CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

In the bible it says that you shoud not marry your brother or sister! WEEeeelll.... >"< Adam and Eve had kids (of course) but the kids had to get married to somebody right? And the only somebodies were their siblings!!!! As i said before, it says in the bible you are not supposed to marry siblings!>.< Any comments on this? What do you think happened? What's your opinion? Tell me! >^^<

Anyone who wants to correct me if I'm wrong, please do, but I think by the time God declared it to be wrong, the world had already been populated by brothers and sisters marrying. I'd need to study the scriptures on the subject further to say anymore...

There's parts of the bible about fathers and daughters having children, too. I'm not sure about either.

Because in Adam and Eve's time God hadn't made it wrong yet. So, it wasn't wrong yet. God didn't make that rule until a long time later. And, the reason God made that rule was most likely for health reasons. Like, if you and your brother/sister had a kid, it would most likely have problems. But, Adam and Eve's sons and daughters were pretty much perfect. So, they didn't have those problems. Got it? Shall I go on?

sound 'bout right to me.

I don't think that law came around until the time of Moses. Additionally, I think the law is more for biological reasons. God doesn't make rules so that we can jump through hoops, he does it because he knows what is good for us. During the early years of humanity our genetics were probably pure enough that inbreeding wasn't much of a danger, and was in fact necessary to procreate (as gross as it may seem to us). As humans became more diverse a greater variety of genes became available and in order to assure healthy children we needed to marry outside the family.

I believe Sunako is referring to Lot and his daughters, who got their father drunk and bore him children.

eeeeew that's gross!

c.t.,girl wrote:eeeeew that's gross!

That's where the Moabites came from - a whole race from Lot and his daughters' incest. But you know what is neat? Ruth was a Moabite, and she was King David's great-grandmother, putting her in Christ's bloodine.

And CDLviking said what I've always been taught - in the beginning, the gene pool was very pure, and as it spread, God made laws according to what would be in our best interest.

CDLviking wrote:I believe Sunako is referring to Lot and his daughters, who got their father drunk and bore him children.

Indeed I was.

I have been wondering this all my life. I know its a dumb question, but did all of us that are here on earth in some way in Moses family tree?


Now, I will cover my face, so that I will not get hit for asking a dumb question.

There is nothing SINFUL about brother marring sister. After all aren't we all Brothers and Sisters in Christ?

The REASON why God later in the bible condemed this was because of Birth Defects.
Adam and Eve orignally were created perfect, with perfect Genes, but as the ages went by their sin degraded them. "from dust you came, to dust you'll go" and so each generation got worst and worst, until the defects came in.

As a MORAL issue, a brother and sister falling in love? I don't see what's so "EWWW OH MY GOSH!" about it.. I just hope they don't fall in love and have kids.

We are not all decedents of Moses, but there’s an excellent chance we are all decedents of Abraham. We are all related in some respect, though – through Abraham, Noah, and Adam.

Also, some scholars theorize that Adam may not be the only root of the human race. For example, Cain worries that as he wanders, some one may kill him for what he’s done so God puts a mark on his forehead as a warning. Who would kill him if he and his parents were the only humans? The answers seems to imply that either Adam and Eve had more children then we’re told about or there was another source for humans (not saying God wasn’t the source, just saying that all humans are not necessarily from Adam’s lineage). I’m not sure I buy all of this, but I thought I’d toss it out there for your enjoyment and consumption.

christiangirl wrote:In the bible it says that you shoud not marry your brother or sister! WEEeeelll.... >"< Adam and Eve had kids (of course) but the kids had to get married to somebody right? And the only somebodies were their siblings!!!! As i said before, it says in the bible you are not supposed to marry siblings!>.< Any comments on this? What do you think happened? What's your opinion? Tell me! >^^<

Generally, I would take much of Genesis to be mythological in character, rather than historical. The problem of siblings marrying, was a logical necessity given that Genesis (like many creation stories) starts with a single, original pair of human beings.

