The Law and incest.....

[revolutionist90]

 

 

your questions make me wonder if you are a NT-only believer. would you mind sharing your answer to that?

Don't know where that came from but no I am not an NT-only believer. There are some differences from the OT and the NT like we are not allowed to stone others for committing adultery anymore and so on so I can for clarification from both books. 

[Guest LadyC]

bopeep, with all due respect, you do not understand the genetic risks or lack thereof. you're simply stating misinformation that you've heard from other people who do not know. the information i have given you came from experts in the field of genetics. alan bittles and robin bennet, both of whom mentored me as i studied this over a three year period, and both of whom co-authored the very lengthy report that was published in JAMA. 

 

and yes, the bible says plenty about cousins marrying. zelophehad's five daughters (and their first cousins.) othniel and achsah. jacob and leah and rachel. isaac and rebecca (first cousins once removed.) those are to name a few of the cousin marriages that were orchestrated and/or commanded in scripture. 

 

i'm not trying to be mean, but i am getting rather exasperated. have you not read any of the information provided? have you not followed up with studying what God's word has to say on the subject? have you not double checked your assumptions regarding any medical risks?

 

are you presuming to know more than the people who have dedicated their lives to the study of genetics?

are you presuming to know better than God?

 

i've said this before to others, and i'll say it again. it is OK for you to have a personal bias against it. people fear what they don't understand. i get it. i used to feel the exact same way. and it's even ok for you to become educated about it and still be personally opposed to it. . but if you choose not to learn about what you're speaking against, then that amounts to nothing more than blind bigotry. and it is an arrogance that spits in God's face, because you are willingly refusing to take Him at His word.

 

now if you'd like to ask questions or debate intelligently on the subject,  (or if anyone else would), all i ask is that you do your homework first. read God's word. ask His guidance. that to me is the most important part of this whole debate. if you can't back your position biblically, then i won't even engage in the discussion further. it's a waste of my time.

 

i'm not asking anybody hear to take my word for it. who am i? i'm nobody! but God.... God is EVERYTHING. and His word is right there, probably sitting on your nightstand or a bookshelf, and what He says about it is readily available for you to read and learn from. you're welcome to fact check the information i've provided about genetics too, although that's really secondary in my opinion. still, the information is readily available to anyone who wishes to find out. in fact, alan bittles and robin bennet are both easy to learn about on the internet, and their email addresses are available to anyone who wishes to ask them personally. i can tell you that both of them will respond if you take a moment to write them. alan will likely take longer to respond because he travels a great deal. i don't just make this stuff up off the top of my head to defend some indefensible perversion, as some of you seem to believe. if you don't trust the two people i highly recommend, go to the nsgc website, or your local yellow pages, pick a genetic counselor at random, and contact them. ask them. you don't have to take my word for it, but please, if you're going to make statements as though they are facts, verify that your facts are correct so that you don't make yourself look uneducated and bigoted.

 

i've had a stressful day. i really do apologize that my frustration is getting the better of me. but it is. i've got such a tendency to get annoyed with people who purposely spew garbage just because they are too hateful, too lazy, or too self-righteous to spend five minutes opening their minds to truth... biblical and medical. i'm not asking for your approval or your acceptance. i have God's, that's all that matters. what i AM asking is that you be berean, and stop trying to re-define God's laws for Him.

[missmuffet]

bopeep, with all due respect, you do not understand the genetic risks or lack thereof. you're simply stating misinformation that you've heard from other people who do not know. the information i have given you came from experts in the field of genetics. alan bittles and robin bennet, both of whom mentored me as i studied this over a three year period, and both of whom co-authored the very lengthy report that was published in JAMA. 

 

and yes, the bible says plenty about cousins marrying. zelophehad's five daughters (and their first cousins.) othniel and achsah. jacob and leah and rachel. isaac and rebecca (first cousins once removed.) those are to name a few of the cousin marriages that were orchestrated and/or commanded in scripture. 

