a few contridactions i have found in my bible study

[JoeyWarren]

So you think “uncover nakedness” means something other than “to have sex with”? Most modern translations actually use the word sex (“sexual intercourse” in the NAB), so it does work. The case you cite is a special exception to the general law. In general, don’t sleep with your sister in law. But if your brother’s dead, carrying on the family is more important.

Yes, verse 20 actually uses the sexual intercourse. Plain literal sense!

6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.
9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
10 The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
11 The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister: she is thy father’s near kinswoman.
13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister: for she is thy mother’s near kinswoman.
14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son’s wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness.
17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.

Here is the distinction:

18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
19** Also** thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbor’s wife, to defile thyself with her.

 

[Timidity]

Yes, verse 20 actually uses the sexual intercourse.

All the verses use “sexual intercourse” in many modern translations (NAB, NJB, NIV, NLT, etc). Are you telling me all those translation boards got it wrong, but you got it right?

Plain literal sense!

Even in the plain literal sense, the prohibition to uncover nakedness would seem to make sex pretty difficult…

 

[JoeyWarren]

All the verses use “sexual intercourse” in many modern translations (NAB, NJB, NIV, NLT, etc). Are you telling me all those translation boards got it wrong, but you got it right?

I got it right? Not hardly. Maybe the translations got watered down to allow christian nude art…

I am waiting for Valke2 to chime in to give me his two cents.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Even in the plain literal sense, the prohibition to uncover nakedness would seem to make sex pretty difficult…

Yes I agree with that.

 

[Valke2]

I’m not sure I’m following the debate. Leveticus may not define incest. But it prohibits certain sexual relations. It actually goes beyond what we would view as incest today. (i.e. relations by marriage, such as brother-in-laws marrying sister-inlaws).

I’m sure this doesn’t address the issue. I’ll have to re-read the thread.

 

[Petergee]

A little known fact by most of today’s population is that our current definition of incest is differenty from what it was in biblical times. This view changed because the royal line in England a few centuries back was becoming riddled with health problems and birth defects due to an overabundance of inbreeding. There was a decree from this time period that prohibited the intermarrying of any brothers or sisters as well as any first cousins. This viewpoint spread to the general population, and that is why today there is such a social stigma against this type of marriage.

It’s “little known” because it’s not a “fact” at all. In fact the contrary is true. The Jews and Christians of 2000 years ago were if anything much more strict than we are today about prohibiting incest between sisters and brothers.But marriage of first cousins actually became more common among European royalty in the 16th to 19th centuries than it had been previously.

All the verses use “sexual intercourse” in many modern translations (NAB, NJB, NIV, NLT, etc). Are you telling me all those translation boards got it wrong, but you got it right?*
I got it right? Not hardly. Maybe the translations got watered down to allow christian nude art…

You’ve got to be kidding. You’re accusing the translators, editors and publishers of all these translations (all of which are widely accepted by all mainstream Christians) of deliberately altering the sense of Scripture to make it appear that it allows something which it actually forbids? Just because they liked looking at nude pictures? Rather than faithfully trying to produce a true translation of the Word of God?

 

[rockyankeeswon]

Contradiction 1:

Adam and Eve vs Incest.
Incest, as taught in the Bible [and all semitic literature for that matter] is frowned upon, yet if all human existence sprouted from two beings and two beings alone, how can there not be incest? is my Bible missing a book or two? i know it is over 40 years old, but religious texts don’t change that rapidly anymore.

Contradiction 2:

Children of God vs Son of God.
It is taught that all mankind are gods children, yet Jesus is referred to as God’s “one and only begotten son.” Am I missing something? This is a serious mental roadblock for me.

mods/admins: feel free to move this thread if it is in the wrong section. thank you.

I believe that god allowed incest until Moses gave the law prohibiting it thousands of yrs after adam?

Jesus was God’s begotten son…we are his adopted sons through Jesus.

 

[rockyankeeswon]

Our first parents were made perfect. Because of this there would have been no genetic abnormalities such as crept in over time.

Over time, when there were sufficient descendants, both polygamy and incest would not have been necessary.

:twocents:

I believe Adam and Eve were created sinless and mortal not perfect. To live forever they had to partake of the tree of life in the garden. When they sinned they also lost the tree of life in the garden and the eternal life that it imparted.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I believe Adam and Eve were created sinless and mortal not perfect. To live forever they had to partake of the tree of life in the garden. When they sinned they also lost the tree of life in the garden and the eternal life that it imparted.

There was only a prohibition mention to the tree of Knowledge of good and evil. No such prohibition was made with respect to the tree of Life.

I think everything God created was/is perfect.

 

[theAuthor]

Yes, there are many metaphors in Genesis, but the Church teaches that the existence of one man and one woman as our first parents is NOT a metaphor. The “community theory” is not compatible with the Catholic faith. It is also contrary to the weight to modern scientific evidence.

