Did God advocate incest?

[Mindful]

This guy’s version:

 

[LittleNipper]

Does the Bible Conflict with Itself in the Matter of Incest?
By Wayne Jackson

Some superficial critics of the Bible charge that it contains a moral contradiction.
It is alleged that whereas the practice of “incest” is condemned in the law of Moses, there appear to be cases in scripture where it is sanctioned.
For example, Abraham married his half-sister (Gen. 20:12), and both Isaac and Jacob married kinsmen (Gen. 22:20ff; 24:4; 24:43). Another allegation refers to a case in which Paul is said to have given his permission for a man to marry his own daughter (1 Cor. 7:36-38).
What does the Bible student say in response to these supposed problems?
The Crime of Incest Defined
Incest is defined as: “The crime of sexual intercourse or cohabitation between a man and woman who are related to each other within the degrees wherein marriage is prohibited by law”.
Incest has been held to be repulsive, dangerous, and illegal among many civilizations — even some of the most primitive. In ancient Rome, Augustus implemented a law against incest, and children born to incestuous relationships were deemed illegitimate.
Modern laws against incest appear to be grounded mainly in the Levitical code.
Old Testament Examples
There are several clear cases of incest in the Old Testament.
Lot, Abraham’s nephew, begat two sons by his own daughters while in a drunken stupor (Gen. 19:30-35). Moses recorded the sordid act as a matter of history, but there is no sanction of the sin in the sacred text. In fact, it is placed in a decidedly negative light.
Ruben was intimate with Bilhah, his father’s concubine (Gen. 35:22) — a shameful act that was condemned and penalized (Gen. 49:4). Amnon, one of David’s sons, committed rape against his half-sister, Tamar (2 Sam. 13:7-14). As a consequence, he was later murdered by the order of Absalom, Tamar’s full brother (2 Sam. 13).
The Levitical Code and Incest
The most comprehensive segment of the Old Testament dealing with this offense is in Leviticus 18:6-18.
Sexual cohabitation was not permitted between a man and his mother, his sister, a granddaughter, an aunt, etc. The most serious punishment was execution (Lev. 20:11-17).
In the New Testament era, disfellowship from the local church was enjoined for the offense (1 Cor. 5:1-5).
In evaluating some of the cases mentioned above (e.g., Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), several factors must be born in mind, which reveal that those situations were not parallel with some of the egregious examples that came later (e.g., Reuben, Amnon).
The regulations of the Law of Moses were binding only on those to whom it was given and subsequently to all who lived under that law until its abolition at the death of Christ (Rom. 7:1ff; Eph. 2:11ff; Col. 2:13-17).
Even in our legal system there is recognition of the ex post facto principle, namely that one is not amenable to the consequences of a law passed after the commission of a certain act. The people of the Patriarchal Period, therefore, were not under the specific regulations of the Mosaic Code. They were obligated to universal moral principles, but not to the intricate details of some of the Mosaic regulations which came later.
Note this comment from Professor Walter Kaiser.

“Prior to Moses’ time, incest in many of the forms later proscribed, were not thought to be wrong. Thus, even Moses’ own father, Amram, married an aunt, his father’s sister, Jochebed (Exodus 6:20)” (Kaiser, 101).

God has never approved of indiscriminate sexual activity outside of the marriage relationship in any age of human history. As one writer has noted,

“the fundamental problem with incest [and other extra-marital sexual sins] is that it strikes at the soundness of the family. And since the family is central to God’s purposes and work on earth, his judgment on this practice is fierce” (Coppenger, 1030).

