The Problem of Incest
In Genesis the creation of Adam and Eve the first two humans is described, it says Eve is "the mother of all the living" Gen 3:20 (NIV) (i.e. All humans are descended from Eve). Now we come to the first problem in Gen 4:17 it describes Cain (Adam and Eves son) having intercourse with his wife, the only explanation for the sudden appearance of Cain's wife is that she is one of his sisters (or Eve). Even if this passage were not in the Bible the only possible way to populate the Earth with just two people is if someone has incest and intercourse with another member of the family (because there is only one family). Now if we skip a few chapters to Leviticus 18:6-21 God clearly forbids the act of incest "No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. Lev 20:11-12 describes one of the punishments for committing incest as death and also describes it as "a perversion". Lev 20:17 forbids incest between brother and sister saying -"it is a disgrace."
This could be explained by saying that incest was allowed because all humans were 'pure'. This however is not true, if you look at it from a biological view point even if both the mother and farther are 'pure' it doesn't mean their offspring will be 'pure' because there is always a small chance of genetic mutation occurring. If you look at being 'pure' from a spiritual view point then again it is not true, in fact the first humans in the bible were committing sins and were just as impure then as humans are today. For example Adam and Eve commit the first sin by eating the apple in Gen 3:6, Cain murders his Brother in Gen 4:8 and as described above there must have been a lot of incest happening. So the argument that incest would have been allowed because humans were pure does not stand up.
Another possible explanation that again does not stand up is that Incest was allowed because God had not yet forbidden it. Even if God had not told humans that incest was wrong and sinful, God must still have held the view that it was wrong, yet God did not punish anyone, but we see an example of God punishing some one for sinning even before God has communicated that it is a sin in Gen 4:11 were Cain is punished for the murder of his brother. In Gen 4:8 Cain breaks the 5th commandment ("You shall not murder") (Ex 20:13) but God has not yet given this commandment but still punishes Cain. So it seems that God is inconsistent when it comes to punishing people.
There is a simple and logical way God could have populated the Earth while completely avoiding the problem of incest. If several humans had been created from the ground instead of just two then there would have been no need for incest to occur as there would be no need to have intercourse with a family member, now you would think that this solution would have occurred to an all-knowing God wouldn't you.
This could be explained by saying that incest was allowed because all humans were 'pure'. This however is not true, if you look at it from a biological view point even if both the mother and farther are 'pure' it doesn't mean their offspring will be 'pure' because there is always a small chance of genetic mutation occurring. If you look at being 'pure' from a spiritual view point then again it is not true, in fact the first humans in the bible were committing sins and were just as impure then as humans are today. For example Adam and Eve commit the first sin by eating the apple in Gen 3:6, Cain murders his Brother in Gen 4:8 and as described above there must have been a lot of incest happening. So the argument that incest would have been allowed because humans were pure does not stand up.
Another possible explanation that again does not stand up is that Incest was allowed because God had not yet forbidden it. Even if God had not told humans that incest was wrong and sinful, God must still have held the view that it was wrong, yet God did not punish anyone, but we see an example of God punishing some one for sinning even before God has communicated that it is a sin in Gen 4:11 were Cain is punished for the murder of his brother. In Gen 4:8 Cain breaks the 5th commandment ("You shall not murder") (Ex 20:13) but God has not yet given this commandment but still punishes Cain. So it seems that God is inconsistent when it comes to punishing people.
There is a simple and logical way God could have populated the Earth while completely avoiding the problem of incest. If several humans had been created from the ground instead of just two then there would have been no need for incest to occur as there would be no need to have intercourse with a family member, now you would think that this solution would have occurred to an all-knowing God wouldn't you.
posted by David at 11:26 am
8 Comments:
I agree that the bible has some obvious problems in that it seems to say that the entire human race has been inbred almost from the start (and after the flood, every single land animal inbred, as well as some moderate inbreeding among humans). However, I have heard that later on, God created some more humans, who provided wives for Cain and/or Abel. The reason the creation of the extra people was not discussed much was because the old testament was only a history of the Hebrew people, and not of anyone else.
Of course, the assertion that God went about and created people and stuff without it being recorded in the bible casts doubt on the completeness of the bible as a guide to life.
I am an atheist myself, but these statements are simply ridiculous. I assume you come from a Protestant family with your strict interpretations. The Bible was never meant to portray historical truth as much as theological truth. The writers of the Bible were implying that God created all humans, and they put it in a context the Hebrew people could understand easily. If a person were to interpret the entire Bible as literal, he should be considered a fool at best.
