Last week, Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis spoke at the Family Research Council's "Watchmen on the Wall" conference where he warned that the failure to embrace a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis is undermining "the doctrine of marriage" and leading to things like gay marriage.
So I decided to reread Genesis. Ham's assertion that a literal interpretation was required in order to understand the true nature of biblical marriage was in the forefront of my mind as I began working my way through Genesis, especially once I realized how much polygamy and incest the book contained.
In fact, outside of Adam and Eve, and Noah and his wife, just about every major patriarch engaged in either polygamy or some form of incest, and often both.
According to Genesis 16, Abraham slept with and married his wife's Sarah's slave because Sarah was was unable to bear children. On top of that, according to Genesis 20, Sarah was also Abraham's half-sister and he later took at least one more wife.
Abraham's son Issac was married to Rebekah, who, according to Genesis 24, was the daughter of the son of Abraham’s brother, which would make Rebekah the daughter of Issac's cousin, or Issac's first cousin, once removed.
Rebekah then gave birth to Esau and Jacob. According to Genesis 26, Esau married two Hittite women and then later took a third wife while Jacob married the daughters of his mother's brother, his first cousins, named Leah and Rachel. Rachel was unable to bear children and so gave Jacob her servant to sleep with and take as a wife, to which Leah responded by likewise giving Jacob her servant for a wife.
In addition to these arrangements, Genesis 38 tells the story of Judah sleeping with and impregnating his daughter-in-law while Genesis 19 tells the story of God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah where only Lot and his two daughters were saved ... after which Lot's daughters got their father drunk and slept with him and became pregnant.
One of the arguments we hear most often from the Religious Right is that changing "the biblical definition of marriage" by allowing gay marriage will lead to things like polygamy and incest ... which is odd considering that, according to the Book of Genesis, polygamy and incest were predominant forms of marriage.
Comments (30)
While you do make good points, most of the things that were considered marriage in the early days were done (supposedly) to populate the earth. For many generations, several wives could be allowed to help populate and farm the land.
Later on God basically does away with this law/idea.
Perhaps the problem we have today is that we've forsaken Gods plan for us. It's obvious he never intended us to think, but to remain stupid and forgetful. Personally I prefer to get high to attain those qualities, but still it doesn't seem to work all that well, but I'm going to keep trying.
Seriously, none of that ship happened anyway, so relax.
any supposed reasons why the sexual unions and marriages happened in the times of the book of Genesis are just that: supposed. there are so many "reasons" Christians give for things are "supposed". in actuality, there are really no reasons. they just happened, naturally, our of one purpose or need or another. interestingly enough, even Jews don't go so far as Christians do in trying to explain these things away, and this is their history, not the history of Christians.
also, Noah's daughters had sex with Noah. tricked him, and their sons were his grandsons. etc.
This is awesome. It makes me feel so much better about my hot sister.
I actually met Ken Ham a few times.
sounds like two episodes of "Dallas".
once again we see a Christian group like the Family Research Council making arguments they say are based on the Bible for the purpose of restricting the lives of others but after holes are blown through the claim others come along and say that part of the Bible is not really what god wants.
sometimes i watch "Ancient Aliens" because there's nothing else more entertaining on. half of their claims begin with the words "But could it be that it was really extraterrestrials who.....?" and they go on to build their cases on the foundation "but could it be?"
It's good to remember that just because something happened in the Bible does not necessarily mean that God is A-okay with it. I see the point you're trying to make though. I would love to go into detail and explain some stuff but I'm pretty sure no one would really be interested in the answer.
@plantinthewindow - You're thinking of Lot, not Noah. I just read that story the other day actually.
@jessispeaks@revelife - agh! my bad. : P I do understand where Christians are coming from, though. and it's reasonable from their point of view. not to mention the sexual purity issue, and prevention of std's, etc.
I don't recall where God got away with plural marriage so I demand multiple wives.
It might seem nonsense and easy to put aside unless your gay trying to get married where law prevents it.
@jessispeaks@revelife - Yeah. Keep it to yourself. I'm willing to bet money that me and GL have already heard what you were going to say, and it's a failure.
@LKJSlain - GOD CHANGES HIS MIND!!
That sounds like an all-knowing, perfect being.
*FACEPALM*
Yeah. I've said many times before, I can pretty much take any crucial social topic and make the argument how I please. For example, in college, we had a debate...I was on the PRO slavery team, and I won it using the Bible. If you know the Bible, you can easily manipulate it. It's quite easy to do, really...and most churches/pastors do it.
