2007-04-22 11:42:07 · 11 answers · asked by samy 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
No and no.
2007-04-22 11:54:22 · answer #1 · answered by jeni 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For those who believe the Bible to be historically accurate, this is not a trivial question. If Adam and Eve did not have navels, then they were not perfect human beings. On the other hand, if they had navels, then the navels would imply a birth they never experienced.
Bruce Felton and Mark Fowler are the authors of The Best, Worst, and Most Unusual (Galahad Books, 1994). In this entertaining reference work, they devote several paragraphs (pp. 146-147) to what they call "the wont theological dispute." They take this to be the acrimonious debate, which has been going on ever since the book of Genesis was written, over whether the first human pair had what Sir Thomas Browne, in 1646, called "that tortuosity or complicated nodosity we usually call the Navell."
Browns opinion was that Adam and Eve, because they had no parents, must have had perfectly smooth abdomens. In 1752, according to Felton and Fowler, the definitive treatise on the topic was published in Germany. It was tided Untersuchung der Frage: Ob unsere ersten Uraltern, Adam und Eve, einen Nabel gehabt (Examination on the Question: Whether Our First Ancestors, Adam and Eve, Possessed a Navel). After discussing all sides of this difficult question, the author, Dr. Christian Tobias Ephraim Reinhard, finally concluded that the famous pair were navelless.
2007-04-22 23:36:10 · answer #2 · answered by Freedom 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. They were born of their parents in the usual manner, who in turn were born of their own generations of ancestors. But then, having had their bodies formed from inorganic matter ("the dust of the earth") by an unspecified process, God breathed into them a spiritual nature, an immortal soul, moral capacity and free will, and they became HUMAN, in God's image and likeness. Their spiritual nature was like God's, but their biological nature was just like that of the pre-hominids who had preceded them. Placental mammals - umbilical cord - belly button.
.
2007-04-22 19:02:53 · answer #3 · answered by PaulCyp 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I seriously doubt they had "a" belly button. Wouldn't that make it uncomfortable to walk around?
2007-04-22 19:34:45 · answer #4 · answered by Emily H 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If god made man in his image wouldn't that mean he'd have a belly button and thus God would have a mother?
2007-04-22 18:46:42 · answer #5 · answered by Skeptic123 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
First off, what is the relevancy of the question?
Chances are they did, so they could pass that necessary aspect on to descendants.
But then again, if they didn't, we do, right?
2007-04-22 19:09:33 · answer #6 · answered by rangedog 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would say not since they were created by God and not born of woman.
2007-04-22 18:45:09 · answer #7 · answered by Chloe 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. And they named him Steve.
2007-04-22 18:46:29 · answer #8 · answered by I WALK FUNNY 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
no as they were created from the dust with no paternal mother therefore no umbilical link .
2007-04-22 18:49:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope, how could they if God breathed life into them...Interesting question though...
2007-04-23 00:12:50 · answer #10 · answered by Lin B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, they were not pro-created as we are.
2007-04-22 18:46:28 · answer #11 · answered by Sentinel 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