cain's wife...

[robycop3]

Actually, "adding to the Bible" is suggesting GOD condoned incest. That's almost like saying He once condoned idol-worship! Nowhere do His written commands say, "You shall no longer marry your parent, brother, or sister."

Now, while GOD apparently condoned half-siblings marrying as He did for Abe, NOWHERE do we see His condoning intercourse or marriage between direct blood relatives.

While I am a Roby, there are umpteen oher family lines in my ancestry, including some Ute Indian. But at one time there was one original Roby. He mighta had a different name and changed his name to Roby, and not looked at all like I, but some time back there was just one, and his wife. They were the father and mother of all Robys, retaining the name, despite all the others mingled in thru marriage.

Thus, we are all descendants of Adam & Eve, even if GOD created other people after them. They were the FIRST homo sapiens.

Now, the same prob comes up with Noah's grandchildren. Where did their spouses come from? While Scripture doesn't mention it, Nimrod wed his own mother Semiramis & they founded the "mystery, Babylon" religion, from which almost all later pagan religions came, including the "queena hevvin" thingie adopted by the catholix.

Now, why am I bringing this up and arguing so strongly against incest? Because I am having a live dialogue with a Moslem neighbor who insists the Bible as well as the Q'ran condones incest, and this man is married to his cousin. (He is Pakistani, and the practice is quite common there!)

And incest is such a strong "taboo" among even pagans and animals that it seems VERY unlikely that GOD ever condoned intercourse/marriage between immediate biological relatives. Those pagans didn't invent their taboo by accident, and the ANIMALS certainly didn't!

 

[freeatlast]

Actually, "adding to the Bible" is suggesting GOD condoned incest. That's almost like saying He once condoned idol-worship! Nowhere do His written commands say, "You shall no longer marry your parent, brother, or sister."

Now, while GOD apparently condoned half-siblings marrying as He did for Abe, NOWHERE do we see His condoning intercourse or marriage between direct blood relatives.

While I am a Roby, there are umpteen oher family lines in my ancestry, including some Ute Indian. But at one time there was one original Roby. He mighta had a different name and changed his name to Roby, and not looked at all like I, but some time back there was just one, and his wife. They were the father and mother of all Robys, retaining the name, despite all the others mingled in thru marriage.

Thus, we are all descendants of Adam & Eve, even if GOD created other people after them. They were the FIRST homo sapiens.

Now, the same prob comes up with Noah's grandchildren. Where did their spouses come from? While Scripture doesn't mention it, Nimrod wed his own mother Semiramis & they founded the "mystery, Babylon" religion, from which almost all later pagan religions came, including the "queena hevvin" thingie adopted by the catholix.

Now, why am I bringing this up and arguing so strongly against incest? Because I am having a live dialogue with a Moslem neighbor who insists the Bible as well as the Q'ran condones incest, and this man is married to his cousin. (He is Pakistani, and the practice is quite common there!)

And incest is such a strong "taboo" among even pagans and animals that it seems VERY unlikely that GOD ever condoned intercourse/marriage between immediate biological relatives. Those pagans didn't invent their taboo by accident, and the ANIMALS certainly didn't!

You clearly do not understand the creation or the fall of man to suggest that there was people created after the fall to be intigrated into the fallen race. There was incest after the fall. That is a simply fact regardless whether or not you like it.

 

[corndogggy]

I am open to any other explanation that doesn't involve incest.

Then you'd be open to the pre-Adamite theory, from the Christian Identity theory, which is what the KKK believes. Look it up, it makes as much sense as anything else, probably moreso.

Basically it says that the two accounts of creating man in Genesis 1 and 2 were not repeating itself, that Genesis 1 describes pre-Adamites, such as neanderthals and other hominoids, and they were created together at the same time.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


Genesis 2 describes for the first time Adam and Eve, who were white according to the theory, and were created at different times:

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
...
2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.



When Cain left in Genesis 4, he left alone, not with a sister or anything like that, it never says such a thing. However, keep in mind that he apparently knew other people were out there, because he is worried that after he was shunned, other people would find him and kill him.

Genesis 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.


Because of this, God had to put out an order that nobody else could kill him:

Genesis 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

Which is significant, because don't you think this is odd, since a literal interpretation would mean that Adam and Eve are the only other people alive?


So anyway, he did actually run into a group of these pre-Adamites, one of which was his wife. People will say that it never says he met a group... except it does. Keep in mind that somehow he managed to meet enough people to build an entire city:

Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


Does anybody really think that Cain and his wife built an entire city by themselves?



