Descendents of A & E

[Torp]

At the risk of starting yet another religious debate I am curious how the biblical version of history reconciles the descendents of Adam and Eve.

From my admittedly non-researched perspective wouldn't any continuation of ancestory from Adam and Eve necessarily involve incest?

As I remember, Adam and Eve had Cain, Abel, and Seth, among others.  Then Seth begot Enosh.

How did Seth begot Enosh? Is Eve both the Grandmother and Mother of Enosh?  Or is one of Seth's unnamed sisters both Aunt and Mother?  Was there another line of humans from somewhere else?

I am not asking this to start some sort of flame war.  I am really interested in how this concept has been reconciled/discussed in theological circles.

Jef

[TheHammer]

Yeah, that would interest me as well!

But... I recall reading on another religious thread, that there is at least one christian view dealing with this problem. I don't know if it was on this forum though... but I think the poster (you know, that was such a discussion were the non-christians tried to prove the bible wrong by giving scientific discoveries or facts, whereas the christian countered this sience card with the "it-can-still-be-explained-by-the-bible-if-you-believe-in-God-in-the-first-place" card) claimed that in the time of Adam and Eve the humans were "more perfect" than now, so that incest would not lead to the deformations it does now, with us inferior men. Well, I am not very sure about this, but I am certain some "knowledgeable" people will enlighten us!

And yes, I am pretty sure this will develop into a flame war.
*Looks forward to reading lots of funny posts* 

[Torp]

... so that incest would not lead to the deformations it does now, with us inferior men...

I suppose the greatest deformation might be that according to Mosaic Law it is an offense punishable by death.

Guess I should clarify, if Seth and Eve were together, it's death.  If Seth and unnamed sister were together, he just get's excommunicated.

If Seth did not have sexual relations (maybe he took the Clinton defense and it worked) with his own ancestors then that would imply that there were other humans in the world from some other undetermined source.  How were they created?  Where did they come from?

[raymagini]

What an interesting question

[pianonut]

once God speaks his law, it is in force.  since eve is spoken of as 'the mother of all,' she would have conceived girls also.  God probably allowed it before the law.

lev. 20:17 doesn't say they die, though.  it says they would have been cut off from the israelites (as a group).  deu. 27:22 says they would be cursed.

if seth was righteous (as the bible says) he would not have done anything against God's wishes.  in gen. 5:4 adam...had other sons and daughters.  so we know he would have had a sister.  since God makes the world the way He sees fit, who are we to argue about what He does?  if He allowed seth to marry his sister at that time, it must have been ok.  even to the time of abraham it must have been ok.  gen. 20:12 says "besides, she actually is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife;"

back then, probably there was more limitation of family clans to choose from and God must have allowed it since he blessed Abraham and gave him Sarah as a wife in the first place.  God was probably more concerned with the israelites marrying cannanites and worshipping other gods.  gen. 24:3 says "you shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the canaanites among whom i live...but you shall go to my country and to my relatives, and take a wife for my son issac."

 

[Torp]

lev. 20:17 doesn't say they die, though.  it says they would have been cut off from the israelites (as a group).  deu. 27:22 says they would be cursed.

True, Lev. 20:17 doesn't say die.  However, 20:17 is dealing with incest with one's sister or step-sister.  Lev. 20:11 address what is obviously considered a much worse crime, that of engaging in sexual acts with one's own mother

Lev. 20:11 states: And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death...

Regardless, if I interpret correctly what you have said, it is that God must have allowed incestuous relationships in the beginning, but later changed his mind?  Why would he have changed his mind?  What series of events occurred that moved it from the approved/blessed method of reproduction (i.e. an integral part of the fulfillment of God's original command to be fruitful and multiply) to a condemned sexual act punishable by death and/or excommunication?

Is there some sort of explanation in the Bible that addresses this major philosophical shift?

