January 21, 2009

Adams Rib?

Speaking of proper hermeneutics…

I heard something early in the morning from a local preacher that gave me pause. He was discussing Adam's rib and the proper translation that was compelling.

In Genesis 2:21 God took one of Adam’s ribs to create Eve.

and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof” KJV

he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.” NIV, NASB

And it appears that all of the translations say this. Is that what it really said in the original Hebrew manuscripts?

According to Strong's Hebrew Lexicon the word rib, Hebrew צלע 'tsela' (Strong’s 6763) , side or rib from the primitive root word of צלע 'tsala' (Strong’s 6760) which means curve, limp in the sense of bowing, to arc, as in pray.

So what does this all mean? Well what if the translation was indeed wrong and that it was in fact “tsala“(Strong’s 6760) they did not understand that God took from Adam’s curve. So they extrapolated (assumed) that it meant rib. God said Adam’s curve. In other words from Adam’s Double Helix (Curve) DNA.

Understandably, back in 1611 we had it wrong. We had no clue what a curve from Adam was. The very exact Hebrew word צלע could mean rib or curve. The implications of this is huge, Howard huge.

Remember this was written 3000-4000 years before mankind had any clue as to what DNA was. This shows, once again, the supernatural aspect of God’s Word. The Bible is fully and completely inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God. No man can convince me otherwise.

So, should we trust man with the various translations to make decisions about the fallibility and in turn question the reliability of the Bible? Of course not. Should we trust the preserved Word of God with our entire lives? Definitely!

50 comments:

  1. There's not enough time for humans to have evolved into having distinct, geographical phenotypes if the origin of the human species was only 6,000 years ago by two people with the exact same genetic code.

    That's very clever to reinterpret "rib" to mean "double helix molecular structure."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kaitlyn,

    That's very clever to reinterpret "rib" to mean "double helix molecular structure."

    Clever? Or true?

    There's not enough time for humans to have evolved into having distinct, geographical phenotypes if the origin of the human species was only 6,000 years ago by two people with the exact same genetic code.

    I believe you are still looking at the Bible from an intellectual mindset.

    A better question would be could God, Creator of the Universe, being who He is, do all the things that are claimed in the Bible as truth?

    Are you ready to say that evolution is falsified in light of the article you showed me about the tree of life?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Are you ready to say that evolution is falsified in light of the article you showed me about the tree of life?"

    Why would I say that evolution was falsified? We understand more now about it than Darwin could ever dream of.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kaitlyn (con't),

    How can I show you that people lived to be 900 years old without faith?

    As far as your "There's not enough time for humans to have evolved..."

    I did pose something at my very first post to Stan:

    Start at "As a logical example lets use mathematics"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kaitlyn,

    We understand more now about it than Darwin could ever dream of.

    Somehow I just knew that you were going to side with Rose in that article. Sad I will not lose hope for you for it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "How can I show you that people lived to be 900 years old without faith?"

    A 900 year old person would have met a lot of people and left a lot of trash. I'm not really arguing that someone can't live 900 years though.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The fact that we are revising and updating scientific theories that are 150 years old with new facts and data is just part of science.

    The more data we have, the more facts we have to get a clearer picture of biological evolution.

    The fact that we are able to add to and reformulate earlier ideas is a sign that the theory is getting stronger, not weaker.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sorry Kaitlyn I am still reading it so the tree of life is oversimplified. Got it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dan,

    What about the end of the sentence, where it says;

    "...and closed up the place with flesh"

    Did God close up the now-present 'gap' in Adam's DNA strand with 'flesh'? That doesn't make any sense.

    In terms of the story; you'd need to close up Adam's side if you removed his rib, no? DNA you could just get from a toenail clipping.


    And I will second Kaitlyn's sentiment that;

    "That's very clever to reinterpret "rib" to mean "double helix molecular structure.""

    Very clever indeed. What else can you twist to fit current knowledge?

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  10. You got me. :)

    Scientists found horizontal gene transfer among bacteria, falsifying the tree of life, and therefore had to come up with a new paradigm to explain the facts.

    Buut, we still don't see horizontal gene transfer outside of the microbial world.

