Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob to say nothing of Lot's daughters

[nuclearfuels]

1. Curious as to your thoughts re: Abraham marrying his half-sister, and why was no one in Canaan worth prosyltizing to? Was he not accountable for everyone he could have saved, like we are?

2. No one could have accepted Abraham's faith and married Isaac, so he married a cousin? Really, bruh? 

3. Joseph married an Egyptian only a two generations down the road from Isaac, so...??

4. Melchezidek surely ministered to more than Abraham - where are those faithful people when Isaac needs to get married? Any lost scriptures about this?

5. Why would Lot's daughters do what they did - did they percieve Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction to besimilar to the destruction that accompanied Noah's Ark?

Saw the following but it doesn't really seem to persuade me. 

PROBLEM: Abraham admitted here that Sarah his wife was really his “sister” (cf. Gen. 17:15–16). Yet incest is denounced in no uncertain terms in many passages (cf. Lev. 18:6; 20:17). Indeed, the Lord declared, “Cursed is the one who lies with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother” (Deut. 27:22).

SOLUTION: Abraham was not beyond sin, as his lie about Sarah to king Abimelech reveals (Gen. 20:4–5). And Abraham did admit that Sarah was “the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife” (Gen. 20:12). However, even granting this, there is no real proof Abraham violated any law for two reasons. First, the incest laws were not given by Moses until some 500 years after Abraham. So he surely could not be held responsible for laws that had not yet been promulgated. Second, the terms “sister” and “brother” are used with great latitude in the Bible, just as the terms “father” and “son.” Jesus, for example, was the “son” (i.e., descendant) of David (Matt. 21:15). “Sister” means a near relative, but it does not as such indicate the degree of nearness we understand by the word “sister.” Lot, Abraham’s nephew, is called a “brother” (Gen. 14:12, 16). Likewise, “daughter” can mean granddaughter or great granddaughter.

Considering the age to which Abraham lived (175, Gen. 25:7), it is possible that he married only a granddaughter on his father’s side, or even a niece or grand niece. In any event, there is no proof that Abraham’s marriage to Sarah violated any existing incest law. But if it did, the Bible simply gives us a true record of Abraham’s error. When God called Sarah Abraham’s “wife” (Gen. 17:15), He was not legitimizing any alleged incest, but merely stating a fact.

See All Problems

---

This excerpt is from When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1992). © 2014 Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe. All rights reserved. Used by permission. Click here to purchase this book

[strappinglad]

 Nothing like reading the OT to challenge your views. Personally, I am wondering about the numbers listed in the Books of Numbers and Joshua and Judges when it comes to populations and people killed. Bible commentaries say the numbers are obviously exaggerations. Are they off by one order of magnitude or two? It says that Israel had some 600,000 fighting men. If we assume about the same number of women and even more children we have an equivalent population the size of Houston or 10 SLCs. That doesn't count flocks and herds. If someone here knows of how these numbers arose and how they were interpreted ,please let me know. 

Edited February 18, 2022 by strappinglad

[longview]

1.  Abraham married an Egyptian bondwoman Hagar.  Supposedly within the "Law of Sarah".

2.  Abraham did have a large contingent.  Formidable enough to go on military campaigns.  Working well enough to make his enterprise rich and powerful.  There were probably plenty of Canaanites on the team but none were sufficiently faithful to be able to keep the covenants for having Celestial marriages.  Just my guess.

3.  The ruler-ship of Egypt changed between Ethiopians and Semitic shepherds of Canaan multiple times.  I am not too familiar with the history and dynamics.

4.  I read somewhere that Salem (the kingdom of Melchizedek) was once very wicked but the "Prince of Peace" king of Salem was able to convert all the people.  After the time of his interactions with Abraham, it came to the point that his city of Salem became so righteous that it was taken up into Heaven.  To merge with the city of Enoch?

5.  Just guessing but they may have been fearful of NOT being able to get married so they did the next best thing by getting pregnant by Lot.  He allowed himself to get drunk without knowing their designs.