The Patriarchal Circumstance
In the early stages of human history, marriage among kinsmen was not deemed immoral. The fact is, such was a necessity from the nature of the situation. The children of Adam and Eve must have married kinsmen, for there were no other people on earth except those descended from the original pair.
As noted already at the beginning of this article, there were familial marriages during the Patriarchal period that do not appear to have been censured by Jehovah, but which were prohibited in a later epoch of law.
There is another factor that must be considered.
In the early days of the human family, before sin, disease, and genetics took such a deadly accumulative toll, Adam’s offspring were much more physically vigorous than they now are. And so inter-family unions would not have resulted in the debilitating effects that are characteristic of such relationships in the modern world. Adam himself lived to be 930 years of age, yet by the time of Abraham, 175 was a “good old age” (Gen. 25:7-8). Eventually, human longevity would level out at approximately 80 years on average (Ps. 90:10). Time in a sinful world has extracted a high cost.
Did Paul Sanction Incest?
In the seventh chapter of his First Corinthian letter, Paul, by the inspiration of the Spirit, gave a variety of instructions pertaining to the marriage relationship. Some of these were fixed rigidly as a matter of moral correctness. Others were given by way of the apostle’s seasoned advice.
One of the historical realities woven into the fabric of Paul’s message is that of serious, impending persecution that threatened the ancient saints (see: vv. 26,29,32,35,38,40). Some of his instructions hinged on the premise of this coming reality.
Here is the passage that is the focus of this “tempest in a teapot” controversy.

“But if any man thinks that he is behaving himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requires, let him do what he will; he is not sinning; let them marry” (1 Cor. 7:36).

To foist upon this text the meaning that a father is allowed to marry his own daughter if he cannot resist the temptation of being intimate with her is one of the most perverse misappropriations of scripture imaginable.
Let us examine the context with common sense.
First, the historical or cultural circumstances must be taken into consideration. At that time, parents arranged their children’s marriages more often than not. A father could consent to his daughter’s marriage or withhold permission, depending upon the circumstances.
Children grew up in this environment, and they embraced this process out of respect for their parents and tradition. Apparently, these unions were much more stable than those of the modern merry-go-round, marriage-divorce glitches that so trouble society today (where about half of all marriages end in divorce).
It is against this background that Paul’s advice takes its rise.
In view of the foregoing, we would paraphrase verse 36 as follows:

“But if any man [father] thinks that he is behaving himself improperly [by refusing his daughter permission to marry due to the impending persecution] with reference to his virgin [daughter], if she is past the flower of her age [mature enough for marriage], and if need so requires [there is a more compelling factor that overrides the danger of persecution], let him [the father] use his own judgment [and grant her permission to marry in spite of the apostle’s general advice to remain single]; he [the father] will not be sinning [in granting this concession].”

Thus, Paul himself concedes permission for the marriage at the father’s discretion. Yet in verse 37, the apostle thinks that in most cases the father would do better to stand his ground [against his daughter’s emotional pleading], and think foremost of her safety and Christian fidelity that could be jeopardized in a time of intense tribulation.
This text, therefore, has nothing under the sun to do with incest.

The Egyptians practiced incest and married brother to sister. That didn't seem to bother the Egyptian gods.

Maybe your gods and the Egyptian gods need a sit down.

If you consider the plagues you will see that the 10 plagues sent upon undermined the pantheon of the Egyptian gods:
The first plague was aimed at the most valuable resource of Egyptian civilization, the Nile River, and the gods the Egyptians associated with it - the Nile goddess Hapi and the powerful Osiris, protector of the Nile. All the fish died and this affected the food supply. The second plague of frogs was also connected with Nile and the god Heqt. Only when Moses and Aaron prayed to the true God were the waters refreshed.

The third and fourth plagues of lice and flies featured another favourite god of the Egyptians, Kheper, the scarab deity. With the onset of the plague of flies the magicians of Egypt were no longer able to deceive Pharoah by pretending to duplicate the miracles of God. God also intervened and did not allow the flies to afflict the area of Goshen, where the Israelites lived. This was a powerful witness to the Egyptians that the Israelites were under the protection of the true God.

The next plague affected cattle, which the Egyptians considered to be under the control of Apis, the bull god, and Hathor, the cow-like mother goddess. The plague of boils, which followed the murrain on the cattle, demonstrated the Egyptian gods of medicine, Imhotep, and Thoth, the god of magic and healing were ineffective against the power of Yahweh, who continued to protect the Israelites from these plagues.

The seventh and eighth plagues of fiery hail and locusts struck Egypt’s crops. The crops were supposed to be guarded by Seth, the harvest god, and it was up to Nut, the sky goddess, to prevent weather disasters. The ninth plague of darkness for three days was directed at Ra, the chief god, represented by the sun. Again, the children of Israel had light in their dwellings, while the rest of Egypt languished in supernatural darkness. (Exodus 10:22-23).