Yes, this is an ineteresting question indeed. The community theory is not compatible with a fundamentalist view of Genesis. I agree.

My question is this: how is it possible, via theistic evolution, to have arrived at two certain individuals who had souls, who’s parents did not? Were Adam and Eve two offspring from the same parents, or two “mutations” from different parents?

I cannot reconcile theistic evolution with a fundamentalist view of Geneis. Many answer by saying chapters 1-11 were figurative race memories. Actually, I cannot reconcile Genesis with theistic evolution in any way (just can’t think of a way), beacuse many themes are picked up and developed later in the Bible. An example: sin enetered the world through one man, and God redeemed us through *one man *(/God ie Jesus). It seems like a lynch pin to me.

Although I like higher criticism, once you start questioning certain historicities, it can arouse a fear of untangling the symbolisms and indeed the infallibility and coherenve of the Bible as a whole. This is because although it is fine to say “Well, Jonah is just a story”, but Jesus referred to it. And if it fine to say, well he knew it was just a story too, then what if the Apostles and Apostolic men also knew Jesus miracles to be just symbolic too. Where is the line drawn? I put it out there that we explain away certain miracles because they are hard to believe (eg Jonah), then why do we believe in the feeding of 5000. Rationally it is equally rediculous. I for one am happy to shrug and play dumb for now and say “Darwin is dead, Jesus is alive, I’ll trust Jesus.” No harm can come from having a simple faith on the origins of man. Actually it is completely acedemic.

 

[Valke2]

I have another “community theory”. In Chapter 1, Adam and Eve are created simultaneously. THus, Adam is born into community. His interaction with God is from the perspective of someone who interacts with others on earth.

In Chapter 2, Adam is born alone. He knows lonliness and his relationship with God is that of a man crying out in solitude.

(I liked what you had to say in your post, david).

 

[JoeyWarren]

It’s “little known” because it’s not a “fact” at all. In fact the contrary is true. The Jews and Christians of 2000 years ago were if anything much more strict than we are today about prohibiting incest between sisters and brothers.But marriage of first cousins actually became more common among European royalty in the 16th to 19th centuries than it had been previously.

You’ve got to be kidding. You’re accusing the translators, editors and publishers of all these translations (all of which are widely accepted by all mainstream Christians) of deliberately altering the sense of Scripture to make it appear that it allows something which it actually forbids? Just because they liked looking at nude pictures? Rather than faithfully trying to produce a true translation of the Word of God?

I will answer you with a question.

Do you accept these translations? I don’t.

NIV - The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you

NLT - Gabriel appeared to her and said, "Greetings, favored woman! The Lord is with you!

 

[JoeyWarren]

Valke, you never answered the question.

From a Judaic interpretation. What does “Uncover the Nakedness” mean in these verses:

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.
7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.
9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
10 The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
11 The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister: she is thy father’s near kinswoman.
13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister: for she is thy mother’s near kinswoman.
14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son’s wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness.
17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbor’s wife, to defile thyself with her.
21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

 

[Valke2]

Valke, you never answered the question.

From a Judaic interpretation. What does “Uncover the Nakedness” mean in these verses:

Sorry. FOr some reason I wasn’t sure what the question was.

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

This implies sexual relations.

7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

“nakedness of they father” refers to your father’s wife. But how do we know this? Perhaps it is only to be interpreted literally [as an admonition against relations with one’s father, in addition to the general admonition against pederasty]. The answer is: It says here, “The nakedness of your father,” and it says further, “has uncovered his father’s nakedness” (Lev. 20:11). Just as in the latter verse, Scripture is speaking of his father’s wife [as that verse begins with, “And a man who cohabits with his father’s wife”], here, too, Scripture is speaking of his father’s wife. - [Sanh. 54a]

or the nakedness of your mother… It comes to include [in the prohibition, his mother who is not his father’s wife. — [Sanh. 54a]

8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.

Same prohibition. It is repeated here to include the prohibition of sleeping with your father’s wife even after your father dies.

I’ll address the rest later. My comments are paraphrasing (or direct quotes) of Rashi’s commentary.

 

[Valke2]

9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

as to the father’s daughter, this includes a daughter born from a woman the father raped . — [Yev. 22b]
whether born to one who may remain in the home or to one who must remain outside Whether they say to your father, “You may keep her mother as your wife,” or whether they say to your father, “You must send her mother away" Either way, hands off.

 

[rockyankeeswon]

There was only a prohibition mention to the tree of Knowledge of good and evil. No such prohibition was made with respect to the tree of Life.

I think everything God created was/is perfect.

But the tree of life was in the garden and they were thrown out of garden…no more tree of life which they needed to partake of to remain immortal?

 

[Petergee]

Yes, this is an ineteresting question indeed. The community theory is not compatible with a fundamentalist view of Genesis. I agree.

