View image: Untitled
how else could we explain this?
Printable View
View image: Untitled
how else could we explain this?
It's a painting
actually
it's a digital image of a painting
come on guys step up your iq game
what is it with you people and threads started by PG that explains the drop in IQ?
Whether it's a painting or a digital painting or whatever krissy was trying to express, those two people were born from a womb.
How is that possible?
They also look derpy as smurf
Actually if you follow the story of Genesis God made Adam in his image. Therefore God has a bellybutton. Therefore he was born.
Duh.
BECAUSE IT'S FUNNIER than making a legitimate post that goes on about how biblical artist represent biblical characters as similar to their audience ie Jesus being white, adam and eve being womb-born humans
likely the artist had models who had been born from wombs themselves
or did not consider a possible difference in anatomy when representing the two in the painting
that doesn't explain why all of my threads end up getting closed unless I post links to pokemon or talk about cats.Quote:
Originally Posted by krissy
Its possible this isnt an image of the first humans, rather an image of two nudists who happen to be in a garden with snakes, enjoying apples
The stories are not literal. They were not meant to be literal, and the Church has reconciled this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peegee
The stories in Genesis are based on symbolism, actually. The literal interpretation is not orthodoxy., it was produced by 7th day adventists.
For example, the Serpent is the angel who fell from grace. Notice the metaphor: he was cursed to crawl on his belly.
Noah sent out a dove., ehat is the symbol of peace? Noah's Ark teels a very different story then in literal terms. There was an actual local flood, and imagine the trepidation and trials that beset people at the time. People would war over each other for resources or to secure their safety. The story of Noah is a trial not of ocean, but of mankind.
Mankind was produced by evolution. We are the clay, and He is the Potter. We are made from the dust of the Earth. This literally stated in the Bible.
krissy nailed it as far as I'm concerned. foa's idea also works for me.
What are you guys talking about???
Boring religion ****.
Drawing a realistic(ish) person without a bellybutton, would be just plain weird, though. I can hardly imagine a person without a bellybutton. The artist probably even less so.
Eve has nice tits.
Yeah, too bad about her butherface.
Clearly this photo is shopped.
No, this photo is shopped
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1132077/images/splurg.png
It's art.Quote:
Originally Posted by The White Wizard of Fynn
Religious paintings are rarely, if ever, meant to portray a literally true picture.
Michelangelo made a painting of God and Adam touching at the fingertips on the roof of the Sistene Chapel in 1511. It is art; representative of meaning but not literal. It has always been obvious that God is not or should not be a physical being in His totality.
Just as a picture of Adam and Eve in Eden represents the beginning of man, so to does Michelangelo's picture symbolize the connection between man and God.
Could be that God just put belly buttons on them. I mean, It's God. It can probably do that pretty easily.