• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Marrying Twins

Word study...

Lev 18:18 is usually translated 'as a rival' from tsarar ("make a rival-wife" also meaning "suffer distress", "hew hostility toward, vex"). There is a different word simularly used, tsarah ("vexer, rival-wife" and also " straits, distress"). Strong's defines the root of both of these as "adversary".

But this begs a question. If it's ok to marry a sister to your wife so long as you don't do it to vex her / if they're not adversaries; how can it be right to marry a non-sister if doing so would vex your first wife?

One possible objection to that is there is a difference between intention and result and in many cases the first wife chooses to be vexed at the very idea; not from any actual rivalry between them.
 
rockfox said:
But this begs a question. If it's ok to marry a sister to your wife so long as you don't do it to vex her / if they're not adversaries; how can it be right to marry a non-sister if doing so would vex your first wife?

One possible objection to that is there is a difference between intention and result and in many cases the first wife chooses to be vexed at the very idea; not from any actual rivalry between them.
Click to expand...
Yes, the dynamic would be much different from a sister vs a stranger.
What I see it saying is that ultimately it is the husbands choice, but there is something about pushing it too far.
 
steve said:
The thing that makes the most sense to me is that you are not to marry your wife’s daughter, ie; your own daughter. She would be too close of a relationship.
Nothing else really fits.
Click to expand...
It could be a step-daughter, regardless of whether you married a widow or a divorced woman.
 
Daniel DeLuca said:
It could be a step-daughter, regardless of whether you married a widow or a divorced woman.
Click to expand...
It could be, but is it?
Maybe in the Hebrew a distinction shows up, but we aren’t given one.

btw: The possibility that Adam married some of his own daughters back when the genetic structure was still somewhat perfect has been discussed as one of the ways that the population was kick-started. These rules may have been a refining of the previously available options.
 
Last edited:
steve said:
It could be, but is it?
Maybe in the Hebrew a distinction shows up, but we aren’t given one.

btw: The possibility that Adam married some of his own daughters back when the genetic structure was still somewhat perfect has been discussed as one of the ways that the population was kick-started. These rules may have been a refining of the previously available options.
Click to expand...
Well, if you have one, she is off limits, and I seriously doubt Adam did this. That of course is something we will never know this side of eternity.
 
Cap said:
Yes
Click to expand...
OK, well those theorists can believe whatever they want to believe, but I would have serious issues ascribing to that notion and still holding to the belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.
 
Daniel DeLuca said:
OK, well those theorists can believe whatever they want to believe, but I would have serious issues ascribing to that notion and still holding to the belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.
Click to expand...
Or, maybe we've read into Gen. 2 the assumption that it is a recapitulation when the text offers a couple clear statements to the contrary...

What if Adam was created on day 3?

Read Genesis 2:4-7 carefully and note that Adam appears to have been created before there were trees or shrubs making him the firstborn of all creation who witnessed all of the creative process.

Paradigm shifter, if true.

My son spotted this inconsistency a couple weeks ago and in a search to see if anyone else had considered this he found this:

http://loveandtruth.net/adam-third-day.html

It is an explanation for Adam's sons finding wives, etc..... the next question is how Adam's sin affected all, explainable through his role as priest....

Folder for discussion.
 
Interesting. I must say I'm not convinced, but must also say that I don't have a problem with it as it doesn't introduce any theological problems that I can think of, it's still a literal 6-day creation and Adam and Eve the parents of all humans.
PeteR said:
It is an explanation for Adam's sons finding wives, etc..... the next question is how Adam's sin affected all, explainable through his role as priest....
Click to expand...
I don't understand this comment of yours. What are you meaning? If Adam was created on day 3 and Eve on day 6 as that link suggests, then all humans are still descended from Adam and Eve, Adam's sin affected all as they are his direct descendents (no need to add any "spiritual" explanation like him having a role as priest), and Adam's sons still had to marry their sisters just as in the standard understanding. I don't see how it explains the one or adds a next question on the other.
 
rockfox said:
The theological problem is Christ is called the firstborn of creation.
Click to expand...
He's also called the second Adam. Now, I am NOT implying equality, but that Adam had a particular role that he failed at.

To the question of him on day 3 and Eve on day 6, the implications, per Gen. 1:26-27 is that Adam and Eve may not have been physical parents to all but he as priest was spiritually responsible. ..

Again, not espousing this but puzzling an alternate solution to multiple problems in the Gen. 2 is a retelling of the creation of man in Gen. 1 paradigm.
 
PeteR said:
the implications, per Gen. 1:26-27 is that Adam and Eve may not have been physical parents to all
Click to expand...
Because it refers to creating at least one man on day 6, with "in the image of God he created him"?

We know Eve was the mother of all, because that is clearly stated in 3:20. A multi-step logical deduction from other verses cannot be taken to contradict that clear statement. However Adam, Eve and the rest of mankind were created must be consistent with the fact that Eve is the mother of all. If the interpretation contradicts that clear fact, the interpretation is wrong.