Who kept track of all these relationships?  I mean, let's take a hypothetical situation here.  Seth has a daughter with Eve.  That child is both Seth's daughter and sister, and Eve's daughter and granddaughter.  If Adam then had a child with Seth's daughter/sister (let's say a boy) that child would be Seth's brother/grandchild, Adam's son/great grandson, Eve's stepson/great grandson, and Seth's daughter would have a son/uncle.  Gets pretty complicated quickly.  Yet this lineage is supposed to be well documented through to the time of Jesus.

The picture this kind of draws is of a family running around for a thousand years having sex with whichever sister/brother/aunt/uncle struck their fancy.  This all occurred after Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of knowledge and thus were supposed to have known right from wrong.  How could they have been so ingnorant of an activity that in God's eyes is a capital crime?  If in the beginning it was not a capital crime, i.e. the Mosaic Laws came later, then are we correct to assume that Moses got it right?  If Moses did get it right, then I'm back to the philosophical shift question from above.

Jef

[pianonut]

there is no mention in the bible of eve having relations with her children.  being so close to the beginning of creation would make eve more aware of the connection she had from the start with adam (and aware of God's power and wanting His blessing).

satan, on the other hand, wants to introduce fallacy into God's ways.  to prove that He is wrong somehow.  but, if we are created in God's image, and his son (Christ) did not approve of mother worship, then we are not to either.  there is a scripture where someone blurts out, 'blessed is the womb that bore you..."  or something like that - and Christ responded, "no. blessed are they that hear the word of God and do it."

nimrod introduced astarte (goddess of fertility, i think) who was also his mother.  many pagan religions introduce a mother/son relationship.  i don't see ANY in the bible.  it is not something God started.

perhaps God knew when the genetic mix-ups would start appearing (or created them after a period of time) and from then on disallowed marriage between brother/sister.  i don't know.  obviously, if it wasn't punishable by death, it was not as much of a crime as worshipping other gods.  idol worship, queen of heaven (astarte) worship, and combining worship of the true God with the false - left more distaste for God than marriage to a sister (which previously mentioned abraham had done - half-sister that she was).

[Dazzer]

i've heard that question before.

another question to ponder.

eve was created from adams's rib. and they procreate together. so:
1) does adam have sex with himself?
2) is eve a clone of adam? if so, why is cloning condemned by the church? (of course, because humans shouldn't play god... )
3) so is god a scientist?
4) or is science the basis of religion?
5) or is God really just a higher level of species? There is one particular THEORY that does suggest that, conceived from Zecharia Sitchin. I find it quite interesting.

[Regulus Medtner]

Now, that's what happens when people take the Old Testament and interpret it quite too litterally...

[Dazzer]

well if you expect people to be serious in the bible, of course you have to.

unless you'd prefer to discredit the old testament, and rip it out of the bible completely. cuz the Old and New testaments tend to have conflicting morals.

for example.
Old- eye for an eye
New-turn the other cheek

So maybe Jesus and God didn't have the perfect relationship.

also Christians follow the teachings of Christ, but for some strange obscure reason they worship God too. But then in comes the concept of the holy trinity and things get fuddled up even more. And then i think christians like to forget that Jesus was a jew.and that the god they worship is the same god that the jews worship. the one that brought jews out of egypt. The problem is, that christians follow the new testament , and the jews discredit the new testament. AND the christians keep the old testament, but only because without the old testament, the new testament doesn't make sense. So now we have two groups of people worshipping the same dude, but for different reasons. One for leading them from suffering, the other for begetting a son who leads them from suffering, even if he discredit most of his father's original teachers in the first place.

heh i probably made a thousand theological mistakes in there so yeh... just my 2 cents. 2am! sleep now!

