Incest and Adam and Eve

Quoting Taqless: "I have heard some opinions that Adam and Eve were the first versions of who we are today and that basically the idea of a "superior race" came into effect."Taqless, I suggest you take an opportunity to very closely observe a wide selection of Chimpanzese. Please note the wide variety of skin color particularly facial skin and palm skin. Note eye and hair color variances. Pay attention to the obvious advancements in tool use, hunting prowess, and dietary content from troop to troop and region to region.Now, it is not my contention that these cousins of ours are our ancestors as well. I just want to point out that the obvious on-going evolution of Chimps is not gonna render another mythical story of a "jack-in-the-box" sudden appearance of two miraculously advanced Chimps that find themselves isolated in a special love garden placed there as a sacred nursery for a master race of Chimps, okay?[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-23-2003]

Abshalom,
No, nothing spontaneous, just something a little more evolved than the "caveman" human remains that have already been found. However, I don't want to say more since it would detract from the thread that was initiated.------------------
Two most important senses in life: common and humor.

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

It's not my subject but haven't you asked yourself why there were no deformities mentioned at the time of Noah concerning incest?

---

Ooh! Ooh! I know! I know![clears throat]It's because Noah didn't really exist!

quote:

---

So how could they go against a law God had not yet put in place.

---

Because god's laws don't change.After all, they weren't told that being naked was a sin but when they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, that's the very first thing they panicked about.

quote:

---

Ofcourse it was obviously NOT wrong THEN.

---

Rationalization.God's law doesn't change. If incest is a sin, it has always been a sin.

quote:

---

but I ask again what was the alternative at that time?

---

Well, since it's just a story and not real, it is of little concern.

quote:

---

If God doesn't mention it in the garden it wasn't an immediate 'problem' to God.

---

But god doesn't mention the nakedness thing, either, and yet Adam and Eve are acutely aware of it the moment they eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Indeed, instead of panicking over the fact that they just ate from the Tree of Knowledge, the very first thing they do is cover themselves up.God's laws do not change.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Abshalom responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

It appears that there were other people around other than Adam and Eve. They weren't human, but apparently they were fertile with humans. In fact, it was because of this interbreeding that god decided to send the deluge.

---

​

So it's a choice between incest and beastiality?

---

No. Read Genesis 6:2 like I told you to.Just because they weren't human doesn't mean they were animals.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Taqless responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Every single gene she has must necessarily come from him.

---

​

Which from a scientific point of view is interesting. There is mounting evidence that shows the developing fetus is female by default.

---

Incorrect.First, the timeline of the development of the sexual organs in the fetus has been understood for decades. We even know the hormones responsible for it.Second, the fetus is hermaphroditic, not female. Up until the eighth week, there is a set of undifferentiated gonads and a complete set of internal genitalia for both sexes, though not in their fully-formed states.If the fetus is female, estradiol starts to be secreted and the Wolffian ducts and the mesonephros regress while the Mullerian duct develops into the uterus and Fallopian tubes.If the fetus is male, testosterone starts to be secreted and the Mullerian duct regresses and the Wolffian ducts and mesonephros develop into the vas deferens and epididymis, respectively.Alfred Jost detailed this process in the late 40s.Now, it is true that if you were to remove the gonads from the fetus before sexual differentiation takes place, the fetus will develop along female lines, but that doesn't mean the fetus is "female." It still has both sets of reproductive organs and is thus hermaphroditic.

quote:

---

I'm not too sure what kind of evolutionary hoops would have to be overcome if one began with the starting point as 1) Adam and Eve are the first humanoids and 2) first Adam then Eve.

