I already told you that Zipporah was the "Cushite" woman. The Midianites were dark complected. They are often refered to as Cushite.Fairlight said:
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Do poeple here understand the concept of a metaphor or analogy? There is no man, there are no women. The two women are figures of Jerusalem & Samaria, who've lead the children of Israel into idolatry. They've brought forth the illegitimate children of false gods. False gods have become like the fathers of the children of Israel rather then their being devoted to their true father, who is God.DiscussingTheTopic said:
The abuse of scripture through tendencious interpretations is really quite apalling.
A
Anonymous
Guest
VictorLepanto said:
And where are they referred to as such ? Midian and Ethiopia were different places.
Blessings,
Fairlight
A
Anonymous
Guest
VictorLepanto said:
I can assure you that 99% of the members here understand that Ezekiel 23 is an analogy...including myself. However, I don't agree with your general interpretation of the passage.
Blessings,
Fairlight
Well, what is the point of the metaphor then?Fairlight said:
A
Anonymous
Guest
VictorLepanto said:
I believe several people have already explained it to you...most notably "John For Christ". One point of disagreement was that you put forth the idea that the two women in Ezekiel 23 were daughters of God and not wives. ...when clearly the passage is talking about two metaphorical unfaithful wives (two nations). I suggest you go to the "Gematria" thread and reread the posts referencing Ezekiel 23.
Blessings,
Fairlight
Victor said:
There is not one passage of Old Testament Scripture that I have found which says, "So-and-so had only one woman (wife) and no concubines." (If there is one, tell me where and I will stand corrected.) The closest to that is Joseph, which can be logically inferred since he had only two sons that are named and who were counted as Jacob's children for purposes of inheritance. He might have had another wife who only had daughters, but the Bible is silent about that possibility.
Yet there are many passages that say, "So-and-so had many women (wives) and concubines." I found a total of 28 named men who were explicitly said to have had more than one wife and 11 other named men that can be logically inferred to have had more than one, usually because of the number of children he is said to have had. Some were righteous in God's eyes (David, for example), some were not (Esau, for example) and for some, we are not told much about them except that they had more than one wife. (Many were judges of Israel, and so it can be inferred that they were righteous men.) In addition, the entire tribe of Issachar was polygynous (emphasis mine):
But on to your list...
If polygyny is a sin because it is first mentioned in the Bible in connection with a sinner, then:
Victor, there are many solid Biblical arguments presented in this and other threads, written by various forum members, that you have completely ignored. You keep repeating, without any Scriptural support at all, that polygyny is sinful.
Why can't you provide some reference in Scripture that says it is sinful? All you have done is to provide tortured logic attempting to show something to be sinful when, in fact, God never called it sin. Not one time. He never chastised anyone for having more than one woman (wife by our modern terminology). God was not bashful about naming other sins, such as stealing and adultery and homosexuality. He was not bashful about chastising David for his adultery and murder. Why was He so bashful about calling polygyny a sin?
Please answer just one of those many Scriptural arguments with Scripture, not man's logic.
There is not one passage of Old Testament Scripture that I have found which says, "So-and-so had only one woman (wife) and no concubines." (If there is one, tell me where and I will stand corrected.) The closest to that is Joseph, which can be logically inferred since he had only two sons that are named and who were counted as Jacob's children for purposes of inheritance. He might have had another wife who only had daughters, but the Bible is silent about that possibility.
Yet there are many passages that say, "So-and-so had many women (wives) and concubines." I found a total of 28 named men who were explicitly said to have had more than one wife and 11 other named men that can be logically inferred to have had more than one, usually because of the number of children he is said to have had. Some were righteous in God's eyes (David, for example), some were not (Esau, for example) and for some, we are not told much about them except that they had more than one wife. (Many were judges of Israel, and so it can be inferred that they were righteous men.) In addition, the entire tribe of Issachar was polygynous (emphasis mine):
But on to your list...
Prove it from Scripture.
Prove it from Scripture.
