What do you think of Incest and the Bible?

[mattymatt79]

Science and Catholicism can exist in perfect harmony. Belief in evolution can exist in perfect harmony as well. I posted the exact reasoning earlier in this thread.

 A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall. In those homilies, he made a similar argument: The creation story in Genesis is a spiritual history. It simply doesn't matter what physical means God used to create the world and all living creatures therein; what matters is that man is both body and soul, and his creation is not complete until God has breathed the breath of life into him. And about the creation of the soul (and, thus, of the complete man), science can tell us nothing.

    "They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other," the pope said. "This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such."

On the other hand, there are certain questions that evolutionary theory can never answer: "Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, 'Where does everything come from?'" Christians, thus, can learn truth from science, but scientists must learn to accept the limits of their own work. No scientific investigation can ever prove that God does not exist, or that He did not create the world, or even that man is only the sum of his physical parts.

Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI

[Annella]

Science and Catholicism can exist in perfect harmony. Belief in evolution can exist in perfect harmony as well. I posted the exact reasoning earlier in this thread.

 A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall. In those homilies, he made a similar argument: The creation story in Genesis is a spiritual history. It simply doesn't matter what physical means God used to create the world and all living creatures therein; what matters is that man is both body and soul, and his creation is not complete until God has breathed the breath of life into him. And about the creation of the soul (and, thus, of the complete man), science can tell us nothing.

    "They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other," the pope said. "This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such."

On the other hand, there are certain questions that evolutionary theory can never answer: "Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, 'Where does everything come from?'" Christians, thus, can learn truth from science, but scientists must learn to accept the limits of their own work. No scientific investigation can ever prove that God does not exist, or that He did not create the world, or even that man is only the sum of his physical parts.

Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI

Again....I refer to "A Case for a Creator" and "A Case for a Savior"  which refer to some of the greatest scientific minds of our time to answer some of these questions.  While some of science's theories may have some truth to them (in theory).  The creation of man came from God...not evolution of species, and then into man (like Darwin's theories).  How the world (earth) came to be from a scientific standpoint has some merit to it.

While I understand your position to stand with your choice of religion, not all of us are Catholics or chose to be so. However, some of what you quoted from your Pope is correct.....but not all.  I hope we are not here to quote our own personal religious leaders because that is not what we were talking about.

My source of information on the creation of man is the Bible.  It's pretty explanatory.

[mattymatt79]

I draw my thoughts from my religion and since I don't follow any others nor do I actually really care I use what I personally know to back up my own thoughts.

You stated that religion and science can not coexist, I stated with backed up thoughts by my religion and using examples and citing references that they can. I see no difference in my doing that than anyone else. At least I used an example other than the typical "no you" argument.

[JessieKateRose]

I was sitting reading the bible one night I read all the way through Noah and the Arc. Well In the days that God made Adam and Eve, he made other people, animals, day night, all life right? Well he found that the world was corrupt in the days of Noah and his family so he found favor in Noah and had the ark animals and Noah his wife, his sons and their wifes. My question is what happened when God only left these people isn't there incest in order to repopulate the world? Doesn't that mean that we are all related and descendents from Noah? So are we marrying our kin? I don't mean to offend anybody just a few questions I though would be good to clarify. 

Considering there are whites/Blacks/Asians/Latino/Native Americans and so on...we can see this story is False.

That wouldn't necessarily make the story false. It's not believing in evolution that makes it so obviously false.
Oh, and that's not "yet another attack on Christians," some Christians do believe in evolution.

I don't know of any Christian that believes in the Evolution theory.  They do believe in science of discovery, and that science points to a Creator (Google: "A Case For A Creator" and "A Case for a Savior").  The more science delves into the human body, and the world around us, they realize that all this did not happen by chance, or evolved into who and what we are today.

Any Christian I know believes in the Creation Theory that is spoken of in the book of Genesis.....not evolution.  There are many threads in "Debate and Discuss" that cover this extensively.....very extensively.  If your interested, you can go read them for yourself.  They are quite in depth.