Problem:  The DNA of the Patriarchs (pre-flood) and the next few generations after the flood were in pretty good condition (pristine).  Which is why they had centuries long life spans.  Even Abraham lived to be 175.  Thus marriage unions between brothers and sisters and near cousins were biologically safe.  But it is clear that succeeding generations after the time of Jacob the life spans began to decrease.  The quality of the DNA has been degrading.  Thus the Lord in His Mercy instituted this rule against incest.

[InCognitus]

49 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

PROBLEM: Abraham admitted here that Sarah his wife was really his “sister” (cf. Gen. 17:15–16). Yet incest is denounced in no uncertain terms in many passages (cf. Lev. 18:6; 20:17). Indeed, the Lord declared, “Cursed is the one who lies with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother” (Deut. 27:22).

You're comparing two different periods of time when different laws and commandments were given.  The law of Moses came later and had a lot more content than what was given prior to the law of Moses.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

1. Curious as to your thoughts re: Abraham marrying his half-sister, and why was no one in Canaan worth prosyltizing to? Was he not accountable for everyone he could have saved, like we are?

2. No one could have accepted Abraham's faith and married Isaac, so he married a cousin? Really, bruh? 

3. Joseph married an Egyptian only a two generations down the road from Isaac, so...??

4. Melchezidek surely ministered to more than Abraham - where are those faithful people when Isaac needs to get married? Any lost scriptures about this?

5. Why would Lot's daughters do what they did - did they percieve Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction to besimilar to the destruction that accompanied Noah's Ark?

Saw the following but it doesn't really seem to persuade me. 

PROBLEM: Abraham admitted here that Sarah his wife was really his “sister” (cf. Gen. 17:15–16). Yet incest is denounced in no uncertain terms in many passages (cf. Lev. 18:6; 20:17). Indeed, the Lord declared, “Cursed is the one who lies with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother” (Deut. 27:22).

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

The book you consulted goes only part way to the correct analysis:  The Law of Moses did not apply to the earlier Patriarchs -- your book got that right.  The Patriarchs lived under Hurrian Law (which we know in detail from Nuzi);  This enabled Abram's brother Haran to marry his orphaned niece after adopting her as a "sister," the same juridical category used by Abram in marrying his half-sister Sarai (Gen 20:12, by a different mother).  Thus, she was his official sister-wife.  Since sister-wife marriage was also completely legal in Egypt, there could be no confusion.

Just because the Bible describes events does not mean that the text is recommending them for us.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, longview said:

.................... Thus marriage unions between brothers and sisters and near cousins were biologically safe.  But it is clear that succeeding generations after the time of Jacob the life spans began to decrease.  The quality of the DNA has been degrading.  Thus the Lord in His Mercy instituted this rule against incest.

First cousin marriage (which has been completely legal in all states of the USA, until recently) is quite common and even preferred in many countries, and has no deleterious affect on DNA.  In other words, it is not considered incest.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

 Nothing like reading the OT to challenge your views. Personally, I am wondering about the numbers listed in the Books of Numbers and Joshua and Judges when it comes to populations and people killed. Bible commentaries say the numbers are obviously exaggerations. Are they off by one order of magnitude or two? It says that Israel had some 600,000 fighting men. If we assume about the same number of women and even more children we have an equivalent population the size of Houston or 10 SLCs. That doesn't count flocks and herds. If someone here knows of how these numbers arose and how they were interpreted ,please let me know. 

Scholars like David Bokovoy have pointed out that some of the confusion on numbers comes from failure to realize that the Mesopotamian figures are sexagesimal.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Saw the following but it doesn't really seem to persuade me. 

 First, the incest laws were not given by Moses until some 500 years after Abraham. So he surely could not be held responsible for laws that had not yet been promulgated.

Why is this not persuasive? 

 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

1. Curious as to your thoughts re: Abraham marrying his half-sister, and why was no one in Canaan worth prosyltizing to? Was he not accountable for everyone he could have saved, like we are?

2. No one could have accepted Abraham's faith and married Isaac, so he married a cousin? Really, bruh? 

3. Joseph married an Egyptian only a two generations down the road from Isaac, so...??

4. Melchezidek surely ministered to more than Abraham - where are those faithful people when Isaac needs to get married? Any lost scriptures about this?

