christ What I was asking Ryan, out of good old fashioned curiosity, had more to do with the hard evidence (seen and proven) that Jesus Christ was resurrected. Just about everybody on this thread, and in this forum, is way smarter than me, and threads like this challenge what I have believed to be true for a majority of my life. I am not doubting my faith for a second, but I am beginning to analyze some of what the church taught me at a young age.

I am with Ryan, and probably 99% of the participants on this forum, by believing that Jesus Christ is resurrected because the evidence experientially is to strong to ignore. There is no hard physical evidence that anyone has found that would prove or deny the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, but what He has done in my life is all the proof I need.

This discussion is all very new to me. I read the CT article about two months ago on a flight from Indy to Seattle, and it has been working itself out in my mind.

[Ryan Scott]

Todd, I agree with your assessment that you won't find anything in the Bible that states how our relationship with Christ is dependent on a literal Adam and Eve. There is plenty of NT support about how our faith depends on the resurrection of Christ What I was asking Ryan, out of good old fashioned curiosity, had more to do with the hard evidence (seen and proven) that Jesus Christ was resurrected. Just about everybody on this thread, and in this forum, is way smarter than me, and threads like this challenge what I have believed to be true for a majority of my life. I am not doubting my faith for a second, but I am beginning to analyze some of what the church taught me at a young age.

I am with Ryan, and probably 99% of the participants on this forum, by believing that Jesus Christ is resurrected because the evidence experientially is to strong to ignore. There is no hard physical evidence that anyone has found that would prove or deny the fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, but what He has done in my life is all the proof I need.

This discussion is all very new to me. I read the CT article about two months ago on a flight from Indy to Seattle, and it has been working itself out in my mind.

We do have historical proof. As much as scholars don't like it, the Bible is about as authentic a source of information from the time period as anything else in existence. However, like most historical accounts of the time, we have to take them with a grain of salt academically (seeing as how history as an academic discipline didn't arise until the 1800's). We do rely on more than experience, just not evidence concrete enough for mainstream science.

[David Morris]

We do have historical proof. As much as scholars don't like it, the Bible is about as authentic a source of information from the time period as anything else in existence. However, like most historical accounts of the time, we have to take them with a grain of salt academically (seeing as how history as an academic discipline didn't arise until the 1800's). We do rely on more than experience, just not evidence concrete enough for mainstream science.

My only beef with this statement Ryan is that we say "the Bible is about as authentic a source of information from the time period as anything else." I agree, much of what we see in Scripture has also been backed up through archeological finds. However, I struggle with the Bible being an authentic source of information for one thing, and not accurate for another. I realize creation and the life, death and resurrection of Christ are two totally different time periods.

[Benjamin Burch]

My only beef with this statement Ryan is that we say "the Bible is about as authentic a source of information from the time period as anything else." I agree, much of what we see in Scripture has also been backed up through archeological finds. However, I struggle with the Bible being an authentic source of information for one thing, and not accurate for another. I realize creation and the life, death and resurrection of Christ are two totally different time periods.

It's a good source for one thing - the only thing it pretends to be a good source for - faith in Jesus Christ.