Logical Errors in the Bible? Show me!

[Fuel]

*Originally posted by Thrasymachus *
**I suppose the most striking contradictions would be to compare the nature of God in the first testament as compared to the second, and either to the central beliefs and writings of the modern day.

Rather odd fellow, that god guy that slowly changes to mirror the attitudes of the cultures that believe in him!

Since that’s off topic for this thread, however, I’ll just pull out my personal favorite:

2 Samuel 24:1-15: God orders David to take a census of Israel, and then promptly kills 70 thousand Israelites for doing so.

1 Chronicles 21:1-14. Now it was Satan that moved David to do it. Same result though, with God swooping in for the kill once more.

For a census! **

Ok, the facts: 2 Samuel 24:1 does not say “ordered”. Whatever translation you have, it’s wrong. the Hebrew word is “cuwth”. It means to prick, stimulate, entice, move (as seen in KJV), persuade, provoke, remove, set on, stir up, take away, According to the Key Word Study Bible. In Chronicles, a different word is used, although I am not sure exactly what word. But it is important that the verbs are different because that suggests that there was more going on than what seems… read on.

I have chatted about this same verse a couple years ago. I convinced many people on Physics Forums that God used Satan, which he does all the time (remember in the garden, the snake? That was God moving Satan to tempt Eve), to “move” David to take a census. Hence, just like it is correct to say GWB sent the troops to Afghanistan, so did Colin Powell. Just like God moved David to take the census (indirectly), so did Satan. Both ways of saying it are correct.

To comment on the first part of your post, you must be very privvy to the OT and NT to be able to make a blanket statement such as that. Assuming you have done your studying: First of all you are questioning the way a supposed Creator operates his life and his creation. Second, you are possibly mistaking God’s changing personality with the natural, intended flow of God’s unchanged plan for humanity.

[Mars_Horizon]

*Originally posted by Fuel *
**Second, you are possibly mistaking God’s changing personality with the natural, intended flow of God’s unchanged plan for humanity. **

God has a personality - that changes ?

Which Bible did you get that from?

Malachi 3:6 says “For I am the LORD, I change not”.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I said:
Do you want a flat contradiction of fact. Look no further than page one. If you want to say that the creation story is allegorical, how about the flood? There has never been a worldwide flood. That’s a fact. The Bible is wrong.

Fuel said:
You are saying that a miracle is impossible. That is an assumption, albeit a reasonable one, but still an assumption. There is not a complete lack of evidence for the flood. Look at the seashell artifacts on the tops of mountains in that area.

Your second sentence there suggests that you are being frivilous and closed minded, just FYI.

Miracles are neither here nore there. I’m saying that the hard evidence, the geolologal, archaeological and historical record, conclusively and indisputably disprove the Biblical flood story. I’m not saying it didn’t happen because it would have required a miracle, I’m saying that we can prove scientifically that it didn’t happen.

Your seashells on the mountains don’t really exist btw, that was a claim that was made by a creationist/geologist who later admitted that he fabricated the claim.

We can turn this into a flood debate, I suppose, if that’s what you really want, let me know, If you’re willing to concede that disproving the flood would disprove Biblical inerrancy you’re going to make it very easy on us, though.

Much of the archaeological evidence contradicts Biblical claims about historical events. Jericho was a ruin long before Joshua ever came to it. There is no sign in the archaeology that Israel ever existed as the grand, unified kingdom as described in Hebrew scripture.

You know, now is a good time to provide cites to these claims. These are the types of errors I want to know about and am prepared to acknowledge, given enough proof. (Actually, how do you quantify “grand, unified kingdom” enough to be able to prove it wrong or right?)

That’s a perfectly fair request, but let me come back to this one. (I have to go get my daughter from pre-school and I’ll need a little more time to google the appropriate cites). What I meant about the unified kindom though is the idea that Israel ever occupied or controlled many of the areas that the Bible claims it did. There is no archaeological evidence of Israelite presence at many of the times and places that are claimed in Hebrew scripture. More on this later…

Joseph was essentially Jesus’ father… he rose Jesus as his son and was married to his mother. That’s fair enough for me, but apparently not good enough for some other people. See that how you will, but it’s not an error in fact but in judgement.

