Adam and Eve - did they have a belly button?

[counterpoint]

Did Adam and Eve have a navel?

Discuss 

[thalbergmad]

No, because they did not exist.

Thal

[nicco]

[spaciiey]

Art may depict that Adam and Eve exist... but there's no *real* proof. But even if they did exist, why *would* they have a belly button? They never would have had an umbilical chord, assuming that God zapped them out of nowhere. Hence, if they did exist, they probably wouldnt have a belly button lol.

[opus10no2]

For the perpetuation of the species, incest must have been involved, and that's wonderful.

[counterpoint]

assuming that God zapped them out of nowhere.

That's the interesting point 

They were created in the age of 20 or 30 (I don't know  )
But they didn't have a life before. They were never babies, they had no childhood, no parents, no education, no memories. "Don't know from where I come, but here I am!". Cool 

[pianistimo]

this is part of the chicken and egg debate, isn't it.  counterpoint - i admire your debating skills.  i remember a rib was involved - but no mention of either's belly buttons.  if they lived today - they could have umbilicoplasty.

modern mtdna proves that a real 'eve' existed.  perhaps the eve that is first found by mtdna is noah's wife.  to go beyond this point would be truly searching into the depths of the genesis of mankind.  it's not surprising they emigrated to africa first from the middle east - but i do not believe mankind first began in africa.  rather - i do believe it was the garden of eden (as the exact rivers mentioned in the bible were in the now modern iraq).  several still are.

[thalbergmad]

modern mtdna proves that a real 'eve' existed. 

All for modern technology when you think it proves your silly book.

Against it when it doesn't.

Thal

[pianistimo]

i never once said i was 'against' science.  science can only prove God exists.

[thalbergmad]

but i do not believe mankind first began in africa. 

There are a lot of people that do.

I suppose they are all wrong.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

science can only prove God exists.

What, science proves he is not required.

Thal

[counterpoint]

this is part of the chicken and egg debate, isn't it.  counterpoint - i admire your debating skills. 

 

modern mtdna proves that a real 'eve' existed. 

  Never heard of that prove 

Do you have any detailed information about that?

[thalbergmad]

Do you have any detailed information about that?

She is probably looking for it as we speak.

How intelligent people living in a civilised society can still believe in this nonsense, defies belief.

Thal

[counterpoint]

I now have found something too    

Adam and Eve never met, scientists say

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Science may have caught up with the Bible, which says that Adam and Eve are the ancestors of all humans alive today.

But in the scientists' version, based on DNA analysis, "Adam," the genetic ancestor of all men living today, and "Eve," the genetic ancestor of all living women, seem to have lived tens of thousands of years apart.


https://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/11/15/science.genesis.reut/index.html

[ahinton]

They never would have had an umbilical chord

No, I'm sure that they wouldn't - after all, harmony as we understand it was not to evolve for many centuries...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

Of course they wouldn't have one if they had really existed.


Unless both of them came from god's womb or something.

[thalbergmad]

But in the scientists' version, based on DNA analysis, "Adam," the genetic ancestor of all men living today, and "Eve," the genetic ancestor of all living women, seem to have lived tens of thousands of years apart.
[/size]

Impossible, as pianistimo has already illustrated that the universe was only created 6000 years ago.

Thal

[counterpoint]

Impossible, as pianistimo has already illustrated that the universe was only created 6000 years ago.

Thal

Okay, sometimes even scientists are wrong...

[thalbergmad]

Okay, sometimes even scientists are wrong...

They are right when they support the Bible and wrong when they do not.

Thal

[counterpoint]

They are right when they support the Bible and wrong when they do not.

Thal

To err is human. Scientists are humans. Biblical writers are humans. If one is wrong, that doesn't prove, that the other is right 

[thalbergmad]

Biblical writers are humans.

Sister Susan aint gonna like that.

Tis the word of GOD.

Thal

[pianistimo]

inspired by the Holy Spirit.

[opus10no2]

Pianistimo, have you touched on the whole incest dealio yet?

[jlh]

To err is human. Scientists are humans. Biblical writers are humans. If one is wrong, that doesn't prove, that the other is right 

When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true.

--Sherlock Holmes

[wishful thinker]

For the perpetuation of the species, incest must have been involved, and that's wonderful.

Ah, no.   The bible says that after Cain killed Abel (both children of Adam and Eve) he wandered off into the land of Nod - where there were lots of other people.

Pianistimo will be delighted to explain where all these Noddy people came from 

[thalbergmad]

From the 49 "Eve's" required for her DNA theory.

