a few contridactions i have found in my bible study


Contradiction 1:

Adam and Eve vs Incest.
Incest, as taught in the Bible [and all semitic literature for that matter] is frowned upon, yet if all human existence sprouted from two beings and two beings alone, how can there not be incest? is my Bible missing a book or two? i know it is over 40 years old, but religious texts don’t change that rapidly anymore.

Contradiction 2:

Children of God vs Son of God.
It is taught that all mankind are gods children, yet Jesus is referred to as God’s “one and only begotten son.” Am I missing something? This is a serious mental roadblock for me.

mods/admins: feel free to move this thread if it is in the wrong section. thank you.




For the first one, God, who is the author and supreme legislator of morality, allowed it for a time (like he allowed polygamy for a time as well).

For the second, Jesus is the only (eternally) begotten Son of God, but by our baptism we are adopted children of God (in general mankind are creatures of God). :slight_smile:


In the beginning, incest was necessary. It was not frowned upon whan Abraham married his sister. The prohibition came later as the population increased. The only time I can remember a negative comment was Lott’s daughters so it would seem that the incest frowned upon was between parent and child. Adam and Eve did not have children with their children.


I would like to think incest is frowned upon universally, even beyond “semitic literature”. Anyway, one of your comments grabs my attention that you think a bible that is merely 40 years old would be THAT different from a current bible. I think you’ve been mislead on this point, the bible overtime has not changed nearly that much.

Anyway this issue is to easy resolve. When incest was able to be avoided as an option it became frowned upon. There is no contradiction, the Christian faith puts life on a pedastal, morals are ment to advance life not hold it back.

Contradiction 2:

Children of God vs Son of God.
It is taught that all mankind are gods children, yet Jesus is referred to as God’s “one and only begotten son.” Am I missing something? This is a serious mental roadblock for me.

mods/admins: feel free to move this thread if it is in the wrong section. thank you.

The word you need to focus on is “begotten”. We all may be children of God, but we are not all “begotten” children of God. Every person, except for Christ is an adopted son, and only Christ is begotten.


Sarah wasn’t Abraham’s sister. He just pretended she was, when they were in Egypt and again later, otherwise those who fancied her would kill him so they could marry her. Of course they wanted to marry her anyways, so clearly Abraham wasn’t thinking too clearly.

As for the incest issue - assuming that it was a necessity for humans to do this in order to survive, it couldn’t be immoral. God’s own command to mankind was to ‘be fruitful and multiply’, by definition God can’t command immorality, even if this means behaviour that in other circumstances is immoral.

We can see this with the issue of multiple wives and concubines, as Abraham and Jacob had. This was necessary in their day to build up God’s chosen people in accordance with the covenant God himself had made with Abraham. Later, by the time of Moses, they were a nation, so adultery became illegal, as later confirmed by Jesus.

Another example - God commanded the building of the Ark of the Covenant. During the building, obviously workmen had to touch it. AFTER it was built, it became sacred and holy, no-one was allowed to touch it and Uzziah (I think it was) was struck dead for doing so.


For a while I have considered that Adam and Eve could have represented a Created community rather than two individuals, thus eliminating the incest question.

The church seems to leave open the possibility that the creation event was not six literal 24-hour days, so other allegory/metaphors could also be used in Genesis. But Adam’s lifespan is counted seemingly from the day he was created. Since only Eve is mentioned, the next female mentioned is not not until Cain marries, and Eve’s lifespan is not mentioned, and since only males are mentioned with respect to lineage- it seems somewhat plausable that either Adam and Eve had one or more daughters that went unmentioned for Cain to marry. Or the community theory.

We are all created beings, and thus are children of God. Jesus was the Word, with God in the beginning…John 1. Jesus was not created as we were.

Jesus is obviously unique to humanity so the literary prose used to distinguish Him from us is needed. His divine origin is seperate from his human experience on Earth. The concept of His one in being with the Father…the Gospel of John explains it best, as does Matthew.


Very true. Christ is begotten, not made, one in being with the Father.


