Geneology in the OT and incest

For more information on Vance’s position (and most others on the forum) see here:


I have read it and respectfuly disagree. This is saying believing in the 1000000 bijilion hindu gods is the same thing. Not buying it . Not all ways lead to God

I’m glad you’ve read it. FWIW, I don’t agree either. I posted it to illustrate that the topic has been done to death in the forums living memory and the end result was “let’s agree to disagree”. I was merely trying to prevent an old (and emotive) argument being rekindled :+1:


Also going against the tradition which literally the first Christians hold deary its wrong. I do agree on that Jesus remains God whatever the case though

Yes thanks Liam. No worries aint gonna get to a debate.


First of all, you are getting your Bible stories confused.

Lot lived several generations after the Flood of Genesis. So the actions of his daughters in getting him so drunk he passed out and then taking seed from him has nothing to do with no other men being present, and most probably to do more with how they were raised within the educational situation in Sodom, where all of their female and male friends did such things, maybe on a very regular basis, meaning this is why God destroyed those wicked cities of the plain. While men from other towns may have looked at girls who grew up in Sodom as rather less than desirable when it comes to marriage, though this is only my guess?

As for the conjectural, evolutionary bottleneck?

What if diversity is all all about degeneration/not evolution?

Conjectural Common Ancestry:

The image above shows what I think about DNA, my words, that I typed out over two years ago.

The below image on the other hands is my theory on race and how most of us, both black and white have defective, not complete genes in this matter, for I believe that fully healthy skin should be able to go from black to white and back again, according to its exposure to sunlight or lack there of.

When speaking of “common ancestor” in evolution that doesn’t mean a single individual or mating pair. It means a population which would include many individuals with slight differences in their DNA. A gene pool if you will. New DNA can come from unique combinations of the DNA in that pool, copying mistakes, mutations, the contribution of new DNA from a different group, or any of several other methods.

Race is based on DNA and genetic research has shown human DNA has been around a lot longer than 2,000 years.

Research, based upon what?

Yes, humanity has been around, about 6,000 years, but race did not enter the picture in historical documents 2,000 years ago.

While saying large groups, how did these large groups appear and why did they disappear?

Cases of fraud, extrapolated guesses and or exaggeration:

Peking man vanished! Now we do have a plaster cast of this, but no DNA nor actual dating can be taken from a replica, can they?

As for large numbers and slight changes, there is a remarkable lack of any evidence for any and all of this. While here is an atheist speaking about the absurdity of some of the claims of atheism:

You see the change in any one organism that is as drastic as is required by evolutionary theory is rather absurd in the scale of its movement. While saying thousands were moving along the same path at the same time simply multiplies the absurdity of this assumption.

Diversity though degeneration and slight variation is observable, but the theory that these can build up ad-infinitum is not at all supported by anything beyond your dedication to materialism, as was explained by the Lewontin quote given above.

But race can be determined from skeletal remains which are far older than 6,000 years.

Meteorology does an excellent job of forecasting the weather with no mention made of God and yet we both believe (I hope) that God is in control of the weather.

1 Like

Meteorology does a good job of what?

An error rate of 1% per year, over a million years equals about a 100% certainty of error, and I am talking huge errors here, correct?

While from my experience the weather is off by a lot more than 1%, even when I listen to it that morning, in predicting only that single day!

This refusal to see what is happening today is the basis of the theory of climate…

You see when you look at the real weather it does not match your steady, millions of years old cycles and thus you invent explanations as to why it is changing so much or so unpredictably.

While thinking that humanity alone is the sole cause of all things is a threat to human life as we imagine that our world is dying due to overpopulation.

While claiming that race can be determined by DNA only works if there was no shift in race or origin of race.

So, are you claiming that race is an original trait of our many common ancestors in your efforts to deny God?

But what about the proof that all of us have one common female ancestor and one common male ancestor too?

