NationStates Jolt Archive

I'll admit it, I'm not too knowledgeable about the Bible, I really should read it... all sometime.

But for now, my question:

What does the Bible have to say about incest?

That said, if the Bible views incest as wrong/immoral then how does it explain the propagation of the human species through Adam and Eve?

No matter how you slice it, eventually, there is going to be some family lovin' going on. But as I said, I haven't really read the Bible so I don't know if God created more people or what.

Just looking for an answer on this one.

It says, "And Cain knew his wife" but it doesn't say where she came from, she just came out of nowhere.

Also Abel had children before he died.

It says, "And Cain knew his wife" but it doesn't say where she came from, she just came out of nowhere.

Also Abel had children before he died.
And Eve was cloned from Adams rib. And they had kids. Though technicly I believe that would be considerd masturbation.

And Eve was cloned from Adams rib. And they had kids. Though technical I believe that would be considerd masturbation.

Not unless twins having sex is masturbation. :p It's true a clone would the DNA, but otherwise they are separate creatures.

Anyhow. I've never read the entire Bible, so I can't really help you. I'm pretty sure incest is frowned upon (though don't quote me on that), but I can't really see how it could have been completely avoided.

According to the Medieval Jewish sage Rashi:

http://www.askmoses.com/qa_detail.html?h=173&o=43869

Cain and Abel were both born with twin sisters.
King David writes (Psalms 89:3), "The world was built with kindness." Our sages interpreted this to mean that G-d kindly allowed Cain to wed his sister in order for humankind to be founded.

Gotta love the Talmud. Those guys can "expand" on the Bible like nobody's business.

Not unless twins having sex is masturbation. :p It's true a clone would the DNA, but otherwise they are separate creatures.

Anyhow. I've never read the entire Bible, so I can't really help you. I'm pretty sure incest is frowned upon (though don't quote me on that), but I can't really see how it could have been completely avoided.
if she was a clone of him....why was she a she? :confused:
and if she wasn't a clone, how was she made from his rib? (stupid question I know- it's hard to argue with "Shut up and eat your fries")

According to the Bible and the Story of Noah... Noah's daughters got him drunk with wine and had sex with him with the intent of becoming impregnated by their father, in order that his "seed" may live on. In other words, if God's going to smack down every man, woman, and child on Earth and drown them all in a horrible flood, it's okay to have sex with your Dad to repopulate the Earth.

*As a side note, if you're Muslim and follow the teachings of Mohammad the Prophet, it's encouraged that a father 'deflower' the daughter before she leaves the home, but it must be done at a very early age so she may not accidently become pregnant by her father. The Prophet Mohammad also says it's okay to have sex with children and animals.


...

According to the Bible and the Story of Noah... Noah's daughters got him drunk with wine and had sex with him with the intent of becoming impregnated by their father, in order that his "seed" may live on. In other words, if God's going to smack down every man, woman, and child on Earth and drown them all in a horrible flood, it's okay to have sex with your Dad to repopulate the Earth.

First, that was Lot, not Noah. And it was after Sodom and Gomorrah. Second, God cursed the sisters for their incestual activity, and as a result their descendants were "evil" and eventually ordered killed by God by the Israelites.

First, that was Lot, not Noah. And it was after Sodom and Gomorrah. Second, God cursed the sisters for their incestual activity, and as a result their descendants were "evil" and eventually ordered killed by God by the Israelites.

Whoops... darnit.. you're right. It was Lot and his daughters, my bad. After the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, they hid out in a cave. Their mother had been turned to a pillar of salt, and believing they were all that was left of the people in the world, they plied their father with wine and both daughters became pregnant. Let's see... the two daughters bear Moab, the father of the Moabites, and Benammi, the father of the Ammonites. I don't remember them being cursed or anything though.

Whoops... darnit.. you're right. It was Lot and his daughters, my bad. After the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, they hid out in a cave. Their mother had been turned to a pillar of salt, and believing they were all that was left of the people in the world, they plied their father with wine and both daughters became pregnant. Let's see... the two daughters bear Moab, the father of the Moabites, and Benammi, the father of the Ammonites. I don't remember them being cursed or anything though.

Yep. The Moabites and Ammonites are considered cursed by God for their mother's sin, and that's a main reason why the Israelites are later ordered by God to destroy them.

Leviticus says you shall not lie with close kin, but that begs the question of what "close kin" means.

The Book of Tobit tells the story of Tobiah and the Archangel Raphael. Tobiah seeks out the home of his kinsman Raguel, a friend of his father Tobit, so that he may marry Raguel's daughter Sarah. Raguel gives Sarah to Tobiah, saying, "She is yours according to the decree of the Book of Moses. Your marriage to her has been decided in heaven! Take your kinswoman; from now on you are her love, and she is your beloved." Again, however, exaclty what familial relationship between Tobiah and Sarah is never quite defined, but it is said that Tobiah is Sarah's closest relative.

So basically, I dunno. :rolleyes:

Also the fact that Tobit is in the Apocrypha, meaning it's not considered part of the actual Jewish canon.

According to the Bible and the Story of Noah... Noah's daughters got him drunk with wine and had sex with him with the intent of becoming impregnated by their father, in order that his "seed" may live on. In other words, if God's going to smack down every man, woman, and child on Earth and drown them all in a horrible flood, it's okay to have sex with your Dad to repopulate the Earth.

*As a side note, if you're Muslim and follow the teachings of Mohammad the Prophet, it's encouraged that a father 'deflower' the daughter before she leaves the home, but it must be done at a very early age so she may not accidently become pregnant by her father. The Prophet Mohammad also says it's okay to have sex with children and animals.


...

As has been said... the story you were looking for was Lot... but there was incest in the Noah story too.

1) There was no-one left apart from Noah's family... him, three sons and their respective wives. In order to make 6 billion people of today, there must have been some intimacy along familial lines.

2) There is strong speculation that Noah and Ham had an incestuous liaison (as shown in Genesis 9:21-22) - since "uncovering nakedness", in biblical terms, is description of 'improper behaviour'.

You all missed some important sequence of events.

The law dealing with incest (listed in Levitcus) does not come out until Moses' time, well after even Noah's time.

Logically, if the creation story is to be believed, Adam and Eve, the only two people because man was a created race, and their children had to have had incestous relationships.

Let's start with a few assumptions:

Adam and Eve were the only 2 humans initially.
Adam and Eve were created perfect and had only the flaw intoduced by the apple into them.
Humans down through even Moses' time were recorded to have live in exxcess of 500 years, even as much as almsot a 1000.

Given that the initial bodies were near perfect, it is reasonable that a female could withstand a myriad of births.
Since they were also near perfect, the risk of genetic anomolies will non-exsistant.
Thus it is logical to assume that initially and after the flood incest was used to populate the world.

As for Cain, I really doubt that Cain, Able and Seth were the only 3 children that Adam and Eve had. They were merely the ones of note.
When you do the math (Eve able to bear children immediately, each subsequent girl child at 14), assume Eve lived to be 500 and birth a child once a year till 400, she had the potential alone of say at least 250 girls (if you even the numbers out. that doesn't even figure in twins and other multi births). 14 years after her first girl is born, she starts adding to the population..... you can see how the population would start to grow exponentially for a while. Thus logically explained why there was a cilivized village for Cain to have obtained his wife.

At least Noah and his family had 4 couples that could produce children. Incest may not have been needed, but was still not against God's law.

Even when the law came down, it was only parent/child, siblings, aunt(uncle)/nephew(niece). It was never cousins. Jacob(?) married both of his cousins. I think this was before the Law as well since in Leviticus there is also mention of not "knowing" sisters.

You all missed some important sequence of events.

The law dealing with incest (listed in Levitcus) does not come out until Moses' time, well after even Noah's time.

Logically, if the creation story is to be believed, Adam and Eve, the only two people because man was a created race, and their children had to have had incestous relationships.

Let's start with a few assumptions:

Adam and Eve were the only 2 humans initially.
Adam and Eve were created perfect and had only the flaw intoduced by the apple into them.
Humans down through even Moses' time were recorded to have live in exxcess of 500 years, even as much as almsot a 1000.

Given that the initial bodies were near perfect, it is reasonable that a female could withstand a myriad of births.
Since they were also near perfect, the risk of genetic anomolies will non-exsistant.
Thus it is logical to assume that initially and after the flood incest was used to populate the world.

As for Cain, I really doubt that Cain, Able and Seth were the only 3 children that Adam and Eve had. They were merely the ones of note.
When you do the math (Eve able to bear children immediately, each subsequent girl child at 14), assume Eve lived to be 500 and birth a child once a year till 400, she had the potential alone of say at least 250 girls (if you even the numbers out. that doesn't even figure in twins and other multi births). 14 years after her first girl is born, she starts adding to the population..... you can see how the population would start to grow exponentially for a while. Thus logically explained why there was a cilivized village for Cain to have obtained his wife.

At least Noah and his family had 4 couples that could produce children. Incest may not have been needed, but was still not against God's law.

Even when the law came down, it was only parent/child, siblings, aunt(uncle)/nephew(niece). It was never cousins. Jacob(?) married both of his cousins. I think this was before the Law as well since in Leviticus there is also mention of not "knowing" sisters.

1) Being 'near-perfect' in no way guarantees that a woman could continue popping out young every year for four centuries. Diet, stress, workload and many other factors could adversely affect the childbirth rate, and more than a handful of children would have put undue stress on muscles like the heart, and, perhaps more importantly, those of the spine and or pelvis.

2) Being 'near-perfect' has nothing to due with mutation... mutations caused by background radiation (for example) are not going to be particularly affected by the 'perfect-ness' of the cells.

3) Humans is Moses' time were recorded to live to 1000 years ONLY in the bible... other contemporary histories rubbish the idea, and with good reason - there is no actual evidence of any kind to suggest anyone ever lived for 1000 years. In fact, looking at the harshness of life that these 'progenitors' likely lived, it is very unlikely any of them saw 40.

4) Finally... although you hear the story, and read the book - you don't really see how offensive, phallocentric and ridiculous the whole thing is until someone puts it in synopsis form...

Yep. The Moabites and Ammonites are considered cursed by God for their mother's sin, and that's a main reason why the Israelites are later ordered by God to destroy them.

I really, really, really hate to tell you this, but Ruth was a Moabite and her grandson was King David, of whose line the Messiah is to come.

What you're saying here is that Jesus, a son of David, is of a cursed bloodline. Doesn't make much sense if you hold Jesus to be the Messiah.

My big question on this sort of line is why Jesus was male. He was supposedly born of a Spirit and a human female ....

so where did Jesus get the Y chromosome?!?

