Why create just one man and one woman?

[bluegreenearth]

According to the "inspired word of God" (Genesis 2), the human population began with a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. However, after Adam was magically brought to life by God using a golem spell, it is implied that he was initially intended to live and work by himself in the garden of Eden. Apparently, Eve was subsequently created from Adam's rib as an afterthought when God realized that just one human being was probably insufficient to manage all the necessary gardening. Meanwhile, entire populations of animals and plants had been brought into existence, even before Eve came along to give Adam a hand with his chores. So, what was God's reasoning for creating just two humans in a world where other populations of living things presumably consisted of many individuals?

The first and most obvious apologetic is that God intended for Adam and Eve to produce more humans through sexual reproduction as the preferred mechanism for populating the world. The problem, though, is the "divinely inspired" text gives no indication that all the other forms of life also initially began as just one or two individuals who subsequently reproduced through an intended "natural" mechanism. This would be expected from a God that is depicted as being perfectly consistent. If it was the case that God instantaneously created numerous individuals within the plant and animal populations, then why not use the same strategy for the human population?

Maybe an explanation could be found by presuming the ratio of resources to humans in the garden of Eden was such that the ecology could only support a handful of people at a time. Of course, that explanation doesn't pass the sniff test because the planet is large enough for God to have created a garden with sufficient resources to support a population of more than just two people. Why would God plant one or two humans in a small garden on a planet large enough to accommodate billions of people? I suppose God could have intended for the garden and the human population within it to grow naturally over time. However, the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection already provides a secular mechanism for how that outcome could be achieved without special creation or intelligent design. It doesn't seem plausible or logically justifiable to presume that an omnipotent God would choose either the slow growth or natural evolution scenario for populating the entire planet as both of those methods are far less efficient than instantaneous special creation.

The next anticipated objection is that Genesis 1 indicates God did, indeed, create numerous human individuals (both male and female) and sent them to go forth and produce offspring. However, if God had instantaneously created many more than just one or two humans at the beginning of the world, then how is that scenario reconciled with the Genesis 2 account where there was initially just one instantaneously created human male who was later found to be lonely and subsequently supplied with a female companion fashioned from his own rib? If there were other male and female people running around in the garden, Adam wouldn't have been described as needing another human being to help him. Is it reasonable to believe that Adam wasn't interested in one of the female human beings already sharing the garden with him and needed a customized female companion born from the flesh of his own body?

Furthermore, what was God's motivation for creating separate biological sexes in the first place? Since God is depicted as an isolated being with an ability to produce another isolated being in his image, his creation of separate sexes is unexpected and unnecessarily complex. In fact, we know that there are creatures who are neither male nor female but have the capacity to naturally produce offspring. Therefore, it doesn't stand to reason that a genderless God would inexplicably create a living being with a male reproductive organ and then later decide to create a female version to serve as the male's helper and baby incubator. It would have been more efficient and less complicated for God to have designed Adam to be neither male nor female but with an ability to naturally reproduce with another human of the same genderless morphology. Had God considered that design option in advance, it certainly would have at least mitigated for the post-fall LGBTQ+ confusion.

Finally, if God did initially create just one man and one woman to live in the garden of Eden where they would subsequently produce offspring to populate the entire planet, then what is the theological justification for enabling a situation where the entire fate of humanity would hinge on the freewill decisions of just two fallible people? Had God planned ahead a bit better and instantaneously created several hundred people rather than just two, the odds are greatly improved that at least a few dozen of them would freely choose to obey their God and be allowed to remain in the garden. Then again, if the Genesis 1 account is to be incorporated, several other human beings with freewills of their own were also in the garden of Eden just before Eve ate of the forbidden fruit. If so, why were those innocent people ejected from paradise along with Adam and Eve if they had freely chosen to not eat the forbidden fruit? Is it reasonable to believe, in this scenario, that every other person with freewill in the garden also chose to disobey their creator in the same manner as Adam and Eve?

[Quantrill]

Presuming God has the capacity to instantaneously achieve any of his goals, what is the logical justification for choosing the gradual method for achieving his goal over the instantaneous method given that the outcome would have been identical?

Why would it be more plausible for God to choose the gradual (less efficient) method for achieving his goal when he had the capability of using the more efficient method of instantaneous special creation?

One man and one woman was necessary in order to accomplish God's work of redemption with One Man, Jesus Christ. Pretty simple really.

Quantrill

[brunumb]

One man and one woman was necessary in order to accomplish God's work of redemption with One Man, Jesus Christ. Pretty simple really.

Not really. How is that not possible with more than one man and one woman at the beginning?

[JehovahsWitness]

Your questions for the most part are based on unsupported assumptions (why do you assume an omnipotent god needs to justify anything he does? Inefficincy of any kind has yet to be established...what goal are you presuming he had?)