Most of it actually makes sense. The racial part is that this theory says that Adam and Eve were white, but Cain's offspring with the pre-Adamites were non-whites... such as blacks, jews, middle eastern, etc. The problem with this is that in reality something like this may be true but probably backwards... scientists recently proved that all non-blacks have Neanderthal DNA in them, which is ironic. That basically means that blacks are pure and whites were the offspring of modern man and neanderthals, aka. "pre-Adamites". It seems as if when modern humans were migrating away from Africa, they met groups of neanderthals and mated with them, and neanderthal DNA is in every gene of every non-black on the planet. Very similar to the Christian Identity Theory, except backwards.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1987568,00.html

 

[Amy.G]

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.



Did another fall take place by other humans created after the fall of Adam?

Who is he? What about his descendants? Are they cursed by sin? Did they sin? Did Christ redeem this race of people who had different parents?

This line of thought is totally unbiblical and should be rejected immediately.

 

[Don]

Actually, "adding to the Bible" is suggesting GOD condoned incest. That's almost like saying He once condoned idol-worship! Nowhere do His written commands say, "You shall no longer marry your parent, brother, or sister."

Now, while GOD apparently condoned half-siblings marrying as He did for Abe, NOWHERE do we see His condoning intercourse or marriage between direct blood relatives.

While I am a Roby, there are umpteen oher family lines in my ancestry, including some Ute Indian. But at one time there was one original Roby. He mighta had a different name and changed his name to Roby, and not looked at all like I, but some time back there was just one, and his wife. They were the father and mother of all Robys, retaining the name, despite all the others mingled in thru marriage.

Thus, we are all descendants of Adam & Eve, even if GOD created other people after them. They were the FIRST homo sapiens.

Now, the same prob comes up with Noah's grandchildren. Where did their spouses come from? While Scripture doesn't mention it, Nimrod wed his own mother Semiramis & they founded the "mystery, Babylon" religion, from which almost all later pagan religions came, including the "queena hevvin" thingie adopted by the catholix.

Now, why am I bringing this up and arguing so strongly against incest? Because I am having a live dialogue with a Moslem neighbor who insists the Bible as well as the Q'ran condones incest, and this man is married to his cousin. (He is Pakistani, and the practice is quite common there!)

And incest is such a strong "taboo" among even pagans and animals that it seems VERY unlikely that GOD ever condoned intercourse/marriage between immediate biological relatives. Those pagans didn't invent their taboo by accident, and the ANIMALS certainly didn't!

Your logic has gaping holes.

If you truly believe that we all came from Adam and Eve, then we're all related, and we're all committing incest, albeit several generations removed.

If you don't truly believe that we all came from Adam and Eve, but you do believe the biblical account of the flood, then you still believe we're all related, and thus, we're all committing incest (again, several generations removed).

As for your statements about "marriage between blood relatives" and Adam and Eve being the first homo sapiens - well, don't forget that the bible says God created Eve from a piece of Adam, making her a direct blood relative.

As for how to deal with your muslim friend - Leviticus 18. Of course, this was given to the Israelites way after the events in Genesis, so Adam, Cain, and even Noah and his sons didn't have this law.

Look, it may be distasteful to you - but the facts are there. Either the human race started with Adam and Eve and their descendents; or you have to add to scripture to get the answer you want.

 

[InTheLight]

Then you'd be open to the pre-Adamite theory.
Basically it says that the two accounts of creating man in Genesis 1 and 2 were not repeating itself, that Genesis 1 describes pre-Adamites, such as neanderthals and other hominoids, and they were created together at the same time.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


Genesis 2 describes for the first time Adam and Eve, who were white according to the theory, and were created at different times:

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
...
2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

I think this theory is also used by some theistic evolutionists. The idea is that outside the garden of Eden were unintelligent neanderthals but inside the garden God created the human race.

When Cain left in Genesis 4, he left alone, not with a sister or anything like that, it never says such a thing. However, keep in mind that he apparently knew other people were out there, because he is worried that after he was shunned, other people would find him and kill him.

Genesis 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.


Because of this, God had to put out an order that nobody else could kill him:

Genesis 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

Which is significant, because don't you think this is odd, since a literal interpretation would mean that Adam and Eve are the only other people alive?

I've often wondered about the mark given to Cain and why he would need it. Even if you allow for other children and grandchildren of A&E, wouldn't they all know him on sight?

So anyway, he did actually run into a group of these pre-Adamites, one of which was his wife. People will say that it never says he met a group... except it does. Keep in mind that somehow he managed to meet enough people to build an entire city:

Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.


Does anybody really think that Cain and his wife built an entire city by themselves?

Most of it actually makes sense.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1987568,00.html

I'd like to hear a refutation of this theory, because there seems to be wiggle room to allow it to be a reality.

 

[Don]

I'd like to hear a refutation of this theory, because there seems to be wiggle room to allow it to be a reality.

The only comment I can offer is: Only ten years ago, the common scientific theory was that we were all descended from apes. Can't wait to see what they're saying ten years from now.

 

[corndogggy]

Only ten years ago, the common scientific theory was that we were all descended from apes.

