Leviticus 18....The Infamous Question

[Mechaman]

Why isn't there a specific mention to father-daughter incest in Leviticus 18?
This is a question that has plagued many a scholar and bored people looking on the internet for centuries if not since the dawn of time itself.

Here's the infamous quote itself:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now I noticed in Leviticus 18:17 it mentions that a man can not sleep with both a woman and her daughter.  Now does this mean like in a threesome?  Does it mean you can't have relationships with both at the same time?  As long as one of them is living you can't have relations with both?  Or that you are never allowed to have sexual relationships with both, and that you can only have it with one?
Anybody who takes biology knows that a man's daughter is born because he has sex with her mother and gets her pregnant, so if the last statement is true the case for father-daughter incest has been covered.

Sorry if this seemed like a random thing to bring up, but I've seen it all over the internet and this observation (which seemed to escape the minds of dozens of biblical scholars) came to me and I felt like sharing it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

no, it means you can't marry both of them

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

sorry, I misunderstood the question.  if the daughter is NOT [late edit] the biological daughter of the man, then the man can only marry either the daughter or her mother, not both.  if the man is the biological father, then obviously he can't marry her his biological daughter.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What I find odd about Leviticus 18 is Leviticus 18:21.  In the midst of a list of sexual proscriptions is what is commonly interpreted as a prohibition against sacrificing one's children. It seems to me more likely that "to pass them through the fire to Moloch" is in this context a prohibition against offering them up to be temple prostitutes of another god.

However, that's a pure stylistic quibble, and either action is clearly prohibited by other portions of the Torah.

As for Leviticus 18:17, note that besides also prohibiting sex with one's daughter, the wording also covers the case of one who is a daughter-in-law because she is your wife's daughter from a previous marriage, so it is more generic that simply a ban on boffing one's daughter.  (The case of sex with one who is a daughter-in law because she is your son's wife is covered in 18:15.)

Still, is is odd that there is not an explicit mention that you can't have sex with your daughter.  After all, the prohibition in 18:10 against sex with the daughter of one's child is redundant with the prohibition in 18:17 unless one assumes that the ancient Hebrews practiced adoption.  There is no explicit mention of adoption in the Mosaic Law, and of the two explicit OT mentions of the practice (that I'm aware of, feel free to correct me if there is one I don't recall), it's quite clear that the adoption of Moses didn't stick, while Esther was adopted during the exile by a cousin after her parents died, so it is possible that adoption practices had changed during the exile.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What I find odd about Leviticus 18 is Leviticus 18:21.  In the midst of a list of sexual proscriptions is what is commonly interpreted as a prohibition against sacrificing one's children. It seems to me more likely that "to pass them through the fire to Moloch" is in this context a prohibition against offering them up to be temple prostitutes of another god.

Not to be rude, but please shake yourself and wake up, for it is in PERFECT context since parental refusal to stand up against the sexual immorality within society is tantamount to sacrificing the souls of their children.  This is happening especially today as parents refuse to take a stand and screen out what the hearts of their children are consuming – the parents invite sexual immorality to be paraded in their living rooms each night through TV and the entire family sits around and consumes it.

Late Edit:  I didn't read carefully enough, as your last sentence states "is in this context a prohibition against offering them up to be temple prostitutes of another god."....it seems you understand after all.