Did Adam and Eve have navels? | Notes and Queries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7tbTEoKyaqpSerq96wqikaKafqbK0rc2dqK6dop6ytHvQrpyrsV9leW15lWpvcmRgZXupwMyl