Misrepresentation

I've always noticed integral problems in most church's represenations of biblical figures.
Specifically in Adam and Eve, who are shown in nearly every representation, having navels. If Adam and Eve had no mother, why would they have navels?

This extraneous flaw stems directly back to the middle ages when the illiterate were taught merely through pictures and were expected to wander blindly into a realm of faith.

And now, it saddens me that this seemingly small flaw continues in religious artwork.

Could this small flaw affect a deeper grain in Christianity? Simply, could this one thing be the straw that breaks the camel's back?

Someone told me once that artists did this on purpose. We were not always free. If it was thought that you were not faithful, you could be imprisoned or put to death. So the artist to silently protest would cause a flaw that most would not notice.

The Adam of Michelangelo's chapel has a navel, and thus it sparked very fierce controversy among the clergy who debated if they should destroy the misrepresentation.
I wouldn't be surprised if this navel was the sort of protest your talking about kid.

I can see the protest explanation... could it also be that Michaelangelo spent months on his back, with paint in his eyes, and two feet from a ceiling very high above the floor.... and that could have effected a lapse in anatomical accuracy? But wasn't he rather a contraversial character in his day?

This is an interesting topic. Why would the first two of creation have navels, if they weren't necessarily given birth to, and there was no umbilical cord to be cut?

There's all kinds of stances to take on this one. For instance, How do we know that Michaelangelo just wasn't depicting the human form as he's always seen it? It is evident as a renaissance (pardon my spelling if that's wrong) man and knowledgable about science, math, architecture and art, that he greatly studied anatomy and the navel could have been incorporated just to be precise. Could any angels or demons possibly depicted in his paintings have had navels? Why would angels have navels when the Bible states indirectly that they would have no use for them. It does say that when we humans die, we will be like the angels, and will not be given in marriage anymore. Therefore, no marriage=no sex=no more human births.

Another question, is it really an integral problem that Adam and Eve were depicted with navels? Though the Bible may not claim that they had them, why couldn't have God have made them with them. As it is pressumed, they were created as adult humans. Not as babies.

Another question (that goes off the topic) could be, since the universe is assumed to be millions or billions of years old, and since God made the universe, the earth, it's habitats and inhabitants in six days, could it be possible for God to make the universe exibit the signs of old age right from the beginning? If He is capable of this, why not make humans with the physical characteristics they usually have?

"Could this small flaw affect a deeper grain in Christianity? Simply, could this one thing be the straw that breaks the camel's back?"
It seems as though this may be a flaw, but it is not. This is just one of those difficulties that many people come across when reading the Bible. We know how our minds tend to wander and question things while we're reading something. This whole navel flaw assumption, cannot even be grounded as a flaw, since we cannot prove that Adam and Eve had navels or not, and since we can't prove that God can't make them with navels. Shouldn't we assume first that the writer of Genesis (assumed to be Moses from statements made in the New Testament) may or may not even had a reason to include this information? For what purpose would it be stated for? and would it really even matter?

This one supposed flaw, will not "be the straw that breaks the camel's back." It still doesn't bring any negative grounds against the claims Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8.

"1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

Specifically in Adam and Eve, who are shown in nearly every representation, having navels. If Adam and Eve had no mother, why would they have navels

HELLO, to have kids you have to have navels. What is the kid gonna attach too? Adam and Eve had kids!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

---

HELLO, to have kids you have to have navels. What is the kid gonna attach too? Adam and Eve had kids!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

huh? So, me being a man. I have a navel. Can I give birth to a child?
NO!

I don't get it. So children attach themselves to our navels.
Hmmmmmm that's wierd.

brann22, you may need to rethink your stance on religion as it seems you are being given all the wrong information.

We don't attach our baby to our navels.

The babies navel is attached to the plicenta inside the mother's womb. That is were the baby gets nurishment. Our navel "especially mine" has nothing to do with it.

Michaelangelo was considered very intelligent. During the Roman Tour I took while I was in the Navy, the tour guide explains that it is very much believed that he did this on purpose and they show you other things as well.

An artist can understand stories - Stories can be very real even though they aren't true. Just like paintings. I think Michaelangelo tried to show us this.

How could a believer be so technical of things like pictures drawn by man? If you believe in the truth, why care? My question is, who believes ultimately in the word of God, and who seeks to find flaws?

Stealph - These pictures were often made to touch the common man, bibles were rare and precious and few knew how to read. So how does a clergyman describe an important event? Reading from the bible is one way, but pictures and portraits can be much stronger. And what is the point of having these pictures to show people the bible, if these pictures are in fact incorrect?

I'm not sure the originator of this post is a believer? I'm not sure I am, and I'm not sure if I am not.

I think the original question was asked to pull our chain and get a reaction.

The scriptures teach us about our self and our God. If you read it looking for facts - you miss so much of the truth that it reveals. I think Michaelangelo understood this. He knew that the scribes would not and it would cause debate. And to this day it is being debated. And this is what Michaelangelo wanted.

I don't mean to push your buttons man, but this just doesn't sound right.

"The scriptures teach us about our self and our God. If you read it looking for facts - you miss so much of the truth that it reveals."

I just don't understand. If you're looking for facts, how can you NOT find the truth? If something is the truth, then isn't it indeed a fact? You can't just say -"Don't look for facts in the Bible. Only look for the truth." Truths and facts are practically one and the same.

Are you trying to say that the Bible can't be taken literally, so we should only look for the hidden truth? Or the so called "things it speaks about reality"?

I'm sorry - I should be more specific.

Is it an historical fact that Adam and Eve is the first man and women? You might say yes, someone else will say no. I think there is enough proof to sway to the side of those who say no. But so what. The book of Genesis was not written to teach us about the first woman and man created by God. It is a story that teaches us many things about us and God. Every time I have read it, I have learned something new.

I, along with others believe that this is what Michaelangelo believed and was trying to show us with his painting.

I have to agree with he was pulling your chain. Artist drew their perceptions of Adam & Eve, etc. Not an accurate drawing or picture of Adam & Eve (in persona), etc. So perhaps like the angels which are spiritual being, they take on the form the artist portrayed them with, human form.

Another way to get a reaction, hmm.

I was told that in fact Eve was the second woman that god made, not the first. The first woman was called Lilyth, and left the Garden of Eden because she was made "just as Adam was made" and so she was too "strong minded" for him and did not obey him. Eve was then made from his rib, so she came from him, and he had a dominance among her.

If you don't belive this theory, then where did all of the children come from that Cane and Abel had?

Did they mate with their mom, or perhaps a sister?

Things that make you go hmmmm.....