| Categories | |
| Nooks and crannies | |
| Yesteryear | |
| Semantic enigmas | |
| The body beautiful | |
| Red tape, white lies | |
| Speculative science | |
| This sceptred isle | |
| Root of all evil | |
| Ethical conundrums | |
| This sporting life | |
| Stage and screen | |
| Birds and the bees | |
Did Adam and Eve have navels?
Eamon Warnock, Guangzhou, China
- Darwinian theory would suggest that they had. From a theological perspective; if we are all made in God's image, not only do we and Adam and Eve have them, but God must have one too.
Andrew Cramer, Blackpool
- If, as fundamentalists would have us believe, God created all living things as they are now, of course Adam and Eve had navels. However, if that is what He did, why did He give Adam, and all male mammals, nipples? It seems a pointless provision - especially since Eve (who came to have need of them, once they found out what their other naughty bits were for) was, according to Genesis, an afterthought to the original grand design.
Mike Bird, Maryport, Cumbria
- In 1857 (2 years before On the Origin of Species) Philip Gosse published 'Omphalos' (Greek for navel) which argued that Adam & Eve must have had navels although they had not been born for the same reasons that God decided to plant fossils in the rocks which seemed to be older than the Biblical age of the planet. It was a masterful but moronic attempt to reconcile Genesis and Geology and though now generally forgotten it provides a fascinating insight into nineteenth century mental turmoil.
Charlie Hartill, London UK
- No. They didn't have any ships in those days.
Nick Medcroft, Cheltenham, UK
- No, they mostly had Sevilles.
Jenny, Bradford, Yorkshire
- The fact that the navels didn't exist because the people they were attached to didn't exist seems to render the debate a bit pointless.
Steven Johnston, Manchester, UK
- The BIG question, of course, is: were they innies or outies?
Ian Keldoulis, New York City, USA
- If they didn't, what did they contemplate?
Ged Balmer, Greenwich, UK
- Where would they collect fluff if they didn't?
Aidan Randle-Conde, Crewe UK
- For the answer to this and other 'mysteries' I suggest you check out the excellent book 'Did Adam and Eve Have Navels' by Martin Garder.Click the link below to go there:http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393049639/qid%3D976887664/202-6340628-6816636
Paul Brian, London UK
- In 1646, the Norwich doctor and philosopher Sir Thomas Browne published his work 'Pseudodoxia Epidemica', a collection of 'vulgar errors' and received half-truths current in society, which he sought to explore, explode, and generally get to the bottom of. He devoted Book 5 Chaper 5 to the question : 'Of Pictures Of Adam and Eve With Navels'. Browne admits that pictures featuring the pair with navels are "...observable not only in ordinary and stained peeces, but in the Authentick draughts of Urbin, Angelo and others [ie Raphael & Michelangelo]", but goes on to say that to admit that Adam and Eve did indeed posess navels would be suggesting that "...in the first and most accomplished peece, the Creator affected superfluities, or ordained parts without use or office", and as such he believes that the pictures are indeed in error.
Adam, Cambridge
- I think God was supposed to be their parents. Does that make him an ape? Because apes have navels.
Adrian, Littlehampton, UK
- If Genesis is to be taken literally then they didn't have belly buttons because God made them himself. They didn't need an cord to plug them in to a mother!If not they didn't exist as individuals so it's not an issue.
David, Teddington UK
- Can some one please give me one good reason why they wouldn't?
Hannah, UK
- I have heard that in many paintings of Adam and Eve the navel area is obscured by folliage or tresses of hair, allowing the artists to sidestep the question, so it was clearly a contentious issue at a time when you would not want to stray from religious orthodoxy.
Don Stewart, hexham Northumberland
- If they did...who cut the cord?
Judith, Atlanta USA
- In response to Charlie Harthill above. The Great Unscientific Theory of Goss is not now largely forgotten, it is a basic part of all philosophy degree courses. Neither is it moronic since it provides an antithesis to all evolutionary theory in one fell swoop and is entirely impossible to disprove. It may be considered merely a tricksy paradox by some but in fact it reveals the full extent of human ignorance by proving that as mere mortals we cannot ever expect to know the answers to such pointless questions as 'Why are we here?', 'Is there a God?' and 'Did Adam and Eve have navels?'
Chico, Cambridge England
- Eve didn't, but Adam had a bloody great scar in his sternum where God ripped a rib to create Eve and left two scars at each end of the incision which people mistakenly think are nipples.
Mary Fallon, Chippenham Wiltshire
- The navel is a scar left by the umbilical cord which attatches a foetus to the placenta. If Adam and Eve were created as adults by God they would not have had an umbilical cord.
