The following is a production of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. For more information about the seminary, visit us online at gpts.edu. I would like to thank Dr. Piper and Greenville Seminary for the invitation to speak at this conference and for hosting such an important topic as we're going to talk about at this conference. And I really look forward to the singing the rest of the conference. Certain recent events have made the historicity of Adam and Eve the center of discussion. There's been a major push to accept theistic evolution as the way God has created the world. This push has come from Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian, was a scientist, became converted to Christianity. He held on to his evolutionary beliefs. And BioLogos, a website that he helped to establish. Both are committed to celebrating the compatibility of macroevolution, theistic evolution, and the biblical faith. Their success is seen in how many evangelical and reformed biblical scholars have begun to accept evolution as the reigning paradigm of how God formed the first human beings. For example, Dr. Bruce Waltke, former professor of Old Testament at RTS, produced a video for BioLogos where he suggests that the data in favor of evolution is so overwhelming that the church is in danger of becoming a cult if she continues to reject it. Tremper Longman, former professor of Old Testament at Westminster Seminary, now teaching at Westmont College, has co-authored a book entitled Science, Creation, and the Bible, where he argues that nothing in Darwinism threatens Christian doctrine, and that the gospel can be advanced to our educated friends if we accept. evolution. Peter Innes, former professor of Old Testament, you begin to see a pattern here, right? You have to be careful of those Old Testament professors. Former professor of Old Testament at Westminster Seminary, also formerly at Biologos, I think now he's an adjunct at Eastern University, has written that evolution is a game changer. A game changer which should cause us to reinterpret Scripture light of evolution. The above scholars have basically accepted evolution as established fact and they call for the church to revise her understanding of Scripture and her doctrine in light of the sure foundation of evolution. Another Old Testament scholar, Dr. John Collins, professor of Old Testament at Covenant Seminary, has written a book on the historicity of Adam and Eve. He attempts to hold on to what he calls the traditional view of Adam in light of evolutionary theory. We'll discuss how successful his attempt has been. What is significant is that each of these scholars are Old Testament professors who've been prominent at Reformed seminaries and their writings have been well known within Reformed circles. All of them except for Dr. Collins, John Collins, have basically sold out to evolution and want to reinterpret scripture in light of evolution. John Collins wants to put the brakes on certain conclusions from evolution. But in my opinion, he gives away the hermeneutical foundation that would allow us to stand against such evolutionary views. The implications for accepting evolution as the method by which God brought into existence the first humans are staggering. In fact, many of these issues are going to be addressed in this conference. Carl Truman, in a recent blog, has called the question of Adam the biggest doctrinal question facing the current generation. At the heart of this debate is how should we interpret Scripture? More specifically, how should we understand Genesis 2-7? The exegesis of Genesis 2-7 becomes increasingly significant because it touches on the basic question of how the first human beings came into existence. My goal in the time that I have this morning or this afternoon is to briefly examine Genesis 2, to compare it with evolutionary models, to discuss the hermeneutical principles which seek to minimize Genesis 2-7 in order to accept evolution and then to draw out some implications for the church today. We start with Genesis 2-7. It was read to us this morning. It states, Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living creature. This first describes how God brought into existence the first man. He took dust from the ground, formed it into a man, breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. The key word here is dust. Dirt. Loose soil. And in the context of Genesis 1 through 3, it can only mean dirt and dust. Genesis 3.19, in the context of curse of the fall. The statement is made, you are dust and to dust you shall return. At death a human being returns to dust, the basic element out of which he is made. And then Genesis 2, 18 through 24 describes the creation of Eve. Before God forms Eve, he states, it's not good that the man should be alone. And God solves this problem by producing a helper fit for him, fit for the man. God forms the beasts of the field, the birds and livestock, and brings them to Adam for him to give them names. But the purpose of this is there's not found a helper suitable Adam among the animals. It's clear there did not exist any living creature at this time that was suitable for Adam. It's the woman formed by God from the man who is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This