Photocrat

Where's your DTD? I cannot even check your grammar for well-formedness... At that rate, I'm thinking that /dev/null would be the appropriate, conforming XML parser...

rainbow walking

Hi David,
I would like to offer an alternative interpretation to the verses which have been alleged to indicate inbreeding and incestual beginnings to mankind. None of these verses or surrounding text specifically implicate Cain or Noah's progeny in such practices. In most cases where incest occurs it is specifically stated, as in the case of Lot and his daughters or Davids son and sister Tamar. There is, however, another explanation which is, IMO, far more plausible. I have a hypothesis that Genesis chapter 1 indicates the evolvement of man in general, naturally, and depicts him in a state of development as a hunter/gatherer, not yet domesticated. Then, in chapter 2, divine intervention to initiate a human species capable of being domesticated and from there further development intellectually. It is my contention that Adam is a species specific human intentionally designed to eventually displace earlier human species such as those mentioned in Genesis chapter 6:

Genesis 6:4  ¶There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

I also contend that those same "sons of God" are the descendants of Adam as he was so designated in Luke's genealogy. That the flood was a localised phenomenon designed to protect God's interests by eliminating the local competition giving these humans time to become entrenched within the ecology enough to survive. I contend that the Adamic race or Habiru (Hebrews) were a genetic improvement designed to be "diaspored" into the population of naturally evolved humans to mingle their "seed" creating another evolutionary link. I contend the commands not to marry outside the tribe were nothing more than reverse psychological triggers and the later "punishments", captivities, and diaspora's were all part of the plan.


However, in the presentation of this hypothesis, that Adam was a species specific creation above and beyond the previously created man (with emphasis on the “natural” forces as the methodology of creation), a controversy around the text in Genesis chapter 2 must be resolved. That some “scholars” support a theory that Genesis 2 is the first account of the “creation story” contained in Genesis and chapter 1 was added later has been extended as “evidence” that this hypothesis is faulty. Their “theory” maintains that Genesis 2 was written by a different group of people “before” Genesis chapter 1, hence, the apparent duplicity of events conveying contradictions between the two accounts. Their contention is derived via an elaborately devised “observation” of the duplicity in certain “historical” events described in the OT. This, they allege, is due in large part to the schism that occurred after Solomon’s death when the 12 tribes of Israel became 10 and 2 or Israel and Judah, thus requiring Israel devise it’s own heritage and history by way of a re-write of certain historical claims. This is affectionately called the “documentary hypothesis”. It’s much more complicated than this but these are the basic tenets.

Before we examine some of the particulars of their claim let me just say that there is “some” truth to this theory. However, as in most cases where error corrupts the integrity of a claim, it can be observed that the claim was based on a valid observation but went astray due to an invalid interpretation. I believe this to be the case here. While it is true that there are some evident duplicities, particularly in and between the books of Judges 1 & 11, Numbers, 1 & II Samuel, and 1 & II Kings as well as some text in the books of the prophets and Psalms. To this observation I can readily agree. Even to the fact that some of the duplicity found in these books contains discrepancies of fact, either by omission or commission.

However, to allow this duplicity to take up residence in the Pentateuch in general and Genesis in particular is a liberty I find obtrusive and without merit. It is the beginning of the error in this theory. Aside from the fact that the duplicity theory extends itself backwards, intruding upon real estate it was not granted leave to do so, we find instances where it has also been pushed forward into other eras of Jewish thought and history, thereby creating an impression of acceptance and respectability which it has not earned. It is still just a liberal theory that has some basis in fact in a particular historical setting but has since, like many liberal policies, been allowed to infiltrate into textual criticisms beyond it’s rational scope. And thus we have the spectacle of a theory creating an atmosphere of misunderstanding surrounding one of the most beautiful and thought provoking works in the bible…the book of Genesis.

