Leviticus 18 - The bible and incest

[pdavid]

Now I know that many of you will refer to a very specific verse in the bible in order to support a particular claim. My question here is about the striking implications of biblical creationism compared with passages such as Leviticus 18. Here is Leviticus 18:

1
The LORD said to Moses,
2
"Speak to the Israelites and tell them: I, the LORD, am your God.
3
You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you once lived, nor shall you do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you; do not conform to their customs.
4
My decrees you shall carry out, and my statutes you shall take care to follow. I, the LORD, am your God.
5
Keep, then, my statutes and decrees, for the man who carries them out will find life through them. I am the LORD.
6
"None of you shall approach a close relative to have sexual intercourse with her. I am the LORD.
7
You shall not disgrace your father by having intercourse with your mother. Besides, since she is your own mother, you shall not have intercourse with her.
8
You shall not have intercourse with your father's wife, for that would be a disgrace to your father.
9
You shall not have intercourse with your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in your own household or born elsewhere.
10
You shall not have intercourse with your son's daughter or with your daughter's daughter, for that would be a disgrace to your own family.
11
You shall not have intercourse with the daughter whom your father's wife bore to him, since she, too, is your sister.
12
You shall not have intercourse with your father's sister, since she is your father's relative.
13
You shall not have intercourse with your mother's sister, since she is your mother's relative.
14
You shall not disgrace your father's brother by being intimate with his wife, since she, too, is your aunt.
15
You shall not have intercourse with your daughter-in-law; she is your son's wife, and therefore you shall not disgrace her.
16
You shall not have intercourse with your brother's wife, for that would be a disgrace to your brother.
17
You shall not have intercourse with a woman and also with her daughter, nor shall you marry and have intercourse with her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; this would be shameful, because they are related to her.
18
While your wife is still living you shall not marry her sister as her rival; for thus you would disgrace your first wife.
19
"You shall not approach a woman to have intercourse with her while she is unclean from menstruation.
20
You shall not have carnal relations with your neighbor's wife, defiling yourself with her.
21
You shall not offer any of your offspring to be immolated to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the LORD.
22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.
23
You shall not have carnal relations with an animal, defiling yourself with it; nor shall a woman set herself in front of an animal to mate with it; such things are abhorrent.
24
"Do not defile yourselves by any of these things by which the nations whom I am driving out of your way have defiled themselves.
25
Because their land has become defiled, I am punishing it for its wickedness, by making it vomit out its inhabitants.
26
You, however, whether natives or resident aliens, must keep my statutes and decrees forbidding all such abominations
27
by which the previous inhabitants defiled the land;
28
otherwise the land will vomit you out also for having defiled it, just as it vomited out the nations before you.
29
Everyone who does any of these abominations shall be cut off from among his people.
30
Heed my charge, then, not to defile yourselves by observing the abominable customs that have been observed before you. I, the LORD, am your God."

I have a lot of questions about this that I would be extremely grateful to see a Christian persepctive on.

1. Your bible tells you in genesis of god creating Adam and Eve as the first humans. If these humans are the two ancestors that we all have in common as the bible says they are, then incest must have taken place in order for the population to become greater. Either the story of creation in the bible is true and incest had to have been apparent for the human race to survive, or you're forced to say that the creation story is false, in which case you've just decided by modern and external criteria which bits of the bible you can deem true or false which undermines the whole concept of it being a reliable reference for anything.

2. Many people would use Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination. " as biblical justification to openly protest against homosexuality. Doesn't this just point closer to the idea that you can find a quote in the bible to justify any possible moral standpoint?

I would be really grateful for any input on this, but I don't expect any particular level by any means. Thanks a lot. Best regards,

David

[August]

David, I am not sure if anyone else will respond in the meantime. If you give me a day or two I get back to you on this.

[pdavid]

Hey yea that's great any response is a good response as far as I'm concerned!

David

[FFC]

PDavid, I thought this http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qincest.html was kind of a cool little explanation by Glen miller on the incest deal. I'm assuming it's not Glen Miller the orchestra leader.

