assuming adam and eve were the first and eve had a son by adam... Who did the son S*ag to get things rolling.......Would have to of been with his mother surely,
Or did she have a daughter and Adam had her too.
Or unless Eve had twins and the other was a girl and her brother gave her one..!!!.
yet surely thats tottally frowned on in the church today..
So did her son go to hell for his crimes to mankind......?????
2007-01-13 10:57:33 · 17 answers · asked by pop c 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The short answer is yes.
Getting to the rest of your question, they did have other sons and daughters, and these would have supplied the mates for each other. Keep in mind that Adam lived a very long time, and would've been rather fruitful.
Because the gene pool was not polluted, it wasn't a "crime." That didn't come until much later, when the Law was given by Moses. Even Abraham was married to his half-sister.
2007-01-13 11:03:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. To get things started, the sons would have married a sister or possibly a niece. By definition, incest, but at the time, they had just been removed from the garden, all of the genetic problems we have would not have been an issue and their bodies were still pretty close to the perfection they had just lost. Also, in biblical times, it was common for close relatives to marry --- mainly for inheritance purposes. We still see it today in many cultures.
Although, as far as your question on whether or not we are inbred --- the answer is NO. Technically speaking, 3rd cousins are basically unrelated and 4th cousins are biologically unrelated. Even 2nd cousins can marry and bear children with the same (or very close) defect percentage of unrelated individuals. 1st cousins often marry and have healthy children as well. Anything closer than that, with all of our genetic defects, you run the risk of serious problems with the kids.
2007-01-13 11:08:06 · answer #2 · answered by OatesATM 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There have been a variety of answers to this question.
Some say, Adam and Eve were first, but not the only.
Some say that the genetic make-up was much more pure back then and so it was "allowed" to mix with "relatives" but that God changed the rules later as mankind "evolved". (good one, right?)
And then there is the most popular .... the story of Adam and Eve was just a story and never meant to be taken literally.
2007-01-13 11:05:33 · answer #3 · answered by MyPreshus 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There were no Adam and Eve...I mean the whole thing is crazy!
Nature works on diversity, for species to survive they need diversity of genes. We all know what happens when people marry in their family!
We wouldn't still be here if the bible story was true.
2007-01-13 22:23:21 · answer #4 · answered by Stef 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The point is, we are all human, we all have a single origin, we are all kindred.
There is more that brings us together, than there should be tearing us apart and driving us to hate each other. Humanity is supposed to function like a family, not like a pack of rabid wild dogs.
You seem to think that Christians and Jews and Muslims haven't thought of this point before. In fact, the opposite is true. We came to terms with this a loooooooooooong time ago. It is YOU that is having a problem with it.
FYI, the Mosaic laws forbidding incest wasn't given until about 3,000 years following creation. It was a strange idea for them, also, for what we call incest was widely practiced in their (and other) cultures. The royal family of Egypt was famous for it. It was practiced in the Americas by the natives as little as 300 years ago.
Ultimately, though, you aren't so much worried about any spiritual "Ex Post Facto" laws, as you are interested in smearing crap on somebody's faith and stirring up a scandal. Nobody here is so dumb they can't see that.
You think that isn't a sin? Shame on you!
2007-01-13 11:09:42 · answer #5 · answered by MamaBear 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Its even worse than i thought i allways thought Adam and eve but by the answer above our mutual ancester must be noah (may be thats where the monkeys came into it )
2007-01-13 12:33:26 · answer #6 · answered by keny 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, regardless of the actual logistics, if there were only two original humans and we are all descendant from them, you can be sure there had to be a whole lot of incest going on.
Was incest seen as immoral in biblical times?
2007-01-13 11:02:28 · answer #7 · answered by crista 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's the one and only thing creationists and evolutionists agree on - we're all related and descended from a very small number of ancestors.
2007-01-13 11:00:43 · answer #8 · answered by Bad Liberal 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
We are inbred really bad, I hate to tell you.
We all descended from Noah and his wife Milly.
2007-01-13 11:14:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's just a story you know. But it doesn't say that they were the only ones there, just that they were the first.
2007-01-13 11:00:38 · answer #10 · answered by Rat 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