My parents have told me that its wrong to marry a relative…does it actually say that in the Bible?

Question

…like cousin…how far must the relationship be for it not be sin?

No I’m just asking…because my parents always say things…but I really want to know if it’s true or not…and where does it say in the Bible…etc…

Answer 1

Where did Cain get his wife? He married one of his sisters. To marry near of kin in the very ancient world was common. It was never forbidden in the bible until about 1500 BC where God does forbid it in Leviticus 18:6. Why did he all of a sudden forbid it after allowing it for the 2500 years? The reason is simple. The genetic mutations resulting from the curse on Adam and Eve and on the rest of the universe had a cumulative effect. Though Cain could marry his sister because the genetic pool was relatively pure at that time, by Moses' day the genetic errors had swelled. Today geneticists confirm that the risk of passing on a genetic abnormality to your child is much greater if you marry a close relative because relatives are more likely to carry the same defective gene. If they procreate, their off-spring are more apt to have this defect expressed. So God allowed incest until it was apparent to him that the gene pool was polluted enough where it was now dangerous to allow incest.
Incest is condemned in the bible since Moses. But what is considered Incest in the bible. The bible gives you some info in Leviticus 18:6-18. As I read it, I would say it doesn't include cousins but what do I know. I would say read it yourself and come to your own conclusion.
This is what John Calvin said in one of his commentaries about those verses:
6. None of you shall approach to any that is near. This name does not include all female relations; for cousin-ger-mans of the father’s or mother’s side are permitted to intermarry; but it must be restricted to the degrees, which He proceeds to enumerate, and is merely a brief preface, declaring that there are certain degrees of relationship which render marriages incestuous. We may, therefore, define these female relations of blood to be those which are spoken of immediately afterwards, viz., that a son should not marry his mother, nor a son-in-law his mother-in-law; nor a paternal or maternal uncle his niece, nor a grandfather his granddaughter, nor a brother his sister, nor a nephew his paternal or maternal aunt, or his uncle’s wife, nor a father-in-law his daughter-in-law, nor a brother-in-law his brother’s wife, nor a step-father his stepdaughter. The Roman laws accord with the rule prescribed by God, as if their authors had learnt from Moses what was decorous and agreeable to nature. The phrase which God uses frequently "to uncover the turpitude," is intended to awaken abhorrence, in order that the Israelites may beware more diligently of all incest. The Hebrew word, indeed, hwre, gnervah, signifies nakedness, therefore some translate it actively, "the nakedness of thy father," i.e., the womb which thy father hath uncovered; but this meaning would not be suitable to the nakedness of thy daughter, or thy daughter-in-law, or thy sister. Consequently, there is no doubt but that Moses means to denote that it is a filthy and shameful thing.
We must remember, what I have already hinted, that not only are incestuous connections out of wedlock condemned, but that the degrees are pointed out, within which marriages are unlawful. It is true, indeed, that this was a part of the political constitution which God established for His ancient people; still, it must be borne in mind, that whatever is prescribed here is deduced from the source of rectitude itself, and from the natural feelings implanted in us by Him. Absurd is the cleverness which some persons but little versed in Scripture pretend to, {1} who assert that the Law being abrogated, the obligations under which Moses laid his countrymen are now dissolved; for it is to be inferred from the preface above expounded, that. the instruction here given is not, nor ought to be accounted, merely political. For, since their lusts had led astray all the neighboring nations into incest, God, in order to inculcate chastity amongst his people, says; "I am the Lord your God, ye shall therefore keep my statutes; walk not after the doings of the land of Egypt and of Canaan;" and then He adds what are the degrees of consanguinity and affinity within which the marriage of men and women is forbidden. If any again object that what has been disobeyed in many countries is not to be accounted the law of the Gentiles, the reply is easy, viz., that the barbarism, which prevailed in the East, does not nullify that chastity which is opposed to the abominations of the Gentiles; since what is natural cannot be abrogated by any consent or custom. In short, the prohibition of incests here set forth, is by no means of the number of those laws which are commonly abrogated according to the circumstances of time and place, since it flows from the fountain of nature itself, and is founded on the general principle of all laws, which is perpetual and inviolable. Certainly God declares that the custom which had prevailed amongst the heathen was displeasing to Him; and why is this, but because nature itself repudiates and abhors filthiness, although approved of by the consent (suffragiis) of men? Wherefore, when God would by this distinction separate His chosen people from heathen nations, we may assuredly conclude that the incests which He commands them to avoid are absolute pollutions. Paul, on a very trifling point, sets before our eyes the law of nature; for, when he teaches that it is shameful and indecorous for women to appear in public without veils, he desires them to consider, whether it would be decent for them to present themselves publicly with their heads shorn; and finally adds, that nature itself does not permit it. (#1Co 11:14). Wherefore, I do not see, that, under the pretext of its being a political Law, {2} the purity of nature is to be abolished, from whence arises the distinction between the statutes of God, and the abuses of the Gentiles. If this discipline were founded on the utility of a single people, or on the custom of a particular time, or on present necessity, or on any other circumstances, the laws deduced from it might be abrogated for new reasons, or their observance might be dispensed with in regard to particular persons, by special privilege; but since, in their enactment, the perpetual decency of nature was alone regarded, not even a dispensation of them would be permissible. It may indeed be decreed that it should be lawful and unpunished, since it is in the power of princes to remit penalties; yet no legislator can effect that a thing, which nature pronounces to be vicious, should not be vicious; and, if tyrannical arrogance dares to attempt it, the light of nature will presently shine forth and prevail. When, formerly, the Emperor Claudius had married his niece Agrippina, {3} for the purpose of averting the shame, he procured a Senatusconsultum, which licensed such marriages; yet no one was found to imitate his example, except one freedman. Hence, just and reasonable men will acknowledge that, even amongst heathen nations, this Law was accounted indissoluble, as if implanted and engraved on the hearts of men. On this ground Paul, more severely to reprove the incest of a step-son with his father’s wife, says, that such an occurrence "is not so much as named among the Gentiles." (#1Co 5:1).

