you found my final olive branch there acceptable. On your current comments, I'd say this: If the reason for rejecting a literal Adam and Eve is only to harmonize with science, then you are right. One surrender will lead to another, whenever "science" speaks, and piece after piece of Christian religion will be jettisoned. However, if the reason for rejecting a literal Adam and Eve is exegetical, i.e., if a Biblical scholar, after long study and thought, becomes convinced -- by features of both style and contents -- that the Adam and Eve story was not meant to be read as history, but as myth or legend or parable or some other genre, that is legitimate, because the conclusion is coming from within the Bible, not being imposed on the Bible from outside. And Bible-believing Christians should *want* to know if they have been misreading Genesis all along, so that they can adjust their theology to what Genesis actually teaches. In the case of JLAfan2001 -- who seems to have abandoned this thread -- we have someone who was brought up to believe that Genesis 2-3 was meant to be read as history, and as a result is now on the verge of dumping Christian faith altogether, because he thinks that if Genesis 2-3 is "disproved," then all of Christianity will fall. If he becomes an atheist, it will be because of his reading of Genesis 2-3 as historical chronicle. But what if it is not *necessary* to understand Genesis