statement highlights the sameness that the man and the woman share as opposed to the other creatures and it also rules out the existence of any other type of living creature. whether animal or human-like, who could have been seen as a match for Adam. The woman who is formed is distinguished from the animals, but she is a match for Adam. She is unique among the living creatures. Her origin is traced to the man. God took a rib from the side of Adam and created Eve. She is unique. This connection emphasizes the unity of the human family, which is solidified by the statement in Genesis 2.24 on marriage. Genesis 2 presents Adam and Eve as the first human couple. It's clear from the creation account and from other scriptures that we will briefly look at a little bit later. that Adam is the first man, that Eve is the first woman, and that from them come all human descendants. The specific order of creation whereby the woman is formed from the man rules out any scenario where God would set apart a first couple from a group of already existing humans. Therefore, it seems pretty clear what Genesis 2-7 teaches. What about evolution? Theistic evolution? Evolution sets forth a different scenario than Genesis 2. And I want to just briefly go through some of this. I'm not an expert on this aspect. But I can give you enough of an idea of what evolution teaches so that we can compare it with Genesis 2-7. Evolutionary change is gradual and slow, supported by the fossil record, supposedly. The primary mechanism of evolutionary change is natural selection through random mutations. This leads to the development of higher forms of life from lower forms of life. Higher forms of life are called hominids. These include human beings and creatures from which they develop. Some argue that a founding group of hominids emerged in Africa about 200,000 years ago. This group then migrated to other parts of the world and replaced already existing hominids. This is one particular view. In this view, Adam and Eve represent a population rather than a single couple. This particular view preserves the unity of mankind which descended from a single population. Others argue that human beings evolved simultaneously around the world from different hominid populations. Then about 6,000 to 8,000 years ago, God chose a couple of Neolithic farmers to which he revealed himself in a special way, calling them into fellowship with himself. There were other farmers already in existence at that time who were human in an anatomical sense, but they were not yet spiritually alive. God's revelation to Adam set him apart so that now, for the first time, humans understood what it meant to be in the image of God. Adam, in this view, is viewed as the federal head of the human race at that time. When Adam recognizes Eve as bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh, he's not just recognizing another human being. There were many other human beings in existence at this time, they would argue. but he is recognizing a fellow believer. Many would also argue that recent genetic evidence does not allow the complexity of the DNA situation among human beings to have derived from a single couple. In other words, a single couple, the argument goes, could not produce the complexity of the genetic evidence that we see today. One scholar, a professor at Calvin College, states this, the genetic diversity in the existing population of human beings could not have been the legacy of descent from a single human pair, even allowing for 100,000 to 200,000 years. However, he goes on to say, this point of conflict can be readily resolved by making use of the rich resources of historical criticism that enable us to read Genesis on its own terms. But this strategy requires giving up what he calls principled inerrancy. Several conclusions can be drawn from these evolutionary models. First, there existed prior to Adam human-like creatures from which Adam evolved, which means that the way Genesis 2.7 describes the formation of Adam cannot be accurate. Second, Adam may not have been the first human being. Humans already existed, and God chose to reveal himself to a couple. Third, Adam and Eve may not be the first couple, so that all humans may not really be descended from them. There were other human beings around at the time. Fourth, Adam and Eve may not even be individuals. Yes, they may not be individuals, but they may represent groups. which are needed to satisfy the current genetic situation. And then fifth, many would argue on the evolutionary side that it's no longer possible to believe in an original pristine condition, whether that's physical or moral. For early humans inherited their sinful tendencies from their animal past. Now, it becomes clear, doesn't it, that God's formation of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 stands over against these evolutionary models. So the question becomes, if you believe in evolution, if you believe in theistic evolution, what in the world do you do with Genesis 2? How can you hold on to theistic evolution and still believe what Genesis 2.7 says. Hermeneutics, how you interpret the Bible, becomes very important. There are three hermeneutical moves, how you interpret the Bible