Incest in the bible!!! And no reproach by God!!

[muhammad rasullah]

II Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
If the bible is God's word this is how we would know it by each and everything from scripture fitting into one of these categories. So if it doesn't as II Timothy says then this particular scripture would not be by inspiration thus making the bible fallible since christians claim it all to be inspired by God. Let's examine shall we!!

Genesis 35:22 And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve:
Do you see how the incest between mother and son is mentioned and then overlooked as an after thought like it didn't occur.

[muhammad rasullah]

I think it a bit disingenuous to post a thread declaring how someone's religious text is wrong because it allows for incest, and then argue in another how someone bedding down with a child is not pedophilia.

This is proof folks will find what they want in religious texts. Where one sees only the good in their's they would seek the worst in another's. And all the while, someone is arguing their's is right because the other's is wrong.

Madness I tell you, sheer and utter madness.

Religion has been the single greatest source of discord, of division, and of misunderstanding the world has ever, and will ever see.

And what is so sad, the Christian religion, and the Islamic religion are at least loosely based on the Jewish religion. And I have yet to see a Jew who didn't say, "Well that's fine, you believe what you believe, It don't bother me." at least when it comes to religion.

Nope Islam isn't based on the jewish religion. Islam is the culmination of both christianity and judaism. Allah is not fine with incest!
What is pedophilia? please be sure to give a good and clear definition!

[muhammad rasullah]

[...]
Genesis 35:22 And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve:
Do you see how the incest between mother and son is mentioned and then overlooked as an after thought like it didn't occur.

Well if you have read the bible corectly you would see that in the language of the bible wife and concubine are the same Gen 25:1 Then again Abraham took a wife and her name was Keturah. Chronicles 1:32 Now the sons of Keturah Abraham's concubine...
As you can see when wife and concubine are used in the bible it means the same thing or this is a contradiction. And since no christian will say it is a contradiction then they are used in conjunction with each other. so when it says in Gen 35:22 that Reuben went and lay with his father's concubine it means his wife since concubine and wife are the same. oh and Israel heard it too that's what it says!

Genesis 35:23 & 25

23 The sons of Leah; Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, and Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Zebulun:

25 And the sons of Bilhah, Rachel's handmaid; Dan, and Naphtali:


First, Reuben was Leah's son not Bilhah's which means that their sexual relationship was not incest. It doesn't matter who Bilhah was married to. This was a case of infidelity, not incest.

Second, something being mentioned in the Bible is different from something being approved of by God. Whether they were punished or not is not mentioned, therefore we don't actually know that it was simply overlooked or if the details of what came after just weren't written down.

Third, there are many cases of incest in the Bible and all of the ones that I am familiar with either don't make mention of a punishment or lack thereof, make specific mention of a punishment, or a punishment shows up in further reading... sometimes several chapters later and seemingly unrelated, but some kind of punishment tends to find the guilty party.

This argument doesn't seem intellectually honest to me. Why not discuss one of the actual cases of incest?

Okay well the bible contradicts what you are saying? Lev 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

How does that contradict what I said?

I didn't say it wasn't wrong, I said it wasn't incest.

I didn't say that it shouldn't be punished or that it wasn't punished, just that the punishment wasn't mentioned.

It doesn't matter who Reuben's mother was the fact that it was his fathers wife is enough.

That is enough for it to be wrong and worthy of punishment, but it doesn't make it incest. You are using a word with a specific meaning--a specific meaning which doesn't apply here.

And as I said before concubine and wife are used in the bible as synonomous terms. So when it says Reuben slept with his father's concubine it means his fathers wife. So refer back to Lev 20:11 and read. This is incest, sexual intercourse between closely related persons.

They are not closely related because they are too busy not being related at all. Death is called for in Lev 20:11 because sleeping with your father's wife is a despicable act, not because it is an incestuous one. Incest is a sexual act between two people who are too closely related to legally marry. Other than the fact that this woman was already married, there would be no reason why Reuben could not have married her. They are not closely related. They are not related at all. It is not incest. She cheated on her husband and Reuben was an xxx. They certainly each committed their own crimes. Incest just didn't happen to be one of them.

Okay wel this is supposed supposed to be the book of God given by inspiration right. So why would God inspire this story with no reproach if it is reproachable? The fact that something may happen to the person or the individual later or in the bible doesn't mean that it was a direct consequence for this particular action because how do you correalate the two instances. If it is used for reproach then the reproach should be stated at the time of occurance. Not five chapters later. And why wouldn't God tell them what happened? And more important why wouldn't it be written down? The most important part of the story is left out.

That sounds like something you should take up with the people who wrote it. Too make it a little easier on you I'll clue you in to the fact that I am not one of those people. It certainly isn't written in the style that I would have used. Of course, it isn't much of a story if the end is sitting right next to the beginning.

Imagine how boring books would be without all the stuff in between those two points!?!

"The great fish moved silently through the night water, propelled by short sweeps of its crescent tail. The fish faded from view."

You gotta love Jaws. A true classic!


Anyway, it is always possible that his father chose to forgive them both. God likes forgiveness.

