Texan Bigotry

[Ben Kenobi]

Also, I think that one need to see that Scripture does not seem to condemn incest per se, but condemns incestuous relationships which may lead to confusions involving inheritance. Since inheritance was everything for a lot of people (esp women in the ancient world, without an inheritance they were doomed to prostitution or the hope that some rich guy would marry them before it came to that) anything that muddled that was way off limits (btw, this is also why adultery was such a horrendous crime in Ancient Rome). And, of course, you can't have sex with your own sister, because then she could get herself married off.

Lot and his Daughters. Genesis 19:31, implies that while it was taboo long before.

Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth.

[Ben Kenobi]

Imran:

So how didn't the rules change if the Law allowed for divorce?

But it was not this way from the beginning

And also, "For that reason a man will leave his mother and father", can also be interpreted as a proscription contra incest.

The grand scope of Scripture seems to build to the idea that God's love encompasses all and that which violates loving neighborliness is to be rejected. We learn more and more of it as time goes by. The Spirit, as always, guides us and keeps revealing to us the truths of God, which we were to hard of hearts to hear in earlier ages. May it continue forward.

Sin doesn't change, Imran. Christ argues that divorce was a deviation from the ideal. The ideal is one man and one woman. You want to go against Christ to promote sin, it's not going to end well.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So Moses made the entire nation of Israel engage in sin and put it in the Books of the Law (forget for a second that Moses didn't write most of the Pentateuch for a second)? Oh crap .

[Sava]

I am a historian for example, how is my credibility on my field damaged by what I believe about the world's origins?

Assuming you believe the world is only 6,000 years old... well, do I really need to point out how such a belief would perhaps conflict with our understanding of history?

Though, I suppose your competency in the history of things within the period from then until now should be okay.

If you believe the world is only 6,000 years old, I have follow up questions... if you don't mind.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Lot and his Daughters. Genesis 19:31, implies that while it was taboo long before.

The custom is to have children .

The NLT (a conservative translation, mind) translates Gen 19:31 as thus:

One day the older daughter said to her sister, "There are no men left anywhere in this entire area, so we can't get married like everyone else. And our father will soon be too old to have children.

Of course Lot's daughters aren't necessarily condemned (maybe implicitly later on - one gives birth to the Moabites and the other to the Ammonites who are rivals of Israel in the future - of course since they aren't descendants from Abraham, but rather Abraham's nephew [IIRC], Lot, they would be rivals regardless). Anyways, in the march to the promise land, God does tell Israel not to have any conflict with Ammon.

[Sava]

I need to understand a few things. I will just list my questions in no particular order.

Where is the garden of Eden? I'll settle for a region... or continent. Exact location isn't necessary.

Assuming the world just "poof" appeared 6,000 years ago. How do you explain the radio carbon dating of prehistoric human settlements? Why would God create evidence of human populations living in certain regions between 6,000-10,000 years ago?

If God created those "as is" complete with their state of carbon decay, how do you explain the population of humans that descended from those people?

If Adam and Eve spawned all of humanity, did humans travel to all corners of the globe after creation? 6,000 years ago?

So Adam and Eve have the first children. How many generations until one of their offspring traveled to East Asia? What about the human population in the early Americas? At what point after Adam and Eve did those people arrive?

How come there is evidence of their existence earlier?

Please explain the logistics.

[Ben Kenobi]

Assuming you believe the world is only 6,000 years old... well, do I really need to point out how such a belief would perhaps conflict with our understanding of history?

I can't speak for Nikolai, but I'm not a Young Earth Creationist.

[Ben Kenobi]

Where is the garden of Eden? I'll settle for a region... or continent. Exact location isn't necessary.

Best candidate would be Elam, IMHO - east of Mesopotamia. Under the Persian Gulf now. There are other interpretations.

Assuming the world just "poof" appeared 6,000 years ago.

It's not necessary to assume this - only that modern people are descended from Adam and Eve. As to the date, I believe there are parts of the genealogy missing.

How do you explain the radio carbon dating of prehistoric human settlements? Why would God create evidence of human populations living in certain regions between 6,000-10,000 years ago?

Again, I believe that Adam and Eve are substantially older than 6 thousand years ago.

If Adam and Eve spawned all of humanity, did humans travel to all corners of the globe after creation? 6,000 years ago?

Read the Tables of the Nations, Genesis 10. It talks to the dispersion of humanity. Not only that, we'd have to believe that Noah was the only survivor and that everyone alive today is descended from Noah.

So Adam and Eve have the first children. How many generations until one of their offspring traveled to East Asia? What about the human population in the early Americas? At what point after Adam and Eve did those people arrive?

We don't get exact dates. All we have in scripture is some tantalizing information about people and places after Noah. Beyond that, it's not recorded.

How come there is evidence of their existence earlier?

Evidence of 'their' existence earlier? You're assuming that prehistoric people are the same group of people. This may not be so.

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course Lot's daughters aren't necessarily condemned (maybe implicitly later on - one gives birth to the Moabites and the other to the Ammonites who are rivals of Israel in the future - of course since they aren't descendants from Abraham, but rather Abraham's nephew [IIRC], Lot, they would be rivals regardless). Anyways, in the march to the promise land, God does tell Israel not to have any conflict with Ammon.

And the Ammonites are hostile to Israel and it doesn't work out too well for them. Again the question, "where does scripture condemn incest", the answer is in Lot's daughters.

