Since Biblical times, has the meaning of the word 'incest' changed?

Question

Here is part of an answer from someone who apparently was defending the Bible against an asker who brought up the implied incest between Eve and her sons:

"First of all, if you read your Bible carefully, you will see that Adam and Eve DID NOT only have three sons, but they borned sons and DAUGHTERS (reading is fundamental, babe). "

To the person who posted that answer: Reading *and* comprehending are fundamental, babe :)

Since I posted this, there's been another ridiculous answer, along the same lines, posted. I don't know whether to laugh or cry:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ait2z1mrGXwHiKZkB1NQ5kEAAAAA;_ylv=3?qid=20071028190256AAooCYm

Answer 1

No, the meaning hasn't changed. This person apparently "forgot" that sex between siblings is incestuous.

I'd really like to know what people mean by "pure, flawless" genetics. And besides, even if Adam & Eve's children could produce viable offspring, imagine how "flawed" the genetics of mankind would have become by the time of Noah and his family.

And THEY had to repopulate the world after the flood, right?

[edit] I noticed that one of the answers to the question in the link you provided went like this: "It isn't incest unless you're the only damn people on earth."

WOW.

Answer 2

a million. Jesus grow to be conversing to the Jews, not the Christians 2. God, being the author, has the splendid to kill human beings. all human beings has to die it gradual. 3. The Bible would not say how old the earth is. (you're examining into it what isn't written.) 4. because of the fact in case you difficulty to genuinely study the entire passage you are able to notice that He additionally stated that's conceivable for the wealthy to be saved. 5. Yeh appropriate and you genuinely have the 4 hundred CE manuscripts to show it. Granted the Orthodox church makes use of the Septuagint and different use the Masoretic textual content cloth for the old Testment. yet that's basically a textual debate. And varients, in case you genuinely bothered to study them, have little or no impression on the which capability of the textual content cloth. 6. it is not a Biblical doctrine that all human beings is born guilt of sin. definite all human beings is born with a nature which tempts them to sin, that's why sin is so customary. yet all human beings isn't responsible until eventually they act upon such temptations. 7. If all human beings is bowing down and worshipping issues which signify God, then definite that's in violation. that's the advent of such issues, however the worship of such issues. and of path authentic Christians are actually not in contact in worhipping graven photos. 8.definite, some alleged Christians have finished issues opposite to the bible at it gradual in history. So? 9. same reaction. 10. the undertaking is that once human beings sin they are responsible and as such are undertaking to punishment. (that's called "justice"). If human beings have not sinned they don't might desire to situation bearing directly to the judgement. yet for people who've, they hit upon a thank you to get carry of the forgiveness of sins. it is your decision.

Answer 3

Obviously, if Adam and Eve were the only people on earth and were told to populate it, some incest would've had to happen. No where in the Genesis account does it mention God creating more people. Cain took his sister and she became his wife. God did allow this for a period of time. In the Mosiac Law, it was prohibited and has been for all of this time.

Answer 4

See incestuous marraiges should be okay ahead of Gay marraiges. It's all settled then. (LOL) You have been around long enough to know that this question has been answered before. Things were PURE after God first made man and woman and there was not a problem with bad side effects from siblings marrying. Originally this was not considered a bad thing.

I think it may have been the Catholic church that made it out to be some horrible SIN and it's been indoctrinated into all of us to where we go "OH MY GOSH Incest'. is it in the 10 commandments? No. Is it in the New Testemant in all the descriptions of what is sin? No. So this and abortion get everyone all freaked out and it is not even directly addressed in the bible. I know I"m going to PAY for saying this with a bunch of unkind remarks from others. But, I am not religious I am a Christian and there is a difference.

May the truth prevail in Jesus' name.

Answer 5

It is wrong in Scripture for a man and his son to have intercourse with the same woman.
I think this would be part of "Scripture's ban on incest", but there is no reference or term in scripture for the general category of incest, only bans on specific acts.

However, in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade", Indy and his father have this smirking interchange about both fornicating with the German woman spy.
Scriptural incest but NOT even considered so by modern languages and ethics.

Answer 6

How can anyone even take a fictional story to serious debate as if it were real in the first place is beyond me . If you want a debate about a piece of fiction and it's posible meaning first you should be able to reognized what form of literature it is .
Even aesops fables have merit as examples in pertaining to real life if you realize they are fables written to express something in principle . Just remember when comparing apples and oranges even though they are both fruits you wouldn't want to eat the peel on the orange it's just not the same as the peel of the apple. and to edge Freud was an atheist with a fascination into abberant behavaior such as incest .
peace

Answer 7

That was my answer!

I feel loved, but overtly misconstrued.

I wasn't defending the Bible, I was simply saying that his saying that Adam and Eve only had three sons, implies that incest occured between Eve and her own children, when it was between Eve's SONS and DAUGHTERS. Sorry if you didn't understand, but it wasn't your question, so you don't have to, but I was simply telling the asker to get his facts straight. I said nothing on the subject of incest.

How you came to the conclusion that perhaps the meaning of incest has changed since Biblical times, when in fact the word didn't exist (Etymology: Middle English, from Latin incestus sexual impurity ; Date: 13th century ) in Biblical times, I shall never know.

Answer 8

One must keep in mind that in the early years of the human race there were no genetic defects that had yet developed as a result of the fall of man. By the time of Abraham, God had not yet declared this kind of marriage to be contrary to His will (see Genesis 20:12). Laws governing incest apparently did not become enacted until the time of Moses (Lev 18:7-17; 20:11,12,14,17,20,21). Hence, there was no prohibition regarding marrying a sister (or niece or grandniece) in the days of Cain.

Answer 9

Evidently since everytime I ask the question, christians defend all the incest within the bible as a "necessary" EVIL to populate the world. Excuses seem to be the ways of these religions for everything WRONG behaviorally within them they seem to have an excuse for including their INFERIOR "God."

Answer 10

Actually I think it says something about the sons of God saw the daughters of man and liked them. I can't remember where it is. My dad was always pointing that out. So, where did the other people come from? Anyway, I don't think the meaning has changed.