These questions may also lead us down unhelpful pathways, away from the Bible and from God. Not satisfied with the "bare bones" of the Genesis account (or ashamed of the perceived incongruity of the Bible's forthrightness with current "evidences" of science) some are seduced into a compromise concerning this issue of origins. Isn't it more reasonable to see in the first part of Genesis a metaphorical or symbolic narrative of beginnings? When the Bible speaks of "days" shouldn't it rather be translated "epochs"? Likewise shouldn't we understand the "Adam" of chapter one as "early man", a paleolithic forerunner to the historical Adam of the second chapter?This group might see man in chapter 1 as a hunter (to fit with archeological evidence) and man in chapter 2 as "Farmer Adam".
There is a second group of people who generally believe the reliability of the Bible on this question of who we are (and were) but see this whole controversy as minor and divisive. But is it? Hopefully, in looking into this issue of a supposed proto-Adam we will also be able to underscore the importance of firmly grasping who we are and what God created us for. The title "Don't Split the Adam!" is a request and warning for all of us to recognize the unity and integrity of God's Word.
Many believers are confused and intimidated on this whole issue of evolution because they don't appreciate the answers that they already have. By not truly valuing the far-reaching validity of Scripture on this crucial issue some even allow the Enemy to knock their best weapons (the Word of God and faith) out of their grasp.
The best proof of the truth of our beginnings is, of course, the Bible itself. Surprisingly though, some of the best commentary (if inspired writing can be denigrated with that word!) is the writing of the Apostle Paul in Romans. He speaks of Adam in such a way as not to leave room for two men in Genesis 1 and 2. Although Paul's intent, of course, was to present the gospel of salvation through faith in the finished work of God the Son he alludes to Adam several times and tells us something about him that effectively does away with the supposed caveman of Genesis1 (Hereafter we will call him "man#1" and Adam, for the sake of argument, we will call "man#2").
Paul wrote (Rom.5:12): "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men..." (Did sin come through the first or second man?) and in verse 14: "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's offense, who is a type of Him who was to come." (Pertinent verses continue to the end of the chapter.)
Here is the sticking point: What was the nature of this first man of Genesis 1? If we say that this man (or this race) was somehow subhuman, unconcerned with ,or irrelevant to, demands of righteousness what does this imply about his Creator in whose image he is made? Was he capable of sin, sinless or
innocent? There are problems any way. The fact that he died brings sin into the picture because "death [came] through sin". If he (man #1) was either holy or innocent he died (unjustly) because of the sin of Adam in the following chapter. Someone can't say that he was (or they were) incapable of these considerations because he was fashioned in God's image, created upright (Ecc.7:29), from the very start (Gen.1) and obligated to render to the One in whose image he was made due reverence (Luke 20:24-25).
The man in chapter 1 is, therefore, the Adam of chapter 2. To imagine a distinction between the two men, as "hunter" versus "farmer" is to beg the question (at least from a biblical viewpoint). This would be reading into the text a distinction required by evolutionists. Understandably, some say there are two creations because they read of two (on the surface of it) distinct creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2. But by that logic they should affirm a third creation because it's mentioned again in Gen 5:1,2. It is this last passage ties together the other two creations into one actual event. More importantly, Jesus Christ himself united the two Adams into one in Matthew 19:4 and 5:
"And He answered and said, "Have you not read, that He who created them from the
beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, "FOR THIS CAUSE SHALL A MAN LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER..""
So the creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 are of the same creation. No cavemen howling or grunting like apes. No squatting apemen. No monkey men. Don't be sold a bill of goods. Don't be deceived: We were created from day one to walk upright and to look up to the One who made us in His image.
But what about the fossil evidence of early man and of dinosaurs? Christians don't deny the existence of fossils but question some interpretations of the evidence. Scientists who don't factor God into the equation are doomed to be totally fooled by the evidence. They aren't fooled by God. They are led away by their own presumptions and are responsible for their own conclusions. The very evidence that should be speaking to them of a Living God who judged and will again judge the world is misread by unbelieving scientists. They do this contrary to the evidence of nature and their own conscience (Rom.1:18-23).
C.S. Lewis said that our reading should be from a variety of ages because each age
has it's blind spots. I believe our blind spot is evolution, a theory that ultimately
denies the Word of God and makes Him seem like a bumbling fool or malicious
experimenter. We believe the Word of God speaks clearly on this issue of origins.
It is always ironic when God's own people allow themselves to be badgered by "scientific authorities" when they have more truth on their nightstands (and in their hearts) then many who write ponderous intimidating books. "Let God be true, but every man a liar" as Paul said. At times we have to resign ourselves to looking foolish to the world for believing God's Word as we do. They are the ones out of step, not us. From what we know from Scripture we already are way
ahead of those sightless ones feeling their way in the dirt for bones and myths.
Christians need to do two things to come clear in their thinking concerning origins:
1. They need to read good sources that combat bad (prejudiced) science with real science. A good starting place is the link at the bottom of this article. The evolution theory is riddled with flaws. Some of these are: huge gaps in the geological layers, numerous missing links, the true nature of mutations, and many more. Don't be intimidated. Investigate!
2. They need to master the Word of God. This is the most important source of knowledge we have. If we give ourselves to a thorough understanding of the Bible we will never need to be ashamed. As we meditate on timeless truth we begin to understand how very much more it really has to say than we thought at first. When the light from this Book dawns on us we can we say with David, "I have more understanding than my teachers". This is true if the One who speaks to us is the same one who made us, and if our "teachers" are those who speak only the wisdom of this age.