If polygyny is a sin because it is first mentioned in the Bible in connection with a sinner, then:
- Monogamy is a sin because the first supposed monogamist, Adam, sinned
It is a sin to dwell in tents and have livestock
It is a sin to play on the harp and the flute
It is a sin to work in bronze and iron
Prove it from Scripture.
Ishmael was not rejected by God. He was just not the son of promise through whom the Messiah would come, which is not the same as being rejected by God. In fact, he was blessed by God and became the father of many nations.
Either Hagar had more sons by Abraham than just Ishmael, or he had more concubines than just Hagar and Keturah and those concubines had sons. (The second is the most likely of the two possibilities to be true, because Hagar and Ishmael were sent away before Sarah died.) In either case, if having Hagar and Keturah and the unnamed concubine(s) was not a sin for Abraham, then it is not a sin for us to have concubines as well. And what is the difference between a concubine and a wife? In God's eyes, nothing. In man's sinful eyes, a concubine is of lower social status. Both belong to the man, both are not to be touched by another man, both are in a lifetime covenant relationship with the man, both have a one-flesh union with the man.
The first one you might have right, but it can not be proven from Scripture. It can be shown to be "maybe true" from the Biblical record.
Jacob did not have to marry Rachel after Leah became his woman. He could have said, "One wife is all that God wants me to have." But he did not. God never differentiated between the sons of Jacob's four wives in any way that is inconsistent with the way he dealt with the sons of any man in the Old Testament that we believe may have had only one wife. For example, Esau was first-born, not Jacob, and they had the same mother. (Duh! They were twins!) All four women were Jacob's wives (according to our modern concept of "wife") in God's eyes.
Another that you got right. In fact, the only one that can be shown as "probably true" from Scripture.
Maybe I should have had only one daughter so that they would not have fought with each other as children. ("Daddy, my sister got a better doll than I did!") (They have ceased fighting and are now the best of friends since becoming adults.) The "war" was not because of polygyny, it was because one wife was out-producing the other in the child bearing department. In other words, jealousy. (See Nathan's excellent post on jealousy in another thread.) Jacob did not help any by playing favorites, but that was not because of polygyny, it was because of Jacob's sinful nature. (Something we all have.)
By your logic, it is obvious that an objective and systematic contextual analysis of Scriptures would show that we wear clothes only because of the fall, so we should all run around naked lest we sin by wearing clothes.
Victor, there are many solid Biblical arguments presented in this and other threads, written by various forum members, that you have completely ignored. You keep repeating, without any Scriptural support at all, that polygyny is sinful.
Why can't you provide some reference in Scripture that says it is sinful? All you have done is to provide tortured logic attempting to show something to be sinful when, in fact, God never called it sin. Not one time. He never chastised anyone for having more than one woman (wife by our modern terminology). God was not bashful about naming other sins, such as stealing and adultery and homosexuality. He was not bashful about chastising David for his adultery and murder. Why was He so bashful about calling polygyny a sin?
Please answer just one of those many Scriptural arguments with Scripture, not man's logic.
said:
Joseph was Rachel's first born
Rebbecca's first born was Esau and her second was Jacob. Esau and Jacob were twins.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hi Victor,
You have a misunderstanding of Scripture. You are basing your beliefs on traditional teachings, not on what the Bible says.
Though there is no actual term for wife in Scripture, the contextual use of "woman" indicates wifehood in some passages. That same term used for wives (i.e., "woman" or "women") within context is also used of concubines, contrary to your belief. If you had read my message carefully, you would have seen that.
Sarah only had authority over Hagar when she was Sarah's servant. The moment Sarah gave her to Abraham, she ceased to have any right or authority over Hagar.
We have archeological records, such as the Law of Hammurabi, which clearly indicate that slaves could own their own property. They were not like slaves in recent American history. For the same reason that a slave could own their own property, even slaves, a wife could own property in those times. Unfortunately, at times wives were treated as a kind of special slave with more rights. However, it is also obvious that Sarah was not treated as a slave at all. But the "ownership" of a husband over his wife was probably a remnant of the older (and later) practices. For that reason, Sarah could have her own slaves under her authority rather than Abraham's authority.