Lee, Leeds
- god had to provide navals else any children that they may have would notice the abscence and thus grow up disfunctionally.
trevor dawe, wolverhampton west midlanmds
- Surely if you're believing enough to accept that Adam and Eve existed in the first place it matters not whether they had navels.
Chris, Glasgow
- with regard to Adam Cramer's reply, i find it strange that he would back up an issue relating to creation with an opposing theory of evolution! But i really dont believe that Adam and Eve had belly buttons...Genesis said man were created, and as they came from no mother, no belly button / umbilical cord required!
michelle, dumbarton
- Adan and Eve were names at that time for what we call now man and woman, they were't two especific people, it was used to talk about humankind. so they had navels as we do, they were human beings!
Catalina, Santiago Chile
- In response to Chico, you can refute any evidence by stating that God made it that way to fool us, but a) it's not a very good argument, and b) do you want to believe in an alleged divine being that behaves that way?
Gordon, South Shields Tyne & Wear
- On the presumption that Adam and Eve existed and that they were greated in god's image, and that all man is in god's image,they must have had a navel. The redundancy of this navel must have been built into Adam and Eve as it is necessary for any offspring and could not have been used in their bodies. Therefore either the rest of mankind is not in god's image, or god created Adam and Eve knowing that they would have children and introducing the mechanism for that.
Danny, Birmingham
- I think we should ask if Adam and Eve ever existed or not!!
Miguel Costa, Macau china
- Human beings have navels. If we are created in the image of Adam and Eve and if Adam and Eve were created in the image of the Lord (which we're reliably informed that they were) then this would suggest that God too had a navel which in turn would suggest that God had parents... did God have parents? Did Adam and Eve have parents? Maybe they did, maybe the parents sought anonymity and never got a mention in the holy book. Or maybe God felt they were never worthy of a mention. Does anybody know? My hunch is that, being aware of this conundrum, God, Adam and Eve would have been equipped with "phantom" navels, serving no practical purpose, but entirely necessary for the future of the human race.
Lee Hutchinson, Kenilworth UK
- Adam and Eve? It's all metaphor.
Lets run over this again. Around 2000 years ago, in the Middle East, a man called Jesus Christ (faith healer/prophet/cool guy/revolutionary) existed. There is plenty of documentary evidence. The issue of contention since has been whether he was actually the son of God. Plenty of people were serious followers of Jesus, and stories about him were written and combined with existing stories to create what we know as The Bible. It is a great poetic work, full of wonderful lessons and morals. Most of it (Adam and Eve, the virgin birth, God's meteorological wrath) is a little like children's stories, and really not to be taken literally.
If one considers it, The Bible is very Earth-centric, ie it assumes everything of importance takes place here. What about the other planets? One has to remember the type of people that wrote it and the scientific knowledge they had at the time. Anyone who takes The Bible literally is really headed for trouble, and probably will cause some trouble in their life because of this unreasonable and immature belief. A real divine being would laugh at all the nonsense talked about in their name.
Be good to others, and then believe what you want. But if you believe in Adam and Eve, for God's sake keep quiet about it.
Jack Baber, Boston, England
- I believe they didn't, because they didnt have any umbilical cords, so there would be none. However, God must have meant for them to come on Adam and Eve's children.
Alice, Stockport, England
- I had an umbilical hernia and therefore had my bellybutton removed when I was four. It's not something I'm chuffed about, and makes bikini-wearing a bit of a no-no, but I think A&E probably would have been more concerned about losing paradise than not having belly buttons. And thanks for making me self conscious...
Clare, Belfast, Northern Ireland
- I was a fundamentalist Christian when I was in my teens and, believe me, there are people out there who believe that every word of the bible is to be taken literally. A variety of explanations are available for contradictions. For instance that the Devil placed fossils in the rocks of the Earth in order to tempt people into believing that the Bible wasn't to be taken literally. The explanation for the Bible saying that we are made in God's image but physiologically we appear to be some kind of ape is that Adam and Eve were made in God's image but when they failed the test and were thrown out of Eden, their offspring were bestial replicas of themselves and not in the image of God until Jesus came to die for our sins and reconcile us with God. To be consistent with this I would have thought that they would not have had navels. A more important anomaly, I would have thought, is where did Cain's wife come from?
