Adam & Eve's Children - Incest?

[donnA]

Originally posted by ColoradoFB:
The reason that incest is not addressed in the creation accounts is that the Adam & Eve story is allegorical. It is a story told by the ancient Hebrews to answer the question asked throughout history..."Where do we come from?". Theologically, it establishes a relationship between God and humankind. Science text, it is not.

And to think I though christians believed God and His written word. For some calling God a liar is n othing, after all satan did, adn still does apparently.

 

[Artimaeus]

Originally posted by dianetavegia:
Artimaeus, and their nieces, nephews, cousins, cousins cousins... etc.

Diane, thanks for the link, too.

 

[Dr. Bob]

If a person has no respect for the Word of God, then I lose my respect for them.

Not saying everyone has to interpret everything the same, but to equate Santa Claus and Adam/Eve borders on blasphemy against the Word of God. Sad.

 

[ColoradoFB]

Hey, I got a news flash for all you bibliolators. No, I am not trying to be rude...but some of you accuse me of calling God a liar, one equated me to Satan and another says rubbish because they disagree with my views.

The news is this: Not all Christians are fundamentalists!

Doesn't mean one is calling God a liar. It means one interprets things differently than you. I don't see a passage that says "believe on the Lord Jesus and believe that the Genesis accounts are not parables and you will be saved". Somebody show me that verse, and I'll consider changing my views.

BTW, no one answered about incest being okay if it is merely genetics that is the issue.

 

[ColoradoFB]

I would also like to add that I put a living God above a written book, regardless of its inspiration. My God is too large to be contained in human language.

 

[ColoradoFB]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
... to equate Santa Claus and Adam/Eve borders on blasphemy against the Word of God. Sad.

Dr. Bob, I think you missed the point. It was not to compare Santa with Adam & Eve, it was the point responding to John W. that one can make reference to people who may not be actual persons. There was no intent to offend you.

 

[John Wells]

Originally posted by ColoradoFB:
Doesn't mean one is calling God a liar. It means one interprets things differently than you. I don't see a passage that says "believe on the Lord Jesus and believe that the Genesis accounts are not parables and you will be saved". Somebody show me that verse, and I'll consider changing my views.

In a scholarly debate one cannot answer a question with another question. I asked you, other than "ColoradoFB believes it in his mind, so it must be so," how do you surmise that the NT list of scriptures I gave you referring to Adam are mythical/illustrative and not statements of fact? I can't stop others from jumping ahead, but I, for one, will not let you slink away from answering this very important point. Hopefully, your answer will come from scripture AND be in context.

 

[ColoradoFB]

Originally posted by John Wells:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ColoradoFB:
Doesn't mean one is calling God a liar. It means one interprets things differently than you. I don't see a passage that says "believe on the Lord Jesus and believe that the Genesis accounts are not parables and you will be saved". Somebody show me that verse, and I'll consider changing my views.

In a scholarly debate one cannot answer a question with another question. I asked you, other than "ColoradoFB believes it in his mind, so it must be so," how do you surmise that the NT list of scriptures I gave you referring to Adam are mythical/illustrative and not statements of fact? I can't stop others from jumping ahead, but I, for one, will not let you slink away from answering this very important point. Hopefully, your answer will come from scripture AND be in context. </font>[/QUOTE]My dear Mr. Wells,

First of all, I never 'slink'.

Slither, maybe. Slink . . . never!

Secondly, I think I already answered with the Santa illustration. Using scripture to prove scripture is circular reference and internal confirmation and is no proof at all. Therefore I will not get into a tit-for-tat battle of Bible quotes. Besides, any I would bring up you would undoubtedly:

1. Declare my interpretation to be rubbish
or
2. Scream "out of context"

Ancient people used parables to teach truths. IMNSHO, that is the case in every example you cited. Maybe they believed in the literal Adam, maybe they didn't. The fact is, we have older human bones and cave paintings than the Biblical geneologies timelines would provide for. If there was a real person as the basis for Adam (which I don't think is true), he could have been an early progenitor of the Jews, but most assuredly not the first human being. As you can tell, I believe biological evolution is the way our species appeared on the planet, and there is not one individual who was suddenly human rather than non-human. It was a gradual change.

It makes no more sense to believe the literal truth of a man made of dirt and a woman made from a rib than any of the other fabulous creation stories that are a part of most early human cultures. Tales are made to explain to a people that did not understand the nature of the universe in a way they could understand. We have much more information today than the bronze-age tribes of the middle east.

