Ein historischer Adam?

Timothy Keller hat eine ausgewogene Antwort verfasst.

Der Schlüssel zur Interpretation der Bibel ist die Bibel selbst:

The key for interpretation is the Bible itself. I don’t think the author of Genesis 1 ‎wants us to take the “days” literally, but it is clear that Paul definitely does want ‎readers to take Adam and Eve literally. When you refuse to take a biblical author ‎literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the ‎traditional understanding of biblical authority.

Die Unterscheidung von Lehre und Geschichte geht nicht auf:

The Christian gospel is not good advice, but good news. It is not directions on what ‎we should do to save ourselves but rather an announcement of what has been ‎done to save us. The gospel is that Jesus has done something in history so that, ‎when we are united to him by faith, we get the benefits of his accomplishment, and ‎so we are saved.‎

Und der Vergleich zwischen Adam und Christus in Römer 5 spricht eindeutig für das geschichtliche Fundament:

When Paul says we are saved “in Christ” he means that Christians have a ‎covenantal, federal relationship with Christ. What he did in history is laid to our ‎account. But in the same sentence Paul says that all human beings are similarly (he ‎adds the word “as” for emphasis) “in Adam.” In other words, Adam was a ‎covenantal representative for the whole human race. We are in a covenant ‎relationship with him, so what he did in history is laid to our account.‎

Zur Frage “Schöpfung oder Evolution?” siehe mein Post von R. C. Sproul.