Well I do. My Biology professor for example believes in evolution and he is Episcopalian. I'm pretty sure my parents both are. I've run into plenty on the internet.

Evolution A. doesn't say anything about how life was created (You can believe in evolution and still believe that God created everything) and B. has been proven to be FACT. It is happening as we type. Diseases are evolving to become resistant to more and more antibiotics. Fungi are evolving to become resistant to fungicides. Mosquitoes are evolving to become resistant to DDT.

[hephzibahpotoak]

May God Bless everyone! Even those whom may not believe. I have some odds with the faith but I have never given up on it! I would like someone to explain the answer to my original question in more detail as I am still confused. 

Incest is a sin, The bible is made by humans called the prophets thru God's divination. Though in some bible stories, incest was a common practice. Examples, Lot and his daughters, Noah's wife and His son, (I forgot the name of the son), and brothers marrying sisters like the time of Abraham...

[dwiley11]

thats why there is a greater chance of retardation

[Annella]

I draw my thoughts from my religion and since I don't follow any others nor do I actually really care I use what I personally know to back up my own thoughts.

You stated that religion and science can not coexist, I stated with backed up thoughts by my religion and using examples and citing references that they can. I see no difference in my doing that than anyone else. At least I used an example other than the typical "no you" argument.

Whoa, wait a minute.  I did not say that religion and science cannot coexist.  I referenced 2 publications/videos which most certainly says different.  What I have a problem with is science trying to say we (man) came from some cosmic goo, fish, monkeys, etc. somewhere.  Absurd.  As far as the creation of man, God created man (Genesis). 

Please read my posts as I gave examples also, but you chose to ignore them.  You use your religion?  Me too.  I take the Bible quite literally. We both have an opinion.  Your entitled to yours.  You said that Science and Catholicism can exist in perfect harmony.  I don't argue that point one bit. 

How I believe (I'm not Catholic), do not believe as you. There are some very important questions of what science has come up with on some levels.

This thread is about incest in the Bible so we are both off topic.

[Annella]

I was sitting reading the bible one night I read all the way through Noah and the Arc. Well In the days that God made Adam and Eve, he made other people, animals, day night, all life right? Well he found that the world was corrupt in the days of Noah and his family so he found favor in Noah and had the ark animals and Noah his wife, his sons and their wifes. My question is what happened when God only left these people isn't there incest in order to repopulate the world? Doesn't that mean that we are all related and descendents from Noah? So are we marrying our kin? I don't mean to offend anybody just a few questions I though would be good to clarify. 

Considering there are whites/Blacks/Asians/Latino/Native Americans and so on...we can see this story is False.

That wouldn't necessarily make the story false. It's not believing in evolution that makes it so obviously false.
Oh, and that's not "yet another attack on Christians," some Christians do believe in evolution.

I don't know of any Christian that believes in the Evolution theory.  They do believe in science of discovery, and that science points to a Creator (Google: "A Case For A Creator" and "A Case for a Savior").  The more science delves into the human body, and the world around us, they realize that all this did not happen by chance, or evolved into who and what we are today.

Any Christian I know believes in the Creation Theory that is spoken of in the book of Genesis.....not evolution.  There are many threads in "Debate and Discuss" that cover this extensively.....very extensively.  If your interested, you can go read them for yourself.  They are quite in depth.

Well I do. My Biology professor for example believes in evolution and he is Episcopalian. I'm pretty sure my parents both are. I've run into plenty on the internet.

Evolution A. doesn't say anything about how life was created (You can believe in evolution and still believe that God created everything) and B. has been proven to be FACT. It is happening as we type. Diseases are evolving to become resistant to more and more antibiotics. Fungi are evolving to become resistant to fungicides. Mosquitoes are evolving to become resistant to DDT.

Again......if you would read the posts, I gave 2 instances where the greatest scientific minds of our time set out to prove these very things we are talking about.  It shows science pointing to a Creator.  There is also a great website  godnscience.com that is also very good at these questions.  My last post also referred a couple of you to threads that go into this extensively.  They are in the "Debate and Discuss" section, where this subject has been discussed to exhaustion.  I have no wish to do it here in a thread about incest and the Bible.  Check it out for yourself.

