Was Darwin Wrong?

[Starman3000m]

I didn't ask for your interpretations based on the morals and standards of the society you live in today. it was a very clear question.

or you can admit that the verses do not exist, even though other variations do.

this is your chance to be honest

Maybe this will help.

Just Ask The Rabbi - The Place For All Your Questions

 

[This_person]

I didn't ask for your interpretations based on the morals and standards of the society you live in today. it was a very clear question.

or you can admit that the verses do not exist, even though other variations do.

this is your chance to be honest

I didn't provide any interpretations.

I posted a verse, then disputed your repeated interpretations.

I'd say nice try, but it wasn't

If you believe I'm talking about today's standards, then please provide your demonstration that the Isrealites to whom God was speaking, via Moses, believed that daughters were not their fathers' close relation.

 

[This_person]

You posted verses that that you interpret to mean a father is not to have sexual relations with their daughters.

You have failed to produce verses that expressly deny it, the same way all the other verses clearly prohibit other variations of incest.

I posted a verse that says no one may have sexual relations with a close relative.

Again, provide me context in which the Isrealites would have not seen a father/daughter relation as "close relations".

 

[This_person]

You posted a verse that stated Incest was wrong, thats it. You did not post a verse that defined Father Daughter sex, in the same manner that all other variations of Incest were defined.

I posted a verse that says you may not have sexual relations with a "close relative". It does not say it's incest, does not say "for example..." before listing other verses, does not say "and, I mean a close relation to be...." before the next set of verses.

It says "no sexual contact with close relations".

Provide a reference that would mean the Isrealites, at the time, would not have considered a father and daughter as close relations.

 

[This_person]

Your talking about society, once again. The Israelites may have thought Father Daughter sex was incest. Just as the Israelites may have thought Mother Son was incest. Are you claiming the Israelites believed Father and Daughters were close relation (and thereby banned) but didnt know that Sons and Mothers were not? Because the verses CLEARLY prohibit one of those acts, they do not prohibit the other.

18:6 prohibits BOTH, and more.

 

[This_person]

Just so you dont misrepresent my posts again note the may

I note the may, and I didn't misrepresent your posts. I quoted them. You've yet to provide how a quote is a misrepresentation.

The verses are not edicts from society. As your ally has already shown, society did not hold Father Daughter incest as bad as other variations. As your ally has already shown, Society held it being a worse offense for a man to sleep with his Daughter-in-law than it was to sleep with his own daughter. Society, being masochisitic, did not value a daughter, it valued the offense against another man as worse.

There is no evidence to the effect. However, I agree that it is not an edict from society, it is a a commandment from God, via Moses.

To the Isrealites.

Who, for all we can discern, believed fathers and daughters to be close relations.

Making father daughter sex in violation of 18:6, as you agreed a long time ago.

 

[This_person]

The Lev verses are supposed edicts from God, spoken by Moses as he was told/understood. There wouldnt be a reason for God to have the edict, if society wasnt clear on what represented incest. In other words there wouldnt need to be a law, if no offense had occurred

Are you really sure about that? Do you think mankind was perfectly fine with murder, lying, coveting, dishonoring parents, etc., before God prescribed these things to be "bad"?

You know that makes no sense, right?

 

[This_person]

The Bible, speaking from Moses, felt it was necessary to define what incest was prohibited in the Bible. What God felt was "Wicked". Its obvious that Moses/Biblical verses/God did not feel Father Daughter incest was wicked since it didnt define the act.

Ah, but it didn't say "incest is wicked". It says "don't have sexual relations with close relations".

Again, if you can provide that the people being spoken to would not have considered fathers and daughter "close relations", you might have something.

Since you can't, you don't.

 

[This_person]

If you read 18:17 it does not recognize the Fathers relation to any daughter, the concern of 18:17 is for the Mother and Her daughter. The verses are not stipulating that a Man can not have sex with his own daughter, else it would have spelled it out as it spelled out other variations of a mans relation to the kin. It is stating a man can not have sex with both a woman and her daughter. Basically a man can have sex with a woman and other women, which was a valid practice of society at that time, as long as the other women wasnt her daughters or her sister (as listed in earlier 18:xx verse).

Well, while it may have perfectly allowed a man with more than one woman, the verse just won't work with a man and his daughter being okay, because a woman's daughter with a man is also his daughter. A man's daughter with a woman is also her daughter. There's just no way to make that fit without dad/daughter being prohibited. None at all.

But, if we're going to compare other verses to explain 18:6, please explain how a man's daughter's daughter would be considered a close relation to him per 18:10, but not his own daughter. Even YOU have to see that would make no sense.

