Where Did Eve’s Lady Parts Come From?

We found an absolutely fascinating post at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. It’s titled Does Genesis 1:27 Mean That God Originally Created Adam with Both Genders?, and it was written by Troy Lacey, about whom we know nothing. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

As a ministry, we are asked many questions about both Adam and Eve, their creation, and other aspects of what happened to them after the fall. With much going on in the culture regarding gender and “pride month,” we often see eisegesis of gender and sexual ideology creeping even into Scripture. We recently received the following question:

[Here’s the question:] Some have asserted that tsela in Genesis 2:21 does mean side, and even more so, actually means “half” or “nature.” Some LGBT activists [Gasp!] state that God originally made Adam as both male and female, the female half (or nature) being removed to then create Eve. Some use this argument to justify the world’s excuses for so many different “sex and gender” issues.

This is not the sort of subject your Curmudgeon deals with, but it comes from ol’ Hambo’s website, so we’ll take a look. Troy gives us the AIG answer:

The statement in Genesis 1, “he made them male and female,” is a precursor to the full description given in Genesis 2, not a separate creation event as some claim — where God made Adam with male and female parts and then separated those parts into Adam and Eve later. [Gasp!] Our ministry asserts that Genesis 1 is an overview account of the entire creation week, and Genesis 2 (after verse 3) is a detailed account of day 6. This means (for example) that Adam was created on day 6, and Eve was created on day 6, as Genesis 1 says. Genesis 2 simply details Adam’s creation from the dust of the ground and Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib.

All clear? According to Hambo’s ministry, Adam didn’t have female organs on his body. Okay, skipping some scripture stuff, Troy tells us:

Additionally, Jesus’ statement in Matthew 19 (and the parallel passage in Mark 10:6–9) does not state God made them male and female at first and then separated them. [Hee hee!] In fact, Jesus says that after marriage (and in the case of Adam and Eve, it appears this was immediately after Eve was made), they are “no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:8–9). God did not separate Eve from Adam, he joined them together as one in marriage.

That settles it. Adam was not created with female parts attached to his body. Troy continues:

Genesis 1 gives us an overview account of the creation of Adam and Eve on Day 6. Then Genesis 2:15–25 gives us more detail about Adam’s creation from the dust of the ground and Eve’s subsequent creation from Adam’s rib. We even get a glimpse into the early hours of Adam’s life before Eve was created. But the account of their creation in no way [No way!] supports that Adam was initially created bigender and his “feminine side” was removed and fashioned into Eve.

And in case you still have doubts, Troy says:

This relatively recent postulation is not based on Scripture but rather a prior assumption interwoven with an exegetical bias that is merely the attempt of liberal scholars and LGBTQ+ advocates to push their genderless (or multiple gender) ideology.

Okay, that should be enough, but Troy ends his post with yet another juicy paragraph. We’ll skip it because the issue is settled: Adam never had female organs. Hey — it just occurred to us — they didn’t try to blame the multi-gendered Adam theory on Darwin. Amazing, isn’t it?

Copyright © 2022. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

18 responses to “Where Did Eve’s Lady Parts Come From?

  1. I guess Troy Lacey isn’t a biologist or didn’t pay attention in high school biology. Otherwise he’d know that at least some of the cells in that rib had to have two X chromosomes, which, I suppose, aren’t the “lady parts” that concern Troy,

  2. I have to agree that Genesis does not imply non-binary sexuality. But is there anyone at all who imagines that it does? Or is this just Ham stoking the Culture Wars for his own well-known political reasons?

  3. I think that there were early commentators on Genesis 1:27 who interpreted it as saying that the humans were originally created bisexual. Unfortunately, I don’t have a reference.

  4. docbill1351

    Mystery solved!

    “There was a young man from Nantucket …”

  5. Ross Cameron

    If Man is made in the image of God (Scripture somewhere in the mish-mash), does this mean God has nipples as well? Enquiring minds etc.