5. Why would Lot's daughters do what they did - did they percieve Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction to besimilar to the destruction that accompanied Noah's Ark?

1. How do you know he wasn’ proselyting.

2. In many societies cousin marriage was and in some continue to be in an ideal. Worldwide it is estimated that roughly 10% of marriages are between first and second cousins.

3. Egyptian princesses and priestesses are an exception to all marriage rules.

4. Melchizedek and his whole city were translated to join Enoch.

5. They didn’t do it. It is a made up story about Israel’s ancestral enemies that acknowledges they are distant kin but gives license to hate them because they are also a bunch of incestuous inbred freaks.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Problem:  The DNA of the Patriarchs (pre-flood) and the next few generations after the flood were in pretty good condition (pristine).  Which is why they had centuries long life spans.  Even Abraham lived to be 175.  Thus marriage unions between brothers and sisters and near cousins were biologically safe.  But it is clear that succeeding generations after the time of Jacob the life spans began to decrease.  The quality of the DNA has been degrading.  Thus the Lord in His Mercy instituted this rule against incest.

CFR on all of this.

[CA Steve]

Or we could just be reading myths created in the 1st millennia BC based on myths from older  civilizations and not intended to be taken literally.

See Authoring the Old Testament by David Bokovoy

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

2. In many societies cousin marriage was and in some continue to be in an ideal. Worldwide it is estimated that roughly 10% of marriages are between first and second cousins.

Keeps resources in the family and may be less marriage conflict because of similar backgrounds (research in the past at least showed less divorce when spouses had similar backgrounds).

[bluebell]

Since I already have the transcript open from a different thread, here is what Dan Peterson says about this story of Abraham telling people that Sarah was his sister:

Dr. Daniel Peterson: 00:02:03--Yeah. Oh, chapter 20, again, it's kind of an odd one. The story of Abimelech and Sarah, and Abraham is saying that Sarah's his sister, this is to try to protect himself. And it's kind of a half truth, she is his half sister, so yeah. Which today we would not see that as a legitimate marriage, but in the old days, people married within their clans and their tribes, and so this is not uncommon. But Abimelech, oddly enough, in both the stories he figures in, here and in a later chapter, well in chapter 21, comes across as an honorable guy. He says, "I haven't done anything wrong. And I didn't know that she was your wife. I mean, you said she was your sister and she said, you were her brother." And the Lord is saying, "Watch out." And he says, "Well, I didn't do anything." And the Lord says, "I know you were innocent." I mean, it's interesting that the Lord interacts with Abimelech, who is not an Israelite or a descendant of Abraham, but he's not a bad guy in this.

...And in this story, he's not a bad guy. But I don't know what else we need to say about that story, really. Other than that you had this little kind of awkward incident with Abimelech, and Sarah, and Abraham, and it turns out okay.

John Bytheway: 00:03:52--Well that's a lot of the old Testament is a series of awkward incidents, right?

Dr. Daniel Peterson: 00:03:53--Yes. Yeah.

Hank Smith: 00:03:59--I've noticed, Dan, that Abraham is definitely not perfect. It's almost as if the Lord is saying, he's still my guy, right? Like, I'm going to show you that I chose him. He still makes mistakes. He still does things, very things that are somewhat foolish. He's still my guy.

Hank Smith: 00:07:01--And maybe there's a lesson from Abimelech here of how do you deal when you find out the Lord's servant isn't perfect? He's actually pretty gentle with him. Like, "Hey, why'd you do that? All right. Well behold, my land is here before thee, dwell where it pleaseth thee."

Edited February 18, 2022 by bluebell

[longview]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

First cousin marriage (which has been completely legal in all states of the USA, until recently) is quite common and even preferred in many countries, and has no deleterious affect on DNA.  In other words, it is not considered incest.

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

CFR on all of this.

According to Go0ogle - - - Children of first-cousin marriages have an increased risk of autosomal recessive genetic disorders, and this risk is higher in populations that are already highly ethnically similar.

[Robert F. Smith]

44 minutes ago, longview said:

According to Go0ogle - - - Children of first-cousin marriages have an increased risk of autosomal recessive genetic disorders, and this risk is higher in populations that are already highly ethnically similar.