The declaration by those adherents of this liberal theory that a side-by-side comparison of Genesis 1 and 2 do not add up is an accurate and astute observation. I most emphatically agree with them on this ONE point. But that is as far as we can travel this road together. Where the constituents of the ‘documentary hypothesis” go south is in their observation filtered through their liberal theory in an attempt to posit chapter 1 as a later insertion out front of chapter 2 which was chapter 1 before this inclusion.. This is about as far from truth as the sun is from the moon. The authors of the first two chapters of Genesis were nowhere on this earth during the “generations” of Rehoboam and Jeroboam. The allegation that this division between Israel and Judah created an opportunity for “Masorete’s(Jewish scribes)” to have been employed to re-translate the original language to reflect and insert a different Hebrew account of creation is pure speculation. Granted there is likely some error inherent in the translations, some maybe even due to cultural influence or even prejudice, but to say that an entire chapter was inserted, in front of chapter 2, to reflect a different mindset is un-supportable. Chapter 2 flows smoothly and logically from chapter 1 as long as you aren’t reading it from the current liberal consensus that the two chapters represent different renditions of the ‘SAME” creation event. They do not, nor will they ever be proven to do so. What they depict is an orderly flow and transition from a “general” creation of the universe, including man, in chapter 1 thru verse 6 of chapter 2, to a specific creation of the species specific man, Adam beginning at verse 7 of chapter 2.

The main thrust of this “theory” is based on a comparison of the names used to designate God, describing Elohiym and Yahovah as representing a different relationship to man, the constituents of the “documentary hypothesis” maintain that JHVH, IHVH, JHWH, YHVH, or YHWH, the four consonants of the ancient Hebrew “personal” name for God as variously transliterated and used in Genesis 2, reflect a more personal relationship with God as these designations are indicative of His personal name. Based on this they allege Genesis 2 was actually the first creation account and Genesis 1 reflects a more priestly oriented description of creation based on the use of the “Elohiym” designation for God that is less personal and more judicial. I couldn’t agree with them more on the designated names for God being indicative of man’s relational position with Him. But their postulate that the judicial aspect of His name in Genesis chapter 1 supports their contention that this chapter was a later inclusion leaves much to be desired. For instance, based on the name Elohiym, would they also postulate Genesis chapter 6 also to be a later inclusion? Chapter 6 is the beginning of the events leading up to the flood. Genesis 6:1&2 reads:

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of “God” saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
(KJV)
The “God” in verse 2 is identical to that used in Genesis chapter 1. Elohiym.

Also, what do they do about Genesis 3:1 Genesis 3:1 ¶Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the {LORD God} had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath {God} said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? This ONE verse incorporates both names for God? Both Yah and El are here utilized in the same verse.


If, on the other hand, Genesis 2 is exactly where it is suppose to be and it does not represent just another account of the same creation event, then the observation of the relational aspect of the different designations for God actually become much clearer. In a hypothesis that sets forth Genesis 2 as a continuation of the creation account started in Genesis 1, we can see how the relationship between man and God could change, along with God’s designated name, from a “judicial” one in Genesis 1 to a more “personal” one in Genesis 2. And we can see this un-folding naturally without the incorporation of all these added artifacts from an era far in the future. Genesis 1 depicts the creation of an ecosystem populated by a food chain, including man, in an order similar to that depicted in the theory of evolution. In chapter 1 man has yet to meet God on a personal level. Hence the judiciousness of the designation “Elohiym” . Genesis 2, beginning with verse 7, initiates the second phase of the creation process where a “specific” man is introduced who is depicted as having a “personal” relationship with God. In fact, from this point onward, the remainder of the biblical record reflects both God and man in a more personal light, with the exception of those instances where “God” takes on His mantle/role of Judge. In those instances we see His personal designation dropped in favor of His judicial one. In a majority of these cases God is dealing with “man” in general and not the Adamic species specifically.

Now let’s look at some “evidence” that there is a CLEAR correlation between Genesis 1 and 2 that will facilitate the rejection of the “documentary hypothesis” as having any jurisprudence in the book of Genesis.

