The Couple!

[timidwiner]

Did Adam and Eve have navels?

[Quizmonster]

If you believe the Bible to be the literal truth, then 'no', since neither was born of woman and therefore they did not have umbilical cords. If you think the Garden of Eden story is just an allegory, then 'yes', since the first humanoid creatures were born of earlier mammals.

[sft42]

As quizmonster should well know the answer is "no" as this is a pub favourite question, What did adam lack that all other men have? If you look at the question deeper though the answer must still be no as adam and eve didn't (in all likelyhood) even exist.

[Janetx]

So, do born-again Christians have two navels?

[Quizmonster]

Ah, but what if they DID exist, sft? Half the population still believes the world was created in seven days and that everything else the Bible claims is also the literal truth. That's why I gave the questioner - whose faith or lack thereof is obviously not known to me - the "truth/allegory" option. I stick by the choice offered, as it's not for me, you or anyone else to tell people what they must believe. Perhaps timidwiner will return and tell us which he prefers.

[PaulYukochan]

Adam had an outty, Eve's was a small in-ny

[sft42]

QM surely even the most tightly strung zealot must in his heart of heart realise that we can't all be decended from one set of genetic parents we'd all have been dribbling inbred fools (ignore the jokes) within a few short generations. While i don't believe a word in the bible to be "gospel" truth i think it's a nice work of fiction with a good set of values to live your life by if you can but to base a lifestyle on a 2,000 year old work which is a mish mash of ideas different writers and FULL of contradictions must be madness in this day and age. If i'm wrong them god may stike down my CPU with a bolt of lightning.

[louisecheese]

they didn't have navels, because they didn't exist.

[Quizmonster]

Sft, it would be wonderful to think that every religious fanatic knew - in his heart of hearts - that his beliefs were absurd. Sadly, that simply isn't so...he does genuinely hold these beliefs. A recent survey in the USA showed that about 60% of those canvassed believed in the literal truth of the Bible. Some states there refuse to permit the "theory" of evolution to be taught in schools and insist creationism is the only truth. Ok...that's America, but there are many here in the UK who believe that, too. By the way, if - in a pub-quiz - I was ever asked: "What did Adam lack that all other men have?"...I'd be sorely tempted to reply: "A full set of ribs", as one of his was supposedly removed to make Eve. Or how about: "Any parental chromosomes", as he didn't have any parents? Perhaps: "Any childhood memories", as he didn't have a childhood. I cannot see how any of these could be considered wrong, since: "A navel" is but one of a host of equally-correct answers. Cheers, MQ

[alexprior]

If the bible version of the birth of man is true, (and I don't really think it can be), then surely Adam wouldn't have had an outy! If Man is made in the image of god, and god is, well godlike and therefore by inference perfect, then Adam would clearly have had in inny and not an outy. Outies are very unpleasant to look at. Has anyone ever started to get it on with a new girlfriend/boyfriend and while indulging in 'up the pullover' antics accidentally discovered an outy? And if so, did it make you feel a bit unwell?