h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Incest was still allowed until the Law was given during the exodus from Egypt long after the flood, Tower of Babel, Abraham, and the formation of a Jewish nation.

I think you're right in questioning the incest issue as it relates to original sin. If there wasn't just one human man and woman to commit the first sin how could it be passed along to all offspring? Wouldn't some people have been able to avoid marrying into the "sin bloodline" and remain perfect? How would they be able to "fall" separately from Adam and Eve if they no longer had access to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? If they weren't perfect how did they fall? If they were created imperfect how could God call it good?

I was surprised to learn that some believe the concept of original sin was not followed until much after Christ. Can you give me more information about that? My understanding is that Jesus Christ taught about sin (not necesarily original sin). Also Paul spoke clearly about original sin in Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:45. His writings date to within a few decades after Christ's death.

Stick to the point! Original sin has little or nothing to do with sex!

Adam's sin was to take control of his own destiny -- to leave hunting/gathering (the bountiful Garden of Eden) and take up farming. So now: "We are as gods and might as well get good at it" (quote from the Whole Earth Catalog, Penguin 1971).

If you look at my original posting you will see that original sin is very much to do with the point.

If there was no incest, then there were people around at the time that didn't have original sin...

Hmm. . . thought I answered that in posting 8.
"Sin" only has meaning when you move from a hunting-gathering situation (probably with dominant males hogging all the females, no sexual taboos, only the might-is-right ethos) to a farming situation where the lowly are afforded the gracious allowance of one wife per husband (a great improvement for the majority) with the concomitant requirement of sexual taboos all over the joint. In return they work their butts off and are subject to occasional decimation in a bad harvest.

I have read (for a few years now) that Adam and Eve are words derived from the old Hebrew words for anyman and anywoman. In this case, there can be any number of other people around at the same time and no need for incest.

As for original sin, linking it to sex was something St Augustine of Hippo (Nth Africa) did. The eastern churches (i.e. not Roman) don't (generally) make the link. They still have original sin, but it part of the human condition not brought about by sex (of any kind) per se.

PT

As a total newbie I apologize if I got off-track or was unclear. I thought the interest was in Biblical teaching, something I'm relatively familiar with, rather than evolutionary theory, something I know substantially less about.

Biblically, original sin has nothing to do with sex. (Sex within the parameters that the Bible outlines is not sinful.) Had Adam and Eve never disobeyed God they would have had sinless children. The Bible teaches that they did disobey God and it was their disobedience that resulted in their expulsion from the Garden. God slaughtered animals to clothe Adam and Eve. It was the first demonstration that a blood sacrifice was required to atone for sin.

Until the law was given I don't see any evidence that God required a blood sacrifice for an incestual relationship. Instead, he repeatedly blessed incestual relationships. Abraham, the father of nations, married his half-sister and also had a child by her servant Hagar. According to the Bible, it was Isaac the child of his half-sister that was the child through which God's blessings would be given.

I was told that the Muslim faith teaches that God promised his blessing through Ishmael, the child of Hagar. Does anyone know if that is true? (Should I start a new thread with an unrelated question like that?)

Isaac and his son Jacob also married family members, although by Jacob's time I think his wives were far enough removed that it would be an allowable marriage even today. Jacob was renamed by God to be Israel and is the father of the Jewish nation.

If you believe the Bible to be literally true then you would have to believe that we are all decended from incestual relationships at least through the point of Noah's grandchildren marrying cousins.

Hermi,

I had a similar understanding of original sin being started by Adam and Eve being kicked out of the garden of eden, etc as per biblical teaching, which is why i feel it is such an important issue as to whether there were other people around who did not have original sin via bloodlines in that if not everyone has original sin it would seem to invalidate a lot of the teachings of Christianity.

Recumbentman,

I understand that you are looking at the bible as a historical document and the explanations you have given do make sense from that perspective (and an interesting interpretation too), i guess i am more getting at the possible flaws in christian teaching on this matter.

I'm not sure i worded all this too well, so everyone please feel free to discuss without being offended.

Linus,

If you follow a Western Christian view, your question is good treats sex transmits original sin (through the mother). Non-sinful bloodlines become important because they are free from original sin. The Roman church has the virgin Mary born from an Imaculate Conception so she is free from original sin (and therefore so is Christ given his human mother). There is no Bibical warrant for this, the Roman Catholics just made it up. St Augustine has a lot to answer for - both for the status of women and sloppy thinking.

The Eastern Church won't be trapped on this one. They argue that there is NO relationship between sex and sin. They argue that original sin is the willful choice of sophistication over naivety: the choice every baby makes to leave the Garden of Eden where everyone is naked and unashamed to move into the big bad world and where moral choices a required. God's first gift to Adam and Eve when they left the garden was clothes.

PT

Hold on Hermi -- "God slaughtered animals to clothe Adam and Eve. It was the first demonstration that a blood sacrifice was required to atone for sin." --?

In Genesis 3,7 Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons (breeches in the Old Translation). God liked animal sacrifice for the smell, not the looks (Cain & Abel, Genesis 4).

