I realise this is not really relevant to the world of books, but I was reading one on here earlier tonight which I enjoyed for the scholarship and research and the clear and competent writing (It was a Christian book regarding men and women and the biblical roots.) (Eve was made for Adam, not Adam for Eve, he came first etc.) I didn't, personally agree with the literal interpretation (Adam and Eve appearing literally as described) but that didn't affect the reading.

My question or point is this. IF you take it literally - and I know this question is an old joke but - SERIOUSLY - if Adam was created first and Eve was a later addition - then Adam would not have been provided with genitals at all, forget the nipples. What for? Therefore, in order for he and Eve to reproduce, were they added later?

Because it's a bit of a joke, the nipples thing, biblical literalists don't take it serously, but I want some answers! Why would Adam have been given equipment he didn't need? Therefore how did he and his newly created companion ever have children?


This is the book btw, it deserves a plug as it's a well researched and written project that I am not criticising by raising this possibly absurd thread!
http://www.authonomy.com/books/22190/what-every-woman-should-know/

Posted: 02/09/2010 00:59:01
Last Edit: 02/09/2010 01:01:48 by Cariad

Steven Jay Gould: Adam's Navel. Very good book/article. Read it.

Posted: 02/09/2010 01:03:01
Last Edit: 02/09/2010 01:04:15 by Dai Lowe

Anyway, it's a pointless question as fictional characters can have navels and nipples if the author wants, or lack them if she doesn't.

Or in this case she can just not bother mentioning them cos the navel is irrelevant to the novel.

Posted: 02/09/2010 01:05:20
Last Edit: 02/09/2010 01:06:18 by Dai Lowe

Not relevant to books? If the Bibble isn't a book (βιβλίον = scroll or book), what is it?


Posted: 02/09/2010 01:07:59

Anyway, it's a pointless question as fictional characters can have navels and nipples if the author wants, or lack them if she doesn't.

Or in this case she can just not bother mentioning them cos the navel is irrelevant to the novel.

I want to know why the author hasn't been locked up. But J probably never insisted what she wrote was real, it's like people who insist TdVC is true, which Brown never does. You can't blame authors for their loopy readers, even if they do start whole religions on it.

Posted: 02/09/2010 01:12:07
Last Edit: 02/09/2010 01:13:22 by Dai Lowe

I just revisited Edmund Gosse's argument on the subject that Adam would not have been a man without a navel ~ or presumably nipples ~ God must have provided him with them to make him complete (and kick the cycle off). This was part of his proof that God exists. Another circular argument really, as a betting man, on that basis alone, I'd go for, 'Adam and Eve is probably not how it happened'.

;o)

Posted: 02/09/2010 01:16:34
Last Edit: 02/09/2010 01:17:51 by Dai Lowe

I realise this is not really relevant to the world of books, but I was reading one on here earlier tonight which I enjoyed for the scholarship and research and the clear and competent writing (It was a Christian book regarding men and women and the biblical roots.) (Eve was made for Adam, not Adam for Eve, he came first etc.) I didn't, personally agree with the literal interpretation (Adam and Eve appearing literally as described) but that didn't affect the reading.

My question or point is this. IF you take it literally - and I know this question is an old joke but - SERIOUSLY - if Adam was created first and Eve was a later addition - then Adam would not have been provided with genitals at all, forget the nipples. What for? Therefore, in order for he and Eve to reproduce, were they added later?

Because it's a bit of a joke, the nipples thing, biblical literalists don't take it serously, but I want some answers! Why would Adam have been given equipment he didn't need? Therefore how did he and his newly created companion ever have children?


This is the book btw, it deserves a plug as it's a well researched and written project that I am not criticising by raising this possibly absurd thread!
http://www.authonomy.com/books/22190/what-every-woman-should-know/

Why would Adam not have genitals? Never heard of that before.

Is this somewhere along the line that sex is sin sin sin as 'proved' by the forbidden fruit?
They were told to fill the Earth after all (Gen 1:28), which is kinda difficult without sex or genital organs for that matter.

To Dai, They are not fictional characters to me. After having studied evolution in depth over many years, I see no reason to doubt a creator who created the first man and woman.

Posted: 02/09/2010 01:18:58

Eve wasn't an afterthought. She was always in the plan. So reproductive organs were always needed, from the very beginning. She was created second, but only by moments - perhaps hours. They were created on the same day. It's not as if God said, "Oops, forgot that, now what do I do?" lol

I'm taking you at your word that you wanted a serious response from someone who believes the Bible.