Here in Part 5 of my analysis of Hugh Ross’ book, Rescuing Inerrancy, we will look at Chapters 17-20.
Chapter 17: Recent Scientific Corroboration
In Chapter 17, Ross attempts to show how the discoveries of modern science, particularly in terms of the formation of the earth millions of years ago, corroborate the creation account in Genesis 1. He states at the beginning of the chapter what he believes is the core principle of the dual revelation doctrine: “the more we learn from the book of nature, the more evidence accumulates for the divine inspiration and accuracy of the book of Scripture” (161).
There are two things wrong with that statement. First, at least to my knowledge, there is no actual “doctrine” of dual revelation. What Ross is stating is his belief and assumption that science can help “prove” the Bible is true. Second, let’s be clear, in this specific case, what Ross says about the “book of Scripture,” he’s really mostly referring to his belief that Genesis 1-11 (and specifically the creation account in Genesis 1-3, as well as some random passages in books like Job) must be scientifically provable. The scientific study of the natural world doesn’t illuminate anything about David, or Hezekiah, or Jesus—or 99% of the actual material found in the Bible.
In any case, the main arguments Ross makes are the following.
- A certain scientific study showed that Earth’s atmosphere went from translucent to transparent “just prior to the introduction of Earth’s first large-bodied animals, about 575 million years ago” (162). This, Ross argues, corroborates Day 4 of the creation account.
- Another study showed that the atmospheric oxygen level of the earth about 750 million years ago was about 1%, but that it went up to 8% about 575 million years ago. And that increase in oxygen levels lead to the appearance of large-bodied animals, and eventually the Cambrian explosion roughly 539 million years ago. This, Ross argues, corroborates Day 5 of the creation account.
- The emergence of the Earth’s continental landmass about 2.5 billion years ago aligns with Day 3 of the creation account.
I do not find these arguments convincing. If you expand the meaning of the word “day” into millions or billions of years, you can make Genesis 1 “corroborate” with anything. Ross’ arguments boil down to this: “Genesis 1 talks about water first, then land, then fish/birds, then animals/people…in that order. It must be science and history!” I’m sorry, it doesn’t.
Chapter 18: The Original Human Pair and Original Sin
In Chapter 18, Ross addresses what he feels to be the importance of a historical Adam and Eve. For him, denying the historicity of Adam and Eve poses major problems for the doctrine of original sin. Ross focuses first on scholars like Peter Enns, John Walton, N.T. Wright, Dennis Venema, Scot McKnight, Tremper Longman, and William Lane Craig.
- Enns: Evolution requires we rethink how the Bible thinks about human origins; there is no place for a historical Adam in the evolutionary scheme; it isn’t necessary to have a historical Adam as the cause of universal sin and death.
- Walton: It isn’t necessary that all people descended from Adam and Eve.
- Wright: “God chose a pair from the rest of the early hominids for a special, strange, demanding vocation. This pair (call them Adam and Eve if you like) were to be representatives of the whole human race” (174).
- Venema and McKnight: Paul’s Adam [in Romans 5] is the “literary Adam of Genesis filtered through the Jewish tradition of interpreting Adam as the archetypal, moral, and exemplary Adam” (174).
- Longman: Accepts the findings of the human genome have solidified Darwinian theory.
- Lane Craig: Adam and Eve were members of Homo heidelbergensis.
Ross pushes back on the idea that Adam and Eve were a pair taken from a larger group of hominids by pointing out that Genesis 2 tells us Adam as “alone,” and that Genesis 3:20 says that Eve was “mother of all the living.” Thus, as Ross states, “Scripture clearly implies that the entire human race is descended from the one man, Adam” (177). Ross also points out that Adam is found in three genealogies (Genesis, I Chronicles, Luke) and states this emphasizes Adam was a real historical person. He also claims that Paul’s mention of Adam in Romans 5 “leaves no doubt about his belief that Adam and Eve were the original human pair” (177). Therefore, Ross says that these theologians and scholars who deny Adam was the historical progenitor of the human race “must conclude, and do conclude, on this point, at least, Paul was simply wrong” (178).
All this is troubling to Ross because it undermines the doctrine of original sin, “the doctrine that sin originated from Adam and was passed on to all humans. Scripture does not state that we were born innocent and became sinners. Rather, we enter this world as sinners in need of redemption” (178). Therefore, the “rejection of the Genesis story as a myth” ultimately removes “one of the chief cornerstones of the Christian doctrine,” and is thus a rejection of the Gospel of salvation.
There is a lot to address here. Let me first address the notion that without a historical Adam and Eve, the doctrine of original sin is called into question. When most people say, “original sin,” they think in terms of “We are all sinful.” And in a superficial way, most Christians probably will probably say something like, “Because of Genesis 3, we’re all sinful. Because Adam and Eve sinned, we’re born into sin.” In that generalized way, sure—it is blindingly obvious that all human beings are sinful. If that’s what the doctrine of original sin said, then we’d have no problem. Of course, the obvious fact that all human beings are sinful and the question as to whether or not there was a historical Adam and Eve are two different things.
The actual doctrine of original sin is credited to Saint Augustine. In a nutshell, in his day there were a number of theologians who were claiming that sex itself was a consequence of Adam and Eve’s sin, and that if they had not sinned, they would have been able to procreate in some other way, because sex itself is icky and sinful. Augustine, though, argued that no, sex is good and is the way God had designed human beings to procreate. He then said that before “the fall,” Adam and Eve would still have procreated by means of sex, with one difference—their reason would have been in complete control of the sexual act, similar to how you are able to control your bladder when you urinate. Augustine argued that after they sinned, though, sex became fill with passion and pleasure. Thus, after the fall, whenever Adam and Eve, or any man and woman, engaged in sex, they were being overcome by passion and pleasure…and that was what was sinful. Before the fall, sex was a pure and reasonable act; after the fall, sex became a passion-filled and sinful act—and therefore, when you were conceived, because your parents were experiencing pleasure and passion in that moment, you were literally conceived in sin. And that is why, according to Augustine, you are sinful. That is what the doctrine of original sin says.