 

i'm not trying to be mean, but i am getting rather exasperated. have you not read any of the information provided? have you not followed up with studying what God's word has to say on the subject? have you not double checked your assumptions regarding any medical risks?

 

are you presuming to know more than the people who have dedicated their lives to the study of genetics?

are you presuming to know better than God?

 

i've said this before to others, and i'll say it again. it is OK for you to have a personal bias against it. people fear what they don't understand. i get it. i used to feel the exact same way. and it's even ok for you to become educated about it and still be personally opposed to it. . but if you choose not to learn about what you're speaking against, then that amounts to nothing more than blind bigotry. and it is an arrogance that spits in God's face, because you are willingly refusing to take Him at His word.

 

now if you'd like to ask questions or debate intelligently on the subject,  (or if anyone else would), all i ask is that you do your homework first. read God's word. ask His guidance. that to me is the most important part of this whole debate. if you can't back your position biblically, then i won't even engage in the discussion further. it's a waste of my time.

 

i'm not asking anybody hear to take my word for it. who am i? i'm nobody! but God.... God is EVERYTHING. and His word is right there, probably sitting on your nightstand or a bookshelf, and what He says about it is readily available for you to read and learn from. you're welcome to fact check the information i've provided about genetics too, although that's really secondary in my opinion. still, the information is readily available to anyone who wishes to find out. in fact, alan bittles and robin bennet are both easy to learn about on the internet, and their email addresses are available to anyone who wishes to ask them personally. i can tell you that both of them will respond if you take a moment to write them. alan will likely take longer to respond because he travels a great deal. i don't just make this stuff up off the top of my head to defend some indefensible perversion, as some of you seem to believe. if you don't trust the two people i highly recommend, go to the nsgc website, or your local yellow pages, pick a genetic counselor at random, and contact them. ask them. you don't have to take my word for it, but please, if you're going to make statements as though they are facts, verify that your facts are correct so that you don't make yourself look uneducated and bigoted.

 

i've had a stressful day. i really do apologize that my frustration is getting the better of me. but it is. i've got such a tendency to get annoyed with people who purposely spew garbage just because they are too hateful, too lazy, or too self-righteous to spend five minutes opening their minds to truth... biblical and medical. i'm not asking for your approval or your acceptance. i have God's, that's all that matters. what i AM asking is that you be berean, and stop trying to re-define God's laws for Him.

Then consider me out of the discusssion.I hope you have a better day.

[revolutionist90]

"We should not look upon (and by inference have sexual relations with) a woman’s daughter naked. Nor should we take a woman’s granddaughter as a wife. Vs. 17"

 

Who is "We"? and who is this "woman"? Are we still dealing with family members or random people at this moment?

[Guest LadyC]

"We should not look upon (and by inference have sexual relations with) a woman’s daughter naked. Nor should we take a woman’s granddaughter as a wife. Vs. 17"

 

Who is "We"? and who is this "woman"? Are we still dealing with family members or random people at this moment?

 

is this from leviticus? please provide the book and chapter you're reading from, and what version this is from.

[revolutionist90]

 

 

 

 

your questions make me wonder if you are a NT-only believer. would you mind sharing your answer to that?

Don't know where that came from but no I am not an NT-only believer. There are some differences from the OT and the NT like we are not allowed to stone others for committing adultery anymore and so on so I can for clarification from both books. 

 

That is because ancient Israel's legal system was based on the law of Moses, and in order to enforce the law, you had to have punishment for offenses.  In theory, any nation could choose to have as a penalty for adultery stoning someone to death.  It was never a requirement for other nations, even though adultery was and still is a sin that will be punished by God in the next life. 

 

I know ancient Israel was based upon the law of Moses. I am just stating that I like clarification in both books and also remember the phrase "He who has not sinned throw the first stone", I don't think in theory any nation could have such a penalty and still be in good standing. How was stoning not a requirement if it was written in law? 