Ken1burton pointed out that in 1 Chor you find that Rueben lost his rights as a firstborn. I am not a Christian so that isn't my book, but Ken seemed satisfied with it. Is that not bloody enough for you? I'm so sorry for you that Rueben's story didn't satisfy your appetite for blood.

This is the reason why the bible isn't God's word which I have been trying to prove the entire time. No book with things like this contained in it are from God!

The Tanakh is the history of a people. It contains the stuff of life. The filthy, disgusting, horrible stuff of life.

As for whether or not a book from God can contain things like this, I will leave that conversation to people who are more knowledgeable about your holy book than I.

These are cases of actual incest maybe you define incest as something else but this is incest to the fullest.

I define incest the way the dictionary does, which is clearly not the way you define it.

the crime of sexual intercourse, cohabitation, or marriage between persons within the degrees of relation wherein marriage is legally forbidden.

If you want to define it in another way, go ahead. You should probably keep in mind, though, that in doing so you create a situation where you are basically speaking a different language than everyone else. That will make it extremely difficult for others to talk to you and that would be a very sad thing.

Okay let's back track here and clearly look at the definition for incest shall we. Incest- sexual intercourse between closely related persons.
the crime of sexual intercourse, cohabitation, or marriage between persons within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity wherein marriage is legally forbidden.

Okay if this is where you want to put the emphasis that's okay. Sexual intercourse with someone who you are closely related and also who you cannot marry is incest. Of course because if you can marry them then you not closely related to them. So let's see if Reuben was closely related to Bilhah who was his father's wife. Okay this is his father's wife you said that doesn't matter because it's not his mother right well they still are closely related because this is his step mother. Let's see if he can legally marry her, and the answer is no because she was married to his father duh! Dont bring up the if they divorce and stuff because that doesn't really matter the fact is that at the moment she was married to his father. This is incest my friend sorry I dont need any other definition. This one's perfect.

They are not closely related because they are too busy not being related at all. Death is called for in Lev 20:11 because sleeping with your father's wife is a despicable act, not because it is an incestuous one. Incest is a sexual act between two people who are too closely related to legally marry. Other than the fact that this woman was already married, there would be no reason why Reuben could not have married her. They are not closely related. They are not related at all. It is not incest. She cheated on her husband and Reuben was an xxx. They certainly each committed their own crimes. Incest just didn't happen to be one of them.

The quran says 4:22 AND DO NOT marry women whom your fathers have previously married - although what is past is past: [24] this, verily, is a shameful deed, and a hateful thing, and an evil way.

Again incest is having sex or marriage within the degrees of Consanguinity or Affinity. Maybe you didn't understand what these two words meant so I took the liberty of posting them for you.
Consanguinity-relationship by descent from a common ancestor; kinship (distinguished from affinity). close relationship or connection.
Affinity- relationship by marriage or by ties other than those of blood (distinguished from consanguinity).
Reubens case of incest wasn't by blood because your right he's not related to her in that way. But Reubens case of incest was by Affinity relationship by marriage and Bilhah was his father's wife. This is still incest which the bible clearly denies and says that they should get death for so it is not that I am craving death for there actions this is what the bible says the punishment is.

Ken1burton pointed out that in 1 Chor you find that Rueben lost his rights as a firstborn. I am not a Christian so that isn't my book, but Ken seemed satisfied with it. Is that not bloody enough for you? I'm so sorry for you that Rueben's story didn't satisfy your appetite for blood.

Again it is the bible which gives the punishment for such actions not me. And Ken can't justify this as a punishment for his incest is giving up his rights as the first born what are your talking about inheritance? Uhh this isnt what the bible said the punishment was to be. Especially if Israel heard it meaning they knew what had happened! Gen 35:22 And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard [it]. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve:

[byofrcs]

..............

This is all a storm in a teacup. If we consider the bible to be a chronological record (albeit the 5 books slapped together around 500 BCE) then I don't see how new rules apply to earlier events. As societies evolve then you would expect new laws to appear.

Comparing it to the Quran isn't right as that book was made up as a snapshot and reflects the understandings of man at that time rather than being compiled over many centuries.

Relationships between siblings were fairly common and whether it was illegal or not really depended upon who you were (consider Ancient Egyptian royalty). It is wrong to use our modern legal and social understanding of what we deem incestuous relationships to judge events of a few thousand years ago. It is also anachronistic to use later texts to judge earlier texts.

[JoeyKnothead]

I said Islam (and Christianity) are based on the Jewish religion.

muhammad rasullah said:

Nope Islam isn't based on the jewish religion. Islam is the culmination of both christianity and judaism. Allah is not fine with incest!
What is pedophilia? please be sure to give a good and clear definition!

Islam considers Jesus a cool and righteous dude, the Christians do as well. The Christians have the old testament, which is a Jewish text. All three are considered 'Abrahamic' religions. Which is the older religion? The Jewish religion.

The Jewish folks write up their religion, and all is cool and right with the world. Then along comes this Jesus fellow, and he alters it, and we all know how that turned out. Then comes along this Muhammed fellow, and he alters it, and now between the three no one gets a moments rest. All three say they are worshipers of 'The One True God'. You can argue all you want, but if your religion acknowledges Jesus as cool, and Jesus got in all that trouble because He altered the Jewish idea of religion, then what other possible conclusion could there be?

