All human
beings are the product of incestuous relations, according to the Bible. This is
wrong from medical and from moral perspectives. In the book of Genesis, all
humankind is based on interrelations between Adam and Eve’s children. The Bible
which is considered by some a moral guide gives mixed indications about the
morality of incestuous acts. All Adam and Eve’s children were brothers and
sisters and their offspring further down the lines were cousins and this aspect
wasn’t seen as having moral consequences for the writers of the book of Genesis.
“4 Now the man
knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, ‘I have produced* a
man with the help of the LORD.’ 2 Next she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a
keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground.” (Genesis; 4; 1-2 NRSV)
Many read
those verses considering that they are the most normal thing on the earth, but
this isn’t the case. If Adam and Eve were the only human beings at the time they
had to give birth to male and female children and their children formed couples
and produced other children and so on. Why is the incest wrong? I had taken
advice from a large amount of documentation and I have chosen a few quotations
which express a strong view about incest:
“Incest is
something we, as a society, should discourage. Not because of any genetic reason
and not because of any religious reason, but because incest is harmful to the
family unit. The family is where children learn to love and trust. Injecting
this atmosphere with sex and sexuality is harmful. Even if we limit our example
to consenting adults, allowing it at all may still let sexuality flow into the
family unit. We don’t want fathers “waiting” for their children to grow up or
sisters waiting around to seduce their brothers once they come of age. It’s just
harmful all around.”[1]
Another
opinion shows us why some people rightfully consider that incest is something
wrong, having many negative implications:
“Yes,
consensual incest is wrong. To take it one step further, all incest is wrong.
Nobody should be having sex or doing any type of sexual activities with family
members. It is very wrong and in my opinion, it is absolutely disgusting. They
really need to make this stuff illegal.”[2]
Even animals
avoid inbreeding and a group of animals will take measures to ensure incest
can’t happen in their families. If there is a natural protection against this
phenomenon why would God have conceived the human species in such a way that the
only manner of their multiplication would have been inbreeding?
The answer is
that it wasn’t God who built the human species through inbreeding, but the
naivety of the authors of the book of Genesis didn’t take into consideration
this aspect, neither from a moral point of view nor a medical one.
The medical
point of view is very convincing and the following quotation summarises well the
arguments against inbreeding:
“Since lots of
people today ignore morals, let’s look at biology. Inbreeding produces problems
genetically that can ruin gene pools and produce the increased likelihood of
genetic diseases within a line. This would mean that if a family has a history
of diabetic or heart problems, inbreeding in that line will promote a greater
likelihood of those problems appearing in the future. Animals, specifically
mammals (which we are), go to great lengths to avoid inbreeding. Primates exile
females to other family groups so that the fathers don’t start going at it with
them. Lions drive away males after they get older to ensure there isn’t a fight
for dominance between them and their father. In the cycle of life dead ends
occur regularly, and the quickest way to do that is make the gene pool much
smaller.”[3]
I have chosen
mostly the opinions which also reflect my views about incest and I didn’t
transform this study into a debate about the moral aspect of incest, because
this material is not a part of a controversy pro and contra incest but is about
the moral value and the logical consequences of the biblical texts. Whoever
wants to see all opinions can visit the site indicated in the references or
other sites or materials. There are also views that consider consensual incest
between mature people acceptable but even they don’t dispute the medically
harmful consequences which prohibit it, only the moral reasons. Nevertheless,
according to the Mosaic Law, incest between brothers and sisters wasn’t
admissible. Despite that, in the biblical narratives children were produced
through incest and this is a huge medical and moral problem, and the morality
promoted by the Bible is supposed to be at the highest level.
Almost
everyone agrees that having babies in an incestuous relationship, in other words
inbreeding, is medically wrong and as far as the babies will suffer medical
consequences is also morally unsound.
