2006-07-23 03:21:51 · 16 answers · asked by capt_yah000 2 in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Newborn & Baby
yes
2006-07-23 03:22:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I get that you think because you are talking about God's children that this is the appropriate section for this question, but I am sad to inform you this question IS miscategorized. You should be asking this in the religion section. Especially since everyone in here wasn't around when Adam and Eve was.
2006-07-23 10:32:35 · answer #2 · answered by Just me.... 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Adam and Eve is a story about original sin. It was never meant to be taken literally...as it would be impossible to be written by a source that was present at the time. They had to begin somewhere...and what better way then reference to the first man and woman? The Garden of Eden symbolizes Paradise...and a return to it through redemption. Thank you for asking such a humorous question...it made me laugh (with you...not at you).
2006-07-23 10:32:12 · answer #3 · answered by riverhawthorne 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is a really cool question, u must have been watching that show on ABC family, Kyle XY, the boy with no navel? I thought that was very interesting.
2006-07-23 10:28:36 · answer #4 · answered by BlkBeauty24 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If they were male and female they had everything that we have. You are doubtful about the uterine connection, which is a valid doubt to entertain. But it is all a fiction not designed to encounter intelligent persons of this generation. It was designed for people of the first century A.D. It is a shame that it survived so long.
2006-07-23 10:29:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is an excellent question; If they did, then obviously someone came before them, and there goes all that Creation and Paradise stuff down the drain. If they did not, then how could they "transmit something which wasn't in them (biologically speaking) to transmit.
2006-07-23 10:26:08 · answer #6 · answered by robert43041 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I never thought of that! Why would they? They didn't have umbilical cords. That's a good question.
2006-07-24 00:09:00 · answer #7 · answered by crystal 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have no idea but that is a very cool question. I will ask the rabbi next week.
2006-07-23 10:24:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, they were created,not born, therefore no need to be "tied" to an umbilical cord.
2006-07-23 10:27:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
hhmmm to relly know for sure can u aks yur pasture or priest or look in the bible
2006-07-23 12:14:12 · answer #10 · answered by bussty1 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't think so since there was no umbilical cord involved.
2006-07-23 10:33:01 · answer #11 · answered by golden oldy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