In what appears to be yet another fundamentalist hypocrisy, I have to ask the question: who modeled for Adam and Eve? The photo on the left is from the new Creation Museum. As someone who has done drawing from models before, I know that in order to do accurate drawings of the human body, one has to actually see the human body. Did a woman create the Eve mannequin and a man create the Adam mannequin? We don’t want anyone falling into sin. If Eve’s hair moved just a little bit, all hell would break loose.
The kinds of people who enjoy this museum are absolutely opposed to nudity of all forms, even if its just for an art class. This goes straight to the gnostic roots of fundamentalism – that the human body is evil.
Clarification: There are at least four articles on CRN promoting the Creation Museum.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
91 Comments(+Add)
I wonder, what color is the sky in your world. Yikes.
I’ve noticed something. A formula, if you will.
Ken is caught without an answer + Ken is embarrassed by the fallacies of his logic = Ken avoids the question and offers a goofy comment.
The sky is blue. And Eve appears to be quite tan.
Ha. Formula-schmormula. Ken or Chris P. bring in Scripture and the CRN-Info? boys run and hide would be a more accurate formula.
“I wonder, what color is the sky in your world. Yikes.” – 1 Ken 3:16?
No offense to the contributors here, but this site is getting a bit silly. Rather than expose the logical failings of the writers at Slice or CRN, it seems that recent posts have been unassociated with the original mission of the site. Has the purpose/mission of CRN.info changed?
“I know that in order to do accurate drawings of the human body, one has to actually see the human body” — Matt B.
So since you are so sure of this, it isn’t at all possible that the dummies in the picture were purchased? Actually, you’re right. I’m sure that Dr. Baumgardtner was the artist and that plenty of naked people were walking around during the formation of this exhibit.
Gnostic fundies huh? Because we believe that nudity should be reserved for a sexual context, a relationship between husband and wife —- and that the human body is a gift from God to be enjoyed intimately only within a marriage — if that’s how you define gnosticism, you’re right; I am a raging gnostic!
Hi Todd-
I’ve long thought that fundamentalist Christianity has ties to Gnosticism. Ken and Ingrid have often made comments about “the flesh”. Ken and Ingrid are the kind of people that the museum is marketed to. I’m asking for their answer.
If you are questioning whether I believe in creation/miracles, I do.
Oh, no, I’m not questioning your belief in miracles, and I’m not really sure where you would get that.
Once again, no offense, but the question is a little silly. I believe enough people – particularly artists – have seen a nude form to create an accurate model. Additionally, by asking this question, you’re making an assumption about them based on your opinion of the ignorance of their beliefs, rather than what they actually say – something Ken does every time he writes and which is rightfully frowned up on.
I guess I just liked this site better when it was a rational response to foolishness and lies rather than stirring up needless controversy.
Clearly – The Creation Museum payed to have someone else sin and portray the naked body?
In order to get that pose, someone would have had to draw/pencil everything out. It is quite an endeavor to do models like this. While I can’t tell if it’s wax or plastic, it is very expensive and time consuming to do this. And you can’t just walk into your local store and get an anatomically correct body with that pose. It was specifically designed for that installation.
Todd – I actually have an art degree and you can’t just draw a nude form out of your head. I have a friend who takes model drawing classes every week. It takes years of practice and people who care about art will always draw from a model. And by model, I mean a real naked person.
Matt, and they also shop at grocery stores (which sell alchohol), eat at restaurants (which have bars), have dish network (which has porn channels you can buy), etc.
Clearly – Like I said, that installation had to be specifically commissioned and designed by the Creation Museum.
Clearly – it’s like paying for someone else’s alcohol, night at the bar, or porn.
I’m beginning to think “clearly” is the one who has been leaving anonymous comments at my blog.
Public nudity is pornography, and if you are a man and see that picture and your eyes are not drawn to Eve then check your hormones. You can present the Genesis account without nudity, it is just Christians attempting tp prove they are hip and above the starchy fundamentalist.
If the human body can be shown then so can Abraham and Sarah in the act of conceiving, after all, it was God’s will. There are Biblical discretions that must be observed in order that the message isn’t obscure in avoidable controversy. Nudity is for a man and his wife, not for the public. And before you ask, Michaelangelo’s David is wrong, human genitals are not for human consumption except for doctors.
Sorry Matt, a real man’s eyes are draw to that Eve and not because we want to glean a deeper understanding about the Garden of Eden.
Ya know – they are actually skinny-dipping…
Neil
I have to agree with Todd, I’m not sure I understand the point of this post… but then again, he probably included my last post in his comments as well.