[pianonut]

dear dazzer,

at first i thought you were really trying to just make a joke.  but, i see your rationale and that you seriously have doubts about certain things.  like the relationship between God and Christ, and OT and NT.  also, scientifically, can God do things?

having had children, to me, there are two things that make you love another perhaps more (say than friends and neighbors).  helping them come into the world by pain (makes you appreciate life - because life is at a cost and is valuable) and also, the fact that they are genetically a part of you.  a family.

adam must have had a sore rib which may have inhibited his enthusiasm for attacking her (since she was perfect - must have been beautiful) and also, she was genetically linked to him - since woman means taken out of man...they were truly 'one flesh.'  God makes a point to teach us things at every step of the way.  and, he shows us whether by pain or good feelings - to stop and think why things are so!  i really wondered this during the birth of my son (why, God?) and then when he was born i thought, ok. after all this work, noone in their right mind would not value a baby (instead of just pulling one off the shelf - and then throwing it out the window when it cries).  it makes you think.

back to OT/NT  and God/Christ - i believe that Christ always said he came to do His Father's will.  He said 'not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law till all is fulfilled.'  that means that despite our inability to keep them all (and our covering for sin by His sacrifice) that the law is still just.  it may seem outdated in our society since we are not agrarian, slave holders (but our society does have maids, butlers, day laborers, etc. which is similar), do not hold to many of the OT statutes, but the basic commandments WERE repeated in the NT.  it's almost as if Christ knew that the societies would become less dependent on farming, on weather, on God, and rely on themselves.  underlying our society, it is still the backbone (food, clothing, shelter) even though we consider ourselves more civilized.  there are fewer people farming, but they are much more important than we make them out to be.

[i_m_robot]

All this contradiction





if god made incest acceptable - why the change?


it seems the theory on incest is more man made than a mandate from god

[Torp]

Now, that's what happens when people take the Old Testament and interpret it quite too litterally...

Christian denominations as well as individual Christians - theologians, clergy and laity - hold a wide range of assumptions about the nature of the Bible. Different assumptions lead to different methods of interpreting the text. As a result, they can reach very diverse conclusions about what it actually says.

This divergence of conclusions can be so extreme that sincerely and devoutly held beliefs by very liberal Christians may well be considered blasphemy by very conservative Christians, and vice-versa. The end result is that Christianity should be more accurately viewed as a collection of religions, not as a single religion

There are four common methods of interpreting the Bible.

1. Interpreting the Bible literally
The literal interpretation of the Bible is generally based on the following foundational beliefs:

The Bible’s authors were directly inspired by God at the time that they were writing their book(s).

The Bible is inerrant. The biblical text is accurate, whether it is discussing science, history, theology, morality, or any other topic.

The bible is infallible. That is, it is fully trustworthy.

The Bible is correct when it identifies authors of its books.

The official canon of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) was finalized by church leaders during the 4th century AD. Under God's inspiration, they chose exactly four Gospels from among the over 40 that were in use within the early Christian movement as God inspired, inerrant and infallible.

The Bible is the "Word of God." It is internally absolutely consistent. It was as valid at the time of Moses as it is today, because God is unchangeable.

Most English versions of the Bible are reliable translations.

Literally hundreds of apparent contradictions exist in the Bible. However, almost all can be harmonized with a little thought. A very few unimportant contradictions can be attributed to copyist errors. A few discrepancies cannot be harmonized with our currently available knowledge. However, an explanation does exist, and will be discovered some day.

to be continued...

[Torp]

2. Interpreting the Bible as a historical document
Liberal Christians who use this approach to biblical interpretation view the Bible as having been written by very human, fallible authors. The writers were motivated by a desire to promote their own religious, spiritual, and political beliefs and/or those of their faith group. Thus, the Bible reflects the evolution of religious and cultural thought over about a ten century time span. Some beliefs which are common to those using this interpretive technique include:

The authors of the Bible were very human and often made mistakes in their writing.

Biblical writers attempted to explain their beliefs about God and his will for humanity. Being fallible, they sometimes wrote material that was contrary to the will of God.

Some parts of the Bible should be ignored and are not suitable as a guide to modern living. Typical examples are: laws regulating slavery, restricting the roles of women, ordering genocide, torturing prisoners, allowing the rape of female prisoners of war, requiring the murder of religious and sexual minorities, requiring the burning of some prostitutes alive, and many other activities considered profoundly immoral by today's ethical standards.

