Originally posted by vivifySo basically pure speculation.
https://bible.org/seriespage/10-nakedness-noah-and-cursing-canaan-genesis-918-1032
"Moses did not emphasize the guilt of Noah, but rather the sin of Ham. Some have suggested various types of evil took place within Noah’s tent. While the language employed might leave room for certain sexual sins (cf. Leviticus18)."
-Removed-Not true at all. Although incest has always existed, it has never been a must. Early mans restricted population would never have been so small as to force incest. Figures vary, but Wikipedia says that genetic evidence puts the smallest population ever at about 10,000–30,000 and another figure given is 2,000 for sub-Saharan Africa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck
1 edit
Originally posted by vivifyYou quoted Leviticus 18 listing prohibitions against sexual relations between near kinsmen, but you failed to show how any of Jesus' ancestors were involved in those things.
Abimilek confronted Abraham about why he told people Sarah was his sister instead of his wife, Abraham said it was out of fear that he'd be killed over her. He then added in Genesis 20:12, "Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife."
Genesis 38: Judah impregnated his daughter-in-law, result ...[text shortened]... wives of his father David.
Clearly, you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.
You have also failed to recognize that the law was given about 700 years after Abraham's day. It was customary prior to the law that relatives married in that culture.
Judah is another matter. You need to read the whole story.
As for Absalom, which of David's wives had a child that was in Jesus' lineage?
The characters in the Bible were human. Just like today. We make mistakes. Jesus' lineage is full of sinners of all kinds, but Jesus did not have a human father.
I don't see the point you're trying to make.
-Removed-So? Not all professing Christians believe half of what is taught in the Bible.
You're merely excusing yourself from the parts you don't like in an effort to soft peddle your faith so as not to offend. Apparently you're afraid to stand up and believe God when He says in Revelation 21:8, "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."
1 edit
divegeester: Not all Christians believe in eternal hell and it's associated apocalyptic torture.Originally posted by josephw
So? Not all professing Christians believe half of what is taught in the Bible.
You're merely excusing yourself from the parts you don't like in an effort to soft peddle your faith so as not to offend. Apparently you're afraid to stand up and believe God when He says in Revelation 21:8, "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."
Do you believe in eternal torture in flames that sonship preaches about? You once said you didn't believe it and that it was an error, but you now seem to be suggesting that you subscribe to it. Which is it to be?
-Removed-Humans.
You just said that the initial population was 2,000 or 10,000+
No, I did not. I said there was a bottleneck and that genetic studies suggest it could have been as low as 10,000 to 30,000 although the exact figures may be disputed. Certainly there is no good reason to think it was ever low enough to require incest for survival of the species.