Incest? The quoted references for the proof of incest do not support a direct blood incest, but a son bedding down with his dad's concubine. This could be considered immoral, and not in line with what God would have, but it is not incest, as incest implies a blood relation.

So while we have a murky description, and murky logic to condemn as an incestuous act, I am asked to provide a 'good and clear definition' of pedophilia. That has been addressed in another forum, and as I write this, there has been no rebuttal to my post about what pedophilia is.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 7&start=70

Using murky definitions to define 'my argument', while requiring extraordinary proofs to rebut 'my argument' are disingenuous.

This has been the problem with religion since it all began. Folks are going to interpret it the way they choose, and they will believe the parts that suit them, and try to argue away the parts that don't. All the while declaring theirs as the one true path to God.

[Ayah5768]

[...]
Genesis 35:22 And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve:
Do you see how the incest between mother and son is mentioned and then overlooked as an after thought like it didn't occur.

Well if you have read the bible corectly you would see that in the language of the bible wife and concubine are the same Gen 25:1 Then again Abraham took a wife and her name was Keturah. Chronicles 1:32 Now the sons of Keturah Abraham's concubine...
As you can see when wife and concubine are used in the bible it means the same thing or this is a contradiction. And since no christian will say it is a contradiction then they are used in conjunction with each other. so when it says in Gen 35:22 that Reuben went and lay with his father's concubine it means his wife since concubine and wife are the same. oh and Israel heard it too that's what it says!

Genesis 35:23 & 25

23 The sons of Leah; Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, and Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Zebulun:

25 And the sons of Bilhah, Rachel's handmaid; Dan, and Naphtali:


First, Reuben was Leah's son not Bilhah's which means that their sexual relationship was not incest. It doesn't matter who Bilhah was married to. This was a case of infidelity, not incest.

Second, something being mentioned in the Bible is different from something being approved of by God. Whether they were punished or not is not mentioned, therefore we don't actually know that it was simply overlooked or if the details of what came after just weren't written down.

Third, there are many cases of incest in the Bible and all of the ones that I am familiar with either don't make mention of a punishment or lack thereof, make specific mention of a punishment, or a punishment shows up in further reading... sometimes several chapters later and seemingly unrelated, but some kind of punishment tends to find the guilty party.

This argument doesn't seem intellectually honest to me. Why not discuss one of the actual cases of incest?

Okay well the bible contradicts what you are saying? Lev 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

How does that contradict what I said?

I didn't say it wasn't wrong, I said it wasn't incest.

I didn't say that it shouldn't be punished or that it wasn't punished, just that the punishment wasn't mentioned.

It doesn't matter who Reuben's mother was the fact that it was his fathers wife is enough.

That is enough for it to be wrong and worthy of punishment, but it doesn't make it incest. You are using a word with a specific meaning--a specific meaning which doesn't apply here.

And as I said before concubine and wife are used in the bible as synonomous terms. So when it says Reuben slept with his father's concubine it means his fathers wife. So refer back to Lev 20:11 and read. This is incest, sexual intercourse between closely related persons.

They are not closely related because they are too busy not being related at all. Death is called for in Lev 20:11 because sleeping with your father's wife is a despicable act, not because it is an incestuous one. Incest is a sexual act between two people who are too closely related to legally marry. Other than the fact that this woman was already married, there would be no reason why Reuben could not have married her. They are not closely related. They are not related at all. It is not incest. She cheated on her husband and Reuben was an xxx. They certainly each committed their own crimes. Incest just didn't happen to be one of them.

Okay wel this is supposed supposed to be the book of God given by inspiration right. So why would God inspire this story with no reproach if it is reproachable? The fact that something may happen to the person or the individual later or in the bible doesn't mean that it was a direct consequence for this particular action because how do you correalate the two instances. If it is used for reproach then the reproach should be stated at the time of occurance. Not five chapters later. And why wouldn't God tell them what happened? And more important why wouldn't it be written down? The most important part of the story is left out.

That sounds like something you should take up with the people who wrote it. Too make it a little easier on you I'll clue you in to the fact that I am not one of those people. It certainly isn't written in the style that I would have used. Of course, it isn't much of a story if the end is sitting right next to the beginning.

Imagine how boring books would be without all the stuff in between those two points!?!

"The great fish moved silently through the night water, propelled by short sweeps of its crescent tail. The fish faded from view."

You gotta love Jaws. A true classic!


Anyway, it is always possible that his father chose to forgive them both. God likes forgiveness.

Ken1burton pointed out that in 1 Chor you find that Rueben lost his rights as a firstborn. I am not a Christian so that isn't my book, but Ken seemed satisfied with it. Is that not bloody enough for you? I'm so sorry for you that Rueben's story didn't satisfy your appetite for blood.

This is the reason why the bible isn't God's word which I have been trying to prove the entire time. No book with things like this contained in it are from God!

The Tanakh is the history of a people. It contains the stuff of life. The filthy, disgusting, horrible stuff of life.

