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.