The authors were limited by the tribal nature of their culture, their theocratic or dictatorial political structure, their lack of scientific knowledge, etc.

Some forged passages have been added by unknown authors since the original texts were written.

Accidental and intentional errors have occurred in copying.

Entire books in the Bible have been written many decades or even centuries after the apparent author died. Four of the Epistles - 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus - all state that they were written by Paul. However, they were actually composed 35 to 85 years after Paul's death.

Other books were attributed to mythical characters. The hero Daniel, who was supposed to have been born circa 620 BC, is probably a mythical character. The book of Daniel was actually written circa 164 BC, almost half a millennium later.

The Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible were not written by Moses circa 1450 BC. It was written by four anonymous authors or groups of authors generally referred to as J, E, P and D, and later redacted by "R."

The Bible contains much material copied from neighboring Pagan cultures and pre-Abrahamic beliefs. Three examples are the pair of creation stories, the flood of Noah, and the tower of Babel.

Some biblical passages are religious propaganda, and not historically reliable. The gospels' text which blamed "the Jews" for the execution of Jesus is one example. Those passages in the Bible are much more closely linked to conflicts between Jews and Christians some 40 to 70 years after Jesus' death, than to real historical events at the time of Jesus' ministry.

Jesus actually said only a very few of the words attributed to him in the Gospels. Jesus spoke in Aramaic. The Christian Scriptures (New Testament) were written in Greek, thus containing translations from Greek into English of words which were earlier translated from Aramaic into Greek.

Very few of the words or acts by Jesus in the Gospel of John refer to real events.

The early Christian church was divided into many differing traditions: (e.g. Jewish, Pauline, and Gnostic Christianity). The books of the Bible were chosen in the fourth century AD from among about 50 gospels, hundreds of epistles, many infancy stories, many books of revelation etc. They were mainly chosen on the basis of their conformity with orthodox Christian beliefs as they existed at the time. Non-conforming books were suppressed, and sometimes lost forever. Yet they contained much valuable material about the primitive Christian movement.

It is helpful to study the books of the Christian Scriptures in chronological order. One can detect how particular beliefs -- e.g. the virgin birth -- apparently developed through time.

Modern versions of the Bible are reasonably accurate translations of the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, but still reflect the prejudices of the translators, and the belief systems of the religious institutions which sponsored them. Older translations, like the KJV, are less reliable because their translators had less complete knowledge of Hebrew, and had access to fewer ancient manuscripts.

Recent findings of the physical, social and medical sciences have shown that some parts of the Bible cannot be considered accurate. (e.g. the creation stories, mental illness caused by demon infestation, concepts of the structure of the universe, creation of rainbows, origin of various languages, etc).

to be continued...

[Torp]

3. Interpreting the Bible as midrash.

This is a method of looking at the Bible from a totally different perspective. As explained by retired Episcopal Bishop J.S. Spong:
"Midrash is the Jewish way of saying that everything to be venerated in the present must somehow be connected with a sacred moment in the past...It is the means whereby the experience of the present can be affirmed and asserted as true inside the symbols of yesterday."
Bishop Spong illustrates Midrash by citing four stories in the Hebrew Scriptures which involved a common miraculous theme: the parting of waters in a sea or river:

The first story is found in Exodus 14:5-28. The Hebrew people were trapped between the Red or Reed Sea and the approaching Egyptian army. Moses cried out to God who parted the sea so that the Israelites could pass in safety.

The second story is found in Joshua 3:14-17. Joshua was the successor to Moses. He commanded that the ark of the covenant be carried to the Jordan River. As the priests carrying the ark reached the river, God stopped the water and caused it to pile "up in a heap a great distance away." (NIV) The priests found themselves standing on a dry river bed.

The third story is found in 2 Kings 2:7-8. In the presence of Elisha, Elijah took his cloak, rolled it up and struck the water of the River Jordan. "The water divided to the right and to the left, and the two of them crossed over on dry ground." (NIV) At this point, Elijah was taken in a fiery chariot pulled by fiery horses up to heaven. Elisha was left behind.

