Adam and Eve's children...

[s_lone]

This is a question to those who believe in the story of Adam and Eve literally.

Are we to understand that humanity was born out of incestuous relationships? If a single female-male couple is at the origin of humanity, isn't incest unavoidable at the bottom of the ancestor tree?

 

[talloola]

Weren't people on this earth thousands and thousands of years before the so-called
appearance of 'adam and eve', so how would it ever be possible for them to be the
first man and woman on earth.
Doesn't make any sense.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Read the book. Adam and Eve had three children, Cain, Abel, and Seth, but Cain killed Abel so there were really only two to carry on the blood line. And the book says they took wives from...well, that's not exactly clear, but it means there must have been women other than Eve around at the time.

Just another one of religion's inexplicable little mysteries...

 

[Cliffy]

At least one of those boys must have been a hermaphrodite. If Cain killed able in a fit of jealous rage, I would guess he was the hermaphrodite and was PMSing at the time. I realize that this is all very politically incorrect but hey! we are discussing the bible.

 

[karrie]

lol... s_lone, I didn't answer, because your opening line very clearly states who the question is posed to. But, since no one else seems to be respecting your OP, I'll jump right in with my two cents too, even though Catholicism doesn't take the creation story literally.

As Dexter pointed out, there were apparently women around (or the Bible glossed largely over the fact that Adam and Eve gave birth to daughters as well). But, even if you assume that the only people breeding were all related... so what?

Speaking from an evolutionary point of view, we can't really be sure that there was any less incest going on in the tribes that spawned humanity. One show I heard claims that all of humanity shares a genetic marker that links us back to one common female ancestor. Our lineage is no 'cleaner' of incest from an evolutionary point of view than a Biblical one as far as I have seen proven. And speaking from the point of view of the Bible, it makes it pretty clear that they branched out as far as they could, rather than living a life of constant incest.

 

[karrie]

Okay... I haven't had enough coffee today, and don't have the sharp mind Dexter does even at the best of times, to recall the names of the theories and shows that I've seen. But, I did search and dig up a link (not the most reliable I know) to what I was talking about....

Mitochondrial Eve

A common ancestor for all of humanity. So, yes.... we were very possibly begat of incest, even without a hazy Bible story.

 

[Cliffy]

The common genetic marker shared by all humans is alien DNA. As my friend Ruben likes to say, "humans are proof positive that aliens boinked monkeys."

 

[s_lone]

Thanks for your input Karrie... From what I understand of your link, it seems this Mitochondrial Eve is indeed a common ancestor to all humans, but only through exclusively maternal lineage. If I understand right, that means that if me, you and everyone else trace back our maternal lineage (my mother's mother, and her mother and on and on), eventually we all end up with this (probably very sexy!) Mitochondrial Eve... But from what I've read and understand, there were still other females around that you could find in all the other numerous branches of the genealogical tree... So I'm not sure this Mitochondrial automatically suggests the notion of incest being present in our lineage.

That's not to say incest isn't present in our lineage. It most surely is...

And at this point I'll admit I'm kinda confused. Perhaps Dexter and some others can clarify some things...

As Creator Of The Thread, I declare this thread in need of scientific illumination!

So be it!

 

[karrie]

S_lone... the Bible gives you a list of who married who and beget who, and it branches out from Adam and Eve.

With the theory of a mitochondrial Eve, if you trace the tree back, then it ends in Eve. Thus, Eve's children, who had Eve as a mother, had to have mated with one another to start building the branches. There had to be incest, plain and simple, for us all to have one common mother.

 

[Cliffy]

If Eve only had three sons, they must have been motherphukers.

 

[karrie]

It's not often that I come close to giving a red rep for blatant trolling, but, you sure deserve one Cliffy.

 

[JLM]

This is a question to those who believe in the story of Adam and Eve literally.

Are we to understand that humanity was born out of incestuous relationships? If a single female-male couple is at the origin of humanity, isn't incest unavoidable at the bottom of the ancestor tree?

To the best of my knowledge incest wasn't illegal in those days. Cliff's theory about there being a hermaphodite in the bunch explains the origin of the old expression of telling someone to "go **** themself" Sorry if I'm not being strictly politically correct but I don't know of a P.C. way of giving correct answers to these questions.................:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[s_lone]

S_lone... the Bible gives you a list of who married who and beget who, and it branches out from Adam and Eve.

With the theory of a mitochondrial Eve, if you trace the tree back, then it ends in Eve. Thus, Eve's children, who had Eve as a mother, had to have mated with one another to start building the branches. There had to be incest, plain and simple, for us all to have one common mother.

Do you think those who take this story literally also accept the notion that incest is part of the foundation of humanity?

 

[karrie]

Do you think those who take this story literally also accept the notion that incest is part of the foundation of humanity?

I doubt it, because the Bible then states that they go on to take wives. If you're going to just take it all at face value, then you'd take that at face value as well right?

But, even if they do accept the notion... so what? There's a difference between an initial incest of necessity, and routine inbreeding, turning the family tree back in on itself.

 

[JLM]

The Bible only deals with the world at the time as it was known around the vicinity of the Tigrus - Euphrates, which was the centre of the civilized world. With things like radio and T.V. still years away there was probably a good chance of happenings going on elsewhere in the world and other tribes getting underway, so yeah, there was obvioulsy incest going on at the start BUT by the time it was deemed illegal- Eve's tribe had possibly found one of the other tribes.

 

[Cliffy]

I doubt it, because the Bible then states that they go on to take wives. If you're going to just take it all at face value, then you'd take that at face value as well right?

But, even if they do accept the notion... so what? There's a difference between an initial incest of necessity, and routine inbreeding, turning the family tree back in on itself.

You mean like royalty?

 

[gerryh]

You mean like royalty?

No...like your family tree.

 

[JLM]

I doubt it, because the Bible then states that they go on to take wives. If you're going to just take it all at face value, then you'd take that at face value as well right?

But, even if they do accept the notion... so what? There's a difference between an initial incest of necessity, and routine inbreeding, turning the family tree back in on itself.

Absolutely correct and there's a good possibility there were other women, but the scribe of the early days may not have been sure of their names so just figured it was less complicated not to mention them. There is a whole realm of possibilities here. I'd like to see S.J. jump into the discussion so that we can see what his take is on it. Always nice to have an educated opinion.

 

[Cliffy]

It's not often that I come close to giving a red rep for blatant trolling, but, you sure deserve one Cliffy.

It's just my sick sense of humour. Its like a word association thing. I post whatever pops into my mind, kind of a knee jerk reaction to what I'm reading. The more serious people get about politics and religion, the more irreverent I become. I don't think that is trolling but I have been known to be wrong, rare but not unheard of. :roll:

 

[Cliffy]

No...like your family tree.

What? Not enough coffee yet? It is nice and sunny here in lotus land and I have a feeling a motorcycle ride is on this afternoons agenda. Life is good. Have a great day gerryh.