Sarah transferred her legal right to her slave Hagar to Abraham for the particular purpose of Abraham having some kind of offspring, otherwise his property would transfer to someone else when he passed away. It was common for the property in those cases to be transferred to the head slave in the household. We can see an example of this in Genesis 15:2 where Eliezer of Damascus was the heir of Abraham before Ishmael was born. (Later Isaac became the heir.)
After Hagar was a jerk to Sarah, Sarah complained. Only THEN did Abraham allow Sarah the authority to mistreat HIS wife, Hagar. Based upon the Mosaic Law, this would not have been allowed. Based upon justice, this would not have been allowed. Based upon sin, it was to be expected of a man pestered by a strong wife.
Though Sarah originally had what might be called "legal" authority over Hagar, she transferred all of that authority away.
In the Mosaic Law, the children of concubine wives are treated the same as the sons of non-concubine wives when it comes to inheritance. God cleaned up that bit of injustice, and cinched up the rules about marriage a bit, to somewhat erase the difference between concubines and regular wives.
John for Christ
You have a misunderstanding of Scripture. You are basing your beliefs on traditional teachings, not on what the Bible says.
Though there is no actual term for wife in Scripture, the contextual use of "woman" indicates wifehood in some passages. That same term used for wives (i.e., "woman" or "women") within context is also used of concubines, contrary to your belief. If you had read my message carefully, you would have seen that.
Sarah only had authority over Hagar when she was Sarah's servant. The moment Sarah gave her to Abraham, she ceased to have any right or authority over Hagar.
We have archeological records, such as the Law of Hammurabi, which clearly indicate that slaves could own their own property. They were not like slaves in recent American history. For the same reason that a slave could own their own property, even slaves, a wife could own property in those times. Unfortunately, at times wives were treated as a kind of special slave with more rights. However, it is also obvious that Sarah was not treated as a slave at all. But the "ownership" of a husband over his wife was probably a remnant of the older (and later) practices. For that reason, Sarah could have her own slaves under her authority rather than Abraham's authority.
Sarah transferred her legal right to her slave Hagar to Abraham for the particular purpose of Abraham having some kind of offspring, otherwise his property would transfer to someone else when he passed away. It was common for the property in those cases to be transferred to the head slave in the household. We can see an example of this in Genesis 15:2 where Eliezer of Damascus was the heir of Abraham before Ishmael was born. (Later Isaac became the heir.)
After Hagar was a jerk to Sarah, Sarah complained. Only THEN did Abraham allow Sarah the authority to mistreat HIS wife, Hagar. Based upon the Mosaic Law, this would not have been allowed. Based upon justice, this would not have been allowed. Based upon sin, it was to be expected of a man pestered by a strong wife.
Though Sarah originally had what might be called "legal" authority over Hagar, she transferred all of that authority away.
In the Mosaic Law, the children of concubine wives are treated the same as the sons of non-concubine wives when it comes to inheritance. God cleaned up that bit of injustice, and cinched up the rules about marriage a bit, to somewhat erase the difference between concubines and regular wives.
John for Christ
VictorLepanto said:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hi Tlaloc,
I only have one comment on what you said here:
"They were not free to have rights to their own children, they were borne in the name of their mistresses"
I don't believe that conclusion is accurate. That is the traditional view because of the statement by Rachel (and a couple others) that went like this, "Behold my slave woman Bilhah; go in to her, and she shall bear upon my knees, and yea, let me be built up from her, me also."
However, this does not exactly mean that the concubine wife did not have rights to their own children, nor that the children were born in the name of the mistresses who gave the slave women to their husbands.
I'm not saying that it absolutely could not mean that, but it is likely that this was only an affection by the mistresses that the children of their former slaves would be LIKE their own, rather than "legally" their own.
One thing that isn't very clear to people is that there were no legalities in those days per se, other than in cities. They only had social customs, and those changed over time. I think I'll start a topic on that...