The fundamentalists can speak for themselves, but my point is that the “community theory” is incompatible with a **Catholic **view of Genesis. All humans are descended from one man and one woman. This is Catholic doctrine.

My question is this: how is it possible, via theistic evolution, to have arrived at two certain individuals who had souls, who’s parents did not?

Science tells us that the bodies of the first man and the first woman probably evolved from sub-human animals. Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium (all three must always be considered together) tell us that God created rational, immortal, human souls in these two people, as He does for every human being at the moment of his/her conception.

Were Adam and Eve two offspring from the same parents, or two “mutations” from different parents?

I tend to think the latter, but science will probably never be able to confidently answer that question in this life.

I cannot reconcile theistic evolution with a fundamentalist view of Geneis. Many answer by saying chapters 1-11 were figurative race memories.

The truth lies in the middle way between the absurd claims of of fundamentalist literalists and the claims of nihilist secular modernists who assert that nothing supernatural can happen and that every event in Genesis is merely a figurative story. We find this middle way by attending to Sacred Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium.

Actually, I cannot reconcile Genesis with theistic evolution in any way (just can’t think of a way), beacuse many themes are picked up and developed later in the Bible. An example: sin enetered the world through one man, and God redeemed us through *one man *(/God ie Jesus). It seems like a lynch pin to me.

Although I like higher criticism, once you start questioning certain historicities, it can arouse a fear of untangling the symbolisms and indeed the infallibility and coherenve of the Bible as a whole.

The Bible is not “infallible”. Only a person may be described as fallible or infallible. The Bible is inerrant, that is it contains no error. If you think you see an error in a passage you are misunderstanding it.

This is because although it is fine to say “Well, Jonah is just a story”, but Jesus referred to it.

Actually there are documented cases in recent history of men who survived being swallowed by whales.

And if it fine to say, well he knew it was just a story too, then what if the Apostles and Apostolic men also knew Jesus miracles to be just symbolic too.

That seems impossible. The Gospel writers were adamant that they were reporting the historical truth. Most of them were put to death rather than deny it. It’s obvious that the main thing which drew people to Christ and the Apostles in the first century was not the worthiness of their ethical teaching, but the amazing miracles they performed. Their contemporary enemies could not deny that these miracles happened, so they said that they were the work of the Devil.

Where is the line drawn? I put it out there that we explain away certain miracles because they are hard to believe (eg Jonah), then why do we believe in the feeding of 5000. Rationally it is equally rediculous. I for one am happy to shrug and play dumb for now and say “Darwin is dead, Jesus is alive, I’ll trust Jesus.”

I take it from “Jesus is alive” that you believe that His Resurrection really happened. So why do you find it so hard to belive a much **less **“ridiculous” and “irrational” miracle like the feeding of the 5000?

No harm can come from having a simple faith on the origins of man. Actually it is completely acedemic.

Maybe no harm can come to an individual who has such a simple faith. But God gave us a rational human soul and He intended us to use it to find out the truth about our world including our origins. Modern science arose from the Catholic principle that God created the universe with certain laws which can be discovered and understood. We mustn’t fall into the trap which fundamentalist protestants have, of treating the Bible as a science textbook, or regarding science as being opposed to religious faith. St Augustine warned about this in the 4th century. Truth cannot contradict Truth. We mustn’t now leave the field of science to atheists and tell them that religion is irrational. Yes, in a certain sense we should have a simple, child-like faith. But we must not be simpletons and “play dumb”.

 

[Petergee]

I will answer you with a question.

Do you accept these translations? I don’t.

NIV - The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you

NLT - Gabriel appeared to her and said, "Greetings, favored woman! The Lord is with you!

OK, I take your point, sometimes translators do have an agenda. But in the case referred to, Hebrew and Greek scholars are unanimous that “uncover the nakedness of” is a literal translation. Common sense tells us that it’s a euphemism for “have sexual intercourse with”.

Your alternative interpretation would mean that God told the Jews it is OK to have sexual intercourse with any relative, provided the relative is not completely naked in your presence. (“Leave Your Hat On”, perhaps?) Or perhaps it’s OK if the relative undresses herself rathar than being undressed by you? Seems pretty absurd to me.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Your alternative interpretation would mean that God told the Jews it is OK to have sexual intercourse with any relative, provided the relative is not completely naked in your presence.

That is false. The Commandment “Thou shalt not commit Adultery” prevents this interpretation of yours. In addition, your interpretation would be an unnecessary redundancy upon the mentioned commandment.

Other then that, we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Valke2]

That is false. The Commandment “Thou shalt not commit Adultery” prevents this interpretation of yours. In addition, your interpretation would be an unnecessary redundancy upon the mentioned commandment.

Other then that, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Adultry is a specific definition that does not cover all the prohibitions in Chapter 18.