I really, really, really hate to tell you this, but Ruth was a Moabite and her grandson was King David, of whose line the Messiah is to come.

What you're saying here is that Jesus, a son of David, is of a cursed bloodline. Doesn't make much sense if you hold Jesus to be the Messiah.

My big question on this sort of line is why Jesus was male. He was supposedly born of a Spirit and a human female ....

so where did Jesus get the Y chromosome?!?

On the subject of Cursed... Deuteronomy 21:23 says that any "is hanged is accursed of God" - so the poor guy was cursed two ways....

I can't believe you're going to let a little thing like impossible genetics get in the way of a perfectly good story. Obviously he had two X chromosomes.... so... obviously... he was a... girl....

Hmmm, I wonder why they don't teach that in Sunday Schools.

Can you wankers please stop debating shit that you know anything about? I'm sick of some fucking moron pasting out of context Bible quote, mis-interperating it and then laughing like a no-it-all idiot. Then a Christian inevitibly comes and corrects your stupidity but you go on thinking the same thing anyway.

If you want to know what the Bible thinks about incest or other perversion, ask a priest. If you aren't interested in the religion, aren't religious or just want to act all high and mighty, I suggest you don't debate it and fuck off! Everytime I go to check on my nation I see some stupid thread in the side bar that say's something like, "OMG RELIGION IS STUPID" (If not, it may as well be called that).

In this case I can tell you that 'yes' incest is wrong.

EDIT: By the way, the scholarship needed to properly understand a Bible passage is way beyond most of you.

When you read one think about:

Context
How it translates from Greek or Hebrew
What section is it written in
Who wrote it
Have an understanding of history, law, culture etc.
Know the basic tenets of the Christian (or whatever faith you're showing your ignorance about)
Not assume all Christians are narrow minded, Bible bashing, fundamentalist idiots.
Not read angsty Atheist hate sites for the answer (They don't know shit either)

There are more but you get the idea.

In this case I can tell you that 'yes' incest is wrong.

People shouldn't need any book to know that.

I believe that incest came in way after adam and eve's family had split up to different parts of the world and god knew that incest wouldnt be a problem anymore...

People shouldn't need any book to know that.

No shit but it's a sick world.

I believe that incest came in way after adam and eve's family had split up to different parts of the world and god knew that incest wouldnt be a problem anymore...


I hope you didn't post this after reading my post.

Yes, according to the book of Leviticus chapter 18 states that Incest, Eating of Blood, adultery, beastiality, homosexual sex (but we can look past that) are all forbidden.

Is this an issue you recieved and you're a fundamentalist nation?

EDIT: By the way, the scholarship needed to properly understand a Bible passage is way beyond most of you.


Actually, I have Doctorates in Divinity and Theology and am an ordained Rabbi - though I broke away from Judaism a few years ago, the knowledge is still there.

The "New" Testament I find to be odd and I have never studied it and every time I see any attempt to explain Torah in English, well, I just :headbang: and walk away.

what about Paedophilia? In the bible jesus mother was Mary? And she gave birth to jesus who is the son of god?
Damn, MAry was what 20 and God was as old as the universe. (seems like a paedophile to me!)

Can you wankers please stop debating shit that you know anything about? I'm sick of some fucking moron pasting out of context Bible quote, mis-interperating it and then laughing like a no-it-all idiot. Then a Christian inevitibly comes and corrects your stupidity but you go on thinking the same thing anyway.

If you want to know what the Bible thinks about incest or other perversion, ask a priest. If you aren't interested in the religion, aren't religious or just want to act all high and mighty, I suggest you don't debate it and fuck off! Everytime I go to check on my nation I see some stupid thread in the side bar that say's something like, "OMG RELIGION IS STUPID" (If not, it may as well be called that).

In this case I can tell you that 'yes' incest is wrong.

EDIT: By the way, the scholarship needed to properly understand a Bible passage is way beyond most of you.

When you read one think about:

Context
How it translates from Greek or Hebrew
What section is it written in
Who wrote it
Have an understanding of history, law, culture etc.
Know the basic tenets of the Christian (or whatever faith you're showing your ignorance about)
Not assume all Christians are narrow minded, Bible bashing, fundamentalist idiots.
Not read angsty Atheist hate sites for the answer (They don't know shit either)

There are more but you get the idea.

Well! How can I argue with such an eloquent and reasoned response? Let me count the ways....

1) Those of us you term 'wankers', who "know nothing" are, for all you know, very well educated... especially in the fields of theology and philosophy. Perhaps you don't agree with some of the ideas that are put forth, but then, perhaps it is you that is wrong.

2) I like your reference to 'mis-interpreting' the bible, and I loved the "no-it-all" (sic) reference... and you have read the Old Testament in the original Hebrew, in order to better understand the text??? Read the New Testament in Greek / Aramaic??? Read the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha?
If you haven't... I'd say your responses are due to delusions-of-grandeur.

3) Perhaps we DO know it all.

4) If people here weren't at least INTERESTED in religion they wouldn't debate it. Nobody forces you to read the thread... similarly, nobody had claimed to be 'high and mighty', or (at least, so far, in this thread) sunk to the abusive depths you just plumbed.

5) If incest is wrong (I agree that it is, by the way) then why are all humans born from it, according to Genesis?

6) You are unfortunately reinforcing the image of Christians with your volatile vitriol.

7) I didn't even know there WERE "angsty atheist hate sites"... I'm not sure I even know what one is... do you have a www you can recommend?

Thankyou for listening. have a Nice Day.

I really, really, really hate to tell you this, but Ruth was a Moabite and her grandson was King David, of whose line the Messiah is to come.

Well, since I see that you're an ordained rabbi, I've edited my post a bit.

First, I need to apologize (sort of). I think I got a little confused and combined a few different things together. It's true that the Moabites and Ammonites become enemies of Israel, and that they are cursed by God. However, I think I may have been mistaken in saying they are cursed because of Lot's incest. Rather, it seems to be that their "evil" (or hostile) natures are related to the incest, and then through hostile actions against the Israelites, they become cursed (book of Numbers), then eventually destroyed by David.

My impression is that the following reasons are given for Ruth's "exemption":

A- Ruth was a good person (the Moabites are sometimes characterized as having been of poor moral character).

B- Ruth converted to Judaism.

This seems to have nullified any possible "curse".

What you're saying here is that Jesus, a son of David, is of a cursed bloodline. Doesn't make much sense if you hold Jesus to be the Messiah.

Well, as you know, it's generally kind of fruitless to try and judge Jewish doctrine through the prism of "how it affects Jesus"- because he's completely irrelevant in Judaism. ;) Furthermore, the degree to which Jesus could even be considered a "son of David" is itself a contestable issue.

All that aside, as I said before, Ruth's status from Moabite (enemy nation of Israel) changed after her conversion, when she was considered as Jewish as anyone else.

Edit: I did find a few sites (all Christian) which attributed the decline of the Moabites and Ammonites to Lot's incest. But none of it seemed to have any actual explicit scriptural source behind it. It could be that the incest was "cursing" them from the beginning- but that seems to be reading more into than what's actually on the page.

I found two different explanations for why Ruth is exempt from the Moabite curse (ironically enough, from the same website. How Jewish!)

http://www.torah.org/learning/yomtov/shavuos/vol2no12.html

As Rus was from the nation of Moav, how could it happen that not only was she permitted to convert, but she also married one of the most respected, distinguished, and wisest men of her generation, Boaz ?

The answer lies in the verse cited above. The verse says that a "Moavi," a male Moavite, can enter into the nation of Israel. However, the verse does not say that a "Moavis," a female Moavite, can not enter into the nation of Israel. Boaz understood that the law was a female Moavite was indeed allowed to convert, and therefore Rus' conversion and marriage to a Jew presented no problems. This Halachik ruling about the status of a female Moavis, however, was not widely known amongst the nation of Israel. Many thought that no person, male or female, from the nation of Moav was allowed to convert to Judaism. This understanding of the law not only presented problems in the time of Rus, but also in the time of King David, Rus' great-grandson. In the time immediately proceeding the crowning of David as king and right afterwards, there were those who began to publicly raise doubts as to whether David was of proper, "kosher," lineage, because of his great-grandmother Rus.

...When Boaz married Rus, there were those that were amazed - the Torah says that a Moavite cannot enter the nation of Israel! Boaz, a leader of the generation, is blatantly violating a law of the Torah! When we read the Megilla, we could ask the same questions, and add to them: How could Moshiach, who will come to redeem the entire nation of Israel, come from such blemished lineage, from a union prohibited by the Torah? The answer is that there are two components of the Torah that was given to us on Sinai by G-d: The Written Torah, and the Oral Torah. It is true that the Written Torah seems to say that Rus' conversion and marriage was forbidden. However, the Oral Torah clarifies the issue for us. It lets us know that the verse only forbade male Moavites from converting.

I'm assuming that since Moabite women are considered marriageable that this would imply that they are not "cursed" as the men are? :confused:

http://www.torah.org/learning/yomtov/shavuos/vol2no13.html

When Boaz met Ruth, he explained to her why he was dealing with her in such a kindly fashion (2:11). He said "It has been told to me all that you have done for your mother-in-law...and that you left your mother and father and your birthplace and you went to a nation that you did not know." The Targum explains that Boaz was also telling Ruth through prophecy that she would merit having the kingship of Israel descend from her on account of these two deeds. The Targum states that Boaz mentioned the deeds in this specific order: First, that she supported her mother-in-law; Second, that she left her idols and parents and converted to a nation she did not know. From the words of the Targum and the order in which these deeds were listed, there seems to be an implication that the first act, the support of Na'omi, is at least equally responsible for Ruth meriting her great reward.

A question that arises upon reading this is how Boaz could equate these two actions. One action was an incredible act of self-sacrifice. Ruth, our Sages tell us, was the daughter of the king of Moav. Ruth, after the death of her husband, did not return to the comfort of the palace life in which she was raised. Instead, she decided to convert and become part of the Jewish nation! Ruth went from being a princess in a royal court to becoming a pauper, destitute, and dependent upon charity for her very sustenance. The other action of Ruth was an ordinary kindness. It was a daughter-in-law helping her elderly mother-in-law. What was so special about this everyday act that because of it, Ruth would merit to be the mother of Jewish royalty, and even more outstanding, that the act was placed on the same plane as Ruth's extraordinary self-sacrifice in her decision to convert?

The answer is that Boaz is teaching us that even the smallest and seemingly most mundane act, if done with the proper intentions, can be elevated to an act of great self-sacrifice. Ruth, by performing the act of kindness with a pure heart and with every fiber of her being in a desire to do the will of Hashem, raised her small act of kindness above everyone else's similar acts of kindness. Because of this act of kindness, she merited having the monarchy of Israel descend from her.

