Incest - Did human history begin with immorality?
Did human history begin with divorce, according to the Bible?
Is there any basis of morality for non-believers?
Immorality? No. Genesis, the first book of the bible, tells us that man was created without sin, and is created in the image of God.
Morality was designed by the Creator, and not by non-believers, creatures, and Humanists who made up their systems of reasoning much later than the creation.
There was no divorce recorded in the book of creation, nor was a rule for divorce announced. No system of moral voiced by Adam and Eve.
The knowledge of good and evil was not yet obtained without eating of the fruit.
And incest was not defined as immoral, nor forbidden after the early dawn of knowledge of good and evil.
It is at the time of the Mosaic Law that incest was forbidden. The Law of the Old Covenant was given after Exodus.
A law for putting away an adulterous wife was later given by Moses. According to Jesus the Christ, Moses gave this law because of the hardness of people's hearts, that some very much desire separation with their mates.
All the law in the Torah and in the Bible are God breathed/inspired, originated from the supreme law giver. (It is believed to be so, and followed as such.)
Non-believers have no supreme law giver to set up their unchanging and unchangable legal systems and rights. Their rules change at unpredictable frequency. No superbeing has given them any monumental set of law by which they must studiously follow forever.
There is no firm foundation of stability in instability. They live in constant changes; in passing moments.Talking about morality? What base is there for a people without straight rules/principles?
What blossomed today vanish into decay before sunset.
There was a time of homosexuality in Greek history; then came rich merchants with mistresses and villas; then we have the Common Law husbands and wives, couples by law who are not even married by oath, registration, and written contract. Furthermore we have homosexuals pushing for legislation to protect and establish their legal rights.
Registration and oath equates living together?
Man with man equates marriage between different sexes?
Absolute logic? Fine reasoning? Moral?
Then come people who want to judge God and His Law.
By the same changing principles and moral? Free speech?
Mal 2 v15. And did he not make one, although he had the residue of the Spirit? And wherefore one? He sought a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. -ASV
Mal 2 v15. Has not [the LORD] made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. -NIV
Mal 2 v15. |3808| But not |0259| one |6213| did He make? |7604| And a vestige of |7307| the Spirit |0000| {is} to him. |4100| And what {of} |0259| the one? |1245| He was seeking |2233| a seed of |0430| God. |8104| And guard |7307| your spirit, |0802| and with the wife of |5271| your youth |0408| not |0898| do deal deceitfully.
v16. |8130| He hates |7971| sending away, |0559| says |3068| Yahweh |0430| the God of |3478| Israel, |3680| and to cover |2555| {with} violence |0000| on |3830| his garment, |0559| says |3068| Yahweh of |6635| armies. |8104| And guard |7307| your spirit |3808| and not |0898| do act deceitfully. -LitThis prophesy/bible verse affirms that the God of Israel made mankind ONE.
There was and is no possible division from an individual, from just one entity.
Morality takes a different shape when there was/is only one couple on the whole earth.
Some people like to assert their own principles as to what is allowed and what not. The Lord God just has a different idea in how things should settle.
Genetically, the origin of mankind could be more capable to withstand the ill effects of marriage between close blood brothers and sisters. This is suggested by the record in scripture that the age/life span of each successive generation is decreasing in general. Adam and Eve simply lived much longer than Moses and much longer than us. There is no reason to assume that we as human beings are equal in our genetic vitality.
Further more, there is no permissive mood or action when all you/they have for reproduction/populating is just one family.
People of a small clan are intermarrying. Nothing wrong with that. Then, people of a large clan come to develop villages and villagers from different location intermarried. Then, cities and hamlets developed and citizens intermarried. Then, new counties and countries and kingdoms formed and people travel afar for their mates. it is just natural for people to seek mates further from their proximity.
Looking back all these intermarriage started with a small clan with the same name and origin. Nothing seems immoral in this. The single name represents a single leader, a single husband or wife who was in power.
When we go one step back from that small clan, we possibly come to one couple. What is so immoral about this.The Lord also specifies His hatred for deceit and divorce/sending away.
It is viewed as violence. Breaking up is not peace making. It is destruction.
Is incess destructive? Divorce/sending away certainly is. Yet modern societies have allowed divorce legally. No activist campaign against divorce anywhere as fervent as against aborption, wich is just another form of destruction within the context of family ethics.
Divorce is very much heart breaking. Incess between brothers and sisters is not. It is at least a unity of 2 relatives, with no divorce as part of the condition.
The concept of one origin, such as one God the Father, and creator, and one original couple, leads us to the assurance of unity from one source. An ethical relationship of one true family and clear ancestral relationship. The offsprings are assured of one original source. All are brethren sharing the same acknwledged parents, just as there is just one God, the source of all creation. No confusion. Clear single direction and leadership.
The NIV is not clear in explaining the unity of mankind; but assumes that the verse is only dealing with union in marriage. The couple does belong to God. But how about incess? Should any form of union be Godly and belong to God?
It emphasise that "In flesh and spirit they are his." a different idea, possibly cause suspicion of textual variation behind the translation.
The two ideas do not follow to form a coherent picture. All belonging to one God has nothing to do with creating just one. All belonging to one true God has little to do with breaking marriage covenant. Divorced and singles are still creatures of God; a family in God.
The ASV brings attention to the theme of one unit in the very beginning, that there was intended to be just one focal point, one source.
[7604] The Lord has reserves of His Spirit. This explains that the creation of one unity is for the sake/design of one unity/source; and is not due to a lack of reserves in His Spirit.
The NIV completely lost this point/idea.
Answering errancy allegation || Examining Jewish geneaology from Exodus Ch 1 ||
A Failed Prophesy on Tyre? || Another Failed Prophesy on Tyre? ||
Why 4 Gospels? || Hebrew Matthew and document Q || Census in Luke Ch 2 ( Anachronism? ) ||
Similarity warrants Recognition and Unity? || Freewill and pre-destination ||
Dynamic Equivalence and Propitiation ||Photography || Photo Gallery || Portrait Gallery || Architecture ||
Design Consultancy || Preacher || Herbalist || Cool Sites ||