this has probably been hashed and rehashed many times before, but since my time here i haven't seen it discussed, so.... how do christians discount inbreeding from their bible and faith? it's happened several times in christiandom where two people have been left to procreate and ultimately populate or repopulate the world. now don't get me wrong, because i know there are examples in the bible where dads have done the bad thing to their daughters and it wasn't frowned upon, BUT, the population of the world would not exist if adam and eve had sex many times over with each other and then their sons and daughters and so on and so on. the children from about the third or fourth generation onwards would be completely wasted. then noah and his wife, later on, must copy adam's and eve's actions to reproduce the world when god petulantly floods it. does god not see the ramifications of what he is doing? people cannot repopulate the world between the two of them. it requires some very careful planning with about 4 men and 7 women to repopulate a world without causing inbreeding at least . any answers welcome.

The answer I have heard when I asked this very same question to various literalist bible interpretation types is rather simple and quite absurd.

Basically humans were genetically perfect back then so would not face the adverse effects that might be otherwise be involved in fucking your family members. After applegate all the descendants of A&E were tainted and their genes began to degrade. That is why the ages of all those bible guys are so large.

lol, really?!? they obviously know jack about biology if that is their answer. it wouldn't even have mattered if they had "perfect genes" because inbreeding doesn't occur from deffective genes. it occurs because the same genes are being used over and over. they also discount noah's ark ever happening as well if that is their reason- because if the gene's degraded (man that's funny) by their reckoning, it would be impossible for noah and his wife to repopulate the world. come-on theists, answer this post, there has to be a better answer that that crappy one, surely you can defend the fundamental ideas of your church.

Apparently, it was a slow degradation, that is why Noah lived 800 years.

lol, it gets better. your reaction to this must have been gold to see. i don't think i could take any of those people seriously if they told me this.

Go back and look at the hebrew texts that the bible was based on. In soom aspects, this being one of them, the bible is like notes on the original story. Adam had a wife before eve, created from the dust as adam was. she was cast out for, basically, wanting to be equal. the thing was, the bible never says anything about what was outside of the garden. It is widely believed that god either created wives for the sons and grandsons of adam and eve, or that there were more people ouitside of the garden. The first view is held more by christians, mainly because most dfon't know of the pre-existing jewish texts. The second is held more by Jews.

With all the miracles in the bible this is child's play right?

Lilith is a she-demon or succubi...

lol, it gets better. your reaction to this must have been gold to see. i don't think i could take any of those people seriously if they told me this.
What can you say? If they start off believing this crap they are obviously immune to logic.

Lilith was the first wife of Adam, she was a bit of a feminist apparently. She ended up causing disease in infants or some such thing.

Mephura
that still doesn't explain noah. also, i forgot to add, but humans cannot have ever lived for more than our current life span. it has to do with the length of a part of the DNA which gets smaller every time the cell divides. when that part of the DNA gets to a certain point (smallness) the cell won't divide any more and that is ageing for you (cells don't magically appear out of no-where and once your cells stop dividing it is hello old age and death). adam and eve and noah as well can't have been human if it is claimed that they lived anymore than 100 years, and to my knowledge they were never claimed as angels so that basically disproves them.

With all the miracles in the bible this is child's play right?
no way. this is more involved than any miracle you have read about. and whoever or wherever has it been said that god could or ever did change people on a cellular level. it just gets more farcical.

that still doesn't explain noah. also, i forgot to add, but humans cannot have ever lived for more than our current life span. it has to do with the length of a part of the DNA which gets smaller every time the cell divides. when that part of the DNA gets to a certain point (smallness) the cell won't divide any more and that is ageing for you (cells don't magically appear out of no-where and once your cells stop dividing it is hello old age and death). adam and eve and noah as well can't have been human if it is claimed that they lived anymore than 100 years, and to my knowledge they were never claimed as angels so that basically disproves them.

You are assuming that Adam's and Noah's DNA is normal human DNA and that the rate of division of the cells was the same.
God can make cells appear out of no where.

have you ever heard of such an occurance before? your explanations are jut getting more grandiose. if noah or adam did not have normal human DNA then they weren't human and no-one can be at all related to them. you may as well be talking about aliens from another planet.

noah also had some of his family along. I know that doesn't increase the gene pool a whole lot, but its a start.
Also a freind of mine just told me noah had two wives (he was a pimp.) whatever...