The Messiah was supposed to have been a blood descendant of David. We’re talking about a royal bloodline, after all. A stepson doesn’t really cut it.

---

Luke gives us a historical impossibility. He claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great and was also born during the Census of Quirinius. The problem is that Quirinius’ census (which was not “of the world,” btw, but only a few local provinces, and which did not incidentally include Galilee) took place in the year 6 CE. Herod died in 4 BCE. The events are ten years apart. If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod he could not have been born during the census. If he was born during the census he could not have been born during the reign of Herod. Does this count as an “error?” If not, what does?

Thank you for playing along, btw.

I only see in 2:1-2 that Luke spoke of a tax by Ceasar Augustus and a reigning of Cyrenius. No mention I can see of Quirinius. (It would help if you could provide the verses). Also, I remember there being a lot of different Herods in this time. Maybe they are being confused with one another? I’ll need a cite on these things too. How sure are you about your sources of this info? Maybe those records are wrong? Just asking, not doubting.

Cyrenius and Quirenius are the same person. Quirenius is the Latin spelling, Cyrenius is the Greek. There’s no mistake about Herod either. Luke 1:5 refers to him as “King of Judea.” Only Herod the Great was ever king of Judea. His territory was divided between his sons after his death. One of his sons, Herod Antipas, was king of Galilee but never king of Judea.

The information on both Herod and Quirinius comes mainly from Josephus but here is the master for more on the subject.

[zev_steinhardt]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**The Messiah was supposed to have been a blood descendant of David. We’re talking about a royal bloodline, after all. A stepson doesn’t really cut it.
**

That’s something we’ve been saying for about 2000 years now…

Zev Steinhardt

[John_Zahn]

Lousy deduction, Ben, if you call this switching. You couldn’t even provide the specific quotes to show this. This isn’t even a nice try. Furthermore, you arguing that this is Lot’s one mistake shows you haven’t even read the rest of the thread or all of the 19th chapter of Genesis or both. But who knows, Lot offering his daughters to perverts may not qualify as a mistake to you either. To recap:

JZ–Also keep in mind this is the same Lot who sleeps with both of his daughters and gets both of them pregnant (Gen 19: 33). And yes the NT refers to him as righteous Lot. Now the morals to these stories is what?
Ben–You said that Lot wasn’t righteous because he slept with his daughters. When I pointed out that he didn’t willingly commit incest…

I said the NT refers to him as righteous, after I mention that he slept with and got both daughters pregnant, but you did infer correctly that I wouldn’t consider him righteous. Because he was also so irresponsible and overly indulgent with his alcohol that he couldn’t remember, doesn’t have me switching my argument either. Lot’s behavior doesn’t seem to be anything you would qualify as less than “righteous” as this next round of quotes brings this out:

JZ–“The Bible mostly having a misogynist point of view makes sure it states that it was the daughters that got their father to drink from the wine. It doesn’t blame Lot for being overly indulgent. And assuming he really didn’t know he had sex with his daughters, does anyone think he sort of had a clue when he later realized both of his daughters were pregnant, since as the story is told there were no males around in those parts?”

Ben–…you switch to arguing that he shouldn’t have overindulged in alcohol. Which is, of course, ridiculous. After seeing his hometown destroyed and his wife killed, Lot overindulges in alcohol- and that one mistake stains his whole life so that he cannot be described as righteous? (Not to mention that the fact that Lot’s realization after the fact that his daughters were pregnant in no way bears on the fact that he didn’t know what had happened at the time.)

You’re not making any sense. Go on and finish the sentence. I switch from what? I switched from he shouldn’t have overindulged in alcohol to what? The previous quote of me only has me saying that he slept with his daughters and I state that the NT refers to him as “righteous.” The latest quote has me saying the Bible “doesn’t blame Lot for being overly indulgent” which I think it should have too. Neither quote from me shows any switching even with your commentary attempting to make a case since direct quotes back to back doesn’t show it. And none of this was even my main argument that dealt with Card’s assertion. The only thing ridiculous is your accusations of me switching, and you defending that this shouldn’t keep Lot from being considered “righteous” because he was so drunk he wasn’t aware of sleeping with his daughters because of this one mistake, and of poor ole Lot having such a rough life with his wife being turned into salt, and seeing his hometown destroyed and all. Very few men, even those with serious drinking problems I think would find their daughters tempting to sleep with. And certainly not a man that is called “righteous.“ And this wasn’t his only mistake. What little mention the Bible portrays of Lot with few excerpts other than the19th chapter of Genesis doesn’t paint a picture of “father of the year” award written all over it. Lot offering his virgin daughters to the perverts so that they could do with them as the please still qualifies as “righteous” to you too? Yep, anything to protect those angels. He didn’t even have the courage to offer up himself first instead of his daughters. The Bible doesn’t even show him to be drunk when he did this. So if Lot getting drunk and sleeping with both daughters was his one mistake, then, what was this?