In the book of
Genesis both aspects, the moral and the medical, aren’t taken into
consideration. It is worth hearing the voice of specialists about the medical
problems generated by inbreeding. The following quotation explains the medical
consequences of inbreeding:
“Every person
has 46 chromosomes and each chromosome holds a bunch of genes. Each gene has the
directions for one small part of you. So there is a gene that determines if
you’ll have red hair, one that gives color to your skin by making melanin,
another one that helps blood to carry oxygen, and so on. You actually have two
sets of 23 chromosomes. One set of 23 comes from mom and the other 23 comes from
dad. Since each set of chromosomes has the same set of genes*, this means that
you have two copies of most every gene. What is important for making us each
unique is that the copy you get from your mom can be very different than the
copy you get from your dad. So for example, the gene that causes red hair comes
in a red version, and a not-red version (these different versions are called
‘alleles’). And the gene that makes a pigment called melanin comes in a normal
version that makes melanin and a broken one that doesn’t. If you only have the
broken one, you will end up with albinism. Having two copies of everything is
actually a really great system. This is because if one copy is broken, you still
have a second copy to use as back up. This is the case for the gene that makes
melanin. People with just one broken copy don’t have albinism, because their
good copy makes enough to keep albinism away.”[4]
The second
reason which pleads against interbreeding is that people need a lot of variety
from each parent to be able to fight off as many diseases as possible.
“Having diverse DNA is important for having a strong immune system. This is why
inbreeding can make for some sickly children. And it is why laboratory mice and
some farm animals get sick so easily. The immune system depends on a very
important part of DNA called the MHC or Major Histocompatability Complex region.
This is a lot of big words, but basically the MHC region is made up of a bunch
of genes that help you fight off disease. The MHC region’s secret to fighting
off disease is to have as many different types of alleles (or versions of genes)
as possible. The more variety
you have, the better you are at fighting disease. Diversity is important because
each MHC gene is good at fighting a different set of diseases. You can think of
it like a lock-and-key system. Each disease is a different shaped lock, and each
MHC gene is a key. The more keys you have, the more diseases you can unlock and
destroy.”[5]
According to
the Bible all human species and all animals would have developed through
inbreeding. All human beings would have had initially only one set of DNA
transmitted generation after generation to all human offspring. Adam and Eve
would have had the same set of DNA because Eve practically was taken from Adam.
A part of Adam’s body carrying Adam’s DNA would have been the basis for the
creation of Eve. The texts of the Bible imply the idea that humankind was from
the beginning condemned to become very sick. As a matter of fact, humankind is
not as sick as it should be if it had been created as the book of Genesis says.
What genetics
says about the possibility of humankind coming from one single pair, Adam and
Eve, is very complex but also is clear in asserting that mankind does not ensue
from only one pair of human beings. One article from Economist is worth quoting:
“A trickier
controversy has been triggered by findings from the genome that modern humans,
in their genetic diversity, cannot be descended from a single pair of
individuals. Rather, there were at least several thousand “first humans”. That
challenges the historical existence of Adam and Eve, and has sparked a crisis of
conscience among evangelical Christians persuaded by genetic science. This is
not an esoteric point, says Michael Cromartie, an evangelical expert at the
Ethics and Public Policy Centre, a Washington think-tank: many conservative
theologians hold that without a historical Adam, whose sin descended directly to
all humanity, there would be no reason for Jesus to come to Earth to redeem
man’s Fall.”[6]
There are many
arguments advanced by creationists through which they try to contra-balance the
logical consequences of the scientific findings.
In some of
them the differentiations in the human DNA are seen as rather small. Science
also considers that it was a small number of human beings from whom all
humankind developed but much more than one pair. They were probably several
thousand “first humans” and that explains the small differentiations in human
DNA. I found many of the arguments advanced by creationists unconvincing and
artificial.
What would
really have happened if for six thousand years people continued to multiply from
the same set of DNA? The lack of diversity would have been disastrous for human
development. In such a case a permanent decline in the value of the initial
genetic material would have happened and that would have been combined with an
extremely low resistance to diseases. In this situation, the way in which the
creation of man and woman was done by God, not the human sin, would have been
responsible for the genetic and even moral degradation of humankind. Weak
humankind from a genetic point of view would have generated less than strong
human beings from a moral point of view. All human adaptations and mutations
during the time must be seen as anomalies generated by the unhealthy inbreeding
if we accept the biblical principle of creation of humankind through an initial
pair.