The Pharaoh was also considered a god, descended from the god Ra, and the tenth plague humbled him by striking down all the firstborn of Egypt, including his son, the heir to the throne of Egypt. Grief stricken, humiliated and with his faith in the Egyptian gods undermined Pharoah agreed to let the Israelites go.

 

[Hollie]

Does the Bible Conflict with Itself in the Matter of Incest?
By Wayne Jackson

Some superficial critics of the Bible charge that it contains a moral contradiction.
It is alleged that whereas the practice of “incest” is condemned in the law of Moses, there appear to be cases in scripture where it is sanctioned.
For example, Abraham married his half-sister (Gen. 20:12), and both Isaac and Jacob married kinsmen (Gen. 22:20ff; 24:4; 24:43). Another allegation refers to a case in which Paul is said to have given his permission for a man to marry his own daughter (1 Cor. 7:36-38).
What does the Bible student say in response to these supposed problems?
The Crime of Incest Defined
Incest is defined as: “The crime of sexual intercourse or cohabitation between a man and woman who are related to each other within the degrees wherein marriage is prohibited by law”.
Incest has been held to be repulsive, dangerous, and illegal among many civilizations — even some of the most primitive. In ancient Rome, Augustus implemented a law against incest, and children born to incestuous relationships were deemed illegitimate.
Modern laws against incest appear to be grounded mainly in the Levitical code.
Old Testament Examples
There are several clear cases of incest in the Old Testament.
Lot, Abraham’s nephew, begat two sons by his own daughters while in a drunken stupor (Gen. 19:30-35). Moses recorded the sordid act as a matter of history, but there is no sanction of the sin in the sacred text. In fact, it is placed in a decidedly negative light.
Ruben was intimate with Bilhah, his father’s concubine (Gen. 35:22) — a shameful act that was condemned and penalized (Gen. 49:4). Amnon, one of David’s sons, committed rape against his half-sister, Tamar (2 Sam. 13:7-14). As a consequence, he was later murdered by the order of Absalom, Tamar’s full brother (2 Sam. 13).
The Levitical Code and Incest
The most comprehensive segment of the Old Testament dealing with this offense is in Leviticus 18:6-18.
Sexual cohabitation was not permitted between a man and his mother, his sister, a granddaughter, an aunt, etc. The most serious punishment was execution (Lev. 20:11-17).
In the New Testament era, disfellowship from the local church was enjoined for the offense (1 Cor. 5:1-5).
In evaluating some of the cases mentioned above (e.g., Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), several factors must be born in mind, which reveal that those situations were not parallel with some of the egregious examples that came later (e.g., Reuben, Amnon).
The regulations of the Law of Moses were binding only on those to whom it was given and subsequently to all who lived under that law until its abolition at the death of Christ (Rom. 7:1ff; Eph. 2:11ff; Col. 2:13-17).
Even in our legal system there is recognition of the ex post facto principle, namely that one is not amenable to the consequences of a law passed after the commission of a certain act. The people of the Patriarchal Period, therefore, were not under the specific regulations of the Mosaic Code. They were obligated to universal moral principles, but not to the intricate details of some of the Mosaic regulations which came later.
Note this comment from Professor Walter Kaiser.

“Prior to Moses’ time, incest in many of the forms later proscribed, were not thought to be wrong. Thus, even Moses’ own father, Amram, married an aunt, his father’s sister, Jochebed (Exodus 6:20)” (Kaiser, 101).

God has never approved of indiscriminate sexual activity outside of the marriage relationship in any age of human history. As one writer has noted,

“the fundamental problem with incest [and other extra-marital sexual sins] is that it strikes at the soundness of the family. And since the family is central to God’s purposes and work on earth, his judgment on this practice is fierce” (Coppenger, 1030).

