Did Adam have a navel?

This is an interesting question, I think, which was proposed by one of the readers of this blog. My answer, which is of course, my own personal reflection, would be that he did not. To have a navel or belly button, would imply that one was born from a woman. Adam wasn't so therefore the implications are that he didn't have one.

"A navel is a scar on the abdomen, caused when the umbilical cord is removed from a newborn baby."- Wikipedia

My argument against Adam having one would be as follows:

1. Adam was never "born"
2. Adam was never "born" and thus never a baby or newborn.
3. Therefore, he couldn't have had a naval.

What do you guys think?

NIV Letter on the Divine Name

You can click image to enlarge it.

A Rabbi on Pluralism

Q: In Genesis 1:26, God said ..."let us make man on our image". Yet in Genesis 1:27, G-d is referred to as a singularity. However again in Gen.11:5 and 7, God is referred to in the singular and plural respectively. Again in Deut. 6:4 both singular and plural references to God are used in the this verse. How do modern day Rabbis view the word Elohim which appears over 500 times from Genesis to Malachi?


A: Elohim does not denote the notion of plurality of "Persons" as many Christian thinkers have advocated for centuries. English and Hebrew are two distinctive languages, and they do not operate by the same laws of syntax. It is characteristic of the Hebrew language to express' extension, magnitude and dignity, as well as anything in the abstract by the plural form.


Ibn Ezra observed that in other Semitic languages, an inferior speaks to his superior in the plural. Such a form of address is what is known as "plural of majesty.'"This custom still persists even in modern countries like Britain, where the royal "we" is still commonly used which originates from the Bible! The significance of the plural form in the Hebrew usage suggests a plentitude of power and majesty (a pluralis excellentice) or of intensification, i.e., the superlative "God of gods," "the absolute highest God," "quintessence of all divine powers." Therefore we must say that the plural form of Elohim connotes the plural of fullness; God is truly is in the fullest sense of the word, God Almighty.


Elohim' when used, also represents God as he relates to all the creatures of the world at large. Elohim describes God as the Creator and Providential Ruler in the affairs of humankind, and controlling every movement of nature in accordance with the laws He established in nature


Now, let us examine the second part of your question: What is the meaning of "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness (Gen.1:26)


For the past 2000 years, commentaries wondered: "Why does God speak in the plural (us/our)? Why did he not say, "Let me make man in my image? Who was God speaking to? There are many answers to consider:


(a) "Let us" may convey a plural of majesty (Saadia), i.e., the English royal "we" see notes on Gen. 1:10.


(b) Some see in this expression, the plural of self-deliberation. God did not say, "Let the earth bring forth," as He did with other creatures; instead, Man was brought into being with careful planning. (Abarbanel)


(c) Others see it as a plural of the fullness of attributes and powers. (Keil & Delitsch)
(d) Philo of Alexandria, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the Midrash, and Rashi were all of the view, God was speaking to His angelic host. By involving these beings in humankind's creation, God sought so to minimize any envy the angels might feel regarding humankind. Some modern scholars concur, for there are ample Biblical passages that would suggest that ancient Israelites were familiar with the notion that God took counsel with the heavenly host even though there is no clear-cut mention their creation in the early chapters of the Genesis creation narratives. Some of the ancient commentators see an allusion to the heavenly host"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their hosts" (Gen. 2:1).


(e) Ramban and Kimchi were of the opinion that God was soliciting creation itself to participate in giving a part of themselves in the creation of man. Some modern scholars concur


(f) Those who argue a Trinitarian view of the Deity, are as nearly all modern Christian scholars reject this old polemical interpretation. One of today's finest Christian scholars, Victor Hamilton bluntly said that Christians who wish to read in this verse the presence of Trinity are in effect, "reading more into the text than was originally the intention and understanding of the Biblical writers."


With regard to your last question concerning So God created humankind in His image, in the image of God he created them (Gen. 1:27) Kimchi and Rashi both note that the plural of majesty is never said with verbs or pronouns, but only with nouns. Nothing you cited from the Zohar would indicate the contrary.


Rabbi Dr. Michael Samuel

'In Principio Erat Verbum': Sacred Texts in an Oral Culture

Ben Witherington wrote a helpful paper about intertexuality in oral culture and tradition. Read the paper here.

A Case for the Futurist Interpretation of the Book of Revelation

In this article, Andy Woods argues and successfully in my opinion, that Revelation has future fulfillment and not a past one as Preterists and Partial Preterists believe and argue. For instance, preterists generally argue that Revelation's use of "quickly," "at hand," "soon," "near," and "about to" surely indicate that John believed that the things described would occur immediately. That is why most preterists and partial preterists believe the book of Revelation was written in the 60's describing the fall of Jerusalem. However, Woods rightfully points out that the words translated as "quickly," "at hand," and other similar words can have a qualitative meaning as opposed to a chronological one. "In other words, when the action comes, it will come suddenly or with great rapidity." (p. 5)

For those interested in eschatology and the book of Revelation in general, see the article here.

Luke 23:43

From Codex B

Third & Final Response

After citing the January, 1, 2011 Watchtower on page 14 where it states,

Still, someone may object, ‘But how could an all-wise God not have known?’ Granted, a facet of Jehovah’s great wisdom is his capability to know “from the beginning the finale.” (Isaiah 46:9, 10) However, he does not have to use this capability, just as he does not always have to use his immense power to the full. Jehovah wisely uses his ability of foreknowledge selectively. He uses it when it makes sense to do so and fits the circumstances

Keith says,

“Now here’s my question. If Jehovah God can wisely use his foreknowledge selectively, regarding Adam & Eve, then isn’t it also possible that Jesus could wisely use his foreknowledge selectively regarding the time of the end?” 

This is the question Keith asks in his video starting at 2:00.

I feel I’ve already addressed this question but apparently others feel I’ve “missed the point.” In turn, I feel they have ‘missed my point.’ I’ll point out what I’ve pointed out before: In order for Jesus to “use his foreknowledge selectively regarding the time of the end,” you have assume he has this capability in the first place. In order to assume he has this capability in the first place, you have to assume he is God.


Because of these two assumptions that are contingent on one another, and because the question assumes those two assumptions in its phrasing, that is why I pointed out it was circular reasoning, i.e., the conclusion is read back into the phrasing of the question.

Let the readers make of it what they will.