3

“then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2:7-8‬ ‭

When God made man/Adam, did God make Adam complete with all the parts necessary to procreate seeing he had no one to procreate with? Eve was made later from man

“Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2:18‬ ‭

2
  • Anything in particular that makes you think he wouldn't be, aside from the lack of a mate?
    – curiousdannii
    Oct 1, 2021 at 12:52
  • 1
    Because this is used to argue that heavenly beings because they don’t have female counterparts therefore don’t have the equipment to procreate @curiousdannii Oct 1, 2021 at 13:25

4 Answers 4

1

The answer depends on how one relates the account in Genesis 2 (Adam is alone until Eve is removed from him) to that of Genesis 1 (God created humans as male and female and blessed them to be fruitful and multiply). There is a relevant Jewish tradition that Adam himself was originally both male and female.

Gen. Rabbah 8

Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar said: When the Holy One blessed be He created Adam the first man, He created him androgynous. That is what is written: “He created them male and female.”

This opinion sees Adam as incapable of reproducing (even if he had both male and female sex organs) until Eve was taken from his side. But if one understands Gen. 2 to be an allegory or a description of the spiritual creation of humans rather than a literal account of our physical origins, we arrive at a different answer to the OP: because it was not meant literally, the account in Gen. 2 does not imply that Adam was incapable of reproducing. This account must be read in light of what is said in chapter 1. God created them as one male and one female - just like all the other animals - and blessed them to be fruitful and multiply.

2

Firstly, I would like to clarify that this answer is based on personal thoughts and does not have scriptural verification.

Adam was probably first created without a gender. The name Adam, meaning "son of red earth", was first mentioned in Genesis 3:17, after Eve was created in Genesis 2:22. Before Eve was created, the Lord referred to Adam as "the Human", in Sefaria.org Hebrew-English translation, instead of "the man" as found in most English Bibles.

In most English Bibles, Eve's creation is described as being taken from the ribs of the man. However, in Sefaria.org Hebrew-English translation, it is described as being taken from the sides of the Human.

Now we know the human cells containing 23 pairs of chromosomes, and one pair determining the sex of a human. This microscopic knowledge was far beyond the comprehension of people in Moses' time. Based on Sefaria.org Hebrew-English translation, "Human" is used instead of "man", and "Sides" instead of "chromosomes", I would speculate that Adam was created without a gender. When the Lord decided "the Human" was not good to be alone, He created the marker in one pair of chromosome, each pair being a spiral thread-like structures tightly link side by side. Perhaps this is what "sides" meant.

After Eve was created, "the Human" became Adam, indicating that their gender was established. From that point on, human procreation became possible.

2
  • Considering all heavenly beings are masculine, it would make no sense to have an asexual being, especially since genitalia is not limited to copulation but also for other physiological needs. Nov 13, 2023 at 16:37
  • 1
    @NihilSineDeo - I'm sorry for missing your comment. While I don't know hebrew, I believe that God's message primarily addresses the understanding and perception of the people in the context of their time. The effectiveness of His message hinged on its comprehension by the intended audience. The concept of Asexuality is abstract , even Jesus just briefly mentioned angels do not marry (Matt 22:30). It may be possible all masculine languages symbolize to some form of dominance. For instance, husband is the head of his wife. I reiterate that these thoughts are purely speculative. Apr 11 at 13:41
1

New American Standard Bible Genesis 1:

26 Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” 27So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Both Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day. Adam might be a few hours older than Eve. It's likely that both were created to be capable of procreation (multiplication).

1
  • I think "likely" can be strengthened to "logically necessary", God had commanded them to multiply, so he could hardly deny them the ability to multiply. "He who wills the end also wills the means". Apr 11 at 8:33
-2

The Bible does not say. So aside from that ; would result in hypothetical assumption.

We know they conceived already. Normally we don't see God make something half way then augment it later. Procreation by people takes more than just the parts. Knowledge for what to do and people to consciously agree.

3
  • 1
    its all that can be given for a superficial question. @NihilSineDeo
    – W_R
    Oct 1, 2021 at 13:31
  • @NihilSineDeo you are assuming More interpretation into the statement " not good to be alone " than what the verse plainly said. We know its not good to be alone from life lived. But male and female were already present by day 6. For me its a non issue. Its one that if not careful you can make up things about in the mind not expressed in The Bible.
    – W_R
    Oct 1, 2021 at 13:34
  • I gave your question a like by way for at least trying. But not because it was a good question. : (
    – W_R
    Oct 1, 2021 at 13:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.