So, one explanation is that Ruth wasn't "cursed" (and therefore, marriageable) because she was a woman. The second is that she wasn't cursed because she was herself a good person and converted to Judaism, which is sort of like what I said earlier (which, to be honest, was really more of a guess than anything else).

I will admit this all seems sort of confusing. I'm not sure I buy the explanations given on torah.org

Your thoughts?

if she was a clone of him....why was she a she?

Genetic manipulation possibly, which wouldn't seem too difficult for God who had just created the universe from nothing.

Again, however, exaclty what familial relationship between Tobiah and Sarah is never quite defined, but it is said that Tobiah is Sarah's closest relative.

Not only is this from the Apocrypha (as noted by QahJoh), but a superlative isn't necessarily in the same class as a "regular" modifier. For example, if someone was going through a stack of books, he (or she) might find that the longest was 30 pages, but most people would hardly consider such a book "long". Thus, the "closest" relative isn't necessarily a "close" relative.

2) There is strong speculation that Noah and Ham had an incestuous liaison (as shown in Genesis 9:21-22) - since "uncovering nakedness", in biblical terms, is description of 'improper behaviour'. [emphasis added]
There are so many things wrong with this statement that is hard to know where to begin. First, you seem to imply Ham uncovered Noah, while most translations make it clear that he was already naked when Ham entered the tent and a few explicitly state that Noah undressed himself (since he was in his tent and had just gotten drunk off the first wine he probably had in awhile, one can hardly say that he did so for sexual provocation). Second, the behavior of Ham in the passage is sharply contrasted with that of his brothers in the next verse. His telling them of their father's nudity and drunkenness was probably an attempt to humiliate his father and get them to question Noah's judgment and it was for this that Noah cursed him.

1) Being 'near-perfect' in no way guarantees that a woman could continue popping out young every year for four centuries.

Strawman, since he said "myriad", which is no way identical to "every year for four centuries.

2) Being 'near-perfect' has nothing to due with mutation... mutations caused by background radiation (for example) are not going to be particularly affected by the 'perfect-ness' of the cells.

There would still be a lot fewer mutations if we included only those from such things as background radiation. And if there were a lot less background radiation, then there would be even fewer mutations yet again.

3) Humans is Moses' time were recorded to live to 1000 years ONLY in the bible... other contemporary histories rubbish the idea, and with good reason - there is no actual evidence of any kind to suggest anyone ever lived for 1000 years. In fact, looking at the harshness of life that these 'progenitors' likely lived, it is very unlikely any of them saw 40.

By the time of Moses, there is no one who is recorded as living 1000 years in the Bible.

4) Finally... although you hear the story, and read the book - you don't really see how offensive, phallocentric and ridiculous the whole thing is until someone puts it in synopsis form...

Offensive? I agree- but then again, it is a record of people sinning, so what else should one expect? Would you have preferred a whitewash?
Phallocentric? You mean like when Adam is condemned for his actions in the eating of the fruit along with Eve for her actions and the snake for its? Could a phallocentric history include such an admission of Judah's as "She's a better person than I am, because I broke my promise to let her marry my son Shelah." (Gen 38:26 CEV)?
Ridiculous? That's purely subjective, so merely your belief.

, Eating of Blood
Does that include black pudding and rare steak?

Does that include black pudding and rare steak?
A) any kind of blood pudding: yes.

B) any kind of rare meat: no ... if it has had all of the blood drained ... at least all of the loose blood ... it doesn't matter if it's raw.

Yes, according to the book of Leviticus chapter 18 states that Incest, Eating of Blood, adultery, beastiality, homosexual sex (but we can look past that) are all forbidden.



Is this an issue you recieved and you're a fundamentalist nation?

Of course we can look past all of the Bible, but it still forbids m+m homosexuality.

3) Humans is Moses' time were recorded to live to 1000 years ONLY in the bible... other contemporary histories rubbish the idea, and with good reason - there is no actual evidence of any kind to suggest anyone ever lived for 1000 years. In fact, looking at the harshness of life that these 'progenitors' likely lived, it is very unlikely any of them saw 40.


Has it ever occured to you that the '1000 years' could be because they used different calendars to us and had shorter years?

It says, "And Cain knew his wife" but it doesn't say where she came from, she just came out of nowhere.

Also Abel had children before he died.

Where in the Bible does it say that Abel had children? For that matter if there are apocryphal books that tell of it, I would be most interested in knowing where.

.

And Eve was cloned from Adams rib. And they had kids. Though technicly I believe that would be considerd masturbation.

Well if you're going to go into the science of cloning, you could also say that Adam and Eve were genetically perfect so there was no risk of recessive disorders in the first generations of mankind.

It could then be argued that either the Nephelim (their seed having had to have survived the flood somehow in order for the Anakim to have existed) caused genetic degradation by introducing non-human D.N.A., or ambient radiation and other mutagenic factors since Adam and Eve had their children.

what about Paedophilia? In the bible jesus mother was Mary? And she gave birth to jesus who is the son of god?
Damn, MAry was what 20 and God was as old as the universe. (seems like a paedophile to me!)

1) Pedophilia The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pedophilia). Note, this does not say "someone much younger than the person who who engages in such an act or fantasy", but "child or children".
2) Nowhere in the Bible is there any indication of sexual activity between God and Mary, so you're wrong on that count as well. And for those who might protest that someone can't get pregnant without sexual activity, please explain artificial insemination.

There are so many things wrong with this statement that is hard to know where to begin. First, you seem to imply Ham uncovered Noah, while most translations make it clear that he was already naked when Ham entered the tent and a few explicitly state that Noah undressed himself (since he was in his tent and had just gotten drunk off the first wine he probably had in awhile, one can hardly say that he did so for sexual provocation). Second, the behavior of Ham in the passage is sharply contrasted with that of his brothers in the next verse. His telling them of their father's nudity and drunkenness was probably an attempt to humiliate his father and get them to question Noah's judgment and it was for this that Noah cursed him.


You are in error. I have to assume you are not much of a Bible scholar, so I shall let it pass. "He was uncovered within his tent" does not even start to imply he uncovered himself... which, one assumes, would have let Onan off the hook... and "saw the nakedness of his father" can definitely be interpreted (certainly in the light of other similar scripture) as an act of sexual congress. You can't just go around choosing how you want to interpret scripture... either you take it all, or you leave it all.

Strawman, since he said "myriad", which is no way identical to "every year for four centuries.


Oh really... let's see what the whole post said.... "assume Eve lived to be 500 and birth a child once a year till 400, she had the potential alone of say at least 250 girls...".
I'll accept your apology in any form you care to tender it...

There would still be a lot fewer mutations if we included only those from such things as background radiation. And if there were a lot less background radiation, then there would be even fewer mutations yet again.


Except that the simple process of replicating DNA is prone to occasaional malfunction, even without external stimulus. I personally don't have any scientifically verifiable records of the amount of radiation received by 'Eve' - but I have no real reason to suspect that radiation 6000 years ago was all that different from radiation today.

By the time of Moses, there is no one who is recorded as living 1000 years in the Bible.

First... and the time of Moses is? Show me the grave stone? Show me the Egyptian history... after all, he was an Egyptian prince, no? (You can make what claims you like, if the people you make them about write in a language nobody else can read... oh - if only they'd known we'd translate heiroglyphics 2000 years later....)

I'm following on from the previous commentator... but, if you really want to argue about it... since the stories were oral traditions in the time of Moses - it is entirely true that in the time of moses, PEOPLE WERE RECORDED as living for 1000 years. (In as much as, that is when it was recorded)... but there are claims of super-long lifespans even as late as moses... and I assume you are ignoring the history of Melchizedec.

The point is, however, that no EVIDENCE exists. Only one book, written long after the fact, even dares to make such claims.

Offensive? I agree- but then again, it is a record of people sinning, so what else should one expect? Would you have preferred a whitewash?
Phallocentric? You mean like when Adam is condemned for his actions in the eating of the fruit along with Eve for her actions and the snake for its? Could a phallocentric history include such an admission of Judah's as "She's a better person than I am, because I broke my promise to let her marry my son Shelah." (Gen 38:26 CEV)?
Ridiculous? That's purely subjective, so merely your belief.
re: ridiculous and phallocentric. maybe in another thread. I'm not even going to go there in this thread. Way too much stuff, and most of it way too far off topic.

A) any kind of blood pudding.


That sucks. I love black pudding.


Of course we can look past all of the Bible, but it still forbids m+m homosexuality.

Been there, done that. Disproved in different threads... offtopic anyway.

Has it ever occured to you that the '1000 years' could be because they used different calendars to us and had shorter years?

Good try.. No Prize.... the year is the amount of time it takes for the earth to circle the sun. The only way to make the year shorter would be to bring earth closer to the sun (Toasty!!!), or make it go faster (And we'd all fall off).

If it's just a matter of calender years... then all the math for the age of the earth, and the ages of the progenitors and the whole relevence of time periods becomes a nonsense.

Good try.. No Prize.... the year is the amount of time it takes for the earth to circle the sun. The only way to make the year shorter would be to bring earth closer to the sun (Toasty!!!), or make it go faster (And we'd all fall off).

If it's just a matter of calender years... then all the math for the age of the earth, and the ages of the progenitors and the whole relevence of time periods becomes a nonsense.

Read the histories that the Sumarians kept ... you can see that the kings of the oldest dynasties lived for hundreds of years each, followed by dynasties of kings who each lived "only" one or two hundred years, followed by dynasties of kings who lived for far more reasonable periods, although still rather long for the average life expectancies back then.

Read in the Bible about Hagar and Ishmael: when they were sent away by Abraham, Ishmael was said to be sixteen years of age, although he was described as a babe carried on his mother's back.

It doesn't have to imply anything about physically changing the length of a solar year. It can be easily explained as an ancient mistranslation: the oldest languages probably refered to months - lunar months - while the middle ones refered to seasons and the youngest ones to years. Although I am not a student of ancient sumar/akkadian languages this theory both explains the histories we have from those days and does so without anything nearly as unreasonable as a change in the length of the solar year.

Lastly I would point out that the biblical stories of people living for such astounding amounts of time ended before the time of Abraham, right after the flood.

. . .

Been there, done that. Disproved in different threads... offtopic anyway.

Not disproven but only trimmed down, potentially, to Exodus 18, the very part that was referenced. I have yet to see any argument against the obvious interpretation of that other than "do you kill people for wearing two types of fabric at in the same garment?" To which I reply, again:

1) disregard for the law, or any parts of it, is not any disproof of the fact that certain things are found in the law;

2) such things as not eating shellfish, mixing fabrics, etc. are laws of ritual purity and were never capital punishment laws.

