The Biblical Necessity of Adam and Eve - The Christianists Continue to Rant

Based on the number of page views it has enjoyed, one of my more popular recent post has been "Adam and Eve - Where's Christianity Without The Fall?" that looked at the fear and angst amongst the Christianist and professional Christian set over the scientific evidence that Adam and Eve never existed. As I noted, if there was no "Fall" and exile from the Garden of Ede, then there was no need for a messiah to die and secure forgiveness for Adam and Eve's descendants. For LGBT individuals there's the added corollary issue: if Genesis is utterly wrong on the existence of Adam and Eve, aren't Leviticus' purportedly anti-homosexuality passages equally untrue? Indeed, the entire house of cards begins to collapse if one's faith requires that the Bible be inerrant ant literally true in every aspect.

Not surprisingly, the hysteria amongst the gay-haters and Christianists continues unabated. One of the latest examples of the batshitery being disseminated in an effort to uphold the literal, historical existence of Adam and Eve comes from Pastor Mark Driscoll, a fire and brimstone type from Mars Hill Church in Seattle who uses at best circular arguments relying on the same Bible that science tells us is wrong about Adam and Eve even existing. The irony to me is that it is exactly people like Driscoll who are ultimately hastening the death of Christianity. Here's a sample of Driscoll's circular argument (or should I say, circular firing squad?):

This question of the historicity of Adam and Eve is important because it’s the foundation of the biblical story. Without a real Adam and Eve, the Bible loses its basis for the fall, sin, the need for redemption, and the need for Jesus and atonement. Many scholars—including some who are professing Christians—who are rejecting the biblical account of Adam and Eve as historical recognize this fact.

It’s interesting that men and women who claim to have a high view of Scripture and affirm its inspiration, authority, and inerrancy also are ready to subvert it to new scientific evidence regarding genome sequencing and DNA, taking centuries of collected—and divinely inspired—knowledge about human existence, experience, and condition and throwing it out with the bath water by denying the historical existence of Adam and Eve.

“Nothing judges Scripture. It judges everything else. As followers of Jesus, we take the same stance he did and receive the Bible alone as infallible, inerrant truth from God with full authority in our lives.” . . . . Believers who are scientists bear the primary responsibility for affirming scriptural truths over scientific ones and figuring out how the truths of science affirm the truths of Scripture—not the other way around. It’s impossible to serve two masters.

While the issues at stake are often quite confusing, it’s apparent as we look at Scripture that it teaches the truth that Adam—and by extension Eve—were the first persons and that they were also the first persons. One of the main reasons that Christians need to affirm that Adam was the first human being to exist is the doctrine of the fall and original sin.

There are at least five scriptural arguments that affirm the truth that Adam was not only the first person but also that he was the first person—a real human being: the Genesis account, Luke’s genealogy, Paul’s theology, and Christ’s statement on Adam in Matthew and Mark.

Even if one passes over Luke and Paul, one must deal with Jesus and his teachings. In Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4, Jesus refers to Genesis, speaking of God’s order in creating Adam and Eve and relating that literal act to the institution of marriage. It’s difficult to think that God himself (Jesus) could be wrong about his own creative event, since he was there as the Creator when it happened (John 1:1–2; Col. 1:15­­–17).

So, what are we to do in the face of seemingly contradictory truth between science and Scripture? We have two choices: exchange the truths of Scripture for the truths of science and wash our hands clean (Paul is clear in Romans 1:18 and 1:22–23 that many people choose just this option), or we take the truths of science and place them within the context of the truths of Scripture as the highest authority.

The problem with Driscoll's gobbledygook is that it all falls back on scripture that wrongly considered Genesis to be true and factual. As new scientific knowledge tells us, it simply isn't true and accurate. Once Genesis is discarded as untrue, the entire argument collapses. Stripped of all else, Driscoll wants his sheep like flock to stick their heads in the sand and reject knowledge. None of it changes the ultimate fact that Genesis is wrong about Adam and Eve. Sure, Driscoll is desperate. If the Bible is not inerrant and instead very flawed, the whole basis for his lucrative gig at Mars Hill Church disintegrates. God forbid that Driscoll and those like him lose their ability to control and shake down the ignorant and those who are afraid to embrace science and objective reality. For LGBT individuals, the scientific undoing of Genesis is a first step towards dismantling the equally flawed book of Leviticus.

Oh, and for the record, I am not anti-religion. I am merely against religion based on fear, hate and the embrace of ignorance - which pretty much sums up Catholicism under the current Pope and many Protestant denominations that foolishly support biblical inerrancy even as they pick and choose passages to use as weapons against those in society they dislike.