JZ

[photopat]

*Originally posted by Mars Horizon *
**God has a personality - that changes ?

Which Bible did you get that from?

Malachi 3:6 says “For I am the LORD, I change not”.

**

Maybe he’s referring to the notion that the Old Testament God and New Testament God are sometimes described in different terms. The OT God = vengeful, the NT God = loving.

[Polycarp]

One initial comment, to Fuel: I would think long and hard about the interpretations of Scripture that depict God as tempting people to sin. According to my Methodist Sunday School class nearly 50 years ago, that’s what the devil does. I strongly dislike the idea of a theology that posts no moral difference between God and the devil (other, of course, than the rebellion against God business). You might check recent posts by Siege about the idea of God commanding what smacks to most people as evil.

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
Miracles are neither here nore there. I’m saying that the hard evidence, the geolologal, archaeological and historical record, conclusively and indisputably disprove the Biblical flood story. I’m not saying it didn’t happen because it would have required a miracle, I’m saying that we can prove scientifically that it didn’t happen.

Your seashells on the mountains don’t really exist btw, that was a claim that was made by a creationist/geologist who later admitted that he fabricated the claim.

We can turn this into a flood debate, I suppose, if that’s what you really want, let me know, If you’re willing to concede that disproving the flood would disprove Biblical inerrancy you’re going to make it very easy on us, though.

Well, no, Diogenes, because he can always claim that God fabricated the evidence against the Flood. Though I have a great problem with the idea of worshipping the Loki-in-a-yarmulkeh that this sort of god-mockery posits.

The Messiah was supposed to have been a blood descendant of David. We’re talking about a royal bloodline, after all. A stepson doesn’t really cut it.

How about adoption – i.e., Joseph’s acknowledging Jesus as his son? Is adoption considered the equivalent of blood descent in Jewish law?

{later} Well, yeah, I didn’t think so, but it was worth asking.

Cyrenius and Quirenius are the same person. Quirenius is the Latin spelling, Cyrenius is the Greek. There’s no mistake about Herod either. Luke 1:5 refers to him as “King of Judea.” Only Herod the Great was ever king of Judea. His territory was divided between his sons after his death. One of his sons, Herod Antipas, was king of Galilee but never king of Judea.

The information on both Herod and Quirinius comes mainly from Josephus but here is the master for more on the subject.

Minor nitpick that doesn’t affect your main point: One of Herod’s sons – Antipater? Archelaus? – was left Judea and was king briefly there, but the Romans had to depose him and install a proconsul in order to keep the peace, he screwed up so badly.

[Fuel]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
**Everybody knows the story of David and Goliath – the shepherd boy who strikes down the giant warrior with his slingshot. Right?

Apparently discussing the same battle:

And interestingly, the words translated “Lahmi the brother of” in the last passage are “bet’ Lahmi” – “Lahmi of the house of” – and the similarities to “Bethlehem” are evident.

Who was Elhanan ben Jair? (Or was his father Jaare-oregim?) Who did he kill? How come it says David ben Jesse killed Goliath in one place, Elhanan in another, and that Elhanan killed Goliath’s brother rather than Goliath in a third place? And, apparently, both David and Elhanan are from Bethlehem (not a large town, so it says)? Do we have several distinct legends shuffled and mixed here? **

I did some research. This is my conclusion:

The account in 1 Samuel is different than the accounts in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles because David was already king in the last two accounts, and a little harp player/armor bearer in the first account.