Also, on that being off-topic, someone else brought it up. Since I saw a false statement here, I pointed it out.

. . .

2) Nowhere in the Bible is there any indication of sexual activity between God and Mary, so you're wrong on that count as well. And for those who might protest that someone can't get pregnant without sexual activity, please explain artificial insemination.

Indeed. And in the case of Mary, there is another explaination, one more suited to the technology of the age, and that explains how, since Mary was a Levite and a female and thus could never pass on the seed ("sperma") of David (a Judeaite), Y'shua was indeed the Messiah ben ("son of"/"of the male line of") David:

Marriage among the Hebrew peoples back then happened in two phases: the betrothal and the public ritual. In the former the two were promised to one another and from that point on the laws of adultery applied and the couple were allowed to sleep together, and to do as they saw fit in the privacy of the bed. However since the laws concerning marriage were stricter for the Levites, and since Mary was the daughter of an Aaronite which was the highest priestly caste of all among the Levite tribe and the Hebrew people, Mary and Yoseph would not have had coitus during the betrothal period, although they could have engaged in other acts - those that do not breach the hymen and that are not generally thought of as leading to pregnancy. The final marriage ritual ended with the couple entering the hupa, which was origially a bed with curtains on all four sides. Two witnesses entered as well and were later expected to testify as to the presence or absence of blood if the woman had claimed to be virginal and the man now claimed that she had not been. Basically, couples of the other eleven tribes of the Israelites were allowed to fuck before they took their final vows, but Levites, and hence Aaronites and hence Mary, had to wait until the witnesses were present before they could stick anything that far into that hole.

So think about it: his juices on her hands, her hands on his hands, his hands on her vagina, and voila! A male child of the seed of David. Of course putting it in just a little ways has the same effect at even higher probabilities of impregnation, although still at very low probability.

1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth*, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.



* born an Aaronite


The Bible says nowhere that God or Gabriel physically impregnated Mary, only that the Holy Spirit would overshadow her, making it possible for her to bear a child without coitus. In fact, to say that Yoseph was not the physical seed-father of Y'shua is to refute claims of his Messiah-hood.

You are in error. I have to assume you are not much of a Bible scholar, so I shall let it pass. "He was uncovered within his tent" does not even start to imply he uncovered himself.

Nor does it even start to imply that Ham did the uncovering. The most natural reading of the text, however, is that he was already uncovered when Ham entered the tent.

(ASV) and he drank of the wine, and was drunken. And he was uncovered within his tent.
(BBE) And he took of the wine of it and was overcome by drink; and he was uncovered in his tent.
(CEV) One day he got drunk and was lying naked in his tent.
(Darby) And he drank of the wine, and was drunken, and he uncovered himself in his tent.
(ESV) He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent.
(GB) And he drunke of ye wine and was drunken, and was vncouered in the middes of his tent.
(GNB) After he drank some of the wine, he became drunk, took off his clothes, and lay naked in his tent.
(GW) He drank some wine, got drunk, and lay naked inside his tent.
(HNV) He drank of the wine and got drunk. He was uncovered within his tent.
(KJV) And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
(LITV) And he drank from the wine, and was drunk. And he uncovered himself inside his tent.
(MKJV) And he drank of the wine and was drunk. And he was uncovered inside his tent.
(MSG) He drank from its wine, got drunk and passed out, naked in his tent.
(WEB) He drank of the wine and got drunk. He was uncovered within his tent.
(Webster) And he drank the wine, and was drunken, and he was uncovered within his tent.
(YLT) and drinketh of the wine, and is drunken, and uncovereth himself in the midst of the tent.

which, one assumes, would have let Onan off the hook
Onan? And who was just assuming I wasn't much of a biblical scholar? :p
And, as I said before, Ham's sin probably wasn't in seeing Noah naked, but in reporting it to his brothers, most likely as a means to humiliate him, so this wouldn't "have let [Ham] off the hook". Furthermore, when Shem and Japheth go to cover him, they do so in such a way that the author emphasizes that they did so in such a way as to not (literally) see their father's nakedness. To argue that that the author meant this phrase in a figurative sense, one would first have to explain why they walked in backwards unless they thought that the literal act of purposely seeing him naked wasn't offensive in and of itself. And if "not seeing nakedness" is meant literally, then it is more than likely that "seeing nakedness" is meant literally as well.

You can't just go around choosing how you want to interpret scripture... either you take it all, or you leave it all.

True, but that also doesn't mean that people are free to add to it just to support pet theories.

Oh really... let's see what the whole post said.... "assume Eve lived to be 500 and birth a child once a year till 400, she had the potential alone of say at least 250 girls...".
I'll accept your apology in any form you care to tender it...

Sorry, I missed that part. My fault entirely. Still, even we assume that she had a child only once every 2 or 3 years, that's still a lot of children.

re: ridiculous and phallocentric. maybe in another thread. I'm not even going to go there in this thread. Way too much stuff, and most of it way too far off topic.

:rolleyes: It's too late to say "I'm not even going to go there in this thread" when you have already done just that. If you don't want off-topic responses to your off-topic comments, then it would seem best to not make the off-topic comments in the first place. You're the one that opened the can of worms in this thread, yet now seem to pass the whole episode off as someone else's idea.
I don't mind eating crow, but just hope you have the graciousness to join me in a serving.

Simple answer, back in the day, people got it on with their sisters.
Ironically, paleoanthropologists are finding this to be the fact of human evolution. At least first 5 million of our evolution.
Then about 2,000 things changed in a certain part of the world. And that cultures views on spread.
100 years ago with the advent of social darwinism, the prohibition was expanded to include first cousins, uncles, neices, nephews, aunts. Even though all current evidence shows that such pairings often do not result is damaged offspring.

Even a brother/sister pairing is unlikely to result in damaged offspring, unless you keep doing generation after generation.

All your questions are answered here (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/incest/lv18_07.html).

... the prohibition was expanded to include first cousins, uncles, neices, nephews, aunts. Even though all current evidence shows that such pairings often do not result is damaged offspring.

Even a brother/sister pairing is unlikely to result in damaged offspring, unless you keep doing generation after generation.

No. You are wrong. Straight-up wrong. If the family's gene pool contains recessive genes for various disorders/problems/whatever, incest will hugely increase the risk of such disorders becoming expressed in offspring. I hope someone else here knows some basic genetics, and can help me out here. I don't have too much experience in the field.

Let's say you have two grandparents of different families. One carries the recessive gene for a certain disorder (doesn't matter which for these purposes). Say there are four offspring. They now have genotypes RR, RR, Rr, and Rr (assuming R to be the normal trait and r to be the trait for the disorder). Now, assume that one of those offspring has children of his/her own, with someone outside the family, who also carries the trait. There are three children: RR, Rr, and Rr. Now, guess what happens if child 2 copulates with child 3: you have a 1/4 chance of getting the disorder. Ditto if child 2 or 3 copulates with any uncles/aunts, or their children (cousins). In the normal population, I can think of no disorders that a random child has a 1/4 chance of developing. None. Hence, incest dramatically increases the risks of genetic disorders being expressed. There's also the problem of lack-of-diversity, which leads to the issue of one disease wiping out an entire population.

Sorry about the technical language and long description.

No. You are wrong. Straight-up wrong. If the family's gene pool contains recessive genes for various disorders/problems/whatever, incest will hugely increase the risk of such disorders becoming expressed in offspring. I hope someone else here knows some basic genetics, and can help me out here. I don't have too much experience in the field.

Let's say you have two grandparents of different families. One carries the recessive gene for a certain disorder (doesn't matter which for these purposes). Say there are four offspring. They now have genotypes RR, RR, Rr, and Rr (assuming R to be the normal trait and r to be the trait for the disorder). Now, assume that one of those offspring has children of his/her own, with someone outside the family, who also carries the trait. There are three children: RR, Rr, and Rr. Now, guess what happens if child 2 copulates with child 3: you have a 1/4 chance of getting the disorder. Ditto if child 2 or 3 copulates with any uncles/aunts, or their children (cousins). In the normal population, I can think of no disorders that a random child has a 1/4 chance of developing. None. Hence, incest dramatically increases the risks of genetic disorders being expressed. There's also the problem of lack-of-diversity, which leads to the issue of one disease wiping out an entire population.

Sorry about the technical language and long description.

There are zero studies to support what you state. It's all based on one groups' morality views. The only study that does exist, (done on the Roosevelts and the Vanderbilts, and in which family records going back at least 120 years were accessed) shows there is very low risk.

Let's say you have two grandparents of different families.
What you are actually attempting to prove with your statement is that children at large in the general population have a 1/4 chance of harmful deformity.
That's a far cry from being able to prove that incest causes a 1/4 chance of harmful gene acquisition.

First of all...you're thinking of the Bible as the end-all, be-all of "Christian Rules to Live By."

Stop. The Bible is NOT the explanatory device that most people think it is. It's a collection of scriptures which actively oppose each other on occasion.
It's full of rules and laws that no longer apply in this day and age, most of which are in the mook Deuteronomy.

In refrence, to point out a fact:

"These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat,
the hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois.
And every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two claws, and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that ye shall eat.
Nevertheless these ye shall not eat, of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.
And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass." - Deuteronomy 14:4-8

Can you point out the few flaws in that? Number one, because this is the KJ version, is a mistranslation "cheweth the cud." Don't eat whatever chews the cud. Cows are ok. BUT...cows chew cud...
Secondly, swine = pork. It's not Unchristian to eat pork anymore, though it used to be. Even some Jewish people eat pork now. It was outlawed because back then, it was hard to properly cook, therefore hard to keep un-diseased. You'll find that most, if not ALL of the foods listed in the "shalt not eat" category are mostly because of health reasons due to preparation or disease strains.

Now, on to the point about incest, our topic of note here. If you'll notice, the bible has a LOT of talk, spoken and unspoken, about incest BEFORE Moses's time. That's BEFORE Moses went up and got the word'o'law from the Big Daddy.

"A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt."
Deuteronomy 22:30

That deals with Dating the Stepmom. It ain't done. *shakes a finger* Don't get with your father's woman, whether she's your mom or not! So sayeth Moses!

"Cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife;
because he uncovereth his father's skirt:
and all the people shall say,
Amen.

Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast:
and all the people shall say,
Amen.

Cursed be he that lieth with his sister,
the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother:
and all the people shall say,
Amen.