John for Christ
I only have one comment on what you said here:
"They were not free to have rights to their own children, they were borne in the name of their mistresses"
I don't believe that conclusion is accurate. That is the traditional view because of the statement by Rachel (and a couple others) that went like this, "Behold my slave woman Bilhah; go in to her, and she shall bear upon my knees, and yea, let me be built up from her, me also."
However, this does not exactly mean that the concubine wife did not have rights to their own children, nor that the children were born in the name of the mistresses who gave the slave women to their husbands.
I'm not saying that it absolutely could not mean that, but it is likely that this was only an affection by the mistresses that the children of their former slaves would be LIKE their own, rather than "legally" their own.
One thing that isn't very clear to people is that there were no legalities in those days per se, other than in cities. They only had social customs, and those changed over time. I think I'll start a topic on that...
John for Christ
Tlaloc said:
This is a big part of the issue with discussing polygamy with a modern audience. The thing is, marriage as we know it doesn't exist in the Old Testiment. The extreme and obvious case for this would be that 'no one was married in a church' (duh). While many people look for patters to define by modern standards what qualifies as a wife or not. They find similarities for sure, but the exact parrelel does not exist.
As it pretains to this topic. Bilhah and Zilpah (or Bil and Zippy for short) where:
In a sexual relationship with Isreal
Conceiving and raising Children by him
Commited to him in that they where not allowed to be touched by another man
Entitled to be provided for by him
They where not free to say no
They where not free to have rights to their own children, they where borne in the name of their mistresses
They did not have any kind of formal ceremony
This relationship was not sin for either of them.
So then, if they where actual wives is subjective to what you think an actual wife is. Objectively they where Israels women as much as Rachel and Leah where. The only substantial difference was their status as slaves.
If we look at the term 'married' in the old testament it comes from the concepts of 'to take a woman' or 'a woman who is a mans' depending on the context, if the translators are considered objective than Bill and Zippy are objectively Isreals wives, if the translators are considered subjective than everyone's view of the topic will be similarly subjective. The legal distinctions are because of their social status, they are slaves, it doesn't change that they are Israels wives (they are his women). The union just didn't change their social status (as it often does today).
P.S.
Even different children of the same wife are given different inheritances in scripture (firstborn son) and today children are generally given different inheritances as parents see fit regardless of their exact parentage. The inheritances discussion doesn't prove\disprove weather they should count as wives or not.
A
Anonymous
Guest
VictorLepanto said:
Hi Victor,
Not so. Those passages do not indicate that the children of the concubines were considered the children of their mistresses, other than possibly in the mistresses own minds. While we see three cases of this in the Bible (Sarah, Rachel, and Leah), the phrases used don't indicate that the children BECAME the children of their mistresses, nor that this was a social practice of those times. The decision to see those passages as a transfer of motherhood or legal rights to the children is pure speculation, not reason.
VictorLepanto said:
That is recorded. He may have married a descendant. Incest was not forbidden until the Mosaic Law, and Adam and Eve's children intermarried, so there's no reason to think that Adam may have not done so as well. Scripture is neutral on that.
VictorLepanto said:
Again, that's simply a guess because it isn't recorded that they had more than one wife. That is a literal limited reading of the Bible, where nothing happens that is not recorded. That certainly isn't true. Several polygamists of Scripture are said to have many children beyond what one woman could bear, but the Bible doesn't record how many wives they had. That doesn't mean that they didn't have many wives. It just wasn't recorded. The Bible doesn't mention Adam going to the restroom either, but he certainly did...
VictorLepanto said:
This is a logical fallacy of guilt by association. Elvis sung gospel music--does that make all the Christian songs he sang evil because Elvis was a unrepentant sinner?
Just because you believe Lamech was a murderer doesn't make everything he did in his life--including polygamy--a sinful practice.
In fact, you don't know that he was a murderer as well. Why did God not punish him for killing the young man? Lamech killed the young man in self-defense. Do you believe that self-defense is a sin? You'd find that position difficult to back up with Scripture. What Lamech did was not murder at all.