moves, that defenders of evolution make. order to blunt the meaning of Genesis 2-7 so that they are able to hold on to theistic evolution and still say they have a high view of Genesis chapter 2. Those who are completely sold out to evolution usually go down this road and I want to briefly give you those three hermeneutical moves. The first is is to identify the character, the literary nature, sometimes we call that the genre, of Genesis 1-11 in such a way that Genesis 1-11 is to be interpreted mainly in a symbolical way. With the purpose of Genesis 1-11 is to teach us theology, not give us historical truth. So they approach Genesis 1-11 And they basically say it's not historical, it's theological. It's meant to teach theology, but not to give us history. Some would then identify Genesis 1 through 11 as story, not history. based on the fact that they see the early chapters of Genesis as looking very stylized with sequences, events, and characters that look more symbolic than real. And they would argue the purpose of these episodes is meant to explain the origins of aspects of human life in the world. These stories are meant to explain marriage, sexual desire, toil and labor, pain and childbirth, beginnings of material culture, but they're not meant to be read as history. They're describing events that no one has witnessed. So they can't be historical, they would argue, in the normal sense of the term. Thus, when one reads the early chapters of Genesis, there are certain indicators that the text should be understood in a symbolic way. And these indicators that the text should be understood in a symbolic way includes the fact that the garden is patterned after the temple, the names of Adam and Eve are symbolic themselves, the talking snake is a familiar figure from popular folklore, Yahweh is portrayed in an anthropomorphic way, and there seems to be more people around in Genesis 4 than just Adam and his family. So the first hermeneutical move is to say that Genesis 1 through 11 is not really history, it's story, and we should interpret it in a symbolic way. Therefore, Genesis 2-7 is full of symbolism. The second hermeneutical move that the defenders of theistic evolution make is that Genesis must be read in the light of other ancient Near Eastern literature. When Genesis is compared to the stories of origin in Mesopotamia, for example, such as Enuma Elish, it helps us understand how to read Genesis. Reading these ancient Near Eastern stories of origin helps us to read Genesis correctly. Many would argue that Genesis borrowed and transformed sequences, themes, and motifs from pagan myth, including the idea that humans were created out of clay to cultivate the land. In fact, many would hold that the very outline of primeval antiquity in the early chapters of Genesis relies on older Mesopotamian tradition and that all the narrative details in Genesis 2 are borrowed from Mesopotamian mythology. And so they would argue that the similarities between Genesis and the other stories of origin leads to the conclusion that Genesis should not be treated as historical. It should be understood as myth. Peter N. even draws the conclusion that if the foundational stories of Genesis fit in so well with these other non-historical stories of the ancient Near East. How can we even say that the Genesis stories refer to fundamentally unique revealed historical events? In other words, if the Genesis stories come later in history than the other stories of origin, the Babylonian stories going back to 1800, the Genesis story, Moses, 1400, How can we understand that the Genesis stories are the original stories revealed by God? Thus, the historicity and even the revelatory character of Genesis is questioned. So the second hermeneutical move is to let's read Genesis and a lot of the ancient Near Eastern stories of origin. They didn't really understand them as all that literal, so why should we understand Genesis? in that way. The third hermeneutical move made by those who are basically committed to evolution is to understand the relationship between Genesis 1 and 2 as contradictory. They would argue and they would see that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two creation accounts that differ significantly. They would argue that Genesis 1 portrays God creating an unspecified number of male and female human beings. I don't know where they get that in Genesis 1, but that's the argument that's made. But then Genesis 2, by contrast, pictures the Lord creating one man, then animals, and then one woman. You can't take, they would say, Genesis 1 and 2 as factual history, because to understand them in that way means that they are so contradictory to each other. Therefore, they would conclude that we should understand them in a literary, symbolical way. To summarize the argument thus far, the historicity of Genesis 2, the theistic evolutionists would say, is no longer a viable option in light of its similarity to ancient Near Eastern accounts. It cannot be understood as historical because it is story. some would even say myth. This conclusion then is reinforced by the contradictions between the two creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2. So in order to hold on to their theistic evolution, because