Next on the agenda: You ask, “Well, how can the same guy be killed in two different battles?”. This leaves us with only 2 conclusions: that it was a mistake or the name Goliath referred to a family or multiple people from the same tribe (someone from Gath is a Gittite) And, the accounts in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles are the same because of the similar sentence structure and wording and because of David being the king in both. There is indeed an error. The words “Lahmi, the brother of” are left out of the 2 Samuel account, for some reason (translational error or authorship error). But, since the Bible accounts some stories multiple times, the Bible on the whole gets the story right in this case… Chronicles bailed Samuel out, so to speak.
Thus the reason for the cannon and for multiple authors.

As for the discrepency about the Elhanan, those names are very similar and are probably just translational errors. The name Elhanan was there, so the only assumption is to believe it was the same dude. I don’t want to sound like I am ignoring this issue here, but it seems too immaterial to spend time researching.

Summary here: Probable error with 2 Samuel leaving out “Lahmi, brother of” and possible error quoting Goliath dying twice. How solid of errors they are is a judgement call that I am not in a position to make, not being formally educated and not having the library of books at my fingertips like I thought I was going to have this last weekend at my parents’ house. Maybe someone could come in and give an expert analysis of the use of Goliath of Gath (the Gittite) dying twice???

IMO, the story of David and Goliath is held intact and untouched here. It’s the accounts of the other two that got fouled up.

[Fuel]

*Originally posted by Mars Horizon *
**God has a personality - that changes ?

Which Bible did you get that from?

Malachi 3:6 says “For I am the LORD, I change not”.

**

Turn the phrase around so it reads “you are possibly mistaking the natural, intended flow of God’s unchanged plan for humanity with the assumption that God’s personailty is changing.” I meant that he was mislabelling his observation.

Sorry about that.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Fuel,
Here is a a cite from Cornell which outlines some of the current archaeological scholarship in Israel.

Repeated excavations by various expeditions at Jericho and Ai, the two cities whose conquest is described in the greatest detail in the Book of Joshua, have proved very disappointing. Despite the excavators’ efforts, it emerged that in the late part of the 13th century BCE, at the end of the Late Bronze Age, which is the agreed period for the conquest, there were no cities in either tell, and of course no walls that could have been toppled. Naturally, explanations were offered for these anomalies. Some claimed that the walls around Jericho were washed away by rain, while others suggested that earlier walls had been used; and, as for Ai, it was claimed that the original story actually referred to the conquest of nearby Beit El and was transferred to Ai by later redactors.

Biblical scholars suggested a quarter of a century ago that the conquest stories be viewed as etiological legends and no more. But as more and more sites were uncovered and it emerged that the places in question died out or were simply abandoned at different times, the conclusion was bolstered that there is no factual basis for the biblical story about the conquest by Israelite tribes in a military campaign led by Joshua.

<snip>
(Re: a united monarchy)
The picture becomes even more complicated in the light of the excavations conducted in Jerusalem, the capital of the united monarchy. Large sections of the city have been excavated over the past 150 years. The digs have turned up impressive remnants of the cities from the Middle Bronze Age and from Iron Age II (the period of the Kingdom of Judea). No remains of buildings have been found from the period of the united monarchy (even according to the agreed chronology), only a few pottery shards. Given the preservation of the remains from earlier and later periods, it is clear that Jerusalem in the time of David and Solomon was a small city, perhaps with a small citadel for the king, but in any event it was not the capital of an empire as described in the Bible. This small chiefdom is the source of the “Beth David” title mentioned in later Aramean and Moabite inscriptions. The authors of the biblical account knew Jerusalem in the 8th century BCE, with its wall and the rich culture of which remains have been found in various parts of the city, and projected this picture back to the age of the united monarchy. Presumably Jerusalem acquired its central status after the destruction of Samaria, its northern rival, in 722 BCE.

The archaeological findings dovetail well with the conclusions of the critical school of biblical scholarship. David and Solomon were the rulers of tribal kingdoms that controlled small areas: the former in Hebron and the latter in Jerusalem. Concurrently, a separate kingdom began to form in the Samaria hills, which finds expression in the stories about Saul’s kingdom. Israel and Judea were from the outset two separate, independent kingdoms, and at times were in an adversarial relationship. Thus, the great united monarchy is an imaginary historiosophic creation, which was composed during the period of the Kingdom of Judea at the earliest. Perhaps the most decisive proof of this is the fact that we do not know the name of this kingdom.

