Kevin DeYoung listed ten reasons why one should believe in a historical Adam in “10 Reasons to Believe in a Historical Adam” . James McGrath responded point-by-point in “Ten Really Bad Reasons to Believe in a Historical Adam” . In summary, these are the points made:
(1) The Bible doesn’t distinguish between “history” and “theology”.
(2) The biblical creation story intends to inform the pagan cultures that “this is how it really was.”
(3) Genesis 1-11 are not mere “poetry” but intend to describe history.
(4) Adam in Genesis 2 is connected to Abraham in Genesis 12.
(5) The genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3 include Adam.
(6) Paul affirmed a historical Adam.
(7) Most Jews and Christians have affirmed a historical Adam.
(8) If we don’t go back to Adam “ we lose any firm basis for believing that all people regardless of race or ethnicity have the same nature.”
(9) Adam is necessary for the doctrine of original sin.
(10) Christ as the “second Adam” presupposes a first Adam.
I recommend reading both posts. If you would like to do so then return to share your thoughts they’d be most welcome.
What do you think of DeYoung’s list? Do you think they are good points, bad points, or a bit of each? What do you think of McGrath’s counter points?