[Gman]

1. Your bible tells you in genesis of god creating Adam and Eve as the first humans. If these humans are the two ancestors that we all have in common as the bible says they are, then incest must have taken place in order for the population to become greater. Either the story of creation in the bible is true and incest had to have been apparent for the human race to survive, or you're forced to say that the creation story is false, in which case you've just decided by modern and external criteria which bits of the bible you can deem true or false which undermines the whole concept of it being a reliable reference for anything.

Nothing really new here... This question gets asked often in Christian circles..

Here is RTB's response...

The "Incest" Problem

"As recorded in the book of Genesis, no law of conscience or society forbade marriage between brothers and sisters or other close relatives (except parents and children, Genesis 19:30-38 ) in the early centuries of human history. Even at the time of Abraham, the practice of marrying siblings continued.

Sometime later, however, when God established a set of moral and civil laws for the emerging nation of Israel, He ruled out marriage between siblings (Leviticus 18:6-18 ). The timing of this command makes perfect sense from a biological perspective. Genetic defects as a result of intrafamily marriage develop slowly. They would present no risk until after the first several dozen generations."

[Fortigurn]

1. Your bible tells you in genesis of god creating Adam and Eve as the first humans. If these humans are the two ancestors that we all have in common as the bible says they are, then incest must have taken place in order for the population to become greater. Either the story of creation in the bible is true and incest had to have been apparent for the human race to survive, or you're forced to say that the creation story is false, in which case you've just decided by modern and external criteria which bits of the bible you can deem true or false which undermines the whole concept of it being a reliable reference for anything.

2. Many people would use Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination. " as biblical justification to openly protest against homosexuality. Doesn't this just point closer to the idea that you can find a quote in the bible to justify any possible moral standpoint?

Firstly, the Bible indicates that they were not the two ancestors of all humanity, and makes specific mention of contemporaneous humans living outside the covenant community (to whom Cain went to intermarry).

Secondly, how many countries do you know hold people guilty of laws which do not exist currently, but may in the future?

[pdavid]

Thanks for all for the replies. I really wanted to know, though, about the seemingly prescriptivist nature the bible has within Christianity. Does a later quote in the bible override a previous one which is contrary to it?

And for the record, ex post facto law is not for a biblical debate, but as you asked here are some biblical examples of ex post facto law:

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazin ... aid96.html

My country, Britain, is prohibited to enforce retrospective laws as it is bound to the E.U Human Rights act, but there are certain exceptions like the ambiguous "acts against the general principles of law seen in civilised countries." I know the USA also looks down on retrospective law but I'm sure you endorse its exemptions. Like your bill to get rid of the habeus corpus right of detainees at Guantanamo which your government urged to be retrospective, effectively throwing out a number of cases that were apparent before the bill came about.

Ex post facto law is almost irrelevant. The question I have is whether now I have found examples of god or people imposing retrospective laws in the bible, can I claim that this is evidence that retrospective laws are justified by the bible and therefore justified today? This just points further again to the idea that the bible supports every viewpoint if you look hard enough.

David

[Fortigurn]

The question I have is whether now I have found examples of god or people imposing retrospective laws in the bible, can I claim that this is evidence that retrospective laws are justified by the bible and therefore justified today?

I'm not aware that you've found examples in the Bible of God imposing laws retrospectively.

By the way, the US is not my country. I was born in Australia and I live in Taiwan. I disagree profoundly with the casuistry of applying law retrospectively in an attempt to justify illegal conduct.

[pdavid]

Well no country is different. Australia introduced ex post facto laws to fight "bottom of the harbour tax avoidance" in the 1980s or '70s if you remember. It's irrelevant.

If you read the link I gave you which is a giant passage on ex post facto laws in the bible then you will see that there are many instances where one might justify ex post facto laws based on certain passages.

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazin ... aid96.html

There's the link again. Doesn't it just reinforce the concept that any standpoint is supported by the bible if you find the right quote?

David

[August]

David, that article by Farrell Till has been refuted many times. He made false assumptions, in addition to not really knowing the Hewbrew words and context for what he asserted. Did you bother to read any of the Bible verses that he referred, like Ex 15:32-36? Try it.

As for the whole issue of law in the Bible, there are different types of laws. Generally, it is divided into moral law and ceremonial law.