VooDooChild, thank you for bringing up Lilith. Yes, she was 'Adam's' first 'wife.' When I use quotes, I'm thinking of these words/names as being questionable. There is also some theory that Eve gave birth to Adam (she's the 'mother of all living'). Hence, the rib story. I'm still learning about this theory, so I don't claim to be that knowledgeable on this subject. Lilith was a feminist. She might have been the first Creator. Moses doesn't speak of Lilith in the Torah (another convenient patriarchal omission). Eve may have been Lilith's mother, too. Okay, now for my area of linguistic expertise: 'Hawwah' is Hebrew for 'Eve.' 'Hawwah' is also Hebrew for 'serpent.' 'Hawwah' translates to 'Yahweh.' I would like to hear from anyone who knows Hebrew to comment. From a feminist point of view, 'shekinah' which I believe is Aramaic also means 'female spirit' which also translated as 'Messiah.' Unless we know and understand the languages of the Bible, there is no way to believe anything the Bible says with any hint of accuracy. I'd like to learn more about Lilith and her contribution to the human race.

Originally posted by okinrus
You are assuming that Adam's and Noah's DNA is normal human DNA and that the rate of division of the cells was the same.
God can make cells appear out of no where. That post means nothing to the argument since it assumes that god has the ability to do as you say, and it furthermore assumes the existence of god. None of these are proven.

Yet if the genesis story is true, then God exist and we are assured that God is powerful enough. Otherwise this discussion would be pointless...


Lilith stems from tales of succubi. Obviously it is corruption of Genesis but modern tales of succubi do exist.

http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/lillith.html

can i ask something?

biologically dont we ALL come from one root?

i mean doesnt one mutation cause say blue eyes, then how do so many people have blue eyes?

we all must have a comon ansestor

and no i dont belive in creation

The early human decendants could be more like a graph instead of a tree.

The early human decendants could be more like a graph instead of a tree.
???

biologically dont we ALL come from one root?
yes, mitocondrial DNA (it is genetically exactly the same for ALL women) has been traced back 200,000 years. this does not prove that we all stemmed from say adam and eve- if that was the case then all men would also have exactly the same mitocondrial DNA as women (as it stands men have different mitocondrial DNA to each other so this would prove that adam did not exist and that god- being the all knowledgable and logical being that he is- had no part in creating man as why go to all the trouble of changing mitocondrial DNA over and over again for different people? he wouldn't. on a biological level god doesn't make sense) and that is the time scientists (from what i last heard) assume humans took their current form. most people don't get that we were probably just as smart as we were 1000 to 20,000 years ago. the difference is we have accumulated knowledge over that time so that it makes our ancestors look stupid by todays comparison (and our diet is much better).

so-
we all must have a comon ansestor
yes, we do. though it is probably more than 1 common ancestor, more like several.

Originally posted by okinrus
The early human decendants could be more like a graph instead of a tree.

This is out of your butt, the bible makes no reference to rules regarding marriage of relatives.....The bible must be not complete.

Here's the Quranic rules, and cousin marriages are okay. You can't marry anyone who have suckled from your mom at the same time you suckled.

[4.22] And marry not woman whom your fathers married, except what has already passed; this surely is indecent and hateful, and it is an evil way.
[4.23] Forbidden to you are your mothers and your daughters and your sisters and your paternal aunts and your maternal aunts and brothers' daughters and sisters' daughters and your mothers that have suckled you and your foster-sisters and mothers of your wives and your step-daughters who are in your guardianship, (born) of your wives to whom you have gone in, but if you have not gone in to them, there is no blame on you (in marrying them), and the wives of your sons who are of your own loins and that you should have two sisters together, except what has already passed; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

You guys don't understand what I mean...
This had nothing do to with the bible. Adam could have practices polygamy and the humans altogether developed as a tribe.


This is out of your butt, the bible makes no reference to rules regarding marriage of relatives.....The bible must be not complete.

Yes it does. Look at deuteronomy.

Originally posted by okinrus
Yes it does. Look at deuteronomy.

Thanks for the vague hundreds of pages of useless referral...If you know a specific verse, then post it, do go look at the bible, it's there.