they believe that theistic evolution has been established as fact, they have to then make these moves to in essence redefine the nature of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 and see Genesis in the context of the ancient Near East so they can approach it in a symbolic way which gives them the freedom then to say Genesis 2, 7 doesn't really mean what it says and we don't have to understand it. in that way. So what kind of response should we give? Well, there are good, solid biblical arguments that would uphold the, what I call now, the historic biblical confessional view that God formed Adam from the dust of the ground as a first human being, There has been a response to these arguments from Dr. John Collins in his book, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? And in my opinion, his response falls short because he accepts too many of the hermeneutical assumptions that are foundational to the evolutionary approach. Genesis chapter 2. So let me spend a few minutes explaining Dr. Collins' response and how I believe it falls short. On the positive side, Dr. Collins is trying to keep the arguments surrounding the historicity of Adam within certain boundaries so that some form of what he calls the traditional view can be maintained. So he's trying to put the brakes on on some of their conclusions. However, it's very important to understand how Dr. Collins defines the traditional view. There are three things that make up the traditional view. It includes, number one, the fact that the origin of the human race goes beyond a merely natural process. In other words, God had to be involved in some way. There had to be some supernatural activity. Second, that Adam and Eve stand at the headwaters of the human race. And then third, there is an historical fall that included disobeying God. That is how he defines the traditional view the historicity of Adam and Eve. But he's not interested in this particular work in discussing various Christian positions on the origin of the material for Adam's body, how long ago he lived, how the sin of Adam and Eve come to us, etc. In essence, he omits from the discussion the meaning of Genesis 2-7. In other words, the meaning of Genesis 2-7 is not included in the traditional view. By leaving Genesis 2-7 out of the discussion, he leaves out of the discussion the very foundational text for how we understand how God created Adam. but also his hermeneutical approach is not that different from the approach of those who argue for evolution. He's very similar to them in two of their three hermeneutical moves in the way they interpret Scripture. And that's why I say in the final analysis, the foundation to argue for the biblical confessional view is not there, because he accepts two of their three hermeneutical moves. He does not argue, the move he does not accept, is that Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictory. That's not Dr. Collins' view. That's the one view that he doesn't accept. But how does he understand the character of Genesis 1 through 11? He argues that Genesis 1 through 11 is not quote unquote straight history. His terminology, he defines straight history as having a minimum of figurative language. Genesis 1 through 11, he says, is not straight history. Rather, he sees Genesis 1 through 11 as historical in the sense that it's referring to actual events. Historical, it's referring to actual events, but because the author uses literary and rhetorical techniques, there's a high level of figurative and symbolic description. And so he talks about the benefit of a pictorial approach to the Bible as explaining ordinary experience. See, he basically says that Genesis 1 through 11 is literary and uses rhetorical techniques. Therefore, we shouldn't understand it as too literal. There's room for symbolism in our understanding of Genesis 2. He agrees with the theistic evolutionists on the literary character of Genesis. Now he doesn't say it's a myth, but he allows the symbolism approach. Then he says that Genesis 1 through 11, or say such an approach to Genesis 1 through 11, is confirmed when Genesis 1 through 11 is read in the context of the Mesopotamian stories of origin. These stories of origin from the ancient Near East is the proper literary background to read Genesis. These stories of origin from the ancient Near East give us clues as to how we are to read Genesis. And if you look at these stories, he argues, these stories are historical in the sense that they are referring to actual events. But we don't take them literally. They manifest, and I'm quoting here, historical referentiality clothed in imaginative description. so that it's reasonable to expect Genesis to take the same approach as these ancient stories of origin. Now, Dr. Collins does not give any examples, so I'm gonna try to give you an example, because I've tried to understand what exactly is he saying, and how would he use an ancient Near Eastern story in this way. So, in Enuma Elish, the Babylonian story, It describes the formation of the earth and the heavens as the result of a battle between the gods, where Marduk defeats Tiamat and slays her. When Marduk defeats Tiamat, he cuts her body in two pieces, and with one half of her body, he forms the earth, and