Was Adam a Real Person?

But I though that, with God, all things are possible. Regardless of whether the everything was created in 6 literal days, in billions of years, or anything in beteen, God is creator, and He created. Regardless of whether one adheres to YEC literalism, an OEC model, or a creation over billions of years, it's ridiculous for any Christian to say that "it's impossible for God to have done it" a certain way. </font>[/QUOTE]That is true John. However it isn't our side that has adopted naturalistic presuppositions about origins.

You can probably find posts where I have said that evolution is possible. However, it is supported only by interpretations of current physical data. Those interpretations rely ultimately on a philosophical foundation. None of the conclusions are proveable since even though something can be proven possible or even likely but it cannot be called factual history unless it was observed or unless all other alternatives have been categorically disproven.

Creationists also interpret data based on assumptions. Those interpretations may be true or false. However when there is no definitive factual answer to the exclusion of all others, I defer to what God actually told Moses... that He created the world in 6 days.

God gives the only eyewitness account we have in the Bible. All else is speculation.

 

But in posting like that you are assuming that your interpretation of what God did and how God meant His inspired word to be understood down through the ages is correct! Your have to make just as many assumptions as anybody else!

 

I don't deny that I am making assumptions. Everyone makes assumptions if they possess "faith" in anything whether it be evolution, creation, the resurrection, the virgin birth, the Jesus seminar,... However, I do submit that I am not making as many about the interpretation of scriptures than those who try to reconcile the Bible to evolution.

My assumptions are much more limited. Basically, I believe the Bible should be taken literally except when the context indicates that it is not or when it is clear that word pictures are being employed or when cross referencing other passages provide a basis for determining a more precise meaning. Creation and in particular Adam are treated as literal in numerous passages. Some of those passages, Romans 5 comes to mind, are absolutely critical to sound sotierology. I can't think of anything more critical than that.

Some suppose that evolution accounts for everything except man and that man was a special creation. I disagree but I can see how they can reconcile such a position to the NT references to Adam. Some believe in various other things such as a long 1st day, other OEC, prior creations on earth, etc. that still allow for a literal Adam.

However, I do not think you can adopt a non-literal Adam or even an Adam as a product of evolution without critically undermining original sin and thus the need for salvation.