There also are
other explanations given by creationists in respect to the acceptability of
inbreeding for the development of humankind. Adam and Eve were seen as very
healthy genetically, and for this reason inbreeding could not have been a
problem for them. This cannot be an acceptable explanation. Starting with a
healthy set of DNA, in time through inbreeding this would have become less and
less healthy and God would have known that.
God would have
created human beings with a project for their evolution in time; He didn’t
realise static entities with a totally unchangeable biology. At the same time,
the book of Genesis maintains that God would have created humankind with the
potential for genetic decay. The proposition that human beings would have lived
for hundreds of years before the Flood is doubtful if we take into consideration
the way in which the human species would have multiplied. The multiplication
through incest would have shortened human life; it wouldn’t have been the basis
for long lives.
The Bible says
that after Adam and Eve’s Fall humankind lost all its privileges and the process
of birth became painful, hence the so-called genetic health of the first human
beings is a pure invention.
As a matter of
fact, the Bible says clearly that humankind could have become ill even in the
paradise. We can suppose that from the presence of the tree of life in paradise.
The leaves of the tree of life would have been medicines for human illnesses.
The same tree of life which would have been present in the Garden of Eden will
be present on the new earth also. Adam and Eve wouldn’t have been that healthy
because having perfect health based on an exceptional set of DNA would have made
the presence of a cure for diseases given by the tree of life useless.
“Then the
angel* showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from
the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 through the middle of the street of the
city. On either side of the river is the tree of life* with its twelve kinds of
fruit, producing its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree are for the
healing of the nations.” (Revelation 22; 1-2 NRSV)
One can prove
me wrong if one can demonstrate that the trees of life from Genesis and from
Revelation are two different trees with two different qualities, but I trust
that this is an impossible demonstration. In order to give sense to the story,
no matter how loose, there has to be one tree of life prohibited in the
beginning and made available at the end of days. Notwithstanding, this is the
sense of a myth, not a real chain of events.
It is
important to remember that not only the human beings would have multiplied
through inbreeding, according to the book of Genesis, but also the animals. The
idea with very healthy genes at the beginning of their creation and a
diminishing of genetic quality over time which attracted the prohibition through
law of inbreeding for animals, doesn’t make sense because animal behaviour
cannot be influenced through laws. The Mosaic Law which interdicted inbreeding
makes sense for human beings but couldn’t have had any effect on animals hence
the continuation of inbreeding as a way of multiplication would have completely
destroyed the animals on Earth. In reality, contrary to what the book of Genesis
maintains, animals always take care to avoid inbreeding.
The most
inexplicable discrepancy in the biblical texts is the way in which the Bible
says that God has treated the problem of incest in human history. On the one
side, we are told that the entirety of humankind came through incest from one
human pair, but on the other side the Bible condemns very harshly the incest in
other texts. If incest was a horrific thing in Moses’ time why would it have
been acceptable for the multiplication of humankind? God’s view on incest would
have changed radically from acceptance to harsh condemnation. Why would
inbreeding have been the only possibility found by God for human multiplication?
The explanation can be found in theological reasons, not in scientific ones.
From Noah to
Moses only approximately 1,500 years would have passed. During this 1,500 years,
incest was still all right, being the manner in which humankind would have
multiplied and after that it became an abomination condemned by the Mosaic Law.
Without knowing that it was abomination, humankind would have been in the wrong
for a very long period of time and this situation was caused by the way in which
God would have created human beings. Moreover, other nations than the Jewish
would have continued to live in a moral abomination even after the apparition of
the Mosaic Law. In other words, God would have determined people to live in an
immoral way for a long period of time.
If the multiplication of human species is based on incest, according to the
Bible, why was incest condemned so drastically after a while by God? The only
explanation given by biblical apologists that I found following research was
that at the beginning incest was acceptable because the first human beings were
healthy but after a while, in Moses’ times, humankind became more afflicted with
ill health and a change in the pattern became necessary. Not too many
explanations which would include the moral aspect can be found. Why did human
races multiply in a way considered an abomination by God? There isn’t any
reasonable answer for that question with a connection to reality if one
considers that God has unchanging moral opinions.