You should note that God did not indicate in Scripture that Lamech was wrong in any way. Lamech was the one chagrined that he had to kill a person, and even defended his honor in his statement to his wives. Obviously by that time, the punishment God gave Cain for Abel's murder was well-known, and Lamech felt conflicted in that he had killed someone that attacked him. Yet God never shows judgment for that killing--nor especially that Lamech had two wives.
Rather than a statement that Lamech was wicked, the fact that God does not declaim Lamech for any sin, is a statement of his righteousness in both self-defense and polygyny.
VictorLepanto said:
So what? That only indicates that monogamy exists too. You could just as well list celibates: Paul - 0 wives.
VictorLepanto said:
As indicated in a prior message, concubines are wives. Abraham had three wives, two of whom had formerly been slaves. Even though he started out a monogamist in marriage (don't just about all men?), he became a full-fledged polygamist, then essentially divorced Hagar, then later married Keturah after Sarah died, going back to monogamy.
VictorLepanto said:
Actually, you listed three polygynists among the Patriarchs of Israel. Before those was Lamech, and there are a bunch of other righteous men in Scripture, like Caleb, Gideon, Hosea, David, and others. You probably just forgot to mention them...
John for Christ
A
Anonymous
Guest
VictorLepanto said:
Hi Victor,
The point of a metaphor is to draw a relationship between a known thing and an unknown or barely understood thing. If the known thing does not have a clear meaning, then the metaphor is weak.
In the case of God portraying Himself as a polygynist, the known thing, polygyny, describes something that must be a righteous act, or God couldn't be portrayed in that manner. Therefore, the simple and rational conclusion is that the metaphor is based around the righteous form of marriage called polygyny.
What I find appalling is the failure of logic on the part of so many anti-polygynist Christians...
John for Christ
A
Anonymous
Guest
PolyDoc said:
Hi PolyDoc,
I'd love to get your list if you could message it to me. I have a list but it isn't that extensive... I can add it to my polygyny information collection that I've been building over the years!
PolyDoc said:
Is it possible, though, that this only means that some of the members of the tribe of Issachar were polygynous? The way it is worded could mean that every single man had more than one wife OR that many of the men had more than one wife. The second is more like saying that the group as a whole had more wives than average. Personally, I think that is the most likely meaning of this passage, but I could be wrong.
John for Christ
IMHO, based on Biblical research (IMHO means I offer this as by no means conclusive and the source should be considered), Bilhah and Zilphah were the property of Rachel and Leah and as such their offspring could be named as they liked. If you like, Bilhah and Zilphah were part of their "trousseaus." An analog would be Hagar who belonged to Sarai, whom she seems to have picked up in Egypt by way of Pharaoh's apology for considering her eligible.
I notice that after the giving of the law there is no record of such handmaidens given to their mistresses, who then become what amounts to alternate breeding stock for the mistress (owner of the slave girl) should her mistress not be able to have children, or have enough. This doesn't mean it didn't happen again after Rachel and Leah, or even after the giving of the Law.
The part that is not my opinion is the divine ratification of these arrangements (at least in historical context) since God's word endorses their children as offspring of Rachel and Leah, thereby legitimizing the practice, at least for that point in time (prior to the giving of the Law of God through Moses).
I notice that after the giving of the law there is no record of such handmaidens given to their mistresses, who then become what amounts to alternate breeding stock for the mistress (owner of the slave girl) should her mistress not be able to have children, or have enough. This doesn't mean it didn't happen again after Rachel and Leah, or even after the giving of the Law.
The part that is not my opinion is the divine ratification of these arrangements (at least in historical context) since God's word endorses their children as offspring of Rachel and Leah, thereby legitimizing the practice, at least for that point in time (prior to the giving of the Law of God through Moses).
