In his post Thoughts on Kevin DeYoung’s Restless Comments on the Historical Adam, Peter Enns seeks to defend the view that Adam and Eve are not historical persons. I engage him in the comments because I want to understand specifically why he believes they were not actual people. (I also commented on the original Kevin DeYoung post.)
I generally understand Pete to view their historicity as incompatible with current scientific views about human origins, but I want to understand why he thinks they are incompatible and, even if they are, why he regards evolutionary theory and the current scientific consensus so compelling that it requires re-interpreting Adam and Eve. I also seek to understand if, because of his deference to the scientific view, he also regards other supernatural events described in the Bible as also ahistorical (e.g. Noah’s flood, the parting of the Red Sea, manna in the desert for forty years, Jonah and the great fish, and so on).
You can follow our dialogue in the comments to the post.