 

[This_person]

You are shoehorning 18:6 to fit, even though that is not the defining verses (the later are) and 18:17 to fit. You are making them fit based on your interpretations. That is clearly not the intention of 18:17, since it is only stipulating that a man can not have sex with both a woman and her daughter. No where does it recognize the mans relation to the daughter, else it would recognize his relation to the daughter, as it recognizes his relation to kin in other variations.

Well, 18:6 is not being shoe-horned. It's stand alone.

Your belief that it is not a stand alone, definitive verse is your INTERPRETATION, and it doesn't pass a common sense test. You can't show how the people being spoken to would not have considered a man's daughter to be his close relation, you can't show how a man could have sex with a woman, creating a daughter with him, and them be able to have sex with that daughter without violating 18:17.

You want it spelled out in certain words. I'm not sure why this is so important to you, that you want to have the Bible not prohibit father daughter sex. But, it does, clearly and specifically. In both 18:6 and 18:17.

 

[This_person]

You keep claiming the verses are clearly there... heres your chance:
in the case of incest the bible uses clear and explicit language for what it considers incest. in the case of Moses dictating the prohibitions, he uses clear and explicit language on what it considers close relations.

since the precedent of being clear and precise on what is consideed a close relation, why is it we are still waiting for you to post the verses that state a Man can not have sexual relations with his own daughters?

Here is your chance to ensure there will be no misrepresentation

• Do not post This_Persons interpretated verses
• Do not post This_Persons alternative.... err Potential verses
• Do post the actual verses that state clearly, explicitly and expressely that a Man can not have sexual relations with his own daughters.
  • There are plenty of Verses that use clear, explicit language about who a man can not sleep with, it should be easy to find one that states in the same manner the prohibition about sex with his own daughter

While your posting the hidden verse that only you know about, can you also post the Lev 20: punishment that fits the crime?

• Do not post This_Persons misinterpreted verses
• Do not post This_Persons alternative.... err Potential verses
• Do post the actual verses that state clearly, explicitly and expressely the punishment for a Man that has sexual relations with his own daughters.

I have posted the verses without edits and without interpretation, surely you can find verses that state:

• 'Do not dishonor your mother by having sexual relations with your father. He is your father; do not have relations with him
• "'Do not have sexual relations with your mothers husbaand; that would
  dishonor your mother

here is the point you continue to miss, the verses are very clear on what it considers prohibited, for the above example switch the gender and they are specifically, explicitly and expressely used in Lev 18:, no need for This_Persons interepretation, and no need for an alternative... err potential Bible to fill in the gaps.

The verses clearly and precisly tell men not to have sex with

• their own mother
• their own sister
• their daughter-in-laws
• their Father/Mothers Sister
• their brothers wives

But nowhere does it says not to have sex with their own Daughter. You can interepret a verse to make it fit, but refuse to admit it is not clearly and explicitly prohibited in the same manner that all other variations are.

Leviticus 18:6 - 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.'

Now, we can argue what a "close relation" is, but that would just be your interpretation against mine (well, yours against about 98% of the population's).

You can interpret that this verse needs the others after it to explain it, but that's just a conjecture on your part.

You can interpret that, since some verses give specific punishments for violating them, this verse needs a specific punishement to be valid. That is your interpretation, and you're welcome to it.

You can interpret that someone who was specifically noted as not knowing they were violating this verse was held in high regard by God, so therefore the Bible is, in your perspective, hypocritical. That's your interpretation, and you are welcome to it.

Or, you can read the verse as a command, by God, given to the Isrealites via Moses, through the Isrealites' eyes. If you can show me somewhere that would explain why the Isrealites would not see a daughter as a close relation, then your multiple counter-intuitive interpretations may have some validity. Until you can show that the Isrealites saw daughters as something other than a close relation, you're just making....., well, you just have a special and unique interpretation from most everyone else who's read the verses.

 

[Starman3000m]

Still didnt find it eh?

Technicalities & Common Sense

Leviticus 18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.


C'mon Nucklesack! Some laws are made to be interpreted and understood by using common sense. It makes common sense that a "daughter" would be considered the most "near of kin" to the father.

The list of kinfolk in the subsequent verses specify the remaining family tree which would also be considered "near of kin" otherwise one could say that they would be game because they are a "bit farther away" so as to put "near of kin" into question.

BTW: Did you get a chance to send your question to the Rabbi yet? I'm sure many in the synagogues would find your assertion quite amusing.

 

[Starman3000m]

As to Lot, to be clear, i do not feel somoene throwing their daughters to be gang raped, to save strangers (which is all Lot thought they were) is a Just and Rightous person.