Thal

[pianistimo]

incest (marrying one's progeny was always a sin).  marrying one's sister was not - until God's law said it was so.  before there was enough population - even abraham chose a half-sister to marry and God didn't quibble with him.  why?  i think because at that point - genetically it wasn't causing problems.  perhaps the half-sister was better than full - but in adam and eve's time - i'm sure that cain must have married a sister.  how else would the human race propigate?  if adam and eve were the first man and woman - there were no others - excepting their children.

now, if humans chose to go against what was told to adam and eve in the garden - as the egyptians did - then it was their choice to create a relationship between a mother and son or father to daughter - but from the beginning 'it was not so.'  God seems to be quite consistent on that.  none of the saints did this.  how would they know not to - unless God had given them some advice and told them what was allowable.  jacob married a cousin.  but, none of the saints married mother or father - as the word 'incest' typifies.

that's how i understand this matter.  and, God pretty much explains himself thru His own word.  He seems to favor a nuclear family.  (and i don't mean blowing it up).

[ramseytheii]

incest (marrying one's progeny was always a sin).  marrying one's sister was not - until God's law said it was so.  before there was enough population - even abraham chose a half-sister to marry and God didn't quibble with him.  why?  i think because at that point - genetically it wasn't causing problems.  perhaps the half-sister was better than full - but in adam and eve's time - i'm sure that cain must have married a sister.  how else would the human race propigate?  if adam and eve were the first man and woman - there were no others - excepting their children.

now, if humans chose to go against what was told to adam and eve in the garden - as the egyptians did - then it was their choice to create a relationship between a mother and son or father to daughter - but from the beginning 'it was not so.'  God seems to be quite consistent on that.  none of the saints did this.  how would they know not to - unless God had given them some advice and told them what was allowable.  jacob married a cousin.  but, none of the saints married mother or father - as the word 'incest' typifies.

that's how i understand this matter.  and, God pretty much explains himself thru His own word.  He seems to favor a nuclear family.  (and i don't mean blowing it up).

Actually, I have more respect for myself then to suppose that if God hadn't told me not to marry my mother, I would have done it.  Also I know it is wrong to kill someone without having it written in a commandment, and many other examples.

If you use the example of ancient Egyptians of doing this, and I don't know where you get this example, as proof that the human race doesn't care about morality before the backwater-apocalyptical morality of the Bible, then kindly explain how Egyptians represent the human race as it is without the Bible.  What does the Bible say about the morality of the Japanese or the indigenous Americans?  Oh wait, the people who wrote the Bible didn't have any idea that they existed.

Walter Ramsey

[thalbergmad]

incest (marrying one's progeny was always a sin).  marrying one's sister was not - until God's law said it was so.  before there was enough population - even abraham chose a half-sister to marry and God didn't quibble with him.  why?  i think because at that point - genetically it wasn't causing problems.  perhaps the half-sister was better than full - but in adam and eve's time - i'm sure that cain must have married a sister.  how else would the human race propigate?  if adam and eve were the first man and woman - there were no others - excepting their children.

now, if humans chose to go against what was told to adam and eve in the garden - as the egyptians did - then it was their choice to create a relationship between a mother and son or father to daughter - but from the beginning 'it was not so.'  God seems to be quite consistent on that.  none of the saints did this.  how would they know not to - unless God had given them some advice and told them what was allowable.  jacob married a cousin.  but, none of the saints married mother or father - as the word 'incest' typifies.

that's how i understand this matter.  and, God pretty much explains himself thru His own word.  He seems to favor a nuclear family.  (and i don't mean blowing it up).

Very nice, but where did the noddy people come from as asked previously?

Thal

[opus10no2]

No incest?

The bible just got a lot less cool.

[arensky]

No incest?

The bible just got a lot less cool.

Time for you to get into Wagner, specifically "The Ring of the Niebelung". Part III is "Siegfried", this is the one you are looking for, I believe. 

[ramseytheii]

Time for you to get into Wagner, specifically "The Ring of the Niebelung". Part III is "Siegfried", this is the one you are looking for, I believe. 

Don't forget Die Walkuere, Act I.

Walter Ramsey

[elevateme_returns]

right, i dont get this.

Noah built an ark, and got 2 of every living animal to carry on the species because the flood would wipe out all life.

so what about the fishes? and the birds? and the amphibians ? they could last for years. how is god going to wipe them out with a flood?

[thalbergmad]

If you use the example of ancient Egyptians of doing this, and I don't know where you get this example

She is not exactly a field of Authority on the Egyptians as has been previously demonstrated.

The fact that they were building momunents of incredible size and complexity long before her Goat herding Bible writers were on the scene, seems to be beyond her.

Thal

[counterpoint]

right, i dont get this.

Noah built an ark, and got 2 of every living animal to carry on the species because the flood would wipe out all life.

so what about the fishes? and the birds? and the amphibians ? they could last for years. how is god going to wipe them out with a flood?

...and the woodworms...  

[thalbergmad]

right, i dont get this.

