If the world was created, and we did not evolve, why does the first painting of adam and eve clearly show they had belly buttons?
People always paint religious figures in a style they themselves can relate to. In medieval Europe onwards, Bible characters were painted as white, and often had blonde hair. In my Carribean friend's Bible, Mary, Joseph and Jesus are black in the illustrations. Neither of these racial characteristics are accurate depictions of how they really looked, but perhaps they help people to relate to them.
Each artist puts their own understanding and meaning into their religious painting, often with lots of symbolism. Thus, it's important, when we look at the pictures, to realise that the picture is likely to tell us more about the artist than their subject.
In the Adam and Eve pictures, the artists were trying to understand the Creation story through their own art and level of understanding. I don't think that scienctific accuracy was their most important criterion. Religious meaning, or even simple artistic expression, would have been more important to them.
To begin with, what do you mean by "the first painting"? What painting are you referring to? When is the painting thought to have been done and by whom?
Secondly, there's nothing saying that Adam and Eve _didn't_ have belly buttons, even if they didn't come about them in the traditional sense. For all we know, God shrugged his shoulders, said whatever, and gave each of them one.
Lastly, I agree with the rest: it was artistic liberty. And hey, it could have also been ignorance on the part of the artist. That doesn't mean the artist was dumb - it means he didn't know the answer. Look up the definition of "ignorance" before you take offense and start calling other people names.
The artist didn't check scripture before painting.
What's your deal? You're acting like it's some kind of proof or something.
Wow, an old painting is inaccurate... news flash, it wouldn't be the first time.
The response, "ignorant artist" is not idiotic.
It's more than likely true.
Have you considered doing some actual research on the subject? The artist? When it was painted in relation to the writing of the scriptures?
No, I didn't think so.
This site is for people to ask genuine questions and get informed responses from a wide range of people. Don't get angry just because you didn't get the response you wanted.
***Secondly, there's nothing saying that Adam and Eve _didn't_ have belly buttons, even if they didn't come about them in the traditional sense. For all we know, God shrugged his shoulders, said whatever, and gave each of them one. ***
*God creating Adam & Eve*
"...AND LASTLY, I SHALL INSTALLETH A BUTTON. RIGHT ABOUT HERE. *places on stomachs* FOR WHEN I'M PLAYING WITH MY NEW CREATIONS, I CAN PRESSETH THE BUTTON, AND THEY SHALL SAYETH UNTO ME... "Hee hee!"
Easy: ignorant artist. OR, as many things related to any religion, an evolution of the thinking of the institution. Nearly every major religion has shifted some beliefs, over time, and I'm sure the belly button issue is one of them.
The artist took an artistic liberty.
I really don't think a painting shows any validity to support either creationism OR evolution.
I can draw a picture of a unicorn... but that doesn't make them real.
the artist took artistic liberty just like sikashimmer said
the painter painted what he wanted to see
More to the point, who _painted_ the picture? Was it the snake? I don't THINK SO!
Damn you ZAHTEVNIK you stole all my answers...I hate you now ...LOL
Who is Adam and Eve???