Chapter and verse, please. Please. From "be fruitful and multiply?" Please demonstrate. Show me your reasoning process.
Pairing was not, could not, be wily-nily. But it had to include brothers and sisters. Adultery=Incest at the time of our first parents. Adultery was a category that grew with every generation, every possibility of illicit relations. Incest was defined at that time as parent-child sexual relations. This I can demonstrate from Jesus' refutation of the Pharisees, Mt. 19:4-9. There, by appealing to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 he proves that a proper marriage was always a two-person affair. So sex with mom or dad was always prohibited. Incest was prohibited from the beginning.
Over time, the gene pool becomes dilluted, close marriages would begin to show mental and physical deformities. Plain rationality doubtless played an early part in broadening human, civil, or custmary limitations on close marraiges. But God codifies and regulates marriage further in the Law of Moses, and places divine restrictions on close marriages. God broadens the definiton of incest. How can you say "God commanded incest" unless you have already prejudiced your definition to allow your conclusion?
How exactly do you think I've denied this. Was the invasion of the land a consequence of sins of generations, as well as strictly being punishment for their own wickedness?
Again, this is only accurate if you agree that the Israelites were "breaking a law." But (and you yourself said this in an earlier post!) all killing is not murder, else magistrates are committing judicial murder in every case of capital punishment. How have you addressed even a single proposition of my extended sylogism that you quote above?
Finally, TimV, a scripture text. Thank you.
Yes. Ordinarily an unprovoked attack on anyone is a terrible sin against the 6th commandment (6C). And by the prophet God did command this individual to strike the prophet. My argument is that this incident doesn't oppose the 6C, because
1) It doesn't fit the defintion of an unprovoked attack. God ordered this wounding because it was condusive to his moral or righteous will and purpose. God has the power of life and death over every man, and if he deputizes a person to act as his minister, that person is duty bound to obey.
2) The matter of intent is not present. The wounding was not malicious. Jesus plainly shows that sin against the 6C begins in the heart. Mt. 5:21-22. This is no less reflected in the Law in the distinguishing made between manslaughter and murder (Ex. 21:12-13).
Therefore, I reject the idea that this event constitutes a true "exception" to the 6C. But, what if we could find one true exception to the 6C in the whole Bible--one event not explainable on any other ground. What would this prove? It would establish no such general principle such that God has no self-constraints, that he can for example be both a covenant-keeper (2 Tim. 2:13) and a covenant-breaker. In fact it would prove nothing at all (assuming we were interpretively correct) except that God made that particular exception, and not even that God makes other exceptions; because arguing from a particular instance to a general rule (induction) is fallacious. The best inductions, based on many examples, at best give us strong probabilities, or even rational presumptions--but never certainty.