Neil
I agree – except for the part about nudity being reserved for sexual context…
Henry – many cultures do not consider cleavage as sexual. It’s just Western culture.
Also, and I don’t mean this as a joke, when you read Genesis, do you cross out any reference to “naked”? The book Genesis presents nudity, even if its the written word. What goes on in your head when you read about David gazing at Bathsheba?
I think it’s possible to deal with nudity without sexualizing it. Who hasn’t seen a woman breast feeding?
Rick,
Is “Public nudity is pornography” a universal truth, or just a culturally determined truth?
If it’s the former, then are tribal peoples where the women are topless and/or the men wear penis-gourds pornographic?
If Adam and Eve are being presented in their pre-fall state, to show them anything but naked (no pun intended) would not be consistent with the text.
Neil
Coop, who are you?
I just clicked on your blog for the first time…
At least she’s not blonde, for some reason it always annoys me when I see a blonde Eve.
Neil
Appearance of evil, even if it is a western cultural issue.
Let me get this straight, if lusting after a women’s breasts is a western thing then it is OK. We’ve redefined and taken the teeth out of the word lust. Our Master seemed to go overboard.
Can you imagine if Jesus never said this, but someone commented that if a man looks upon a woman in lust he has committed adultery? If the Lord hadn’t said it, we would consider that commentor a legalistic nut!
Perhaps I can explain better why I posted this. A friend of mine at lunch told me about the Creation Museum and mentioned that they had an Adam and Eve installation. The first question I asked was, “Were Adam and Eve nude?” Because the kind of people who go to this museum are fundamentalists and believe in a literal 6 day creation. And I’ve been around enough fundamentalists and read enough of Ken and Ingrid’s work to know if I pointed this out, they’d have no answer.
The Creation Museum is by a group (Answers In Genesis) that believes in the literal 6 day creation. Any other explanation is considered heretical. I believe Answers in Genesis also sponsors Ingrid’s show.
I do not believe in a six day creation. But I also don’t believe in other people’s genitals displayed as entertainment. Let’s be real.
Henry – this is a great discussion! No, lusting after anything, sexual or otherwise is a sin.
Let me give you an example. In the past I’ve accidently stumbled on adult websites, which I get out of immediately. However, since I realize what has happened, I run the other way, like Joseph did. Being tempted is not the same thing as actually sinning.
For whatever reason, which I consider a blessing, I don’t have struggle with adult websites. I imagine if I hung out there with the intent of enjoyment, I would.
I’m not sure about Matt, but that’s not what I meant at all. I never said anything about lusting after, I just asked if the “public nudity is pornography” is universal. Even the tribal cultures in question cover their genitalia.
Neil
Are breasts genitalia?
Neil
I think you can be a six-day literalist and not be a neo-fundamentalists as well… I agree the two go hand-in-hand, the AiG people may very well be neo-fundies, I don’t know…
The axiom could be; “All neo-fundamentalists are six-day literalists, but not all six-day literalists are neo-fundamentalists.
Neil
1. No one here at crn.(dis)info knows what a fundamentalist is.
2. Know one here at crn.(mis)info knows what an actual gnostic is.
Todd is right this blog has departed fom what little raison d’etre it actually had.
Neil – yes, not all 6-day literalists are neo-fundamentalists. I have close friendships with 6 dayers. They aren’t fundamentalists, although they are pretty conservative. But they are very wise in issues of faith and often go to them for counsel.
Correction – ICR supports Ingrid’s show, not Answers in Genesis. However, John Morris, ICR spokesman on Ingrid’s show, contributes articles to Answers in Genesis.
This post actually makes an excellent example of a straw man argument.
(1) Assume you know what others believe, think, and how they would react.
(2) Write a post decrying their (hypothesized) beliefs, thoughts, and reactions.
(3) Be surprised that they don’t take you seriously.
Isn’t this the same dubious legacy of Slice/E-No?
ICR?
By the way, isn’t it transparent that the Eve depicted is a gorgeous model type, not a heavy set agricultural type. This Eve has access to modern hair products. Why, because she is meant to be sensual.
Yea, this is the kind of picture I would have loved up in my attic alone when I was 14 years old.
Robbymac,
As a poster I’ll admit, that’s sorta what I thought. But none of the fundamentalist posters have addressed the issue either. I probably would not have labeled it hypocrisy. I would have used it as an example of how we let our culture force how we portray a biblical story.
Neil
Hey, I’m a “literal 6 dayer” and I’m despised in most neo-fundamentalist groups.
