OK. So we have two possibilities in which the foundation for the Christian doctrine makes any sense. I agonized over this for months but even so I would like to know if you find my reasoning to be sound. (I apologize in advance for the length of this response.)
Young Earth
(6 literal day creation occurring approximately 6,000-10,000 years ago)
Here's my problem with this idea.
- Math doesn’t lie
- All geological evidence suggests something completely different.
We know that light travels at a certain speed. One light year is the distance the light travels in the same amount of time that it takes for Earth to revolve one time around our sun. If the universe is 10,000 years old, it would be a physical impossibility to see the light from any stars that are more than 10,000 light years away. The fact that we can see light from stars that are millions of light years away is evidence that cannot be ignored.
We also know from observation roughly how long it takes a star to develop from a new star to a supernova. This is a multi-billion year process. The fact that there are supernovae indicates that the universe is in fact billions of years old. The fact that we can see the light from these supernovae only adds to the equation (8 billion year old star explodes + millions of light years for the light from that explosion to reach Earth).
And even if you are a string mathematician who can prove that time-space can be bent and therefore objects may be closer than they appear, the argument does not work in favor of the Biblical account.
In addition, studies of our own planet and solar system clearly indicate that the Earth is some 4 billion years old. Fossil records, deep core drilling, and the study of continental drift all point to the same conclusions with regards to the age of the Earth.
Current data suggests that the universe is roughly 14 billion years old. Even if scientists are grossly mistaken, they would have to be wrong by a measure of over 13 billion years in order for a literal interpretation of the creation story to be true. This is so unlikely as to be impossible. Indeed, if history is any indicator, any miscalculation regarding the size of the universe would result in it appearing to be smaller than it actually is.
There is therefore no way to take the creation story literally.
Old Earth Creation
So let’s say that the Bible isn’t talking about a literal six days. It does say that there were six roughly equal periods of time (“and there was evening and there was morning…”
devoted to each “day.” If the universe is 14 billion years old and we divide that by seven days (the seventh day being the one on which God “rested”
, we find that each day was roughly equivalent to 2 billion years.
This leaves two possibilities regarding mankind. Either:
- God created man between 2 and 4 billion years ago and we are currently existing on Day 7 in which God is still resting, or
- God created man more than 4 billion years ago and we are currently living on Day 8.
Either one of these puts the possibility of the first two humans being created and going through the whole temptation thing at 2+ billion years ago.
Thus far, the oldest fossil records demonstrate that man (homo sapiens) didn’t show up until about 195,000 years ago. This throws a real wrench into the works. And considering that the book of Genesis gets very specific about how long Adam and his descendants lived it is impossible to reconcile the story to the data.
If you are going to believe the Biblical text, the first two humans could not have appeared on the scene any more than 6,000 years ago. Even 10,000 years is a stretch. But all the physical evidence points to a very different story.
Conclusion
To me, it all came down to whether I was going to believe the physical evidence or a story that is not reliable on any level. At best, Genesis is nothing more than primitive man trying to explain the universe. It cannot be a revelation from God unless God is very very stupid.
And this is what shook me out of the Christian faith: the FoM was not an actual event in human history but is merely a story like any other myth you wish to hear. Naturally, this puts an end to any meaning behind the Christian idea of atonement (which cannot stand even on the simplest ethical grounds). As you stated, "...without the fall of man, we have no need of redemption" and "I do agree that it's tough to reject a literal fall and embrace a literal life and death of Christ on the cross. Both the 1st Adam and 2nd Adam in federal headship (representative of humanity) is essential to the truth of Christianity."
If there is some way in which to encapsulate the FoM story while also maintaining the physical evidence, I would be very happy to hear it. Generally, though, this is where people start saying that it's mere allegory or epic poetry and that "facts" and "truth" are not the same thing. I've had all those discussions already and I don't buy them simply because they all lead to the realm of illogic and that is beyond my capacity.
