[re: implicit incest in creationist account of early human history]
It seems that you want to make this "incest" out to be something bad. You think that the fact that it is incest should be noted in the article, but I've never disagreed with mentioning that it occurred, but object to putting it in a way that suggests that there was something wrong with it. Even just the use of the word "incest", although technically correct, is problematic because of the connotations surrounding the term. As far as putting in bits that aren't in the account is concerned, I previously pointed out that you were doing that anyway. The bits that explain that incest wasn't a problem come directly from what you want to do—applying logic to the accounts, but unlike you, I don't come with the presupposition that they are mythological stories that therefore must have problems.
Philip J. Rayment, Conservapedia, Talk:Garden of Eden 59 Comments
[1/22/2011 10:54:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 104
Submitted By: Night Jaguar