Amaleq13

I think it is called special pleading.







Hey, my broken watch is stuck at 4:20. I think I'll keep it.

Magus55

The only reason humans can't and don't mate with family members is because the genetic line is too flawed among close relatives. In Biblical times, its a non-issue. Relations with close family members wasn't banned until Leviticus.

Yellum Notnef

So if you lived back in biblical times you would have no problem sleeping with your mother or sister?

This really is a serious question even if it appears to be an insult.

jbernier

First off, we have no idea whether or not Jubilees actually leads to that conclusion as Offa did not cite the passages that lead him to conclude that Abraham was Cain. So we do not know if it is actually in Jubilees or merely in Offa's interpretation of Jubilees.

Second, there are more complex reasons why Jubilees was not canonized. The fact that it probably was used in a form of Judaism that was not seminal for latter Rabbinic Judaism is probably the most significant.

Neither would God use an adultery, a murderer, a whore, etc., to be the ancestors of his Messiah. Oh, but wait, isn't that exactly what the Christian canon says God did? Careful with these "God would not"s...unless you're God I suspect that you do not know the mind of God.

See the above.

Rick Sumner

"The remains of possibly twenty manuscripts were unearthed at Qumran itself: one in Cave 1, one in Cave 2, perhaps as many as sixteen in Cave 4, one in cave 6 and one in Cave 8*. In addition to these manuscripts from the caves to the north of Wadi Qumran, remains of other Dead Sea Scrolls were also found--one to the south at Masada and perhaps as many as three at Wadi Murabba'at**. There is admittedly a certain degree of mystery surrounding this latter group." (_The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible_, ed. Abegg, Flint and Ulrich, p. 3)

The footnotes identify the fragments found:

*1QGen, 2QGen, 4QGen-Exoda, 4QGen-Exodb - 4QGen-Exodg, 4QGenh2, 4QGenh-title, 4QGenj, 4QGenk, 4QPaleoGen-Exodl, 4QPaleoGen-Exodm, qQGenn, and pap4QGen (4Q483), 6QGen, 8QGen

**MasGen, MurGen 1, Mur (origin questionable), and Sdeir1.

Are there any who would do so? I've never seen it even suggested.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Magus55

I don't think we would look at it the same way we do today. Its a taboo today because genetics are too flawed, and to us its a gross proposition. When there isn't that much humanity on Earth, genetic flaws are very rare, and incest is an unknown concept - why wouldn't people? Wild animals do it. I would think evolutionists would support it if it weren't for the societal standards, and genetic issues.

jbernier

If anthropology has shown one thing it is that incest rules are at best tangentially related to genetics. Questions about economic and politlcal relations and power generally are much more important considerations. Hence why in many cultural contexts one's first cousin is often one's ideal mate. However, in most of these contexts only certain first cousins are potential mates; depending upon whether clan endogamy or exogamy is practiced one would be forbidden to marry within or without the clan, thus meaning that any first cousin not of your clan (if endogamy is the practice) or any first cousin that is of your clan is not a potential mate (if exogamy is the practice; note that clan exogamy is far more common than clan endogamy). What ends up happening is that it entirely depends upon whether or not clan membership is acquired through the father or the mother: You want to marry a first cousin who is of your parents' two clans of which you are not a member; in that way your children will be one of your parents' clans (although not necessarily your own, depending upon whether or not one is of the appropriate sex to pass on clan membership to one's children, as defined by the cultural context). This, incidentally, is less pressing for the sex who already passes on their clan membership to their children; it is more a strategy for the sex which does not and their clan and family to be concerned about. Remember, of course, that in the cultural contexts which I am discussing here the clan is often a fundamental political unit; thus the choice of spouse (and thus the social constitution of incest taboos) are also deeply political.

This is all to say that incest taboos are very complicated cross-culturally and show little regard for our modern notions of genetics. Big surprise, since these ideas are barely a century old.

DaMan121

Is it even outlawed by the bible?

Edit: Isnt it ironic that Maguss's apolegetics includes talk of genetics! You mean you believe in the scientific method used for genetics, but not the flood, evolution, and the miriad of other theories you reject?