Sex was no sin before the fall, but it was big news immediately after -- the rest of Genesis is full of sexual taboos. The interesting thing is how much of the success of the chosen ones depended on wily manipulation, even contravening of the existing taboos.

Genesis 3:21 "And the LORD God made clothing from animal skins for Adam and his wife." NLT It is this verse that I was referring to when I said God required a blood sacrifice for Adam and Eve's disobedience. I realize from your comment that this verse doesn't prove what I said. Sorry - training over fact. I'll try to watch that.

I've often wondered what it was about Cain's sacrifice that made it unacceptable. Grain and firstfruit offerings were required and blessed later in the law. My theory is that it was related to Cain's attitude rather than the actual sacrifice but I have no evidence for that.

Sex after the fall... The only sex acts that I can think of in Genesis, other than the "knew his wife" kind (which were blessed), are the rape of Jacob's daughter and the subsequent slaughter of Shechem; and the story of Tamar the daughter-in-law of Judah who had to dress up as a temple prostitite to get Judah to impregnate her so she could have a child for her dead husband. (That child is in the bloodline of Christ.) Some theologians believe that it was the violence of the Shechem massacre that resulted in God selecting Judah, the fourthborn, to become the leader of the tribes.

If you're referring to the multiple wives issue you are definitely right. Many wives meant headaches in spite of God blessing the patriarchs. Is that what you were referring to? What other sexual taboos?

Phoenician Trader (cool space by the way) I was taught that sin was passed through the father. That was how Jesus could be born sinless from a human (sinful) mom. I'm not RC and so have never viewed Mary as sinless. I don't buy the sin travels through the father theory either. Your Eastern Church theory makes the most sense to me.

Well the sons of Noah found it highly sinful to see their dad's nakedness. The wily manoeuvres I was referring to were for instance Abraham (Abram) passing his wife Sarah (Sarai) off as his sister when they went to Egypt in a famine (Gen 12.11 ff); she was taken into Pharaoh's house, and the Lord plagued it with great plagues because of Abram's wife; when Pharaoh found out the reason he said "Why d'you do that?" and sent them off. Then there was Sodom and Gomorrah, and Lot's daughters getting him drunk so they could get pregnant by him (something wrong there; what no brewer's droop?) Genesis is a great read folks! Lots of sex and violence.

The multiple wives is not an issue so much in my view; the "settled strategy" is one wife one husband, but such instincts as harem-keeping die hard (don't die at all, still going on).

I'm reading the Genesis stories as explanations to use when children would ask questions, such as "Why do we treat the Canaanites so badly?" "Because they are descended from Ham who looked on Noah's nakedness". . . "Why do we treat the Moabites and Ammonites so rottenly?" "Because they are descended from Lot's daughters who got him drunk and forced him to commit incest". . . "Why do we respect the children of Esau even though they are poor?" "Because Esau was the elder son of Isaac and our ancestor Jacob tricked him out of his wealth" -- and so on. I'm not sure they did respect the sons of Esau, since he married Canaanites, but that's the general drift.

I never thought of it that way before. I thought that Ham's sin wasn't that he looked on his father's nakedness as much as it was that he did it and then went out and said, "Hey guys, Dad got plastered and passed out in his tent buck naked." HT* (Disrespected his dad.) *Hermi translation

Do you think that one guy's sin passes down through an entire culture? I know that the idea of a blessing or curse, like Noah gave his kids was considered very important but is Noah's blessing/curse relevant today? We may use it at a reason but it can't be a valid excuse for why we treat Cannanites poorly, or other races. Can it?

All the sex in Genesis could sort of read like a very bad romance novel - rape here, betrayal there. Regarding the incest/original sin issue, your mention of Lot made me think. It appears that God condoned marriages between brother and sister up until the law. I can't see that God disallowed parent/child pairings. The Lot story appears scandalous to me but God gave them sons. I looked for condemnation in the surrounding text and couldn't find any. Perhaps it is found elsewhere.

Abraham & Sarah - you know he did that to her twice - called her his sister and allowed someone more powerful than himself to marry her. Both times the Bible clarifies that Sarah didn't actually have sex with the guys. Both times the ruler was punished and Abraham was blessed. Got me why God punished the unknowing rulers. My sense of fairness does not always align with God's.

"My sense of fairness does not always align with God's."

Yes! Wonderful! Everyone who reads the Old Testament has to say this.

But why should it? The only answer to that is, because we are like God, able to judge good and evil (Genesis 3,22 "And the Lord God asid, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil").

The options are
(1) to confess our inadequacy and accept the counterintuitive judgements of God, or
(2) to be eternally at odds with God.

(1) is attractive, but unfortunately the judgements of God are generally brought to us by men who by definition know no better than we do.

So (2) it is. Sad and lonely but free at least.

Alternatively, you can switch to the new testament, argue that the world has been made whole again by God's eternal sacrifice of the perfect firstborn and join the redeemed...