[jcribb16]

Annella, this is a side note for you.  Could you check this thread out: " I don't believe in the Devil or Hell "
Thanks!  Btw, the dr. put me on another round of antibiotics today.  I pray this time it works!  Hope you are well! 

[Annella]

Annella, this is a side note for you.  Could you check this thread out: " I don't believe in the Devil or Hell "
Thanks!  Btw, the dr. put me on another round of antibiotics today.  I pray this time it works!  Hope you are well! 

I'm writing you an email.......

[tantricia44]

I was sitting reading the bible one night I read all the way through Noah and the Arc. Well In the days that God made Adam and Eve, he made other people, animals, day night, all life right? Well he found that the world was corrupt in the days of Noah and his family so he found favor in Noah and had the ark animals and Noah his wife, his sons and their wifes. My question is what happened when God only left these people isn't there incest in order to repopulate the world? Doesn't that mean that we are all related and descendents from Noah? So are we marrying our kin? I don't mean to offend anybody just a few questions I though would be good to clarify. 

Actually, god forgot to mention that there was someone else before Eve to be with adam. He created them equally. Lilith was adam's equal but she refuse to be on the bottom. Adam had a hissy fit & god banished Her to earth turned her into a demon. Talk about totally sexist! So, to get adam a wife that he could control, he created another wife using adam's rib. Therefore, yes, eve is a copy of a copy & not as good. A lower version of the original. Yes, this is Incest if your wife is made of a part of you. You might as well be saying that you're wife is your twin sister. This is why I can't believe in the bible. Contradiction after contradiction in every area. You don't need to watch murder, incest, cheating, crimes on tv or in the movies. Just open the bible & you get it all uncensored. LoL.
If I had to chose between the two women I'd be Lilith any day. Since eve took the wife deal; women have suffered every which way, from rape, abuse, dying in child birth, having to give birth, sub-slave to men. It's still happening in the Middle east.(More hidden in America) Men can do anything but if a woman looks at another man beside her husband in the middle east, they're stoned to death or thrown out. Men can go whoring anytime go, home & infect his wife with diseases but if a woman starts a new relationship after the husband died long ago, she is jailed, charged for adultery ;if she starts a new relationship with a new man. Adam didn't do women any favors. If he was soooo lonely, god should have had him mate with the snake. LOL, GO LILITH!!!!!

[mattymatt79]

I was sitting reading the bible one night I read all the way through Noah and the Arc. Well In the days that God made Adam and Eve, he made other people, animals, day night, all life right? Well he found that the world was corrupt in the days of Noah and his family so he found favor in Noah and had the ark animals and Noah his wife, his sons and their wifes. My question is what happened when God only left these people isn't there incest in order to repopulate the world? Doesn't that mean that we are all related and descendents from Noah? So are we marrying our kin? I don't mean to offend anybody just a few questions I though would be good to clarify. 

Actually, god forgot to mention that there was someone else before Eve to be with adam. He created them equally. Lilith was adam's equal but she refuse to be on the bottom. Adam had a hissy fit & god banished Her to earth turned her into a demon. Talk about totally sexist! So, to get adam a wife that he could control, he created another wife using adam's rib. Therefore, yes, eve is a copy of a copy & not as good. A lower version of the original. Yes, this is Incest if your wife is made of a part of you. You might as well be saying that you're wife is your twin sister. This is why I can't believe in the bible. Contradiction after contradiction in every area. You don't need to watch murder, incest, cheating, crimes on tv or in the movies. Just open the bible & you get it all uncensored. LoL.
If I had to chose between the two women I'd be Lilith any day. Since eve took the wife deal; women have suffered every which way, from rape, abuse, dying in child birth, having to give birth, sub-slave to men. It's still happening in the Middle east.(More hidden in America) Men can do anything but if a woman looks at another man beside her husband in the middle east, they're stoned to death or thrown out. Men can go whoring anytime go, home & infect his wife with diseases but if a woman starts a new relationship after the husband died long ago, she is jailed, charged for adultery ;if she starts a new relationship with a new man. Adam didn't do women any favors. If he was soooo lonely, god should have had him mate with the snake. LOL, GO LILITH!!!!!