    ReplyDelete
  11. At least I can say I have some relief that science is catching up to AIG since they have been saying that the Darwin's Tree of Life was incorrect for years now.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ExPatMatt,

    What about the end of the sentence, where it says;

    "...and closed up the place with flesh"


    Dude, give me a break here I am working on things one word at a time. Cut me some slack and stop moving the goal posts.

    You will never be satisfied and you know why. Do you really want to hear my presuppositions speech again :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. "At least I can say I have some relief that science is catching up to AIG since they have been saying that the Darwin's Tree of Life was incorrect for years now."

    Really?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dude, give me a break here I am working on things one word at a time. Cut me some slack and stop moving the goal posts.

    You mean you're applying creative reinterpretation -- I'm sorry, hermeneutics -- one word/phrase at a time, in an effort to force the bible to comport with modern science?

    Let me guess. You're now going to claim that "closed up the place with flesh" refers to the navel, is that it? Are you going to solve that age-old question by suggesting Eve was Adam's clone (what, duplicating his x-chromosome?) by claiming that the closed up place was his belly button?

    Seriously. If it's a fucking miracle, magically worked by god, then let it be exactly that. When you attempt to apply a naturalistic explanation to something which you will in the end insist is supernatural, you trivialize your own position. Not only that, but you expose your "scientific" process of hermeneutics for the bullshit creative reconstruction it already is.

    Are you going to look at the passage regarding the floating axehead, too? Are you going to find that it was "mistranslated," and that the correct term should've been axe handle?

    How far are you going to go down this rabbit hole you've discovered? Is the proper hermeneutical translation for "day" now some ambiguously long period of time? Perhaps the proper hermeneutical translation, in certain situations anyway, for "year" should really be "month"?

    Maybe that's the whole problem -- that the bible is one big misunderstanding after another! Perhaps Moses (or whoever authored the Pentateuch) was dyslexic, or maybe he didn't know his lunar cycle from the solar cycle. I bet if you apply the same sort of hermeneutics to the story of the resurrection that you do to the creation of Eve, that you will find that the proper translation from the Greek actually states that Jesus begged everyone to leave him the hell alone, to be nice to one another, and died peacefully after faking his own death.

    Really, what couldn't you come up with if you continue to apply this brand of hermeneutics?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dan:

         I considered that a very imaginative interpretation (the first time I heard it.) You are not working on it one word at a time. You are looking for clever interpretations conceived of by someone else. At any rate, the interpretation falls under the weight of analysis. The story makes a sort of sense (discounting modern science) with the word rib. The supposed god put Adam under a deep sleep so that he wouldn't worry about having some of his insides removed. Making it fit DNA doesn't work so well. That stuff is available from leftover hair.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dan,

    This is some of your most tenuous stuff yet. Good work. Pretty soon you'll be telling us the Bible contains an accurate prediction for the layout of the globe's continents, a description of the molecular structure of chlorofluorocarbons, and a workable recipe for hollandaise sauce.

    I wait with baited breath.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I believe the "curve" refers to a boomerang (Adam used it to open coconuts before it was used as a projectile in post-fall conditions). This proves the Garden of Eden was located in Australia. T-Rex used koalas as sustenance, since the arboreal marsupials would have been at optimal chomping height.

    And briefly on the ToL:

    "At least I can say I have some relief that science is catching up to the Raelians since they have been saying that the Darwin's Tree of Life was incorrect for years now."

    Just for reference, here's a picture from the Creation Museum with both the original tree of life and AiG's alternative "suggestion": pic. Now, how is this recent revision in any way catching up with AiG's model?


    <--! word verification "imonstr". Eye-monster? Me-monster?) -->

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Can anyone name a single body part or protein that isn't curved?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dan- thanks. You made me start my day with a laugh, and that's a great way to start the day.

    As long as we're on curves, how about this? The word "whale" comes from a Scandinavian root "hval", which means "curved" or "vaulted". So maybe Jonah was swallowed by a giant DNA molecule, which was God's warning to us not to mess around with genetics.

    Kaitlyn: a body part that's not curved? That's easy: my hair, after reading Dan's hermeneutics.