The Patriarchal Circumstance
In the early stages of human history, marriage among kinsmen was not deemed immoral. The fact is, such was a necessity from the nature of the situation. The children of Adam and Eve must have married kinsmen, for there were no other people on earth except those descended from the original pair.
As noted already at the beginning of this article, there were familial marriages during the Patriarchal period that do not appear to have been censured by Jehovah, but which were prohibited in a later epoch of law.
There is another factor that must be considered.
In the early days of the human family, before sin, disease, and genetics took such a deadly accumulative toll, Adam’s offspring were much more physically vigorous than they now are. And so inter-family unions would not have resulted in the debilitating effects that are characteristic of such relationships in the modern world. Adam himself lived to be 930 years of age, yet by the time of Abraham, 175 was a “good old age” (Gen. 25:7-8). Eventually, human longevity would level out at approximately 80 years on average (Ps. 90:10). Time in a sinful world has extracted a high cost.
Did Paul Sanction Incest?
In the seventh chapter of his First Corinthian letter, Paul, by the inspiration of the Spirit, gave a variety of instructions pertaining to the marriage relationship. Some of these were fixed rigidly as a matter of moral correctness. Others were given by way of the apostle’s seasoned advice.
One of the historical realities woven into the fabric of Paul’s message is that of serious, impending persecution that threatened the ancient saints (see: vv. 26,29,32,35,38,40). Some of his instructions hinged on the premise of this coming reality.
Here is the passage that is the focus of this “tempest in a teapot” controversy.

“But if any man thinks that he is behaving himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requires, let him do what he will; he is not sinning; let them marry” (1 Cor. 7:36).

To foist upon this text the meaning that a father is allowed to marry his own daughter if he cannot resist the temptation of being intimate with her is one of the most perverse misappropriations of scripture imaginable.
Let us examine the context with common sense.
First, the historical or cultural circumstances must be taken into consideration. At that time, parents arranged their children’s marriages more often than not. A father could consent to his daughter’s marriage or withhold permission, depending upon the circumstances.
Children grew up in this environment, and they embraced this process out of respect for their parents and tradition. Apparently, these unions were much more stable than those of the modern merry-go-round, marriage-divorce glitches that so trouble society today (where about half of all marriages end in divorce).
It is against this background that Paul’s advice takes its rise.
In view of the foregoing, we would paraphrase verse 36 as follows:

“But if any man [father] thinks that he is behaving himself improperly [by refusing his daughter permission to marry due to the impending persecution] with reference to his virgin [daughter], if she is past the flower of her age [mature enough for marriage], and if need so requires [there is a more compelling factor that overrides the danger of persecution], let him [the father] use his own judgment [and grant her permission to marry in spite of the apostle’s general advice to remain single]; he [the father] will not be sinning [in granting this concession].”

Thus, Paul himself concedes permission for the marriage at the father’s discretion. Yet in verse 37, the apostle thinks that in most cases the father would do better to stand his ground [against his daughter’s emotional pleading], and think foremost of her safety and Christian fidelity that could be jeopardized in a time of intense tribulation.
This text, therefore, has nothing under the sun to do with incest.

The Egyptians practiced incest and married brother to sister. That didn't seem to bother the Egyptian gods.

Maybe your gods and the Egyptian gods need a sit down.

If you consider the plagues you will see that the 10 plagues sent upon undermined the pantheon of the Egyptian gods:
The first plague was aimed at the most valuable resource of Egyptian civilization, the Nile River, and the gods the Egyptians associated with it - the Nile goddess Hapi and the powerful Osiris, protector of the Nile. All the fish died and this affected the food supply. The second plague of frogs was also connected with Nile and the god Heqt. Only when Moses and Aaron prayed to the true God were the waters refreshed.

The third and fourth plagues of lice and flies featured another favourite god of the Egyptians, Kheper, the scarab deity. With the onset of the plague of flies the magicians of Egypt were no longer able to deceive Pharoah by pretending to duplicate the miracles of God. God also intervened and did not allow the flies to afflict the area of Goshen, where the Israelites lived. This was a powerful witness to the Egyptians that the Israelites were under the protection of the true God.

The next plague affected cattle, which the Egyptians considered to be under the control of Apis, the bull god, and Hathor, the cow-like mother goddess. The plague of boils, which followed the murrain on the cattle, demonstrated the Egyptian gods of medicine, Imhotep, and Thoth, the god of magic and healing were ineffective against the power of Yahweh, who continued to protect the Israelites from these plagues.

