Home »

[mderaye]

In the bible it states that God created adam an eve, and only adam and eve. they had sons and daughters but not too many of them. if these people were all of one family, how are we(humans) here? did someone sleep with their sister?

[Lionheart]

Et pourquoi pas ? Je ne vois pas d'autre possibilités.

L'inceste n'est pas interdit par la loi (en France en tout cas).

Je ne sais pas ce qu'en dit la Bible.

[mderaye]

eske sa pa vle di ke nou tout te fet nan incest, si se vre poukisa anpil moun kont incest?cw3

[TiCam]

Originally Posted by mderaye

In the bible it states that God created adam an eve, and only adam and eve. they had sons and daughters but not too many of them. if these people were all of one family, how are we(humans) here? did someone sleep with their sister?

From the Christian Courrier:

Some make the claim that the Scriptures are in conflict in the matter of the morality of ?incest.? But the allegation is false. This week?s Question considers this issue.

In the early stages of human history, ?marriage? among kinsmen was not deemed immoral. The fact is, such was a necessity from the nature of the situation. The children of Adam and Eve must have married kinsmen, for there were no other people on earth except those descended from the original pair. There is another factor that must be considered. In the early days of the human family, before sin, disease, and genetics took such a deadly accumulative toll, Adam?s offspring were much more physically vigorous than they now are. And so inter-family unions would not have resulted in the debilitating effects that are characteristic of such relationships in the modern world. Adam himself lived to be 930 years of age, yet by the time of Abraham, 175 was a ?good old age? (Genesis 25:7-8); eventually human longevity would level out at approximately 80 years on average (Psalm 90:10). ?Time,? in a sinful world, has extracted a high cost. Concerning the regulations of the Mosaic Code, in our legal system there is recognition of the ex post facto principle, namely that one is not amenable to the consequences of a law passed after the commission of a certain act. The people therefore, were not under the specific regulations of the Mosaic Code. Note this comment from Professor Walter Kaiser.

?Prior to Moses? time, incest in many of the forms later proscribed, were not thought to be wrong. Thus, even Moses? own father, Amram, married an aunt, his father?s sister, Jochebed (Exodus 6:20)? (Kaiser, et al., p. 101).

mderaye: Hope this article from the Christian Courrier will answer your questions regarding incest in the early stages of human history. As for now, incest nowadays often leads to violence and rape, pressure and murder, possession rather than giving, it?s the antithesis of love that was defined in the Bible as a gift.

[Lionheart]

Originally Posted by mderaye

eske sa pa vle di ke nou tout te fet nan incest, si se vre poukisa anpil moun kont incest?cw3

C'est immoral/amoral. Ce n'est pas bien vu. Et cela peut entrainer des problèmes génétiques.

Mais c'est autorisé par la loi française.

[natifnatal8]

Reminder to self, do not go to france.

This is probably the reason why there are so many handicaps and mentally ill patients in the world. I suppose with all things instruction is neccesary, else we as a people fall into a barbaric way of life bringing ourselves closer to being doomed at each step. Your question stirred some hearts and opened others views MDERAYE, Thnx.

Also, back then during the old testament time, they lived according to the law(manmade law) and being under the law permitted such things to happen within family members and they were overlooked but when Jesus came and shed His blood the people then became under His Grace and things or their way of life changed as they became more organized so to speak. bw0

[Lionheart]

Originally Posted by natifnatal8

Reminder to self, do not go to France.

Ca doit être la même chose dans beaucoup de pays.

En Haïti le viol n'était pas interdit jusqu'à il y a 3-4 ans ...

[mderaye]

So if back then it was somewhat alright to sleep with a relative, why is it seen as a sin in these days and why is it that no religion really acknowledges the fact that there was incest in the days that the bible spoke of?cw3 yokes

[TiCam]

Originally Posted by mderaye

So if back then it was somewhat alright to sleep with a relative, why is it seen as a sin in these days and why is it that no religion really acknowledges the fact that there was incest in the days that the bible spoke of?cw3 yokes

Let me repeat the church's acknowledgement again:

In the early stages of human history, ?marriage? among kinsmen was not deemed immoral. The fact is, such was a necessity from the nature of the situation. The children of Adam and Eve must have married kinsmen, for there were no other people on earth except those descended from the original pair.

The regulations of the Mosaic Code (religious law that Moses passed against marriage among members of the family), in our legal system (religious law) there is recognition of the ex post facto principle, namely that one is not amenable to the consequences of a law passed after the commission of a certain act. The people therefore, were not under the specific regulations of the Mosaic Code (meanaing: according to the religious legal system the first generations of men are not subject to the law of Moses, the religious law because the law was passed after such act. The people were not under the religious law).

Do you at least understand it now?

[natifnatal8]

Nowadays, there are more then adam and eve and their children alive. we have people of all races, nationalities and such an act is or has been banned so to speak by God because of the grace of Jesus' blood and by society. we no longer have to regard a member of our family as a marriage possibility waiting to happen. we have broken out of that bond and are now required to look to those that are not blood related to link to for life, for health reasons, for sanity's sake, for genes deformations' sake, and if I may say so for good character's sake. aw5