I don't think it prohibits a cousin marrying a cousin but I would do some research on my own to find out what the chances are of having a down syndrome kid or one with some other defect. They might tell you that the chances are very rare. Hope that helps.

Answer 2

Following the Bible scriptures, we are all decended from Adam and Eve, (or later from Moses and his wife). Marrying a direct relative is wrong, but as we are all in some way related, most Christian religion says marrying a first cousin or closer is wrong. Like many other countries, the Australian legal system requires that the couple be second cousins or further apart to join in marriage. As it is not clear cut in the bible, and as the break has to be made somewhere, most Christian faiths are following the trend and only siblings, parents/children, uncles, aunties, grandchildren/grandparents, and first cousin relationships are wrong.

Answer 3

A good black man would not give a good dam. FOR REAL for real. How many Black men are there who are straight, employed (or at least employable), not strung out on drugs, not locked up, not hung up, are independent, self supporting and have a problem finding women? I would hope that any woman with half a brain (would at a minimum) have these requirements for a man any way. So ladies you know the answer to this. How many men who fit that description are sitting around home alone on Saturday nights? Not too many I'll bet. Black men who are eligible are the hottest commodity on the date market and you can take that to the bank. I have to agree with Cocoa on this one DM. A real man shouldn't give a dam. BTW I don't think she said anything against interracial dating. If I read her right, she was in fact opposed to the opposition.

Answer 4

Believe it or not there is nothing in the Bible against it -- however, science has discovered that marrying someone too close in relation to you will cause genetic defects in the offspring.

Edit:

Unlike what some are saying -- the first books of the Bible were strickly about The L-RD G-d's Chosen people (those who believe in Him).
Cain's wife was NOT blood related to him.

Answer 5

The family of Abraham in the future after him was to have the law of the land and of God, at 2513 years to 2553 years in the wilderness 430 years after Abraham Exo.12:40,41; Gal.3:16-18; The 603,550 Promised Land heirs as the family of Abraham 857 to 897 years after the flood, when Abraham was 427 years after the flood to get the Promise.
Now they get the law as dwarfs, giants and hunchbacks indicate the need to select a distant relative and not an aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or nearest cousin Lev. 18:6-18;

Answer 6

It's pretty much spelled out in Leviticus, Chapters 18 and 20, which precludes marriage among IMMEDIATE FAMILY members, that is you cannot marry your own siblings [brothers/sisters]; your siblings' spouses [your in-laws] and their siblings; the siblings of your parents [aunts/uncles]; your grandchildren; the immediate family members of your future spouse; etc.

There is no actual word 'cousin' mentioned but it has been traditionally prohibited by the Church for 'first cousins' [children of your aunts/uncles who are siblings of your parents] to marry each other.

However 'second-degree' or 'third-degree' cousins are allowed to marry each other and are quite common.

Hope that helps.

Peace be with you.

Answer 7

The only problem is that when conceiving a child he/she might have some health problems because of the genetic material. Besides that - If you have an open mind - nothing wrong with your cousin LOL.

Answer 8

Without incest, you don't have the first couple of books OF the Bible (unless you want to suppose that there were families other than Adam & Eve at the time).

Answer 9

Yeah, near the early part of the Old Testament for one. Though I hope you don't get your morality solely from some ancient book.

Answer 10

It's in Leviticus and Numbers.

There's lists of inappropriate relationships in both books (I think in Deuteronomy as well). As long as the other person is not on this list, it's technically not a sin.

Out of curiosity... why do you ask?

Answer 11

Cousins are fine,,,my good friend married his cuz and our Pastor married them with his blessing they had a baby named her grace shes so cute!