---

If god can create a human out of dust, surely he can do some simple genetic engineering, filter out the chromosomes he wants to keep, and put together an XX female given an XY male. There is already work in the real world about removing the genetic material from an egg and using the genetic material from two sperm to create a fertilized egg (and similarly, "fertilizing" an egg using the genetic material from another egg).------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

With regard to procreation of "humans" by Adam's and Eve's sons, who someone up the thread suggested bred with "subhuman" creatures rather than with their own sisters, Abshalom asked, "So it's a choice between incest and beastiality?""Just because they weren't human doesn't mean they were animals," replied Rrhian.Personally Rrhian, I don't necessarily make a distinction between "humans" and other apes with regard to their all being "animals." We certainly don't fall into the categories of plants or minerals.It's the Bible and the faithful interpreters thereof who insist that only humans contain that special spirit called Neshama that sets them apart from lower beasts who apparently must make do with Nefesh alone.However, I remain convinced that a man having sex with an ape, other than another homo sapien, constitutes beastiality.[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-24-2003][This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-24-2003]

Ofcourse I only mention mutations because it would give a reason for why laws were not in place, or rather why incest wasn't in place. As it obviously wouldn't have been a problem then. His law changing or not changing has nothing to do with it. You can't change the fact that the law was put in place in Leviticus, after Adam and Eve, after Noah.You say 'incest was always a sin' - but God said Noah was righteouss, so God disagrees with you. Why? - Simple, it's not rocket science - Noah had not been told about the laws in Leviticus. Well, why are you debating with me then? - I fail to see your immense interest in refuting something that YOU think did not happen. If your so confident - just ignore my messages!

quote:

---

God's law doesn't change. If incest is a sin, it has always been a sin.

---

Romans 4:15 says, ". . .because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression."It is stated that incest is wrong in Leviticus. Adam and Eve came way before Leviticus. Incest was not a sin then.I don't think Adam and Eve "consummating" would be incest really anyway. The same problem arises, though, because their children obviously had to have sex to keep mankind alive (after their deaths).Also, I think I am missing your point about Genesis 6:2. It states that "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful." This is talking about the time when Noah was alive, though. Furthermore, the "sons of God" could very well be referring to the men on earth in that time. Genesis 6:4 supports your claim better than Genesis 6:2, but it sounds like the Nephilim are angels.

Abshalom responds to me:

quote:

---

Personally Rrhian, I don't necessarily make a distinction between "humans" and other apes with regard to their all being "animals."

---

This makes three times.Read Genesis 6:2. Remember, we're talking about Genesis. Ergo, evolution doesn't enter into it.The general question involves whether or not incest would be a sin at the beginning considering there were only Adam and Eve at the beginning.Genesis 6:2 indicates that there were others around who are not human and are also not some other animal.Go read Genesis 6:2.

quote:

---

We certainly don't fall into the categories of plants or minerals.

---

Keep going. Remember, we're talking about Genesis. What other beings are there other than life on earth?Read Genesis 6:2.

quote:

---

However, I remain convinced that a man having sex with an ape, other than another homo sapien, constitutes beastiality.

---

That may very well be, but who on earth was talking about apes?Go read Genesis 6:2.How many times do I have to tell you before you consider it?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

God's law doesn't change. If incest is a sin, it has always been a sin.

---

​

His law changing or not changing has nothing to do with it.

---

It has everything to do with it! If incest is ever a sin, that means it always has been a sin. Just because it doesn't get written down onto a stone tablet until Moses doesn't mean it wasn't a sin beforehand or that people didn't know about it.Remember, being naked was a sin long before Adam and Eve knew about it. And the very first thing they panic over after eating from the Tree of Knowledge is not eating from the tree (which they were told not to do) but being naked.So if Adam and Eve figured it out, then everybody else did, too. Since god's laws do not change, the prohibition against incest goes all the way back to Adam and Eve and they knew it because they had eaten from the Tree of Knowledge.

quote:

---

You can't change the fact that the law was put in place in Leviticus, after Adam and Eve, after Noah.

---

Not, not just after them...before them. God's law doesn't change. If god came up with his law after, then that means the law changed. But the law doesn't change. Therefore, incest was just as much a sin before Moses and Leviticus as it was after.

quote:

---

You say 'incest was always a sin' - but God said Noah was righteouss, so God disagrees with you. Why?