You honestly can say you believe this? Wow. I thought your political beliefs were out there. This really takes the cake.

[Annella]

I was sitting reading the bible one night I read all the way through Noah and the Arc. Well In the days that God made Adam and Eve, he made other people, animals, day night, all life right? Well he found that the world was corrupt in the days of Noah and his family so he found favor in Noah and had the ark animals and Noah his wife, his sons and their wifes. My question is what happened when God only left these people isn't there incest in order to repopulate the world? Doesn't that mean that we are all related and descendents from Noah? So are we marrying our kin? I don't mean to offend anybody just a few questions I though would be good to clarify. 

Actually, god forgot to mention that there was someone else before Eve to be with adam. He created them equally. Lilith was adam's equal but she refuse to be on the bottom. Adam had a hissy fit & god banished Her to earth turned her into a demon. Talk about totally sexist! So, to get adam a wife that he could control, he created another wife using adam's rib. Therefore, yes, eve is a copy of a copy & not as good. A lower version of the original. Yes, this is Incest if your wife is made of a part of you. You might as well be saying that you're wife is your twin sister. This is why I can't believe in the bible. Contradiction after contradiction in every area. You don't need to watch murder, incest, cheating, crimes on tv or in the movies. Just open the bible & you get it all uncensored. LoL.
If I had to chose between the two women I'd be Lilith any day. Since eve took the wife deal; women have suffered every which way, from rape, abuse, dying in child birth, having to give birth, sub-slave to men. It's still happening in the Middle east.(More hidden in America) Men can do anything but if a woman looks at another man beside her husband in the middle east, they're stoned to death or thrown out. Men can go whoring anytime go, home & infect his wife with diseases but if a woman starts a new relationship after the husband died long ago, she is jailed, charged for adultery ;if she starts a new relationship with a new man. Adam didn't do women any favors. If he was soooo lonely, god should have had him mate with the snake. LOL, GO LILITH!!!!!

You honestly can say you believe this? Wow. I thought your political beliefs were out there. This really takes the cake.

Oh yeah, this is some of the stuff that people believe.......and then they say the Bible isn't real   lol

[lvstephanie]

One thing that may help this discussion (of the original topic) is that our English translation of the original texts is faulty at best. For example, in Genesis, the original Hebrew has "adam" and / or "ha-adam" which in English can be translated into several different words: Adam (a male name), man / male, or human / humankind. Couple that with the lack of punctuation and capitalization in old Hebrew, and verse 1:26-27 can begin to be translated in a multitude of ways. One way would be to put more emphasis on God creating one human, called Adam, in His image and likeness, and later created the female counterpart:

26 And God said, `Let Us make Adam in Our image and likeness. Let him rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over everything that creeps on the earth.'

27 And God made Adam in His image, and in this image of God He prepared him. God created both a male and a female.

Others have argued that a better translation would be to translate the word "adam" in these instances as "humankind", and to keep verse 27 as one sentence instead of as two separate sentences:

26 And God said, `Let Us make humankind in Our image and likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over everything that creeps on the earth.'

27 And God made humankind in His image, and in the image of God He prepared [a person]^*: a male and a female He prepared them.

I tend to agree more with this second translation. Not only does it place females in the same esteem as males of our species, it also shows that it was "humankind" itself that is in God's image and likeness, not just one person or one sex. That in order to understand what God is like, you have to know of all of humankind. If translated in this light, these verses suggest that God created humankind but never suggests that there was only one pair of humans that had to populate the world. If so, then there may not be any incest involved, unless you mapped families to very distant cousins. ^* the original translation uses the masculine pronoun for "adam", so the best translated English word is "him". But if trying to use the gender-neutral definition of "adam", then using a gender-neutral noun to refer to "humankind" is more appropriate. Hence the reason for "a person" being set apart by the square brackets.