The reason it's a biological thing is because two related people can have the same genetic flaws. The genes don't supplement eachother hence creating birth defects. This wouldn't have been a problem in Genesis because of the perfect genetic structure Adam and Eve had.

Gypsy wrote: Ruth was a Moabite, and she was King David's great-grandmother, putting her in Christ's bloodine.

Just so ya know, know who else is in Christ's bloodline? That's right, Rahab the prostitute! Ya gotta love God's sense of humor (that's how I see it, anyway). Sweet, sweet irony...

Anyway, I think that the brother/sister thing is more for preventing birth defects, which as most people have said wasn't necessarily a problem for Adam and Eve, or even Noah's family for that matter.

And as an interesting tidbit, did you know that the chances of two blood-related cousins having a child with a birth defect is only 2% greater than two people who are not blood-related? Pretty weird, huh?

Also, some scholars theorize that Adam may not be the only root of the human race. For example, Cain worries that as he wanders, some one may kill him for what he’s done so God puts a mark on his forehead as a warning. Who would kill him if he and his parents were the only humans? The answers seems to imply that either Adam and Eve had more children then we’re told about or there was another source for humans (not saying God wasn’t the source, just saying that all humans are not necessarily from Adam’s lineage). I’m not sure I buy all of this, but I thought I’d toss it out there for your enjoyment and consumption.

Abel and Cain were Adam and Eve's first children, not their only children. They had plenty more. Cain was afraid of his brother's and sister's who would kill him for slaying his brother (who else would be more annoyed about his death than his own family)

Technomancer wrote:Generally, I would take much of Genesis to be mythological in character, rather than historical.

No hard feelings Technomancer, but by viewing that most Genesis is just a bunch of myth's strung together, your saying that it is possible that other stories in the bible are just myth's too (like the entire story of the Isrealites). Don't comprimise God's word. It has and always will lead to trouble.

Technomancer wrote:Generally, I would take much of Genesis to be mythological in character, rather than historical. The problem of siblings marrying, was a logical necessity given that Genesis (like many creation stories) starts with a single, original pair of human beings.

And not to mention that once you begin to call parts of God's world, mythilogical, you are putting yourself on extremly thin ice... You are then picking and choosing parts of the bible that you want to say are true, and parts of the bible you want to say are false... With this speculation, you could call christ's ressurection, merely a myth... and that is when Christianity is reverted to a mere "ianity."

Not that I agree with Technomancer but I think I can clarify his position.

By calling Genesis a creation myth ('myth' being a poor choice of term) he is not saying it is untrue and can be disregarded, he is saying that it is more along the lines of poetry - as many of the Psalms and some of the Prophets. He's changing the genre of Genesis not disregarding it, and when you change the genre you change the way it is read.

For example, when the Bible says "The trees of the field will clap their hands" that isn't a literal truth, nor is it a lie, it is giving a lesson, using imagery to portray spiritual truth - the sovereignty of God, the expectation of creation for God's salvation - expectation and praise being the right attitudes to have.

Like I said, it's not that I agree with Technomancer's saying Genesis is not literally true, I just think his comments have been misrepresented.

Tech's biggest problems start when he has to reconcile New Testament use of Genesis passages as truth, especially as the writers start to base further truth and theology on those points.

But that's off topic.

G.

Some OEC's believe that there existed men before the time of Adam and Eve. Therefore, no worries re: inbreeding. I hold CDL's proposal, though I am not sure how a species can become so diversified through the union of only two people. Then again, almost all dog breeds descended from the wolf, so I guess it's not that much of a stretch.

Evolutionists of all varieties discard that story altogether, so no concerns there.

As for the Law of Moses, keep in mind that for the most part a great deal of those laws apply to Jews and Jews alone. The proscription of incest is one of them. Though, in a modern context, many of those laws make sense and are useful in application for all people.

We are not all decedents of Moses, but there’s an excellent chance we are all decedents of Abraham.