... But then I have to look for it


Deuteronomy 27:20-23
"Cursed be he who has relations with his father's wife, for he dishonors his father's bed!" And all the people shall answer Amen!

"Cursed be he who has relations with his sister or his half-sister!"
"Cursed be he who has relations with his mother-in-law!" And all the people shall answer, 'Amen!"

Probably some other places as well. The laws of the Old Testament are the bare minimum.

"Cursed be he who has relations with his father's wife, for he dishonors his father's bed!" And all the people shall answer Amen!

"Cursed be he who has relations with his sister or his half-sister!"
"Cursed be he who has relations with his mother-in-law!" And all the people shall answer, 'Amen!"

What about the brother-in-law when the brother dies? What about Lot and his daughters? Aren't we all descended from that incestuous mating?

What about when Lot wants to give up his daughters to the townspeople at his door (or angels, whatever they were)?

All this kiss and tell was going on in the OT, but in the NT, Paul strictly forbade it! He was a woman-hater, Jesus wasn't. He didn't really hold the same beliefs as Jesus. That's why Jesus' family hated Paul. (Read "James, the Brother of Jesus"). Paul was cashing in on Jesus' name.

It was Paul who created the myth of Jesus' death and resurrection. (Read "The Myth of Paul: How Paul Created Christianity").

Xianity in its original form had NOTHING to do with Jesus! Jesus himself was not known as an Xian. That was a word coined by Paul.

What about the brother-in-law when the brother dies? What about Lot and his daughters? Aren't we all descended from that incestuous mating?

The laws of Abraham's time were different. The Laws of the Torah are the bare minimum.


All this kiss and tell was going on in the OT, but in the NT, Paul strictly forbade it! He was a woman-hater, Jesus wasn't. He didn't really hold the same beliefs as Jesus. That's why Jesus' family hated Paul. (Read "James, the Brother of Jesus"). Paul was cashing in on Jesus' name.

James probably distrusted Paul at first becaues Paul had persecuted the early Christians.

Paul is not a woman hater and was just trying to maintain order.

Paul was a misogynist. His writings prove he was. And it certainly was not his place to 'maintain order'! Were the women being disorderly? No, they weren't. One of them was just getting a little too close for Paul's comfort. Besides, Paul didn't walk with Jesus anyway. He came about 80 years later. The Gospel of Mark was written about 70AD. It was the oldest Gospel. So none of those guys were alive in Jesus' time or close to him. Everything that was written about Jesus in the Gospels were written long after Jesus was gone (not dead, just outta town).

Let us not deviate from the subject and save okinrus butt..

We are speaking of inbreeding here.....That means cousins marriage. I defy you to find one religious scriptures againest first cousin marriage.

The Quran allows cousin marriage, so inbreeding in Islam is permitted. Why can't you admit that christianity allows it as well.

Originally posted by Flores
Let us not deviate from the subject and save okinrus butt..

We are speaking of inbreeding here.....That means cousins marriage. I defy you to find one religious scriptures againest first cousin marriage.

The Quran allows cousin marriage, so inbreeding in Islam is permitted. Why can't you admit that christianity allows it as well.

First cousin marriages still occur today in predominantly Xian countries like Brasil. In fact, it is encouraged.

Recent research has been done in the USA with findings that say first cousin marriages aren't as problematic as originally thought.

Paul was a misogynist. His writings prove he was. And it certainly was not his place to 'maintain order'! Were the women being disorderly? No, they weren't. One of them was just getting a little too close for Paul's comfort. Besides, Paul didn't walk with Jesus anyway. He came about 80 years later. The Gospel of Mark was written about 70AD. It was the oldest Gospel. So none of those guys were alive in Jesus' time or close to him. Everything that was written about Jesus in the Gospels were written long after Jesus was gone (not dead, just outta town).

Yes they were! Ok partly it was because of man's lust for them...
Coritheans was a sea port known for prostitution and Paul just wanted the christians to remain respectiful. 80 years after is untrue because Paul spoke to Peter. His letters were written around 50AD.


We are speaking of inbreeding here.....That means cousins marriage. I defy you to find one religious scriptures againest first cousin marriage.

