Noah = inbreed?

soul_on_fire said:

Isn't that also considered incest and is it not a sin?

Click to expand...

What was Noah's definition of incest?

In Noah's families case, his grandchildren would have married each other, therefore the possibilities were marriage between brother and sister and between cousins.

On that point many societies even today permit marriage between cousins.

Please remember that it was not until another 2500 years later that the first law was passed against incest.

So no, it was neither incest nor a sin

soul_on_fire said:

If Noah and his family were the only people to survive the flood, wouldn't that mean that they had to inbreed in order to restore the population?
Isn't that also considered incest and is it not a sin?

Click to expand...

Hi, I know there are different understandings on this, but I take Genesis literally, so Adam and Eve's children would have married each other as well as Noah's children and their spouses had children which would have married; cousins and brother and sister as well.

It appears to me such was not sinful at that time.

On your last post where you say even if law was passed later wasn't incest the same thing. Good question, but apparently is how humans populated the earth beginning with Adam and Eve and later with Noah's family.

If God created Adam and Eve and told them to populate the world, the only way they could do so is by having children who marry children. God never tells people to sin, so I'm thinking that it wasn't sinful to do so.

Some Christians believe that Adam and Eve isn't literal. Some also believe the flood was not global.

I don't, but I know some do, so there's lots to ponder and as you study you will come to your own conclusions, and when comes to the bible sometimes we don't have any answers, however I imagine this topic has been discussed greatly among believers so a google search would reveal much, and reading different sources would give you an idea of how others have come to think/believe about this topic.

blessings,
tapero

soul_on_fire said:

but even if the law was passed later on, isn't incest still the same thing?

Click to expand...

Have you considered the reasons why sibling/cousin incest was made unlawful?

Now in light of that please consider why in Noah's family that would be a concern (and Adams too)

We have to assume that much ethnic diversity came through the flood in the loins and ovaries of Noah's sons and their wives. It is stated that all the "families of the earth" sprang (were restored???) from these three pairs. Note that Jacob and Esau were "two manner of people" from the same parents. Perhaps Eve also provided ethnic diversity which may have negated any ill effects of "incest", as there may have been an immediate protective genetic diversity within her offspring.

owg

I think it's important to realise that the term 'incest' is a modern word and as such it isn't in the Bible. It is also important to note that the word 'incest', which is often used to describe sibling and cousin relationships, also includes relationships that have always been considered immoral (such as parent/child and the like).

Sibling relationships wasn't considered bad until it was outlawed by God during the time of Moses. While I think that there were several reasons for this, I believe that minimising the risk of genetic defects played a major part of this. I mean think about it, the human race had been enduring the negative effects of the curse for some 2,600 years (estimates of around 1450 B.C.) and closely related relationships would dramatically increase the chance of mistakes in the offspring.

When you think about it, in the beginning, especially with Adam and Eve and their immediate descendants would have had very few mutations given that the negative effects of the curse had only been in effect for a short while and so closely-related people having relationships would be unlikely to produce damaging flaws in the offspring. The longer time flows, the more mistakes there, the higher the chances of problems developing in the offspring are, and so on. I also think that oldwiseguy's point about God creating with and preserved genetic diversity through the flood is very valid and the implications that this has...

Allow me to try and illustrate the issue of relating our definition of incest to the early humans:

In my country 60 kmph was the lowest speed limit that you had (ignoring the 20 kmph for roads that have high people density). Quite a few years ago the government introduced a 50 kmph speed limit for residential areas. Can you then judge those drivers that went 60 kmph in the same streets before where 50 kmph is now the speed zone? Of course not.

So it is with this issue: We can not judge the descendants of Adam and Eve up to the time of Moses for doing what they did because there was no rule or law against it. God never told them not to until the time of Moses. We can only judge those who commit what we now call 'incest'. Some relationships, like parent/child that I mentioned previously, have always been immoral and evil and thus we can judge anyone from the first descendants of Adam and Eve who have committed this on this basis.

Interestingly enough, even in an evolutionary basis people had to imbreed, the only difference is that by implication of evolutionary theory it shouldn't be wrong...