  6. @Ross Cameron; or a navel?

  7. Amazing how christANALs don’t know where dirt comes from…its basically worm poop! Which gawd molded into Adam. So christANALs believe they are all poop!

  8. “he made them male and female,”

    “two but one flesh”

    “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate”

    And there it was, right there in front of us the whole time. Soylent Green is people, “To Serve Man” is a cookbook, and everyone is both a male and a female. The top three of the “right there in front of us the whole time” thingies.

  9. Dave Luckett

    They say, ” Our ministry asserts that Genesis 1 is an overview account of the entire creation week, and Genesis 2 (after verse 3) is a detailed account of day 6.” That’s what they assert, all right..

    Practically everyone else thinks that this is two different stories, and, noting the different Hebrew vocabulary and style, thinks they are by different writers. They cite pesky little inconsistencies, like how in Genesis 1, God made the animals first, and humans last of all, but in Genesis 2 He made a man first, then the animals, then a woman.

    Of course Ham and co take refuge in translation difficulties in handwaving away this contradiction. Although Hebrew verbs certainly can have a pluperfect tense, Moses, who was writing this, didn’t use the pluperfect, because reasons. Thus, the Lord God “had made” the animals already, and the text steps out of chronological order in that case, because Ham finds it convenient to say that it does.

    Sorry. It certainly is odd, that I find Ham’s wholesale butchery of the text more galling than his crackpot ideas about science. I suppose it’s because on the latter head you can be addled but sincere, but to pretend reverence for the text as Holy Writ and yet be prepared to distort it like that requires hypocrisy in heroic amounts.

    And that’s before I get to my indignation that Ham has the downright brass-bound gall to call Ham Enterprises a “ministry”. Ministry, quotha? To whom or what does Ham minister from his mansion, running his multi-million dollar sales and entertainment company, apart from himself and his family? “Ministry”, my foot. That’s a lie from a master liar.

    I will never see what would happen if Ham ever met the Man he calls God. That I will not is the only regret resulting from my conviction that nobody will.

  10. Ken Phelps

    “This is not the sort of subject your Curmudgeon deals with.”

    Kinda like how I don’t delve into Tinker Bell’s aerodynamic properties?

  11. A July 1, 2022 article on Quantamagazind.org
    Life Helps Make Almost Half of All Minerals on Earth

    If Man came from the dust of the Earth, how come there is still dust?

  12. @Dave Luckett, People have been struggling with the problem of how to reconcile Genesis 1 with Genesis 2 for 2000 years. The rabbis, for example, distinguished between vegetation being created in Genesis 1, and sprouting in Genesis 2. And the standard explanation for differences in vocabulary and use of language was that the author (or in this case Author) changed style to suit the subject matter.

  13. I wonder why God could “poof’ things into existence but decided to form animals “out of the ground”. (Quick, somebody ask God and get back to us.)

  14. Folklore often confuses the origin of a group with a tale of the origin of an individual. Science distinguishes individual reproduction and development from evolution of a population. (Folklore also tells tales also about an individual being the founder of a tribe.)

  15. I think I just disproved religion. If God only answers questions through other people, where do the other people get their other people? You cannot have an infinite regress, therefore God does nor exist.

  16. Ah thanks @TomS answered the question. Wait, you cannot have an infinite regress, therefore TomS is God, QED.

  17. sallyhawksworth

    I share SC’s amazement that Ham does not blame Darwin for the idea that humans were originally both male and female, since, although he might not have specifically mentioned this, Darwin’s suggestion that all organisms are descendended from “one or few” original forms logically entails supposing that our distant ancestors were hermaphrodite, and, prior to that, asexual.

    Oh wait! Am I really suggesting that Ham would know that much about Darwin’s ideas, or be capable of reasoning this out? Silly me!

  18. What about multiple “mating types”?
    And the complexities of sex … individuals which can change sex because of environment, etc.?