Did not
humankind become sicker as a consequence of the way in which it was created? If
more than one man and one woman were created at the beginning, the spreading of
human beings on Earth through inbreeding would have been avoided and humankind
wouldn’t have been pushed to commit the abomination of incest.
Any
explanation for a possible acceptability of incest as a mean for the
multiplication of humankind is absurd. The effects of the genetic disaster were
not removed by Moses’ laws because their application was restricted only to the
Jewish people. It was too little too late. The overwhelming majority of nations
didn’t receive the Mosaic Law so looking to the wide picture the incest would
have continued to be damaging for the majority of humankind despite its
incrimination through Moses’ laws.
In other words, if God had created human beings in such a way that
multiplication would have been done through incest the condemnation of
inbreeding by the Mosaic Law wouldn’t have had a real effect on humankind’s
health. Even if the damages caused by incest would have been identified in
Moses’ times the cure on the global level was inefficient. For this reason the
Mosaic Law condemning the incest couldn’t have been a helpful way of improving
all humankind’s health therefore it would have been mainly a moral condemnation.
According to
Genesis chapter 1, God had planned from the beginning for humankind to multiply
from one pair. The problem is that the multiplication from only one pair is more
a curse than a blessing and that for medical reasons but that kind of
multiplication was seen initially by God as a blessing.
“27 So God
created humankind* in his image, in the image of God he created them;* male and
female he created them. 28 God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful
and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish
of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves
upon the earth’.” (Genesis 1; 27-28 NRSV)
Blessing
humankind to multiply through an abomination is an insurmountable contradiction
of the Bible which completely disqualifies the value of the narratives of
creation from the book of Genesis. Humankind were “blessed” to multiply from one
pair and fill the earth and this commandment will have created huge genetic
problems both in case of obedience to God and in the case of the Fall.
Probably, some
creationists would reply that if Adam and Eve were not in disgrace they and
their offspring could have eaten from a tree in the Garden of Eden and could
have become healthy at any time they wanted, but I would reject such an idea
because I do not see any reason to create something deficient only to repair it
all the time. Such a creation could not be said to be good as Genesis chapter 1
professes that it was.
Does God’s
moral law change? Is God’s moral law a collection of universal principles or
only an adaptive and flexible set of practical measures? Why is incest wrong? Is
the critic of lust one of the pillars of God’s moral law or not? Jesus let us
know that even looking lasciviously at a woman is sin. This is a problem because
regarding incest, we cannot find in the Bible an unchanging principle of God but
the evolution of the moral law. From necessary incest, the moral law developed
through permitting polygamy and after that evolved by harshly condemning incest
through Moses’ laws, and ended in prohibiting the guilty look. Incest and
polygamy would have been approved by God in a certain period of time but in the
end reprimanding them became one of the most important elements of God’s moral
law according to Christian teachings. There aren’t any arguments which can
justify from a moral point of view the multiplication of humankind through
incest as far as marriages between brothers and sisters were considered an
abomination in the Mosaic Law..
Didn’t incest
enter under God’s universal moral law from the beginning of creation? A relaxed
view on incest had the effect of ultimately attracting bad health and
immorality. One thing is obvious. The view on morality of Jewish Christian
tradition has changed during history, acting as any other human social
phenomenon and not as the expression of God’s universal moral law which is
supposed to be constant. Besides incest, another example is adultery.
Before Moses,
even the patriarchs didn’t have the notion of adultery and it is also an
important aspect of God’s moral law, according to the Bible. Is God’s moral law
absolute or relative, depending on different periods of time? If God’s moral law
is unchanging it is not clear why adultery is seen as a decisive sin in the N.T.
but was accepted by God when practiced by the patriarchs.
