The incest of which you speak, has nothing to do with Paul's teaching on tongues. So why are you bringing it up, or maybe, you have not sobered up after the last time you were out with your buds.
Fair enough… Paul brought up incest in 1Corinthians 5:1 KJV. What went down in Noah’s tent (Genesis 9:22 KJV, Leviticus 18:8 KJV)? Who was the ‘father’ of inherited genetic afflictions like cleft lips/palates and deafness, speech impediments…? What was Moses concerned about in Leviticus 18:6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20:17, 19, 20, 21, Deuteronomy 22:30, 27:20, 22, 23? Beyond the Law, such was written in the hearts (circumcised of the heart) of the Gentile descendants of Japheth (Romans 2:14, 15, 16). Has it occurred to you yet that first-degree (parent+child, sibling+sibling) consanguineous unions genetically impact the progeny, thereof?
Aspect #3) Physiologic deficits being literal hearing/speech deficits and/or the physiologic cognitive inability (v. Divine receptive aphasia) to process information even though hearing is physically intact:
Int J Biomed Sci. 2011 Dec; 7(4): 268–272.
Epidemilogical Profile of Speech and Language Disorder in North Central Nigeria
CONCLUSION
…Although this study does not find out the nature of marriages but observed a high rate of consanguineous marriages in the community. This is a risk factor to development of speech and language disorders from previous studies and literatures and the need to discourage it so as to reduce the prevalence of speech and language disorders in our environments.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3614840/
Those cases were likely second-degree incest and beyond (uncle+niece, aunt+nephew, first cousins). Paul’s mention in 1Corinthians 5:1 KJV was FIRST-degree incest (parent+child, sib pairs), even closer: A son sires a daughter with his mother, and he then sires children with said daughter… How about King Charles II:
Inbreeding & the downfall of the Spanish Hapsburgs
By Razib Khan | April 14, 2009 8:00 pm
The Habsburg King Carlos II of Spain was sadly degenerated with an enormous misshapen head. His Habsburg jaw stood so much out that his two rows of teeth could not meet; he was unable to chew. His tongue was so large that he was barely able to speak. His intellect was similarly disabled. His brief life consisted chiefly of a passage from prolonged infancy to premature senility…
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/g...wnfall-of-the-spanish-hapsburgs/#.VSNAPF6RYdu
Even more chronologically relative, how about King Tut (1341-1324 BC) who lived about 75 years before Moses (1250 BC)? King Tut’s first-degree incest sibling parents were severely inbred, themselves:
January 3, 2014
6 Secrets of King Tut
By History.com Staff
4. Tutankhamen was likely the product of incest.
In 2010 researchers performing DNA analyses on the remains of King Tut and his relatives made a shocking announcement. The boy king, they believed, was the product of incest between the pharaoh Akhenaten and one of his sisters. Inbreeding was rampant among ancient Egyptian royals, who saw themselves as descendants of the gods and hoped to maintain pure bloodlines. Experts think this trend contributed to higher incidences of congenital defects—such as King Tut’s cleft palate and club foot—among rulers. Tutankhamen himself would eventually marry his father’s daughter by his chief wife—his half-sister, Ankhesenamun.
http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/6-secrets-of-king-tut
Btw, King Tut was entombed alongside two stillborn children, but I’m not aware of DNA tests to affirm their relation. Not even mentioning other physiologic afflictions among a myriad of heritable speech impediments, I don’t suppose you’ve ever heard one speak with a significant cleft palate?
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...Sg7gI&tbm=isch&client=safari&ved=0CCoQMygAMAA
Well, since the charismatics might be just a little challenged performing ‘laying on hands’ surgery for this poor infant, you might want to discuss the successes of one of my buds among a volunteer surgical team repairing clefties in Mexico. How about that… the clefties no longer require an interpreter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LR_YDBPW1Y
Here’s a little more information about clefts (among a myriad of heritable speech deficits) and genetics:
http://cleftline.org/docs/Booklets/GEN-01.pdf
But, you can’t fathom first-degree incest having anything to do with perpetuating heritable physiologic communication deficits in Biblical times? Such was an irrefutable aspect of speaking in tongue. Is there any wonder why charismatics have such a difficult time acknowledging the ‘utter’ obvious? The notion creates a cognitive dissonant paradox in the charismatic salvation “approved” paradigm. I’m not suggesting such speech impediments didn’t coexist with the charismatic notion of tongue-speak that I don’t buy. I find it a rather amusing phenomenon that charismatics have a hard time swallowing the notion of heritable Corinthian speech impediments.
1Corinthians 5:1 KJV “It is reported COMMONLY that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles (Genesis 9:23 KJV, Genesis 10:5 KJV), that one should have his father’s wife (Genesis 9:22 KJV, Leviticus 18:8 KJV).”
Now, please take a closer look at a few verses in 1Corinthians 11 that you generally brought forth:
1Corinthians 11:18, 19, 20, 21, KJV “For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it (Matthew 13:11, 12, 18:4, 5, 6). 19). For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 20) When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. 21) For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.”
I hear Paul talking about divisions in the church via heresies regarding how one’s ‘approval may be made manifest’ (1Thessalonians 4:11 KJV). If I understand charismatics correctly, charismatics think tongue-speak edifies one as “approved” unto salvation in the flesh v. the hope and promise of salvation. I think tongue-speak (as charismatics understand it) edifies one as a “drunken” heretic (2Timothy 2:15, 16, KJV). Paul wasn’t talking about ethanol-induced intoxication (Matthew 24:48, 49, 50, 51).
The fundamental post-ascension communication challenges facing the disciples and Paul included the aforementioned 1) language barriers, 2) Divinely inspired receptive aphasia, and 3) physiologic communication deficits. Physiologic deficits were clearly noted even with Moses personally in Exodus 4:10, 11, 12. In addition to Jesus healing believers previously subject to Divine receptive aphasia to become disciples ‘gifted’ with apparent abstract perception, please consider Jesus ALSO healed heritable (John 9:2 KJV) physiologic communication deficits (Matthew 11:4, 5). Please pay particularly close attention:
Mark 7:32, 33, 34, 35, 37, KJV “And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech; and they beseech him to put his hand upon him. 33) And he took him aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spit, and touched his tongue; 34) And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened. 35) And straightway his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain. 37) And were beyond measure astonished, saying, He hath done all things well: he maketh both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.”
I can only conclude this deaf/mute previously spoke in an unknown tongue (1Corinthians 14:2 KJV) that only those very familiar to him could interpret among the congregation. But, you don’t think heritable Corinthian physiologic communication deficits were a challenge for Jesus’ disciples and Paul? Think again, JSJ.
kayaker