TRUE, this does not even prove that these two common ancestors lived at the same time, but the real truth is, it does not prove anything about origins either, save through your extrapolations.

Namely I am 100% correct when I claim that the only reason to believe what you believe is your own willful decision to look only for material explanations while ruling our God from all of your speculations.

When they say it is going to rain in the next 24 hours they are quite accurate in that prediction. No appeal to supernatural needed.

You are conflating weather and climate. Two very different fields of study.

What we call race, which is really just an expression of the genetic diversity of humans, originated gradually over very long periods of time. It would be limited to homo sapiens so has had 200,000 years or so to develop.

Why would you think I would deny God? God is very much in control of evolution.

Sorry but you are 100% wrong.

Please remember the forum rules on gracious dialogue. You might want to read the FAQ


Funny how you warn for not being gracious, after you say the exact same thing I did, while citing zero evidence nor theory on why you think I may be wrong.

You choose to separate meteorology into what can be proven and what cannot. Daily weather is observable and accuracy rates can be measured, tested and proven. Claiming what happened before thermometers and other scientific equipment was available is pure guess work for none of it was observed not tested nor can you go back in time to observe nor test. While it is not supported by anything outside of human guesstimation when you go back even one year before any written record.

Basically you want to say you are correct, but have zero evidence of this. For all you have is endless extrapolation and guesses.

For just because you have a number line, such as …2,4,8,16,… does not automatically mean the next number is 32, nor that the first number is 1 nor that there is or is not any limits on either end of the line.

‘Oh, but to change the sequence would be unfair?’ or so you might think?

Not if the creator of the line clearly says it was changed and you simply ignore this.

As I said before, and as some atheists admit, the only reason for you to believe what you choose to believe is your own willful bias in choosing material explanations over all other conjectures or even statements of fact. For if God exists and God has told us the truth, then it is a fact, the only real speculations being, does God exist or not and if He exists is God telling the truth.

Being gracious means not assuming or assigning intent beyond what is written, listening to what each other has to say and responding to what they say, not to what is assumed, and responding in a loving way. A good reminder for all of us.


No. The methods used for meteorology and climatology are different. The models used are very different.

Exactly. And none of the models used include the supernatural and yet the results are correct. Do you agree?

Here you go assigning intent that I actually find offensive.

He does

He has

The problem is what is the truth that God has communicated. Is it a detailed description of how the universe was created? No. Is it a message of salvation to a lost world? Yes.


His daughters feared the extinction of their family, and so arranged between themselves to have offspring by their father (vv. 31–36).

The two sons were the eponymous ancestors of two Transjordanian peoples, the Moabites (v. 37; Deut. 2:9) and Ammonites (19:38; Deut. 2:19), future enemies of Israel (Ps. 83:6–8).

God doesn’t need to comment. It is obvious.

Thanks @Paul_Allen1, I thought this was the case but hadn’t had the chance to double-Check.

I would agree that God does not need to comment. I’m not sure it is obvious, if it were obvious the passages wouldn’t cause believers such consternation. :slight_smile:


“Being gracious means not assuming or assigning intent beyond what is written, listening to what each other has to say and responding to what they say, not to what is assumed, and responding in a loving way. A good reminder for all of us.”

This is true. Though in self defense please allow me to add this, in some of my endeavors to communicate with people, I have answered question 1, to be asked question 2, and after I answer 2 I am asked 3 and after I answer 3 they go back to 1, as if I never said a word on this first topic.

While, ultimately none of us can see anything that we are not willing to see.

Let me give you a non related example from my life. I have always been able to see falling, drifting leaves, but did I really see them? In watching a Japanese animation showing some of the best moments of older Japanese animation, I watched a brief scene in which Heidi is traveling in an open horse drawn cart down a lane lined with trees. A gust of wind sends a hundred or more leaves drifting down and Heidi stands up in the cart to spin about and, the wagon, driver and horse seem to disappear and Heidi looks like she is flying through those falling leaves. Now I can see them so well that it almost feels like they are touching me whenever I drive or walk through falling leaves.