As for whether or not a book from God can contain things like this, I will leave that conversation to people who are more knowledgeable about your holy book than I.

These are cases of actual incest maybe you define incest as something else but this is incest to the fullest.

I define incest the way the dictionary does, which is clearly not the way you define it.

the crime of sexual intercourse, cohabitation, or marriage between persons within the degrees of relation wherein marriage is legally forbidden.

If you want to define it in another way, go ahead. You should probably keep in mind, though, that in doing so you create a situation where you are basically speaking a different language than everyone else. That will make it extremely difficult for others to talk to you and that would be a very sad]thing.

[/quote[

Okay let's back track here and clearly look at the definition for incest shall we. Incest- sexual intercourse between closely related persons.
the crime of sexual intercourse, cohabitation, or marriage between persons within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity wherein marriage is legally forbidden.

Okay if this is where you want to put the emphasis that's okay. Sexual intercourse with someone who you are closely related and also who you cannot marry is incest. Of course because if you can marry them then you not closely related to them. So let's see if Reuben was closely related to Bilhah who was his father's wife. Okay this is his father's wife you said that doesn't matter because it's not his mother right well they still are closely related because this is his step mother. Let's see if he can legally marry her, and the answer is no because she was married to his father duh! Dont bring up the if they divorce and stuff because that doesn't really matter the fact is that at the moment she was married to his father. This is incest my friend sorry I dont need any other definition. This one's perfect.

So, is your argument that if a married person has sex with another married person it is incest? After all, they can't legally marry because they are both married already. If that is your argument, that's fine. You are misguided in your understanding of incest, but at least we now all know where you are at.

The relation in incest has to be a blood relation. That is the way everyone understands that word... except, of course, you. If for the sake of this conversation you would like to call adultery incest, go ahead. It only takes away from your argument.

They are not closely related because they are too busy not being related at all. Death is called for in Lev 20:11 because sleeping with your father's wife is a despicable act, not because it is an incestuous one. Incest is a sexual act between two people who are too closely related to legally marry. Other than the fact that this woman was already married, there would be no reason why Reuben could not have married her. They are not closely related. They are not related at all. It is not incest. She cheated on her husband and Reuben was an xxx. They certainly each committed their own crimes. Incest just didn't happen to be one of them.

The quran says 4:22 AND DO NOT marry women whom your fathers have previously married - although what is past is past: [24] this, verily, is a shameful deed, and a hateful thing, and an evil way.

I agree with that. It is shameful and hateful. It just isn't incest.

Again incest is having sex or marriage within the degrees of Consanguinity or Affinity. Maybe you didn't understand what these two words meant so I took the liberty of posting them for you.
Consanguinity-relationship by descent from a common ancestor; kinship (distinguished from affinity). close relationship or connection.
Affinity- relationship by marriage or by ties other than those of blood (distinguished from consanguinity).
Reubens case of incest wasn't by blood because your right he's not related to her in that way. But Reubens case of incest was by Affinity relationship by marriage and Bilhah was his father's wife. This is still incest which the bible clearly denies and says that they should get death for so it is not that I am craving death for there actions this is what the bible says the punishment is.

I understand your argument here. Nevertheless, you are using a word that has an understood meaning which involves blood relation. While it is true that there is room in that definition for a marriage relation, it is also true that instead of being able to make your case you are stuck arguing over the meaning of a word. Why? Because you are using a word that has a clear and common understood definition which involves blood ties to describe a relationship that doesn't involve blood ties. Had you avoided that word it would look less like you were trying to put something into a story and more like you had an interesting topic to discuss.

People know what incest is. Woody Allen married his ex's daughter. Why wasn't he in trouble for breaking incest laws? Because they weren't related by blood.

Ken1burton pointed out that in 1 Chor you find that Rueben lost his rights as a firstborn. I am not a Christian so that isn't my book, but Ken seemed satisfied with it. Is that not bloody enough for you? I'm so sorry for you that Rueben's story didn't satisfy your appetite for blood.

Again it is the bible which gives the punishment for such actions not me. And Ken can't justify this as a punishment for his incest is giving up his rights as the first born what are your talking about inheritance? Uhh this isnt what the bible said the punishment was to be. Especially if Israel heard it meaning they knew what had happened! Gen 35:22 And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard [it]. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve:

I said this before, but you didn't feel the need to quote me so I'll say it again.

The Tanakh is the history of a people. Some people do shitty things. Some people get away with doing shitty things. Some people are kind and loving enough to not kill their child even if his actions, technically speaking, called for it. Sometimes some people forgive the terrible things that the people they love do. The Tanakh is the history of a people.

It's okay that that isn't to your liking. You don't have to like it. It isn't your book. It isn't your history.

[muhammad rasullah]

I said Islam (and Christianity) are based on the Jewish religion.

muhammad rasullah said:

Nope Islam isn't based on the jewish religion. Islam is the culmination of both christianity and judaism. Allah is not fine with incest!
What is pedophilia? please be sure to give a good and clear definition!