A
Anonymous
Guest
Random thoughts flow unbidden through my mind at times. Here is one of them that slipped in while reading this thread. Does it have any significance to the question of, "were Hagar, Bilhah and Zilpah the propert of their mistresses" if we consider that Sarai was the property of Abraham and Leah and Rachael were property of Jacob and were under their husbands authority?
John Whitten said:
I think the main point was to explain how Jacob got access to the maidservants hands in marriage on account of Exodus 21:8-10, so it could matter before the marriage to the maidservants.
I will give three potentially fictitious examples of how it could matter after the marriage. That all being said if Jacob took initiative as to how these decisions are to be governed ahead of time, I suspect Jacob could do whatever he wants (within reason) after the marriage to all four has occurred, he could for instance if he wants force Rachel and Leah to become slaves of their former maidservants as long as he owns them all.
Potentially Fictitious Example 1
Jacob is out of town,
Jacob did not tell Rachel and Leah they cannot make Bilhah and Zilpah do all the chores today, Bilhah and Zilpah cannot ask Jacob to correct the policies of Rachel and Leah because Jacob is out of town
Potentially Fictitious Example 2
Jacob dies
Are Bilhah and Zilpah still the property of Rachel and Leah?
Potentially Fictitious Example 3
Jacob decides to divorce Rachel and Leah and threatens to .... if they come back, assuming Jacob does not force Bilhah and Zilpah to stay but he does not force them to leave either
Whose property are Bilhah and Zilpah now, Rachel's and Leah's or Jacob's
Tlaloc
Member
John For Christ
Yeah, I know, I've been trying to express that and still carry on a conversation that might get through to Victor.
I tend to see the whole thing like a close-family surrogacy. Not sad for the slave at all, but a happy kind of family bonding thing. Weather she had to give the child in the name of her mistress or not I don't know, it looks that way but you're right that it may not have been so. I agree that I might be wrong about the whole picture.
Dangit, I love Hammurabi's code, but I've never gone and actually read the thing. You've reminded me of something I should really do...
Victor,
[sarcasm]Good argument, I concede to you're intellectual prowess.[/sarcasm]
"And Adam knew Eve his wife;"
Kudos for not making any substantial changes from the KJV... The word our argument is centered around here is 'his' and it's the same in both renderings. Either way, the names Adam and Eve (or, if you must אדם and חוּה ) are actually listed here, so you've pretty must just done arbitrary injustice to the translation without helping your case... (Yes yes, Adam may refer to much more than the name, but Eve is a special and specific name here)
Your point, of course, is that Eve is refereed too in the possessive sense by Adam. It is not done in the specific form that Eve is the woman of Adam, only, that Adam knew his Eve. This is not different than when a woman is 'Given to him' such as the women given to Israel. The possessive defines the relationship, being given to him necessarily makes her his. That is what is straightforward. You can't be given to someone and no be someones, if Bilhah was not Israels Rubens escapade would not have been an issue...
This brings me back to the plainly stated question you avoided
By the way, do you allow concubines as long as there is only one wife? It seems separating the topics doesn't help you anyway...
Why did you transliterate a whole verse? I can see transliterating things for word studies but if you're going to do a whole verse just post the Hebrew
ויקח אברם ונחור להם נשׁים שׁם אשׁת־אברם שׂרי
Sari Avram's Name Women Took Nahor & Avram &
And heck, translate it from right to left while you're at it.
Either way, you haven't presented anything novel. Not every wife is refereed to in that specific terminology, I would venture to say that most are not, and its already given that Eve was not.
ותאמר שׂרי אל־אברם הנה־נא עצרני יהוה מלדת בא־נא אל־שׁפחתי אולי אבנה ממנה וישׁמע אברם לקול שׂרי
Sari Calls Avram Listen & Built Avram Perhaps Slave Go PleasePlease Womb My God Shut Now Look Avram To Sari Said
And yeah, slave is possessive, or else it would be
שׁפחה
BUT
Is not accurate in this case. It is specifically Abrahams seed that is to be built up, she does not say that it is to be hers. You are assuming based on the case of Israels wives, there it is stated, here it is not.
