Religion and incest

[Seb the Atheist]

I don’t believe that any human ever lived 100s of years. With Little medical knowledge, they more likely they live shorter lifespans than we do today.

I agree, I think this was also one of the reasons as to why childbearing started very early in their teens, as the lifespan (as far as I know) was around 25 - 35. I would love to be proven wrong on this as I myself would like to live a long and happy life myself but data seems to suggest that they didn't get old.

Life expectancy - Wikipedia

 

[Whyayeman]

Relax, this is a non-issue. There is nothing in Genesis to imply that Adam and Eve were the only 'first humans'. Cain took a wife, after all, but there is no mention of any sister. The Genesis story assumes that there were other humans around.

Etymologically 'Adam' just means 'Man'. and Eve 'Mother'. The myth is just that, not to be confused with history.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Genesis 3:20 KJV
20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Relax, this is a non-issue. There is nothing in Genesis to imply that Adam and Eve were the only 'first humans'. Cain took a wife, after all, but there is no mention of any sister. The Genesis story assumes that there were other humans around.

Etymologically 'Adam' just means 'Man'. and Eve 'Mother'. The myth is just that, not to be confused with history.

You try to give them an out from this rather ~icky~ scenario and then...

Genesis 3:20 KJV
20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Oh well.

 

[Whyayeman]

You try to give them an out from this rather ~icky~ scenario and then...



Oh well.

I don't expect much from CF!

 

[ViaCrucis]

Let me start by saying that I in no way try to mock, offend or upset people with my question. Nor do I try to condemn or justify this and am I in no way trying make someone question their believe. I understand that this is a sensitive topic and apologize in advance if I'm not allowed to ask this. It's just that it has intrigued me. From what I understand, the Bible describes two events during which incest happened:

1. Adam & Eve having to populate the earth in the beginning
2. The sons of Noah (Shem, Ham, and Japheth) having to populate the earth after the flood

My question, without trying to insult and offed anyone or have someone question their belief, is:

Is there still widespread acceptance of the occurred event among Christians, or is this something that has people divided where some believe this to have happened and others believe populating the earth may have occurred differently?

Again, I'm not trying to mock or insult, nor do I condemn or justify this. I simply would like to know if there is a consensus or if it's something that has people divided.
I myself am an Atheist but my wife is a Christian and doesn't believe it has happend like this as she points to different genetics so I'm just curious how others think on this topic.

Christians have always had diverse interpretations of the early Genesis stories.

We can go all the way back to the 3rd century to find someone like Origen of Alexandria, the head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria (think of it as, basically, the first Christian seminary), who argued that taking the early chapters of Genesis too literally amounted to silliness; arguing that the texts must mean something more than just what a strict wooden reading would imply (talking snakes, getting kicked out of a garden by eating a fruit, how there could be evening and morning before there was a sun).

Christians have always had different opinions on these subjects. The kind of ultra-literal dogmatism of Young Earth Creationism we see today is actually very recent, only emerging in the late 20th century. Even in the early 20th century in the debates between the old Fundamentalists and the Modernists, the original Fundamentalists held to an Old Earth Creationism, such as Gap Theory; so while they may have rejected the evolution of human beings they did recognize a very old earth (since and old earth had been something generally accepted for nearly two centuries at that point, by both religious and non-religious people). There were Young Earth Creationists before the late 20th century, of course, but it was a minority position.

There are certain things which are dogmatic in Christianity (broadly speaking) such as the death and resurrection of Jesus obviously. But other things have never had any dogmatic views attached; the Fall, or the introduction of sin and death into the created order, is a doctrine of Christianity; but that the story of Adam and Eve is to be taken 100% woodenly literal is not a doctrine of Christianity; though it may be a doctrine of some denominations and traditions in the modern world.

One won't find, for example, any of the Ecumenical Councils talking about the age of the earth. These things are not a subject mentioned in any of the historic creeds and confessions of Christianity. Generally, only very modern statements of faith from modern times from some churches/denominations will make this an issue; it is quite modern.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Speaking specifically about the biblical stories: The stories only contain the information they contain. So, for example, the Bible mentions that Cain took a wife, but the Bible doesn't mention who she is or where she came from. The Bible mentions that Adam and Eve's third son, Seth, had progeny--but again, we aren't told who Seth married, or really given any details at all on such things.