    Stan: nice work, as usual. I agree: there's not much point in looking for real-world evidence for the Bible at all, when one is willing to play the "God snapped His Fingers" card as soon as the going gets rough.

    Henwli: not only is the boomerang a more plausible interpretation of צלע
    (tsala) than "DNA", but it would explain Noah's otherwise problematic delivery of the koalas to Australia following the Deluge- the koalas simply never left: they just climbed to the tops of the supernaturally tall eucalyptus trees of the Garden of Eden and waited out the Flood. That kind of explanatory power proves that your theory is true.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Oh, and P.S. Dan, you say:

    At least I can say I have some relief that science is catching up to AIG since they have been saying that the Darwin's Tree of Life was incorrect for years now.

    I checked out the New Scientist article about horizontal gene transmission. This is not exactly new material: if I recall correctly, they've known about this for at least ten years or so. In any case, this does not vitiate Darwin's tree of life; it just broadens it. Yes, things are more complicated than Darwin thought, but that's the nature of science: it is always being built upon and extended. Darwin did an amazingly good job with the information he had, but evolution does not stand or fall on whether or not Darwin was correct in all particulars. As much as I admire Darwin, he is not a god or even a saint, despite the way Christians speak of him.

    In any case, to claim that "science is catching up to AIG" is absurd. Did AIG say something like "our Biblical hermeneutics predicts that lateral genetic transmission will prove to exist and be an important part of our genetic heritage, in the form of bacterial gene trading and ERV's"? Not as far as I know. What AIG has said, over and over, is "Darwin was wrong, evolution did not occur".

    Back to AIG: to say "Darwin was wrong" is hardly a prediction: it's a truism that all science is subject to revision. Yes, Darwin was wrong about a number of things; so was Newton, so was Einstein: our picture of the world is continually being updated. This is nothing new, so AIG can't be applauded for scooping science here. And this recent series of discoveries (by scientists, not by AIG) of horizontal gene transfer does not disprove evolution: it simply makes the picture more complete.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sure Dan, but by this same rational these antient people didn't understand evolution. So perhaps when it says that God made man from the dust of the earth (formed him), is was through the process of evolution. Again, there was no way for them to understand such a concept just like they could not understand genes.

    All you're doing here is trying to interpret the bible where it seems to fit your beliefs/.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I like this, Dan.

    Was this your own insight from studying the original Hebrew, or did you read it somewhere? Can you point me to a reference if you read it somewhere else please?

    I'm very interested in these sorts of interpretation. I appreciate your humble spirit in relation to God's word.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Stan, if you visit here again, I replied to an old post of yours on the ex-Christian topic a while ago - just to let you know :)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Daniel,

    Was this your own insight from studying the original Hebrew, or did you read it somewhere?

    I turned on the TV for some light to get the baby a bottle at 3:30-4:00am. On the channel it was on was some rickety local (I believe) man answering mail from his viewers and someone wrote in that the Bible indeed said rib. This old man angrily said something like 'I know it says rib in the Bible, but I was talking about the Hebrew manuscripts. It's translated into curve. As in DNA.

    It was a wow moment for me. I never heard of it before so I looked it up. So the reasearch was mine but the idea was not. I liked that old man I think I will try to catch him again...because he was right. I feel bad, I should of clarified that.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "It's translated into curve. As in deoxyribonucleic acid."

    If this was any other religion, Dan(s), you'd be howling with laughter at their desperate attempts to prop up their Holy book.

    Incidentally; are there any Hebrew words for 'Spiral', 'Helix', 'Coil' or 'Helter-Skelter'?

    ReplyDelete
  27. The Bible is fully and completely inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God. No man can convince me otherwise.


    And that tells me all I need to know about the intellectual level of this site. If the bible mentioned DNA by name, that would be impressive - not an interpretation that clearly allows you to preserve your conclusion.

    How comes only females transmit the mitochondrial genome then?

    Maybe god took apes' "curve" (actually, it is coiled) and fused it to form human chromosome 2.

    Then there are epigenetic factors required for development and sexual dimorphism. Where in genesis does it mention modification of the histone gode?