The fourth story is found next in 2 Kings 2:13-14. Elisha picked up Elijah's cloak, struck the water with it. Again, "it divided on the right and to the left and he crossed over."

According to a Midrash interpretation, the purpose of the parting of the Red/Reed Sea was to show the Israelites that God was on their side and that Moses could call on him for protection. The purpose of the second, third and fourth stories was to show that God continued to work through his chosen prophets in later times. They also show that the history of Israel is continuous, containing repetitive themes that link back to earlier events.

It is not useful to ask whether the partings of the waters actually occurred. A proper question is:

"What was the experience that led, or even compelled, the compilers of sacred tradition to include this moment, this life or this event inside the interpretive framework of their sacred past?"

There are many events in the Christian Scriptures that mirror events that appeared in earlier passages of the Bible and are prime candidates for a midrash interpretation. Some are:

The guiding stars involved in the births of Abraham, Isaac, Moses and Jesus.

The local rulers ordering that Jewish babies be killed, placing both Moses and Jesus at risk.

The temple experiences of Samuel and Jesus.

The feeding of 100 men by Elisha and Jesus' feeding of 5000 men plus women and children.

Both Elijah and Jesus bringing dead people back to life.

The ascension of both Elijah and Jesus towards heaven.

to be continued...

[Torp]

4. Interpreting the Bible as folklore
Alan Dundes is a professor of anthropology and folklore at the University of California. He has written over 30 books based on his studies of the oral traditions of many cultures. In his book called: "Holy writ as oral lit. The Bible as folklore," he reports that multiple versions of various stories appear in the Bible. A few examples are:

The creation of the first woman: one story in Genesis has her created at the same time as the first man; the second story has God creating her later.

The flood of Noah: Much of Genesis 7 consists of an interleaving of flood accounts by authors referred to as "J" and "P." Alternate verses are by different authors.

The Ten Commandments which appear in three different versions in the Pentateuch.

The names of the twelve tribes of Israel.

The names of Jesus' disciples.

Jesus' Sermon on the Mount or Plain.

The Lord's prayer.

The various inscriptions on the sign placed on the cross, as described by various gospel writers.

Dundes believes that these stories were circulated for decades and even centuries as an oral tradition. During that time, each version of the stories subtlety changed as it was circulated before it was recorded in written form. From the discrepancies among the various version of the same story, he concluded not only that the Bible contains folklore, but that the Bible is folklore.


Part of my reason for beginning this topic was to allow its discussion from these different points of view.

Jef

[i_m_robot]

 

too many words

but self likes these

The authors of the Bible were very human and often made mistakes in their writing.

never were truer words spoken

[pianonut]

being that i am of the first opinion (that the word of God is true - literal - and can be explained if researched)...i believe that God would have us do nothing less or more than He requires of Himself.  It is proven, if you read the bible closely, that God does not condone hell, the way we think.  torturing people is not His idea of fun. 

when you mentioned prostitutes receiving being burned alive, i went to check the record.  lev. 21:9 says 'the daughter of a PRIEST, if she profanes herself by harlotry, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire (most likely after death - using the following examples).  that is the way the enemies of israel were treated AFTER they had died (also, animals for sacrifice were swiftly killed, and THEN burned).  God did not want israel to have descendents that would be part of idol worship because they sometimes had sex with animals, contracted diseases that could be communicated, and things that He did not intend.  He did not want israel to represent him that way, and BURNED them AFTER they were dead.  since they did not have guns in that day, stoning was a fairly swift death.  being hit in the head with a rock - i think it would provoke passing out first.

for those that were not part of the priesthood, there was a different procedure.  prooving innocence or guilt.  numbers 5:14 -31.  God, in His infinite wisdom, knew that some women would be accused unjustly.  the terrors of witch hunts/harlotry etc. in middle ages and down to the puritans was not as just as God's determination of who had actually commited adultery and who would receive cancer or inability to have children.  results often come in this life, too, although noone really goes before a judge anymore (except in divorce) and mentions adultery.