The first clue comes in the form of archaeological discoveries in Mesopotamia of clay tablets inscribed with ‘cuneiforms”, attributed to the Babylonians and dated along the same time line as when Moses and the Hebrews where just emerging as a nation and cultural influence. In fact, the first five books of the bible deal with the history of the Patriarchs at exactly the time these cuneiform tablets had been compiled. The orthodox religious view of these five books (Pentateuch) is that they were given to Moses in totality at Sinai. The more academic view is that Moses “compiled” the Pentateuch from earlier tablets. This view is supported by a comparison of the cuneiform tablets and the Pentateuch. In the cuneiform tablets there have been discovered a curious “format” allowing readers to determine important facts about them such as dates, authors, reasons for being compiled, associated official business, and especially if there was more than one tablet involved in a compilation. This “format” was termed a “colophon” which would convey information to facilitate a logical method of tracing and reading these tablets. It was discovered that these ‘colophons” utilized a method of starting a succeeding tablet off with the first few words or sentences from the preceding tablet.

In the book of Genesis there is a correlation between the “colophon” format and certain textual transitions. This is most notable in the biblical phrase, “These are the generations(Toledot) of…”. This phrase occurs eleven times in Genesis and in most occurrences IS NOT followed by a genealogy. In fact, it has been noted that they refer to passages that had just ENDED. In other words, this “colophon is “looking backwards”. Previously scholars had thought they referred to eleven key figures of Genesis but there was one key figure missing in this interpretation: Abraham. There was no verse that said, “These are the generations of Abraham. It certainly cannot be argued that Abraham wasn’t a key figure of Genesis. It is now reasoned that this phrase is a “colophon” earmarking a CHANGE from one set of events to another. In other words these “colophons” represent the “summary” of a previous set of events and the introduction of a new set of events about to un-fold. This translates into a “connection” between two events regardless of the time frame involved. Since these primitive formats were utilized long before the Masoretes began their translations it is highly debatable that they would have incorporated such a primitive device to “sneak in” another chapter or two wherever it suited their religious scruples to do so. It is more likely that they were merely translating the text as best they could including the “colophons”.
In light of this methodology let’s take another look at Genesis 1 and 2 and examine the “colophon” to determine the accuracy of this method.

Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, on which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to every thing that creeps upon the earth, where there is life, I have given every green herb for food; and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it He had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4 Genesis 2:4”These are the generations of “ the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

This is the first “colophon” marking the transition from one tablet to the next, as both a closure, summary and an introduction to circumstances which set up stage II of the Genesis creation. Notice the name for God has now changed designating a transitional phase or “colophon’ tying together a previous tablet with the next one.

Now let’s continue on into phase two and see how this special creation event was set up.

Gen 2:4-7
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

<B>Looking back</B>

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

<B>Looking back at specifics setting up the transition from “man general” to “man specific” able to incorporate the knowledge required to “till the ground”, which was distinct from the hunter/gatherer man that already existed. Note the reference to "plants and herbs of the FIELD" which is a specific agricultural designation above and beyond the simple reference to the earth. In other words, there were two key elements missing in the formula for domestication: rain and someone with agricultural knowledge. Hence, the GARDEN of Eden. </B>

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul
8  ¶And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
(KJV)
<B>Hmmm...so if you were going to instruct someone in the arts and crafts of domestication what better place to begin than a garden? Then there was Abel who was rewarded for improving upon this domestication by devising the labor of animal husbandry while his brother Cain was content to carry on the family tradition. </B>

Here are the locations of the other 10 ‘colophons” in Genesis. Read the verses preceding them and see how these colophons tie things together differently than the “documentary hypothesis” has led people to believe.


These are the generations of (KJV)

Gen 2:4<FONT COLOR=BLUE>
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, (KJV)

Gen 5:1-2

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called “their name Adam,” in the day when they were created.
(KJV)


Gen 6:9
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. (KJV)


Gen 10:1
1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood. (KJV)

Gen 11:10
10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: (KJV)


Gen 11:27
27 Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot. (KJV)


Gen 25:12
12 Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's handmaid, bare unto Abraham: (KJV)


Gen 25:19
19 And these are the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son: Abraham begat Isaac: (KJV)


Gen 36:1
1 Now these are the generations of Esau, who is Edom. (KJV)

