Was Darwin Wrong?

[This_person]

Still waiting for you to post the verses as asked.

Funny, so am I waiting for the same thing from you.

The difference is, I've posted verses, you've posted interpretations.

 

[This_person]

Interesting twist to the debate, I have held that God would lay some responsibility onto Lot for the sex with his Daughters. Maybe not all the blame, but he had some involvement in it (the getting Drunk and not being aware he had sex with 2 daughters over 2 different nights, never seemed realistic).

So, now you're arguing the Bible with the Bible?

You don't just interpret the verses, you deny them even when they're point blank clear?

You're something.....

But we are not talking about society and its values and standards of today. We are discussing the Lev 18:xx verses, based on when they were written and based on the standards and values of society back then.

Then, you have a biblical reference to the Isrealites Moses was speaking to, for God, that shows those Isrealites somehow did not see a daughter as a "close relation", but would see HER daughter as a man's close relation?

Or, are you just making baseless counterintuitive interpretations again?

 

[This_person]

Really????

You have? where did you post these verses?

Lev 18:6, and 18:17.


Now, where are your verses that show the "still sexually active" or "still alive", or "daughters would not be considered close relations, even though their daughters would be considered close relations" verses?

 

[Starman3000m]

I dont consider Lot "unjust and unrighteous" solely because of the incident in the mountains of Zoar.

I question his Just and Rightousness becaus of his willingness to allow his virginal daughters to be raped by the mob, for the safety of strangers, AND the for the events in Zoar.

Talk about out of left field, what does your Bible state about a Woman who is raped and didnt cry out?

And what do you think about a Father who desires to toss his virginal daughters to an angry mob to be gang raped, so that 2 strangers wouldnt face the same fate?

Interesting twist to the debate, I have held that God would lay some responsibility onto Lot for the sex with his Daughters. Maybe not all the blame, but he had some involvement in it (the getting Drunk and not being aware he had sex with 2 daughters over 2 different nights, never seemed realistic).

But we are not talking about society and its values and standards of today. We are discussing the Lev 18:xx verses, based on when they were written and based on the standards and values of society back then.

Yo Knucklesack - It's obvious you are never going to let up with your skepticism and arguments of contention with the Bible verses that you find problematic. You could do the same under most legal language of the penal code - that's why we have so many lawyers trying to make sense of what someone else wrote when the language is not "specific".

The truth is - you will never really be satisfied because you think you have technically "gotten something over" on the legal interpretations of what anyone else would be able to figure out by using some common sense in the matter.

When it comes to interpreting Jewish Laws, I'd continue to direct your specific arguments to the proper Jewish authorities since you don't accept our explanations here. Afterall, you are contending with Old Testament Mosaic Laws which were expanded by the Jewish sages and Sanhedrin - many of which Jesus declared null and void.


Jewish source for your questions on Mosaic Laws:
Just Ask The Rabbi - The Place For All Your Questions

 

[This_person]

No i am disputing your claim that the Israelites knew that Fathers having Sex with their daughters was covered in Lev 18:6.

What social reference are you using to show that fathers and daughters would not have been considered "close relations" by the Isrealites, per 18:6?

But those same Israelits didnt know and had to have it clearly spelled out that Men are not to have sex with:

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

They didn't "have to have it clearly spelled out". Those verses were not necessary as addendums. They're just there.

Unless, of course, you've figured out a way for men to have their daughter's daughter a "close relation", but not the daughter herself.

Or, you've figured out a way, per 18:17, to have had sex with a woman and created a daughter with that woman, but then to somehow define it as NOT having had sex with that same woman so you can sleep with your/her daughter.

 

[This_person]

So post the verses that, using the same language, state a Man is not to have sex with his own daughter.

There are verses that clearly and explicitly tell a Man not to have sex with:

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

No interpretation is needed for that, and no possible mistake could be made by reading the verses.

Do not use interpretation, do not use This_Persons alternative ..... err potential versions, post the actual verses that state a man is not to have sex with his own daughter.

Lev 18:6. No interpretation needed, no possible mistake.

 

[This_person]

More dishonesty on your part? I'll be nice and give you an easy one, here are the Lev 18: verses:



where does it recognize HER daughter (speaking about granddaughters) as being a mans close relation?

Well, I guess that depends on how you're interpretting.

If you're suggesting that the followup verses were needed to show what a "close relation" is (not my argument, but your argument), then the followup verses were showing what close relations were. Since 18:10 shows the daughter's daughter as prohibited becuase having sex with her would dishonor the man, clearly it's HIS close relation that she must be to fit your argument that those verses define what a close relation is.

If you recognize that the followup verses were not necessary, 18:6 gives you all you need to know.

 

[This_person]

Now, where are your verses that show the "still sexually active" or "still alive", or "daughters would not be considered close relations, even though their daughters would be considered close relations" verses?

 

[This_person]

Unfortunately for your argument, the verses that follow 18:6 are the definitions of incest.

And as your failure to produce the verses has shown, the Bible lists every definition of incest except for Father Daughter sex.

So, you agree then that a daughter's daughter IS a close relation (since the word "incest" isn't in 18:6, but "close relation" is) per 18:10?

But, that the Isrealites would have bought that, and not that the daughter was a close relation?

Source of this intentionally counterintuitive misinterpretation?

 

[This_person]

Well look there is more dishonesty from This_Person, there are no verses that recognize the Fathers close relation to his own daughter. And heck there arent any verses that state a Father is not to have sexual relations to his own daughter.