Islam considers Jesus a cool and righteous dude, the Christians do as well. The Christians have the old testament, which is a Jewish text. All three are considered 'Abrahamic' religions. Which is the older religion? The Jewish religion.

The Jewish folks write up their religion, and all is cool and right with the world. Then along comes this Jesus fellow, and he alters it, and we all know how that turned out. Then comes along this Muhammed fellow, and he alters it, and now between the three no one gets a moments rest. All three say they are worshipers of 'The One True God'. You can argue all you want, but if your religion acknowledges Jesus as cool, and Jesus got in all that trouble because He altered the Jewish idea of religion, then what other possible conclusion could there be?

Incest? The quoted references for the proof of incest do not support a direct blood incest, but a son bedding down with his dad's concubine. This could be considered immoral, and not in line with what God would have, but it is not incest, as incest implies a blood relation.

So while we have a murky description, and murky logic to condemn as an incestuous act, I am asked to provide a 'good and clear definition' of pedophilia. That has been addressed in another forum, and as I write this, there has been no rebuttal to my post about what pedophilia is.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 7&start=70

Using murky definitions to define 'my argument', while requiring extraordinary proofs to rebut 'my argument' are disingenuous.

This has been the problem with religion since it all began. Folks are going to interpret it the way they choose, and they will believe the parts that suit them, and try to argue away the parts that don't. All the while declaring theirs as the one true path to God.

Well if you know correctly the Christians see jesus as God which the Jews don't and muslims dont either. So the Islam can not be based on that because of this point. Secondly the names judaism and christanity appear nowhere in the bible or the torah so the names itself is a fraud. Thirdly you seem to believe that jesus came and altered something then Muhammad came and altered something else when this is not the case. No prophet came and changed anything but they came to fulfill what they were sent to do which was convey the message and be a warner to their people they were sent to. In the case of each christianity and judaism when Jesus came to the jews they persecuted him and others after his passing ascribed divinity to him which was not due. This is where jews failed to recognize jesus and christianity began. In the case of the muslims was sent the last and final messenger Muhammad to bring to fruition the teachings of all the prophets as he was sent for the whole of mankind whereas every prophet before was sent to their people. Islam is not based on Judaism or Christianity but it carries some of the same teachings of the two. Islam is the religion of abraham. As I said before the names for jews and christians dont even stem from there religious texts someone else gave them to them an outsider. The jews follow the religion called judaism because they were of the tribe of judah who lived in Judea so the people called there religion Judaism. Same as the christians they were seen as the followers of Jesus christ so they people at antioch called them christians. neither of these names did Jesus hear or Moses. Jesus never heard the name Jesus and Moses never heard the word Jew or Judaism. Everybody else has done that the people religion who follow Buddha is Buddhaism, Hindu Hinduism But not for Islam. If you ask Abraham what was his religion and Jesus and moses I would expect them to say that my religion is a religion of total submission to the will of God. In one word in arabic this is Islam. This is the name given to us by Allah not outsiders.

Incest? The quoted references for the proof of incest do not support a direct blood incest, but a son bedding down with his dad's concubine. This could be considered immoral, and not in line with what God would have, but it is not incest, as incest implies a blood relation.

I dont know why people continue to do this but incest is not just through blood relations. Incest is- the crime of sexual intercourse, cohabitation, or marriage between persons within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity wherein marriage is legally forbidden.
Affinity- relationship by marriage or by ties other than those of blood (distinguished from consanguinity).
So the case of reuben again was a case of incest by sexual intercourse by affinity which is relationship through marriage. Yes this is still incest!

I asked you to tell me what pedophilia is give me a definition of what the word means. You only call people something because of the meaning of the word if the meaning of the word doesn't fit the person you are attributing it to then you cannot call him that and label him that word. So please again give me a definition of what pedophilia is please?

[muhammad rasullah]

[...]
Genesis 35:22 And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve:
Do you see how the incest between mother and son is mentioned and then overlooked as an after thought like it didn't occur.

Well if you have read the bible corectly you would see that in the language of the bible wife and concubine are the same Gen 25:1 Then again Abraham took a wife and her name was Keturah. Chronicles 1:32 Now the sons of Keturah Abraham's concubine...
As you can see when wife and concubine are used in the bible it means the same thing or this is a contradiction. And since no christian will say it is a contradiction then they are used in conjunction with each other. so when it says in Gen 35:22 that Reuben went and lay with his father's concubine it means his wife since concubine and wife are the same. oh and Israel heard it too that's what it says!

Genesis 35:23 & 25

23 The sons of Leah; Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, and Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Zebulun:

25 And the sons of Bilhah, Rachel's handmaid; Dan, and Naphtali:


First, Reuben was Leah's son not Bilhah's which means that their sexual relationship was not incest. It doesn't matter who Bilhah was married to. This was a case of infidelity, not incest.

Second, something being mentioned in the Bible is different from something being approved of by God. Whether they were punished or not is not mentioned, therefore we don't actually know that it was simply overlooked or if the details of what came after just weren't written down.

Third, there are many cases of incest in the Bible and all of the ones that I am familiar with either don't make mention of a punishment or lack thereof, make specific mention of a punishment, or a punishment shows up in further reading... sometimes several chapters later and seemingly unrelated, but some kind of punishment tends to find the guilty party.