As for the rest, you may take my comment above apply to any notion of "instantaneous special creation"
viewtopic.php?p=1017215#p1017215

All assumptions about God, including your assumptions and those from the Bible, are unsupported. Therefore, my assumptions are no more invalid than any other assumptions.

Well at least you admit your assumptions are unsupported. That all assumptions are equally so has yet to be proven. (You do realize we are on a debate forum and you declaring something such as that all assumptions are unsupported doesnt make what you say true right?)

my assumptions are no more invalid than any other assumptions.

Would you like to prove that by presenting the rationale supporting your assumptions?






JW

[Quantrill]

Not really. How is that not possible with more than one man and one woman at the beginning?

Yes, really. Sunday school 101.

Adam was representative of his race. That was made possible because all were born of Adam. If God had more than Adam and Eve, then there would be no representative. Which would require more than one sacrifice. It would have required as many sacrifices as were humans created.

Jesus Christ became the 'last Adam'. He was the last representative of the human race. (1 Cor. 15:45) By one the human race fell, and so by One it can be redeemed.

Quantrill

[bluegreenearth]

Well at least you admit your assumptions are unsupported. That all assumptions are equally so has yet to be proven. (You do realize we are on a debate forum and you declaring something such as that all assumptions are unsupported doesnt make what you say true right?)

That is really excellent advice. Please lead by example and demonstrate where your assumptions and the Bible's assumptions about God are not only supported but better supported than any other assumptions.

[Tcg]

Adam was representative of his race. That was made possible because all were born of Adam. If God had more than Adam and Eve, then there would be no representative.

Christians who accept theistic evolution resolve this quite simply. They teach that at some point God selected one man among the many as a representative. It's tough fit given the claims of the Bible, but at least it's a step toward a rational view that accounts for the evidence of human evolution.


Tcg

[brunumb]

Yes, really. Sunday school 101.

Adam was representative of his race. That was made possible because all were born of Adam. If God had more than Adam and Eve, then there would be no representative. Which would require more than one sacrifice. It would have required as many sacrifices as were humans created.

Jesus Christ became the 'last Adam'. He was the last representative of the human race. (1 Cor. 15:45) By one the human race fell, and so by One it can be redeemed.

I wasn't sent to a biblical indoctrination centre as a child, but that does not mean that I am incapable of reading and understanding what is written in the Bible. Sunday school is designed to inculcate beliefs and then close up the mind.

Every person born after Adam is not Adam. Jesus was not Adam, nor was he the last human. Any person can be a representative of the human race simply because they are a human being. The whole scenario is a mere contrivance. And all that aside, it was Eve that actually fell taking Adam and humanity with her.

[Quantrill]

Christians who accept theistic evolution resolve this quite simply. They teach that at some point God selected one man among the many as a representative. It's tough fit given the claims of the Bible, but at least it's a step toward a rational view that accounts for the evidence of human evolution.


Tcg

No need to resolve or change the Scripture to fit science. Scripture is against evolution. The record of Adam and Eve is clear.

Adam was the first representative. Christ, the Last Adam, was the last Representative.

Of course you don't have to believe it. But that is the testimony of Scripture.

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

I wasn't sent to a biblical indoctrination centre as a child, but that does not mean that I am incapable of reading and understanding what is written in the Bible. Sunday school is designed to inculcate beliefs and then close up the mind.

Every person born after Adam is not Adam. Jesus was not Adam, nor was he the last human. Any person can be a representative of the human race simply because they are a human being. The whole scenario is a mere contrivance. And all that aside, it was Eve that actually fell taking Adam and humanity with her.

Really? You seem to be having trouble. (1 Cor. 15:45) is clear that Adam was the first Adam. Christ is the last Adam. I didn't say last human. I said Last Adam.

No, Scripture is clear. The human race fell in Adam. It doesn't matter that Eve sinned first. The human race did not fall till Adam ate.

Quantrill

[brunumb]

Really? You seem to be having trouble. (1 Cor. 15:45) is clear that Adam was the first Adam. Christ is the last Adam. I didn't say last human. I said Last Adam.
No, Scripture is clear. The human race fell in Adam. It doesn't matter that Eve sinned first. The human race did not fall till Adam ate.

You said "Jesus Christ became the 'last Adam'. He was the last representative of the human race."
By that, every man from the first Adam was also Adam. If Jesus was the last Adam then he was also the last human man. That also means that there were no more human males after Jesus. Your word salad really is quite meaningless. The opinions expressed in Corinthians have not been demonstrated as fact and only reflect primitive beliefs for their time.

Eve as a human being represents the human race as much as Adam. Only misogyny prevents her from being responsible for the fall by being the first to sin. In a patriarchal society women were not much more than incubators as exemplified by the use of Mary to bear Jesus. Some of that even persists to this day.

No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago https://tinyurl.com/ycl69t8r