Regardless, I feel the same way about the OT laws of marriage, relationships, etc. If polygamy wasn't condemned, how can you derive from it that homosexuality is so much worse? Once again, they're picking and choosing what they can wage a religious war against. Using the OT for the basis of a religious argument regarding cultural issues is quite...foolish, IMO. The 10 commandments are generally...reasonable, accepted, and fairly applicable, but otherwise, it's absurd to me that people do not take the cultural and historical context it was written in (I'm saying this as a Christian).
LITERAL interpretation? Please. When these people start living the OT laws as stated, then you can come talk to me about LITERAL interpretation.
No offense, but just posting this would've sufficed : P
@Garistotle - it's all good. Haha.
(1) From Genesis, I would look at the two following passages (note: both are before the fall, this needs to be taken into account when interpreting) Gen 1:26-28; 2:20-25 26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman,’ for she was taken out of man. 24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. 25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
(2) "Lot's daughters got their father drunk and slept with him and became pregnant." = In a contextual reading, you will see the daughters got thier father drunk. Drunkess (but not merely drinking) and Incest are both considered sin, along with the fact that the daughters did not trust god to provide a child to thier father. These sins are not condoned here but they are mentioned (there is a difference).
I just wanted to clarify these two things, that is all. Also, I have seen this graphic of marrige in the Old Testament before, and although those forms are in the Old Testament, the real question is, should they have ever happened? If yes, did god say they were good or permissible? If the answer is no, then it has no bearing, but if it is yes, then we must ask, as I have been doing, is there room for gay marriage as something permissable, allowed by God, but not condoned or sanctioned as something good and part of the regular created norm (similar to divorce). Now, if anyone reading this doesnt care about scripture or its interpretation, you are fine to believe whatever, but I do not like it when people misinterpret or twist scripture (I am not saying Godlessliberal is doing this here, but there are arguments, from both conservatives and liberals, I have seen twist into both extremes, which really bothers and burns me!).
@LKJSlain - You mentione that although polygamy was accepted in the Old Testament, that later some god did away with this law/idea. Can you tell me where in the Bible monogamy is made a law? Saint Paul (who isn't to be trusted) says that a minister is to be the husband of one wife, but even he doesn't say everyone needs to follow monogamy.
@curiousdwk - Jesus reinforces it in the new testament -
Matthew 19: 4-5
Then something is said of it again by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 1 and 2
@LKJSlain - Matthew 19:4,5 just talks about marriage. It quotes the Old Testament where polygamy was performed and he doesn't discount what was done in the Old Testament. Therefore that's a pretty weak excuse to say that Jesus repudiated polygamy and insisted on monogamy. Are you one of those who will read a passage and then interpret it according to your own beliefs? A rational, objective reading of that would not conclude that Jesus was against polygamy nor in favor of monagamy. You have to do better than tha.
@curiousdwk - No, I'm not that type of person. Jesus is reiterating what marriage was originally intended to be. Just because people did things in the bible doesn't mean that God accepted them, and that is your falling. God called what was good, "good"... No where does God say that polygamy, and other such acts were good. People might have done them, but God never states that it's okay to do so.
I could laugh at all this nonsense, and might do, once I stop crying.
You know? I've read, re-read- re-re-read, and re-re-re-read Genesis, and no where in the Book of Genesis have I seen anything where God called Judah's sex with his daughter in law (who wore a mask, by the way, for which Judah did not recognize her); Lot's being made drunk by his daughters then their sleeping with him; Sarah giving her slave Hagar to Abraham; Jacob taking two wives, then two concubines; and all the other multiple marriages to many women by men in the Bible as anything good. Quite the opposite is glaringly and blatantly obvious, in actuality:
*Sarah and Hagar - not to mention their descendents - were continual source of trouble to Abraham...
*Lot's Daughters children were not only a source of grief to him but to every nation around them...
*Judah was publicly embarrassed for his sex with his dressed-as-a-harlot-and-therefore-unrecognizable daughter-in-law...
*The squabbling between Rachel, Leah, and their handmaidens nearly drove Jacob insane and did drive his three elder sons to lose their birthright...
Interesting article: too bad its inaccurate (same for the chart above)...
Also, the article here - http://jandjinjapan.xanga.com/710476634/making-sense-of-the-seemingly-senseless-part-three/ - decodes and deciphers your chart...
This article - http://jandjinjapan.xanga.com/745032012/making-sense-of-the-seemingly-senseless-part-five/ - ( concerning the chart) also decodes and deciphers....
Your contents force out your readers for commenting.
Buddy Marks