Did Adam and eve's children sexually procreate through incest?

[Armoured]

Sounds like a bit of a stretch.

Any other time, you go on about how God's word is unchanging. But the instant it becomes inconvenient, "oh, God just changed the rules".

 

[Sketcher]

Any other time, you go on about how God's word is unchanging. But the instant it becomes inconvenient, "oh, God just changed the rules".

If that were the case, Christians wouldn't be known for being prudes.

 

[Armoured]

If that were the case, Christians wouldn't be known for being prudes.

...? Yeah, ok.

 

[Cimorene]

This is what people actually believe?

 

[Steve Petersen]

God revealed a new aspect of His law, when it became useful for His children to know it (when genetic flaws began to develop).

There is nothing wrong with it as long as you acknowledge that it is speculation.

 

[doctorwho29]

There is nothing wrong with it as long as you acknowledge that it is speculation.

Speculation that makes a lot of sense, at least to me.

 

[Sketcher]

...? Yeah, ok.

We still hold to many rules that have always been inconvenient, including the sexual restrictions. If we were simply discarding rules for convenience's sake as you allege, then we would not have those restrictions anymore.

 

[narnia59]

There are multiple problems with the logic being advocated in this thread that Adam and Eve's children were required to propagate through incest, and that was somehow 'okay' with God.

There is an assumption that there were no other people created by God besides Adam and Eve. The Bible does not state that.

There is an assumption that Adam and Eve's children therefore married each other. The Bible does not state that. You could just as easily assume that Adam fathered children by his daughters and Eve had children by her sons. After all, incest was allowed right? And so was polygamy.

There is an assumption that incest was allowed by God because the genetic code was pure for a period of time after the fall. The Bible does not state that.

There is an assumption that the only reason incest was banned by God is because the genetic code began to deteriorate. The Bible does not state that. This one is especially problematic because it means that incest is not in itself a moral evil but the ban against it is merely a matter of practicality (like don't eat shellfish, it's bad for your health). The other problem with that view is that God doesn't specifically ban a lot of practices until the Mosaic law -- adultery for example. He never specifically bans polygamy at all. Yet we know that God's view of these things does not change, and they are morally evil.

So yes, Abraham married his half sister. That doesn't mean that was okay with God anymore than Jacob having 4 wives was okay with God. God doesn't condemn that action either but that doesn't mean polygamy was okay then and it's not now, for any reason. Neither was incest okay then and it is not now. And God didn't create a situation where incest was 'necessary' if it is a moral evil.

What God does do is gradually bring people along and reveal more and more of Himself to them. That's why in the OT an "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" was commanded (it was progression from the current state of people) but Christ takes that a step farther along the moral path. That doesn't mean God was ever okay with people demanding an eye for an eye. He was never okay with them demanding more than an eye for an eye. It means He knew they had to take one step before they could take the next one.

By assuming things that are not stated in Scripture, the outcome is to either redefine a moral evil (incest) into an amoral act that is banned simply as a matter of practicality, OR to believe God created a situation where an immoral act was a necessity. Both of those are wrong. Incest has and always will be a grave evil. St. Paul refers to it as "sexual immorality" for a reason. And God cannot create a situation where committing an immoral act is necessary to fulfill another of His commands -- 'be fruitful and multiple'.

 

[ml5363]

So what exactly is the problem with God temporarily permitting something for a time and then no longer permitting it?

Yes I give another example...slavery It was rampant back then and is taboo now...along with multiple wives...doesnt mean god has changed

 

[mmksparbud]

Any other time, you go on about how God's word is unchanging. But the instant it becomes inconvenient, "oh, God just changed the rules".

It says God doesn't change----His character doesn't change. His decisions have been known to change---
Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
1Sa 15:10 Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying,
1Sa 15:11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.
Jon 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
2Ki_20:1 In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.
2Ki_20:5 Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the LORD.
2Ki 20:6 And I will add unto thy days fifteen years; and I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for mine own sake, and for my servant David's sake.

 

[mmksparbud]

There are multiple problems with the logic being advocated in this thread that Adam and Eve's children were required to propagate through incest, and that was somehow 'okay' with God.

There is an assumption that there were no other people created by God besides Adam and Eve. The Bible does not state that.

There is an assumption that Adam and Eve's children therefore married each other. The Bible does not state that. You could just as easily assume that Adam fathered children by his daughters and Eve had children by her sons. After all, incest was allowed right? And so was polygamy.

There is an assumption that incest was allowed by God because the genetic code was pure for a period of time after the fall. The Bible does not state that.

There is an assumption that the only reason incest was banned by God is because the genetic code began to deteriorate. The Bible does not state that. This one is especially problematic because it means that incest is not in itself a moral evil but the ban against it is merely a matter of practicality (like don't eat shellfish, it's bad for your health). The other problem with that view is that God doesn't specifically ban a lot of practices until the Mosaic law -- adultery for example. He never specifically bans polygamy at all. Yet we know that God's view of these things does not change, and they are morally evil.

