Talk:Incest in the Bible

Misc.

Hmm. The use of a hyphen in "daughter-ers" in the article suggests that this was pasted from a Web site somewhere. So I did a search, and found that the text is taken word-for-word from http://www.darkhistory.com/bible.shtml -- however, since the majority of the text is Biblical quotes, perhaps defenders of this subject may want to edit the article and change it around so that it won't have to be removed. --Modemac 14:00, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Because incest refers to sex forbidden, is what is referred to in the Bible incest? After all, a crime (as sex with certain people is in most cultures) legal cannot be a crime. This is not to say that isn't immoral, it's just a matter of perspective on the morality.-Adrian

There is a difference in the scope of incest in the laws in different jurisdictions and in different religions. This article is only about the Biblical definition. Jim Michael (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Check the spelling on "Micah/Milcah": it's listed the former way before the quote, and the latter way after. --zandperl

Shem

Did Shem, son of Adam, commit incest? It would appear so, since the only women would have been Eve or Shem's sisters.

Shem was not the son of Adam, but of Noah. There is no reason to believe he, or anyone after the flood, committed strict incest, although there would surely be much first cousin intermarriage among Noah's grandchildren. john k 04:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Try Cain and Abel.--Anomie 15:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think he was thinking of Seth. Abel was killed by Cain, presumably before fathering any children. Captain Packrat (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This page sucks

I mean this quite seriously. This is especially true if it's a copyvio, but even if it's not, it's awful. Among other things, until just now it claimed that Sarah was Abraham's sister based on what she told Pharaoh, which, in context, is clearly a lie. This whole thing should be rewritten from the ground up. john k 04:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This page is not wrong in claiming that Sarah and Abraham were related. This page has been heavily edited since it was begun; it has already been rewritten from the ground up. What specific concerns do you have? Rmhermen 13:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sarah was indeed Abraham's sister (half-sister technically). Read the book. DJ Clayworth 13:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea if they were related, but the Bible doesn't clearly say they were. Genesis 11:29: "And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah." Genesis 11:31: "And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife;" (you'd think that if Sarai was Terah's daughter, it would say so!). The story in Genesis 12, with the Pharaoh, is clearly suggesting that she is not Abram's sister - there is no indication there that she is actually his sister. The story in Genesis 20, you are right, does seem to say she is his half-sister. But this is Abraham trying to get out of a bad situation with Abimelech. Given that there is no other evidence that she is his sister, and that she is very clearly not described as Terah's daughter earlier on, I see no reason to think he is being honest with Abimelech. Unless you can get around "Terah took...Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife." BTW, I note that our article on Sarah says that she is traditionally viewed to be Abraham's niece. This should probably be mentioned.

As to the article being crappy: yea

1. A minority of people who question the Biblically-derived incest taboo, paradoxically often use these references (out of context to the rest of the Bible) to support arguments that the taboo is outdated and antiquated.

   Why is this paradoxical? Wouldn't seeming references in the Bible to incest being okay be naturally used to support arguments against the incest taboo (which can hardly be described as Biblically-derived - it is in the Bible, but the incest taboo is pretty universal and goes well beyond the Bible).

2. Cousin marriage - I see no reason to get into this at all. Most people who've gotten married throughout history have probably married first or second cousins, until quite recently. These instances are hardly unique enough to warrant detailed discussion.
3. Surely this article is not just about Biblical stories that include incest in them. I can't think of any good reason why the Biblical injunction against incest isn't specifically discussed here, except that it wasn't in the original (anon?) contribution that started this article.

Beyond this, I will admit that the article isn't quite so bad as I thought. But that first sentence is genuinely awful (and comes straight from the anon). john k 14:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Jewish definition of incest

In Jewish law it is not incest for two first cousins to marry. Nor is it incest for a woman to marry her father's brother. In historical times both sorts of marriage were contracted by the Rothschild family, observant Jews. (I am not certain about other cases; i.e.: woman & mother's brother, man & father's sister, man & mother's sister, half-siblings through the same father.) Some of the instances of "incest" in the bible given in the article are thus clearly in error, and I will correct them unless someone gives good reason not to do so. Too Old 04:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• • woman & mother's brother permitted, other three cases prohibited. But this article does not mean to discuss incest in the bible according to Jewish law just incest (according to our culture) found in the bible. So in my opinion don't correct but it should be better explained in the article User:Ortho04:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Ortho for the clarification. But the English Wikipedia is relevant to all english speakers, many of which (e.g. those in the UK) do not classify first-cousin marriage as incest, so "our culture" is an inappropriate characterization of it. Perhaps we could say "according to the most restrictive US law"? Too Old 05:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that since we're talking about a context in which "incense" is well defined (Leviticus chapter 18), we should (in the context of this article) use that definition of incense. Note that although this excludes Jacob marrying his own cousins, it does include Jacob marrying the sister of his still-living wife. 194.90.113.98 (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

See Incest in Judaism. Jewish law isn't necessarily the same as the Bible, the latter not the former being what this article is about. Newman Luke (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Cain's wife?

The question comes up in religious discussions of where did Cain get his wife? He had to have taken one of his (unnamed in the Bible) sisters. Can this be mentioned in the article? It's not really a direct reference. Family Guy Guy 18:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Abortion vs. incest

Several bishops in the Roman Catholic Church consider incest to be a less grave crime than abortion, and have recommended that girls who are raped by their parents to continue their pregnancy. This was notably the case in 2009 with archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho in Brazil. ADM (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with incest being a less grave crime (which, incidentally, it obviously is), but with another crime not being the means to undo the results of a previous crime. --93.135.123.17 (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Isaac and Rebecca

The article claims that Isaac is Rebecca's uncle, but they are actually first cousins, once removed. Isaac was the only child of Abraham and Sarah and Rebecca's father is Bethuel, a cousin of Isaac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.50.200 (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Definition of incest?

