John A. Broussard

If I remember correctly, there was quite a brouhaha during the Middle Ages concerning whether or not Adam had a navel.

Is there anything in scripture that would indicate whether or not he did?

For that matter, was the debate ever settled, or did it just fade away?

fta

Navels: The Creationists Say No!

Crucifiction

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

So God wouldn't create a "false history", eh? So what's up with the fossil record, Antarctic ice cores, tree rings...

yummyfur

I don't think there is any scripture that talks about the presense or absense of a bellybutton in Adam (or Eve). I don't even know what the proper OT Hebrew would be? In modern Hebrew, the word tabbuwr (midst) is used, but I'm not sure how long it has had that additional meaning.

As far as Adam having a bellybutton, Well god had to pull that rib out somewhere

Dryhad

Genesis doesn't mention alot of stuff, why would it bother to say "Oh, and neither Adam nor Eve had a naval. Cool, huh?" There's no logical reason why Adam or Eve would have a naval, so I see nothing wrong with depicting them as not having navals. However, of all the debates about the bible, this has got to rank among the least relevant to anything, doesn't it?

Chili

Who do you think your navel belongs to John? You, or the man called John. If their is only one of you, it is yours but if there was two of Jesus one of them did not have one.

John A. Broussard

Over and over again I'm told by Christians that: "Man was created in god's image."

My feeling was that if we could decide what Adam looked like, we'd have a clue about god's appearance.

Anyhow, this was an important point in the Middle Ages, like those angels dancing on the head of a pin. I was mainly curious about how the then important navel question was settled.

I do agree with you, however, it really isn't much relevant to anything. But then I feel that way about any discussion having to do with the bible.

sodium

I tend to disagree. Humans are what you get when you put the right kind of DNA in the right kind of womb and gestate for approximately nine months. When you create a human out of dust, you're already specially creating a being to look like the things that have been (or will be) created by a womb. So I say, might as well make the belly button.

I guess I tend to think that the only difference with the navel is that it is particularly obvious what would naturally cause it. But I tend to think that the more one knew about human reproduction, the more you would see that everything is like that. You'd see the DNA strands which are two half-strands merged together. You'd see various human features as the result of the process.

This seams to me to be different than theories that posit apparent deceptiveness on the part of God. For example, the idea that God would create light patterns that would be naturally interpreted as light from distant stars, even thought those stars did not exist early enough to produce the light.

I think it should be pointed out that both Adam and Eve were created as adults, probably already having Hebrew encoded in their brains. This should be considered much more radical than having a navel.

Michaelangelo and some other Renaissance artists drew navels. But American fundamentalists seem surprisingly consistent in their anavelism.

See Michaelangelo's "The Creation..." and Raphael's "Adam and Eve Banished...",
http://www.princeton.edu/~romance/ren1.html
Notice that the angels have navels as well.

John A. Broussard

Interestingly, a fairly recent cosmetic surgical procedure is the removal of the navel. However, I'm not sure whether or not the ones who opt for this "improvement" are fundamentalists or "anavelists."