This argument doesn't seem intellectually honest to me. Why not discuss one of the actual cases of incest?

Okay well the bible contradicts what you are saying? Lev 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

How does that contradict what I said?

I didn't say it wasn't wrong, I said it wasn't incest.

I didn't say that it shouldn't be punished or that it wasn't punished, just that the punishment wasn't mentioned.

It doesn't matter who Reuben's mother was the fact that it was his fathers wife is enough.

That is enough for it to be wrong and worthy of punishment, but it doesn't make it incest. You are using a word with a specific meaning--a specific meaning which doesn't apply here.

And as I said before concubine and wife are used in the bible as synonomous terms. So when it says Reuben slept with his father's concubine it means his fathers wife. So refer back to Lev 20:11 and read. This is incest, sexual intercourse between closely related persons.

They are not closely related because they are too busy not being related at all. Death is called for in Lev 20:11 because sleeping with your father's wife is a despicable act, not because it is an incestuous one. Incest is a sexual act between two people who are too closely related to legally marry. Other than the fact that this woman was already married, there would be no reason why Reuben could not have married her. They are not closely related. They are not related at all. It is not incest. She cheated on her husband and Reuben was an xxx. They certainly each committed their own crimes. Incest just didn't happen to be one of them.

Okay wel this is supposed supposed to be the book of God given by inspiration right. So why would God inspire this story with no reproach if it is reproachable? The fact that something may happen to the person or the individual later or in the bible doesn't mean that it was a direct consequence for this particular action because how do you correalate the two instances. If it is used for reproach then the reproach should be stated at the time of occurance. Not five chapters later. And why wouldn't God tell them what happened? And more important why wouldn't it be written down? The most important part of the story is left out.

That sounds like something you should take up with the people who wrote it. Too make it a little easier on you I'll clue you in to the fact that I am not one of those people. It certainly isn't written in the style that I would have used. Of course, it isn't much of a story if the end is sitting right next to the beginning.

Imagine how boring books would be without all the stuff in between those two points!?!

"The great fish moved silently through the night water, propelled by short sweeps of its crescent tail. The fish faded from view."

You gotta love Jaws. A true classic!


Anyway, it is always possible that his father chose to forgive them both. God likes forgiveness.

Ken1burton pointed out that in 1 Chor you find that Rueben lost his rights as a firstborn. I am not a Christian so that isn't my book, but Ken seemed satisfied with it. Is that not bloody enough for you? I'm so sorry for you that Rueben's story didn't satisfy your appetite for blood.

This is the reason why the bible isn't God's word which I have been trying to prove the entire time. No book with things like this contained in it are from God!

The Tanakh is the history of a people. It contains the stuff of life. The filthy, disgusting, horrible stuff of life.

As for whether or not a book from God can contain things like this, I will leave that conversation to people who are more knowledgeable about your holy book than I.

These are cases of actual incest maybe you define incest as something else but this is incest to the fullest.

I define incest the way the dictionary does, which is clearly not the way you define it.

the crime of sexual intercourse, cohabitation, or marriage between persons within the degrees of relation wherein marriage is legally forbidden.

If you want to define it in another way, go ahead. You should probably keep in mind, though, that in doing so you create a situation where you are basically speaking a different language than everyone else. That will make it extremely difficult for others to talk to you and that would be a very sad]thing.

[/quote[

Okay let's back track here and clearly look at the definition for incest shall we. Incest- sexual intercourse between closely related persons.
the crime of sexual intercourse, cohabitation, or marriage between persons within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity wherein marriage is legally forbidden.

Okay if this is where you want to put the emphasis that's okay. Sexual intercourse with someone who you are closely related and also who you cannot marry is incest. Of course because if you can marry them then you not closely related to them. So let's see if Reuben was closely related to Bilhah who was his father's wife. Okay this is his father's wife you said that doesn't matter because it's not his mother right well they still are closely related because this is his step mother. Let's see if he can legally marry her, and the answer is no because she was married to his father duh! Dont bring up the if they divorce and stuff because that doesn't really matter the fact is that at the moment she was married to his father. This is incest my friend sorry I dont need any other definition. This one's perfect.

So, is your argument that if a married person has sex with another married person it is incest? After all, they can't legally marry because they are both married already. If that is your argument, that's fine. You are misguided in your understanding of incest, but at least we now all know where you are at.

The relation in incest has to be a blood relation. That is the way everyone understands that word... except, of course, you. If for the sake of this conversation you would like to call adultery incest, go ahead. It only takes away from your argument.

They are not closely related because they are too busy not being related at all. Death is called for in Lev 20:11 because sleeping with your father's wife is a despicable act, not because it is an incestuous one. Incest is a sexual act between two people who are too closely related to legally marry. Other than the fact that this woman was already married, there would be no reason why Reuben could not have married her. They are not closely related. They are not related at all. It is not incest. She cheated on her husband and Reuben was an xxx. They certainly each committed their own crimes. Incest just didn't happen to be one of them.