If adultery
wasn’t condemned by a law, hence wasn’t a sin before Moses, other people besides
the Jewish people couldn’t have been legitimately punished for their adulterous
lives because they didn’t receive laws condemning adultery from God. Some people
from the Middle East would have been considered by God to be morally unfit and
they would have been destroyed by Him for this reason even if the Bible says
that without a law the sins are not reckoned.
“7 What then
should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the
law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if
the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet’.” (Romans 7; 7 NRSV)
The Bible uses
the word “sin” even before Moses’ Law and that is another inconsistency. If sin
is reflected in the laws, using the word “sin” before the existence of any law
is meaningless. Why were sins turned against many nations from the Middle East
by God if they didn’t receive any law to condemn those sins? This is another
fundamental contradiction of the Bible.
Incest and
adultery were not sins before the Mosaic Law for the Jewish people and were not
sins at all for other nations who didn’t receive that Law, but in the eyes of
God incest was always considered an abomination.
Was adultery
indirectly favoured by the acceptance of incest in the O.T.? In case of Abraham
and Sara, incest and adultery were interwoven.
“From there
Abraham journeyed towards the region of the Negeb, and settled between Kadesh
and Shur. While residing in Gerar as an alien, 2 Abraham said of his wife Sarah,
‘She is my sister.’ And King Abimelech of Gerar sent and took Sarah.” (Genesis
20; 1-2 NRSV)
Abraham had a
mistress with the name Hagar beside his wife Sarah. Before Moses, adultery and
incest were acceptable in Jewish society but after the Mosaic Law they were
prohibited.
“Now Sarai,
Abram’s wife, bore him no children. She had an Egyptian slave-girl whose name
was Hagar, 2 and Sarai said to Abram, ‘You see that the LORD has prevented me
from bearing children; go in to my slave-girl; it may be that I shall obtain
children by her.’ And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai.” (Genesis 16; 1-2
NRSV)
God didn’t
reprimand Abraham, nor did He consider him a sinner because he was the man of
two women. God blessed him and made a covenant with him. This looks like a kind
of moral relativism rather than the expression of a universal moral law. I don’t
judge God’s manner in working with humankind but I deem the consistency of
biblical narratives, according to which God has adapted to human nature, using
it for His purposes rather than always weighing humankind after a universal
unchanging moral law. Besides the patriarchs, King David’s life is also an
example of God accepting the adultery of one of His faithful man.
The
explanation that incest hadn’t been too bad for health until Moses doesn’t
address the problem of morality and comes with an element of moral relativism
which contradicts the universality and absoluteness of God’s moral law. If one
reads what Apostle Paul had to say about sexual immorality one will understand
the immense moral gap between the acceptance of incest until Moses and the moral
standards brought by Jesus, the Son of God. Is it not about the same God? In
Moses’ Laws incest is clearly presented as morally bad.
“The LORD
spoke to Moses, saying: 2 Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: I am
the LORD your God. 3 You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you
lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am
bringing you. You shall not follow their statutes. 4 My ordinances you shall
observe and my statutes you shall keep, following them: I am the LORD your God.
5 You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live: I am
the LORD. 6 None of you shall approach anyone near of kin to uncover nakedness:
I am the LORD. 7 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is
the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her
nakedness. 8 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is
the nakedness of your father. 9 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your
sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home
or born abroad.
10 You shall
not uncover the nakedness of your son’s daughter or of your daughter’s daughter,
for their nakedness is your own nakedness.” (Leviticus 18; 1-10 NRSV)
“You shall not
uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s
daughter, whether born at home or born abroad.” (Leviticus 18; 9)
We should
notice that according to the book of Genesis all humankind has multiplied in
defiance of this rule later contained by the Mosaic Law. The distance and
opposition between the manner in which Genesis describes how humankind had
multiplied and God’s commandment about incest from Mosaic Law shows clearly that
the book of Genesis cannot be authored through divine inspiration. What writer,
in narrating the story of creation and describing Moses’ Laws at the same time,
wouldn’t have noticed the huge discrepancy between them? The problem is that it
wasn’t only a writer but many writers who have written the first five books of
the Bible. In Moses’ Laws incest is depravity. At the end of Leviticus chapter
18 we have the moral condemnation.