Which means that either
- Adam was created on day 3, and 1:26-27 summarises the previous creation of Adam and present creation of Eve (it says man was created then, but that's not completely accurate but close enough as a summary statement), or
- Adam and Eve were created on day 6, and chapter 2 contains similar summary statements (when it says God formed the animals, it doesn't mean He created them right then, but rather that He had formed them previously and then brought them to Adam, but it just says he made the animals as a summary statement because the focus is on man).

Either way you've got some passage somewhere that is a summary statement rather than being chronologically precise. And that's ok, in my mind.
 
FollowingHim said:
Because it refers to creating at least one man on day 6, with "in the image of God he created him"?

We know Eve was the mother of all, because that is clearly stated in 3:20. A multi-step logical deduction from other verses cannot be taken to contradict that clear statement. However Adam, Eve and the rest of mankind were created must be consistent with the fact that Eve is the mother of all. If the interpretation contradicts that clear fact, the interpretation is wrong.

Which means that either
- Adam was created on day 3, and 1:26-27 summarises the previous creation of Adam and present creation of Eve (it says man was created then, but that's not completely accurate but close enough as a summary statement), or
- Adam and Eve were created on day 6, and chapter 2 contains similar summary statements (when it says God formed the animals, it doesn't mean He created them right then, but rather that He had formed them previously and then brought them to Adam, but it just says he made the animals as a summary statement because the focus is on man).

Either way you've got some passage somewhere that is a summary statement rather than being chronologically precise. And that's ok, in my mind.
Click to expand...
Excellent summary! Now to the question of how we got to this point, Levitical Law clearly states that a man is not allowed to have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Interestingly enough, it also states that you cannot marry your sister! No doubt, Cain married his sis, and according to the Book of Jubilees FWIW, so did Seth. Obviously, that was a different dispensation, and the human race could not have gone anywhere without incest occurring in one form or another. I love how the evolutionist resorts to Argument From Personal Disgust, to imply that 6 day literal creation could not have taken place! Having said that, @steve may be onto something. Sure God only created Eve for Adam, but there is nothing in Scripture that says that he didn't marry one of his daughters. I would love to see the anti-polys try to explain how it is impossible for Adam to have had more than one wife, but yet probable that his sons married their sisters.

I am imagining this exchange:
Anti P: Adam only had one wife.
Pro P: How do you know that?
Anti P: Well, God only made one wife for him.
Pro P: But Scripture tells us that he had sons and daughters.
Anti P: Yeah, but he didn't marry any of his daughters!
Pro P; How do you know that?
Anti P: Well, that is incest!
Pro P: Well, who did his sons marry?
Anti P: Their sisters of course!
Pro P: Well, that is incest as well!
Anti P: But God hadn't given the laws against incest at that time!
Pro P: You just made my point!
Anti P: Well, the Bible doesn't SAY that he married any of his daughters.
Pro P: Sure! It also doesn't SAY that his sons married their sisters. Maybe they married their nieces! The point is, you cannot possibly KNOW that Adam had only one wife.

OR

Anti P: God only made one wife for Adam.
Pro P: Well then, you are assuming that he didn't marry any of his daughters.
Anti P: Of COURSE he didn't marry any of his daughters; that would be WRONG!
Pro P: Wouldn't it have also been wrong for Adam's sons to marry their own sisters? I mean, who do you think they married?
 
Last edited:
FollowingHim said:
We know Eve was the mother of all, because that is clearly stated in 3:20. A multi-step logical deduction from other verses cannot be taken to contradict that clear statement. However Adam, Eve and the rest of mankind were created must be consistent with the fact that Eve is the mother of all. If the interpretation contradicts that clear fact, the interpretation is wrong.
Click to expand...

Mother of all what? All humans? Or just all his clan? Well let's see what it says...

And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
Click to expand...

Oh, mother of all living. If we take that literally that would mean animals too. So we have to read into that humans, no problem with that; but what humans? It doesn't say that either.
 
Daniel DeLuca said:
Obviously, that was a different dispensation, and the human race could not have gone anywhere without incest
Click to expand...
The problem with is anyone can claim this is a different dispensation and other parts of the law don't apply.... no poly.

Did God change? ( tongue in cheek)
 
PeteR said:
The problem with is anyone can claim this is a different dispensation and other parts of the law don't apply.... no poly.

Did God change? ( tongue in cheek)
Click to expand...
Only if they are properly using Scripture to back up their claim.
 
rockfox said:
Oh, mother of all living. If we take that literally that would mean animals too. So we have to read into that humans, no problem with that; but what humans? It doesn't say that either.
Click to expand...
All the living ones. That's what it says. So find a human that's made of stone, and she's not the mother of that one.
You don't have to read in anything.
It's very explicit, it's hard to imagine anything clearer than "all".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top