How come the painting of Adam and Eve show them having belly buttons?

Question

When they had no umbilical cords?

Answer 1

That's a question I've always wanted to ask! You're so right! They were made from dirt and bone, not from a woman and man. I guess we're the only who can answer that question right. They never had belly buttons.

Answer 2

sure they did. sure, God has a abdomen button to boot (He has a perfected body of flesh and bone). sure, Adam and Eve were created. yet how does God create existence on the prompt? This similar way replaced into used to create Adam and Eve. this isn't the first international God has created nor will or not that is the most suitable. Adam and Eve were a continuation of existence from yet another international created by God. do all of us recognize who extremely Adam's mum and dad were? No, yet similar to a previous answer reported contained sooner or later it isn't proper to our salvation and mulling over it received't convey us in route of God.

Answer 3

The painter's mistake, or the painter believe that they had parents, which might have been the common and logical understanding, until sometime, somehow, someones, stupidly suggested to read the scripture literally.

Sigh...

and these people better start a movement to stop all flying objects else some of them might knock the second coming to death as he comes down on clouds. Hmmm... could that already had happened??

Answer 4

Because the people who did those paintings were human beings. He, or she has a belly button and because no one is perfect, they made a mistake. Or perhaps, Adam and Eve do have belly buttons. Maybe that was a feature that God wanted us to have, and so He just gave one to Adam and Eve. We won't know until we get to heaven!

Answer 5

What Did They Look Like?

19 However, if man’s ancestors were not apelike, why do so many pictures and replicas of “ape-men” flood scientific publications and museums around the world? On what are these based? The book The Biology of Race answers: “The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination.” It adds: “Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.”23

20 Science Digest also commented: “The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.”24 Fossil hunter Donald Johanson acknowledged: “No one can be sure just what any extinct hominid looked like.”25

21 Indeed, New Scientist reported that there is not “enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy.”26 So the depictions of “ape-men” are, as one evolutionist admitted, “pure fiction in most respects . . . sheer invention.”27 Thus in Man, God and Magic Ivar Lissner commented: “Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.”28

22 In their desire to find evidence of “ape-men,” some scientists have been taken in by outright fraud, for example, the Piltdown man in 1912. For about 40 years it was accepted as genuine by most of the evolutionary community. Finally, in 1953, the hoax was uncovered when modern techniques revealed that human and ape bones had been put together and artificially aged. In another instance, an apelike “missing link” was drawn up and presented in the press. But it was later acknowledged that the “evidence” consisted of only one tooth that belonged to an extinct form of pig.29

What Were They?

23 If “ape-man” reconstructions are not valid, then what were those ancient creatures whose fossil bones have been found? One of these earliest mammals claimed to be in the line of man is a small, rodentlike animal said to have lived about 70 million years ago. In their book Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey wrote: “They were insect-eating quadrupeds about the size and shape of squirrels.”30 Richard Leakey called the mammal a “rat-like primate.”31 But is there any solid evidence that these tiny animals were the ancestors of humans? No, instead only wishful speculation. No transitional stages have ever linked them with anything except what they were: small, rodentlike mammals.

24 Next on the generally accepted list, with an admitted gap of about 40 million years, are fossils found in Egypt and named Aegyptopithecus—Egypt ape. This creature is said to have lived about 30 million years ago. Magazines, newspapers and books have displayed pictures of this small creature with headings such as: “Monkey-like creature was our ancestor.” (Time)32 “Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes.” (The New York Times)33 “Aegyptopithecus is an ancestor which we share with living apes.” (Origins)34 But where are the links between it and the rodent before it? Where are the links to what is placed after it in the evolutionary lineup? None have been found.

Answer 6

You would be right if you lived 6000 years ago to witness the reality. Their creator might have made the belly buttons too.
But in reality, they are only personalities in a parable. How can any man accept than man came into existence only 6000 years ago?

Answer 7

Because God formed their bodies from the dust of the earth, through a marvelous process He had designed for that purpose, called biological evolution. Their pre-hominid ancestors had belly buttons, as do all mammals, so naturally their bodies did also. However, as the Bible tells us, once God had formed their biological bodies, He then breathed into them spiritual life, moral capacity, and an immortal soul, thereby making them human, in His own image and likeness.

Answer 8

Because Adam and Eve are fiction and a picture was painted using someones imagination. Its not real!

Answer 9

bcause it was painted by a human being who never saw Adam and Eve. nobody knows exactly what they looked like so he painted people as they look now. besides, we don't know if they had one or not since the bible does not say.

Answer 10

Have you heard of an artistic liberty?