If one interprets the story to mean that Adam and Eve were the only people, full stop; then if one wants to fill in the blanks for where the Bible is silent, incest seems like the only possible conclusion. However, the texts themselves don't say one way or the other. Technically, the texts don't even tell us that Adam and Eve were the only people. That also depends on how we try and read the two stories of creation in relation to each other.

There are two creation stories in Genesis, the first creation story can be found in Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:3, the second creation story begins in Genesis 2:4. The first creation story, relating the creation of human beings, speaks of human beings--male and female--created in the image and likeness of God on the sixth day, as the final act of creation. The second creation story refers specifically to the creation of a garden and creating Adam from the dust of the earth, and then later Eve is made from one of Adam's ribs.

Which is all to say, the Bible itself is actually very silent. What people do with that silence depends a lot on their own assumptions, opinions, and methodology of interpretation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Qubit]

So, what is the alternative here?

All life came from two amoebas that were brother and sister?

According to Evolutionists, Science, etc., life emerged from incest.

 

[stevil]

So, what is the alternative here?

All life came from two amoebas that were brother and sister?

According to Evolutionists, Science, etc., life emerged from incest.

LOL, genders wasn't a thing in early life. Single cell organisms don't have sex.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So, what is the alternative here?

All life came from two amoebas that were brother and sister?

According to Evolutionists, Science, etc., life emerged from incest.

All life didn't come from amoebas. We don't know what the original, primordial organism is other than that it would have been a very simple, single-celled organism. And it wouldn't have had sex, sex evolved later.

Mocking something you don't understand is generally not a great way to have an argument taken seriously.

Plenty of Christians, most in fact, simply don't have a problem with taking both science and the Bible seriously. That might not jive with your personal opinions about the Bible and your own personal religious opinions (as opposed to established religious doctrine within Christianity); but it's a fact. A literal reading of the creation stories in Genesis has never been established Christian doctrine, it's always been a valid Christian opinion, but it is neither doctrine nor dogma as recognized within historic, orthodox Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

LOL, genders wasn't a thing in early life. Single cell organisms don't have sex.

Some do. But that's the exception to the norm. And you're right about sex not being a thing in early life; sexual reproduction evolved much later.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Qubit]

LOL, genders wasn't a thing in early life. Single cell organisms don't have sex.

You are missing the point of my post.

 

[Qubit]

All life didn't come from amoebas.

Obviously.

...you don't understand

Please do not assume what I understand or do not understand.

...is generally not a great way to have an argument taken seriously.

You are missing the point. Obviously at some point or another, there is inbreeding. What difference does it make if the Bible teaches it or not? The fact is that the Bible, Science, Biology, Evolution, etc. teach it. So why even make this about religion or Christianity?

Plenty of Christians, most in fact, simply don't have a problem with taking both science and the Bible seriously.

And your point is? The irony is that I have experienced the opposite. The more the Bible matches Science, the more the Bible gets ridiculed and mocked. Why is that?

That might not jive with your personal opinions about the Bible and your own personal religious opinions (as opposed to established religious doctrine within Christianity); but it's a fact.

There you go assuming things.

A literal reading of the creation stories in Genesis has never been established Christian doctrine...

I have been able to do it without an issue. How about you?

...it's always been a valid Christian opinion, but it is neither doctrine nor dogma as recognized within historic, orthodox Christianity.

So what? Opinions and Dogma are often false. No need to go off on some tangent and rant.

I was simplifying a complex problem. Here is an example...

"This may seem surprising or unsettling, but evolutionary theorists have pointed out for decades that inbreeding is not always bad—and that in some cases, for instance where mate choice is limited, it might even be beneficial."

Incest isn't a taboo in the animal kingdom, new study shows

We humans tend to regard incest as deeply disturbing. It's a strong social taboo, and it's underpinned by sound biological reasoning. Mixing genes with a non-relative is beneficial because it increases genetic diversity, while genetic defects often occur in the offspring of related parents.

phys.org

 

[stevil]

You are missing the point of my post.

Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[Qubit]

Technically, the texts don't even tell us that Adam and Eve were the only people.

That is false.

Adam was the first Man...

1 Corinthians 15:45
"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."

There are two creation stories in Genesis, the first creation story can be found in Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:3, the second creation story begins in Genesis 2:4.

It is the same creation account overall. Genesis 2 fills in missing details.

Just an FYI...

There are no contradictions in the account.

The first creation story, relating the creation of human beings, speaks of human beings--male and female--created in the image and likeness of God on the sixth day, as the final act of creation.

Genesis 1 teaches of the creation of the Second Adam and his wife Eve.

The second creation story refers specifically to the creation of a garden and creating Adam from the dust of the earth, and then later Eve is made from one of Adam's ribs.

Incorrect. God made Ishshah (Woman), *not* Eve, from the Rib.

Which is all to say, the Bible itself is actually very silent.

Nope. All of the information is there for those willing to take the time and learn it.

What people do with that silence depends a lot on their own assumptions, opinions, and methodology of interpretation.

Your assumptions, opinion and methodology of interpretation are causing you to teach errors and falsehoods.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That is false.

Adam was the first Man...

1 Corinthians 15:45
"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."

First doesn't mean only. Just FYI.

It is the same creation account overall. Genesis 2 fills in missing details.

Just an FYI...

There are no contradictions in the account.

While I don't view the accounts as contradictions, if one takes the accounts completely literally there is actually a significant contradiction. Let's take a gander shall we?

"And God said, 'Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fuit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth' And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants, yielding seed according to its own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day." - Genesis 1:11-13

"When no bush of the field was yet in the earth, and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not yet caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the earth and was watering the whole face of the ground--then the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into His nostrils the breath of life, and the man become a living creature. And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant in the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." - Genesis 2:5-9

Was man created before or after plants sprung up from the earth?

If you want to take this all as a singular, literal account, this is clearly a contradiction. Now, you might not like that, you might be offended that I'd say that. But you can't ignore what the Bible actually says.

Now, I--and most Christians--don't take this to be a singular, literal account. So this isn't a problem for us. We still fully accept this as the fully infallible word of God, free of error. We just don't understand it literally as you do.

Now, as I was raised a Young Earth Creationist, I already know the standard YEC explanation: Plants were created on day 3, but didn't grow until after day 6. The problem with this, of course, is that it clearly contradicts the Scriptures, which say that on the 3rd day the plants sprung forth from the earth.

Again, this is really only a problem for hyper-literalist Young Earth Creationists. It's not a problem for most Christians, and never has been.

Genesis 1 teaches of the creation of the Second Adam and his wife Eve.

It does? Where is the first Adam in Genesis 1? Because if I recall correctly, according to St. Paul the Holy Apostle, Jesus Christ is the Second Adam. Perhaps you got confused and meant to say something else?

Incorrect. God made Ishshah (Woman), *not* Eve, from the Rib.

Interesting.

"The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them." - Genesis 3:20-21

So where did Eve come from?

Nope. All of the information is there for those willing to take the time and learn it.

You must be one of those "read between the lines" sort of people, who instead of taking what the Bible says, add whatever you want to the text.

That's not how I do things. I don't make a mockery of the Bible, instead I choose to take it seriously.

Your assumptions, opinion and methodology of interpretation are causing you to teach errors and falsehoods.

Oh? Perhaps you could elaborate.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Qubit]

Oh? Perhaps you could elaborate.

I want to but I am worried about derailing @Seb the Atheist and his OP.

I am currently addressing your questions here...

Genesis 1-3 Timeline Challenge: Can You Resolve the Alleged Contradictions?

I am putting forth a challenge. See if you can make the Genesis 1 through Genesis 3 timelines agree with each other and not contradict as Wikipedia (and other sources) claim. According to Wikipedia, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict one another: “The overlapping stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are...

www.christianforums.com

Not sure what to do next.