So yes, Abraham married his half sister. That doesn't mean that was okay with God anymore than Jacob having 4 wives was okay with God. God doesn't condemn that action either but that doesn't mean polygamy was okay then and it's not now, for any reason. Neither was incest okay then and it is not now. And God didn't create a situation where incest was 'necessary' if it is a moral evil.

What God does do is gradually bring people along and reveal more and more of Himself to them. That's why in the OT an "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" was commanded (it was progression from the current state of people) but Christ takes that a step farther along the moral path. That doesn't mean God was ever okay with people demanding an eye for an eye. He was never okay with them demanding more than an eye for an eye. It means He knew they had to take one step before they could take the next one.

By assuming things that are not stated in Scripture, the outcome is to either redefine a moral evil (incest) into an amoral act that is banned simply as a matter of practicality, OR to believe God created a situation where an immoral act was a necessity. Both of those are wrong. Incest has and always will be a grave evil. St. Paul refers to it as "sexual immorality" for a reason. And God cannot create a situation where committing an immoral act is necessary to fulfill another of His commands -- 'be fruitful and multiple'.

You are, of course, assuming that God created other people besides Adam and Eve---the bible does not say that.
Unless God says something is immoral--it is not. Adam and Eve were naked---that doesn't mean that after the fall they were to remain that way. After the fall, the first thing they did was cover up, and God made them clothes from animal skins--If He thought it was OK to be naked, then why did He make them clothes now?---Circumstances changed. The firdt people were led by God into more and more truth as their circumstances changed. The first diet was fruits---things changed. After the flood, there was no fruits and meat was allowed.
Abraham and Sarah were brother and 1/2 sister. Rebekah, Rachel, Isaac and Jacob were all related, uncles and nieces---the bible does say that. But God chose Abraham and Sarah blessed them not only to become a great nation, but that Jesus Christ would be born through their line---would God honor the immoral?--God call Abraham righteous. What God blesses is morl, what He says is immoral is immoral---there was a time for it, then there was not--plain and simple.
Act_17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

 

[narnia59]

You are, of course, assuming that God created other people besides Adam and Eve---the bible does not say that.
Unless God says something is immoral--it is not. Adam and Eve were naked---that doesn't mean that after the fall they were to remain that way. After the fall, the first thing they did was cover up, and God made them clothes from animal skins--If He thought it was OK to be naked, then why did He make them clothes now?---Circumstances changed. The firdt people were led by God into more and more truth as their circumstances changed. The first diet was fruits---things changed. After the flood, there was no fruits and meat was allowed.
Abraham and Sarah were brother and 1/2 sister. Rebekah, Rachel, Isaac and Jacob were all related, uncles and nieces---the bible does say that. But God chose Abraham and Sarah blessed them not only to become a great nation, but that Jesus Christ would be born through their line---would God honor the immoral?--God call Abraham righteous. What God blesses is morl, what He says is immoral is immoral---there was a time for it, then there was not--plain and simple.
Act_17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

St. Paul refers to incest as sexually immorality and God refers to it as a wicked act. Something can't be a wicked act for one generation and not another, for with God there is "no variation or shadow due to change".

God has no problem with people being naked. Our fallen human natures do. It is we who changed, not God.

God called David a "man after his own heart". Does that mean God approved of his adultery and murder? Of course not. Likewise there is no indication he approved of Abraham's incest, or his taking of his wife's maid to conceive a child.

God's knowledge of what is good and evil does not change. People may be ignorant and therefore God does not hold them accountable for their actions. But what is suggested here is by that design, God created two conflicting commands -- to be fruitful and multiple, and to do so by committing incest, which Scripture refers to as sexual immorality and a wicked act. The Bible is indeed silent on who the children of Adam and Eve married. So I would suggest to be silent on the topic as well, rather than insist they married each other putting God in the position that He demanded His people to commit an action that He knows to be evil.

 

[narnia59]

It says God doesn't change----His character doesn't change. His decisions have been known to change---
Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
1Sa 15:10 Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying,
1Sa 15:11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.
Jon 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
2Ki_20:1 In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.
2Ki_20:5 Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the LORD.
2Ki 20:6 And I will add unto thy days fifteen years; and I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for mine own sake, and for my servant David's sake.

Did God's decision change? Or did our position in relation to Him change because of our actions and that is reflected in Scripture in this way?

To interpret these verses as God literally changed a previous decision or view does indeed mean that something about God changed. Did He learn something new that 'changed' his mind? If so, He's not omniscient. If He didn't learn anything new but changed His mind anyway, then He did indeed change and is showing "variation and shadow" due to change, which Scripture says it not possible.