There would be an increased risk in 2nd and 3rd cousins as well.  However, the risk in 1st cousin marriages is so negligible that it is not worth considering.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Or we could just be reading myths created in the 1st millennia BC based on myths from older  civilizations and not intended to be taken literally.

See Authoring the Old Testament by David Bokovoy

David said:

Quote

If the total years connected with the names in Genesis 5 are calculated, the list covers a span of 6,695 years.  Then, if we convert this number to a sexigesimal number (the form used by the Sumerians), the result is 241,200 – the exact total of the Sumerian King List.  Bokovoy, Authoring the Old Testament, I:108, citing John Watson, Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 130; cf. Carol A. Hill, “Making Sense of the Numbers of Genesis,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 55/4 (2003):239-251, online at  http://www.asa3.org/ ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Hill.pdf .  http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Hill.pdf .

Raúl López says pretty much the same thing:

Quote

When the kingdom durations of the antediluvian portion of the King List are represented with the early Sumerian numerical system, the total and all of the numbers except two need only two different symbols. These are the two largest units of the system, so that the numbers are expressed as multiples of 3600. The total (241,200) needs six 10x602 signs, six 602 signs, and six 10x60 signs. The duration of the lives of the biblical patriarchs, however, have the precision of one year, and the majority of the ages have units. If Adam the first man and Noah the Flood hero are not included to match the contents of the Kings List, their total ages would be 6695. If the ages are rounded to the two highest digits as in the Sumerian list, the final number has six 103 signs, six 102 signs, and six 10 signs for a total of 6660. Thus, the totals of both the adjusted Genesis and Sumerian lists have six of the signs for ten times the square of the base, six of the signs for the square of the base, and six signs for the next lower value of their respective system. In addition, when the number representing the sum of the ages of the biblical patriarchs is interpreted as having been written in the sexagesimal system, the two totals become numerically equivalent.  López, “The Antediluvian Patriarchs and the Sumerian King List,” Answers in Genesis, Dec 1, 1998, online at https://answersingenesis.org/bible-history/the-antediluvian-patriarchs-and-the-sumerian-king-list/ .

In fact, such numerical oddities pervade Holy Writ:

Note that Joseph spends 17 years with Jacob in Canaan, and 17 years with him in Egypt (part of the chiastic symmetry of the Joseph Narrative).  So you are correct:  People who take the numbers in Genesis literally need to stop and consider that the book was not intended as a history text.  That was never its function.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, longview said:

According to Go0ogle - - - Children of first-cousin marriages have an increased risk of autosomal recessive genetic disorders, and this risk is higher in populations that are already highly ethnically similar.

The risk in first cousins is negligible. This is fourth degree incest.

First is parent/child
Second is siblings or grandparent and grandchild
Third is Uncle/Aunt and Nephew/Niece
Fourth is first cousins 

Generally unless you have a genetic line with a lot of recessive genetic disorders which often means you have a lot of at least third and fourth degree incest in your line already the chance of a problem is very low.

The CFR was more on the patriarchs having “pristine” (whatever that means) DNA with no recessive genetic disorders. The problem with your theory is that we can run genetic tests back for a few millenia and it is pretty clear there was no Ur-DNA that degraded into what it is now. Why is it degrading anyways? Is every generation getting more stupid? Shorter lifespan?

The idea of pure DNA is a popular Skousen explanation but it is not supported by scripture.

[The Nehor]

Also without incest the funniest Crusader King stories would never occur.

 

Quote

 

Playing as the Countess of Chalon, I was hatching a plot to assassinate my liege, the Duke of Burgundy. To strengthen the plot, I allied myself with two fellow counts by marrying my sons to their daughters. The plot had a 95% success chance, I was feeling like a villain whose plan was coming together.

Then I get a notification. My daughter has slept with my eldest son. A mere few weeks later, I get a notification that the same daughter has slept with my other son. Shortly thereafter, I am told my ally counts were so outraged by the infidelity of my sons, they both had the marriages annulled, and my alliances suddenly disappeared in a puff of smoke. A mere month after this, one of said counts - the duke's spymaster - informs the duke of my plot, and I am imprisoned. He confiscates one of my counties, and I am forced to pay an exorbitant ransom that puts me in debt. My family is the laughing stock of the duchy, maybe the whole kingdom. Not even mentioning the blowing of my chance at becoming a duchess.