“24 Do not
defile yourselves in any of these ways, for by all these practices the nations I
am casting out before you have defiled themselves. 25 Thus the land became
defiled; and I punished it for its iniquity, and the land vomited out its
inhabitants. 26 But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and commit none
of these abominations, either the citizen or the alien who resides among you 27
(for the inhabitants of the land, who were before you, committed all of these
abominations, and the land became defiled); 28 otherwise the land will vomit you
out for defiling it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. 29 For
whoever commits any of these abominations shall be cut off from their people. 30
So keep my charge not to commit any of these abominations that were done before
you, and not to defile yourselves by them: I am the LORD your God.” (Leviticus
18; 24-30 NRSV)
By all these
practices the nations would have defiled themselves. This is the declaration of
the Bible and this assertion raises an important question. What practices?
Incest and adultery would have been the most abominable practices. Who prepared
the nations for incest if not, the way in which God had created humankind?
According to the Bible, God would have accused entire nations for practicing the
way of multiplication approved by Him.
The reason for which the nations have been driven away by God to make place for
the Jewish people in the Promised Land was that those nations practiced great
abominations such as incest. This is a huge contradiction of the Bible. On one
side the human species would have multiplied through incest as the only possible
way for their multiplication. On the other side, all nations cast out by God
before Jewish people would have been accused of their multiplication which was
asked by God from humankind at the beginning of its creation.
Those nations
cast out by God would have been assured that incest isn’t a problem as far as
all humankind had multiplied in this manner. Consequently, the motivation
contained by Leviticus 18; 24-25 for driving out other nations before Jewish
people is inconsistent with the book of Genesis. This doesn’t mean that God
would have acted in that manner, being unrighteous toward some nations, but this
is evidence that those biblical texts weren’t inspired by Him because they
contradict His moral nature expressed in the Mosaic laws. If the Mosaic laws
don’t express God’s moral nature that means that they also haven’t been inspired
by Him.
An abomination
is something greatly disliked or abhorred which produces intense aversion or
loathing towards a vile action. An abomination can be also a shameful or
detestable action, condition, habit, etc. This is the definition of the
dictionary.[7] All
these strong terms are implicitly contained by God’s characterisation of incest.
It is a harsh moral judgement, it is not only a measure taken for the protection
of human health as for example a vaccine against a disease. It is more than
that; it is a moral condemnation of humankind for practicing incest.
In Deuteronomy
chapter 27, the action of incest with a sister is under a curse. All human races
are under a curse because humankind multiplied through incest between brothers
and sisters, but this curse isn’t due to human fault. God had created human
beings and blessed them to multiply and to fill the earth but at the same time
He cursed the way in which they multiplied. There are two extreme attitudes
towards incest in the Bible, first that it was necessary for multiplication and
second, the total intolerance about it through Moses’ laws.
Such a
contraction is so important that it brings a thick darkness on the entire moral
value of the stories of creation from the book of Genesis.
Looking back
on human history through the lenses of Mosaic laws, the entirety of humankind
looks morally condemned from the beginning of its creation.
“22 ‘Cursed be
anyone who lies with his sister, whether the daughter of his father or the
daughter of his mother.’ All the people shall say, ‘Amen!’ (Deuteronomy 27; 22
NRSV)
God’s laws are unchanged and universal; it doesn’t matter if the curse was
pronounced after a long process of multiplication through brothers and sisters
of the human races. The curse was there from the beginning even if it wasn’t
manifestly affirmed and very importantly it was there before the alleged human
Fall. Wasn’t Abraham under this curse even before Moses’ laws if God’s moral law
is timeless, being the foundation of His Kingdom? If Moses’ Moral Law is still
valid for humankind, being universal, why wasn’t it valid for the past and also
from the beginning of creation at least in its general principles? Apostle Paul
makes the difference between faith and law. Before Moses’ laws Abraham was
evaluated through his faith and not through the laws which wouldn’t have been
known by humankind. Nevertheless, God’s Moral Law is everlasting if He is
eternal and this Law cannot change its principles even if it changes its form.