Cheap answer I admit, but your dilemma (and your answers) are classical (literally). The big question I have (along with many others), is how can the God of the worst parts of the old testament be the same as the God of the new?

PT

One subtlety of the New Testament (and there aren't many) is that it manages not to demonise the OT God, merely kicks him upstairs.

Most religious 'advances' gain impetus by demonising their precursors; think of the image of the with horns, tail and cloven hooves. Where does that come from? Not the Old Testament; it's a serpent in Genesis (though that was not a devil, only a serpent) and a drinking buddy of God's in Job. It's the old pastoral god Pan, and none other.

Though the Christians stopped short of demonising him, it is hard to come across any churh or foundation dedicated to God the Father. I don't know of any. Help appreciated.

Like gods, able to discern good and evil... Is being at odds with God freedom? -Or a different form of slavery?

My sense of fairness does not align with God in general, not just the Old Testament. My instinct when one hurts another is to seek justice. God didn't. The Father didn't. It wasn't just the Son that sacrificed himself. It was the Father that crushed the Son/allowed the Son to be crushed. Likewise when I deserve the same punishment for the things I've done it isn't the Son that gives mercy, it is the Father. The Son is the avenue, the way of obtaining mercy, but he isn't the giver of it. The NT didn't kick the Father upstairs to be the ghoul in the attic. Jesus taught us to pray to the Father and willingly suborned himself to the Father.

The thing that stands out to me, Old or New Testament, is the complete unworthiness of the people God chose to bless. Abraham jeopardised others because of his fear, Isaac played such favorites with his kids that they were totally screwed up, Jacob did the same, and his sons were deceitful, violent murderers. Clearly God didn't choose them because of their worthiness. Yet God did choose them and blessed them in spite of what they deserved. Doesn't seem fair to me. Mercy isn't fair. Grace isn't fair.

It comes back to Recumbentman's options. 1. Accept the counterintuitive judgements of God vs 2. Be at odds with God (eternally). I don't agree that all of the counterintuitive judgements are given to us by fallible fellow man. The Bible claims to be the inspired word of God. The translators were fallible. Certainly the interpretations people have made over the centuries are fallible. But the Bible claims not to be. Even if you include the documents rejected through the canonization process the basic content of Scripture is unchanged. Ultimately I have to believe in something. If it is something I made up is it any less fallible than the Bible? Since when do I have an inside track on right?

I am a Christian (which means that I've bought into #1) and yet I still do a lot of #2 (not eternally). How can God say that I am so precious that he would kill his Son for me and yet so worthless that I have no redeeming qualities?

So, Phoenician Trader, I see the same God in the old and new. The attributes that caused the worst parts of the old are no less there because the focus is shifted from our depravity to God's sacrifice.

My cheap answer was very cheap and your analysis is exacting.

I think an approach to questions you ask lie in the bigger question - what went wrong at the start. Then the question of how does the NT put things back to rights can be addressed in context.

The next big issue is the second part of the book of Isiah, where the Isrealites are in Babylon. They loose their obsession with the Monarchy (a form of government that had led to repression, abuse and pain) and rediscover their love of culture, God and transcendence. From this liberating came the people who were amongst the most scholarly of the Mediterranean until the dispersal in the frirst century.

I would argue that there are essentially two Gods of the OT as well as the Father of the NT. The text of the Bible (which is just that, a text - its livingness comes from its being read, not stored on a shelf) needs macro readings as wells as micro readings.

Must go,

PT

you are all way too scolarly for me, but keep it coming as i am finding it all very interesting.

I was always a bit dubious about David getting someone killed by sending them to the frontlines of the war, because he lusted after their wife, but being forgiven because he was sorry about it later.

One trick I use when reading the really early stuff in the Bible (not that I read it a lot) is to believe that it is from family oral histories. I biblical scholar probably would say I am talking rubbish - but here goes.

Oral history is very accurate (in those societies that rely on it) - hence the finding of Troy by following Homer's directions in a poem. They are not perfect (but neither is the written word - get three people to agree on a reading of a longish email...).

Early middle eastern society was (is) very family based and every family had its own oral tradition. Furthermore David was a hero and so every family had a David story. Some families were Saul fans and hence those families had David and Saul as friends, others had them as enemies.

When they were written down, all of the stories were carefully collected and put together in some sort of reasonable order. The same events get told multiple times but with subtle (or jarring) differences. The same story can have multiple endings.

It is all very cool, very personal and very all over the place. Certainly not definitive. The later stuff after Babylon (I suppose) is written by professional bureaucrats.

People may disagree with me and that is fine. They may also have some dates to add.

PT

Hermi -- I respect your devotion and can't criticise that, or your intelligence.

PT -- you're right about oral tradition; Sir William Wilde (Oscar's father)was one of the first archaeologists to go to a place, ask the people "what happened here?" and work on folk tradition, with impressive results.

It's also apparent that before notation was invented, the plainsong tradition preserved the sacred music immaculately for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years. Memory is reliable when it's your only tool; when we write things down we don't bother internalising them so well, that's the downside of technology.