Is Incest Sin or Not?

[Aunty Jane]

Nowhere Bible says that God allowed incest in the Bible for the perpetuation of the human race?

Incest was not a sin until it was written into God’s law. That was after their release from Egypt.
If there is no law, there is no sin.
How was the world going to be populated with just two human beings if that did not include incest?

Closer to the sinless perfection that they once had, there were no genetic problems associated with marriage between people who were closely related. As the gene pool became weaker so God stepped in to put a stop to these unions.

Doesn't incest become sinful only after a person chooses the moral law violating God's command in Genesis 2:17?

Back in ancient Patriachal times, it was not a sin to take a wife from one’s own family members. In fact it was common practice. Abraham for example married Sarah who was his half sister. The account in Genesis Ch 20 confirms this. (Genesis 20:11-12)

 

[Aunty Jane]

Where in the Bible do you find the gene pool story?

That would be more from a science textbook, because nothing was known about genetics back then. But it stands to reason that if God permitted it at the beginning, then something at some point, required a law to stop it.
What else could require God to prevent something that was previously acceptable? We know that the human gene pool is now littered with dangerous diseases that are passed down from parent to child. Accumulate those genes over many thousands of generation and you have a virtual cess pool, rather than a gene pool.

We all know what 'inbreeding' does to humans and animals in our time, but that was not the case in man's early history.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Didn't God permit it because humans hadn't yet chosen the moral knowledge of good and evil violating Genesis 2:17?

I see you keep repeating this scripture that identifies the only cause of death in Eden. They had no reason to break that law since it was not causing them the slightest inconvenience or hardship. They had all the other trees to choose from, but this one God claimed as his own property. It wasn't that the fruit was poisonous, but that it represented God's Sovereignty in a way that was not intrusive. There was only one command that was not difficult to keep, but if obeyed would have allowed them to partake of the tree of life and live forever. (Genesis 3:22-24) OTOH to break this law meant death. It was serious, but the devil defused the penalty, and so made the fruit and the benefits it gave, very attractive to her.

If you look back through history, any person who stole from their Sovereign ruler, no matter how small the theft, was punished.
The woman stole something that did not belong to her, it belonged not only to her Sovereign ruler, but to her Creator who had the right of life and death over all creation.

If humans had simply obeyed that one simple command, God may well have punished the first rebel without the humans even being aware of it....but since the devil gained his worshippers by deception, more laws would follow out of necessity....now that sin had entered into the world. (Romans 5:12)

Didn't the moral law exist well before it was given in written form through Moses?

Since Israel did not exist as a nation prior to their liberation from Egypt, they did not have any laws.....apart from the principles that many of the Patriarchs taught...but none had written scripture. Like Noah, Job and Abraham, and even Joseph after he was sold into slavery by his jealous brothers.....they instinctively knew the unwritten moral laws.
If sin had not entered the world, no laws would have been necessary.

If not how could the Hammurabi code chronologically precede the mosaic law?

The Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, which is said to predate the Mosaic Law, covered a similar span of subjects. Remember though that the original Babylonians were descended from Noah, so not surprising that these things might have stuck around.

Some of its statutes, such as the law of ‘eye for eye,’ are similar to Mosaic principles. Critics thus claim that Moses merely borrowed his laws from Hammurabi’s code. Hammurabi’s code, however, did little more than glorify Hammurabi and serve his political interests. God’s Law was given to Israel ‘for their good always, that they might keep alive.’ (Deuteronomy 6:24)

There is also little evidence that Hammurabi’s law was ever legally binding in Babylon, serving as little more than legal aid for those in search of advice. The Mosaic Law, though, was binding and carried just penalties for disobedience.

Finally, Hammurabi’s code focuses on how to deal with wrongdoers; only 5 out of its 280 laws are direct prohibitions. The thrust of God’s Law, however, was toward preventing, not punishing, wrongdoing.