I do not hang my Christianity, or Jesus, upon the weak lynchpin of a literal interpretation of Genesis. If one does so, once that lynchpin breaks off, Jesus comes down with it. That is why I believe fundamentalists cry so hard for a literal view...they don't realize they can keep Jesus without what their mind inherently knows is a false premise.

This is not meant to demean any fundamentalists on this list. It is my view and my opinion, and this is a debate forum, after all.

 

[John Wells]

Colorado,

The problem with your biological evolutionary view of the Bible is that view renders the Bible unauthoritative and unreliable. If death preceeded sin in the world, then there is no gospel! One brick after another comes tumbling down (from the building of which Jesus is the cornerstone) when you try to reconcile what you just admitted you believe with the biblical account of creation. I put no faith in your radio carbon dated human bone theory. The biblical account of creation is so interwoven throughout the Bible with references to it in nearly every book. I don't believe the "God breathed" Word of God is interspersed with myth/truth, myth/truth in such a fashion. "Let God be true, and every man a liar." (Romans 3:4)

Take a stroll down to the "Creation vs. Evolution" forum if you want to learn some truths to offset the secular worldview you have bought into!

 

[ColoradoFB]

You make my point for me...

By predicating your faith on the literal account of Genesis, you end up with an impotent gospel once those bricks crumble (as they most assuredly have).

With that view, no Adam, no need for Jesus. I do understand why you cling so desparately to it.

You can be quite sure, I have studied the evolution / creation debate, both here and from many more authoritative sources.

But then, we drift off topic.

 

[ColoradoFB]

So, to get back on topic, I ask for the third time, given the hypothesis that incest was forbidden due to genetic issues and birth defects, does that then mean that incest between sterile siblings would be morally ok? Or is there another reason?

 

[John Wells]

Originally posted by ColoradoFB:
You make my point for me...

By predicating your faith on the literal account of Genesis, you end up with an impotent gospel once those bricks crumble (as they most assuredly have).

With that view, no Adam, no need for Jesus. I do understand why you cling so desparately to it.

You can be quite sure, I have studied the evolution / creation debate, both here and from many more authoritative sources.

But then, we drift off topic.

Not so fast! You are twisting words big time! It’s when you DO NOT “predicate your faith on the literal account of Genesis” that you end up with an impotent gospel.

With your view (no literal Adam) the scriptures are replete with references that don’t make since, like the genealogy of Jesus meticulously tracing back to real people, some of whom the Bible speaks of, and concluding with Adam, whom to you is a myth. That just doesn’t make sense.

I would rather “cling desperately” to the truth, than fall for the lies of secular science!

 

[John Wells]

Originally posted by ColoradoFB:
So, to get back on topic, I ask for the third time, given the hypothesis that incest was forbidden due to genetic issues and birth defects, does that then mean that incest between sterile siblings would be morally ok? Or is there another reason?

I would have to say that since God didn't put any "qualifiers" on the prohibition of close family members having sexual relations/marrying, that it would not be OK with God, i.e. it would be in violation of His command.

 

[ColoradoFB]

Originally posted by John Wells:
I would rather “cling desperately” to the truth, than fall for the lies of secular science!

Science has no agenda, no need to lie. Science is self-correcting. Once a hypothesis or theory is undermined by evidence, it is discarded. No preconceived notions to try to make it fit into.

On the other hand, starting with the preconceived idea that Genesis is literally true and trying to pigeonhole the evidence to fit is no way to ascertain truth and is certainly not science.

What possible reason do you think science is lies? I suspect you enjoy the fruits of science every day, from your automobile to your vaccinations. Why denigrate that which has provided so much benefit to your life?

 

[John Wells]

Colorado,

Please explain Jesus' genealogy (Luke) ending in one or more mythical people. As I study it, the ancient Hebrew culture took their genealogies quite seriously!

So take a stand: science or God's Word!

 

[John Wells]

Originally posted by ColoradoFB:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John Wells:
I would rather “cling desperately” to the truth, than fall for the lies of secular science!

Science has no agenda, no need to lie.</font>[/QUOTE]As in Piltdown Man, Peking Man, and Java Man? What a joke!

 

[UTEOTW]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ColoradoFB:
Science has no agenda, no need to lie.

Originally posted by John Wells:
As in Piltdown Man, Peking Man, and Java Man? What a joke! </font>[/QUOTE]You would have almost had a point if you had stopped with Piltdown. Almost. A hoax by an amateur that was eventually proved a hoax by professial scientists. It did take a while and some people did make what were in hindsight some embarrassing claims. But not deliberate lies (other than the amateur pulling a hoax) as you intimate. This was also before the discovery of most of the known hominid fossils and the scientists of the day did not know what the transitional fossils should look like.