Gen 36:9
9 And these are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in mount Seir: (KJV)


Gen 37:2
2 These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren; and the lad was with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father's wives: and Joseph brought unto his father their evil report. </FONT> (KJV)

Based on these “colophons” we have a much clearer grasp of how the Pentateuch came into existence as a Mosaic collection and compilation of the histories of preceding groups of Hebrews of the species specific Adamic hu-man race. Moses was the editor. Un-known people of previous “generations” were the authors. The question that still remains before us: Was God the “Inspirer”?
If true, this would explain where Cain and Noah's progeny found wives from among the natural pre-Adamic humans.
Just a side note in closing. In Genesis chapter 1, all the accounts of the various life forms mentioned as being created were specified to have been "brought forth" from either the water or the earth. A curious designation not at all indicative of a magical poofing into existence that many seem to imagine when reading these verses. Almost "evolutionary" in scope. One wonders where these primitive people got such an idea? Certainly they weren't around to observe such a phenomenon so it had to have been conveyed somehow.

David M. Payne

Quote from RW (Rainbow Walking)
If you read the whole post above, you see one of the big problems that religion based on biblical writings poses for us freethinkers. One can take quotes from the bible, and use them to argue whatever position you want to. You appear to be arguing for a biblical “evolutionary” view of the development of humanity here, kind of a God/Darwin symbiosis as it were. Interesting. I still wonder why the bible is more relevant and “True” than say the Gilgamesh epic, or the Iliad or the Odyssey or any number of other religious/historical tomes? I think it had a great PR team, and it still does today. Sheer numbers of believers doesn’t make a belief right it just makes it powerful. In the case of religion, it has lead to oppression, war, inquisitions and the like, as the “True Believers” seek to eliminate the infidels from their ranks. If you study history from the very beginnings to today, this is what you see, over and over. This is why religion has outgrown its usefulness and in the hands of fundamentalists of all stripes is a force for regression, as it always has been really.
This is nice RW but it still doesn’t answer the question of whether the Adam and Eve and Noah stories are true or false does it? So, are we the product of incest and inbreeding or not? If we use the bible, we can argue any position we want to on this question. RW just used it to argue some form of evolutionary development of mankind I think, right RW? This should clue in some of you out there as to how worthless it is as a reference source when discussing humanities evolution as a species. I’ll stick to sciences as a source for where we came from, not superstition.

rainbow walking

rw: Hi David,
Thnx for the reply. Allow me to clarify a few items from which we seem to be at cross purposes on.


rw: You are right, David, this is a problem for anyone, not just freethinkers. Ancient writings are always subject to interpretation but, then again, so is almost everything that comes our way. Scientific data is not exempt from this common problem either, wouldn't you agree?


rw: Quite true. I see no reason why human knowledge cannot be incorporated into the search for understanding about our past. If similarities are found and noted it could shed light on areas of biblical interpretation heretofore clouded in theological meanderings. I have noted that the language suggests an evolutionary development rather than a magical poofing into existence. Thanx to Darwin and many others we have a clearer grasp of how the food chain has developed. This knowledge would have been incomprehensible to primitive minds unless explained in language and metaphor on their level. Hence, when the bible says, "and the water brought forth" I interpret this as a metaphor indicative of evolution without the technical jargon.


rw: Relevancy is a matter of subjective preference. Since I was only responding to your query on the fundamental interpretation of specific text which leads to, IMO, erroneous conclusions, I made no effort to address relevancy or truth values.


rw: Well David, you weren't really asking this question in the post I responded to, now were you?


rw: Likely we are but not entirely. Even if you subscribe to abiogenesis as the causitive factor for the existence of life you have to allow that the first few organisms had to have evolved from inbreeding. In fact, inbreeding is one of the leading causes of anomolies within the genetic structure. Since evolution requires a change in this structure, some type of differentiation in the replication, it could be rationally argued that inbreeding may have produced many a variant to select from.