The residents of Sodom had come to Lot’s house demanding that he release to them the two angels he was hosting, Lot instead offered to give them his virgin daughters in an attempt to protect his guests (19:1–8).

He describes his daughters, who were apparently still living with him, as women “who have not known any man” (Gen 19:8 ESV), implying that they were unmarried and childless.

After describing the destruction of Sodom and the death of Lot’s wife, the account explains that Lot and his unnamed daughters lived in a cave because “he was afraid to live in Zoar” (Gen 19:30 ESV).

Fearing that their family line would cease, Lot’s daughters decide to intoxicate their dad and conceive children by him. The son of the younger daughter was Ben-Ammi.

So Liam, I find it ironic that, earlier in the chapter, Lot had offered to give his daughters to the men of Sodom to be raped, and later Lot’s daughters sexually exploit him. Remember this is pre-Law and the author is simply giving you an account of what happened.

Genesis’ description of Ben-Ammi and his half-brother being conceived through incest offers an unflattering story of origin for the nations of Ammon and Moab and may reflect a later period when Israel shared a negative relationship with Ammon.

The Genesis narrative does not explicitly condemn Lot and his daughters’ actions. It is silent. It is telling a story and the reader draws the conclusion.

However, the pseudepigraphal book of Jubilees calls their actions “sin … such as had not been on the earth since the days of Adam till this time” (Jubilees 16:8–9). Again, the only law given by God was Noahic covenant. Lot, Sodom and his daughters are a sad sideline to faithful Abram.

Many Christians have taken a negative view toward Lot and his daughters. Others offer an alternative perspective in noting that Lot’s daughters were acting in desperation and, through their actions, managed to save their family line from extinction. Under this interpretation, Lot’s daughters took on the patriarchal role of leading the family, so Lot’s legacy would be carried through their sons, Moab and Ben-Ammi.

Lot’s son Ben-Ammi is identified as the “father of the Ammonites,” which creates a complex kinship relationship between the nation of Ammon and the Israelites.

Some biblical texts depict Israel and Ammon as having a negative relationship. For example, Deuteronomy 23:3–7 states that both the Ammonites and Moabites were forbidden from entering the assembly of Yahweh, though the rationalization for this is directed at Moab. Ammon appears to be guilty for its association with Moab. Later, Amos condemns Ammon as a sinful nation for their violent efforts to expand their borders (Amos 1:13–15).

Other passages offer a less negative portrayal of the relationship between Ammon and Israel. Deuteronomy 2:19 instructs the people not to instigate war with Ammon and to respect their territory based on their kinship through Lot. The story of Ruth adds further complexity to the nature of the kinship relationship, as she is a Moabite who ends up being a matriarch in the Davidic line.

The point of including Lot’s incest is to track the lineage and results with regard to Israel leading to Christ. No comments are needed. The sad results are obvious.

Some draw a parallel with Judah and Tamar (Gen 38)

Christians often point to the parallels between the story of Lot’s daughters and the account of Tamar and Judah in Gen 38. In Genesis 38, Tamar poses as a prostitute, seduces her father-in-law, and conceives a child by him because Judah had neglected his patriarchal duty toward her. Whereas the narrative offers neither a positive nor negative assessment of Lot’s daughters’ actions, the narrative describes Tamar as righteous.

So Liam, are we seeing the results of original sin? Cultural pre-law behaviour? Or observing the twist and turns that leads to a saviour of our sins?

1 Like

I agree with your outline above, it is a great summary. Plus you saved me a job :wink:. On both scores, you have my thanks. Your observations about Tamar are also helpful.

Sorry Paul, you’ve lost me. I’m struggling to see why you addressing these questions to me… Have I missed something? Are you responding to something I’ve written or asking out curiosity?

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.