The Quran allows cousin marriage, so inbreeding in Islam is permitted. Why can't you admit that christianity allows it as well.

You did not specifically say that you were talking about "first cousin marriage". Not specifically but I'm almost certain there was law saying "no marriage between close kin". It would take me along time to find it though since I'm not sure what book it's in.

Originally posted by okinrus
Yes they were! Ok partly it was because of man's lust for them...
Coritheans was a sea port known for prostitution and Paul just wanted the christians to remain respectiful. 80 years after is untrue because Paul spoke to Peter. His letters were written around 50AD.


You did not specifically say that you were talking about "first cousin marriage". Not specifically but I'm almost certain there was law saying "no marriage between close kin". It would take me along time to find it though since I'm not sure what book it's in.

I don't think first cousins were considered to be that close at the time. Their opportunities were quite limited, and they often married within their immediate tribe. They were probably arranged.

Have you read the book of Tobit?http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/tobit/tobit1.htm

This Leviticus 18:6
"None of you shall approach a close relative to have sexual intercourse with her. I am the LORD"...
It goes further to give some examples of what "close relations" are. The closest to first cousin is "You shall not have intercourse with your mother's sister, since she is your mother's relative."
However the law could be interpreted to mean all close relatives.

Hey that's a good point atheroy, I hadn't thought of that! If the Adam and Eve story is to be taken literally then there is no need to even include 'inbreeding'. Anyway, if the 'original' adam and eve genes were vastly different, maybe all the offsprings would have been ok (except maybe for small groups of people).

christians are hot. i like that in humans

When Adam banged eve it was in the ass because her half eaten pasty had been wedged full of apples.

We are speaking of inbreeding here.....That means cousins marriage. I defy you to find one religious scriptures againest first cousin marriage.
yeah thats cool (or maybe not), but in the adam and eve and noah and his wife stories we're talking about true incest, brother on sister, mother and son, dad and daughter. that is gross. yet god abides by this. in fact, he creates this situation and no matter how you look at it we can't have stemmed from either of these couples because after about the third or fourth generation everyone would be dead.

Anyway, if the 'original' adam and eve genes were vastly different, maybe all the offsprings would have been ok (except maybe for small groups of people).
no. vastly different genes wouldn't make sense as eve was grown from adams rib, and it wouldn't make a difference to the end result even if adams and eves were vastly different. it would still result in third generation defects and miscarriges and i would be surpirsed if a fourth generation could even be conceived. either way you look at it, from a biological view adam and eve and noah and his wife could not have populated this world.

Just reminding you all that even though you look down on what early bible people did, Charles Darwin (basically your version of Jesus) married his cousin, and had about 8 children who either died quickly after birth or suffered very bad defects from inbreeding. So before your give christians heaps, look at your own people.

CyA

Charles Darwin (basically your version of Jesus)
oh dear, that is stupid. charles was a smart guy who put formard some smart ideas. i, or no one else i know, goes to some place on sundays then worships him because he put forward some ideas. if anything he is the opposite of jesus.

So before your give christians heaps, look at your own people.
what? now we are separating people? all i'm saying is that god set the situation up where some serious inbreeding had to occur. it is legal to marry your cousin in most countries and the reason he was having birth defects was probably because of bad sperm or something, birth defects normally wouldn't occur between cousins- too far removed. all i was saying is that you guys have to believe in inbreeding because you believe the stories of adam and eve and noah and his wife.

Charles Darwin (basically your version of Jesus) married his cousin, and had about 8 children who either died quickly after birth or suffered very bad defects from inbreeding. So before your give christians heaps, look at your own people. Did some of his children die??! I didn't know that! I know he married his cousin and had loads of kids (ten I think).

let us also not forget that many couples had at least one kid die on them not 100 years ago. people seem to forget that mortality rates for children were appaling and it is only in this last century that things have seen a dramatic improvement.

Originally posted by atheroy

yes, mitocondrial DNA (it is genetically exactly the same for ALL women) has been traced back 200,000 years. this does not prove that we all stemmed from say adam and eve-

this is not accurate. during meiosis,(the cellular division which gives rise to gamete), all mitochondrion are removed from sprem, along with most other cellular structures. The female egg, however, retains the major cellular structures of the mother cell. Every human being (male and female) got all of their mitochondrion from their mother only. Men and women have the same level of similarity in mitochondrial DNA to their parents, it is uneffected by sex.