Steve Murray, Keynsham, UK
- NO!!! Absolutely not.One possible theory is that Adam did - because when God pulled his rib out he pulled it through his stomach and left a scar but there was no scar for Eve.The issue has absolutely no relation to "being made in God's image" or "they must have because otherwise they would not be perfect creations" and "all humans must be the same according to Genesis".This is all wrong, because our navel is simply a scar and that is it. Not a part of our DNA like a nipple or ear or hair or whatever.It is no more significant than the fact that I have a scar on my leg from stacking it - but Adam didn't!!! shock horror!!!
Haylez, Brisbane, Australia
- For a Christian, belief in Adam and Eve, created by God from dust in His image and from Adam's rib, respectively, is not optional. Much of Jesus' teaching and most of Paul's is predicated on this understanding of the origin of man and woman, husband and wife. If we disregard the creation account of Adam and Eve, we must consequentially put aside who rafts of Christian wisdom and practice. I don't know how to move forward as both a Christian and a professional scientist. Adam and Eve did not need navels - but Cain, and Cain's wife did.
Wayne Philp, Largs Bay, SA Australia
- Not sure, but since navels indicate an umbilical cord connection to a mother, and that it says somewhere that people were created in the imagine and likeness of god - god's a female.
Harry, Victoria, BC Canada
- Eve an afterthought? (Mike Bird, above) Nonsense, she was the 'crown of creation', the purpose of the whole process. Or as the joke i heard in the primary school playground put it, 'when God made man, She was only practising.'
Rachel, London UK
- adam and eve were created by GOD, not born as we were. there was no umbilical cord. most photos of adam and eve show them with a fig in front of them because there is no navel to show. but that my opinion
joe, jersey shore,nj usa
- Moses' account of Adam and Eve is loaded with symbolism, as are much of the Hebrew texts. Though they were real people, the dust part was used as a symbol to signify man's dependence on the earth that God had given him and the rib to show man and woman's equality and need for each other. So yes they had navels being born not zapped into existence.
Carson, Utah USA
As an expert in theology, mythology, and historical perspectives on religious narratives, it is evident that the question of whether Adam and Eve had navels touches upon theological, scientific, and philosophical aspects. Let's break down the concepts mentioned in the article and provide insights:
-
Darwinian Theory:
- The first response refers to Darwinian theory, suggesting that if humans are made in God's image and subject to evolution, Adam and Eve would likely have navels. This implies a compatibility between theological and evolutionary perspectives.
-
Theological Perspective:
- Theological viewpoints are presented, questioning whether Adam and Eve had navels based on the idea that they were created by God. The mention of nipples in male mammals is raised as a point of curiosity in the grand design.
-
Historical Reference - Philip Gosse's 'Omphalos':
- A historical reference is made to Philip Gosse's work 'Omphalos,' published in 1857, which argued that Adam and Eve must have had navels. This work is described as an attempt to reconcile Genesis and Geology, reflecting the 19th-century struggle to reconcile science and religious beliefs.
-
Humorous Responses:
- Humorous responses, such as the absence of ships in ancient times and a play on words with "Sevilles," contribute a lighthearted tone to the discussion.
-
Artistic Representation - Sir Thomas Browne:
- A historical reference is made to Sir Thomas Browne's work 'Pseudodoxia Epidemica,' where he discusses the portrayal of Adam and Eve with navels in art. Browne argues against the portrayal, considering it an error.
-
Scientific Explanation - Navel as a Scar:
- A scientific explanation is presented, stating that the navel is a scar left by the umbilical cord, and since Adam and Eve were created as adults, they wouldn't have had umbilical cords.
-
Philosophical Perspective - The Great Unscientific Theory of Gosse:
- A philosophical perspective is introduced, referring to the Great Unscientific Theory of Gosse, which challenges evolutionary theory and highlights the limitations of human understanding.
-
Metaphorical Interpretation:
- A reader suggests that Adam and Eve may be metaphorical names for humankind, implying that the question about navels might be irrelevant in a symbolic context.
-
Literal Interpretation - Literalists and Contradictions:
- The article mentions individuals who take a literal interpretation of the Bible and highlights potential contradictions, such as the origin of Cain's wife.
-
Religious Significance - Jesus' Teaching:
- A connection is drawn between belief in Adam and Eve and the teachings of Jesus and Paul, indicating the religious significance of the narrative.
-
Symbolism - Dust and Rib:
- The symbolism in Moses' account of Adam and Eve is discussed, emphasizing the symbolic use of dust and rib to convey deeper meanings about humanity's connection to the earth and the equality of man and woman.
In conclusion, the discussion about whether Adam and Eve had navels goes beyond a simple anatomical question and delves into theological, scientific, philosophical, and symbolic dimensions, reflecting the complexity of intertwining religious narratives with human understanding and interpretation.
