Professional, peer-reviewed papers about a historical Adam and Eve from the perspective of a recent creation within a biblical framework.
Details of the Java man fossils were discussed as well as the problem of creating a species from a few bone fragments.
Grudem is making the same biblical and theological errors that theistic evolutionists make. To be biblically consistent, he must abandon his old-earth position.
Over 100 innocent people were murdered to prove a theory that turned out to be not only wrong but based on an erroneous secular philosophy, namely Darwinism.
Attempts to apply Darwinian eugenics were part of the Nazi effort to produce a superior race in Germany.
Louis Agassiz and Alexander Winchell: Two Case Histories of Creationists Who Illustrate That Rejecting Genesis Influences the Acceptance of Racism
Theories that attempted to harmonize evolution and the Scriptures gave birth to, and perpetuated, a form of scientific racism based on Darwinism.
Inerrancy and Biblical Authority: How and Why Old-Earth Inerrantists Are Unintentionally Undermining Inerrancy
The old-earth signers of the CSBInerrancy unintentionally violated their own principles of interpretation and unintentionally undermined the inerrancy and the authority of Scripture.
To interpret the natural world through the lens of Scripture, one must have a correct understanding of the Fall and its effects on the physical creation.
Evidence for a Human Y Chromosome Molecular Clock: Pedigree-Based Mutation Rates Suggest a 4,500-Year History for Human Paternal Inheritance
Pedigree-based mutation rates act as an independent test of the young-earth creation and evolutionary timescales.
How Scholars’ Perceptions of the Semantic Range of יוֹם Have Affected Their Discussions of the Age of the Universe: Part 3
The study looks at delineations and definitions of יוֹם in Scripture, and in lexical and other sources.
Critical Analysis of Hugh Ross’ Progressive Day-Age Creationism Through the Framework of Young-Earth Creationism
The most important part of the debate between views on creationism is about the presuppositions of each group and their biblical hermeneutics.
Randy Guliuzza has made some controversial claims regarding the cause and nature of adaptation of organisms to their environment. We examine his claims.
It is here argued that the best interpretation is that Adam and Eve are real, historical persons.
Methuselah’s Begetting Age in Genesis 5:25 and the Primeval Chronology of the Septuagint: A Closer Look at the Textual and Historical Evidence
The strong likelihood is that the primeval chronology of the Septuagint reflects most of the numbers that Moses originally recorded in Genesis 5 and 11.
The lifespans of Old Testament people born after the Flood reveal a numerical pattern known as an exponential decay curve.
Ussher’s date of creation of October 23, 4004 BC appears to rely upon two questionable assumptions.
This paper contends that Walton has given a magisterial authority to the ANE mythic texts in order to interpret the Genesis accounts.
Creationist studies are replete with discussions of Genesis 1:1–2:3 and 5:28–9:29, but Genesis 2:4–3:24, has remained largely untouched.
Assuming that Peter’s statement about the moon being turned to blood was a reference to the Crucifixion, it is plausible that unusual atmospheric conditions at that time were responsible.
In secular culture it is common to view the biblical history of Adam as a story, myth, or a parable but this is now also becoming the standard interpretation for many within the evangelical community.
Andrew S. Kulikovsky responds to Darek Isaacs’ paper, “Is There a Dominion Mandate?”
Darek Isaacs responds to the challenges to his paper, “Is There a Dominion Mandate?”
Joel McDurmon responds to Darek Isaacs’ paper, “Is There a Dominion Mandate?”
Thomas D. Hennigan responds to Darek Isaacs’ paper, “Is There a Dominion Mandate?”
This paper overviews the recent work of Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam.
Death, whether animal or human, physical or spiritual, is a consequence of man’s disobedience toward his Creator and an intrusion into His “very good” creation.
This paper will evaluate and critique six commentaries and the reasons they give for not taking the days of creation literally.
While well intended, the gospel in the stars is fraught with problems, and Christians are discouraged from using it.
The dominion mandate is not named nor defined in Scripture, and so offering a deeper definition, which everyone can agree on, is not possible. However, it is possible to locate where the idea is found
This article reveals how young-earth creationists have concluded the approximate age of Adam and to explain the reason for a 6,000 year range between both groups.
Christians are caught up in theistic evolutionism without realizing that the worldview of theistic evolutionism is incoherent and inconsistent with the teachings of Scripture.
Certainly there is more to humans than a complex brain architecture from which a mind would seem to emerge. However, this reader has two difficulties.
To depart from Scripture at any point is neither safe nor right. Thus Estabrook’s discussion of my paper (Joubert 2011) in which he expressed his difficulties with my defense of the soul is welcome.
Theistic evolutionism is not only inconsistent with Scripture but also philosophically incoherent.
A Christian view of the world entails that science is not a Christian’s ultimate or sole source of knowledge and the physical world is not the only world there is.
This paper will show that Christian professor Daniel Brannan’s arguments are based on faulty premises regarding Adam’s constitutional nature, the nature of Adam’s perfection and Adam’s free choice.
An Examination of Augustine’s Commentaries on Genesis One and Their Implications on a Modern Theological Controversy
Few individuals in church history are as popular as Augustine of Hippo. Old-earthers claim him as support for figurative interpretations of Genesis 1. But what did Augustine really say?
Young-earth creationists rightly consider that Neanderthals were human, but are divided on various issues.
Adam and Eve on Answers Research Journal
Many critical scholars have challenged the existence of the historical Adam and Eve. Opponents to the historicity of the first couple as described in the book of Genesis often object because of their evolutionary presuppositions. Some biblical scholars claim Adam and Eve were mythological or allegorical figures with no basis in real history.
The aim of these research papers in Answers Research Journal (ARJ) is to deeply consider Adam and Eve from the perspective of the recent creation within a biblical framework. These professional, peer-reviewed papers address issues related to the historical first parents and how they relate to other disciplines. Our journal considers the historical Adam and Eve in light of creation, the evolutionary worldview, biblical scholarship, genetics, racism, the inerrancy of the Bible, the fall, early humanity, and more.
The primary account of Adam and Eve is found in the Bible in Genesis 1–5. In that passage, we learn Adam and Eve were created directly by God in his image (Genesis 1:27) and placed in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:8). They were told not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17), but they eventually ate from it and were judged (Genesis 3). In the Bible, we learn Adam and Eve were the first people created and that every other human descended from them.
The existence of Adam and Eve is verified throughout the Old and New Testaments. The original Hebrew and Greek biblical texts assume the reality of the first couple by incorporating them into the authors’ historical narratives and theological arguments. ARJ authors also consider non-biblical lines of evidence (e.g., mitochondrial Eve) that argue for the existence of the historical Adam and Eve. Each paper included on this page investigates some aspect of a biblical, historical Adam or Eve.