Shortly thereafter I am informed that my daughter is pregnant with the child of one of my sons. I don't know which one.

That's the story of how my freak children screwed their family socially, economically, politically, legally, genetically, figuratively, and literally, all at the same time.

This truly is the Crusader Kings I know and love.

You also get the joys of trying to reason out your relationships. How is this person my aunt, my daughter, and my wife at the same time?

I got deposed as Emperor in a game I was playing last week just because I was an adulterous kinslaying incestuous witch. Catholicism is intolerant I tell you. You run one minor eugenics program where you kill off all your bad heirs and marry the good ones to each other and they just freak out. Oh, and your whole dynasty secretly worships the Horned god and engages in the occasional debauchery. Then someone runs to the Pope whining about it and he excommunicated me. Jerk. Then my vassals rose up to kick me out. I will have my revenge. Oh yes, vengeance will come. You thought I was a tyrant before? The Holy Roman Empire will be mine again.

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHA!

Why are you looking at me like that? I am fine.

Edited February 19, 2022 by The Nehor

[longview]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The CFR was more on the patriarchs having “pristine” (whatever that means) DNA with no recessive genetic disorders. The problem with your theory is that we can run genetic tests back for a few millenia and it is pretty clear there was no Ur-DNA that degraded into what it is now. Why is it degrading anyways? Is every generation getting more stupid? Shorter lifespan?

The idea of pure DNA is a popular Skousen explanation but it is not supported by scripture.

I was almost going to say your demand for a CFR is squashed because of your imprecision but then I realized that you may have satisfied the CFR with your own reference to Skousen.  There you go!  Yes, I admit it.  I AM a fan of Skousen.  

[The Nehor]

56 minutes ago, longview said:

I was almost going to say your demand for a CFR is squashed because of your imprecision but then I realized that you may have satisfied the CFR with your own reference to Skousen.  There you go!  Yes, I admit it.  I AM a fan of Skousen.  

Skousen is not a reference for that theory being accurate.

[CA Steve]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

People who take the numbers in Genesis literally need to stop and consider that the book was not intended as a history text. 

I agree Robert but I also think most active LDS, especially those who go through the temple, think it is.

After all, if Abraham is not a literal figure it would create all sorts of problems for Mormon theology.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

I agree Robert but I also think most active LDS, especially those who go through the temple, think it is.

After all, if Abraham is not a literal figure it would create all sorts of problems for Mormon theology.

Abraham can still be a literal figure without the book of Genesis being written as a historical text.  We only have to look as far as Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter to illustrate how that works.  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

I agree Robert but I also think most active LDS, especially those who go through the temple, think it is.

After all, if Abraham is not a literal figure it would create all sorts of problems for Mormon theology.

The existence or non-existence of some guy named Abraham who made a covenant with God has nothing at all to do with reading a liturgical text -- which was not composed as a modern history or geology text.  We are discussing the genre of the text, not the truth or falsity of its contents.  The failure of both apologists and critics to make that crucial distinction is key to their failure to communicate anything meaningful about the issue.  Scholars such as Anglican Bishop Tom Wright understand the problem and discuss it openly, but most people just don't get it.  So, yes, you are right:  most believing Latter-day Saints don't understand that.  However, that poses no problem for non-existent Mormon theology.  Orthodoxy is just not the same as orthopraxy.

Liturgy is orthopraxy, and Mormonism is a way of life, not a systematic theological construct.  As BYU Philosophy Professor James Faulconer has pointed out, "“we don’t have a theology, all we have is a bunch of stories.”

[katherine the great]

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There would be an increased risk in 2nd and 3rd cousins as well.  However, the risk in 1st cousin marriages is so negligible that it is not worth considering.

Not much risk in an occasional first cousin marriage. But when these marriages are endogamous generation after generation then it can become problematic. 

[katherine the great]

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The idea of pure DNA is a popular Skousen explanation but it is not supported by scripture.

And even less supported by science.