 

[OzSpen]

That would be more from a science textbook, because nothing was known about genetics back then. But it stands to reason that if God permitted it at the beginning, then something at some point, required a law to stop it.
What else could require God to prevent something that was previously acceptable? We know that the human gene pool is now littered with dangerous diseases that are passed down from parent to child. Accumulate those genes over many thousands of generation and you have a virtual cess pool, rather than a gene pool.

We all know what 'inbreeding' does to humans and animals in our time, but that was not the case in man's early history.

Aunty Jane,

I find there is a simple, reasonable answer. The human race had to get started in some way but after the Fall into sin (Gen 2), it fell into the category of promiscuity, e.g. Galatians 5:19–21.

Oz

 

[Aunty Jane]

Aunty Jane,

I find there is a simple, reasonable answer. The human race had to get started in some way but after the Fall into sin (Gen 2), it fell into the category of promiscuity, e.g. Galatians 5:19–21.

Oz

There is one major flaw in that argument I’m afraid....Adam and his wife were told to “fill the earth” with their children before their fall into sin.....so how would that have been accomplished if the fall had never happened?

Eve was to “become the mother of everyone living”....

 

[Aunty Jane]

Didn't Adam and Eve who remained unclothed in God's most holy presence without guilt, were separated from God by guilt only because they chose the moral knowledge of good & evil?

They were separated from God by the sin of disobedience. They were not ashamed of their naked state originally because there was no sin to create any sense of shame.

Once a knowledge of evil was introduced, shame was their first response and they attempted to cover themselves. But the loin coverings were not adequate, because God then clothed them with long garments of skin. This would have been more modest but also more protective in the untamed land outside the garden that was now cursed with thorns and thistles. Ouch!

 

[Aunty Jane]

If not we but Christ lives in us, why do we need the forbidden knowledge of good & evil now?

I think you misunderstand what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represented.....
It wasn't there for no reason.....it was a test for free willed beings in respecting what belonged to their Creator, especially when he had provided for them so generously.

God did not give them the right to decide what was good and what was bad because he would decide that for them, thereby keeping evil out of their lives forever. They would live under his instructions with no impediments to the assignment he gave them...."God took the man and settled him in the garden of Eʹden to cultivate it and to take care of it" (Genesis 2:15)....but he was not just to take care of the garden, God's original instruction to the man and his wife encompassed more than that...."And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.” (Genesis 1:27-28)
They were to fill the whole earth with their children, having dominion over all of God's creation as caretakers who were endowed with God's qualities so that they would care for God's creation as God himself would.....but they were not to use their free will independently, deciding for themselves what was good and what was not. Can we not see in human imperfection this very trait...? Often humans are really inadequate when it comes to deciding what to do in any given situation.....what can seem like a good idea at the time, can become a nightmare when unforeseen factors change the outcome. How much wiser to rely on the one who can "see from the beginning, the finale"? (Isaiah 46:10)

With ongoing education, the human race would become wiser and wiser without having to experience the negative outcome of bad experiences.
Now they are part of our lives.....they cause sadness, heartbreak and regret. The outcome of some mistakes are permanent. As a good 'parent' God was trying to balance freedom and responsibility with obedience and compliance....viewed in today's world as opposites.

For the human race, our memory has no 'erase' button. Life is all on 'record' so once we learn something, we cannot "unlearn" it...once the knowledge of good and evil was unleashed, there was no sending it back. Humans would now be given the most important life lessons in their history.....how to be one of God's worshippers, handicapped by sin, but using free will to override it. We had to learn how to drive this sinful body in the right direction in spite of the fact that God's adversary was trying to constantly tempt us into sin. Only those who have the aid of God's spirit can win this fight, as the apostle Paul explained....
Romans 7:14-20...
"For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand what I am doing. For I do not practice what I wish, but I do what I hate. 16 However, if I do what I do not wish, I agree that the Law is fine. 17 But now I am no longer the one doing it, but it is the sin that resides in me. 18 For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, there dwells nothing good; for I have the desire to do what is fine but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good that I wish, but the bad that I do not wish is what I practice. 20 If, then, I do what I do not wish, I am no longer the one carrying it out, but it is the sin dwelling in me."