Noah built an ark, and got 2 of every living animal to carry on the species because the flood would wipe out all life.

so what about the fishes? and the birds? and the amphibians ? they could last for years. how is god going to wipe them out with a flood?

Excellent question, which can be easily satisfied if one takes into consideration that it is just a silly story to describe a flood event that happened in antiquity.

Thal

[arensky]

Don't forget Die Walkuere, Act I.

Walter Ramsey

My bad, you're right. Gawd, this is complex; Siegmund and Sieglinde are brother and sister who conceive Siegfried, who awakens Brunhilde (his aunt) from her enchanted sleep at the end of "Siegfried" (the "Magic Fire Music") with a kiss, whereupon they renounce the world of the gods and fall in love.

Incredible multimedia 19 hour extravaganza with sex, violence, intrigue, and philosophical import.

See the whole thing if you ever have the oppurtunity, it's quite the show, to understate the matter.


                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Ring_des_Nibelungen

                                        

[timothy42b]

Adam and Eve are archetypes, not intended to be taken as actual individual humans.

But if they were, consider this:  If God created them perfectly (how else could He?) then they must have had belly buttons.  But as they didn't have parents, they couldn't have had belly buttons.

Now, if God created the universe, then everything is a clue to His nature, all we have to do is look around us.  No reason to stay locked into a musty old book when a far grander example of His handiwork surrounds us.  If we read the book correctly, I guess it shouldn't conflict with the natural world we live in;  however when it does conflict God's obvious intent is for us to doubt our interpretation of the book, and go with what our senses tell us. 

[wishful thinker]

Yes, this is what we have been trying to say, but Pianistimo is insistent on taking a literal interpretation of the particular translation that she has, irrespective of the ridiculous outcome that this leads her to.

[ahinton]

Yes, this is what we have been trying to say, but Pianistimo is insistent on taking a literal interpretation of the particular translation that she has, irrespective of the ridiculous outcome that this leads her to.

Indeed so - and, for that matter, since we're on "literal" interpretations, my honest answer to the question posed by the thread topic is that I would have hoped and assumed that "they", being two separate individuals (assuming that they ever existed in reality at all), had two between them...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

If God created them perfectly then they must have had belly buttons. 

I don't see why they should.

And if god created humans perfectly no one should have a belly button. No need for an umbilical cord; that's just a strange solution to a bad design.

Why does the mother have to pump 'life-force' into the baby when god already supposedly did that?

[pianistimo]

God is efficient.  why would He do something billions of times - when He could do it once?

[prometheus]

Souls go through the umbilical cord too? I thought god gave people souls, not the parents.

[ahinton]

God is efficient.  why would He do something billions of times - when He could do it once?

And your evidence for this is...

Best,

Alistair

[rob47]

And your evidence for this is...

Best,

Alistair

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJiWObBTPO8

[wishful thinker]

And your evidence for this is...

Evidence?  There is one thing in this thread that is clearly evident Mr Hinton (as in so many others), but politeness forbids me  

[ahinton]

Evidence?  There is one thing in this thread that is clearly evident Mr Hinton (as in so many others), but politeness forbids me  

Although it needn't, since you neither have to be impolite nor identify that "one thing in this thread that is clearly evident" in order to be very clear in what you are saying here.

Perhaps those who believe that they possess incontrovertible evidence in this case would be better off contemplating their own navels rather than trying to persuade us to believe that "evidence".

I happen to know two people named Adam and Eve, who are brother and sister; I am not, however, about to ask them any impertinent personal questions of the umbilical kind, since the answers, if forthcoming, would be no more any of my business than they would be of interest to me...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Evidence?  There is one thing in this thread that is clearly evident Mr Hinton (as in so many others), but politeness forbids me  

Just say it.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

I happen to know two people named Adam and Eve

I happen to know someone called Jesus, who works for a vending machine company in Whitstable. Although his name is spelt Hirsuis ( i think) it is pronounced Jesus.

I have never questioned him about his past as he might get "cross". In fact, he would probably "crucify" me.

Thal

[ahinton]

I happen to know someone called Jesus, who works for a vending machine company in Whitstable. Although his name is spelt Hirsuis ( i think) it is pronounced Jesus.

There are plenty of people in Spain and other Spanish-speaking countries called "Jesus" who actually spell their names "Jesus".

I have never questioned him about his past as he might get "cross". In fact, he would probably "crucify" me.

Thal

Oh, I don't know; I cannot speak for your Whitstable-based vending machine employee, of course, since I do not know him, but he could perhaps just as likely say to you "come unto me, pull up a large rock, be seated thereon at my right hand, bring me some water that I may turn into wine and we can sit and discuss it civilly and sociably over a glass or three". On the other hand, of course, if you were uncertain in advance as to how he might react to such questioning, you might be a wise man first to ask him if he has a friend called Susan...

Best,

Alistair