with the other half, he forms the skies. Well, apparently this story refers to actual events. It's referring to the formation of the heavens, and it's referring to the formation of the earth. But it does so in a way that is full of imaginative description, full of symbolism. And as we would probably say if we read that story, not really that true to reality. On the basis of Collins' argument concerning the relationship of Genesis to these ancient stories, you could draw the conclusion that we should understand Genesis 1 and 2 in the same way. He never makes that conclusion, but I'm trying to flesh out what does he mean when he says, they manifest historical referentiality clothed in imaginative description. So Dr. Collins concludes, that Genesis 1-11 has an historical core. It has an historical core. This core includes the historicity of Adam, but he goes on to say there's no certainty concerning how the body of Adam was formed. And we should not understand Genesis 2-7 in too literal a fashion. Such a view of Genesis 2-7 is compatible with evolution. In fact, Dr. Collins has quoted in a Christianity Today article of, I forget when, a year, two years, If geneticists conclude that one original couple cannot explain the current DNA evidence, which would require a thousand or more individuals, then to maintain good sense, these humans must be seen as a single tribe with Adam the chieftain of the tribe. That's the quote from Dr. Collins. He's trying to maintain a traditional view, as he defines it, within the context of theistic evolution. But in my view, he allows really the hermeneutical foundation upon which we can stand to argue against evolution, he gives that away. It's very interesting, in his book Science and Faith, he states that he prefers the view that dust in Genesis 2-7 is loose soil. But he also says that he can commend the view that dust in Genesis 2-7 was the body of an ape or hominid because it maintains a supernatural act of God in the process. Interestingly, there was an OPC case, 1995 or 96, where a gentleman tried to argue that dust meant a hominid body and it was not accepted. There's no way in my mind, in reading Genesis 2-7, that dust can refer to the body of a hominid. And so in my opinion, Dr. Collins gives away too much, hermeneutically. He's not able then to argue decisively for the historic biblical confessional view of how God formed man from the dust of the ground. Charles Hodge once said in opposition to, I think it was the reunion of the new school and old school, He said about the other side, he says, it's not what they believe, but it's what they will tolerate. Well, let's give a brief response. How should we understand Genesis 1 through 11 in light of what we have talked about here this morning? I do believe that the discussion of the literary nature of Genesis 1 through 11 is key to this debate. with so much emphasis on reading Genesis in light of its own context, we should read Genesis 1 through 11 in light of its own literary character. Genesis 1 through 11 is no different than Genesis 12 through 50. It's permeated with the Hebrew narrative construction. Those of you who know Hebrew know how the imperfect Vav consecutive functions in Hebrew narrative. It moves the storyline forward. Genesis 1 and 2, just like the rest of Genesis, the narrative parts are full of the imperfect Vav consecutive. For some reason, this main marker of Hebrew narrative is overlooked, downplayed, or just ignored. in discussing the early chapters of Genesis. Either these chapters, they say, are dealing with special events, or the literary nature of these chapters are so structured that we can't accept the conclusion based on the fact that the main narrative for Hebrew, the main marker for Hebrew narrative is there in Genesis 1 and 2, Genesis 1 through 11 in the narrative sections. It's a false dichotomy to say that if something is narrative or story it can't be history, or if something is history it can't be theological. The book of Genesis is all three. It's narrative, it's historical, it's theological. The separation of those comes out of the Enlightenment. The fact that Genesis 1 through 11 is narrative, which exhibits literary structure, does not mean that we must read the text symbolically or pictorially. Whether or not an author uses symbolism or figurative language in a particular passage must be established exegetically. You don't approach a structured narrative with the assumption that it's full of symbolism. So there's a false dichotomy here between what's literal and what's figurative. And if you read through Collins' book carefully, the term literal is almost his enemy. Constantly warning against too literal of an approach. I also believe it's a misuse of the stories of the origin of the ancient Near East It's a misuse of them to use them as a guide to how we are to read Genesis 1 through 11. These stories are myth. They have very little historical foundation. And although some may point to the similarities between these stories in Genesis 1 through 11, the similarities are superficial and insignificant in light of the differences between the accounts. Genesis is not dependent upon these stories. nor should these stories be a guide as to how Genesis should be read. This