 

[mmksparbud]

Read post #50 again---And God is the one that made them clothes of animal skins. The first animals to die in order to clothe them. But He had let them be naked first did He not? Why did He then cover them up, was it not wrong before, but now it was? Adam and Eve were not told it was wrong to be naked, so it wasn't a problem. They were told to be fruitful and multiply before the fall, so sex is not wrong.
Gen_2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
One man one woman--that was God's ideal. The bible certainly doesn't say He made other creations for them to have sex with---and as you say---you should then be silent on that topic-- esp when it is clear that brother and sisters and close relatives were marrying until God said NO. God had not said no to multipole wives until the NT--not His ideal, but He made no statement about it, He inferred it when He made just Eve, not several women for Adam, one woman, and said they would be one flesh. God made it very clear that murder was not right from Cain on---David murdered knowing it was wrong---Abraham and Sarah did no wrong for God had not said it was. If you have a problem with that, the problem is yours.

 

[mmksparbud]

Did God's decision change? Or did our position in relation to Him change because of our actions and that is reflected in Scripture in this way?

To interpret these verses as God literally changed a previous decision or view does indeed mean that something about God changed. Did He learn something new that 'changed' his mind? If so, He's not omniscient. If He didn't learn anything new but changed His mind anyway, then He did indeed change and is showing "variation and shadow" due to change, which Scripture says it not possible.

If you want to believe that God had not reversed a pervious decision in any of those verse, well, believe what you want---it is very obvious He did. The bible just states what happened. Nothing about God changers in His character---He has at times changed His mind about things---so what? He is God. He can do that!! Or are you like Jonah----angry that God didn't do what He said He would do???

 

[narnia59]

If you want to believe that God had not reversed a pervious decision in any of those verse, well, believe what you want---it is very obvious He did. The bible just states what happened. Nothing about God changers in His character---He has at times changed His mind about things---so what? He is God. He can do that!! Or are you like Jonah----angry that God didn't do what He said He would do???

Are you proposing that God changed a decision because He learned new information, or that He always knew everything about the situation (past, present and future) but He changed His mind because He felt differently about something at some point than He originally did? Because it can only be one of the two -- so which are you putting forth here?

 

[narnia59]

Read post #50 again---And God is the one that made them clothes of animal skins. The first animals to die in order to clothe them. But He had let them be naked first did He not? Why did He then cover them up, was it not wrong before, but now it was? Adam and Eve were not told it was wrong to be naked, so it wasn't a problem. They were told to be fruitful and multiply before the fall, so sex is not wrong.
Gen_2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
One man one woman--that was God's ideal. The bible certainly doesn't say He made other creations for them to have sex with---and as you say---you should then be silent on that topic-- esp when it is clear that brother and sisters and close relatives were marrying until God said NO. God had not said no to multipole wives until the NT--not His ideal, but He made no statement about it, He inferred it when He made just Eve, not several women for Adam, one woman, and said they would be one flesh. God made it very clear that murder was not right from Cain on---David murdered knowing it was wrong---Abraham and Sarah did no wrong for God had not said it was. If you have a problem with that, the problem is yours.

God made them clothes from animal skins because they now knew they were naked. God had always known. Because of their fallen human nature, nudity becomes a temptation for them. Not for God. They changed. God didn't.

Abraham and Sarah may not have been accountable for their act due to their ignorance, but that doesn't mean it wasn't an evil act. So let's all be silent and quit stating that God required His children to commit an evil act to please Him.

 

[mmksparbud]

Are you proposing that God changed a decision because He learned new information, or that He always knew everything about the situation (past, present and future) but He changed His mind because He felt differently about something at some point than He originally did? Because it can only be one of the two -- so which are you putting forth here?

God made them clothes from animal skins because they now knew they were naked. God had always known. Because of their fallen human nature, nudity becomes a temptation for them. Not for God. They changed. God didn't.

Abraham and Sarah may not have been accountable for their act due to their ignorance, but that doesn't mean it wasn't an evil act. So let's all be silent and quit stating that God required His children to commit an evil act to please Him.

I am not putting forth anything--I do not claim to know the mind of God---I am quoting scripture. And there is nothing that says, Abraham did evil in the sight of God, God blessed Him and made Him the Father of a nation and start of the line from which Jesus would come. You are the one that is saying Abraham had done something evil. God didn't say so until Moses.
Yes, Adam and Eve changed, from innocent to guilty. They were told not to eat of the tree and did. God does not require anyone to do an evil act. Being naked wasn't an evil act, they changed and that required different actions. And I suggest you take your own advise and quite saying anyone was doing something evil when the bible doesn't say they did.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

http://www.tyndalearchive.com//TABS/Gesenius/index.htm

Not that I would condone incest, but why do think incest is wrong morally? Are we not all a part of Adam's family?


...

 

[keltoi]

If you look up Adam in Gesenius, it is clear that the name is derived from the word for 'red' or 'blood' (Heb. dam).

The name of Adam and also the word for Human or Man is Hadam.