I would also recommend a book called The Bible Unearthed by two Israeli archaeologists named Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman which goes into great detail about the archaeology of the Holy Land and it’s relationship to Biblical narratives.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Originally posted by Polycarp
Well, no, Diogenes, because he can always claim that God fabricated the evidence against the Flood. Though I have a great problem with the idea of worshipping the Loki-in-a-yarmulkeh that this sort of god-mockery posits.

Of course, and I’ve heard that argument before, but obviously any attempt at dialogue then becomes moot because God can make physical evidence appear however he wants it too. Why he would give us the curiosity, igenuity and intellect to explore our universe and then deliberately deceive us is beyond me. It seems like that would make God a liar.

How about adoption – i.e., Joseph’s acknowledging Jesus as his son? Is adoption considered the equivalent of blood descent in Jewish law?

{later} Well, yeah, I didn’t think so, but it was worth asking.

Maybe some exceptions could be made for inheritance in other situations but this is the Messiah we’re talking about. ;)Call it unenlightened maybe, but Davidic blood was pretty important back then.

Minor nitpick that doesn’t affect your main point: One of Herod’s sons – Antipater? Archelaus? – was left Judea and was king briefly there, but the Romans had to depose him and install a proconsul in order to keep the peace, he screwed up so badly.

Yes, it was Archelaus, but technically he was not a “king.” Augustus stripped that title from him and called him an “ethnarch” instead. Also he was familiarly called Archelaus, not Herod. In fact, Matthew calls him by this name himself (Mt.2:22)and distinguishes him from Herod the Great (although he does call Archelaus a “king” which may show that the title change was a mere technicality as far as common parlance was concerned).

[Askance]

But, since the Bible accounts some stories multiple times, the Bible on the whole gets the story right in this case…

Here you are saying that if the bible tells a story multiple times, one of which cannot be proved to be wrong, then the bible as a whole is not in error. Is that your criterion for "error’ now? That every account of an event in the bible has to be wrong for the bible to be wrong? But we did that in the flood debate, and you won’t accept that either. You posit missing words with no evidence except that they are necessary to make the bible consistent again for you.

I think it’s fairly clear, as I suspected earlier, that there is no possible combination of evidence that will convince you. In which case I’m not sure why you started this thread.

Just for grins: please give a hypothetical example of something that you would agree was an error, of whatever sort, in the bible.

[Apos]

Doesn’t the Bible also say that God hardens the heart of the Pharoh basically so that he can have a chance to show off his power? Part of which showing off includes killing all the firstborn in Egypt. In other words: he prods someone to do a wrong just so that he can have a chance to commit acts of supernatural terrorism against Egyptian civilians just to show off his oogly-googly powers. If true, I would think that this would be something people should hope ISN’T the literal truth.

[t_leave]

Mars Horizon selected this statement earlier in the thread.
I believe this single statement meets all the qualifications set forth by the OP and the emerging wiggle room.

Malachi 3:6 says “For I am the LORD, I change not”.

[Voyager]

*Originally posted by Apos *
**Doesn’t the Bible also say that God hardens the heart of the Pharoh basically so that he can have a chance to show off his power? Part of which showing off includes killing all the firstborn in Egypt. **

Remember, that includes not just grown firstborns but babies and children also. Well, just small change compared to the babies supposedly killed in the flood.

[Actuary]

This is my first reply to anything in this site.

I am a bit surprised at the irrational bases and reasoning methods employed in many of the arguments here. I heard this was a site in which a lot of really knowledgeable people post. I’m sure you all are, but a few of you are too quick to jump and reach for conclusions.

I hope you do not employ the same low standard of proof and mental processing at your regular profession as I’ve seen here. I’m not going to get personal here, but here two categories:

1. Too much arguement from silence. Some conclude that a story, or event or location discribed in the Bible could not be true if there is no other corroborating evidence outside the other 65 books in the Bible. Some conclude it could not be true if they cannot think of any logical reason for …

Remember, in believing the veracity of ancient records of ancient peoples, places and events, the world does not revolve around our puny imaginations and narrow paradigms. There are tons of stuff that happened way back then, that we have no record of.

How about withholding judgment until you have some clearly contradicting evidence? And, remember, much is not what is seems to be.