What definition of incest are we using here? The Incest article, says that “Incest refers to any sexual activity between close relatives (often within the immediate family) that is illegal or socially taboo[at the time it happens]. The type of sexual activity and the nature of the relationship between persons that constitutes a breach of law or social taboo vary with culture and jurisdiction.” I.e. first-cousin marriage is Not illegal or even a taboo in most of the world today as was not in Bible times. The only one that was at the time it happened was Tamar.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added a section about the definition. Newman Luke (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Cousins

I've removed the material about

• Zelophehad's daughters (3 paragraphs long)
• Esau's wives
• Jacob's wives
• Isaac and Rebekah - Rebekah is not Isaac's niece, she is his first cousin once removed (the daughter of his cousin Bethuel - Bethuel being Isaac's father's brother's son).

On the basis that these all self-identifyingly discuss marriage to cousins which

• Is not incest according to the Biblical regulations
• Is not incest according to Jewish traditional law
• Is not incest according to modern English law

Queen Elizabeth II's husband is her cousin.

Marriage to cousins is off-topic. It belongs, if anywhere, in Endogamy. Newman Luke (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Other dubious material

The following dubious material has been removed:

• "The Abrahamic belief holds that human life originates from incest". This is removed because the bible does not say where the wives for Adam and Eve's children actually come from. And in a later passage, it mentions the sons of God (often presumed to be Angels) as having sexual relations with women (see Nephilim), so there are clearly other sources of procreation. To presume that it must involve incest is original research - and cited counter arguments must be included if this is to be mentioned at all.

Newman Luke (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

“and the Book of Samuel treats the marriage of a royal prince to his sister as unusual, rather than wicked.”

2 Samuel 13 only show what happened when Amnon raped his half-sister Tamar, what she sad to him stop him from raping her, she'd have sad anything to stop him. The Bible also dis not show that the King David can let anyone, his son or not be married to his half-sister becoue of God's law in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The King had to obey to God's law.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"the Bible does not forbid a sexual relationship between a man and his daughter” WHAT?

Moab and Ammon, the one with with Lot and his two daughters it says “However, as noted above, the Bible does not forbid a sexual relationship between a man and his daughter.”

That is Not so. Leviticus 18:17 say ““‘The nakedness of a woman and her daughter you must not lay bare”. A men was not to have a sexual relationship with the daughter of any women his had ever sleep with, that also his daughter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Don-Jam (talk • contribs) 15:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. While it is not explicitly stated that "do not have sexual relations with your daughter", according to Leviticus 18:17 it is forbidden to have sexual relations with a woman and her daughter, which I interpret as inclusive of one's daughter. --Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What I've done?} 14:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, Lord Don-Jam and Joshua. The Bible DOES forbid men from having sex with their daugthers, but in an indirect way. It says in Leviticus 18:17, "Do not have sexual intercourse with a woman and her daughter..." Now think about it. If a man is having sex with her own daugther, he is also having sex with the daugther of a woman whom he has already had sex with, since the man and the woman obviously had conceived the daugther by having sex. Therefore, if a man is having sex with his daugther, he is violating the Bible and commiting incest. I think they should put this on the actual article so people don't get confused. If they don't, I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.227.37 (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Jim Michael (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't list the chapter or verses the Deuteronomy list is in

May seme like a small detial to complaing about, but today porticularly this was the main reaons I came to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.33.65 (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Inevitable incest

Yes, certainly in the beginning. After creating the earth, God goes on to create two and only two people. Therefor the conditions set out, that man can only reproduce through the practice of incest to begin with.

If humanity came from only a few progenitors, wouldn't incest be unavoidable? Didn't Cain and Abel marry their sisters? I know many say the origin of the first wives is unknown, but perhaps this should be addressed?

Also, after the Flood, there was only a small group left to reproduce. All children were inevitably the children of Noah's sons, and therefor cousins. Surely someone has deigned comment on this, and they can be cited (hopefully not some bitter anti-theist looking to piss people off).--68.225.194.245 (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Cain and Seth (and the other sons of Adam) married their sisters. According to St. Peter in one of his biblical letters, there were 8 persons in the Ark, which could be Noah, three sons, and one wife each. I guess they did not commit direct incest (which most probably, at least between direct siblings, had been outlawed by the time), but married cousins. Cousin-marriage was only outlawed in the Christian era by authority of the Church. (Theologians actually deal with the reasons for this. For instance, St. Thomas does.)

It is important to note that while homosexuality and incest in direct lineage was outlawed all the time, the rest of incest was not; only the strong developed moral emotionality can be the reason that some "bitter anti-theist looking to piss people off" could think the self-evidence that Cain and Abel married their sisters an insult to the Christian religion. Note also that Adam and Eve, created directly by God, were created without any defects, whence there also was no genetical problem even with the sibling incest that followed.

However, with the growing human race, the growing possibility of choosing, etc., and also the need of sparing the family bonds from being destroyed by sexual desire and its consequences (which St. Thomas mentions as the main reason for the ban without even discussing genetics!), more and more relationships were forbidden as incest. Which status, once entered into, is binding, as the overwhelming consent of mankind at least indicates. Still, cousin marriage used to be not so abnormal until very recently a time (though in need of a dispensation for Catholics); among royalty, it sometimes almost was the norm. --93.135.123.17 (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)