Biblical Adam.

The Bible provides a historic account of human history. It adds to this

account a rationale for sin, its consequences both in human relations
and nature and ultimately death itself. It is the cornerstone for
Christianity providing the necessity for the gospel to remediate a
historic event of cosmic consequences. Without this account of biblical
Adam, we would be deprived of a logical basis for our religion.
Genesis provides a believable and logical account of the birth of the first
couple, shifting from a primitive state to a gradual development of
increasing complexity through various stages. It provides family trees,
but these are incomplete up to the great Flood. We have no information
regarding Adam and Eve’s offspring other than two sons. The remainder
are unknown. We are also ignorant of the relationship of Cain to his
wife as she could not be his sister of niece as the original couple did not
have children for a considerable period of time.
Adam’s descendant Noah and his family are regarded as the sole source
from which all the nations derived their existence. These family trees
are often varied in their manner of providing information with respect
to direct descendants who are sometimes listed as tribes or whole
nations rather than individuals. Future family trees recorded in scripture
even in the New Testament, have omissions and this has led many to
attempt to justify a longer time period than the traditional 6000 year
calculation for biblical history.
Scripture commences with a universal picture of the human species
created as male and female and commanded to populate the world and
enjoy its resources. This is the big picture. Then we shift to a close-up of
the first man and woman, the mother of all living. Females did not exist
simultaneously as men but were created after males. The New
Testament regards Adam as the “first” man that ever existed and that
all humans descend from him. Adam was made from the soil hence his
name with its meaning from the earth. Adam is described as earthy
which means he is not divine. It is less of a scientific term and more
theological. Likewise, Eve was made from the male – from Adam –
which was designed to show their unity and compatibility. The context
is sociological regarding marriage and the origin of the family structure
rather than a literal process of creating. The snake likewise was told it
would eat dust. This is not literal but a sign of humiliation. Therefore,
the creative methods expressed, and dietary habit of the cursed snake
seem to be more metaphorical in nature rather than literal. Scripture
does describe a process for creation of the first couple, but it is a
supernatural and not natural process. God is the subject and
mechanism of creation not natural laws.
The overall biblical picture provides a comprehensive and cohesive
lineage of humanity from the original couple to the New Testament
times of numerous ethnic groups organized in political states. This is a
historical account and quite unique and should not be dismissed out of
hand. There is no real justification for rejecting the account without
suggesting why authors who recorded human history should purposely
falsify their accounts. They were not ignorant, but had access to
detailed information including names, births and deaths of those
individuals. This detailed information would suggest integrity and argue
very strongly against an imaginative mind conjuring up fictitious people
and lifespans.
External corroboration is not lacking. The lists of nations from Genesis
descended from the sons of Noah tally with history and even the great
Flood event has been recorded with great similarity in detail in other
civilizations. There is enough evidence to reject an out of hand dismissal
of the account because this external evidence demonstrates biblical
history has plausibility. It certainly caused no concern for Jesus or the
Apostle Paul from teaching this account of Adam and Eve as both literal
and genuine. They would not have done so had the account been
fictional, mythical or poetical.
Why can’t we conform to their attitude of acceptance? Or why do we
experience difficulty in trusting this account fully without some
reservations? It is here that we must exercise our faith in God and his
word. We must possess the assurance that God created the universe
according to his word and this includes the account of Adam and Eve.
We cannot reconcile or accommodate current and future scientific
theories and facts regarding not only Adam and Eve, but the six-day
creation cycle. It is a little superficial to simply claim that these are
accounts accommodated to the simplicity of the original audience or
simply incorporated ancient worldviews to make the biblical account
intelligible to the original uneducated audience. Christianity is based on
trust, trust in the Bible as the infallible word of God communicated and
preserved for us in the form it should be received. This is a challenge,
but it is easier to receive the text in its simplicity than to try and
reconcile it with modern views. Reconciliation with current views will
simply compromise the integrity of scripture and the integrity of
science. We have to work with what God has gifted to us and remember
that this account of Genesis is ancient, credible and connected closer to
the events than today.