Texan Bigotry

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

(ie, morality follows from practical reasons - also why not eating pork was enshrined)

[Nikolai]

Yes, but sin has a point. Without sin there is no free will, because everything you do would be fine. If incest is not sinful, then how does it make any sense that it leads to horrors like genetic abnormalities?

This is entirely speculation, as I don't know the answer since the Bible doesn't say anything on the matter. But my guess is as sin resulted in genetic mutations that were bad, the danger with close kin relationships became so severe God had to set down some stricter rules. I reiterate, this is entirely speculation on my part though.

[Nikolai]

I agree you ask a good question though, kentonio. Incest in some form must have occured in the early days post creation, if there isn't something back then we don't know that the Bible doesn't touch into. It's seen as a grave thing today, a sin if you like. When did that change? I believe I know why, but it does raise a lot of questions.

[kentonio]

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).

(ie, morality follows from practical reasons - also why not eating pork was enshrined)

Isn't the whole point of religion that there's a higher power who defines morality rather than it all being based on practical reasoning? You seem to have just given me the atheist explanation..

(No offense )

[Imran Siddiqui]

Isn't the whole point of religion that there's a higher power who defines morality rather than it all being based on practical reasoning? You seem to have just given me the atheist explanation..

(No offense )

Who says the entire thing is based on practical reasoning? Love your enemies seems not very practical.

Some rules based on practical reasons just seem to be a matter of good tending to the flock.

[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.