    Infact, dont answer that, there is no point in me returning to debate with a presuppositionalist whose claims contain inargued for premises

    ReplyDelete
  28. Billy,

    If the bible mentioned DNA by name, that would be impressive - not an interpretation that clearly allows you to preserve your conclusion.

    Mwahahahah If the Bible named Deoxyribonucleic Acid by name...

    Dude! You are cracking me up. That is like saying if the Bible named Dinosaurs by name that would be impressive... Saying this without considering the word dinosaur wasn't "invented" until 1841.

    Read Job 40:15-25 for dinosaurs.

    The words 'nuclear war' wasn't in the Bible either, but clouds of fire (a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself,) sure is. To be kind as possible, your logic is flawed. Keep trying.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Dan,

    Are you really suggesting that the animal described in Job is a dinosaur? Really?

    Do you have any reason at all to believe that dinosaurs and man co-existed (other than the book of Job)?

    You're starting to sound like Kent Hovind...

    ReplyDelete
  30. Are you really suggesting that the animal described in Job is a dinosaur? Really?

    Yeah, because I watched Jurassic Park yesterday, and they sure as hell didn't mention anything about Job.

    ReplyDelete
  31. ExPatMatt,

    Are you really suggesting that the animal described in Job is a dinosaur? Really?

    Yes,...Yes.

    Do you have any reason at all to believe that dinosaurs and man co-existed (other than the book of Job)?

    Yes, read Genesis. By the 7th day all of creation was made, mankind and even behemoths or dinosaurs.

    What do you think it is? The most natural interpretation is that the tail of Behemoth (colossal beast) is compared to a cedar for its great size. No known living animal, such as the elephant or hippopotamus, fits the passage adequately. You tell me then, what is being described?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Speaking of answers that are in Genesis (get it?), Genesis answers the old riddle which came first the chicken or the egg also.

    BTW the answer is in Genesis 1:21.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dan,

    "...The most natural interpretation is that the tail of Behemoth (colossal beast) is compared to a cedar for its great size. No known living animal, such as the elephant or hippopotamus, fits the passage adequately. You tell me then, what is being described?"

    Keep in mind that in this very post, you have interpreted what most people think is 'rib' to mean 'DNA'. Do you think it is possible that future hermeneutics could translate this beast's description differently?

    Personally, I think it is an inaccurate description of some large African mammal.

    Makes a lot more sense than the mental gymnastics you'd have to go through to justify a belief that dinosaurs and mankind coexisted for a third of the history of the world without leaving any evidence outside of a couple of Bible verses.

    Just my opinion, of course, if you think you can back up your position; I'm willing to listen.

    ReplyDelete
  34. ExPatMatt,

    Makes a lot more sense than the mental gymnastics you'd have to go through to justify a belief that dinosaurs and mankind coexisted for a third of the history of the world without leaving any evidence outside of a couple of Bible verses.

    It actually is based on hermeneutics, common sense, and faith.

    Just my opinion, of course, if you think you can back up your position; I'm willing to listen.

    No need, since it would be impossible to convince you based on your intellect. Remember?

    Besides if the Holy Spirit doesn't bless it then your heart will remain hard on the subject. Want to see a miricle? Beg God to change that heart of yours, earnestly. I will remain confident that God will do the right thing. Remain receptive though.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dan,

    I mean this in the nicest way possible, but you realize that no one who doesn't already agree with you is convinced by your logical meandering, right?

    Your "evidence outside a couple of Bible verses" is one enormous argument from faith. Faith says faith is good, because faith gets you to believe in things that you otherwise wouldn't.

    Hermeneutics? A matter of faith.
    Common sense? Your version of it originates from faith.
    Faith? Well, gee.

    I beg that Frodo should set your heart free, though at this stage, I'd be happy if you settled for worshiping Thinky.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Dan,

    "No need, since it would be impossible to convince you based on your intellect. Remember?"

    What you're talking about is something you claim actually happened. For (approx.) 2,000 years of human history, dinosaurs (many, many millions of individual organisms) lived alongside mankind. Then a flood came and killed almost everything and afterward the last remaining dinosaurs died out (for some reason).

    This is your claim, right? Let me know if I've got it wrong.

    If this actually occurred then it's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of finding the evidence.