The "strangers" were angelic beings, perfect in their nature who came to warn Lot about the impending destruction that God was going to send upon the land. Believing that he was able to protect the angelic beings from being defiled by human perverts, Lot offered up his daughters instead so that no harm would come against the direct Messengers of God.

Gen:19:1: And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

Little did Lot know that the angels could have taken care of themselves and really didn't need his help in keeping the desperate pervs at bay.

 

[Starman3000m]

BTW: Genesis 19:31-38 explains that the encounter Lot had with his daughters was not by his consent, intent, nor even of his knowledge of what was happening.

 

[Starman3000m]

My problem is with his label of Just and Rightousness (in regards to Lot) in the OT, and the continuation of it in the NT.

Hmmm... If Leviticus 18:6 was not followed by all the others in the family tree, I guess that's the one that would be considered in a court of law that would determine what constitutes " close of kin" and you wouldn't have given it anymore thought. "Daughter" would certainly meet the applicable criteria.

However: I don't think God would deem Lot "unjust and unrighteous" for his involuntary involvement with his daughters. This would be laying blame on him for what happened. Had the acts been intentionally committed without any doubt, then I would agree that Lot's character would come under question. However, that wasn't the case and his character of being a just and righteous individual would not be tainted over something he had no control over.

Now - if you really want to make a case and comparison: In Islam, if a law abiding, honest and decent virgin girl gets forcibly raped by one or more men, she is considered guilty of perpetrating the crime and has no exhoneration or way to prove her innocence that she did not consent to the rape. Would it be right to label her as being dishonorable, promiscuous and lewd from that point on because of what happened to her?

Same applies to any innocent party that has been unknowingly involved in a crime through the premeditated intent and actions of others to involve that person. Should that person be labeled an actual criminal when they were duped into doing something illegal?

I know you are a common sense guy and would make the right and honorable decision in whether the victim's reputation, honor and integrity should be legally destroyed or legally upheld on such matters. That's why I believe that, given the circumstances in Lot's case, you would be able to comprehend that Lot's personal integrity would continue to be upheld the same as if that specific situation happened in the case of anyone else whether religious or Atheist.

 

[foodcritic]

I know you are a common sense guy and would make the right and honorable decision in whether the victim's reputation, honor and integrity should be legally destroyed or legally upheld on such matters. That's why I believe that, given the circumstances in Lot's case, you would be able to comprehend that Lot's personal integrity would continue to be upheld the same as if that specific situation happened in the case of anyone else whether religious or Atheist.

You can give him the benefit of the doubt. But....

Another reason why this argument is so non-sensical is that a father would want only the purest daughter to offer as a bride since he would have received a dowry for her. If she was tainted goods he would get less.

This of course is in addition to the Relative/kin arguments that knunkle can't/won't admit clearly exist.

I am starting to think that his motives are selfish in that he has some sick fantasies he would like to act on and then abort the evidence.

 

[This_person]

Still didnt find it eh?

Didn't find what? I thought you were looking for the verse that stated:

1. A daughter is not a "close relation" with her father
2. A daughter is only a close relation with the father when the mother is still alive
3. A daughter is only a close relation if the mother and father are still sexually active
4. A daughter is NOT a close relation to a man, even though HER daughter IS a close relation to the same man, per 18:10
5. A man can have sexual relations with a woman, create a daughter, and then NOT have actually had sexual relations with that first woman, making 18:17 a physical possibility

Now, I don't know where you're going to find these verses to back up your previous statements.

But, I did find a verse (Lev 18:6 - 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.') that says a man can't have sexual relations with a "close relation". And, everything else in the context of that verse sure shows a daughter would be considered a close relation, so I'm just waiting on your verses explaining how she's not.

 

[This_person]

That is not your contention, your contention is the Israelites knew the Fathers and Daughters were covered under Lev 18:6 so it didnt need to spell out that it was prohibited.

Nope. It's my contention that daughters are close relations with fathers, and none of the rest of Leviticus 18 with regards to examples of what close relations are have any bearing on that fact.

Yet the Israelites didnt know Mother and Sons were close relations? And because they didnt know they had to have it spelled out?

Never suggested (you putting words in my mouth that were never there is nothing new...) that at all.

I fully believe they understood mothers and sons to be close relations. I actually have used the phrase in here, long before this post, that the rest of the examples given were entirely unnecessary, just examples.

Are you sure you want to stick with that?

Yep. Truth and understanding are great things to stick with.

You sure you want to stick with whatever it is you're using, 'cuz it sure ain't those two things.

 

[This_person]

You quoted them selectively, this is misrepresntation. You posted a snipped of my statement and didnt post the parts that explained the stance.