I don’t think Ross (or most people) know that. Speaking for myself, I don’t accept that doctrine of original sin because I don’t think sin is the ultimate STD. I think Genesis 1-3 is teaching us that all human beings are made in God’s image, but at the same time, all human beings sin and are in need of redemption. Genesis 1-3 isn’t trying to teach us why or how we became sinful (i.e. it’s Adam and Eve’s fault); but rather that we are sinful. We aren’t sinful because of Adam and Eve—we are sinful LIKE ADAM AND EVE…we ARE ADAM AND EVE. And you don’t need a historical Adam and Eve to look around at the world and realize that human beings are sinful.
Secondly, as for the scholars Ross mentions:
- Enns: No, evolution doesn’t require us to rethink anything about the Bible. Evolution is irrelevant to the Bible. If you have assumed Genesis 1-3 is giving historical/scientific information, evolution might cause you to rethink your assumptions about Genesis 1-3, sure. But the problem is your assumptions, not Genesis 1-3. But yes, we don’t need a historical Adam to acknowledge the universality of sin and death.
- Walton: Yes, it isn’t necessary that all people are descended from Adam and Eve, because Genesis 1-3 isn’t trying to give us literal, historical information.
- Wright: I love Wright, but on this issue, I just have to roll my eyes. He is trying to take a section of Scripture (Genesis 1-3) which is, as I am convinced, in the literary genre of myth, and tie it into evolutionary history. To be blunt, there is absolutely no evidence of this claim. It is pure and needless speculation.
- Venema and McKnight: Basically, yes—they’re right. As Gordon Fee said in his Romans class at Regent College, Romans 5 isn’t talking about “original sin” or the historicity of Adam. Rather, Paul is telling us that Christ’s work supersedes sin and death. To use an analogy “Adam” represents the state of the human race—and that state is that we’re in a huge hole. Christ’s work, though, doesn’t just get us back to level ground—he exalts us up to the mountaintop. That’s the point of Romans 5—it simply is not addressing the issues of original sin and the historicity of Adam.
- Longman: Yes, the human genome does solidify Darwinian evolution…it still has no bearing on how to interpret Genesis 1-3.
- Lane Craig: Similar to what I said about Wright’s comments—there is zero evidence for this. It is needless and fanciful speculation that is wholly unnecessary.
Thirdly, it always makes my skin crawl when I read someone saying, “rejecting Genesis as myth.” No one is “rejecting” Genesis here. Again, like I’ve said many times before, it is about proper genre recognition. Saying, “Genesis 1-11 isn’t doing history or science,” is not “rejecting” it. It is rejecting the claim that Genesis 1-11 is doing history or science.” Myth is a valid literary genre. It is the one people in the ancient world used to tell about their worldview beliefs regarding God/the gods, the nature of humanity, and the state of the created order. It “sets the stage” for how they interpret history the world around them…but the myth is not the history, just like the stage is not the play that is acted out on the stage.
Chapter 19: Scientific Defense of an Original Human Pair
In this chapter, Ross spends a number of pages arguing that Neanderthals weren’t really fully human. Okay…I don’t know how that relates to the question of an original pair.
Ross also argues that although things like the human genome project and other geneticists state that the entire human race could not have come from a singular couple, the Bible—specifically Genesis and Romans—clearly states that “the origin of Adam and Eve was an act of God” (195). It was a miraculous creation de novo. Ultimately, Ross’ argument in Chapter 19 boils down to what I’ve just stated: human beings are unique, and the Bible says God created Adam and Eve du novo. While that certainly is an “argument,” it is not really a scientific argument. Again, as I’ve pointed out numerous times in this series, the foundation of Ross’ argument, be it for concordism or for the historicity of Adam and Eve, boils down to this: his assumption that passages like Genesis 1-3 or Romans 5 are attempting to give us scientific and historical information. When your argument boils down to, “Let me tell you about my assumptions again,” I don’t find it a convincing argument.
Chapter 20: The Benefit of the Model Approach
I want to call to attention one simple thing Ross says in this short chapter. He writes, “The bottom line is that we must be willing to follow the accumulating evidence wherever it leads, always mindful to subject it to ever more rigorous and more comprehensive tests. Given our Christian belief that all truth is God’s truth, followers of Jesus Christ have nothing to fear—and every reason to support—the scientific and theological enterprises” (205).
Yes, all truth is God’s truth. Yes, the natural sciences can, and have, discovered countless things about the natural world—and yes, there is nothing to fear in that. BUT, if we are going to truly “following the evidence where it leads” when it comes to understanding the kind of writing Genesis 1-11 is, at some point we need to acknowledge that it is written in the genre of ANE myth. And recognition of that genre compels us to interpret Genesis 1-11 accordingly, and not try to force it into speaking to our modern scientific and historical concerns. Ross is right—we have nothing to fear in the seeking after the truth. I am convinced that the truth about Genesis 1-11 is that it is in the genre of ANE myth, and I feel Ross (and many others) are, yes…AFRAID of acknowledging that. There is no reason to be afraid. That is the inspired genre of Genesis 1-11 that God has communicated to us.
In my final post tomorrow, I’m going to cover Ross’ last chapter in his book and then give my concluding thoughts.
