Incest is not mentioned in the 10 Commandments, but there is a long section in the Book of Exodus listing prohibited sexual unions, including unions between various groups of close relatives; practically every family pairing except that between cousins is prohibited in Mosaic law, and even in several states today it's perfectly legal for first cousins to marry. (Texas is one of them; I know because I checked.) As for as Adam and Eve are concerned, it's important to note, as I have before, that this story is an parable, or allegory, rather than history; in order for it to be true, their children (and I believe Genesis lists more children than just Cain and Abel) would have to have engaged in rampant incest in order to populate the earth. The idea that Adam and Eve are merely representative of the whole population
--here is where allegory comes in; "Adam" is the ancient Hebrew word for "man," after all--is an interesting one, and one I've considered; I'm glad even some preachers seem to favour it, as one person said here. Anyway, the author of Genesis could not possibly have expected people to have taken the idea of two people being responsible for populating the earth as seriously as many do today.
2006-06-28 03:21:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by nacmanpriscasellers 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
I can't remember incest being mentioned in any of the ten commandments or seven deadly sins. If you look at greek and roman mythology, incest was a very common practice before the birth of Christ. But we as a society, along with several other societies, have deemed incest wrong, because of the problems it creats. Incest creates birth defects. It is a genetic thing. Because of this, he have deemed incest a sick and discusting act, and we have even created laws against it. Our disgust for incest has helped keep many genetic deseases at bay. In some cases it has even prevented cases of would be child molestation. I am not a theologist, but accourding to the bible, there have been 2 instances were all our genetics came from just 2 parents. The second, was Abarham and his wife after the great flood. If you are religious, then you should believe that this was gods will, and through devine intervention, God protected the human race from the worst of the genetic deseases that would have destroid the human race. If you are athiest, them you must believe that through pure chance, the first humans were able to pro-create without passing on any fatal genetic flaws.
2006-06-25 00:26:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by lightningviper 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Surprise! Bible means book, not total history of the world.
Genetically all humans can be traced back to one of seven women, when they lived, other than 'a loooong time ago' can't be specific.
Although some read the Bible as word for word from God, many use it as an allegory, and acknowledge it's many blank spots. (Compare the stories of the the Gospels. Many of them do not match up, or contradict each other. The very first, which is not in the modem Bible, was written at least 70 years after the death of Y'Shua.)
Incest is a 'sin' in the Bible, and amongst many legal and moral codes for the simple reasons that a) it requires an abuse of trust from an authority figure on someone who is usually not sufficiently emotionally developed enough to deal with such an act. And, b) it screws up the gene pool. Which in Biblical times could be catastrophic to a small tribe of people trying to survive. (recessive genes that would not make it in the next generation, will show up if the parent both have them from their family.
)
2006-06-25 00:20:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by snoweagleltd 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Incest is not a sin, definitely. Its is just that it is not accepted universally as the results could be disturbing. I would say hurting someone would be a sin, if both the parties (Mother and con, sister and brother or dad and daughter) are with full acceptance and enjoying what they are doing it is fine. But, if it results in a offspring, and if it had a problem - then it falls under sin.
So, I feel incest is not a Sin as long as you don't hurt the other person emotionally, physically and mentally.
2006-06-28 10:40:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by brancobilly 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
That is a very good question. Because Adam and Eve were the first two human beings, and they were told to be fruitful and multiply. But if God didn't create any other human beings, there must have been incest. Maybe this is the evidence everyone needs to realize that were all connected... black, white, yellow, red, and purple. We can all trace our ancestors back to the same people. Can't we all just get along?
2006-06-25 00:15:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by Purplelicious 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Maybe there WAS incest while man was still innocent -- which means there was no sin. And who says Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve's only kids? And who said God never created anyone besides Adam and Eve? Why do so many people waste their time worrying about this issue when there are so many immediate problems in our world?
2006-06-25 00:14:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by bikerpjb 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is believed that there were other humans around at the time of Adam and Eve, it was just that they were the first created by God, and were the only ones important to the point of the story (eg how sin came into the world). The bible doesn't say that there weren't other people around at the time, it simply doesn't refer to them, which doesn't mean they didn't exist.
Unfortunately, with the bible, some reading between the lines is necessary, hence you get so many different oppinions on meaning and the fact that there are so many different denominations in the Christian and Jewish faiths.
2006-06-25 00:14:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by Bratfeatures 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Quick answers you will get here but not complete.
Adam and Eve were made perfect without the genetic fallout we have today add to that the change of atmosphere after the flood. Looking at the geneology record in Genesis you will see a gradual decrease in age longevity and then God gives the decree about no incest
2006-06-25 00:20:09
·
answer #8
·
answered by rapturefuture 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I actually don't believe that incest was considered a sin back then. The main reason that incest was and still is considered a bad thing is that it limits the genetic pool available and typically the worst traits become more evident...or are at least more noticable.
That's at least my opinion and to the best of my knowledge.
Hope that this helps.
Buddhadan
2006-06-25 00:12:08
·
answer #9
·
answered by buddhadan 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Incest isn't actually a sin, there is no commandment that says it's a sin. Incest was made a sin by Pope Pius II. Only because he told a certain English King(not to be named) he was going to be excommunicated from the church for having relations with his daughters to try to bear a son or sons.
2006-06-25 00:16:26
·
answer #10
·
answered by jtracer48 4
·
0⤊
0⤋