Not really, the theory has been that apes and humans have a common ancestor.

 

[InTheLight]

The only comment I can offer is: Only ten years ago, the common scientific theory was that we were all descended from apes. Can't wait to see what they're saying ten years from now.

I'm not following you. Anyway, the theory that neanderthals descended from apes fits right in with some theistic evolutionists. After tens of thousands of years of apes evolving into hominids (they say), God created sinless man and woman, gave them souls, and placed them in the garden of Eden. Inside the garden was no sin or death. Outside the garden there was death.

 

[corndogggy]

GOD HATES INCEST! He hates it so much that those those who practice it often have children with many serious birth defects. We see this among the Pakistanis where cousin marriages are very common

As for how to deal with your muslim friend - Leviticus 18. Of course, this was given to the Israelites way after the events in Genesis, so Adam, Cain, and even Noah and his sons didn't have this law.

It never says you can't marry your cousin. The furthest relation that is forbidden is your aunt (Leviticus 20:19, 18:12). Sisters and half sisters are forbidden as well (Leviticus 18:9, 18:12, 20:17, Deuteronomy 27:22). Cousins are never forbidden.

 

[freeatlast]

It never says you can't marry your cousin. The furthest relation that is forbidden is your aunt (Leviticus 20:19, 18:12). Sisters and half sisters are forbidden as well (Leviticus 18:9, 18:12, 20:17, Deuteronomy 27:22). Cousins are never forbidden.

You are correct;

Each of the following individuals in scripture were in the lineage of Mary, Christ's mother, or Joseph, his "earthly" father, who were chosen by God to raise His son. Most, if not all, occurred (chronologically) after the time in which Levitican law was written. Zelophehad's daughters did as the LORD commanded Moses. Zelophehad's daughters, Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah and Noah, married their cousins on their father's side (Numbers 36:1-11).

Milcah was married to her cousin, Nahor. They had a grand daughter named Rebekkah. In Genesis 24:48-51, the story unfolds of how, against all odds, God's direction for her to marry her cousin's son Isaac (first cousin once removed) is made crystal clear.

Isaac and Rebekkah had two son's. Jacob was the son whom was blessed to fulfill God's prophecy that the descendant's of Abraham (Jacob's grandfather, Isaac's father) would become a great nation. Isaac instructed Jacob to marry a daughter of Rebekkah's brother. Although he immediately fell in love and became engaged to his cousin Rachel, his uncle tricked him into first marrying Rachel's sister Leah. Although God blessed Jacob greatly, Jacob suffered much grief and heartache for having married both sisters. Jacob's descendants became what is now known as the twelve tribes of Israel. (Genesis chapters 19 and 29)

In I Chronicles 23:22, Eleazar's daughters married their first cousins. Very little detail is given of this event.

Biblical prohibitions of cousin marriage reside only in the minds of the unlearned. We can find many instances of where God had blessed cousin marriage. In fact, the Catholic Dictionary finds that Christ's parents-- Joseph & Mary-- were first cousins. Protestants come to the same conclusion. Do I believe that Joseph and Mary were first cousins? It's likely, but I do not need this to validate my relationship. It will be fun to tease Joseph and Mary a bit when I get up there.
http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=religion

http://www.wordoftruthradio.com/questions/37.html

 

[Don]

It never says you can't marry your cousin. The furthest relation that is forbidden is your aunt (Leviticus 20:19, 18:12). Sisters and half sisters are forbidden as well (Leviticus 18:9, 18:12, 20:17, Deuteronomy 27:22). Cousins are never forbidden.

Agree that cousins are not specifically forbidden; however, Leviticus 18:14 and 20:20-21 identify a woman who is not a "near kin" or blood relative, but is your aunt or sister-in-law by virtue of marriage to your father's brother. Seems like you could make a case for marriage to cousins; but the offspring of your father's brother or sister is a blood relative and near kin by virtue of the fact that at least one of their parents is your father or mother's brother or sister.

If we're not to touch an aunt or uncle, who is not near kin or blood relative, because they're married to a near kin or blood relative, seems like the extension to a cousin who is a near kin or blood relative is pretty logical.

If we want to go with only exactly the letter of the law, instead of the spirit, then by all means, cousins are fair game.

 

[glfredrick]

The logical explanation is rather more simple, I think (and rules out the barriers to incest).

God created a "very good" creation, and by that we would assume that the genetic structure of what He created was complete, fully operational, and without flaw. In that sense, there is no mandate against incest, for the main reason against it is propagation of genetic flaws.

AS the curse of sin multiplied, this genetic flaw became rampant because of the destructive patterns of humans, including their diet, the removal of certain features that were common to the early creation after the flood, and likely other concerns that we might only speculate about.

God THEN declared that incest was the propagation between blood relatives and set down a law to halt the process.