In Leviticus
chapter 20, verse 17, incest of brother and sister is viewed by God as a
disgrace and susceptible to punishment. That incest has become more dangerous in
time is fully understandable. That before Moses’ Moral Law incest was the only
way for the multiplication of humankind which was blessed by God and after Moses
it became a disgrace, cannot be grasped in a reasonable way.
One would
expect that in God’s eyes what was seen as a disgrace in Moses’ times would have
been seen also as an abomination immediately after the creation of humankind.
Why should one have this expectation? We were led to believe that God doesn’t
change His mind as easily as humans do. Apostle James in chapter 1 verse 17 of
his epistle says that with God there is no variation or shadow due to change.
This assertion
has become a very important pillar of the Christian faith but which isn’t
confirmed by the stories of creation from the book of Genesis.
“17 If a man
takes his sister, a daughter of his father or a daughter of his mother, and sees
her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace, and they shall be
cut off in the sight of their people; he has uncovered his sister’s nakedness,
he shall be subject to punishment.” (Leviticus 20; 17 NRSV)
It looks all
right if we forget that Cain’s wife was his sister, or Abram and Sara were half
brother and sister. Seth also had no marital choice other than one of his close
relatives. Beside Cain and Seth all other human beings at the beginning of human
history had to marry a sister or a brother, a niece or a nephew.
The most
fundamental structure of the creation stories through which the origins of
humankind are explained is flawed with very important moral problems which
render the entire conception of how humankind was created morally unacceptable
and in contradiction with other biblical standards. The story of Adam and Eve is
a legend with no connection to reality which doesn’t fit with a rational
understanding of the world or with the way in which the N.T. understands God’s
moral law.
It is
important to see how knowledge about God was lost after Noah in such a manner
that He had to reconstruct the relationship with humankind anew with Abraham.
Between Noah and Abraham was only about 400 years.[8]
From Abraham
to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon,
fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah,
fourteen generations. In the period of 400 years from Noah to Abraham the
knowledge of God was generally lost, according to the Bible. That was until God
had spoken to Abraham. It is inexplicable that all families coming from Noah in
only 400 years, a short historical period of time, lost the knowledge of God.
The Flood
story would have been transmitted generation after generation but not the
knowledge of God who generated the Flood and that is strange. Many religions
were created in that period of time but the faith in YEHOWAH was lost in spite
of the vivid memory of the Flood.
After Adam and
until Noah there were still people remembering God – one of them was Noah. After
the Flood, no people kept the memory or faith in God and He had to intervene
directly with Abraham in order to reconstruct people’s faith. This is strange if
we consider that Noah was a very faithful man and for this reason he was chosen
to save a part of the creation. Did Noah not convey his faith to his offspring?
Why didn’t Noah’s family keep their memory of God? Allegedly Noah would have
lived another 350 years after the Flood which would have given him enough time
to transmit the faith in God to numerous generations, but it didn’t happen. If
it had happened Abraham would have come with the right religion transmitted to
him through his ancestors.[9]
Noah’s sons knew about God who saved them from the Flood. Did they transmit this
knowledge to their sons and after that to all their offspring? In the Bible, the
knowledge of God starts again as if for the first time with Abraham, but this is
an inexplicable interruption.
“2 And Joshua
said to all the people, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: Long ago your
ancestors—Terah and his sons Abraham and Nahor—lived beyond the Euphrates and
served other gods.” (Joshua 24; 2 NRSV)
This
interruption of the faith in the real God is another inconsistency of the book
of Genesis. God wouldn’t have been in relation with humankind for 400 years
after the Flood in spite that He wanted to generate a better world after the
Deluge. If not for regeneration of the world what was the purpose of the Flood?
It is hard to admit that God would have brought the Flood on humankind motivated
only by the desire of destruction.
[1] www.debate.org
› Opinions › Society
[2] www.debate.org
› Opinions › Society
[3] www.debate.org
› Opinions › Society
[4] genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/genetics-inbreeding
[5] genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/genetics-inbreeding
[8] bibleview.org/en/bible/genesis/400years/
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.