I believe everything was created on Tuesday afternoon.
Rick,
I think your point illustrates mine – what we see as sensual, as lusting material differers from culture to culture. Many cultures do not associate a woman’s breasts with sex as we do in the West. Therefore, this form of public nudity is not pornography – since it really isn’t “nudity” in that sense… anymore than we would say a man wearing shorts is public nudity.
Good point on Eve almost always being very attractive.
Neil
Neil – ICR = Institute for Creation Research
Henry – Absolutely! If anything, Adam had a very different preference for women.
We have prehistoric statuettes which depict the ideal woman as quite overweight (by our standards). And she has a funky wrap hairdo. This may have been Adam’s ideal woman.
I won’t post the photo, considering the scandal I’ve caused. You can an example of this here though (Venus of Willendorf). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf
OK – seeing that photo started me humming a song by Sir Mix-a-Lot… (and I cannot lie)…
Neil
There are at least four articles promoting the Creation Museum at CRN. None of them comment on Adam and Eve installation.
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=1940
Hey cool, I get to agree in principle with my boy robbymac!
“Isn’t this the same dubious legacy of Slice/E-No?”
Yep, same idea even though I don’t agree this is what they have actuall done.
The rest of this “dialogue” would be the epitome of inane.
If there are four articles at CRN promoting the Creation Museum, then the straw man has come to life. Straw Man no more.
Now I will change into Pomo Man: “Good point on Eve almost always being very attractive.” Who defines “very attractive”? Would that be attractive from a western culture. Or could Eve’s appearance which might be deemed attractive here in the west actually seem unattractive to someone in the Orient? To quote Paul – “I’m out of my mind to talk like this.”
And then supersleuth Matt B discloses: “There are at least four articles promoting the Creation Museum at CRN. None of them comment on Adam and Eve installation.”
O wow. Why should they? I don’t happen to think this is an issue.
There once was a preacher who came
His style of aggression brought fame
His comments verbose
And filled with his boast
He was known as the king of inane!
Hey Rick,
It’s not a good idea to boast of yourself like that. As a preacher you should know that.
I added a clarification to the original post.
Just some fun, Ken, we all need it. Remember, I’m a goofball from my own lips.
Let me go a step further in seriousness. It is wrong for a man to be in bed with a woman who is not his wife. And yes, I mean things like Little House on the Prairie. God doesn’t say, “Oh well, it’s just acting”.
I know these sound like something from medieval times, but God never changes. We underestimate the power of lust.
Ken, my point exactly… see, we can agree at times.
Ken,
I disagree though that it’s all inane – issues of biblical applications across cultures is not inane.
Rick,
Do you see my point about the sexuality of breasts being cultural? – so what is considered pornographic nudity would be also.
Neil
I expected most of the more conservative posters to respond with a negative reaction towards this Creation Museum installation. Here’s the response:
Henry: Negative response (although I really appreciate dialogging with him)
Ken: Crickets
Chris P: Crickets
What do the women think?
Now imagine if Rick Warren commissioned this installation. Ken and Ingrid would go ballistic. Seems that they are giving a free pass to fellow conservatives.
I don’t have a problem with the installation. I think Ken does, he just likes playing coy.
I have to admit I find it odd that C?N/Slice2.0 hasn’t gone off about this exhibit. I also find myself wondering if Matt posted it because he is not a 6 dayer and the exhibit in and of itself is offensive to him.
Matt?
Point of order – Point of order. Why are sometimes Matt and sometimes Matt B? Are you trying to copy the Ken/editor example?
Sorry, Matt B and Matt are the same. I’m writing from different locations.
By the way, if I really wanted to micro-manage the picture I would wonder where Eve was looking and where she was going with her hand. Why aren’t they just looking either in their eyes or even up to God?
Rick, for a fundie, you crack me up!
Ok, no coyness on my part. I am one who is more open to theistic evolution. However, I do believe that God could have and may have done the whole six day thing.
Those are in my opinion non-essential musings. The essentials are what concerns me about today’s ever increasing musings.
Why are Adam and Eve pictured in waist water, are they the first homo sapiens about to emerge from the primorial ooze (and I don’t mean Spencer Burke) ?
“Why are Adam and Eve pictured in waist water…” Um, it looks to me as if they are in waist deep foliage, as in leaves.
I see water under those lilly pads. Anyone else?
Wait a minute, now I see what is going on there. Adam has just led Eve to the Lord and he is about to baptize her. Precious.
“I think Ken does, he just likes playing coy.” Uh-oh, Matt has named himself God as he is now omniscient as well.