The seventh and eighth plagues of fiery hail and locusts struck Egypt’s crops. The crops were supposed to be guarded by Seth, the harvest god, and it was up to Nut, the sky goddess, to prevent weather disasters. The ninth plague of darkness for three days was directed at Ra, the chief god, represented by the sun. Again, the children of Israel had light in their dwellings, while the rest of Egypt languished in supernatural darkness. (Exodus 10:22-23).

The Pharaoh was also considered a god, descended from the god Ra, and the tenth plague humbled him by striking down all the firstborn of Egypt, including his son, the heir to the throne of Egypt. Grief stricken, humiliated and with his faith in the Egyptian gods undermined Pharoah agreed to let the Israelites go.

The problem anyone has with a literal interpretation of tales and fables is that such legend and folklore is subject to countless telling and re-telling such that the tales and fables become larger than life.

People believing Robin Hood was an extant character, for example is an example of legend building.

There are rational, reasoned explanations for the alleged 10 plagues that are based upon purely natural phenomenon. I understand that some may feel a need to attach magical / supernatural causes to natural events but that desire doesn’t make the magic / supernaturalism become true.

It seems we’re again left to question why the gods were so anxious to showcase their prowess for magical / supernatural acts to ancient, superstitious, pre-scientific people but seem to have retired their “watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat” displays for the more science minded.

The Science of the 10 Plagues

The Bible describes 10 plagues that were visited upon ancient Egypt as retribution for enslaving the Hebrews. Here's a scientific take on what might have caused those deadly "miracles."

www.livescience.com

 

[Meriweather]

It seems we’re again left to question why the gods were so anxious to showcase their prowess for magical / supernatural acts to ancient, superstitious, pre-scientific people but seem to have retired their “watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat” displays for the more science minded.

The science minded should remember that most of the day in ancient times revolved around bringing food to the table. Nor did they have pen, paper, and ink. Everything got put into the form of stories

 

[Hollie]

It seems we’re again left to question why the gods were so anxious to showcase their prowess for magical / supernatural acts to ancient, superstitious, pre-scientific people but seem to have retired their “watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat” displays for the more science minded.

The science minded should remember that most of the day in ancient times revolved around bringing food to the table. Nor did they have pen, paper, and ink. Everything got put into the form of stories

I think the supernatural minded should remember that the Egyptians had reed pens and papyrus as writing instruments.

None of that changes the fact that there are reasoned arguments to be made for completely natural explanations for the so-called ten plagues. There’s really nothing supernatural about Nile floods, locust swarms, etc., unless perhaps the gods have just gotten fat and lazy and decided to scale back the magic tricks.

 

[Moonglow]

After Adam and Eve got tossed out of Eden, they had two sons Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel and Cain's punishment was to go out into the world.

Apparently, there were other humans in the world by this point, but that is not explained.

How to explain?

This part of the Bible relates stories that didn't literally happen, but are meant to teach a moral lesson.

So that blows the theory of "the original sin".

 

[Moonglow]

It seems we’re again left to question why the gods were so anxious to showcase their prowess for magical / supernatural acts to ancient, superstitious, pre-scientific people but seem to have retired their “watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat” displays for the more science minded.

The science minded should remember that most of the day in ancient times revolved around bringing food to the table. Nor did they have pen, paper, and ink. Everything got put into the form of stories

I think the supernatural minded should remember that the Egyptians had reed pens and papyrus as writing instruments.

None of that changes the fact that there are reasoned arguments to be made for completely natural explanations for the so-called ten plagues. There’s really nothing supernatural about Nile floods, locust swarms, etc., unless perhaps the gods have just gotten fat and lazy and decided to scale back the magic tricks.

Before that was soft clay tablets and a stick.

 

[miketx]

He created Adam and Eve than told them to start populating the earth. How does that happen without a lot of incest going on. What does the Mark of Cain mean? He was one of only four people on earth, him, Abel, until he killed him and his parents so who was supposed to avoid him when he was banished?

I'm my own cousin, but only in Arkansas.

 

[OnePercenter]

He created Adam and Eve than told them to start populating the earth. How does that happen without a lot of incest going on. What does the Mark of Cain mean? He was one of only four people on earth, him, Abel, until he killed him and his parents so who was supposed to avoid him when he was banished?

It's the problem with people that believe in fairy tales.