And the New Living Translation isn't a conservative translation, Imran.

Vulgate has it:

"Dixitque major ad minorem: Pater noster senex est, et nullus virorum remansit in terra, qui possit ingredi ad nos juxta morem universæ terræ."

juxta morem universae terrae, As is the custom of the entire world.

[Berzerker]

So now it's not about divorce, yet you earlier claimed that divorce is what Jesus was addressing? Which is it, Berz?

I just told you, the subject was divorce without cause - thats what Jesus was addressing - not sexual immorality or polygamy

That's not what Jesus says in that passage. "What God has brought together let men not separate".

let men not separate... without justification

As Jesus himself says, "In the beginning this was not so". The ideal of marriage is one man and one woman. Has ever been thus. Was then, is now.

What was not so? Divorce without cause? There were only 2 people in the Garden, polygamy involves 3 or more. In the beginning men (Adam?) didn't dump their wives without cause.

Actually, yes, yes he was.

So when Jesus criticized easy divorce laws allowing men to dump their wives, he was actually accusing patriarchs of sin for not dumping their wives?

Right there in Matthew 19, a little later down. "The one who can accept this should accept this".

You said people were made for monogamous marriage, but Jesus said those who can accept it should accept it.

Sigh. That's not proof that Islam is descended from Abraham. The only ones who say that is Islam, thousands of years later. This is an interpolation. None of the actual sources say anything of the sort.

There's no indication if you look at the time prior to Islam that anyone claimed this connection. Which means that it's a very late interpolation.

I didn't mention Islam, I said Arabs. And many Arabs claim Abraham as their father thru Hagar and Ishmael - and God says he made a great nation from their marriage and offspring.

Does it say? No, it doesn't. Hey, I'm descended from Ishmael too! Isn't that awfully convenient.

The Bible says Ishmael fathered 12 princes and became a great nation.

It's not marriage if it's more than one.

Yes it is, Hagar was Abraham's wife too. Many of the patriarchs were polygamists, your interpretation requires us to believe the OT was wrong when it describes them as wives.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Again the question, "where does scripture condemn incest", the answer is in Lot's daughters.

Where exactly is the condemning?

And the New Living Translation isn't a conservative translation, Imran.

It tends to be the conservatives who advocate for it. The liberals tend to like things like NRSV or some versions of the NIV (even though the NIV was created with conservative evangelicals in mind)

Vulgate has it:

"Dixitque major ad minorem: Pater noster senex est, et nullus virorum remansit in terra, qui possit ingredi ad nos juxta morem universæ terræ."

juxta morem universae terrae, As is the custom of the entire world.

I'm intrigued to know that the Old Testament was written in Latin .

[Ben Kenobi]

I just told you, the subject was divorce without cause - thats what Jesus was addressing - not sexual immorality or polygamy

Jesus goes on to address that sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful. Again, I see your argument, I just don't see how Matthew 19 backs you up here. Jesus is rather clear here.

let men not separate... without justification

That interpolation isn't in the text, Berz.

What was not so?

Divorce, period.

There were only 2 people in the Garden, polygamy involves 3 or more.

And this is significant. If polygamy were the intended ideal, wouldn't God have created more than one woman for Adam?

So when Jesus criticized easy divorce laws allowing men to dump their wives, he was actually accusing patriarchs of sin for not dumping their wives?

No, he was accusing the Israelites of sinning when they divorced their wives. Sinning when they took up another wife. Saying that both were contrary to God's ideal of marriage.

You said people were made for monogamous marriage, but Jesus said those who can accept it should accept it.

They are. If they were not made for marriage than why did God create Eve for Adam?

I didn't mention Islam, I said Arabs. And many Arabs claim Abraham as their father thru Hagar and Ishmael - and God says he made a great nation from their marriage and offspring.

Only AFTER Muhammed. There's no record of them making this claim prior.

The Bible says Ishmael fathered 12 princes and became a great nation.

And one of them is the English! Another one of them are Norwegians. One of them is the French. Another one is the Russians. Then you have the Germans! Gosh, isn't genealogy fun? All of us are descended from Abraham!

Yes it is, Hagar was Abraham's wife too. Many of the patriarchs were polygamists, your interpretation requires us to believe the OT was wrong when it describes them as wives.

No, it's not, Berz. In order to be married in the Church, you would have to divorce your other wives and choose one.

[Ben Kenobi]

Where exactly is the condemning?

What happens to the Ammonites?

It tends to be the conservatives who advocate for it. The liberals tend to like things like NRSV or some versions of the NIV (even though the NIV was created with conservative evangelicals in mind)

So you're saying that my citation of the NIV, (which is used by conservative Evangelicals), is less viable among Conservatives than your liberal translation. I see. Fun game, Imran.

I'm intrigued to know that the Old Testament was written in Latin

I'm intrigued to know that the Old Testament was written in English. The Vulgate is much older and much closer to the date of composition than the English translation in the NIV. And the Vulgate has that passage that (oddly enough), the liberal New Living Translation omits. Curious that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Bible says Ishmael fathered 12 princes and became a great nation.

Indeed so:

And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of 12 rulers, and I will make them into a great nation.
—Genesis 17:20

What other great nation has arisen in that area of the world?

[Ben Kenobi]

What other great nation has arisen in that area of the world?

That's an argument from silence. If Arabs really were descended from Ishmael, why don't Arab Christians claim this prior to Muhammed?