in the NT, Christ makes the playing field more clear (knowing that men had gotten away with more than women in the past).  he says "you that are without sin, cast the first stone."  knowing that people like to accuse each other, made it more of a reality check.  israel as a nation was disintegrating within the roman system of government and the laws and statutes of old were replaced (in that system) with a system somewhat comparable to today.  even so, 'affairs' are rarely praised even by a society that 'thinks up it's own rules.'  even with royalty, charles and diana would have done better for their acceptance by the british if they had remained true to each other.

in deu. 22:21 it mentions that if a girl was not found a virgin at marriage, then she was stoned to death - by playing the harlot in her father's house.  also, vs. 22 declares death for those who commit adultery while married.  the exception is that if what we consider 'date rape' occurs, then the man is required to marry her (if they are both unmarried).  these things seem outdated to us today, but probably brought blessings for israel since people were less likely to do these things considering that there was actually a penalty for them, instead of getting away with seducing, raping, killing, etc.

deu. 13:15 mentions burning AFTER people were dead. (who had been seduced into worshipping other gods).  he wished for His people to not be unclean or unholy (in their own lives, and that of their children's).  after Christ came, we separate ourselves from unholiness (and don't rely on the law to do it).  we also pray for our enemies.  even in OT times, slaves were freed, after israel themselves experienced bondage in babylon.  jer. 34:10 '...so that noone should keep them any longer in bondage; they obeyed and set them free.'

today, many poor people are bought and sold as sex slaves, imported wives, prostitutes, ...and sometimes little is done about it.  sometimes it is even advertised.  God was not in favor of reducing somone this way - and made it clear in OT times that was not His idea of treatment of human beings.  but, yet, for those who make bad choices, there is the example of Rahab, who, when she realized who and what God was and his mercy - decided to join the israelites instead of fight.

 


 

[Regulus Medtner]

Well written, Torp.

Actually, what I meant was that many writings in the Testaments have also a metaphorical meaning which transcends the strict literal interpretation, the written word as it is. We shouldn't, therefore, just rely on the surface and explain each passage by itself, alone. Many of the above questions have already been answered beautifully in orthodox theology centuries ago. So, we shouldn't just assume that whatever we can't answer by ourselves, noone else can't (or hasn't, for that matter).

[pianonut]

if Christ was an example for us, and he kept the law (john 10:37 "if i do not the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

that is my reasoning for literal interpretation.  because Christ himself took it literally when He walked the earth.  Metaphors are spoken of as metaphors when Christ gave them (always explained them - at least to disciples - as in Matt. 25)

[Regulus Medtner]

I don't think that your point is quite pertinent here. Christ both kept and transcended the Judaic law (if He just kept it, he wouldn't say anything new, now, would He?). If you read the whole of chapter John 10 and still think that it is about strict literal interpretation of the Bible, I say it is a self-indulgent explanation of yours.
You shouldn't identify  Christ's "Paravoles", parables, as simple metaphors. E.g. there are different types of metaphors, more accurately called "protyposeis" which exist in the Old Testament and have been analysed extensively over the years/centuries.

[pianonut]

i think it is very pertinent because we cannot decide for ourselves what is metaphorical. it has to be explained by God, if he means metaphor or law.  if it is law, then Christ kept it.  if it is metaphor, it still has reference to an idea or concept (as a teacher teaches for a REASON).

BUT, i get your point.  there is no one who is righteous in keeping all of the law but Christ.  we cannot get sidetracked by our own keeping of law or thinking we understand everything.

i just don't care so much for the religions that say 'do whatever you want.'  it's really not what Christ meant by his metaphor in John 10.  you can climb through a backdoor, but the front is best.

ps  spoken after quite a few years thinking the back door was quite alright.  the more you are given the more is required.  what i think that means, is that if you start understanding things better, you are required to do them.