Fresh off of suggesting that abortion may be a tragic yet best allowable option in cases of rape, incest, or for the mental health of the mother, and that that belief in the bodily resurrection of Christ is not necessary to be a Christian,famed New Testament scholar N.T. Wright has shared some thoughts on the origins of Adam and Eve.
On a recent episode of Premiere Unbelievable?, after being asked whether or not Adam and Eve literally existed, Wright opines:
Mike Bird: “What about Adam? Is there a historical Adam? Do we need a historical Adam?
N.T. Wright:’The way that I’m inclined to see an original human pair, let’s put it like that, is to say that undoubtedly from all the historical evidence we’ve got, there were what we might call hominids, human-like creatures, and we might even call them proto-humans, for many generations, perhaps for many thousands of years before
the time we’re now talking about.
But that just as God called Abraham and Sarah and said, ‘now I’ve got a special purpose for you.’ So it seems to me perfectly reasonable to suppose that God would say to one pair of proto-homidids, whatever we’re to call them,’ come with me. I’ve got a special purpose for you. I’m now going to enable you to reflect my image into the world. and reflect the praises of creation back to me. And your purpose will be to bring the, at the moment, rather random and chaotic world under my saving sovereign stewardship.’
So that it seems to me is a way of saying that if there was an original Adam and Eve, that would be what it was all about. Not, I mean, what we’re getting away from, of course, is any idea of seven periods of 24 hours. That’s certainly not what Genesis 1 is trying to communicate.”
This echoes the sentiment of another prominent apologist, William Lane Craig, who believes Adam and Eve were members of the archaic pre-homosapien species Homo heidelbergensis that lived 750,000 years ago, and represents those who received a ‘divinely caused’ genetic mutation
One response to “N.T. Wright Says Adam and Eve Were ‘Proto-Hominids,’ ‘Human-like Creatures’”
He is ignoring a key component of the Gospel, which is that there was no “random and chaotic world” prior to the sin of Adam. Prior to the fall, there was no death (Romans 5:12, etc.). And it was not just man that became corrupted, but all or creation (Gen. 3:16-17, Heb. 6:8, Romans 8:18-25, etc.). And it is because all of creation was corrupted, that this corrupt creation will be destroyed with fire, and there will be a new creation where righteousness dwells (2 Pet. 3:1-13, Isaiah 65:17, Rev. 21:1, Rev. 22:1-5, etc.)
It is also very important to note, in passages such as Romans 8:18-25, that this world is not evolving or improving, but rather it is devolving and decaying. Second to Jesus (who is called the second Adam), Adam was the most intelligent man who ever lived. He was created to rule over creation (Gen. 1:26-28). He named the animals (Gen. 2:20). God did not create a stupid ape to rule over His creation. He created mankind.
Mr. Wright’s view necessitates a violent, chaotic, and wicked world prior to the fall, and an improving and evolving world since the fall. And this backwards view is entirely counter to the Gospel. Essentially he is implying that creation, including mankind, is improving because of wickedness and sin. And this is not only counter to scripture, it is entirely counter to any and all observable evidence, which can be clearly seen (Rom. 1, etc.)
Factoring out all the suppositions of “modern science”, which attempts to explain everything devoid of the existence of God, and factors Him out from the start, the actual evidence does not indicate the existence of any historic randomness or chaos, that hasn’t already been accounted for in scripture. The evidence for a global flood, for example, is mounting – creatures that live underwater are found everywhere on land, and so on. There is nothing scientific about the assumption that the apparent randomness and chaos we now see has always existed, or that it existed prior to the creation of mankind. There is zero evidence that any part of creation is improving.
From a purely logical standpoint, Mr. Wright is attempting to factor God back into theories that intentionally factored Him out from the start. Theories that were supposed on the assumed basis that there is no supernatural involved, which he then tries to superimpose the supernatural upon, after the fact. And that is very bad logic.
Most any of us could go on about this for days. But the few points made are enough, and I’m out of time this morning. I’ve got to go to work (and toil for my food because of the corrupted creation.)