This is a very long story concerning my fiancee' at birth and giving birth. She was born with no bibilical cord attached, in other words there was no cord at all, and right today she has no navel in which the doctor posted a mark where it suppose to be. Can you explain how is this possible?! also the same woman gave birth to a son in which at the time there was no form of copulation, in other words she was still a virgin in which her medical records prove this to be so, when the child was born she was stilla virgin, how is that?! As for myself many of people could've been saved of the terrible event of 911, inwhich I wrote the news that this was going to happen, in the yr of 1997, channel 8 news, and also the nuclear missile heading, and the explosion, and also the beast arising here over rochester ny, and the demon that I bear witness seeing coming out of me and returning, can you explain these here events?! "GOD JEHOVAH!" have shown me the Twin Towers, and the nuclear explosion!
2006-11-27 00:17:11 · 17 answers · asked by minister 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
This so-called "question" seems intended primarily as a mockery of the bible, and contains many outright lies and gross distortions about true Christianity. Here are a few Scriptural thoughts to consider:
(Romans 16:17) Keep your eye on those who cause divisions and occasions for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them.
(2 Corinthians 4:4-6) The god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers
(Philippians 2:14-15) In among a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you are shining as illuminators in the world
(1 Timothy 6:3-5) If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the teaching that accords with godly devotion, he is puffed up with pride, not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words. From these things spring envy, strife, abusive speeches, wicked suspicions, violent disputes about trifles on the part of men corrupted in mind and despoiled of the truth
Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/20030301/article_01.htm
2006-11-27 06:29:35 · answer #1 · answered by achtung_heiss 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well first off, it is an Umbilical cord, not a biblical cord. It has nothing to do with the bible. Normally all mammals are born with a navel as that is a scar from the umbilical cord. If she doesn't have one then it is an abnormality of Nature and I would be very interested in how she was able to survive in the womb of her mother without one.
Virgin births are actually not that impossible however they are uncommon. There are cases of women possessing an extra chromosome and bearing without intercourse, usually the child of this is a female. Of course there is also the chance of pregnancy due to relations without intercourse where seamen enters the vagina without the penis penetrating the vagina.
As far as you being able to save people from the 911 tragedy, it is nice of you to say this after the fact. This part of your question is probably in the poorest taste I have seen in awhile now. Hundreds of lives were lost on that day and millions of lives were affected by that event and to make yourself seem that precognitive seems pretty petty of you.
2006-11-27 00:32:37 · answer #2 · answered by Stephen 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
OK...it's U-M-B-I-L-I-C-A-L cord....and a foetus needs the umbilical cord to get nourishment from the mother in order to grow and develop healthily...
...ofcourse you could be using slightly clever word play to say your fiancee was born without any christian tendencies!
But, it's entirely possible she may have had a hernia in the past which wrapped itself around the internal part of the belly-button. She may have had the hernia surgically fixed and lost her belly-button in the process (this very nearly happened to my partner during hernia surgery), this would ofcourse leave a mark.
And it does not necessarily take sexual intercourse to get pregnant. There have been cases of women getting pregnant through frottage alone (this is when the man and woman rub their genital areas together but refrain from having actual penetrative sex). This would explain how she could still technically be a virgin.
As for you, maybe you have some insight into things, maybe you have spookily accurate imaginings, i'm no expert in these things!
2006-11-27 00:52:52 · answer #3 · answered by Sight 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The umbilical cord is not always in the center of the stomach--sometimes there is a birth defect and it is located on the side; I saw this on a medical show. The doctor sewed up the spot where it was and was planning to put one in the center of the stomach for cosmetic reasons.
Oh, and the rest of your letter is real crackpot stuff.
2006-11-27 00:28:49 · answer #4 · answered by CrankyYankee 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Highly improbable but the umbilical cord could have been located in another area of the body due to a genetic or developmental problem. Scientifically it is possible to become impregnated without actual intercourse but yet again highly improbable. In order for that to happen she must've been fooling around pretty heavily besides she could still not be a virgin. You can break the hymen in various non-sexual ways and you can have sex without tearing it so there's the answer but still I believe you are on a flight of fancy and I want whatever you are taking but in lower doses.
2006-11-27 02:36:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
it's a rare genetic error, where the cord is attached to the top of the head, and so is part of the digestive system, including the lower gut and the anus, which is usually right below the nose. another feature of this genetic error is a very very flexible and strong hymen.
the only problem with this rare genetic disease is that it is contagious, usually by sexual intercourse, resulting in the same features appearing on the head of the male sexual partner
2006-11-27 00:28:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not a biblical cord. An umbilical cord.
2006-11-27 00:25:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's called an umbilical cord. It's a lifeline that feeds the unborn child so this is all a load of crap.
2006-11-27 00:20:57 · answer #8 · answered by Jadis 4 · 6⤊ 0⤋
That's biologically impossible.
For someone not to have an umbilical cord means that they could not eat as a fetus. It would die when its still a clump of cells
2006-11-27 00:19:46 · answer #9 · answered by Gamla Joe 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋
Impossible.
2006-11-27 00:20:03 · answer #10 · answered by Neptune_Ice 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