Does the Bible (whatever version; Book of Mormon also of interest) have prohibitions against incest? To be specific, brother/sister incest and parent/child incest. I'll take either an explicit mention of 'abomination', parallel to the ones in Leviticus about a man sleeping with a man as with a woman; or a cautionary tale along the lines of Oedipus, about the consequences of sleeping with close relatives.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Leveticus 18:6-18.
quote:None of you shall approach anyone near of kin to uncover nakedness: I am the Lord. 7You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 8You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is the nakedness of your father. 9You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born abroad. 10You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son’s daughter or of your daughter’s daughter, for their nakedness is your own nakedness. 11You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, begotten by your father, since she is your sister. 12You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s flesh. 13You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is your mother’s flesh. 14You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother, that is, you shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. 15You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law: she is your son’s wife; you shall not uncover her nakedness. 16You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. 17You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, and you shall not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are your flesh; it is depravity. 18And you shall not take a woman as a rival to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
You beat me to it! That is probably the best example in the Bible, though in certain situations incest was used. Lot and his daughters comes to mind. Lot did not have a son of his own so he slept with his two daughters to try and sire a son.
I can't think of any instances in the Book of Mormon where it was used or specifically condemned. The worst thing I remember in the Book of Mormon that when some of the people raped young women, killed them, cannabalized them and even fed them to feed their captives, who also happened to be the deceased people's families. The entire people was destroyed soon after.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:And you shall not take a woman as a rival to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.
Good thing Jacob got his marriages in before this was set down as law.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: You beat me to it! That is probably the best example in the Bible, though in certain situations incest was used. Lot and his daughters comes to mind. Lot did not have a son of his own so he slept with his two daughters to try and sire a son.
I can't think of any instances in the Book of Mormon where it was used or specifically condemned. The worst thing I remember in the Book of Mormon that when some of the people raped young women, killed them, cannabalized them and even fed them to feed their captives, who also happened to be the deceased people's families. The entire people was destroyed soon after.
Well I believe it was Lot's daughters who got him drunk and had sex with him. Further, Leviticus was written after the whole business with Lot happened.
As far as the Book of Mormon goes I don't believe there are any passages dealing with incest specifically, nor in any of the other books we hold as scripture.
Abraham married his brothers daughter, Isaac I believe married a cousin, so did Jacob.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I take it then that 'uncover nakedness' is being used as a euphemism for 'have sex with', rather than the literal meaning of 'undress'? Out of curiosity, is this kenning used in other places in the Bible?
I find this formulation interesting:
quote:You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter
Is there perhaps some distinction between full sisters and half-sisters being made in the Hebrew, which does not come across in the English?
I also find it slightly odd that in all this specificity, with some repetitions, there is apparently no prohibition against 'uncovering the nakedness' of one's daughter or son - only the son's wife.
Edit: Unless perhaps it is the "A woman and her daughter" part. Strange way to put it, if so.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
Edit: Unless perhaps it is the "A woman and her daughter" part. Strange way to put it, if so.
Not that strange. If you've slept with a woman you don't sleep with her daughter, whether or not you think you're the father. Paternity testing not being available at the time.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Lot's daughters got him drunk. It was his daughters that wanted his seed. Of course, I don't believe anyone who uses drunkedness as an excuse.
Incest had to have occurred if we came from one man and one woman. The only way for their children not to have problems would be if they were genetically perfect. There are defects that have become prevalent in entire nations. The definition of incest will probably continue to expand. It's surprising it hasn't gone past second cousins.
My dad's brother had a child with my mother's sister. Is he almost a brother...certainly more than just a first cousin.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
He's a double first cousin.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... Further, Leviticus was written after the whole business with Lot happened.
Wait. Leviticus is also the most infamous source for condemning gays. Except that the "progressive" (for lack of a better word) response is usually that it no longer applies for some reason.
For example:
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: This is a pretty common attack on the idea that the Bible condemns the acts homosexuality. Particularly, Leviticus 18 condemns various forms of sexual perversion (most of which I think we can all agree on, like incest and bestiality); included in it (verse 22): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." You'll find in close proximity to this chapter is statements on the rules of slavery and sever punishment for crimes we don't exactly have on the books today (working on the Sabbath for example).
This is all sub-part of the definition of the Mosaic law. In Christian theology the law of Moses was fulfilled (or, to simplify things, made inoperable) at the resurrection of the Savior. In other words, none of these things don't necessarily apply. So it's a fair argument that our nice little Lev 18:22 doesn't define the Christian view anymore.
So this specific condemnation of incest might not be valid either (others might).
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Valid according to who?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: Perhaps, perhaps not. The New Testament is silent on the issue of incest as far as I am aware. And like I said, none of the other books I consider scripture make mention of it.
One can argue that incest is demonstratively bad and on that point Leviticus simply commands something that is already a good idea. By that rationale it doesn't matter that the Law of Moses was fulfilled, it's not as if Christians look at the Law of Moses and say, "Since Jesus fulfilled it, that means we should never adhere to any of the concepts it discusses."