So you see David, regardless of whose ideas you adhere to, inbreeding is still a factor. I offered an explanation that dis-allows this in those particular instances you referred to from biblical text. If the ecosystem had already developed to the point to where there were humanoid creatures the inbreeding had long since done its job. Long before Adam and Eve.


rw: Actually, I used modern scientific paradigms superimposed over ancient metaphorical explanations to arrive at this hypothetical interpretation. This doesn't take away from the current knowledge pool but adds to the theological implications.


rw: Well, I don't know David, a scientist true to his quest tries not to bias his research with hastily drawn prejudicial conclusions, especially when it can rationally be argued that there is some relevant factors involved in those fields of study he has allowed his prejudices to cloud. Religious issues, like politics, often produce more heat than light and require a calm rational approach when being considered. Science is not an exact structure either and is as dependant on interpretation as any historical writing. The difference is in the results.

The fact remains, you asked specific questions regarding biblical interpretation. I attempted to respond in kind.

David M. Payne

rw: Hi David,
Thnx for the reply. Allow me to clarify a few items from which we seem to be at cross purposes on.

rw: You are right, David, this is a problem for anyone, not just freethinkers. Ancient writings are always subject to interpretation but, then again, so is almost everything that comes our way. Scientific data is not exempt from this common problem either, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, you make a valid point here, RW but it doesn’t get us any closer to answering the two questions, it kind of dances around them.

rw: Quite true. I see no reason why human knowledge cannot be incorporated into the search for understanding about our past. If similarities are found and noted it could shed light on areas of biblical interpretation heretofore clouded in theological meanderings. I have noted that the language suggests an evolutionary development rather than a magical poofing into existence. Thanx to Darwin and many others we have a clearer grasp of how the food chain has developed. This knowledge would have been incomprehensible to primitive minds unless explained in language and metaphor on their level. Hence, when the bible says, "and the water brought forth" I interpret this as a metaphor indicative of evolution without the technical jargon.

This above exchange is so nicely done, it looks like I am answering your point and agreeing with you. You do the same thing below, nice editing work, but it’s disingenuous to cut and paste my work this way RW.

rw: Relevancy is a matter of subjective preference. Since I was only responding to your query on the fundamental interpretation of specific text which leads to, IMO, erroneous conclusions, I made no effort to address relevancy or truth values.


rw: Well David, you weren't really asking this question in the post I responded to, now were you?

Me; this was part one of the original question of this thread, and below is part two. They are very simple questions realy; it’s the answers that are hard, RW.

[quote] So, are we the product of incest and inbreeding or not? [QUOTE]

rw: Likely we are but not entirely. Even if you subscribe to abiogenesis as the causative factor for the existence of life you have to allow that the first few organisms had to have evolved from inbreeding…

Me; No I don’t, because whatever sparked life on this planet may have sparked it over wide areas of the planet at the same time, who knows. So life may have started out genetically diverse and evolved from there. There’s no doubt that inbreeding has occurred and had some impact on our evolutionary development. History gives us examples of the impact possible from inbreeding; see the royal families in Europe before they lost most of their power. As I’m not a geneticist, this isn’t a path that I wish to get sidetracked on though, I’ll just stick to the simple stuff.

rw: In fact, inbreeding is one of the leading causes of anomalies within the genetic structure. Since evolution requires a change in this structure, some type of differentiation in the replication, it could be rationally argued that inbreeding may have produced many a variant to select from…

Me; Yes and so what? You’re arguing an evolutionary point I have no problem with conceptually.

rw: So you see David, regardless of whose ideas you adhere to, inbreeding is still a factor. I offered an explanation that dis-allows this in those particular instances you referred to from biblical text. If the ecosystem had already developed to the point to where there were humanoid creatures the inbreeding had long since done its job. Long before Adam and Eve.