The reason why I like looking at both books is because of the frequent twisting of the bible by those who only believe in the NT and not both. They can easily state that it was only in the OT and not in the NT thus claiming that it is not standing anymore. This is a problem with the person choosing to not look closely at the Bible but it is a problem none the less so for controversial subjects such as this one I want to span through both testaments and hear justification from both sides. I am not going to simply take someone's word for it, even if they take it personally. This topic is strange because there are laws some things that were deemed okay in biblical times so how do we view certain things.

Also not to be offensive (and not to derail the topic) but there is little about marrying underage people in general also and even some believe the Bible supports underage marriages so how does that affect us today?  

[revolutionist90]

 

"We should not look upon (and by inference have sexual relations with) a woman’s daughter naked. Nor should we take a woman’s granddaughter as a wife. Vs. 17"

 

Who is "We"? and who is this "woman"? Are we still dealing with family members or random people at this moment?

 

is this from leviticus? please provide the book and chapter you're reading from, and what version this is from.

 

leviticus- GoldenEagle posted it before. 

[Guest LadyC]

"We should not look upon (and by inference have sexual relations with) a woman’s daughter naked. Nor should we take a woman’s granddaughter as a wife. Vs. 17"

 

Who is "We"? and who is this "woman"? Are we still dealing with family members or random people at this moment?

 

ok, i still don't know what version you are using. no version i've ever read says "we". in fact, everything you quoted, if it is a direct quote, is mistranslated. here is how the scripture reads in KJV.  

 

17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.

 

 

i'm not sure what you're finding difficult about this passage. it simply means that you are not to uncover the nakedness of both a woman AND her daughter. or a woman AND her granddaughter. in other words, you don't sleep with a woman and her descendant. 

[revolutionist90]

 

 

"We should not look upon (and by inference have sexual relations with) a woman’s daughter naked. Nor should we take a woman’s granddaughter as a wife. Vs. 17"

 

Who is "We"? and who is this "woman"? Are we still dealing with family members or random people at this moment?

 

ok, i still don't know what version you are using. no version i've ever read says "we". in fact, everything you quoted, if it is a direct quote, is mistranslated. here is how the scripture reads in KJV.  

 

17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.

 

 

i'm not sure what you're finding difficult about this passage. it simply means that you are not to uncover the nakedness of both a woman AND her daughter. or a woman AND her granddaughter. in other words, you don't sleep with a woman and her descendant. 

 

I agree 100 percent with LadyC on this.  That is exactly what the verse in question means. 

 

Oh I get it. I first thought it meant you could not take the daughter of this "woman" period but I did not catch that they were in unison. Well like Butero said I can oppose but if it is not a sin well okay. This in conjunction with the laws regarding what we today would call underage makes it difficult to not oppose. 

[KC02]

No,the Bible does not say anything about cousins marrying.But it is not safe.Especially first cousins.Their can be genetic problems.Most nations have strict law regarding first cousins marrying.The Bible tells us to obey the laws.I am not sure about second cousins.

 

No,the Bible does not say anything about cousins marrying

Wrong, the OT lists many cousins who married, for example Jacob married two of his cousins, Rachel and Leah. Joseph and Mary were cousins, as I pointed out before.

 

But it is not safe

Wrong. It can be much safer than other groups of people who are not related, as pointed out earlier.

 

Their can be genetic problems

You might have me on this one point, but any two people can have such problems. For example, a person with Huntington's disease has a 50/50 chance of passing the deadly disease to their offstring.

 

Most nations have strict law regarding first cousins marrying

Wrong. No nation has across-the-board prohibitions against cousin marriages. Certain states within the USA prohibit cousin marriages, as opposed to Europe, which has no laws against such unions.

 

I am not sure about second cousins.

That is the only thing you have claimed that I agree with. DId you read anything that has been posted in this thread before you posted?