The quran says 4:22 AND DO NOT marry women whom your fathers have previously married - although what is past is past: [24] this, verily, is a shameful deed, and a hateful thing, and an evil way.

I agree with that. It is shameful and hateful. It just isn't incest.

Again incest is having sex or marriage within the degrees of Consanguinity or Affinity. Maybe you didn't understand what these two words meant so I took the liberty of posting them for you.
Consanguinity-relationship by descent from a common ancestor; kinship (distinguished from affinity). close relationship or connection.
Affinity- relationship by marriage or by ties other than those of blood (distinguished from consanguinity).
Reubens case of incest wasn't by blood because your right he's not related to her in that way. But Reubens case of incest was by Affinity relationship by marriage and Bilhah was his father's wife. This is still incest which the bible clearly denies and says that they should get death for so it is not that I am craving death for there actions this is what the bible says the punishment is.

I understand your argument here. Nevertheless, you are using a word that has an understood meaning which involves blood relation. While it is true that there is room in that definition for a marriage relation, it is also true that instead of being able to make your case you are stuck arguing over the meaning of a word. Why? Because you are using a word that has a clear and common understood definition which involves blood ties to describe a relationship that doesn't involve blood ties. Had you avoided that word it would look less like you were trying to put something into a story and more like you had an interesting topic to discuss.

People know what incest is. Woody Allen married his ex's daughter. Why wasn't he in trouble for breaking incest laws? Because they weren't related by blood.

Ken1burton pointed out that in 1 Chor you find that Rueben lost his rights as a firstborn. I am not a Christian so that isn't my book, but Ken seemed satisfied with it. Is that not bloody enough for you? I'm so sorry for you that Rueben's story didn't satisfy your appetite for blood.

Again it is the bible which gives the punishment for such actions not me. And Ken can't justify this as a punishment for his incest is giving up his rights as the first born what are your talking about inheritance? Uhh this isnt what the bible said the punishment was to be. Especially if Israel heard it meaning they knew what had happened! Gen 35:22 And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard [it]. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve:

I said this before, but you didn't feel the need to quote me so I'll say it again.

The Tanakh is the history of a people. Some people do shitty things. Some people get away with doing shitty things. Some people are kind and loving enough to not kill their child even if his actions, technically speaking, called for it. Sometimes some people forgive the terrible things that the people they love do. The Tanakh is the history of a people.

It's okay that that isn't to your liking. You don't have to like it. It isn't your book. It isn't your history.

Wow this is really crazy! It is really crazy how I have to keep repeating myself.

So, is your argument that if a married person has sex with another married person it is incest? After all, they can't legally marry because they are both married already. If that is your argument, that's fine. You are misguided in your understanding of incest, but at least we now all know where you are at.

Look I gave you my arguement why are you still asking what my arguement is?

The relation in incest has to be a blood relation. That is the way everyone understands that word... except, of course, you. If for the sake of this conversation you would like to call adultery incest, go ahead. It only takes away from your argument.

So no matter what the definition says that doesn't really matter does it? So you read and present definitions as fact and then don't believe what they say.
Let's slowly go through this again. Okay! Incest is- the crime of sexual intercourse, cohabitation, or marriage between persons within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity wherein marriage is legally forbidden.
Sexual intercourse or marriage between these degrees consanguinity and affinity and this is where marriage is legally forbidden. Do you follow?
What is Affinity? Do you know what that means? Obviously you dont because you keep saying that incest is only through blood relations. Affinity is the degree where any Sexual act or marriage is labeled incest this is from the definition you presented. So whatis Affinity- relationship by marriage or by ties other than those of blood (distinguished from consanguinity).
Did you see that it says OTHER THAN THOSE OF BLOOD BUT BY MARRIAGE TIES!
I have to bold this in case you didnt see it the first time. So I don't know who you and these other people who commonly wrongly agree on the what incest is but that is wrong it is not only by blood but through marriage ties as well.
If a person has sex with someone else who is married and they are not related to them by blood and by marriage ties then this is adultery not incest.

I understand your argument here. Nevertheless, you are using a word that has an understood meaning which involves blood relation. While it is true that there is room in that definition for a marriage relation, it is also true that instead of being able to make your case you are stuck arguing over the meaning of a word. Why? Because you are using a word that has a clear and common understood definition which involves blood ties to describe a relationship that doesn't involve blood ties. Had you avoided that word it would look less like you were trying to put something into a story and more like you had an interesting topic to discuss.

What you seem to be failing to understand is that the word is a part of my case just look at the topic of this thread. The word obviously doesn't have an understood meaning because you are failing to acknowledge the remainder of the definition. You are only trying to acknowledge the blood relations and not the marriage ties. Why when this is very clear? I am not trying to put anything into the story which is not already there. I am just giving further clarification so that you may know exactly what you are reading. Which you obviously have not understood. I don't care what everyone else thinks the word means, if their wrong then their wrong. I am not going to agree with others just because everybody else is saying that's what it means.

I don't care if the tanakh is a history book or whatever it is the fact is that many people believe that this is the word of God inspired. And I am saying that this is not because of the things and stories it comtains in it. Do you believe this is an inspired book by God? If you say it's just a book written by some men then okay but if it is inspired then thats a different story.