And by the way, the book of Genesis was written after the book of Exodus.
I am also an atheist but I disagree, like the first person said there would have to have been insest after the flood happened as it would be the only way to re-populate the earth. There are also many other accounts of insest happening which are not as easy to explain and which there is less room for debate over possible interpretations such as Lot and his daughters
And actually the Bible was originally meant to portray historical truth especially the first few books.
There have been many disagreements in the past over the interpretation of the creation story such as the the time span not being six days. All I can say is, if the Bible truly was the word of God then you would think that it would be written in such a way that left no room for any false interpretations.
Well, I am late to this discussion, but I ran across your blog and liked the topic(s). So in the interest of full disclosure I am a Christian both professing and practicing.
Now to the issue you of incest in the bible. The term incest was a result of the mosaic law. Prior to that dispensation God had not declared that near relatives were forbidden to marry or have children. Is this a contradiction of biblical standards? No.
When Adam and Eve were first created there was no sin present in their lives. Then satan arrives on the scene in the form of a serpent and tempts Eve. Eve chose to sin even though the consequences had already been explained and that brought a shamfulness (they covered themselves for the first time with fig leaves)that had not previously been present.
However; God still had to either act in a seperate creation of additional people or allow intermarrying for the sake of procreation until the time that he gave the mosaic law.
So God allowed it for a period of time, but it would have never have been viewed as wrong if Adam and Eve had not initially broken God's
covenantal relationship with him.
Anonymous 2 said that: "The Bible was never meant to portray historical truth as much as theological truth". In that case why do so many people dedicate their whole lives to something that is barely in touch with historical facts. It seems very ignorant of so many people to follow this book of mere theory and propoganda which has been re-written on numerous Occasions. It is simply a written version of the game 'Chinese Whispers' and to base your beliefs on something so sketchy is absolutely ridiculous . (I also think that anonymous 2 sounds a bit of a *@#! for automatically assuming that the writer of the article at hand is from a Protestant family as this is a very vague ASSumption to make.)
Have you forgotten about the Mary the mother of Jesus. She was a virgin, but she still got made her pregnant. So he easily could have done the same for others. We have the ability now. We can take a womans egg and take a mans sperm and make a baby without the man ever entering the woman. So anyone thinking God can't make a woman pregnant while staying a virgin is ridiculous.
Just because God changes the rules, doesn't make the bible inconsistent. To have your sins forgiven a Jew had to sacrifice a bird, a ram, a lamb, or whatever, then he provided Jesus his son as the perfect sacrifice to pay for their sins past, present, and future provided they would except him as their savior. God also changed the rule of who could be his people. Initially it only included the Jews. After Jesus died and rose again, any one who believed and accepted Jesus as their savior could be a child of God.
Also why would one say that God didn't create any other additional people prior to or after he created Adam and Eve. The bible doesn't say they were the first people or the only people he created. It's just an asumption because that is what we are told. Also the bible talks of angles taking the form of a human and having sex with women and making them pregnant. So who's to say that didn't happen. What about scientists say people have been around longer then Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were the first people that were Gods people. People say creationism and evolution can't exist. They are wrong. They haven't given it much thought. For example: A farmer takes some seed and plants wheat. The seed takes the nutrients and the moisture from the ground and sprouts up out of the ground. Then the rain and sun help it grow in to a tall stalk and eventually he harvests the wheat. He grinds the wheat in to flour. He mixes the flour with some milk, egg, and baking powder. He pours it in a pan and cooks it. Now he has pancakes. So the seed combined with some other things evolved in to a pancake that the farmer created. Nothing can be altered or evolve without adding something to it or taking something away from it. All you have to do is look at the technology we have today and what we can do, and how far we've come in the past 100 years to see just how possible it is for God to accomplish all that he had and does. Robots and their abilities to make decisions, there mobility, what they are made of is evolving by our creation process. We are now at the point where we are developing them to make desicions and have emotions like a human does. We are a long way off at accomplishing that, but eventually we will likely get there, and they will have evolved from being a machiene to being like us, but without a spirit.
Pancake man, you don't seem to have grasped the concept of evolution. taking a load of unrelated items and then making a pancake isn't evolution. It's called cooking. Evolution is when you have some wheat for example, and because of the effects of it's external environment lets say there’s a virus that kills wheat, the wheat will evolve over a few generations to become resistant to the virus.
Doesn't mean the wheat suddenly turns into a pancake
Creationism is a Lie
Post a Comment
<< Home