Another great area of disagreement as to the translation of the Bible is in the word "created". On the one hand, this word can be thought of as "bringing into existence" or "creation ex nihilo". St. Thomas of Aquinas supports this version of translation. On the other hand, "created" can be translated as being "bringing about order from a chaotic mass" or "creation ex materia" -- a view supported by St. Augustine. Again I tend to agree with the second translation rather than the first. If the former semantic is used, then human's were "popped" into being out of nothing, giving rise to qon's view of God being a magician in the sky. However if the latter definition is used, then humans were "molded" from what already existed, allowing for our scientific explanation for the origin of our species -- that humankind was "made" out of the chaotic gene-pool of early primates, to give order to our genes such that both physical and mental acuity would be the "fittest" for a being's survival. I believe that this is what mattymatt was saying when stating that the Catholic church believes that religion and science can co-exist; that science says hows things happen, and religion says provides meaning and morality to our existence.

Again for the sake of discussion about incest, if the ex nihilo view is used, it suggests more of the "Adam and Eve" story of one couple being created out of nothing, and being told to populate the Earth (leading to the idea of incest). However, if the latter viewpoint is used, then humankind could have evolved from its primate ancestors, which may or may not be close family relatives, and being that we know the genetic troubles incest causes, the fittest beings probably were not offspring of an incestuous coupling.

One question that I've always wondered about looking at the literal translation of the Hebrew, esp. concerning these passages, is the use of the word "Elohim" which is translated into God. However it should more appropriately be translated as "gods" since "Elohim" is the plural of "Eloah". This plural version continues in the text where it says "`Let Us make humankind in Our image and likeness...'" Since Judaism (and by extension, Christianity) is a monotheistic religion, it is curious that the Bible uses the plural word for God suggesting a pantheon of gods were involved in the world's creation and not just one God.... Ok, I realize that's off topic as to incest in the Bible, but it's just something curious if trying to read the Bible literally which is what seems to be happening when presenting the question of incest to begin with.

[Annella]

One thing that may help this discussion (of the original topic) is that our English translation of the original texts is faulty at best. For example, in Genesis, the original Hebrew has "adam" and / or "ha-adam" which in English can be translated into several different words: Adam (a male name), man / male, or human / humankind. Couple that with the lack of punctuation and capitalization in old Hebrew, and verse 1:26-27 can begin to be translated in a multitude of ways. One way would be to put more emphasis on God creating one human, called Adam, in His image and likeness, and later created the female counterpart:

26 And God said, `Let Us make Adam in Our image and likeness. Let him rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over everything that creeps on the earth.'

27 And God made Adam in His image, and in this image of God He prepared him. God created both a male and a female.

Others have argued that a better translation would be to translate the word "adam" in these instances as "humankind", and to keep verse 27 as one sentence instead of as two separate sentences:

26 And God said, `Let Us make humankind in Our image and likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over everything that creeps on the earth.'

27 And God made humankind in His image, and in the image of God He prepared [a person]^*: a male and a female He prepared them.

I tend to agree more with this second translation. Not only does it place females in the same esteem as males of our species, it also shows that it was "humankind" itself that is in God's image and likeness, not just one person or one sex. That in order to understand what God is like, you have to know of all of humankind. If translated in this light, these verses suggest that God created humankind but never suggests that there was only one pair of humans that had to populate the world. If so, then there may not be any incest involved, unless you mapped families to very distant cousins. ^* the original translation uses the masculine pronoun for "adam", so the best translated English word is "him". But if trying to use the gender-neutral definition of "adam", then using a gender-neutral noun to refer to "humankind" is more appropriate. Hence the reason for "a person" being set apart by the square brackets.

