Contradictions in the Bible...

material girl wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

You got it. He was asleep. He might have been aware of the events, but not with whom. :wink:

Im sure that would look good in court.
Not only is it incest but its rape.

Rape is only rape when it is not consentual. Do you have proof?

BTW.... It never went to court.

You may have reconciled yourself with that story, Intrepid. However, I am still disgusted by it.

Intrepid wrote:

material girl wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

You got it. He was asleep. He might have been aware of the events, but not with whom. :wink:

Im sure that would look good in court.
Not only is it incest but its rape.

Rape is only rape when it is not consentual. Do you have proof?

BTW.... It never went to court.

Do I have proof, no, do you?
If he did agree to have sex with his daughters what is that teaching the youth of today?

Matthew 5:38

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

hephzibah wrote:

Where specifically does the bible say that incest is wrong?

I have no idea if it does but luckily I have common sense to work out for myself that incest isnt a positive thing.

material girl wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

material girl wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

You got it. He was asleep. He might have been aware of the events, but not with whom. :wink:

Im sure that would look good in court.
Not only is it incest but its rape.

Rape is only rape when it is not consentual. Do you have proof?

BTW.... It never went to court.

Do I have proof, no, do you?
If he did agree to have sex with his daughters what is that teaching the youth of today?

That is my point. Neither of us has proof. Too many if's.....

wandeljw wrote:

The incest story in Genesis, though, remains quite a contradiction.

How so? That was before the laws were told.

As Sodom and Gemorrah had just been destroyed, and his wife turned into a pillar of salt, just who was Lot to have thought was humpin' him in his sleep? Do you really expect reasonable people to buy a contention that a man can get an erection and be stimulated to ejaculation without waking up? Your sex life must be awfully dull.

hephzibah wrote:

Good one material girl. So let me start by asking you a question:

First let me point out that I'm not saying incest isn't wrong, or hasn't been said to be wrong. I just want to start at the beginning with this.

Question #1:

Where specifically does the bible say that incest is wrong?

Hi hephzibah,

I came to this thread out of interest and to offer support. However, your first item does have an answer in the bible.
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 neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.

Intrepid wrote:

wandeljw wrote:

The incest story in Genesis, though, remains quite a contradiction.

How so? That was before the laws were told.

intrepid, the Lord killed everyone except Noah & his family because of their wickedness, even though there were no laws that established what acts constitute wickedness.

Thanks intrepid. That's exactly the point I was trying to draw out. The law came after the incident.

I know!!!!!The Bible is here to drive us nuts!!!!
No solid answers, no nothing except words that you can either interpret yourself or have someone else tell you what it means therefore they are controlling you.

Setanta wrote:

As Sodom and Gemorrah had just been destroyed, and his wife turned into a pillar of salt, just who was Lot to have thought was humpin' him in his sleep? Do you really expect reasonable people to buy a contention that a man can get an erection and be stimulated to ejaculation without waking up? Your sex life must be awfully dull.

We are not talking about my sex life. I am surprised that you refer to Sodom and Gemorrah etc. when you openly avow that you do not believe the bible. Is it for convenience sake?

hephzibah wrote:

Thanks intrepid. That's exactly the point I was trying to draw out. The law came after the incident.

I am surprised you would endorse a point that is so weak, hephzibah.

hephzibah wrote:

Thanks intrepid. That's exactly the point I was trying to draw out. The law came after the incident.

I am surprised you would endorse a point that is so weak, hephzibah.