incest in the bible

[Don Quixote]

for those of you that went to christian sunday or religious school, how many of you noticed that while adam and eve had children, there were no other humans for their children to marry...except brothers and sisters...also, the number of their sons and daughters was not even, so either someone did without or there was multiple marriage...

oh well

wondered how many would bite and leap before they looked - the bible is not a good historical source...not even consistent and bites it self in the ass a little too often

anyone care to dispute or rationalize why the apocrypha are apocrypha

like the book of Jubilees or jesus' younger life

[Canceled]

This is assuming that Adam and Eve were the ONLY humans God created. The Bible tells the story of the FIRST humans God created, but perhaps it simply doesn't tell of the others? Betchya didn't think about that, did ya, Don?

[Don Quixote]

This is assuming that Adam and Eve were the ONLY humans God created. The Bible tells the story of the FIRST humans God created, but perhaps it simply doesn't tell of the others? Betchya didn't think about that, did ya, Don?

actually i did

if you check out the apocrypha (especially the book of jubilees) there are other things that were not included due to decisions made at the council of nicaea

one of the things that i liked best of jesus' teachings was that heaven and hell are real parts of a person's life, not some afterlife, i.e., life is what we make of it

oh well

good night

[Canceled]

Oh, I agree the Bible is certainly not a complete account of history, that's why I don't understand why you thought Adam and Eve were the only people, and their children had no one to marry. If God could create Adam and Eve, he could have easily created numerous people, it's not a stretch to think he may have. The purpose of the Biblical story is to tell how it began, not define the entire history. There are also many things in the Bible, which I believe modern man simply misunderstands, because they take them literally when they weren't intended to be taken as literal instances. In the days when the Bible was written, it was very common to illustrate things figuratively rather than literally, it's just how humans told their stories back then. So, the "talking snake" Bill Maher likes to poke fun of in the Garden of Eden, was perhaps not a snake at all!

[Don Quixote]

Oh, I agree the Bible is certainly not a complete account of history, that's why I don't understand why you thought Adam and Eve were the only people, and their children had no one to marry. If God could create Adam and Eve, he could have easily created numerous people, it's not a stretch to think he may have. The purpose of the Biblical story is to tell how it began, not define the entire history. There are also many things in the Bible, which I believe modern man simply misunderstands, because they take them literally when they weren't intended to be taken as literal instances. In the days when the Bible was written, it was very common to illustrate things figuratively rather than literally, it's just how humans told their stories back then. So, the "talking snake" Bill Maher likes to poke fun of in the Garden of Eden, was perhaps not a snake at all!

quite likely, mistranslations occur, another translation would have the snake be an angel

otoh, snakes in the time period were alleged to be animals of great wisdom

[Cancel3]

Actually, the bible does talk about the "other" people.

When Cain kills Abel, he is banished from the place Adam & Eve live. He goes and takes a wife in Nod. There were obviously people living out in the real world while Adam & Eve were in Eden.

Genesis 4:16 "And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden."

[Mott the Hoople]

for those of you that went to christian sunday or religious school, how many of you noticed that while adam and eve had children, there were no other humans for their children to marry...except brothers and sisters...also, the number of their sons and daughters was not even so either someone did without or there was multiple marriage...

oh well

DQ...why the hell are you trying to provoke Dixie like this? It's cheap and it's easy. Like shooting fish in a barrel. Like dating a woman who drinks Thunderbird.

[Mott the Hoople]

This is assuming that Adam and Eve were the ONLY humans God created. The Bible tells the story of the FIRST humans God created, but perhaps it simply doesn't tell of the others? Betchya didn't think about that, did ya, Don?

DQ....see what I mean?

[China Apologist]

Yeah it's pretty bizarre to think about the bible just passing up such a huge detail as God making people other than Adam and Eve, but the bible and other historical books are prone to such terse summary. So they didn't necessarily need to marry their sister. It certainly talks as if the world were already somewhat populated.

[Canceled]

Yeah it's pretty bizarre to think about the bible just passing up such a huge detail as God making people other than Adam and Eve, but the bible and other historical books are prone to such terse summary. So they didn't necessarily need to marry their sister. It certainly talks as if the world were already somewhat populated.