approach downplays the supernatural revelatory character of Genesis 1 through 11. Even if Moses lived later than the existence of the Babylonian stories, Moses sets forth the original story because it is revelation from God. The general similarities between Genesis and these other stories can be explained by the fact that these other stories are secondary. They're derivative of the true story handed down from the beginning. And I think it's also appropriate to see that sometimes Genesis is a polemic against some of these ancient Near Eastern stories. My Old Testament colleague at RTS Charlotte, John Currid, is publishing a book this summer, Against the Gods, where he's gonna argue that one function, not the only function, but one function of the early chapters of Genesis is to be a polemic against these ancient Near Eastern stories. And then we could talk more about the relationship between Genesis 1 and 2. We won't go into a lot of detail here, but there's many ways to understand Genesis 1 and 2 without seeing Genesis 1 and 2 as being contradictory. Genesis 2.4 begins with the Toledot formula. These are the generations of the heavens and the earth. And this formula functions within the book of Genesis as a narrowing device, which moves the story forward, but also moves the story from a broader perspective to a narrower perspective. My own understanding of Genesis 2 is that it's not talking in general terms about what happened in Genesis 1, but it's focusing on the events that will take place. the Garden of Eden. What are the implications for accepting evolution as the way in which God created the first humans? Well, it affects the interpretation of other passages of Scripture. If you accept an evolutionary view of the origins of human beings, the obvious meaning of dust in Genesis 2.7 and the way God created Eve in Genesis 2 cannot be accepted. This has implications for other passages of scripture, does it not? Paul argues in 1 Timothy 2.13 that Adam was created first and then Eve was created. He also states in 1 Corinthians 11-12 that woman was made from man. The first passage refers to the order of creation in Genesis 2. The second passage specifically agrees with the way Genesis 2 presents the creation of Eve. She was taken from the man. Was Paul wrong when he made these statements? Was he bound by a primitive view of how Adam and Eve were formed so that we don't have to accept his views on Adam and Eve? Should we accept the theological point he's making but reject the historical reference because now we know better in light of evolution? The truthfulness of Scripture is at stake. The fact that Adam is the first human being is confirmed by other passages of Scripture. The genealogy of Luke goes back to Adam. the first human being. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 45 refers to Adam as the first man who became a living being who is contrasted with Christ the last Adam who became a life-giving spirit. Paul also states in Romans 5 12 that sin came into the world through one man who is contrasted with the one man Jesus through whom the grace of God abounds for many. It is clear Adam occupies a unique place as the first human being who acts as a representative for those who descend from him. Several implications follow from Paul's statements. First, the parallels between Adam and Christ argue for Adam's historicity. If Adam was not a real historical person, he's not the first man. He's not the one man through whom sin came into the world, and he could not act as a representative for his descendants. If none of these things are true for Adam, then how could any of the parallels be true for Christ and his descendants? Paul's theology would have no historical or ontological basis. But also, if all human beings are not descended from Adam, there's no hope for salvation for the ones not descended from Adam. Christ does not and cannot redeem what he has not assumed. He has assumed the human nature of those who bear the image of God, the image of Adam by natural descent. I think it's Richard Gaffin who makes the point, if there is no redemptive history that is credible, then redemptive history is lost in any meaningful sense. The impact of evolution on the church's teaching is significant enough that the church needs to be vigilant in preserving this truth. Churches are dependent on their pastors. to instruct them and guide them in areas where the truth is under assault. Seminaries are important in this regard because they are teaching the future leaders of the church. Church bodies which examine candidates for ministry must be careful to ask the right questions. A candidate today could affirm the historicity of Adam and still affirm evolutionary teachings. You must follow up. with specific questions to find out what the candidate believes on these important issues. Many of us are bound by confessions that are clear on this issue. How God forms Adam is extremely important. It's also amazing to me How many within the evangelical and reform circles have accepted evolution as an established fact when there are so many problems with the theory? We don't have time for that. It's always dangerous to tie ourselves to any prominent scientific theory because they change. It should also be