Moral law is the transcendent foundation of morality that humans received from God, summarized in the 10 commandments. This is the law that exposes sin, and is confirmed by Jesus in the New Testament as the everlasting law.

The ceremonial law was the law given to Israel upon their entry into the promised land, that helped them function as a nation. God, knowing that this was a brand new nation, a people that He called for His purpose, knew that they were going to need some order in their society, and instructions on how to conduct themselves as a society. Remember that this was a theocracy, so a lot of the laws revolved around the proper worship of God.

In time, those who were in charge came to see the ceremonial law as the way to salvation, instead of the saving grace of God. When Jesus came, He very clearly abrogated that way of thinking, as well as the ceremonial law.

I do agree with you that unfortunately, because of corrupted human nature and sloppy scholarship, as well as human-centric teaching, many use the Bible to justify their position, and those positions can be contrasting. The Bible does warn us against false teachers, and implores us to test everything against the Bible to see if it holds true or not. That does not happen too often any more, so your point of view is a valid one.

However, that does not negate the fact that Christians by definition agree on the most important facts of the Bible, those that relate to salvation. Other disagreements may cause disunity and strife among believers, but ultimately there is agreement on the substitionary atonement of Christ for us on the cross.

That is the most important message in Christianity, and is the starting point of being a Christian.

[Fortigurn]

Well no country is different. Australia introduced ex post facto laws to fight "bottom of the harbour tax avoidance" in the 1980s or '70s if you remember. It's irrelevant.

Yes it is irrelevant, since the issue was not holding people guilty based on retrospectivley applying current law, but holding people guilty today of breach of laws which may be made in the future.

If you read the link I gave you which is a giant passage on ex post facto laws in the bible then you will see that there are many instances where one might justify ex post facto laws based on certain passages.

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazin ... aid96.html

There's the link again. Doesn't it just reinforce the concept that any standpoint is supported by the bible if you find the right quote?

No I don't think so:

* The 'Levirate marriage' existed prior to the Law of Moses (we have palaeological evidence for it)

* I fail to see how Deuteronomy 23:2 represents a law applied retrospectively (it speaks specifically of current and future generations being held to a law which is being laid down in the present)

* The claim from Exodus 15:32-36 is (predictably), a misquote (Exodus 15 only has 27 verses, and does not contain the passage regarding the stoning of the man who gathered sticks on the sabbath), the correct passage is Numbers 15:32-36

* The issue in Numbers 15:32-36 was not whether the man should die (that law had already been declared), but how he would be 'cut off' (see Jarchi and Ibn Ezra), and the method declared was stoning

* In any case, the sin of the man was a presumptuous sin (Numbers 15:30-31, which predicated that the man know the penalty for his action (he wasn't unaware of it, the law wasn't invented subsequent to his action)

[Fortigurn]

Did you bother to read any of the Bible verses that he referred, like Ex 15:32-36? Try it.

You can always tell who has done their homework.

[pdavid]

Why does it need to turn into an ad hominem argument all the time? I want you to attack my points, not my person. If you remember, the original idea wasn't to make a thread about ex post facto law but to talk about Leviticus 18 (as indicated in the title). The point of ex post facto was presented to me and not the other way round. I was merely trying to prove the point of how easy it is to back up your position with a bible quote. I also disagree with retrospective law, but the purpose of linking to that particular article was merely trying to point out how it is quite easy to give a bible quote to support which angle you look upon things.

Just as I attack points and not people, I think you should do the same. Don't belittle others by saying ad hominem arguments like that - it gets us nowhere and undermines the concept of adult discussion altogether.

My original query was about Leviticus 18 and for the most part that has been answered rather nicely. Thank you to those who addressed my points - it is much appreciated.

David

[August]

Where is the ad-hominem?

[pdavid]

The post above me. That kind of stuff doesn't help. The Fortigurn comment I'm talking about. It's unproductive and it undermines the reason why I come on here, which is to ingest as much information as I can about Christian attitudes towards certain issues. I don't see why there's a need to be antagonistic like that. If I began to make flippent comments directed towards users on the forum it would be deemed as a violation. There's no need. It needn't be adversarial, and it needn't be antagonistic. Just clean, adult conversation.

David