Nah, I’m just not taking your bait is all.
See how her left hand is going to hold his arm and her right hand is going to cover her nose. I wonder if that is the Euphrates River. Man, I cannot get over the detail.
To me Eve’s face looks similar to one of the Gelflings from “The Dark Crystal”. Sort of random, but was the first thing that popped into my head when I saw that picture.
But seriously, my problem with AiG is that they basically take the position that if you don’t believe in a literal 6-day Creation, then you might as well throw out the rest of the Bible. Ken Ham actually spoke in our town a few years ago, and that was pretty much the whole point of his talk.
Ken,
Wow. I’m Chris P’s “buddy” and I’m your “boy”. C’mon, everybody sing together now:
“Can you feel the love tonight…”
I’m also really enjoying Rick’s sense of humour in his posts on this thread. Far from inane, it’s one of the more fun threads to read through. At least both Adam & Eve have their hands ABOVE the foliage, to avoid the scandal of questionable under-fern activity.
Neil, I just find it gratifying that God clearly created Adam with a full beard right from the get-go. And at least Eve isn’t blonde & blue-eyed, unlike the pictures of Jesus in the basement of nearly every fundamentalist church my family attended back in the day.
Ken or Chris P, is nudity in art ever God pleasing? Or is it a sin?
I dunno Matt you’ll have to ask Him.
robbymac said: “I just find it gratifying that God clearly created Adam with a full beard right from the get-go.” Well, how old would Adam have appeared to be when he was created?
Would this be considered mixed bathing?
Chris O! I wondered if you were still out there!
“I dunno Matt you’ll have to ask Him.”
yep, that’s not playing coy…
=)
another,
Hey, you know me; I don’t want to be accused of speaking for God now.
Ken,
Beards take time to grow. To be perfectly historically accurate, this depiction of Adam should at best have a five o’clock shadow, or possibly a few day’s worth of stubble. Unless there’s a mysterious “gap” between Adam’s sixth day of creation, and Eve’s appearance on the scene…
robbymac,
“Beards take time to grow.” True, but so normally do people, right? So how is it you can state with apparent certainly: “To be perfectly historically accurate, this depiction of Adam should at best have a five o’clock shadow, or possibly a few day’s worth of stubble.”
I mean, truthfully how would you know this? Isn’t it entirely possible that Adam was created with a beard? Most people seem to agree he was created as an adult male with the ability to reproduce. And Eve was also past what we might call puberty as well.
Seems none of this would have anything necessarily to do with young earth, etc. However, in deference to alleged postmodernism wouldn’t one wish to careful about statements carrying the kind of certitude that you have made above? Just a-wonderin’…
The account of creation in Genesis is extremely general and without many specifics. So without Scriptural specifics how can anyone speak with Biblical authority?
Answer: They cannot.
Genesis 1:1 covers it all. Everything else is conjecture.
Ken,
You amaze me when you take a playful & joking comment, attach an assumption on your part about postmodernism and what you mistakenly think I believe, and turn it into a straw man, and start “a-wonderin’”.
Amazing.
robbymac,
And I would say in reaturn, You amaze me when you take a playful & joking comment, attach an assumption on your part about me in what you mistakenly think I believe.
And all when I take a playful & joking comment on your part and josh a little bit re. postmodernism and you then turn it into a straw man, and start “a-wonderin’†what I’m actually wonderin’ about.
Amazing.
While I do beleive that God created the world in six literal days, I don’t really see spelled out in the scripture that on day 8 Adam and Eve ate from the tree and fell. Isn’t it possible that there a period of time that elapsed between the creation and the fall? Doesn’t it seem possilbe that Eve had been eyeing that tree for some time before Satan got involved? I know in the story of Abraham, Moses leaves out most of the day to day monotony, and just brings in important highlight where God is working. Maybe Adam and Eve spent several years just puttering around the garden before things really went south? Any ideas?
So the whole big deal is because of a couple of titties?
Yes, take a deep breath, step back, and read what I just wrote. This is how STUPID this seems. I wonder what a nonChristian think when he came across this page and reading this. Christians arguing over stupid things. Is this edifying to the Lord?
Here’s the answer you guys are too busy pumping your ego and pride to really realize. 1st Cor 8:8-13. Not everyone struggle in the same sin, I may be able to look upon nakedness and not associated it with perversity, but that doesn’t mean someone else will not. And if it means to place the models 1/2 under water to cover their genitals and hair over her breasts so not to tempt others to stumble, then why not? Because, it ISN’T always about ME.