Cursed be he that lieth with his mother-in-law:
and all the people shall say,
Amen." Deuteronomy 27:20-23

Those are the most accessible quotes about incest/sex that I know of. It only talks about incest with immediate family members and suchlike. And beasts. Can't forget the beasts, lol.

Leviticus also has some rules against that sort of thing, but I'm more familiar with Deuteronomy.

Hope that helps!

Your friendly neighborhood pagan that was raised Catholic.
Miraia

Simple answer, back in the day, people got it on with their sisters.
Ironically, paleoanthropologists are finding this to be the fact of human evolution. At least first 5 million of our evolution.
Then about 2,000 things changed in a certain part of the world. And that cultures views on spread.
100 years ago with the advent of social darwinism, the prohibition was expanded to include first cousins, uncles, neices, nephews, aunts. Even though all current evidence shows that such pairings often do not result is damaged offspring.

Even a brother/sister pairing is unlikely to result in damaged offspring, unless you keep doing generation after generation.

Hey, thanks! Whoda thunk I'd ever agree with you? Long live diversity and polite exchange...
Seems to me that there has been quite a bit of close intermarriage among royalty through the ages, their blood being special or blue or descended from heaven or such. (Cleopatra comes to mind...certainly not a poster child for "damaged offspring.") It also seems to me (but I'm a layperson) that people caught on to the whole damaged-offspring-idea by observing more and more hereditary disease much later among Europe's royalty's shrunken genepools.
I would be interested how closely "incest" is defined. Take cousins, for example. How is it that Gone With the Wind's Wilkes family can have a tradition of cousins marrying in Georgia, which in my understanding is by and large pretty bible-thumping.

Well! How can I argue with such an eloquent and reasoned response? Let me count the ways....

1) Those of us you term 'wankers', who "know nothing" are, for all you know, very well educated... especially in the fields of theology and philosophy. Perhaps you don't agree with some of the ideas that are put forth, but then, perhaps it is you that is wrong.

2) I like your reference to 'mis-interpreting' the bible, and I loved the "no-it-all" (sic) reference... and you have read the Old Testament in the original Hebrew, in order to better understand the text??? Read the New Testament in Greek / Aramaic??? Read the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha?
If you haven't... I'd say your responses are due to delusions-of-grandeur.

3) Perhaps we DO know it all.

4) If people here weren't at least INTERESTED in religion they wouldn't debate it. Nobody forces you to read the thread... similarly, nobody had claimed to be 'high and mighty', or (at least, so far, in this thread) sunk to the abusive depths you just plumbed.

5) If incest is wrong (I agree that it is, by the way) then why are all humans born from it, according to Genesis?

6) You are unfortunately reinforcing the image of Christians with your volatile vitriol.

7) I didn't even know there WERE "angsty atheist hate sites"... I'm not sure I even know what one is... do you have a www you can recommend?

Thankyou for listening. have a Nice Day.


I will answer it by saying that I wasn't refering to people who know (to some extent) what they are talking about. Like you and the good Rabbi seem to.

I haven't read the Bible in other languages but if there is something I need answered I ask someone who has studied theology and sometimes, (if needed) I would ask someone with a good knowledge of the translation. I don't think I know alot more, I just know there is alot to know and don't make generalisations or assumptions about things at such a whim.

I'm sorry for my attitude, I was in a bad mood.

I don't think you will have much trouble finding some angsty Atheist sites, just Google it.

You are right, I don't have to read it if I don't want to.

Read the histories that the Sumarians kept ... you can see that the kings of the oldest dynasties lived for hundreds of years each, followed by dynasties of kings who each lived "only" one or two hundred years, followed by dynasties of kings who lived for far more reasonable periods, although still rather long for the average life expectancies back then.


Except, I was under the impression that the Sumerians referred to the whole dynasty by the name of the one king... so, a king coming to the throne, and having his descendants rule for 100 years, would be the' hundred year rule' of that king. The Sumerians also claimed to have something like 250,000 years of recorded history for their kings. Interesting that the Sumerians recorded their flood story thousands of years before the Hebrews, with (what looks like) long-lived patriarch figures... and then the Jews record a history, two thousand years later, but claiming to be the original, that makes the same long-lived kings claim. Honestly - if you're going to copy, you should at least correct the typos.

Read in the Bible about Hagar and Ishmael: when they were sent away by Abraham, Ishmael was said to be sixteen years of age, although he was described as a babe carried on his mother's back.

So - either the 'babe on his mother's back' is a metaphor, or the dating is wrong... either way, it means you can't take scripture literally?

It doesn't have to imply anything about physically changing the length of a solar year. It can be easily explained as an ancient mistranslation: the oldest languages probably refered to months - lunar months - while the middle ones refered to seasons and the youngest ones to years. Although I am not a student of ancient sumar/akkadian languages this theory both explains the histories we have from those days and does so without anything nearly as unreasonable as a change in the length of the solar year.

If it's all mistranslation, how old is the earth, by Creationist reckoning? The age must be about 13 times less than previously argued? How long did the flood last? What happened to 'god protecting his word'?

Lastly I would point out that the biblical stories of people living for such astounding amounts of time ended before the time of Abraham, right after the flood.
That may mark the end of most of the silliness - but there is certainly no sudden jump to rationality... Jacob engages in 'a pilgrimage' that lasts 130 years, Moses lives to 120 years, and what about Melchizedek?

The Bible says nowhere that God or Gabriel physically impregnated Mary, only that the Holy Spirit would overshadow her, making it possible for her to bear a child without coitus. In fact, to say that Yoseph was not the physical seed-father of Y'shua is to refute claims of his Messiah-hood.

In a rare, perhaps never-to-be-repeated event, I'm going to have to agree with Druthulhu here... since (as can be observed by the tables of lineage) the line from Adam, Abraham and David is followed through the male. If Messiah was going to be 'of the line of David' then Joseph pretty much NEEDS to be the father, or the whole thing falls down on that prophecy unmet.

I will answer it by saying that I wasn't refering to people who know (to some extent) what they are talking about. Like you and the good Rabbi seem to.

I haven't read the Bible in other languages but if there is something I need answered I ask someone who has studied theology and sometimes, (if needed) I would ask someone with a good knowledge of the translation. I don't think I know alot more, I just know there is alot to know and don't make generalisations or assumptions about things at such a whim.

I'm sorry for my attitude, I was in a bad mood.

I don't think you will have much trouble finding some angsty Atheist sites, just Google it.

You are right, I don't have to read it if I don't want to.

Well, my feeling is "No Harm Done". I can stand a florid vocabulary, if it is used honestly - for example, in the course of honest debate.

If you have points to make, I'm more than happy to debate ad infinitum (as long as I am not at work), and thoroughly enjoy the presentation of opposing views.

Just don't come in swinging, and all will be good.

There are zero studies to support what you state. It's all based on one groups' morality views. The only study that does exist, (done on the Roosevelts and the Vanderbilts, and in which family records going back at least 120 years were accessed) shows there is very low risk.

Let's say you have two grandparents of different families.
What you are actually attempting to prove with your statement is that children at large in the general population have a 1/4 chance of harmful deformity.
That's a far cry from being able to prove that incest causes a 1/4 chance of harmful gene acquisition.

No, that is not what he is trying to prove. I would explain it to you but I would just be repeating him.

Well OK I will try anyway...

If one of your parents has half of the genetic pair required for a very rare recessive disorder, you have a 50% chance of carrying it as well and so does your sister. If two people who carry half of that pair have a child, that child has a 25% chance of carrying a full pair and thus manifesting the disorder. Since most people carry half a dozen or so of such recessive genes, half of yours will usually match half of your sisters, so that's about three, leaving about a 75% chance of your child manifesting a full pair of one of them, or 25% each of the three.

"There are moose on the island, so for many years the fortunes of the increasingly inbred wolves followed the boom and bust of the moose population cycle. The moose and wolves of Isle Royale have been the subject of the longest-running predator/prey study ever conducted (now 44 years and counting.) The wolf population sometimes exceeded 50 animals, but in the late 70s things began to go wrong. The wolves suffered waves of parvo, distemper and mange. Ultimately the population sank to a handful of animals and there was fear they might go extinct. Scientists debated whether new wolves should be introduced or nature left to take its course so they could observe how the moose fared without a predator to cull the weak and unfit."

http://www.ashgi.org/articles/breeding_incest.htm

"If the parents of a child are both carriers of a trait the child has a
one-fourth chance of inheriting the trait. This is true whether the parents
are related or not. The reason incest is bad is because traits tend to run
in families. So if the partners are in the same family more of the family
members will carry the trait and the more likely it is that the child could
get it."

Van hoeck

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00076.htm

Not disproven but only trimmed down, potentially, to Exodus 18, the very part that was referenced. I have yet to see any argument against the obvious interpretation of that other than "do you kill people for wearing two types of fabric at in the same garment?" To which I reply, again:

1) disregard for the law, or any parts of it, is not any disproof of the fact that certain things are found in the law;

2) such things as not eating shellfish, mixing fabrics, etc. are laws of ritual purity and were never capital punishment laws.

Also, on that being off-topic, someone else brought it up. Since I saw a false statement here, I pointed it out.

I assume you mean Leviticus 18, right?

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination".

Two points...

1) I have seen this argued as irrelevent for two different reasons - one based on Talmudic tradition, and one straight arguing against the Hebrew as translated in to English.

a) In Talmudic tradition - this is read as being about sleeping with a woman when she is menstruating - and you would have to ask someone with a greater knowledge of Jewish understanding than I have, to work out where that comes from.

b) Translating directly from the Hebrew (and I, personally showed this, in a different thread) Leviticus 18:22 gives "To lie a man with a woman for sexual contact is an abomination". Perhaps this was intended to be a prohibition against unmarried intercourse, or maybe the Jews are right, and our western teaching lacks the depth to show where the menstruation reference is.

But still, quite clearly, Leviticus 18 ONLY prohibits homosexual congress if you mistranslate it.

2) Eating shellfish is a capital punishment crime, Leviticus 11:10 "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an ABOMINATION unto you" - which places shellfish-eating among the 'abominations' - and to continue with abomination is to disobey the commandment of god, and numbers tells us what happens to those who ignore commandment:

Numbers 15:31 "Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him".
Numbers 15:36: "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses".
Number 15:40: "That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God'.

Nor does it even start to imply that Ham did the uncovering. The most natural reading of the text, however, is that he was already uncovered when Ham entered the tent.


