# Charles Hodge On the Historicity of the Creation Account



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 16, 2011)

§ 6. The Mosaic Account of the Creation.


> There are three methods of interpreting this portion of the Bible. (1.) The historical. (2.) The allegorical. (3.) The mythical. The first assumes it to be a veritable history. The second has two forms. Many of the Fathers who allegorized the whole of the Old Testament without denying its historical verity, allegorized in like manner the history of the creation. That is, they sought for a hidden moral or spiritual sense under all historical facts. Others regarded it as purely an allegory without any historical basis, any more than the parables of our Lord. The mythical theory, as the name imports, regards the record of the creation as a mere fable, or fabulous cosmogony, designed to express a theory as to the origin of the universe, of man, and of evil, of no more value than the similar cosmogonies which are found in the early literature of all nations. In favour of the historical character of the record are the following considerations, (1.) It purports to be a veritable history. (2.) It is the appropriate and necessary introduction or an acknowledged history. (3.) It is referred to and quoted in other parts of the Bible as the true account of the creation of the world; especially in the fourth commandment, where, as well as in other parts of Scripture, it is made the foundation of the institution of the Sabbath. (4.) The facts here recorded, including as they do the creation and probation of man, lie at the foundation of the whole revealed plan of redemption. The whole Bible, therefore, rests upon the record here given of the work of creation, and consequently all the evidence which goes to support the divine authority of the Bible, tends to sustain the historical verity of that record.



Charles Hodge, _Systematic Theology_ Vol. I, pg. 568-569


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 17, 2011)

It would be interesting to do a comparison of real mythology and the Genesis account of the creation of Adam and the Fall.

Here's an article by Brian Schwertley
The Historicity of Adam

Some liberal scholars - e.g. William Sanford La Sor in his "Survey of the Old Testament" - see the fact that the word "Adam" is used as a proper noun and as a word for mankind, as some kind of loophole. But a careful look at how it is used in the early chapters of Genesis and the rest of Scripture shows that Adam or "Adam" is not a symbol for early man.

E.g. if Adam or "Adam" was a symbol for early man would it say?: 


> Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.



I believe the first appropriate place for "Adam" as a proper name is in Genesis 2:20.



> The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.



Maybe God gave Adam his name, as he gave names to the creatures under his care. The generic expression "Adam" for man or mankind would then have descended from the proper noun (?)

Of course since Hebrew wasn't the original tongue, the Hebrew word "Adam" would have been derived from the words in the original (?)

It's quite theologically appropriate that the rest of mankind should share the same Hebrew name as this individual as we all have a unique theological relationship to him, that we don't have to any of our other ancestors.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 17, 2011)

"Many of the Fathers who allegorized the whole of the Old Testament without denying its historical verity, allegorized in like manner the history of the creation. That is, they sought for a hidden moral or spiritual sense under all historical facts."

Would this be a bad thing?

For instance I hear R.C. Sproul say how the proto evangel is when The Lord clothed Adam and Eve.


----------