Don’t argue from silence, and don’t be so quick to conlude about matters that you have little true evidence. Leave it in the realm of conjecture and possibility. Power and pride are not as important as the truth. If you value your opinions, don’t be so quick to to give them away.

2. The Bible is a compliation of ancient historical writings. Treat it as such! Assess its historicity with the same standards that you assess all other ancient writings. Measure the time lag between the event and the writing, and between the writing and the earliest manuscript. Check the number of substantiating early manuscripts and number and types of deviations. Note the lack of or volume of internal cites to external people, places and events and how accurate all the other corroboratable cites are and whether what they wrote could have been quickly and easily refuted by opposing contemporaries. Investigate the veracity and character of the writers and whether they had to defend their documents. And on and on.

Apply these standards of scrutiny to the Bible documents. Then be honest enough to apply the same standards to all other ancient writings that you accept (and quote as evidence). The Bible has far better manuscript evidence than any other ancient document of significance - no lie.

Yes, there are many uncorroborated people. places and events recorded in the Bible. And even some that are questionable. But the Bible documents/writers (and the thousands of cites) score so much higher on these standards of scrutiny than other ancient writings, that a few puzzles don’t bother me much.

If you threw out the other ancient writings (whether originally on parchment or a stone or a wall) with as low threshhold of proof as you throw out the Bible writings, we would not believe much of anything about history.

Now that I’ve lectured you all as a fatherly professor might, I hope you take no offence, for none was intended. I hope your blood doesn’t boil, but your mind reflects.

And sorry for bein’ so long-winded.

[Ben]

*Originally posted by Actuary *
**Apply these standards of scrutiny to the Bible documents. Then be honest enough to apply the same standards to all other ancient writings that you accept (and quote as evidence). The Bible has far better manuscript evidence than any other ancient document of significance - no lie. **

Cite?

[Apos]

. Too much arguement from silence. Some conclude that a story, or event or location discribed in the Bible could not be true if there is no other corroborating evidence outside the other 65 books in the Bible. Some conclude it could not be true if they cannot think of any logical reason for …

This would be a good argument if the shoe was on the other foot. But if the claim is that the Bible, unlike almost every other human record, is supernaturally inerrant, then it is the claim that needs corroborating evidence for each and every element of its story, not the other way around.

You provide no cites for your claims about impressive validity. Please do so.

[El_Zagna]

*Originally posted by Actuary *
**I’m not going to get personal here…

**Please do. We get pretty think skinned around here and it’s much too time consuming to go back through the thread and guess at what you are referring to, especially when it’s not entirely clear which side of the debate you’re speaking to.

1. Too much arguement from silence. Some conclude that a story, or event or location discribed in the Bible could not be true if there is no other corroborating evidence outside the other 65 books in the Bible. Some conclude it could not be true if they cannot think of any logical reason for …

Argument from silence: “The argument from silence (Latin argumentum e(x) silentio) is that the silence of a speaker or writer about X proves or suggests that the speaker or writer is ignorant of X.” The lack of corroborating evidence I suppose is arguing from silence, but lack of logic is not. A person cannot be both 8 and 18 at the same time.

Remember, in believing the veracity of ancient records of ancient peoples, places and events, the world does not revolve around our puny imaginations and narrow paradigms. There are tons of stuff that happened way back then, that we have no record of.

Well, you start this off by suggesting that the laws of physics have changed since Biblical times (”our puny imaginations and narrow paradigms”), and then you finish by saying that it a lack of records. Those of us who question the Bible as inerrant will be quick to acknowledge that the record keeping was flawed. It is the Bible literalists that reject that idea.

How about withholding judgment until you have some clearly contradicting evidence?

8 = 18 isn’t contradictory enough for you?

Don’t argue from silence, and don’t be so quick to conlude about matters that you have little true evidence. Leave it in the realm of conjecture and possibility.

I’m perfectly happy to accept the Bible as conjecture, it is the literalists that see it as absolute truth.

If you value your opinions, don’t be so quick to to give them away.

Ummm… but isn’t that what you’re doing.

[gum]

If I may: Adam and Eve had more kids than Cain and Abel, right? Those other kids; Whom did they ‘sleep’ with?

Does that mean we’re all descendants of incest?