(ASV) and he drank of the wine, and was drunken. And he was uncovered within his tent.
(BBE) And he took of the wine of it and was overcome by drink; and he was uncovered in his tent.
(CEV) One day he got drunk and was lying naked in his tent.
(Darby) And he drank of the wine, and was drunken, and he uncovered himself in his tent.
(ESV) He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent.
(GB) And he drunke of ye wine and was drunken, and was vncouered in the middes of his tent.
(GNB) After he drank some of the wine, he became drunk, took off his clothes, and lay naked in his tent.
(GW) He drank some wine, got drunk, and lay naked inside his tent.
(HNV) He drank of the wine and got drunk. He was uncovered within his tent.
(KJV) And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
(LITV) And he drank from the wine, and was drunk. And he uncovered himself inside his tent.
(MKJV) And he drank of the wine and was drunk. And he was uncovered inside his tent.
(MSG) He drank from its wine, got drunk and passed out, naked in his tent.
(WEB) He drank of the wine and got drunk. He was uncovered within his tent.
(Webster) And he drank the wine, and was drunken, and he was uncovered within his tent.
(YLT) and drinketh of the wine, and is drunken, and uncovereth himself in the midst of the tent.

So that's what... four translations that say he uncovered himself, and twelve that just say he was uncovered?

How about we go back to the Hebrew, rather than looking at later interpretations?

"Shathath Yayin Shakar Galah Tavek 'ohel"

Now, bear in mind that Shathath can be used figuratively either to denote 'drinking from the cup of gods' wrath' or can simply refer to 'doing wicked deeds'.

But - we'll assume they actually mean drinking...so ... (Noah) becomes drunk (or drinks, or is a drunkard) (on) wine (and) is drunk (and) 'uncovered' (in his) tent

The Hebrew doesn't seem to imply he uncovers himself.
But the next verse definitely puts Ham in the picture "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father..." especially in the context of Genesis 9:24 "And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him". After all... how would Noah be able to tell on waking that Ham had 'seen' him naked? Especially since he woke up covered?

'Uncovering Nakedness' seems to be a common euphemism in the Biblical text, and carries a very definite meaning... if Noah was 'uncovered' and Ham saw his 'nakedness', it is quite clear what is being described.


Onan? And who was just assuming I wasn't much of a biblical scholar? :p
And, as I said before, Ham's sin probably wasn't in seeing Noah naked, but in reporting it to his brothers, most likely as a means to humiliate him, so this wouldn't "have let [Ham] off the hook". Furthermore, when Shem and Japheth go to cover him, they do so in such a way that the author emphasizes that they did so in such a way as to not (literally) see their father's nakedness. To argue that that the author meant this phrase in a figurative sense, one would first have to explain why they walked in backwards unless they thought that the literal act of purposely seeing him naked wasn't offensive in and of itself. And if "not seeing nakedness" is meant literally, then it is more than likely that "seeing nakedness" is meant literally as well.


The brothers didn't want to see their father after Ham had seen his 'nakedness uncovered' - which is understandable - and doesn't argue against the incest idea at all.

And, re: Onan... common acceptance is that Onan commits the crime of masturbation - obviously this is not the scriptural version of the event... my comment that Noah 'uncovering his own nakedness' would let Onan off the hook is ironic.

True, but that also doesn't mean that people are free to add to it just to support pet theories.
Neither adding nor detracting - just reading what is there, in the context of the text.

Miraia: Can you point out the few flaws in that? Number one, because this is the KJ version, is a mistranslation "cheweth the cud." Don't eat whatever chews the cud. Cows are ok. BUT...cows chew cud...

You misquoted yourself and got lost in your own translation. From your own post...

These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat,the hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois. And every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two claws, and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that ye shall eat.

It goes on to say that you can't eat pig, because even though it has cloven hoofs, it doesn't chew cud. I am not trying to be argumentative here, I just wanted to point that out.

Ninjaustrailia: I don't think you will have much trouble finding some angsty Atheist sites, just Google it.

What should we google for?

EDIT: Edited for spacing issues in bbcode

Missed this:

Not disproven but only trimmed down, potentially, to Exodus 18, the very part that was referenced. I have yet to see any argument against the obvious interpretation of that other than "do you kill people for wearing two types of fabric at in the same garment?" To which I reply, again:

1) disregard for the law, or any parts of it, is not any disproof of the fact that certain things are found in the law

No one is trying to argue away the fact that the law says "it's an abomonation"- although the precise matter of WHAT they're condemning remains debateable. Rather, the issue being raised is that it seems positively absurd for a group of people to select ONE commandment out of all the hundreds mentioned as being some sort of "litmus test" for goodness, particularly when they themselves are not following plenty of them themselves. We don't hear Christians in Western Society suggesting that people, who, for instance, eat too much, or publically violate the Sabbath, are "horrible people" headed straight for hell. It should be kept in mind that in Judaism, all of the commandments are believed to be of equal value. If one was going to try to infer specific value or importance by weighing the punishment assigned for breaking each transgression... gluttony and Sabbath violation are similarly punishable by death. Why not use them as standards for immorality, too? What makes homosexuality so special?

From my perspective, the issue is not that the prohibition is there. Rather, that it seems to be arbitrarily singled out as being more important than the others or as somehow being a measurement of "goodness". Such a distinction is dishonest and disingenuous, since, in the OT at least, the prohibition against homosexuality is no different than the prohibitions against having sex with a menstruating woman, or being uncircumcised- or proselytizing, for that matter. If we're to be accurate then, every proselytizing Christian is as "guilty"- according to OT law- as a homosexual.

2) such things as not eating shellfish, mixing fabrics, etc. are laws of ritual purity and were never capital punishment laws.

This is simply incorrect. While it is true that mixing fabrics and eating shellfish are not themselves capital punishment laws, many of the transgressions punishable by death do involve ritual purity. For instance, having sex with a menstruating woman or going to the Temple unpurified. This only further emphasizes the point that in the OT, many things that contemporary Christians find completely inoccuous and unobjectionable (and likely engage in themselves) are "just as bad" as homosexuality.

Here is a list of "crimes" punishable by death in the OT (keep in mind that the penalty was rarely enforced, however, as you said, this doesn't change the fact that it's "on the books".):

- Jews converting to another religion.
- Strangers (non-Jews?) entering the Temple.
- Non-Jews proselytizing.
- Communicating (or attempting to) with the dead.
- Practicing Black Magic.

- Adultery
- Incest
- Temple Prostitution
- Pre-marital sex
- Sexual activity with a mother and daughter (all three are to be burned alive).
- Seducing an engaged person.
- Raping an engaged woman.
- Prostitution

- Murdering a free person.
- Kidnapping
- Performing Human sacrifice.
- Cursing one's parents.
- Abusing one's parents.
- Carelessly handling an animal.
- Blasphemy
- Working on the Sabbath.
- Ignoring the decision of a Priest or Judge.
- Perjury
- Accidentally killing a pregnant woman.

- Being uncircumcised.
- Eating Leavened Bread during Passover.
- Manufacturing anointing oil.
- Engaging in ritual sacrifices at someplace other than the Temple.
- Consuming blood.
- Waiting too long before eating sacrifices.
- Having sex with a woman who is menstruating.
- Going to the Temple while ritually unclean.
- Gluttony and excessive drinking.

And, my personal favorite...

- Gathering sticks on the Sabbath. (Technically, this is included under "no work", but I like how there's a specific example in Numbers where a guy is actually executed for picking up sticks.)

(Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/exe_bibl.htm)

I assume you mean Leviticus 18, right?

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination".

Yes :) thank you.

Two points...

1) I have seen this argued as irrelevent for two different reasons - one based on Talmudic tradition, and one straight arguing against the Hebrew as translated in to English.

a) In Talmudic tradition - this is read as being about sleeping with a woman when she is menstruating - and you would have to ask someone with a greater knowledge of Jewish understanding than I have, to work out where that comes from.

I certainly would... if this is true it sounds like the rabbi who wrote it was a homosexual gynaphobe. Anyway as I have said elsewhere, the Talmud is not the Torah, and even if it says in the Talmud that it trumps the Torah, that's circular logic. Find me something in the Torah that says that the Talmud is higher and I will start to accept talmudic arguments.



b) Translating directly from the Hebrew (and I, personally showed this, in a different thread) Leviticus 18:22 gives "To lie a man with a woman for sexual contact is an abomination". Perhaps this was intended to be a prohibition against unmarried intercourse, or maybe the Jews are right, and our western teaching lacks the depth to show where the menstruation reference is.

But still, quite clearly, Leviticus 18 ONLY prohibits homosexual congress if you mistranslate it.

Link to where you have translated this, please?

2) Eating shellfish is a capital punishment crime, Leviticus 11:10 "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an ABOMINATION unto you" - which places shellfish-eating among the 'abominations' - and to continue with abomination is to disobey the commandment of god, and numbers tells us what happens to those who ignore commandment:

Numbers 15:31 "Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him".
Numbers 15:36: "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses".
Number 15:40: "That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God'.

Find me a place where the Bible commands execution for people who eat shellfish. Can't, can you? Because it DOESN'T. "They shall be an abomination unto you" is hardly the same as "it is an abomination unto the Lord".

Your quote from Numbers conveniently leaves out some verses. The reference to a man being stoned was, in the verses that you edited out, to a man who had been caught working on the sabbath. This is specifically mentioned elsewhere as a capital offence. Also to be "cut off" from one's people is to be banished, not executed. There are penalties described for stealing, and they do not involve execution at all, so if the above passage is for the execution of all who sin deliberately, why are some sins described as capital while others are not?

Link to where you have translated this, please?

Find me a place where the Bible commands execution for people who eat shellfish. Can't, can you? Because it DOESN'T. "They shall be an abomination unto you" is hardly the same as "it is an abomination unto the Lord".

Your quote from Numbers conveniently leaves out some verses. The reference to a man being stoned was, in the verses that you edited out, to a man who had been caught working on the sabbath. This is specifically mentioned elsewhere as a capital offence. Also to be "cut off" from one's people is to be banished, not executed. There are penalties described for stealing, and they do not involve execution at all, so if the above passage is for the execution of all who sin deliberately, why are some sins described as capital while others are not?

I can't remember where I translated it... it was in one of the homosexuality threads, so I guess you could just search for posts by me, and search back 100 or so... But, it's not too tricky...

"Shakab Zakar Mishkab i'shshah Tow'ebah "... literally "to lie down (especially of sexual congress) male (especially of humans - i.e. Man) lying down (for sexual contact - which is where the Bible scholars derived the 'with' translation) woman (or female... or wife, but that seems out of context) is an abomination (either in ritual sense, or in the sense of wickedness)".

"To lie down man with woman, for sexual contact, is an abomination"

That seems like a fairly straightforward translation.