Before that, there was no law, as has already been pointed out, and indeed, all humans were descended first from Adam and Eve, both of the "same flesh" in more ways than the marriage relationship, and also through the sons and wives of Noah, who propagated the entire population of the earth as seen in the Table of Nations found in Genesis.

Can I back up the genetic issue scripturally? Only indirectly... In at least one instance we find Nephilim who were attempting to propagate with the daughters of men, seemingly in order to create a new race of people, i.e., introduce a new genetic structure through propagation. Also, there were the mandates to propagate within certain people groups and not with those who were outside the tribe, so to speak. I think that both are indirect genetic issues stipulated by God, knowing, of course, that the concept of genetics and passing down DNA was an alien topic until the past century or so, and more particularly this current generation, where some of the issues found in genetic structure have been revealed from the general revelation that is this observable world.

 

[Don]

Originally Posted by Don
The only comment I can offer is: Only ten years ago, the common scientific theory was that we were all descended from apes. Can't wait to see what they're saying ten years from now.

I'm not following you.

When I was in elementary school, the common theory was that we were descended from apes. In the last 20 years, the theory has progressed to apes and men have a common ancestor. The theory proposed in one of the links is neanderthals and humans interbred; now there's a theory that says there was at least one other race that was interbreeding with both neanderthals and humans (http://www.newscientist.com/article...mily-tree.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news).

In other words, science is a constantly shifting process, especially in the investigation of the origin of the species.

Thus, my statement: Can't wait to see what they're saying ten years from now.

 

[InTheLight]

God created a "very good" creation, and by that we would assume that the genetic structure of what He created was complete, fully operational, and without flaw. In that sense, there is no mandate against incest, for the main reason against it is propagation of genetic flaws.

AS the curse of sin multiplied, this genetic flaw became rampant because of the destructive patterns of humans, including their diet, the removal of certain features that were common to the early creation after the flood, and likely other concerns that we might only speculate about.

God THEN declared that incest was the propagation between blood relatives and set down a law to halt the process.

I see, so because of man's choices (diet, destructive behavior) God changed his mind and started forbidding incest.

 

[InTheLight]

When I was in elementary school, the common theory was that we were descended from apes. In the last 20 years, the theory has progressed to apes and men have a common ancestor. The theory proposed in one of the links is neanderthals and humans interbred; now there's a theory that says there was at least one other race that was interbreeding with both neanderthals and humans (http://www.newscientist.com/article...mily-tree.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news).

In other words, science is a constantly shifting process, especially in the investigation of the origin of the species.

Thus, my statement: Can't wait to see what they're saying ten years from now.

OK, I get it now.

 

[beameup]

Let's not forget that the bene ha Elohim became "human like" and interbred with the "daughters of Adam" thus corrupting the entire human genome...
with the exception of Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives. With this corruption complete it would have been impossible for God to provide a savior
for the "human" race.

 

[glfredrick]

I see, so because of man's choices (diet, destructive behavior) God changed his mind and started forbidding incest.

Just this once, I'll respond... After that you can keep your snarky stuff to yourself. :love2:


In order for God to have "changed His mind" wouldn't He have had to forbid incest in the first place?

That He did so later, under the Law, says that in His timing, that was the proper time to do so, and also, it was not "incest" before He said so. Before that, it was "be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth, with no stipulations as to whom would do that with whom.

So, unless one adopts a "scientific" view of creation and assumes that there were a plethora of available men and women available for propagation of the species, then the Bible indicates that whomever was available was adequate until God said otherwise.

About the issues I mentioned, by that I meant that the now cursed natural world is typically destructive to the genome, with degradation being the norm instead of the exception as it was when God ordained that "everything reproduce according to its kind..."

 

[InTheLight]

In order for God to have "changed His mind" wouldn't He have had to forbid incest in the first place?

Forbid incest, then allow it, then forbid it....that would be two changes of mind. So to answer your question: no. I mean maybe.

That He did so later, under the Law, says that in His timing, that was the proper time to do so, and also, it was not "incest" before He said so. Before that, it was "be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth, with no stipulations as to whom would do that with whom.

I see, so he was simply renaming the activity.

So, unless one adopts a "scientific" view of creation and assumes that there were a plethora of available men and women available for propagation of the species, then the Bible indicates that whomever was available was adequate until God said otherwise.

Yes, until God changed his mind and allowed it. Or renamed it.

 

[Don]

Forbid incest, then allow it, then forbid it....that would be two changes of mind. So to answer your question: no. I mean maybe.

I see, so he was simply renaming the activity.

Yes, until God changed his mind and allowed it. Or renamed it.

OR -- He planned it that way, and instituted the law forbidding it when they reached a point where genetic drift became a problem. In other words, He allowed it, and then forbade it, according to His plan. Doesn't involve a change of mind at all; just careful planning.

Just sayin'.