I've heard of people reading the prohibition against eating shrimp in the Law and deciding it must be an eternal principle. That's fine if they decide that for themselves, but they can't use that scripture and say to me, "You're living in sin because you are ignoring this commandment." They would have to use different reasoning for me to be convinced.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... I've heard of people reading the prohibition against eating shrimp in the Law and deciding it must be an eternal principle. That's fine if they decide that for themselves, but they can't use that scripture and say to me, "You're living in sin because you are ignoring this commandment."
Exactly. So I'm not sure one can simply point to this and say the prohibition against incest is eternal either. One may have to use different reasoning.
(Also, shrimp is awesome)
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Huh, I have to say that's probably the farthest back anyone's ever reached into time to quote me. I'm kind of honored.
Hobbes Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote: Well I believe it was Lot's daughters who got him drunk and had sex with him.
Lol typical. So it was the woman who seduced/tempted/coerced the man into sex. That slut. Never mind that the vast majority of father-daughter incest is abuse, from the father's side, and results after years of grooming and brainwashing.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
In the context of the story you understand why Lot's daughters did what they did. They aren't described as being sluts. They thought, mistakenly, that they and their father were some of the only human beings left alive anywhere, so that if they were going to have children and their people not go extinct, they had no other alternative than to do what they did.
It's also seen as a just punishment for Lot.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101:
quote:And you shall not take a woman as a rival to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.
Good thing Jacob got his marriages in before this was set down as law.
Well, both Rachel and Leah effectively converted to Isaac's religion, making them no longer legally sisters.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I take it then that 'uncover nakedness' is being used as a euphemism for 'have sex with', rather than the literal meaning of 'undress'? Out of curiosity, is this kenning used in other places in the Bible?
Not that I'm aware of, but yes, that's what it means.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I find this formulation interesting:
quote:You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter
Is there perhaps some distinction between full sisters and half-sisters being made in the Hebrew, which does not come across in the English?
It's not half- versus full-. Blood relation through a mother is certain. Blood relation through a father isn't. So the verse is specifying that a father's daughter is just as forbidden as a mother's daughter. See also Abraham's comment to Pharaoah in Genesis 20:12.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I also find it slightly odd that in all this specificity, with some repetitions, there is apparently no prohibition against 'uncovering the nakedness' of one's daughter or son - only the son's wife.
Edit: Unless perhaps it is the "A woman and her daughter" part. Strange way to put it, if so.
You aren't the first person to point this out. But it is covered under Leviticus 18:6.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by ricree101:
quote:And you shall not take a woman as a rival to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.
Good thing Jacob got his marriages in before this was set down as law.
Well, both Rachel and Leah effectively converted to Isaac's religion, making them no longer legally sisters.
Sorry for my ignorance, but can you explain that?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
By Jewish law, converts are reborn. They are no longer considered related to their birth family.
I disagree that this applies to Rachel and Leah, or that it need do so. Yaakov married them hundreds of years before Sinai, and was never married to both while living in the Land, anyway.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: He's a double first cousin.
By law you can marry your second cousin. Could my daughter marry his son? He's a double first cousin. More than just a first cousin which makes his kids closer than a second cousin to my daughter.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Thanks rivka!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I proposed a theory some years ago that originally, it was considered righteous for siblings or close relatives to marry, and that this could be done without negative genetic consequences because right after Creation, the human genome was free of genetic damage. While genetic defects began to appear among those humans who spread all over the earth and married anyone they fancied, those who kept to the original practice preserved the pure, relatively unflawed genetic inheritance. Thus originally, what we would today call incest, was the preferred practice of the faithful. (Of course, today, with thousands of potentially lethal genetic defects identified in the human genome, incest must be banned.)
I proposed this theory as a possible explanation for what is stated in Gensis 6:1, 2: "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."
Those who followed the Adamic practice of marrying strictly within the family were the ones called "the sons of God." Those who did not seek to preserve the original pure genetic heritage and married anyone, produced the ones called "the daughters of men."
I reject utterly the theory that "the sons of God" refers to angels. In the Bible, it is Adam who was said to be "the son of God" (Luke 3:38). In speaking of the laying of the foundations of the earth, Job 38:6 says: "When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?" In the Bible, "stars" are frequently used as a metaphor for angels. In contrast, then, "sons of God" would refer to other "Adams" (or the equivalent) on other worlds.
It is true that Hebrew poetry often uses pararellism in thought, where the same thought is repeated in different terms. But it also can use contrasting thoughts. Since the stars and the sons in Job 38:6 do different things (one sings, the other shouts for joy), this would indicate that stars and sons are presented as contrasting things, not as parallel reiterations of the same things.
[ February 28, 2010, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I reject utterly the theory that "the sons of God" refers to angels.
It's nice that we seem to have found something to agree on.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)