The blogosphere is abuzz with discussion about Kevin deYoung’s post, 10 Reasons to Believe in a Historical Adam. James McGrath responded to deYoung’s post, as did Joel Watts.
Charles Halton has an excellent response to deYoung, and Charles links to an older post that he wrote on whether the ancients interpreted their cosmologies literally. Charles argues that they did not necessarily, whereas, in the Comments section, Doug Becker of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School holds that they may have.
I find the discussion on Charles’ blog refreshing because, in many cases, I think that people use the canard of “Genesis 1 was not intended to be a literal account of creation, but was poetry” without offering support for that proposition. It’s like they’re just saying that so they can believe in the Bible and evolution at the same time, which means that they’re projecting their modern concerns onto the ancients. Charles and Doug, by contrast, offer actual arguments on whether or not the ancients interpreted their cosmologies in a literal, factual manner, based (in large part) on the ancients themselves.