So, the bottom line here as far you’re concerned is the biblical stories of Adam and Eve are well, fanciful, yes? If the very basis of the creation of mankind in the bible isn’t true, why is any of the rest of it true? People here on the Sec-Web pick the bible apart so easly, and still you guys come back for more. Why people believe the bible sure beats me, the more I read it, the more amazed I am that intelligent people fall for this stuff. I couldn’t get hooked on this stuff as a kid, and I still can’t as an adult. It still leaves me perplexed as to where the believers come from. Perhaps PT Barnum had it all figured out after all.


rw: Actually, I used modern scientific paradigms superimposed over ancient metaphorical explanations to arrive at this hypothetical interpretation. This doesn't take away from the current knowledge pool but adds to the theological implications.

so you have your own version of the biblical truth here? Impressive, you’ve just put yourself into the running for the next big cult prophet.

rw: Well, I don't know David, a scientist true to his quest tries not to bias his research with hastily drawn prejudicial conclusions, especially when it can rationally be argued that there is some relevant factors involved in those fields of study he has allowed his prejudices to cloud. Religious issues, like politics, often produce more heat than light and require a calm rational approach when being considered. Science is not an exact structure either and is as dependant on interpretation as any historical writing. The difference is in the results.

A, I’m not a scientist, and I don’t have to think in the box, I like it out here outside the box anyway. You should try life outside the God box, it’s more fun and more truthful out here too.

B, I can allow my prejudices to influence my writing. I’m not doing research and then publishing it, I’m writing some pointed short stories, and putting my views out here. Some times the results are good, some times they aren’t, such is life.

rw: The fact remains, you asked specific questions regarding biblical interpretation. I attempted to respond in kind.

Yes I did, and I guess you did too. We continue to see things differently on the God/bible thing RW, and the beat goes on.

[ August 18, 2001: Message edited by: David Payne ]

justlurking

It looks like Nomad, Bede, Metacrock, have conceded this thread. I see they like to split hairs and argue obtuse points of biblical interpretation, but give them a really hard question and they fold up their tents and slip into the night. What a surprise, huh DP?

David M. Payne

I think you’re right JL, I guess we can call this a forfeit by Nomad and friends, according to his own definition.

[quote] originally posted by Nomad/Brian Trafford:
<STRONG> From Brian Trafford; Well... were I come from (yes, I know it is Western Canada, but I can't help that), when one side forfeits a match (twice), then it is generally viewed as a concession. </STRONG>

Photocrat

Heh, this is *really* old. I was bright enough to find the problem before I was 10 [e.g. a *long* time ago--my first "Biblical contradiction" found, yay! :] Why don't you ask about the Leviathan, next? :]

As to your answer:

Liberal Christians take early Genesis as a myth the Jews stole & "turned on its head" -- same as a few other things I can think of [e.g. Job in a whale, Leviathan, etc.]

It just depends on how liberal they are. [e.g. me giving credence to evolution could brand me "ultra-liberal" in some circles... perhaps even at the Sec Web, given how much you guys think Christian == fundamentalist/uber literalist/total inerrantist]

If you must know, my somewhat naive solution at however young I was at the time was that God created a few girls when nobody was looking... [ripped out a few more ribs? I dunno :] In an interesting side note, did you realize that the bit about God putting Adam to sleep gave the doctor who invented it the idea for general anasthesia? :]

Anyhow, if you believe they're real people, it's pretty clear that your options are either the above, or incest [since they didn't have Mosaic law yet]. They also had polygamy for some time, too, but Christians did away with that [NT verses like where deacons must have only one wife, etc.], it 'fell out of style' as it were for some time, too [save among Mormons in recent times...] Frankly, the text of Genesis just doesn't say, one way or the other.

athiestpete

Mungo Man is the piece that does not fit into this puzzle. Despite his age and modern appearance, his mtDNA differs dramatically from anything in Eve's lineage. So, he doesn't fit into Eve's theory of human origins and couldn't have been part of the "Out of Africa" exodus.

Hi David

I could be wrong but I think that Mungo man does not pose any problem to the mtEve theory. You see, mtEve had many female contemporaries, however, the way I understand it, all the other potential Eves simply weren't able to pass on their mtDNA for as many generations as mtEve because of, among other things, some generations having only male children. Therefore, their ntDNA line stopped right there. SeeThe Round Earth Society's Homepagefor a nice explanation on that. Of course I might be wrong.

truly atheist pete