“2Sa 6:6 And when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled.
2Sa 6:7 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him down there because of his error, and he died there beside the ark of God.” (ESV)


Yes, there are many metaphors in Genesis, but the Church teaches that the existence of one man and one woman as our first parents is NOT a metaphor. The “community theory” is not compatible with the Catholic faith. It is also contrary to the weight to modern scientific evidence.


Our first parents were made perfect. Because of this there would have been no genetic abnormalities such as crept in over time.

Over time, when there were sufficient descendants, both polygamy and incest would not have been necessary.



I don’t see how you can make this claim. In Genesis 20:12, after his deception is again uncovered (in Gerar this time), Abraham states that Sarah was really half-sister as well as his wife.

Abraham answered, “I thought with myself, saying ‘Perhaps they do not fear God in this place and they will kill me for the sake of my wife’. But she is also truly my sister, the daughter of my father, and not the daughter of my mother, and I took her to wife. After God brought me out of my father’s house, I said to her ‘You shall do me this kindness: In every place, to which we shall come, you shall say that I am your brother.’”
[RIGHT]Genesis 20:11-13


Eek :o missed that verse - double :o


This question is very interesting. A little known fact by most of today’s population is that our current definition of incest is differenty from what it was in biblical times. This view changed because the royal line in England a few centuries back was becoming riddled with health problems and birth defects due to an overabundance of inbreeding. There was a decree from this time period that prohibited the intermarrying of any brothers or sisters as well as any first cousins. This viewpoint spread to the general population, and that is why today there is such a social stigma against this type of marriage. **Biblically speaking though, I believe incest was defined as marrying of having sexual relations with a parent. **


See if you can borrow a book called “The Critical Meaning of the Bible” by Raymond E Brown.

Else, google “higher biblical criticism.” Or “critical historical analysis of the bible.”

Many Catholics no longer do gymnastics to maintain an ultra-conservative view of the Bible, especially the Genesis account. It sounds like it would be very enlightening to you and is a great read anyway. :slight_smile:

Oh, and no offense to my brothers and sisters who hold a conservative viewpoint, but the OP seems like other types of analysis may be of interest.


The second roadblock is an easy answer.

Jesus is God’s only begotten son. In that God did not make him, but begat him. As such, Jesus is both God and man (The product of God and Mary).

We are creatures (not begotten), who become adopted sons of God. It would be well worth your time to look into how adoption was viewed in Jesus time. The obligations to an adopted child were taken very seriously.

So we are sons of God, co-heirs with Christ, but by adoption, not “natural children” if you like, but creatures who he has adopted into his family. feel free to PM me if you have any questions, want quotes, etc.


Not to sound harsh, but why not replace your belief with knowledge? Take the time to read the Bible before talking about it. Then you will have the benefit of actually knowing something, and you won’t be passing along false information.

I know the Bible is a big book, but for your claim here, try chapter 18 of Leviticus.


I did. I don’t see any. Care to give verse?

PS. if you are trying to use “Uncover Nakedness” law, that will not work either because of another law that tells the brother of a deceased brother whom’s wife has not produced a seed to produce a seed for his deceased brother.


Granted, I have made no personal decision that conflcits outside the doctrine as you note, but I take issue and cannot square with the modern scientific evidence that suggests Eve was non-human hominid millions of years ago. There is no missing link found to date and I do not think one will ever be found.

I can accept an “old Earth” Creation event that does seem to square with our modern scientific understanding in the creation of the Universe, that does not conflcit with doctrine.

I think man is a Created being, not an evolutionary one. At some point in Earths history, the “sixth day”, Adam & Eve (humans- homo sapian sapian) were created as we are today. I tend to think all the animals, those extinct and not, were created as they were without the evolutionary rise suggested by evolutionists. Adaptation is different.

The likelihood that Adam and Eve were two created individuals and not a community makes more sense theologically and maybe even scientifically. I do not know. How modern human civilizations came to rise in different parts of the world, with different cultures, but with similar characteristics- all within a narrow timeframe is remarkable, and to me is identified if not fully explained by the tower of Babel in Gen 11.


So you think “uncover nakedness” means something other than “to have sex with”? Most modern translations actually use the word sex (“sexual intercourse” in the NAB), so it does work. The case you cite is a special exception to the general law. In general, don’t sleep with your sister in law. But if your brother’s dead, carrying on the family is more important.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.