Another great area of disagreement as to the translation of the Bible is in the word "created". On the one hand, this word can be thought of as "bringing into existence" or "creation ex nihilo". St. Thomas of Aquinas supports this version of translation. On the other hand, "created" can be translated as being "bringing about order from a chaotic mass" or "creation ex materia" -- a view supported by St. Augustine. Again I tend to agree with the second translation rather than the first. If the former semantic is used, then human's were "popped" into being out of nothing, giving rise to qon's view of God being a magician in the sky. However if the latter definition is used, then humans were "molded" from what already existed, allowing for our scientific explanation for the origin of our species -- that humankind was "made" out of the chaotic gene-pool of early primates, to give order to our genes such that both physical and mental acuity would be the "fittest" for a being's survival. I believe that this is what mattymatt was saying when stating that the Catholic church believes that religion and science can co-exist; that science says hows things happen, and religion says provides meaning and morality to our existence.

Again for the sake of discussion about incest, if the ex nihilo view is used, it suggests more of the "Adam and Eve" story of one couple being created out of nothing, and being told to populate the Earth (leading to the idea of incest). However, if the latter viewpoint is used, then humankind could have evolved from its primate ancestors, which may or may not be close family relatives, and being that we know the genetic troubles incest causes, the fittest beings probably were not offspring of an incestuous coupling.

One question that I've always wondered about looking at the literal translation of the Hebrew, esp. concerning these passages, is the use of the word "Elohim" which is translated into God. However it should more appropriately be translated as "gods" since "Elohim" is the plural of "Eloah". This plural version continues in the text where it says "`Let Us make humankind in Our image and likeness...'" Since Judaism (and by extension, Christianity) is a monotheistic religion, it is curious that the Bible uses the plural word for God suggesting a pantheon of gods were involved in the world's creation and not just one God.... Ok, I realize that's off topic as to incest in the Bible, but it's just something curious if trying to read the Bible literally which is what seems to be happening when presenting the question of incest to begin with.

First of all...what Bible are you reading from, and what are you using to translate into Hebrew (Old Testament)? Your post is correct in one sense that Adam and Eve were equal (humankind).  Throughout the Bible, it will refer to the masculine word of "man" which in the Old Hebrew is humankind (one meaning) which includes woman also.  ou do need the Hebrew translation (for the OT) and Greek (for the NT).  One word can have different meanings considering what context it was written in and how it pertained to how the word was being used, or conversational context in scripture.  If you study the Bible long enough, you will find that scripture interprets scripture.

However, in the 27th verse, you have added "a" as in He created "a" male and "a" female.  It doesn't say that in the Bible (KJV).  It says male and female created He them.

While the Bible does not give specifics if God created more humankind than Adam and Eve....it is possible as not to force humankind into incest.  Also, you can read a verse that can literally have all past, present, and future prophesy in it.  When God said "let us make man in our image, in the image of God made He them" (paraphrasing), He was actually talking to the Angels, and about His own Image to come (Jesus).  Since God had no image until Jesus (no man hath seen God at any time). Then how could we have been made in the image of God?  While we are bound by time parameters, God is not.  He can see all past, present, and future all at once, and experience it as well. He is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

There's something else that doesn't quite fit.  If God formed man from the dust of the ground, and formed woman from the rib of man (and he most certainly did), why would he resort to forming other humankind from primates? As far as God popping people out, I feel that is insulting the miraculous Creator that He is.  In other words, why would he create literally thousands of different species of plant, animal, fish, etc., after their kind, and then just reach into the primate gene pool to make more mankind.  I don't buy it.

Lets keep men out of this like St Augustine, and St Thomas of Aquinas (who were they?) This sounds like another plug for Catholicism and I'm not Catholic nor choose to be, so I don't particularly accept the significance of their translations.  

I also want to point out that a lot of Christian religions are tritheism, they believe in 3 (trinity).  The Jews are Monotheistic in their belief in only one God.  There are a few other organized Christian groups that are Monotheistic in their belief also.  I myself believe there is only ONE God (Monotheism, or Oneness).  There's much that can be said on this subject, but this is not what we are talking about.  It is off topic.