You want to know the real problem? Real problem is when young people stray the way of being a Christian and get themselves into pointless arguments and theological discussions that are not pleasing to the Lord. Be cautious for often evil is not what goes into the mouth, but what comes out of it. Not all “discussions” no matter how intellectual, how theologically deep, is glorifying God. They’re just meaningless.
The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk.
1 Timothy 1:5-6
Bless.
Ken,
It’s because my experience with heresy-hunters is that if I don’t immediately correct bad assumptions on their part, they’ll interpret that as agreement. And then write all manner of accusations etc. based on bad info. So, I’ve learned to be very careful about letting wrong assumptions stand.
robbymac,
Ever wonder what it’s like to be what others consider a “heresy hunter”? Do you think that possibly we might also feel we would need to “be very careful about letting wrong assumptions stand” as well?
What would happen if the true church of Jesus Christ in the western world made a pact together that for one whole year we would seek (hunt) the cross of Christ. All messages would have the cross and all its implications and attributes at their core. All blogs would continually post for one year about the cross of eternal redemption.
Let the marriage series, the financial series, the success series, the eschatological series, and all the rest incubate for that year. And for one solid year all the evangelicals would seek, preach, meditate, post, write, pray about, bow to, weep before, rejoice in, and specifically ask the Holy Spirit of God to empower and illuminate the church to embrace the cross like they’ve never seen before.
Not just doctrinally, but as a life changing pursuit that captures our hearts in an unusual and openly demonstrable way. Of course that would mean doing away for a year with emerging hunters, seeker hunters, purpose hunters, heresy hunters, Calvin hunters, Arminius hunters, rapture hunters, amillenial hunters, other’s sin hunters, and anything else that would obscure and remove our surrendered gave upon the cross of the now Risen Savior. Just for one year resurrect the cross and reacquaint ourselves with its glorious life giving power, both to the sinner and the saint.
Nah, let’s just stay the way we are, God just loves it…
As an art major, I drew from nude models of both sexes and all ages and physiques. You can say all you want about that being wrong if that is your belief, but there are a few things that are missed if you’ve never made it to that level of an art program, and can’t be explained to someone who has never been in such a setting. The second thing is that although we drew a lot of still life and models with clothing, nothing teaches you to draw like a living, nude figure because you can’t see muscles and form when it is covered by clothing. Typically, the year an art student begins drawing from a nude model is the year his or her art becomes well-rounded. I know that up until then, my drawing was stilted and stiff and sophomoric.
You will see nude figures in my web site art gallery. If we want Christian art — and the most fascinating art tends to have human figures in it — to be realistic, we need artists that understand the structure of the human form. Otherwise, we certainly could have art with abstract or more “modern” takes on the human form (weak figure drawing tends to rise from never having learned the real structure), but I think I know what the reaction to that genre of art would be in some Christian circles.
Frankly, I believe Christian art should be excellent, not second-best. Artists who do not understand the human figure will never be excellent.
You can’t compare learning about drawing the human figure for later art (with or without clothes) as you do from drawing an actual human being right in front of you. It isn’t a tawdry setting, and the sketching and timed exercises can be a little brutal. It’s work. I’m sure there are exceptions, but no class I was in had guys making rude gestures and comments. We were all trying to meet the instructor’s demands.
Ken,
“Ever wonder what it’s like to be what others consider a “heresy hunterâ€? Do you think that possibly we might also feel we would need to “be very careful about letting wrong assumptions stand†as well?”
Ummm…. are you saying you need to keep the outside of your cup shiny? I think you miss that the inside is pretty nasty as far as what we see here….
From the heart the mouth speaks Ken… or do you not believe that? (Matthew 15:18, Luke 6:43)
Be Blessed,
iggy
Julie,
Thank you for your intelligent post. I couldn’t have said it better. As a former art major, I too had figure drawing classes, and yes, they were nude. And once you get past the immature “oooh, a breast” giggling, you quickly realize that to render the body accurately, you have to understand how all those muscles, bones and tendons come together to define the body’s shape, whether it’s in motion or repose.
And that when its all said and done, the skin is merely the fabric that encases all those parts. Nothing more.
When you’ve got an instructor standing over your shoulder pointing out a mistake you’re making, the only thing that really matters is that you understand why the parts come together the way they do.
As one wise instructor once told me, “you have to think in 3-D”. The whole thing really becomes very clinical very quickly.
Thanks again for being the voice of reason in an arguement that all too often is over the top in hyperbole and needless prudery.
It wasn’t Julie. It was me, Matt. That’s ok, though.
Oops, sorry, missed Julie’s comment.