---

You're saying Noah committed incest? Where is the evidence of this?Noah can easily be a righteous man...he simply didn't sin.

quote:

---

Simple, it's not rocket science - Noah had not been told about the laws in Leviticus.

---

Irrelevant. Incest is still a sin because god's law doesn't change. If god changed the law in Leviticus, then the law changed and the law does not change. If incest is a sin after Leviticus, then it's a sin before Leviticus, too.Even Adam and Eve knew that running around naked was a sin even though nobody told them so. They had eaten from the Tree of Knowledge and thus knew good from evil and thus knew that incest was a sin.God's laws do not change.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Well, since it's just a story and not real, it is of little concern.

---

​

Well, why are you debating with me then?

---

Because there is a difference between literary analysis where you understand that a work is a piece of fiction but go looking for internal consistency and treating the work as a description of reality.You see, there's no such thing as a positronic robot, but Isaac Asimov wrote a bunch of books where they exist. We don't treat it as reality, but there is a need for it to maintain its internal consistency given that presumption.

quote:

---

I fail to see your immense interest in refuting something that YOU think did not happen.

---

Then stop trying. My motives are mine one. If you don't want to hear my opinion, stop asking questions in places that solicit comments from the public.

quote:

---

If your so confident - just ignore my messages!

---

No, it's the other way around. If you don't like my messages, stop reading them.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

phil responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

God's law doesn't change. If incest is a sin, it has always been a sin.

---

​

Romans 4:15 says, ". . .because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression."

​

It is stated that incest is wrong in Leviticus. Adam and Eve came way before Leviticus. Incest was not a sin then.

---

Incorrect. God's law doesn't change. If incest is a sin now, that means it has always been a sin.Remember, nobody told Adam and Eve that they were naked. And yet, the very first thing they panic over after eating from the Tree of Knowledge and becoming as gods knowing good and evil is that they aren't wearing any clothes.Therefore, it is clear from the Bible that just because nobody wrote the law down on a tablet doesn't mean it wasn't in effect.Besides, Romans is a New Testament thing. We're talking about the Torah.And even then, Romans understands that the law does not change. It's saying that you need faith and not just strict adherence to the law in order to achieve salvation. There are some things you do and don't do because the law says so...and there are some things you do and don't do because faith demands it be so.

quote:

---

Also, I think I am missing your point about Genesis 6:2.

---

I'm pointing out that there are other beings that humans can breed with.

quote:

---

This is talking about the time when Noah was alive, though.

---

So? What makes you think they weren't around before then? Nothing says they weren't. In fact, Genesis 6:1 implies that they were around from the beginning.

quote:

---

Furthermore, the "sons of God" could very well be referring to the men on earth in that time.

---

No, it can't because the children of humans are "of men" as Genesis 6:2 and 6:4 both directly state. These beings are "of god."------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rrhain, you were right to correct what I said. Bad choice of words. However,"If the fetus is female, estradiol starts to be secreted and the Wolffian ducts and the mesonephros regress while the Mullerian duct develops into the uterus and Fallopian tubes."So far, what factors are important or involved in the development of female sex organs has yet to be yet to be found. Because it is not the estradiol that causes the Wolffian ducts to disappear but a LACK OF testosterone. Unfortunately, "....we do not know what the analagous factors are that cause development of female structures and regression of the male structures." yet. Maybe soon. Thanks of rkeeping it real.------------------
Two most important senses in life: common and humor.

Who made up that rule? Or is it meant as revelation?

I do not see why we have to dwell on questions like incest and so on. We were brainwashed into taking the bible as the word of some God. Religion has not even given us the respect as thinking beings. To cut a long story short; the men who chronicled the bible, did so in their own personal interest and nothing is authenticated. It is just a mythology.------------------

Most of us here know this Anthony, but a lot of adults cannot let go of their childhood fairytales, We are trying to help them realise that a good dose of common sense makes the Bible look a lot more sensible.Brian.