You know, I don't think there's any verse that specifically defines what a father is, or a daughter, either.

It's just clearly understood what is meant by these words.

So, it's on you to show where a father would NOT be a close relation with the daughter, with regards to the understanding of the Isrealites at the time, or of God in general, or of Moses in particular.

Now there is a verse that tells a Man he is not to have sexual realations with BOTH a Mother and Her Daughter. Since Lot wasnt doing this, as you have admitted numerous times, he wouldnt have violated that definition.

Please provide where it shows that there is a time limit on when that verse is no longer valid ("Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter" unless it's been at least three weeks since you've been with one, then it's okay to be with the other -- something like that).

 

[Starman3000m]

Unfortunately for your argument, the verses that follow 18:6 are the definitions of incest.

And as your failure to produce the verses has shown, the Bible lists every definition of incest except for Father Daughter sex.

Nucklesack:

You are hereby summoned to appear (in writing) before the Rabbinical assembly for the purpose of presenting and registering your complaints that Leviticus 18:6 is too vague for you to comprehend. Any ruling in definition shall be deemed absolute and final as determined by Jewish council and as pursuant to Levitical law. Please report to the following site on or following the first day of the week:
Just Ask The Rabbi - The Place For All Your Questions

P.S. Have a good weekend my friend and Shabbat Shalom.

 

[Starman3000m]

We'll see if we get a reply

Link

 

[This_person]

[Lev 18:17] is stating a man can not have sex with both a woman and her daughter

And, if her daughter is also his daughter....... (see if you can fill in the rest of that sentence)




You forgot to mention your theory that it's okay for him to have sex with his daughter if he just stops having sex with the daughter's mother.

And, did you come up with the Biblical verse for the timeframe that "still sexually active" is?

 

[This_person]

Link

Whilst it is true that the Written Torah does not state that sexual relations between a father and a daughter are forbidden the Oral Law points out that that is because it so obvious. The Sages explain, Midrash HaGadol Leviticus chapter 18 verse 10, that God states clearly, ibid., that incest with a granddaughter is forbidden and there is a clear legal, logical progression that leaves room for absolutely no doubt that a relationship involving a closer family relative is unquestionably forbidden. The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin page 76, states that in the times when Biblical Law was applicable the punishment was to put the father death for such actions.




Interesting, very interesting. I wonder where you'd heard all this and more before....

 

[Starman3000m]

Whilst it is true that the Written Torah does not state that sexual relations between a father and a daughter are forbidden the Oral Law points out that that is because it so obvious. The Sages explain, Midrash HaGadol Leviticus chapter 18 verse 10, that God states clearly, ibid., that incest with a granddaughter is forbidden and there is a clear legal, logical progression that leaves room for absolutely no doubt that a relationship involving a closer family relative is unquestionably forbidden. The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin page 76, states that in the times when Biblical Law was applicable the punishment was to put the father death for such actions.


Interesting, very interesting. I wonder where you'd heard all this and more before....

It's Official - Common sense prevails!
Kudos to the Rabbi for taking time to respond to Nucklesack's question regarding Leviticus 18:6 in a timely manner.

Now, for the answer to the original question of this thread:
Yes, Darwin Was Wrong.

 

[Starman3000m]

Not so fast, take the time to read what he posted, he actually makes my case for me.

Have you replied to the Rabbi and given him your assesment of his response to your question.

Darwin being wrong has nothing to do with the validity of Evolution.

We agree - Darwin was wrong. The only validity of Evolution is that it is valid as a theory and remains and always will remain an unproven thought of science.

 

[Starman3000m]

not yet, i will get to it and post the question/answers


That is not what a theory is, this would be the thread to discuss it, but This_Perons tendency to misrepresnt has caused this thread to seriously jump the shark.

OK - will be interested to read what the Rabbi has to say.

 

[ve2dict]

just wondering why typically religious people are quick to say all these scientific explanations are full of holes....but never mention all the massive holes in religion

 

[This_person]

Who will notice that he :

• Does not rely upon Lev 18:6 as the definitive, like This_Person, FoodCritic and others have attempted. Again, because it is so obvious.
  • This is because Lev 18:6 is not the definition of incest, it is merely the edict against it. Actually, it defines it. You will not find the word "incest" in it, you find an edict against sexual contact with "close relations". He goes on to describe how 18:10 defines the daughter's daughter as a close relation, so it would be obvious to everyone except you that it would include the daughter herself
• States the Torah (and Christian Old Testament) do not prohibit Father Daughter sex.
• States that instances not covered under the Torah (and Christian Old Testament) were covered by the standards and values of the Society at the time.
  • And since it is based on the standards and values of Societ, if society did not prohibit it, it was not prohibited per the Torah and Christian Old Testament

If he were not speaking through Moses to the Isrealites, who did understand that a daughter was a close relation, you might have an argument. It's like saying "well, if they didn't know what sexual relations were, sexual relations are not defined, so it could mean anything". Well, yeah, and up could be down, but it's not, so what's the point in discussing it?

 

[This_person]

This fails for the same reasons that failed This_Person interpretations, the implication being that 18:10 mentions a grandaughter as being forbidden automatically means that the daughter is too.
This fails the logic test since Men are told, explicitly, not to have sex with their:

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

They're also explicitly told not to have sex with "close relations".