It's not really bizarre at all, if you understand what the purpose of the Bible is, and the reason for the story of the Garden of Eden. As I said, many people assume, if the Bible didn't say it happened, it didn't happen, and that is not articulated in the Bible or anywhere else, and is fairly illogical to assume. It is also illogical to assume everything in the Bible is literal, when we know that ancient people often illustrated things by figurative examples. When Eve was tempted to partake of the fruit from the tree of knowledge, it doesn't mean she literally ate an apple she picked from a tree in the garden. It is a metaphoric example, presented in a figurative sense, to convey an illustration of a point, not to be literally assumed as many people tend to do.

[Canceled]

DQ...why the hell are you trying to provoke Dixie like this? It's cheap and it's easy. Like shooting fish in a barrel. Like dating a woman who drinks Thunderbird.

It's not "provoking" to me at all. I think DQ asks a perfectly legitimate question, and one I think many people have often pondered. For the record, Mott... I am not "religious" in my beliefs and faith, I am a spiritualist. I think the Bible is a powerful literary work, which deserves the utmost respect in what it teaches us about life. I believe it must be divinely inspired to have been around for so long, and to be the basis for so many in their religious faith. That said, I think man misunderstands the Bible in many aspects, probably because we are inadequate to understand such profound meanings. I believe it is written in such a way as to inspire people individually, and this was intentional. What you may derive from the Scriptures is different than what I may derive, and that is the cause of so many various interpretations, thus 'denominations' stemming from the various interpretation. It's really quite a remarkable book.

In my spiritual faith, I regard the Bible as a guide for my personal beliefs, sort of like an instruction manual or encyclopedia to help guide me. I don't "worship" the Bible, in fact, I don't really "worship" anything. I believe in a universal power which is superior to mankind, and which has ultimate control over every aspect of life as we understand it in this reality of existence. That is what I call "God" for me, but I respect others viewpoint on the subject as well, because I think there is a fundamental reason for all spiritual belief. If there weren't, it wouldn't exist.

[blackascoal]

Oh, I agree the Bible is certainly not a complete account of history, that's why I don't understand why you thought Adam and Eve were the only people, and their children had no one to marry. If God could create Adam and Eve, he could have easily created numerous people, it's not a stretch to think he may have. The purpose of the Biblical story is to tell how it began, not define the entire history. There are also many things in the Bible, which I believe modern man simply misunderstands, because they take them literally when they weren't intended to be taken as literal instances. In the days when the Bible was written, it was very common to illustrate things figuratively rather than literally, it's just how humans told their stories back then. So, the "talking snake" Bill Maher likes to poke fun of in the Garden of Eden, was perhaps not a snake at all!

The bible is not history at all.

Nor is it science .. it's philosophy .. and its truth exist ONLY in the mind of the believer.

[China Apologist]

It's not really bizarre at all, if you understand what the purpose of the Bible is, and the reason for the story of the Garden of Eden. As I said, many people assume, if the Bible didn't say it happened, it didn't happen, and that is not articulated in the Bible or anywhere else, and is fairly illogical to assume.

I meant it leaves out huge details, and I've seen that in a lot of ancient literature.

[Canceled]

The bible is not history at all.

Nor is it science .. it's philosophy .. and its truth exist ONLY in the mind of the believer.

I have to disagree that the Bible is "not history at all" because there are many historical events depicted in the Bible, and pretty much all of them have been confirmed to one degree or another. So, it certainly has some historic content.

Amazingly enough, there are also instances of science included in the Bible. For instance, in the account of how God created man, it is said he "spat into the dust" ...scientific studies of abiogenesis theorize life 'evolved' originally from chemical reaction of iron ore compounds and found in clay. So, one can see, the two concepts are not altogether different in nature, just articulated in different ways.

I also refute the assertion "the truth exists ONLY in the mind of the believer." I personally don't believe in the actual "God" defined in the Bible, but I do believe the Bible is full of truths. Indeed, it is philosophy, and it is philosophy we should all seek to follow as decent moral human beings. However, some of us are so dead-set against anything the Bible may represent, we can't be objective enough to give it credit where credit is due, and your comments are a perfect example.

[Totally Tornado]

This is assuming that Adam and Eve were the ONLY humans God created. The Bible tells the story of the FIRST humans God created, but perhaps it simply doesn't tell of the others? Betchya didn't think about that, did ya, Don?

um then there would be other humans without original sin. soooo no, kind of a dumb theory.