    This is very different from me asking you to provide evidence that, say, Jesus walked on water. I can understand how that - a miracle - is a matter of faith.

    What you are talking about is real flesh & blood natural history.

    If you have to resort to saying that it's a 'matter of faith' and only by believing in Jesus can I understand how dinosaurs co-existed with humans, you're basically admitting that you have no real evidence that this thing actually happened the way you say it did.

    The thing is, I think you know that it didn't happen the way you believe it did. I think you know full well that evolution and an old Earth are both true. You just believe differently and you refuse to comprimise your beliefs for your intellect.

    I'm sorry; I just can't put faith ahead of reason. I tried it before and got nothing.

    Have a great weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hey this is an intersting topic, but I actually believe that God did make Eve out of one of Adams ribs. Its the rib that women have at the bottom that entends and helps them during child birth, that men don't have.
    God decided to take the rib because its in the middle of the body, if God took a bone from the head it would signify that women were greater or equal to men, if he had taken from the feet it would show that they were rubbish, but he took it from the middle which is just right.

    ReplyDelete
  38. B. Batista,

    You may be right, but I did like the translation part of it since it did still fit. Someone said to me once that coincidence is God remaining anonymous but either way it will not effect/affect our salvation but the non-believers are lost until they realize that this is bigger then our own understanding of things and that maybe, just maybe we should trust the Bible. For Salvation to happen we must have faith in Christ instead of ourselves.

    Blessings.

    ReplyDelete
  39. And God took what was closest to Adam's heart to create Eve.

    Yes there are many interpretations. Keep the flame of Jesus burning. He is the answer to every question.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Dan,

    I think it's time you renamed your blog. Something like "Inane Theological Masturbation," or "Convincing Theists... even more!"

    Right now it's just misleading.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Frodo,

    I fully understand that there would be zero atheists that believe they are being debunked and that is OK.

    The truth is the moment they proclaim atheism, they are debunked. We just try to show you the mirror to that fact. Speaking of mirrors:

    The law was made as a mirror for us. In the same way, we don’t realize what a bad state we are in until we look into the "mirror" of the Ten Commandments. Have you stolen, lied, dishonored your mother and father etc. then you broke His laws, and the penalty is death. Revelation 21:8 says all liars have their part in the lake of fire. But God doesn't want that to happen to you, nor do I...

    ReplyDelete
  42. Kaitlyn: That's if you assume Adam was the first human being. Adam was the first white man, which means there would have been other humans when he was created (this is backed by the fact that Eve and Satan's son Cain was expelled to the land of Nod where he took one of these women as a wife about two or three chapters later).

    ReplyDelete
  43. Here is my blog titled, "Adam's Rib" I went looking for similar blogs and ran across this one though a little dated lol

    http://ghostfacewriter.blogspot.com/2011/04/adams-rib.html?zx=a56f90f90930739e

    ReplyDelete
  44. To whoever commented and said that they think it's absurd that the earth is only 6000 years old: the bible doesn't say that at all. It's mankind and misguided bible readers that say that, and it's no wonder people think it's crazy, because it is. God told Moses in Gen 1:1 In the beginning Elohim created heaven and earth. Does it say anywhere how long ago that was? Look around at the earth and you'll see it must have been millions of years ago. Christians who think it was 6000 years ago are confused, God is not author of confusion. Mankind is.

    ReplyDelete
  45. To whoever is confused about if Adam and Eve were the first humans, just reread Genesis, and forget the misguided ideas implanted in your head by mainstream Christianity, and poor translations. Read genesis and let it flow in the order that Jehovah told it to Moses. Jehovah said he created mankind (the ethnos) on the sixth day. Then Jehovah rested on the seventh day, then on the eighth day Jehovah formed a special individual to be a caretaker of his personal garden. How can one document that there were other human's already on the earth? Simple, read the part where Kain kills Abel and Jehovah banishes Kain. The first thing Kain does is ask Jehovah for protection from the other people out there! Does Jehovah tell Kain there are no other people on the earth to afraid of? Nope, Jehovah acknowledges Kain's fear is real, and gives him a special mark to protect him from those people out there. If there were no other human's on earth Kain would not have been afraid, and God would not have agreed and gave him a protective mark. Want further proof right in God's Word? Kain then leaves Adam and Eve, goes into the East, meets a woman, and has a family! If there was only Adam, Eve and Kain on the earth, then there could not be any woman for Kain to meet and have children with.

