How does the Bible then account for the development of the first family of Genesis, into millions of people, without incestuous relationships having occurred?
This one has been bugging me for a while. I brought it up once before in a debate and I was given some answer about Augustine perhaps I'm not sure exactly, but how is the lineage of Adam & Eve explained in the Bible and what does the Bible have to say on the subject of incest?
Any references/examples would be appreciated too, thanks
Does the Bible mention incest and if so....
Moderator: Moderators
- barcelonic
- Student
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:19 am
Post #2
It is impossible to know why the editors of genesis left things in that state rather than putting together a more coherent story, so there is no end of theories.
The one I favor is that the OT is was written specifically for the Hebrews/Jews and ignored non-Hebrews as much as possible. That is to say that Adam and Eve were intended to represent the first Hebrew rather than the first humans, the existence of non-Hebrews being assumed but beneath the notice of the Bible writers, but it is hard to construct anything consistent out of the material.
It is interesting that the bible writers didn't care too much about making their origin myth more logical, and even ended up with two incompatible versions, but as to why that is, well no-one knows and I don't think we ever will.
Incest is certainly mentioned in the Bible. For example, the daughters of Lot produced sons by their own father (on their initiative!), producing the patriarchs of the Moabites and Ammontites, tribes that were traditional enemies of the Hebrew.
The one I favor is that the OT is was written specifically for the Hebrews/Jews and ignored non-Hebrews as much as possible. That is to say that Adam and Eve were intended to represent the first Hebrew rather than the first humans, the existence of non-Hebrews being assumed but beneath the notice of the Bible writers, but it is hard to construct anything consistent out of the material.
It is interesting that the bible writers didn't care too much about making their origin myth more logical, and even ended up with two incompatible versions, but as to why that is, well no-one knows and I don't think we ever will.
Incest is certainly mentioned in the Bible. For example, the daughters of Lot produced sons by their own father (on their initiative!), producing the patriarchs of the Moabites and Ammontites, tribes that were traditional enemies of the Hebrew.
-
- Apprentice
- Posts: 188
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:57 am
Re: Does the Bible mention incest and if so....
Post #3There's a lot of incest in the Bible.barcelonic wrote: How does the Bible then account for the development of the first family of Genesis, into millions of people, without incestuous relationships having occurred?
This one has been bugging me for a while. I brought it up once before in a debate and I was given some answer about Augustine perhaps I'm not sure exactly, but how is the lineage of Adam & Eve explained in the Bible and what does the Bible have to say on the subject of incest?
Any references/examples would be appreciated too, thanks
Wikipedia has an article on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_in_the_Bible
- barcelonic
- Student
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:19 am
Post #4
Wow that's an interesting page thanks
So it would seem then that if the Hebrew Bible be the word of God then Leviticus condemning incest within the immediate family would be a contradiction of God's chosen method of creation in Genesis.
But your take on the issue imho doesn't change the fundamentals at all because if we are to assume the first Hebrews were 100% pure Hebrew then the same problem applies. Therefore that would mean at least some of the first Hebrews were of mixed race.... but at this point the question arises - what is a Hebrew? If race is an outdated definition, what does it mean to be the first Hebrew? Surely that person's parents would have given him/her their genetic characteristics just as much as every subsequent Hebrew and also every ancestor of this 'first' Hebrew.
Thanks for your help with this btw
So it would seem then that if the Hebrew Bible be the word of God then Leviticus condemning incest within the immediate family would be a contradiction of God's chosen method of creation in Genesis.
But your take on the issue imho doesn't change the fundamentals at all because if we are to assume the first Hebrews were 100% pure Hebrew then the same problem applies. Therefore that would mean at least some of the first Hebrews were of mixed race.... but at this point the question arises - what is a Hebrew? If race is an outdated definition, what does it mean to be the first Hebrew? Surely that person's parents would have given him/her their genetic characteristics just as much as every subsequent Hebrew and also every ancestor of this 'first' Hebrew.
Thanks for your help with this btw
- Wootah
- Savant
- Posts: 9199
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 108 times
Post #6
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.
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.
-
- Sage
- Posts: 685
- Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:35 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Post #7
[Replying to post 6 by Wootah]
This is an excellent explanation of the subject. Here is an article that gives more information on the subject.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans ... e-campaign
This is an excellent explanation of the subject. Here is an article that gives more information on the subject.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans ... e-campaign
His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
Romans 1:20 ESV
Romans 1:20 ESV
- barcelonic
- Student
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:19 am
Post #10
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.