|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 12:32 am
My cousin and I are trying to answer a question from an online 'friend' we are trying to slightly push in the direction of Christianity- we want to slowly work on him until we can really witness to him. He has asked why the first humans were not guilty of incest and I am trying to find a reference or something.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 8:45 pm
Simple. Because incest hadn't been forbidden yet. I don't think there were laws against it until Exodus at least, although I couldn't tell you right off where the first reference of them are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 9:21 pm
I have a question, why wasn't it? If God wanted more people, why didn't he just go poof here are more people. Why weren't the laws made then, how come we are supposed to follow them when Adam and Eve weren't?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 2:04 pm
You'd have to ask God that, I can't tell you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 11:52 am
Crimson_Enigma I have a question, why wasn't it? If God wanted more people, why didn't he just go poof here are more people. Why weren't the laws made then, how come we are supposed to follow them when Adam and Eve weren't? Dunno why he didn't just make more people, but my guess on why there were no rules yet is because Adam and Eve were the first, so they were the most perfect and pure, and incest betwen them was not a problem. When it became a problem later on, and started producing defects, God made a rule about it. But that's just a guess, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 12:24 pm
I personally take the creation story as this: Adam and Eve were general names for humans in general. Like we say: "Man is guilty of deforestation" ~~ Which man? It's just the male part of the species and female part of the species.
There's more to the Bible if you don't take everything directly. At least, from my point of view. I'm know I'm probably off on some things, but aren't we all?
Though I'm not sure about Lilith, which isn't in a lot of the torahs and bibles nowadays...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 2:03 pm
Lilith is never mentioned in the Bible. She's part of a Hebrew myth that parents used to scare the children (similar to our stories of monsters under the bed, and I mean myth as in the Greek myths).
If Adam and Eve are just "general" names, then what about their children? I'm sure not every couple named their sons Cain, Able, and Seth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 3:44 pm
Hey, chill. She said she might be off on a couple of things. Don't take everything to heart like that. She was just saying what she believed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 3:45 pm
Everyone that posted on my comment, thanks. That was a great help, I also thank you for not flaming me and telling me what I thought was wrong. I like the way you suggested what you believed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 8:44 pm
mistressofthelost Lilith is never mentioned in the Bible. She's part of a Hebrew myth that parents used to scare the children (similar to our stories of monsters under the bed, and I mean myth as in the Greek myths). Actually, the idea of lillith came from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:16 pm
Ace_Of_Swords I have a question, why wasn't it? If God wanted more people, why didn't he just go poof here are more people. Why weren't the laws made then, how come we are supposed to follow them when Adam and Eve weren't? i think you know more then you lead on
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:31 pm
Alright, I recently asked this question as well and I was given the answer, "Adam and Eve were the first. God didn't want to see his children suffer, so he allowed incest for so many years so that the earth could be populated. Then, when there were enough people, he stopped allowing incest, because there were defined familes from "seperate bloodlines" by that point." 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:26 am
There's 2 explanations I've heard of.
1.) As stated above, Adam and Eve were either metaphoric representations of many men and women that God created and they mated.
2.) Because the bloodlines of the early people were still relatively pure, it was ok for them to mate with siblings. It was further down the bloodline when problems with children of siblings came about that God forbade the practice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:54 pm
Ace_Of_Swords I have a question, why wasn't it? If God wanted more people, why didn't he just go poof here are more people. Why weren't the laws made then, how come we are supposed to follow them when Adam and Eve weren't? Because God wanted it to be that way until He gave them the 10 Commandments and other laws in Exodus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:31 pm
um, well, i don't really see how Adam and Eve were incestuous, but I'm pretty stupid, so ... sorry.
Although, on a random note like that, there was a woman in my stepmum's sunday school who said that the original sin was adam sleeping with neanderthals... which...what the heck? but oookay.
I dont think it's incest. Just because Eve was from Adam doesn't really mean that she was related to him any more than every human is related to every other human.
and there's something i read once that i dont really believe, but it makes sense:
the creation story isn't meant to be literal. it's meant to just explain things... like a myth almost. but slightly more factual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
