Cain & Abel's Incest.

by **Liv** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 3:51 pm

Things that make you go hmmmm....

by **A Person** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:03 pm

The bumper book of magic says:
Genesis 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters

So it's either their sisters or mommy.

Now we'll hear all sorts of speculation how that was all right in them days because they were (nearly) perfect and the fall hadn't caused all those recessive genes yet.

by **Liv** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:23 pm

Bet the Holidays were super interesting around when the family got together...

Makes you wonder what the surname was....

by **BecauseHeLives** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 9:13 pm

The bible mentions Adam and Eve having males, Cain and Able. The bible does not mention all the other children (male and female) that Adam and Eve had and the bible typically does not mention males unless there was some significance and the same can certainly be said for females that were born. This would lead one to believe that Cain and Able married their sisters.

Besides, if you really want to take the incest route with this you really can't. Incest was not against God's law until later on in the Old Testament. It might seem pretty icky to you right now but you have to understand that man's genes were not as screwed up then as they are now.

by **Liv** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 9:26 pm

So if God told you your sister's genes weren't "unclean" and told you to procreate with her, you would?

by **BecauseHeLives** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 11:31 pm

Liv wrote:So if God told you your sister's genes weren't "unclean" and told you to procreate with her, you would?

Then God would be lying and God doesn't lie. The only "clean" person ever on the earth was Jesus.

by **A Person** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:07 am

Ah yes it is Leviticus that prohibits incest - along with eating shellfish, and wearing mixed fibres. It doesn't prohibit fathers screwing their daughters though (granddaughters are out). Since dispensation of grace renders Leviticus obsolete we will have to see if Jesus said anything about incest...

Nope Jesus said nothing, but Paul confirms that if your daughter is really hot and you can't keep your hands off her then go for it.

“But if any man thinks that he is behaving himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requires, let him do what he will; he is not sinning; let them marry” 1 Corinthians 7:36

by **Liv** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:12 am

Really makes one wonder, If you were to describe the incestuous act as pertaining to a motion picture to most christian families, and then suggest they take their kids, most- would have the same disgust as non-Christians do for the entire book. There's some sort of universal truth in that.

by **BecauseHeLives** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:15 am

A Person wrote:Ah yes it is Leviticus that prohibits incest - along with eating shellfish, and wearing mixed fibres. It doesn't prohibit fathers screwing their daughters though (granddaughters are out). Since dispensation of grace renders Leviticus obsolete we will have to see if Jesus said anything about incest...

Nope Jesus said nothing, but Paul confirms that if your daughter is really hot and you can't keep your hands off her then go for it.

“But if any man thinks that he is behaving himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requires, let him do what he will; he is not sinning; let them marry” 1 Corinthians 7:36

Dude, you know you are taking that verse out of context and from a non-KJV (which doesn't even mention the bible). Shame on you...

by **BecauseHeLives** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:19 am

Liv wrote:Really makes one wonder, If you were to describe the incestuous act as pertaining to a motion picture to most christian families, and then suggest they take their kids, most- would have the same disgust as non-Christians do for the entire book. There's some sort of universal truth in that.

Liv, I really doubt there is a such a thing as a universal truth in your world of relativity. Just because you attended church and did "church" things doesn't really give you any insight to how Christians would think in hypothetical situations. I believe the bible to be God's living Word but I wouldn't want my children to see a movie depicting the violence and blood in some parts of it. At least not while they are young.

by **A Person** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:37 am

BecauseHeLives wrote:
A Person wrote:Ah yes it is Leviticus that prohibits incest - along with eating shellfish, and wearing mixed fibres. It doesn't prohibit fathers screwing their daughters though (granddaughters are out). Since dispensation of grace renders Leviticus obsolete we will have to see if Jesus said anything about incest...

Nope Jesus said nothing, but Paul confirms that if your daughter is really hot and you can't keep your hands off her then go for it.

“But if any man thinks that he is behaving himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requires, let him do what he will; he is not sinning; let them marry” 1 Corinthians 7:36

Dude, you know you are taking that verse out of context and from a non-KJV (which doesn't even mention the bible). Shame on you...

If you would like to compare translations, go ahead...

King James Bible
But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.

International Standard Version (©2008)
If a man thinks he is not behaving properly toward his virgin, and if his passion is so strong that he feels he ought to marry her, let him do what he wants; he isn't sinning. Let them get married.

English Revised Version
But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry.

Young's Literal Translation
and if any one doth think it to be unseemly to his virgin, if she may be beyond the bloom of age, and it ought so to be, what he willeth let him do; he doth not sin -- let him marry

Maybe you can point to ANYWHERE in ANY translation of the Bible where incest between a father and daughter is forbidden

by **BecauseHeLives** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:40 am

You KNOW the verses (in context) are discussing letting your older daughter to marry so that she will not lose her virginity or make the father look suspicious. Yet, you turn the verses into something you KNOW it's not. Shame on you...

by **BecauseHeLives** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:42 am

BTW... your other translation give very good proof to stick to the KJV which is translated straight from the greek and hebrew.

by **A Person** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:44 am

A Person wrote:Maybe you can point to ANYWHERE in ANY translation of the Bible where incest between a father and daughter is forbidden

I take it that's a 'No' then?

by **BecauseHeLives** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:54 am

A Person wrote:
A Person wrote:Maybe you can point to ANYWHERE in ANY translation of the Bible where incest between a father and daughter is forbidden

I take it that's a 'No' then?