Wha? That sounds kind of weird to me. Abraham was the father of a nation, not the world… It would be more likely that we would all be related to Moses, who was one of the few survivors of the flood. Though every one related to Abraham could likely be related to Moses, not every one related to Moses would necessarily be related to Abraham…

I always got a kick out of how Cain goes over the hill to some other land, and starts a city with his wife… Where the heck did this lady come from!? (we know it was likely a sibling, but we never hear about any of Abel or Cains Siblings until this part. I wonder what those bone heads were doing all this time?) You figure man was able to live for a long time in the beginning, but they still had to wait 9 months to have kids right? How many kids could they have had in the time it took Cain and Abel to grow up? (which couldn’t have been that long…).

Anyway, the standard for a city must have been pretty small back then... eh?

-kaji

Peanut, Linksquest, and Galant, allow me to respond to all three of you together since you all adress the same point. I do not wish to turn this thread into a theological discussion, so PM me if you wish to respond.

Regarding Genesis as mostly mythological does not mean that one must also deny the truth contained in the books. The Catholic Church, to which both myself and Technomancer belong, leaves its members free to decide for themselves whether to regard it as literal history. What we must believe is that all the theological truths presented in Genesis are in fact true (ie. man's creation in God's image, original parents and their original sin, all the world is God's creation)

The term myth is not inappropriate either, indeed even C.S. Lewis, one of the greatest Christian writers of the past century, refers to the "Christian Myth." By calling it a myth, he does not question the veracity of God's word, but whether or not it was an actual historical event. Things like the Israelites are easily shown not to be mythological through secular archeology, leaving no reason to question it.

kaji wrote:Wha? That sounds kind of weird to me. Abraham was the father of a nation, not the world… It would be more likely that we would all be related to Moses, who was one of the few survivors of the flood. Though every one related to Abraham could likely be related to Moses, not every one related to Moses would necessarily be related to Abraham…

I think you're confusing Moses with Noah.

EDIT: I know this is a double post, but I didn't think it belonged in my other one.

Galant wrote:By calling Genesis a creation myth ('myth' being a poor choice of term) he is not saying it is untrue and can be disregarded, he is saying that it is more along the lines of poetry - as many of the Psalms and some of the Prophets. He's changing the genre of Genesis not disregarding it, and when you change the genre you change the way it is read.

That's more or less it. Unfortunately, in common parlance, myth (and I do think it is the right word), has come to mean an invented story, or something that is not true. This misses something important about myths, Judeo-Christian or otherwise. The importance of myth is not determined by any standard of literal truth: instead their importance is in what they tell us about ourselves and how we interpret the world on a personal and a communal level. In this manner Genesis should be regarded as describing Man's place in the world, and his relationship to God and His creation. Using Northtrop Frye's words, it is more a mirror on ourselves than a window on the world.

Of course, this is a common position among Christians and Jews of all varieties, and not just Catholics.

In any case, it's doubtful that the ancient Hebrews would have practiced incest in any common fashion. The taboo against incest is nearly universal among human cultures, including those separated from the Hebrews by many millenia, so it obviously predates Moses. One should take the OT prohibitions as giving divine reinforcement of already well established customs.

Those who wish to discuss my position in greater detail may of course PM me.

Zelda27 wrote:Because in Adam and Eve's time God hadn't made it wrong yet. So, it wasn't wrong yet. God didn't make that rule until a long time later. And, the reason God made that rule was most likely for health reasons. Like, if you and your brother/sister had a kid, it would most likely have problems. But, Adam and Eve's sons and daughters were pretty much perfect. So, they didn't have those problems. Got it? Shall I go on?

Agreed, Back then humans didnt have the impurities in thier blood as they do now. I believe God allowed it to happen since thier were no others to marry.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! You either belive in the whole bible, or none of it at all.

Careful, folks -- please don't turn this into another "how much of the Bible to believe" thread, or this is going to shoot downhill quick.

Yes. Please.

But, there is historical evedence to prove that stuff from both the new and the old testament happened. So, if you're not going to believe in one half, what's the point in believing the other half?

You're still asking the same question. Let's get back to the original topic, please.

Okay, yeah. Though, that's already been answered. And, there's not much more to add to it.