[Ayah5768]

Muhammad,

I think I worded my previous post poorly. Here is what I meant:

The word incest has an understood meaning. I realize that according to the dictionary you used there is room for the term to be used in an other-than-blood-related context. You are not "wrong" in that use of the word, which I incorrectly assumed you were based on another dictionary's definition. However, the use of it in this particular debate is distracting. Most people will read your OP and say "that isn't incest" and the rest of your point, which is not a bad argument to make, will be lost. Much as it has been. Why? Because people understand incest to mean a very specific thing and, other than you, no one uses it to mean anything other than sex between people who are blood related.

When I asked if your argument was that a married person having sex with another married person is incest because the two can't marry, I was attempting 2 things. First, I was trying to understand if that is actually what you were saying because that is what it sounded like. Second, I was trying to get you to understand why the use of the word "incest" doesn't make sense to most people in this context.

Either way, the crux of your issue is in whether or not the Tanakh is the word of God based on the issue of Reuben and his step mother. To that, my response is that it is the history of the Jewish people and not all people do the right thing 100% of the time. To which your response is that you don't care about that. Your argument is with people who take the Bible literally. I am not one of those people, so your issue is not with me.

Shalom,

Ayah

[JoeyKnothead]

Muhammad,

I think I worded my previous post poorly. Here is what I meant:

The word incest has an understood meaning. I realize that according to the dictionary you used there is room for the term to be used in an other-than-blood-related context. You are not "wrong" in that use of the word, which I incorrectly assumed you were based on another dictionary's definition. However, the use of it in this particular debate is distracting. Most people will read your OP and say "that isn't incest" and the rest of your point, which is not a bad argument to make, will be lost. Much as it has been. Why? Because people understand incest to mean a very specific thing and, other than you, no one uses it to mean anything other than sex between people who are blood related.

When I asked if your argument was that a married person having sex with another married person is incest because the two can't marry, I was attempting 2 things. First, I was trying to understand if that is actually what you were saying because that is what it sounded like. Second, I was trying to get you to understand why the use of the word "incest" doesn't make sense to most people in this context.

Either way, the crux of your issue is in whether or not the Tanakh is the word of God based on the issue of Reuben and his step mother. To that, my response is that it is the history of the Jewish people and not all people do the right thing 100% of the time. To which your response is that you don't care about that. Your argument is with people who take the Bible literally. I am not one of those people, so your issue is not with me.

Shalom,

Ayah

Well said Ayah, this was my take on it.

[muhammad rasullah]

Muhammad,

I think I worded my previous post poorly. Here is what I meant:

The word incest has an understood meaning. I realize that according to the dictionary you used there is room for the term to be used in an other-than-blood-related context. You are not "wrong" in that use of the word, which I incorrectly assumed you were based on another dictionary's definition. However, the use of it in this particular debate is distracting. Most people will read your OP and say "that isn't incest" and the rest of your point, which is not a bad argument to make, will be lost. Much as it has been. Why? Because people understand incest to mean a very specific thing and, other than you, no one uses it to mean anything other than sex between people who are blood related.

When I asked if your argument was that a married person having sex with another married person is incest because the two can't marry, I was attempting 2 things. First, I was trying to understand if that is actually what you were saying because that is what it sounded like. Second, I was trying to get you to understand why the use of the word "incest" doesn't make sense to most people in this context.

Either way, the crux of your issue is in whether or not the Tanakh is the word of God based on the issue of Reuben and his step mother. To that, my response is that it is the history of the Jewish people and not all people do the right thing 100% of the time. To which your response is that you don't care about that. Your argument is with people who take the Bible literally. I am not one of those people, so your issue is not with me.

Shalom,

Ayah

Well unfortunately the tanakh is not a history book for and about the jewish peoples. It goes back even further than the Jews. Abraham wasn't a jews Moses wasn't a jew Lot, Solomon and others so the tanakh can't be just about the Jewish peoples. The fact is that the word Jew does not appear in the tanakh. Neither does Judaism these were names given to the tribe of Judah by outsiders because they lived in the land of Judea hence the term Jews and Judaism. Furthermore you are the one who posted the definition for incest remember not me.
Post #46

I define incest the way the dictionary does, which is clearly not the way you define it.

the dictionary wrote:
the crime of sexual intercourse, cohabitation, or marriage between persons within the degrees of relation wherein marriage is legally forbidden.

And there is only one way for it to be interpreted and that is by what it means, is it my fault that everyone who looks at this thread thinks incest is one thing and it really isn't no! Therefore you are wrong when you say the word incest has an understood meaning because it is not understood at all. It's not the way I look at it this is the way it is meant to be known as that's why they have dictionaries. I everybody views incest as only this then they don't know and they only think they do. Because the fact is that's not all that it means.

The word incest has an understood meaning. I realize that according to the dictionary you used there is room for the term to be used in an other-than-blood-related context. You are not "wrong" in that use of the word,

There is no in that use of the word! You can't acknowledge one part of the meaning of the word and not the other. There is only room for the term to be used the way it is defined.