Re-read what I posted.... Shellfish-eating is an abomination... to eat shellfish is against a commandment from god. The man picks up firewood on the sabbath, against the commandment of god, he is executed (for a commandment of god), and then god talks about reminders that none shall stray from his commandment. The sin is breaking the commandment of god, and breaking commandments may be punished by the penalty of death... you will see each of those verses I posted are linked by 'commandment'.

Are you a Torah scholar who is fluent in written Hebrew? If you are please let me know where you went to school. Until such time I will stick with this:

"22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.כב וְאֶת-זָכָר--לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה: תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא."


This is from the Jewish Publication Society, from a Hebrew-English pony translation published in 1917. It can be found at:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0318.htm

I could just as easily ask you to reread what I have posted. Certain things, such as men having sex with eachother, are called abomination before God, while non-kosher foods are called an abomination to the people.

Also, read about the institution of Pasach, where any person who eats leaven during Pasach is to be "cut off from his people" for the space of a year. Obviously, to be "cut of from [one's] people" is not a fatal punishment, since an execution cannot be undone after the passage of a year.

Elsewhere various punishments for various sins, or breakings of commandments, are listed. Some things that can hardly be accidental sins, such as theft, are listed with punishments that are not fatal. No where is death listed as a punishment for breaking laws of ritual purity, deliberately or otherwise.

And beasts. Can't forget the beasts, lol.

In some cases, the mother-in-law and the beast are not mutually exclusive.


"A man shall not take his father's wife, nor discover his father's skirt." Deuteronomy 22:30

So .... if Dad's a cross-dresser, don't find out?
:eek:

Are you a Torah scholar who is fluent in written Hebrew?

Why yes, yes I am, and yes I do - modern, paleo-lithic, and torah Hebrew.

If you are please let me know where you went to school.

University of Houston, Rice University, Baltimore Hebrew University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and I hold a Semikhah Good enough?

כב וְאֶת-זָכָר--לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה: תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא."

Unfortunately, I do not see the word for "abomination" anywhere in that sentence. I see the word for "unproductive" and I know that one slight change in points will make the word for "unproductive" become "abhorrent", but that's about it.

Shrug ... but what do I know?

ok i.ll quote some scriptures
3"but Fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you as is fitting for saints"

Ephesians 4:3

27"you have heard it was said to those of old 'you shall not commit adultery' 28 but i say to you that whoever looks at a women with lust for her has already commited adultery with her in his heart" 29"if your right eye causes you to sin pluck it out and cast it from you for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish then for your whole body to be cast into hell" 30"and if your right hand causes you to sin cut it off and cast it from you for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish than for your whole body to be cast into hell" -Jesus

Matthew 5:27-30

Why yes, yes I am, and yes I do - modern, paleo-lithic, and torah Hebrew.



University of Houston, Rice University, Baltimore Hebrew University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and I hold a Semikhah Good enough?



Unfortunately, I do not see the word for "abomination" anywhere in that sentence. I see the word for "unproductive" and I know that one slight change in points will make the word for "unproductive" become "abhorrent", but that's about it.

Shrug ... but what do I know?

I don't know what you know ... are you also Grave_n_Idle, whom I was addressing that too? No worries as I trust the provenence of your translation abilities more than his as-yet unspecified ones. However I do wonder why the Jewish Publication Society's translation differs so from yours.

I would be interested in what you have to say about Grave_n_Idle's translation of that verse. What does it say, literally, to you?

The fact underlying that, that the Torah condemns active male homosexuals to death and does not do so for those who break the laws of ritual purity (kosher eating, not mixing fabrics, etc.)... what can you tell us about that, Keruvalia?

I don't know what you know ... are you also Grave_n_Idle, whom I was addressing that too?

Well, no, but I do like to poke my nose in when questions of Hebrew and Torah come up. :) Hope ya don't mind.

However I do wonder why the Jewish Publication Society's translation differs so from yours.

Easy: Politics. The JPS is a publicly funded organization and to create translations that go wildly against the established Christian translations would cease quite a bit of that funding.

I would be interested in what you have to say about Grave_n_Idle's translation of that verse.

This one? "To lie down man with woman, for sexual contact, is an abomination"

A little slanted, I think, and also a bit off the mark.

What does it say, literally, to you?

Wow ... ok ... sure you're ready for this?

Keep in mind that the sentence is being addressed to men (those with penises, I suppose, for lack of a better definition of the word "men"):

"You should not have unproductive relationships with not-women."

The word being used for "unproductive" is the same word used as an opposite to one of the earliest commandments where we're told to be productive (as in further the species).

In short, you should only have relationships that further the species. Although we have to examine what "further the species" is a pretty subjective term. Let's say two Jewish men meet, fall in love, and get married. They adopt a child and raise the child Jewish and teach the child to study Torah.

Like it or not, that is a productive relationship and does fulfill the mitzvah to further the species ... at least in the eyes of God. I'm not sure what everyone else's problem is.

The fact underlying that, that the Torah condemns active male homosexuals to death

No it doesn't.

Allow me to clarify that real quick ...

The death penalty for what is being called "male homosexuals" is actually a death penalty for those who engage in unproductive relationships (as mentioned in previous post).

If you are an actively homosexual male and in a relationship with another male, you must make effort to "further the species" either through the teaching of others, helping enhance the life of the community, or of some such activity.

Obvioulsy, a healthy male and female may produce offspring of their own, thereby fulfilling the mitzvah. However, God is rather smart and understands that not all heterosexuals will necessarily be able to reproduce, hence the underlying understanding that "furthering the species" can also mean on spiritual, financial, and educational levels.

Most death penalties laid out in Torah concern "dead wood". In a nomadic, tribal community, "dead wood" is dangerous.

Well, no, but I do like to poke my nose in when questions of Hebrew and Torah come up. :) Hope ya don't mind.



Easy: Politics. The JPS is a publicly funded organization and to create translations that go wildly against the established Christian translations would cease quite a bit of that funding.



This one? "To lie down man with woman, for sexual contact, is an abomination"

A little slanted, I think, and also a bit off the mark.



Wow ... ok ... sure you're ready for this?

Keep in mind that the sentence is being addressed to men (those with penises, I suppose, for lack of a better definition of the word "men"):

"You should not have unproductive relationships with not-women."

The word being used for "unproductive" is the same word used as an opposite to one of the earliest commandments where we're told to be productive (as in further the species).

In short, you should only have relationships that further the species. Although we have to examine what "further the species" is a pretty subjective term. Let's say two Jewish men meet, fall in love, and get married. They adopt a child and raise the child Jewish and teach the child to study Torah.

Like it or not, that is a productive relationship and does fulfill the mitzvah to further the species ... at least in the eyes of God. I'm not sure what everyone else's problem is.

I don't mind at all :) And I hope you don't mind that I will now be picking your brain ;)

Could you recommend an accurate online hebrew-english pony translation that has not been (how COULD they??? :eek: ) altered for the sake of not offending the xians?

Also there were examples in scriptures of people being executed for various of the more serious crimes, although as I recall never for such things as theft or violating ritual purity laws. How would you interpret Numbers 15:30-31?

I don't mind at all :) And I hope you don't mind that I will now be picking your brain ;)

chuckle ... and a more whiskey-addled, defiant, and hollow brain will you never find.

Could you recommend an accurate online hebrew-english pony translation that has not been (how COULD they??? :eek: ) altered for the sake of not offending the xians?

I really wish that I could. I do suggest reading the works of Daniel Math, Harold Kushner, and Irving Greenberg. Unfortunately, only Pagan groups tend to speak of their writings online and, well, not too many people take Pagans seriously outside of Pagan groups - an unfortunate thing.

Also there were examples in scriptures of people being executed for various of the more serious crimes, although as I recall never for such things as theft or violating ritual purity laws. How would you interpret Numbers 15:30-31?

As I hold it to be, Number 15:30-31 = "But the person, be he citizen or stranger, who acts with upraised hand reviles God; that person shall be cut off from among his people because he has spurned the word of God and violated God's commandment, that person shall be cut off - he bears his guilt."

This is after, of course, "high ranking citizens" (meaning Levites or Kohainim) have made the case in favor of the person who has committed the "crime".

If no "high ranking citizen" has come to speak on an offender's behalf, then all is absolved ... regardless of the charge.

Maybe I'm not understanding your question?

chuckle ... and a more whiskey-addled, defiant, and hollow brain will you never find.



I really wish that I could. I do suggest reading the works of Daniel Math, Harold Kushner, and Irving Greenberg. Unfortunately, only Pagan groups tend to speak of their writings online and, well, not too many people take Pagans seriously outside of Pagan groups - an unfortunate thing.



As I hold it to be, Number 15:30-31 = "But the person, be he citizen or stranger, who acts with upraised hand reviles God; that person shall be cut off from among his people because he has spurned the word of God and violated God's commandment, that person shall be cut off - he bears his guilt."

This is after, of course, "high ranking citizens" (meaning Levites or Kohainim) have made the case in favor of the person who has committed the "crime".

If no "high ranking citizen" has come to speak on an offender's behalf, then all is absolved ... regardless of the charge.

Maybe I'm not understanding your question?

I don't think that you are, but now I have a new one: what is meant by "acts with upraised hands"?

And I find it interesting that if a high ranking citizen speaks on behalf of the accused, punishment (is it death or banishment?) is meted, but if not, it is absolved. Isn't that rather backwards?

I don't think that you are, but now I have a new one: what is meant by "acts with upraised hands"?

It's sort of a term meaning a "Jew in defiance of Torah". It's a colloqualism ... kinda like that whole "40 days and 40 nights" thing that is so prevalent in English translations of the Bible. It doesn't mean 40 periods of 24 hours, it really means "until the cows come home" or "mañana" or any other number of phrases meaning an abstract, uncounted time.


And I find it interesting that if a high ranking citizen speaks on behalf of the accused, punishment (is it death or banishment?) is meted, but if not, it is absolved. Isn't that rather backwards?

Hrmmm ... guess I came across wrong. If no high ranking citizen comes to speak on a person's behalf in a matter of capital punishment, the charge is dismissed; but, if a high ranking citizen does come to speak, then the arguments will be heard.

The idea is from the Jewish standpoint that all people are basically good and honest and that there must be someone who can come speak on their behalf. If not, then God speaks on their behalf and all charges are dismissed.

I know, it's very liberal communist left-wing insanity ... but that's Judaism all over. :D

I hope that is easier to understand ... even if it doesn't make much sense from a modern standpoint.

I don't think that you are

Just wanted to address this minor comment mostly as a thank you. I can assure you, though, that my world view is skewed ... 3 of the Profs on my PhD juries commented that I seemed to have a strange world view and that my ideas on Judaism and Torah interpretation seemed to stem from the original Jewish view that all humans are inheretly good and honest, but that I may show some irresponsibility in not upholding the modern view that humans are greedy, self-serving creatures.