This is what independence from God means.....its why Jesus came to rescue us out of this situation....
"Miserable man that I am! Who will rescue me from the body undergoing this death? 25 Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So, then, with my mind I myself am a slave to God’s law, but with my flesh to sin’s law." (V 24-25)

Jesus' sacrifice will ultimately eradicate all traces of sin and imperfection in our fallen flesh, by the rule of his Kingdom. We will go back to depending on our heavenly Father for instruction and advice about how to conduct ourselves as an important part of his purpose in creating us. This then goes back to the age old question......"why are we here"? How would you answer?

 

[JunChosen]

If not we but Christ lives in us, why do we need the forbidden knowledge of good & evil now?

I love to hear from an Israelite especially when he claims to be a Christian, since I know as a nation, they will not believe in Christ. Welcome to these forums.

Indeed, if Christ lives in us, how do YOU understand why God put the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" in the middle of the Garden, that is what or who signifies the "good and evil?"

And, because many who claims to be Christians have no idea who or what is represented in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

And, which also seems to be your favorite Scripture at least in this thread. Which is Genesis 2:17

To God Be The Glory

 

[Ziggy]

Who was Cain's wife?

When was Nod established as a territory outside of Eden?

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

Where is the Land of Nod?
‘Nod’ is a Hebrew word that may be translated to mean ‘to wander’ and the only piece of information provided by Genesis about this place is its relative location to the Garden of Eden, i.e. to its east. Some Biblical scholars believe that Nod is an actual place and have tried to establish its location. This endeavor, needless to say, is dependent on the location of the Garden of Eden which is itself a highly disputed topic. It is described in the Book of Genesis as the source of four tributaries and many believe it was where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers run into the sea.

There are many speculations about where the land of Nod may be, including Arabia, India, and even as far away as China. Unsurprisingly, there is no consensus as to the exact location of the Land of Nod.

On the other side of the debate is the argument that the Land of Nod is not an actual place, but a symbolic or figurative one. Some are of the opinion that the Land of Nod refers to any area where Cain’s wandering took him. Others suggest that this Biblical Land of Nod represents a place of exile, grief, and mourning. Yet others have argued that this place symbolized the growing distance between God and humanity. As Adam and Eve were living in the Garden of Eden, they were closer to God than their son Cain, who was forced to wander further east of this paradise.
Dwelling in the Land of Nod – Was it a Real City?

I tend to lean towards the first idea that Nod is a physical place that Cain wandered to.
To the east of Eden (imo) following the journey of Abram out of Ur. Eden is located in the heart of Iraq aka Babylon.
So whatever is east of Babylon somewhere over there would be Nod.
Nimrod built his city inside Eden. Babel. And God came and saw and didn't like what they was doing and sent them on a mass migration around the world.

Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

I have never read the book of Moses. This is an interesting website concerning Enoch and his city.
I may check it out here after posting this:
The City of Enoch: Where it is now + more fascinating facts

So I have this theory...
Adam represents Jesus. Eve represents the church. And they two shall become one flesh..okay so far?
Outside the city there are a lot of unlawful people that didn't make it into the kingdom.
Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

This group of people is where the snake came from. This is one that deceived Eve... probably one of them "crept in unawares" kind.
Jde 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

These would be the people that the sons of God saw and took for themselves wives.
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

This is probably where Cain found a wife.
Cain was cast out of the Eden, out of the Kingdom and made his abode with those on the outside.

This is purely my opinion.
Don't shoot me.
Hugs

 

[Ziggy]

@Saved Christian Have you considered Abram and his sister Sarai?
Would that be an incestful relationship?
If it was incestful, then why would God bless Sarah with a child?

 

[OzSpen]

There is one major flaw in that argument I’m afraid....Adam and his wife were told to “fill the earth” with their children before their fall into sin.....so how would that have been accomplished if the fall had never happened?

Eve was to “become the mother of everyone living”....

Was Eve the mother of Noah, Jeremiah and Amos?

Oz