No, I quoted the whole post, and linked to it.

Here, let me do the whole post again

No i do not, i read it as Dad can not have sex with both the mother and daughter. In Lots case she was dead he was safe. If he banged the daughters when she was still alive (assuming Mr and Mrs Lot were still sexually active) he'd have been in violation
Not as defined in Lev 18:XX

Your the one throwing your porno fantasy out there. I never said threesome i stated a father can not have sex with his daughters when he is still having sex with Mom, as the verses describe.

As you can see, that's your whole post, not snipped at all.

Does it fit with other posts, in context? Well, let's look

In the case of Lot its covered since she was dead. In others the Father can not have sex with BOTH the mother and daughter. seems pretty clear not sure why you struggle.

It does when YOU ask about todays versus Biblical times.

Unlesss you were purposly posing an idiotic question

Try to keep it straight. 18:6 just tells you incest is wicked, 18:?? then defines incest

As defined by your bible Fathers and Daughter love is ok if mom isnt getting any.

So, yes, it is your REPEATED assertion that there is some clause, somewhere, in the Bible that says mom and dad have to remain sexually active, or, mom has to still be alive for 18:17 to be applicable. Since other verses specifically STATE the wife needs to be alive for the verse to be applicable, I'm wondering where it is you see that for THIS verse. No one else can see it, but clearly you can.

I'm also looking for the verse that shows you that mom and dad need to remain sexually active for him to have ever been with her. What is your biblical reference for this timeframe of how often they need to be together for a daughter to continue to be a close relation.

I mean, you're very clear that Lot would have been "in violation" if he were still active with his wife, so I'm looking for where the verse is that shows the "if he is still active with his wife" part. I mean, you're not just INTERPRETTING (poorly, mind you) that part, are you?

Then, you go on to talk about the worth of women, and your interpretations of that. Of course, you haven't mentioned that again since I've shown you a man's daughter's daughter is his close relation per 18:10. Because, even your twisted views can't come up with an excuse for how the daughter's daughter is his close relation, but the daughter isn't and reconcile that with the invalidated "worth of women" argument.

Actually there is, the Code of Hammurabi holds a worse punishment for a man who sleeps with his sons wife (Daughter-in-law) than it does for if he sleeps with his own daughter. One of them lets you keep your head.

I'm not versed on the Code of Hammurabi. Is this like the Ninja code, or something? How does it relate to the Bible?

But didnt know Sons and Mothers were close relations and needed to have it spelled out

:gotcha:

Nope, no need at all. Repeatedly said.

Yet another misrepresentation by This_Person. I stated if Lot was having sex with BOTH Mrs. Lot and his daughters he would be in violation. Since he wasnt having sex with Both (as you admitted) he wasnt.

Again, please provide the "as long as they're still sexually active", including what would constitute "still" (what time frame) from the bible. Otherwise, you're just making stuff up - still and again.

"'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter" is the phrase. You seem to have interpretted that to include "within a certain timeframe", but that phrase, nor nothing like it, is there anywhere. It's a full time thing. Not same day, same week, same month, same year, same decade, ...... same lifetime. YOUR lifetime. You can't have sex with both a woman and her daughter. If you've had sex with one, you may never have sex with the other. There's no implication of an "unless you stopped having sex with one, then you can have sex with the other", or, "well, you know, if one's dead, then this prohibition is no longer valid" or anything like that.

That's your MISinterpretation.

 

[Starman3000m]

You can give him the benefit of the doubt. But....

Another reason why this argument is so non-sensical is that a father would want only the purest daughter to offer as a bride since he would have received a dowry for her. If she was tainted goods he would get less.

This of course is in addition to the Relative/kin arguments that knunkle can't/won't admit clearly exist.

I am starting to think that his motives are selfish in that he has some sick fantasies he would like to act on and then abort the evidence.

Yes - I do give Knucklesack the benefit of the doubt in that I doubt he's applying his common sense when it comes to defining what "close of kin" means. To everyone else, it is obviously common sense to determine that a "daughter" would be covered by that definition in any court of law. You are correct in stating that Leviticus 18:6 is a stand-alone command and sometimes one needs to apply the spirit of the law along with the letter of the law.

Knucklesack is really an OK guy in my opinion and he is just living up to his name as a "Christ-punching Atheist". That's why I do pray for him while he continues his skeptic views and mocking of our Lord and Saviour Jesus and I say "Father, forgive Knucklesack, for he knows not what he is doing."

I was once doubtful of Jesus' position and Authority before I became born-again and had (still have) many friends like Knucklesack. I pray for them as well.