Whiskey and seeing the gentle innocence of children (my own, I had 2 before I obtained my first Doctorate) tends to skew ones' world view.

It goes on to say that you can't eat pig, because even though it has cloven hoofs, it doesn't chew cud. I am not trying to be argumentative here, I just wanted to point that out.

Not to step on your toes, but I thought I might simplify it a little better. Someone reading over my shoulder got a little confuse so I thought others might as well.

It basically reads that those beast that BOTH chew cud AND have a cloven hoof are good to eat. If it chews cud and DOESN'T have a cloven hoof OR has a cloven hoof and DOESN'T chew cud then it is bad.

The fact underlying that, that the Torah condemns active male homosexuals to death and does not do so for those who break the laws of ritual purity (kosher eating, not mixing fabrics, etc.)

This has already been shown to be false. It is true that not keeping kosher and mixing fabrics are not punishable by death, but other ritual laws ARE. To continue to say, as you are, that "ritual purity laws aren't punishable by death" is simply incorrect.

It would be accurate to say the Torah condemns those who break SOME laws of ritual purity- particularly since there are many more ritual purity laws than merely the two you keep mentioning.

Are you a Torah scholar who is fluent in written Hebrew? If you are please let me know where you went to school. Until such time I will stick with this:

"22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.כב וְאֶת-זָכָר--לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה: תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא."


This is from the Jewish Publication Society, from a Hebrew-English pony translation published in 1917. It can be found at:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0318.htm

I could just as easily ask you to reread what I have posted. Certain things, such as men having sex with eachother, are called abomination before God, while non-kosher foods are called an abomination to the people.

Also, read about the institution of Pasach, where any person who eats leaven during Pasach is to be "cut off from his people" for the space of a year. Obviously, to be "cut of from [one's] people" is not a fatal punishment, since an execution cannot be undone after the passage of a year.

Elsewhere various punishments for various sins, or breakings of commandments, are listed. Some things that can hardly be accidental sins, such as theft, are listed with punishments that are not fatal. No where is death listed as a punishment for breaking laws of ritual purity, deliberately or otherwise.

Although it is different to how it is set out in my version, I would say that that was Leviticus 18:22 in vowelled Hebrew (my version is non-vowelled).
Although, it's kind of hard to tell with tiny letters.

As I said earlier, mine is a 'direct' translation from the text - a literal translation, if you will. You are, of course, totally free to ignore my translation - which, to be honest, I suspect you will do - since most Christians don't even like to admit that there IS a Hebrew version of the Bible, let alone try to wrestle with the implications that the text may be different.

As I mentioned earlier - I have seen it translated as being regarding sex with a menstruating woman. I have also seen it quoted as referring to sex in pagan temples, anal intercourse with either gender, and any act of homosexuality. I like my literal translation... I haven't gone too deeply into trying to explore the ramifications of different words in the text, but I think that my superficial attempt is enough to display the modern christian interpretation (so loved by anti-homosexuals) as a biased piece of propoganda that bears little resemblence to the text originally written.

Re: Ritual Purity... isn't working on the Sabbath a 'ritual purity' sin? And one that carries the death penalty?

Although it is different to how it is set out in my version, I would say that that was Leviticus 18:22 in vowelled Hebrew (my version is non-vowelled).
Although, it's kind of hard to tell with tiny letters.

As I said earlier, mine is a 'direct' translation from the text - a literal translation, if you will. You are, of course, totally free to ignore my translation - which, to be honest, I suspect you will do - since most Christians don't even like to admit that there IS a Hebrew version of the Bible, let alone try to wrestle with the implications that the text may be different.

As I mentioned earlier - I have seen it translated as being regarding sex with a menstruating woman. I have also seen it quoted as referring to sex in pagan temples, anal intercourse with either gender, and any act of homosexuality. I like my literal translation... I haven't gone too deeply into trying to explore the ramifications of different words in the text, but I think that my superficial attempt is enough to display the modern christian interpretation (so loved by anti-homosexuals) as a biased piece of propoganda that bears little resemblence to the text originally written.

Re: Ritual Purity... isn't working on the Sabbath a 'ritual purity' sin? And one that carries the death penalty?

You say that your version does not contain the vowel points, so surely you must realize that this can lead to multiple translations with wholey different words in each. Frankly I would take the translation of a Hebrew University scholar over that of an amateur hebrologist any day.

...and working on the sabbath is a sin for which the death penalty is specifically commanded, unlike eating shellfish or mixing fabrics.

I'll admit it, I'm not too knowledgeable about the Bible, I really should read it... all sometime.

But for now, my question:

What does the Bible have to say about incest?

That said, if the Bible views incest as wrong/immoral then how does it explain the propagation of the human species through Adam and Eve?

No matter how you slice it, eventually, there is going to be some family lovin' going on. But as I said, I haven't really read the Bible so I don't know if God created more people or what.

Just looking for an answer on this one.
Also, after the great flood, the world had to be populated from Noah's family. The bible just always seems to have wives for all the men out of the blue though, it just dosen't make any sense.

...and working on the sabbath is a sin for which the death penalty is specifically commanded, unlike eating shellfish or mixing fabrics.

Yes. Well done. We did that bit already... but you said there were no death penalties for ritual impurity...

You say that your version does not contain the vowel points, so surely you must realize that this can lead to multiple translations with wholey different words in each. Frankly I would take the translation of a Hebrew University scholar over that of an amateur hebrologist any day.


Hmmm. Surely you realise that there ARE already multiple translations with different words, with or without vowel points. There are no hard and fast rules, no unbreakable principles... nothing that will never be questioned.

As an example, as I said earlier I have seen translations of Leviticus 18:22 with radically different interpretations... and I'm not talking about the difference between KJV and the "standard" version... I'm talking about people doing direct translations from Hebrew.

What happened to Isaac?

Having now read over the rest of the thread... I assume the Hebrew University scholar you refer to is Keruvalia. Well, I would probably take his translation over mine, also. He has more experience 'in the field', and is doing a less superficial translation than mine was. (As I said... I was doing as literal a translation as I could).

(Although, that said - since the documents we are dealing with are thousands of years old, it's hard for ANYONE to have absolute authority over the meanings of the text).

The fact remains, however, that my attempt at translation disproved your statement about Leviticus 18:22. Keruvalia offered a translation that ALSO disproved your statement about Leviticus 18:22.

You neither offered a translation, nor had any other evidence for your claim - and can only argue with my translation because you are using another argument used to prove you wrong...

Oh - and while I may be 'amateur', at least I have bothered to educate myself, rather than accept an 'official (and, I'm often told, innerrant) version'.

Also, after the great flood, the world had to be populated from Noah's family. The bible just always seems to have wives for all the men out of the blue though, it just dosen't make any sense.

The book of Genisis only lists one wife for either Noah or one each for his sons, unless you are refering to his grand children.

But that does bring to my mind a point. Just because it only lists the one, does that mean that's all there was. How many other details, that could make a diffrence today, are ommitted simly because the author wrote it with certain concepts that were "Common Sense" for the period?

I'll admit it, I'm not too knowledgeable about the Bible, I really should read it... all sometime.

But for now, my question:

What does the Bible have to say about incest?

That said, if the Bible views incest as wrong/immoral then how does it explain the propagation of the human species through Adam and Eve?

No matter how you slice it, eventually, there is going to be some family lovin' going on. But as I said, I haven't really read the Bible so I don't know if God created more people or what.

Just looking for an answer on this one.

The bible is 1930 years old and contradicts itself so much it isn't worth paying any attention to.

I believe what you're looking for is in Deuteronomy... I'll check. Gah I can't find exactly what I want. Best I can give you is Duet 27: 20-23, skip 21

EDIT: Read another post, it's apparently in Leviticus, gl there.

The Hebrew doesn't seem to imply he uncovers himself.

But you still haven't answered whether it implies that it was Ham that did the uncovering either.

...Genesis 9:24 "And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him". After all... how would Noah be able to tell on waking that Ham had 'seen' him naked? Especially since he woke up covered?

Assuming you are correct, then how would Noah be able to tell on waking that it was Ham who had violated him? Regardless of how he did so, this in no way favors your argument, since he could have just as easily found out in a similiar fashion that it was Ham who had "simply" seen him naked in the literal sense.

Especially since he woke up covered?

If he knew that he hadn't covered himself, then it obviously would have to be someone else. And logically, whoever did so would probably have a reason for his/her/their actions. And quite possibly, it was done so to prevent others from (literally) seeing his nakedness.

'Uncovering Nakedness' seems to be a common euphemism in the Biblical text, and carries a very definite meaning... if Noah was 'uncovered' and Ham saw his 'nakedness', it is quite clear what is being described.

And how does that mean that it must be being used as an euphemism here? For example, let's pretend a farmer comes home one day and asks his wife why there's no milk and the wife responds that it's because "the cow kicked the bucket". The farmer rushes to the barn, followed by his wife, only to discover the cow is still alive. When he questions the veracity of her statement, she points to the corner, in which lies a bucket, with milk around it, looking just like it would if the cow had literally, rather than figuratively/euphemistically "kicked the bucket". If the author of Genesis had meant the "seeing of nakedness" in a literal sense, how would he have phrased it differently?

The brothers didn't want to see their father after Ham had seen his 'nakedness uncovered' - which is understandable - and doesn't argue against the incest idea at all.

I don't see how it argures for it either. If "seeing the nakedness uncovered" = "having sexual congress with that person", then not "seeing the naked uncovered" would mean what else besides "not having sexual intercourse with that person"? If the "seeing" is figurative in the the first instance, then how does it acquire a literal sense in the second? Or if you want to argue that the author uses it figuratively in both cases, why point out that the brothers didn't have sexual intercourse with their father when there is no reason to believe that they did or that they turned their heads, when it is entirely possible to avoid having sex with someone without doing so?

And, re: Onan... common acceptance is that Onan commits the crime of masturbation - obviously this is not the scriptural version of the event... my comment that Noah 'uncovering his own nakedness' would let Onan off the hook is ironic.

He could have just as easily "spilled his seed" through coitus interruptus, which would be an entirely different thing altogether (or one could argue that it wasn't the spilling of the seed itself that was sinful, even if one assumes that it was through masturbation, but rather actively preventing the pregnancy for selfish reasons). Furthermore, like I referred to earlier in this response, just because a phrase is generally used figuratively doesn't mean it is always used that way. I would think that a great number of people literally "uncover their nakedness" every time they take a shower or bath, but would think it rather risky (if not risque) to draw any further conclusions from this.