Curious as to why every image that I have seen of these two 'alleged' persons shows them both having navels. Does this not contradict all of the teachings in this regard? How can this be?

Or is it a f#*&up by those who wish to manipulate and brainwash?

Feedback is encouraged!

What a weird thought, but you must remember the images you have seen are not photographs they are just an artist’s interpretation of the scene.

I posted this question before, I just can't find the thread. I don't know though, I'm not a creationist so my opinion is worthless.

No.

Good question! Something I to have ponderd.....

I have NO CLUE as to the answer.......
I am going to keep up with this thread for I am SO SO curious as to what people shall say.......
I am hoping for a GOOD old fashioned debate here

I believe they did, along with tangerines, lemons and the very green and very tart limes of the time.

That's really up to God, If he wanted them to have navel, he would give them navels.
By saying it "contadicts all teachings in this regard" I am assuming you mean biologicaly, since I don't recall any theological teachings about "And God created Adam and Eve, and they had navels. God was pleased."

Why not also ask, Were Adam and Eve full grown? Doesn't that contradict all teachings. Did the trees in the garden have rings? If they didn't that would contradict teachings, but there would be no need for rings if they were created.
Maybe we should also start to ask how they know what colour hair they had, I mean blonde hair, from the cradle of life, thats not what they look like now. Dark hair and tanned skin.
DaVinci's Last Supper, All on ONE side of the table, who eats on one side of the table besides TV familys?
This question is worse then 'Is the glass half full or half empty?'

The Adam and Eve story is just a way the writer(s) wanted to convey how we all got here, nothing more. The writer(s) wanted to convey in human history we broke from God in some way (the fruit) and turned from Him.

This could be a theory. We'll find out.

Adam and Eve could have had navels, probably so.

it was moses who penned the story of the old testament.

This is a really ridiculous question, imho. It's not going to disprove the Christian religion if Adam and Eve did or did not have navels. Paintings are artists representation. Honestly, I don't even think a painter would think twice about painting them with navels. I wouldn't. It's not like God created every image we have of Adam and Eve.

Why was this question even asked?

Or is it a f#*&up by those who wish to manipulate and brainwash?

I take that remark as saying "Hahahaha I found something that can prove Christianity is a fraud." I don't really appreciate that. Maybe that wasn't the authors intent, but after taking a few classes on arguments and writing I've become quite good at interpreting meanings behind things that are written. The tone inplied through the words used implies a bias, and that the author is trying to get us to think that way.

I'm not attacking the author, please don't think I am, I'm just pointing something out. Was this posted only to cause trouble? Because I really don't see any other point. Maybe thats just me.

The question was asked to provoke responses from both the religious and non-religious camps. That is all!

My opinions on religion don't belong in this thread and would offend most anyways.

Mr. Sparklies, I'm not sure it really makes a difference. Creationists are gonna believe one thing. Evolutionists another.
Personally, I go for the evolutionary angle. The Adam and Eve story is mostly a parable, not fact.
I also don't see this as much of a conspiracy---who would be conspiring and what would be the point?

I'm curious here, though.
If your religious ideas would offend here, why are you asking a religious question?

TextThat's really up to God, If he wanted them to have navel, he would give them navels

I asked this question to my devoted christian father once and he said the same thing, plus he reminded me that the works of god was never to be question.

That's when I stoped believing in religion. I was only a child. Even at that early age I knew something was not quite right with God and humans, specially if I was not to question god.

Creationists base their beliefs on a book almost as old as time itself (for them)

Evoltionists base their beliefs on a book 150 years old out of a universe is it 6 billion years old now? I keep hearing "This is how it is." then they add a few million years to help fit their agenda and tell us "This is how it is now."

Parables

1) God created Man

2) Big Bang over time though an series of events even more incomprehensible as understanding God primordial sludge appeared, in which an unrepeatable combination of different chemicals combined to spontaniously produce life, which over time soon became lonely so it recreated it self. Uncontent existing as a simple (which is a realative term) organism it began to complicate it self. Time passes swam around in the lagoon, then wanting to go on dry land over time grew legs, then over more time took to the air. Lots of time passes and lots of statisticaly immposible events happened to put in motion the exact events that were needed to get us to where we are today.

Parable 1, there is a God.

Parable 2, given enough time ANYTHING is possible