made clear that the problem is not with operational science, which deals with stating and testing hypothesis. The problem is with theories that operate on the worldview level, which becomes sacred cows, which no one can criticize without being considered unscientific and uneducated. In the case of Genesis 2 and evolution, worldview science becomes that which determines what we can believe about the formation of the first human beings. Already back in E.J. Young's day, his studies in Genesis 1, he says, We are not told that science must adjust its answers in light of scripture. Always it's the other way around. Yet this is really surprising, for the answers which scientists have provided have frequently changed with the passing of time. General revelation is to be interpreted by special revelation, nature by scripture, science by the Bible. And then Bovink, in his Reform Dogmatics, makes this comment about creation. He says, when the Bible speaks about the origin of heaven and earth, it presents no saga or myth or poetical fantasy, but even then, according to its clear intention, presents history. which deserves faith and trust. And for that reason, Christian theology, with but few exceptions, has held fast to the, listen to these words, to the literal, historical view of the account of creation. You know, in the midst of the discussions surrounding this issue, I sometimes feel like the boy who is sitting on a park bench with one hand resting on his open Bible. He's loudly exclaiming his praise to God. Hallelujah! Hallelujah! God is so great! He yelled this without worrying whether anyone heard him or not. Well, along came a man who had recently completed some studies at a local university. Feeling himself very enlightened in the ways of truth and very eager to show this enlightenment, he asked the boy about the source of his joy. The boy replied with a bright laugh, don't you have any idea what God is able to do? I just read that God opened up the waves of the Red Sea and led the whole nation of Israel right through the middle. The enlightened man laughed lightly. sat down next to the boy and began to try to open his eyes to the realities behind the miracles of the Bible. He said, that can all be very easily explained. Modern scholarship has shown that the Red Sea in that area was only 10 inches deep at the time. It was no problem for the Israelites to cross. The boy was stumped. His eyes wandered from the man back to the Bible, lying open in his lap. The man, content that he had enlightened a poor, naive young person to the finer points of scientific insight, turned to go. Scarcely had he taken two steps when the boy began to rejoice and praise God louder than before. The man turned to ask the reason for his resumed jubilation. Wow, exclaimed the boy happily. God is greater than I thought. Not only did he lead the whole nation of Israel through the Red Sea, he topped it off by drowning the whole Egyptian army in just 10 inches of water. I feel like that little boy sometimes. An intimate trust in what the Bible teaches. versus all the academic teaching that goes against what the Bible says. Which am I to believe? We live in a day and age where the church, what the church believes, is the minority position on most of the ethical questions that we face. Think about it. What we believe is abhorrent to mainstream culture today. What we believe about the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, that he is the only way of salvation, there's no other name under heaven by which a person can be saved, is seen as intolerant by our culture. What we believe concerning the appropriateness of the sexual relationship only within marriage is seen by our culture today as prudish and impossible. What we believe, many of us, concerning the non-ordination of women to the offices of the church is seen as primitive and out of touch with current culture. What we believe Scripture clearly teaches about homosexuality is seen by our current culture as non-loving, hateful, bigoted. No matter how much we say that we love the sinner, we are perceived by our culture as bigoted and hateful. If the views that we hold on these important issues are viewed by our culture as uneducated, narrow, intolerant, and hateful, why should we be surprised when our view concerning the historicity of Adam is also seen as uneducated and out of touch with mainstream culture? The real question that we face Are we willing to stand for the truth of God's Word, even if that brings shame, being looked down upon as uneducated? Are we willing to make that stand? In reality, the inerrancy of Scripture We seem to fight that battle every generation, don't we? But also the gospel of Jesus Christ is impacted. It's at stake. May God give us the courage to stand for the truth of his word. Let me pray. Our Father, we thank you for your word and it is clear And we pray that you would empower us to understand it aright, to trust it. It is our foundation, not evolution. Give us that hunger and that desire for your word that our lives would reflect. It's truth. And give us the courage to stand against the onslaught of our culture, that we will be faithful unto the end, not for our glory, but for the glory of Jesus Christ. In his name we do pray.