The Mitochondirial DNA is therefore not a hybrid of both parents, but an intact copy of the mother's mitochondrial DNA from one original cell. This DNA still mutates over time at a steady rate, and this allows us to trace and estimate evolutionary branches based on level of mtDNA diversion between individuals.

And interesting note, there was, according to this midochondrial DNA evidence, a massive population decline (down to about 10% of the original population) sometime around 40,000 years ago. All of those alive today are decendants of a very few individuals from 40,000 years ago
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1058484.stm


Rachel married her cousin, Cain married someone outside of the sight of God, though the bible never explains who, given we should only have 3 people in the world so far. Thus we have the Cainanites. An entire population we are supposed to hate because they decended from Cain, a guy who married and had kids with someone who didn't exsist, outside of the sight of an omnitient being. yes, logic.

Originally posted by atheroy

no. vastly different genes wouldn't make sense as eve was grown from adams rib, and it wouldn't make a difference to the end result even if adams and eves were vastly different.

keep in mind that Eve is created from Adams rib only in the second of the two creation stories in the book of Genisis.

Originally posted by river-wind
keep in mind that Eve is created from Adams rib only in the second of the two creation stories in the book of Genisis.

This can't be taken literally! It may have been some sort of cloning. The sequence of the OT legends did NOT occur in the order they are in the Bible. Noah and the Flood was the first creation story. Adam and Eve came later. If Eve was named by God "the mother of all living," then why did God turn around blame Eve for the alleged 'Fall of Man?' The Old Testament was written by the old Patriarchs who destroyed the matriarchal society. Those golden cows had breasts. Thousands of years before the start of the Patriarchy, artifacts of robust pregnant women with serpent heads have been found in Turkey, France, Germany and other sites. This was the first society and it will be the last. It was Man who fell.

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
This can't be taken literally! It may have been some sort of cloning. The sequence of the OT legends did NOT occur in the order they are in the Bible. Noah and the Flood was the first creation story. Adam and Eve came later. If Eve was named by God "the mother of all living," then why did God turn around blame Eve for the alleged 'Fall of Man?' The Old Testament was written by the old Patriarchs who destroyed the matriarchal society. Those golden cows had breasts. Thousands of years before the start of the Patriarchy, artifacts of robust pregnant women with serpent heads have been found in Turkey, France, Germany and other sites. This was the first society and it will be the last. It was Man who fell.

There is very good evidence that nearly all ancient religions were female based. Over time, male religions supplanted the female ones. 'ironically', this also appears to balance with the social powershift from the life-giving women to the warring men. surprise surprise, religion is written by the powerful.

Originally posted by river-wind
There is very good evidence that nearly all ancient religions were female based. Over time, male religions supplanted the female ones. 'ironically', this also appears to balance with the social powershift from the life-giving women to the warring men. surprise surprise, religion is written by the powerful.

So eloquently put! I have a feeling, call it instinct, that the ancient female societies were not actually religions but ethos or lifestyles. I even bet lifespans may have been eternal or very, very long until Man came on the scene. I want to add on to your last comment -- "religion is written by the powerful," and believed by the weak.

well it really doesn't matter to me any more. christianity is irrelevant to me and my beliefs and is an archaic form of social control that is suppressing the forwards movement of this world. if people want to believe in a book that contradicts and discredits itself many times over, fine by me, however sometimes it is not. the only way this world is going to move past its current suicidal attitude (partially to blame on christianity being the end of the world cult that it is) is to drop these stupid inhibitors that are retarding forwards movement in practically all facets of human life. many people believe they will see the end of the world in their life time, what does that say too you?

anyway, the fact remains that christians still believe in inbreeding and that is retarded. no matter what is said the fact is adam and eve are an integral part of christianity and therefore have to have had existed in the form the bible says they did. god would seem to like inbreeding seeing he set this situation up and biologically you can't move past the fact that no-one would exist if the stories of adam and eve and noah and his wife are true. people can't seem to see this, but what the hell, if you can't bring a good arguement to the table then have people consider it properly then there is no way you can get them to consider anything vaguely second guessing their belief.

(sorry but i'm in a shit mood)