I take it that you are admitting to purposely taking the the verses out of context?

by **Sanjuro** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:57 am

BecauseHeLives wrote:
A Person wrote:
A Person wrote:Maybe you can point to ANYWHERE in ANY translation of the Bible where incest between a father and daughter is forbidden

I take it that's a 'No' then?

I take it that you are admitting to purposely taking the the verses out of context?

BHL, follower of the bible, please simply answer this and quit trying to change the topic.:

point to ANYWHERE in ANY translation of the Bible where incest between a father and daughter is forbidden

by **BecauseHeLives** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:08 am

BHL, follower of the bible, please simply answer this and quit trying to change the topic.:
point to ANYWHERE in ANY translation of the Bible where incest between a father and daughter is forbidden

[/quote]

Nope.... APErson would love to get back on topic after he purposely made an incorrect statement about scripture. When he admits that.... then perhaps we can move back to questions more inline with the topic. He can't back it up and he knows it.

by **BecauseHeLives** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:13 am

Sanjuro wrote:BHL, follower of the bible, please simply answer this and quit trying to change the topic.

BTW... if you have anything of substance to add to this thread why won't you post it?

by **Sanjuro** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:15 am

BecauseHeLives wrote:
BHL, follower of the bible, please simply answer this and quit trying to change the topic.:
point to ANYWHERE in ANY translation of the Bible where incest between a father and daughter is forbidden

Nope.... APErson would love to get back on topic after he purposely made an incorrect statement about scripture. When he admits that.... then perhaps we can move back to questions more inline with the topic. He can't back it up and he knows it.

I swear, you sound like a child. If the answer were one you wanted to give, history has shown you wouldn't hesitate to spew it regardless of the circumstance.

by **BecauseHeLives** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:26 am

Sanjuro wrote:I swear, you sound like a child. If the answer were one you wanted to give, history has shown you wouldn't hesitate to spew it regardless of the circumstance.

blah... blah...blah... nothing of substance. Go to bed whiner.

by **A Person** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:30 am

All quotes are 'taken out of context' . It's only an issue if the context makes it clear that the quote means something other than what it appears to mean.

Since you know that the Bible doesn't prohibit incest between a father and a daughter anywhere, then perhaps you could show how the 'context' clearly changes the meaning.

by **Sanjuro** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:32 am

BecauseHeLives wrote:
Sanjuro wrote:I swear, you sound like a child. If the answer were one you wanted to give, history has shown you wouldn't hesitate to spew it regardless of the circumstance.

blah... blah...blah... nothing of substance. Go to bed whiner.

It really torx you off when I'm right doesn't it? Quit stalling.... or do you need to ask your preacher tomorrow so he can tell you the answer?

by **BecauseHeLives** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:35 am

Sanjuro wrote:
BecauseHeLives wrote:
Sanjuro wrote:I swear, you sound like a child. If the answer were one you wanted to give, history has shown you wouldn't hesitate to spew it regardless of the circumstance.

blah... blah...blah... nothing of substance. Go to bed whiner.

It really torx you off when I'm right doesn't it? Quit stalling.... or do you need to ask your preacher tomorrow so he can tell you the answer?

Shut up Sanjuro. Your whining is getting out of hand. Add some substance to the conversation or just shut up.

by **Sanjuro** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:39 am

BecauseHeLives wrote:Shut up Sanjuro. Your whining is getting out of hand. Add some substance to the conversation or just shut up.

I have, I've asked you to demonstrate where in the bible it says incest between fathers and daughters is forbidden as A Person requested. Now quit diverting an get to answering.

by **BecauseHeLives** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:41 am

Taken from APErson's favorite website....

http://www.gotquestions.org/close-relat ... nship.html

Question: "Is it wrong to have a relationship with a close relative?"

Answer: The relationships that God forbade in the Old Testament Law are listed in Leviticus chapter 18, verses 6-18. In that passage, we are commanded not to marry a parent, a step-parent, a grandchild (and understood a grandparent), a sibling, a brother or sister of a parent (aunt or uncle), or a half-sibling. Marriage between cousins is nowhere forbidden in the Bible.

In the very early days of humanity, there were a limited number of human beings. As a result, marriage between close relatives was often necessary. It was not until humanity increased greatly on the earth that people no longer needed to intermarry among relatives. In the early days of humanity, the human genetic code was not corrupted to the extent that it is today. Therefore, it was safe for close relatives to marry and have children. There was little risk of genetic abnormalities in their children. Once the human race expanded and, due to sin, the human genetic code became corrupted too much, God commanded against the marriage of close relatives.

So there is nothing essentially evil about marrying a close relative. The reason we should not do it is that it is unsafe genetically. Further, most nations today have strict laws against marriage between close relatives. The Bible commands us to obey the laws of the nation we live in (Romans 13:1-6). Most laws recognize second cousins as sufficiently separate to allow marriage. Any couple that is related and considering marriage should pray wholeheartedly for God to give them wisdom and discretion as to whether it is His will (James 1:5). A couple should most definitely consult their family about the matter as well.