But the quote I love the most is
After you even pointed out that there was no such word in Hebrew. Doesn't crossing concepts even you know are not directly paralleled bug you even in the slightest? You have arbitrarily defined what qualifies to be translated as 'wife'. Like I said, if anyone is objective, its the KJV translators,and their translation includes slave girls as wives. If you don't grant them to be objective, than you must admit that you are also not objective on this topic (or at least, you can't realistically expect anyone else to view you as objective)
Yeah, I know, I've been trying to express that and still carry on a conversation that might get through to Victor.
I tend to see the whole thing like a close-family surrogacy. Not sad for the slave at all, but a happy kind of family bonding thing. Weather she had to give the child in the name of her mistress or not I don't know, it looks that way but you're right that it may not have been so. I agree that I might be wrong about the whole picture.
Dangit, I love Hammurabi's code, but I've never gone and actually read the thing. You've reminded me of something I should really do...
Victor,
[sarcasm]Good argument, I concede to you're intellectual prowess.[/sarcasm]
"And Adam knew Eve his wife;"
Kudos for not making any substantial changes from the KJV... The word our argument is centered around here is 'his' and it's the same in both renderings. Either way, the names Adam and Eve (or, if you must אדם and חוּה ) are actually listed here, so you've pretty must just done arbitrary injustice to the translation without helping your case... (Yes yes, Adam may refer to much more than the name, but Eve is a special and specific name here)
Your point, of course, is that Eve is refereed too in the possessive sense by Adam. It is not done in the specific form that Eve is the woman of Adam, only, that Adam knew his Eve. This is not different than when a woman is 'Given to him' such as the women given to Israel. The possessive defines the relationship, being given to him necessarily makes her his. That is what is straightforward. You can't be given to someone and no be someones, if Bilhah was not Israels Rubens escapade would not have been an issue...
This brings me back to the plainly stated question you avoided
By the way, do you allow concubines as long as there is only one wife? It seems separating the topics doesn't help you anyway...
Why did you transliterate a whole verse? I can see transliterating things for word studies but if you're going to do a whole verse just post the Hebrew
ויקח אברם ונחור להם נשׁים שׁם אשׁת־אברם שׂרי
Sari Avram's Name Women Took Nahor & Avram &
And heck, translate it from right to left while you're at it.
Either way, you haven't presented anything novel. Not every wife is refereed to in that specific terminology, I would venture to say that most are not, and its already given that Eve was not.
ותאמר שׂרי אל־אברם הנה־נא עצרני יהוה מלדת בא־נא אל־שׁפחתי אולי אבנה ממנה וישׁמע אברם לקול שׂרי
Sari Calls Avram Listen & Built Avram Perhaps Slave Go PleasePlease Womb My God Shut Now Look Avram To Sari Said
And yeah, slave is possessive, or else it would be
שׁפחה
BUT
Is not accurate in this case. It is specifically Abrahams seed that is to be built up, she does not say that it is to be hers. You are assuming based on the case of Israels wives, there it is stated, here it is not.
But the quote I love the most is
After you even pointed out that there was no such word in Hebrew. Doesn't crossing concepts even you know are not directly paralleled bug you even in the slightest? You have arbitrarily defined what qualifies to be translated as 'wife'. Like I said, if anyone is objective, its the KJV translators,and their translation includes slave girls as wives. If you don't grant them to be objective, than you must admit that you are also not objective on this topic (or at least, you can't realistically expect anyone else to view you as objective)
said:
Is that code directly from God?
Tlaloc
Member
No, but it has some nice zingers in it and a better philosophy of law than we often have today.
Also note that 'love' can be a pretty broad term in English.
On the other hand, Hammurabi's code is as directly from God as Tiger-Tiger Ice cream, and I love Tiger-Tiger Ice cream. So I stand by what I said
Also note that 'love' can be a pretty broad term in English.
On the other hand, Hammurabi's code is as directly from God as Tiger-Tiger Ice cream, and I love Tiger-Tiger Ice cream. So I stand by what I said