    The only reason people are confused and think Adam and Eve were the first people, is because of one line: when Eve gives birth to her twin boys, Kain and Abel, Adam says Eve is mother of all living. This is the one line that makes people think Adam and Eve were the only human's on earth. But it's clearly not what Adam meant, because even his son Kain, and Jehovah Himself knew there were other people out there.

    Those other people (the ethnos from the 6th day) had been multiplying on the earth for 2000 years. How do we know that? Study how long one of Jehovah's days is. It's not 24 hours. One of God's days (The Lord's Day) is 1000 years long. Read second Peter. He tells the Christian congregation that very fact, and that they must never forget it. The Lord's Day is also called "the millennium". How long is that? 1000 years. We can also document it right from Genesis. Jehovah warned Adam and Eve right after he formed them, that if they disobeyed His one commandment, and partook of that "forbidden fruit" from that special "tree", "in that day the would surely die". Well, did they drop dead the same day they disobeyed and partook of the forbidden thing? Anyone who think's the day God was talking about is 24 hours long would say, "wow, no they didn't die! Hmm, this means God was wrong, or lied?" Of course Jehovah was not wrong, and did not lie. The duration of a "Jehovah's Day" is 1000 years, not
    24 hours. And how long did Adam and Eve and their close generations live? Adam and Eve lived just over 900 of years. That is almost 1000 years, bot not quite. They indeed died in that same day exactly a Jehovah said. Because Jehovah's Days are 1000 years, not 24 hours.

    It totally explains Genesis and should strengthen your faith now that you can see the truth of God's Word, and get rid of some of that misguided teachings mankind concocts.

    Do what Peter emphatically warned and remember Peter was told these truths by Jesus Christ, to instruct us. Never forget that one of God's days is 1000 of out years. It is because people forget and ignore this that there is so much needless confusion regarding Genesis. It's why Christ told Peter to teach it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You display a trait(wisdom-fear of Yahuah Elohim) that many so called believers, don't. You obviously, STUDY(investigate) and WALK in(obey) His instructions(Torah)!! As we are told plainly to do in Timotiyos Bet(2Timothy)2:14-15. The reward for obedience is hearing Ruach HaQodesh(His Voice). The wise will take note, while the foolish will ignore. Continue in emet(truth) my friend.

      Shalom

      Delete
    2. And, of course, all that praise goes to God Himself.

      Blessings.

      Delete
  46. Kurt,

    That was a very interesting take on things. You make some valid points that need to be fleshed out to understand fully.

    You might be interested in an old post of mine that tried to address all of that.

    I still believe that God created the universe in six literal days but in the same breath I could be wrong. It is pretty clear in Exodus 20:8–11 though. The day-age view is ruled out because the plural form of the Hebrew word for day (yôm) is used in both parts of the commandment. It was a temporal reference.

    Either way, it will not ever affect my salvation. I trust God to fully let us know everything when He wants to reveal all that to us as 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 says which, if I understand it properly, that we may indeed have omniscience when we are with God. I certainly am very excited about that. I will trust Him, and Him alone, until that wonderful day.

    ReplyDelete
  47. maybe.... tsala could mean 'cavity' or curve shape of the female womb as the most likely thing Removed , leaving leave Adam a purely Male human.
    adam was made perfect, male & female...take out the womb, he is only male. around the womb was built the female... :) ... o yeah... closed up the flesh.. um, well, thats the opening to the womb Adam doesnt have anymore if it Was the womb that was taken out,no? The Woman now has it :)

    Adam never needed a belly button even if he had one... Clearly Adam & Eve were created, not birthed...and God doesnt work on aesthetics plainly, we all everything for a purpose ..hence belly buttons prob only started with Cain ;) just speculating here

    ReplyDelete
  48. mel blightly - - If the "womb" theory was correct then DNA would still be a factor. Then the place closed up with flesh would have been the vaginal opening.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>