But then you claim that the other two were somehow evolutionist lies. Each are nothing more than Homo erectus skulls and we have plenty of other Homo erectus skulls that look the same as these.

 

[ColoradoFB]

Originally posted by John Wells:
Colorado,

Please explain Jesus' genealogy (Luke) ending in one or more mythical people. As I study it, the ancient Hebrew culture took their genealogies quite seriously!

So take a stand: science or God's Word!

False dichotomy. It is not science or God's Word. What you mean to say is science or your interpretation of God's word. There is a third choice...that your biblical literalism is in error, and that the Bible is not meant to be a science textbook.

As for your examples, a hoax by a rogue or two does not disprove science any more than the hoaxes of Sasquatch's footprints. You limit God.

Tell you what..since you despise scientific discoveries so much, how about being faithful to that belief. Why not forbid giving your family vaccinations. Why not eschew modern tranportation such as automobiles and airplanes. They work on the principles of that godless science. Why not grow your own food, since science has created crops that are pest resistant by manipulation of their genetic code. That would be much more consistent with your position. To put down science while enjoying its fruits is hypocritical. Be consistant. Live by your beliefs.

I have only engaged you in this off topic discussion because you started the thread. However, you again refuse to answer the question that is on topic that I asked 3 times.

 

[John Wells]

Originally posted by ColoradoFB:
1. As for your examples, a hoax by a rogue or two does not disprove science any more than the hoaxes of Sasquatch's footprints. You limit God.

2. Tell you what..since you despise scientific discoveries so much . . .(snip)

3. I have only engaged you in this off topic discussion because you started the thread. However, you again refuse to answer the question that is on topic that I asked 3 times.

1. The point I make is that scientists have been found to lie and deceive for the same reasons the world in general lies and deceives: money, prestige, and fame!

2. Come on Colorado, grow up! Enough with the strawman tactics!

3. I did answer your question - on this page, several posts up, and previous to your last one. Can you see it?

And I agree with not letting this become a creation vs. evolution debate, but to answer:

UTEOTW,

The Javan and Peking forms of erectus in particular came under considerable attack by creationists in the 1970s and 1980s.8-10 The thrust of these critiques was that all erectus forms were extremely ape-like and even possibly fraudulent. A great deal was made of the fact that almost every Peking fossil mysteriously disappeared in 1941, leaving students nothing to work on but casts (see Figure 1).11 Java Man was also regarded as suspect, on account of its discoverer Dubois having allegedly hidden two fully human Javan skulls for many years in order to strengthen his claims for the 'Pithecanthropus' or erectus specimen known as Java Man (see Figure 2).12 These so-called Wadjak skulls are variously reported as from nearby river gravels or from cave deposits many kilometres away. In any case, evolutionist Loring Brace claims that Dubois did make some preliminary reports about these skulls.13 Further doubt was raised because the fully modern femur of Dubois' Java Man was found in the following year 15 metres away from where the skull cap was located.14 Brace and Montagu in 1977 state that 'Curiously, Dubois waited until the 19205 to also reveal he had found four more human thigh bones in the area where his Pithecanthropus material had been discovered.' - Homo erectus 'to' Modern Man: Evolution or Variability? by A. W. (Bill) Mehlert, First published in:Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 8(1):105-116, 1994.

[ July 07, 2003, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: John Wells ]

 

[ColoradoFB]

1. The point I make is that scientists have been found to lie and deceive for the same reasons the world in general lies and deceives: money, prestige, and fame!

2. Come on Colorado, grow up! Enough with the strawman tactics!

3. I did answer your question - on this page, several posts up, and previous to your last one. Can you see it?

No doubt, some people will lie. My point is that modern science requires independent verification and peer review to be accepted. A good example you may recall was in 1989, University of Utah scientists, Stanley Pons & Martin Fleischmann, held a press conference to announce they had created a successful cold fusion reaction. When independent scientists tried to recreate the event, it failed miserably and Pons & Fleischmann were discredited. This is the self correcting aspect of science. I don't know if they were lying, but they did not follow good scientific practice at all. This does not discredit the scientific method or modern science by any means.

As for #2, no strawman at all. You obviously despise scientific discovery, so why don't you be consistent? As a matter of fact, your use of a computer and the Internet are a violation of your non-belief in science.

Thirdly, yes I missed your answer on the question. Thanks for pointing me to it. I also hoped some of the ones making the assertion that genetics are the only reason would provide a little more insight into how they feel about sterile siblings marrying, given their position.