Moderator: Moderators
Are you asking for bible verses on incest or what the reason was for those verses? are you asking, without our modern genetic understanding what reason is there for anyone to be against incest?barcelonic wrote:So where does it suggest this in the Bible?Wootah wrote: The commandment against incest (and this can be generalised to basically all of the law) is in response to the fallen nature of the world and therefore not a contradiction with the original state but a response to the fallen state.
Remember I'm only looking for what the Bible has to say; not people's modern interpretations regarding genes.
I hope you haven't been disappointed. The wiki article has a lot more information than has been posted by our resident theologians and bible scholars.But ye basically I'd like to know where in the Book it says about incest being bad and who it is saying it and what is said. It'll no doubt be brought up on more than one occasion so I figured asking a pool of Christians online would yield the best results - certainly more than Wikipedia would divulge.
So what was the reason for the Noachic flood, given that the bible story says that only Noah's extended family were drowned, including his siblings, his cousins, his aunts & uncles and families, and even his 969 year-old grandfather Methusael (Gen 4:18 5:27) plus his mummy and granny if still alive. Was it all that inbreeding which was the problem. If so, then the bible god would have made the same mistake by still allowing an intensely inbred line to survive, or did it zap in another unrelated line in the same way that it zapped in all that extra water to cover the earth, and then zapped it out again, although the bible says that it was only a local flood about 25 feet high (Gen 7:20) which didn't drown a nearby olive tree (Gen 8:11) or a pine tree still happily growing in California which was already an old tree when Adam's grandfather was a boy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_(tree)Wootah wrote: Hi Barcelonic,
There definitely would have been incest in the growth of humanity from Adam and Eve.
Genetically speaking the issue with incest is that if you have a bad gene and your sibling has a bad gene the chance of that gene being promoted is greatly increased. There were no bad genes at the start of creation and bad genes would have started happening after the fall.
The stigma of incest most likely, biologically, comes from the above and the necessity of making a law of it is more likely to enforce the reality that incest is biologically bad in a fallen world.
The commandment against incest (and this can be generalised to basically all of the law) is in response to the fallen nature of the world and therefore not a contradiction with the original state but a response to the fallen state.
While there were other groups of humans who were totally unaffected by the flood, including our aboriginals who arrived in this country over 50,000 years ago and didn't kow tow to the bible god, the bible says that the only surviving members of Noah's family were himself and his 600 year old wife (assuming she was of similar age to Noah) and their 100 year old triplet sons (Gen 5:32) and their wives. Alas Noah's extended family all drowned, including his 969 year old grandfather Methusael (Gen 4:18 5:27).barcelonic wrote: Hi again, sorry for delay i've been unwell >>
Given how the flood has been brought up, might i also ask for more info on that as there are things i fdont undertand still...
Was Noah's family 'fallen' or were they 'good' in the eyes of God?
If they were fallen, why were they told to go out into the world and multiply and replenish the Earth?
And if they were the only people left (if the deluge wiped everyone else out), must we then be descendents of incest in Noah's family?
Or were there others left alive who weren't in the ark?
Thanks again
