• 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.

Meat Common Misconceptions and Mistranslation Issues

James Pease said:
Research what a vow is. The scripture seems to mention it as a vow to the LORD everytime or be talking about it in that context. We think of this as a vow to a person but I mean towards a vow like a nazarite vow or the vow that the Pharisees took when trying to kill Paul. I have lots of hours into numbers 30 because of marrying Lara without the blessing of her father. He didn't disallow it but wasnt happy. This didn't actually apply anyway because she was living in my household without a proper covering anyway. Also notice its only in the day of hearing for the father, but a husband can break a vow whenever. However if the husband breaks it in a day after his hearing, then he bears the guilt of the vow.
Click to expand...
If a woman is in agreement with being seduced, (if not it is rape) then that is in my opinion a form of a vow.
Those are my standards, not anyone else’s.

We aren’t living in a Hebrew culture, so some things are a bit more shaded. In the Hebrew culture her father would have either accepted or denied your proposal, but he would have been a lot more accepting of plural marriage.
I’m not judging your situation. In fact, there are so few righteous men who have raised their daughters to understand ownership that my statement was more theoretical than practical.
 
steve said:
If a woman is in agreement with being seduced, (if not it is rape) then that is in my opinion a form of a vow.
Those are my standards, not anyone else’s.

We aren’t living in a Hebrew culture, so some things are a bit more shaded. In the Hebrew culture her father would have either accepted or denied your proposal, but he would have been a lot more accepting of plural marriage.
I’m not judging your situation. In fact, there are so few righteous men who have raised their daughters to understand ownership that my statement was more theoretical than practical.
Click to expand...
Makes sense and I agree about the hebrew culture.
 
James Pease said:
So to help clarify are you saying sex=one flesh?
Click to expand...
Yes. I’m not always as lucid in text as I am in my head. Let me walk through it. 1 Corinthians 6:16 says “Or don't you know that he who is joined to a prostitute is one body? For, "The two," says he, "will become one flesh."

It literally quotes the marriage passage. If you join with a prostitute, and if you say that’s not sex I’m going to question your seriousness, then you are the same as whatever you think Adam and Eve were.

Sex causes one flesh. Unless it breaks the Law; i.e. adultery, incest, bestiality. Although I don’t consider those things sex. Someone will ask the question.
 
The Revolting Man said:
Yes. I’m not always as lucid in text as I am in my head. Let me walk through it. 1 Corinthians 6:16 says “Or don't you know that he who is joined to a prostitute is one body? For, "The two," says he, "will become one flesh."

It literally quotes the marriage passage. If you join with a prostitute, and if you say that’s not sex I’m going to question your seriousness, then you are the same as whatever you think Adam and Eve were.

Sex causes one flesh. Unless it breaks the Law; i.e. adultery, incest, bestiality. Although I don’t consider those things sex. Someone will ask the question.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying, I take the scripture very seriously 👍
 
The Revolting Man said:
Yes. I’m not always as lucid in text as I am in my head. Let me walk through it. 1 Corinthians 6:16 says “Or don't you know that he who is joined to a prostitute is one body? For, "The two," says he, "will become one flesh."

It literally quotes the marriage passage. If you join with a prostitute, and if you say that’s not sex I’m going to question your seriousness, then you are the same as whatever you think Adam and Eve were.

Sex causes one flesh. Unless it breaks the Law; i.e. adultery, incest, bestiality. Although I don’t consider those things sex. Someone will ask the question.
Click to expand...
So if sex makes you one flesh with a harlot, can you clarify your previous statement saying that you dont have to divorce a harlot? Are you still one flesh? Or is it because there is no ownership? And if so, why is there no ownership? I know its a weird case.
 
James Pease said:
So if sex makes you one flesh with a harlot, can you clarify your previous statement saying that you dont have to divorce a harlot? Are you still one flesh? Or is it because there is no ownership? And if so, why is there no ownership? I know its a weird case.
Click to expand...
I haven’t done a deep dive on this issue but I would say you do need to be divorced from a harlot you’ve slept with IF she want to live you as one flesh and you don’t. If she doesn’t want to live with you as one flesh then there’s no real need. She’s just a rebellious wife out committing adultery. At least that’s my first knee jerk reaction.
 
The Revolting Man said:
I haven’t done a deep dive on this issue but I would say you do need to be divorced from a harlot you’ve slept with IF she want to live you as one flesh and you don’t. If she doesn’t want to live with you as one flesh then there’s no real need. She’s just a rebellious wife out committing adultery. At least that’s my first knee jerk reaction.
Click to expand...
Ok thanks for clarifying, I think that will help others to see what you are asserting. Interestingly if you are not the first person to have sex with her and she hasn't been given a certificate of divorce, then you and her have committed adultery by this stance.
 
The Revolting Man said:
Christ uses the phrase one flesh when talking about divorce. You get divorced from a one flesh relationship. That’s not a definition issue. You know this.
Click to expand...
Genesis tells us that a man will cleave to his woman (she's already his woman), and the two will become one flesh. One flesh is something that inevitably happens within marriage - but is not necessarily the thing that forms it.

When Jesus talks about divorce (sending away a woman you possess), he says it is wrong because the two have become one flesh, therefore should not be parted. Does that mean one flesh = the act of possessing a woman? Not necessarily, they may be separate matters - or I might be splitting hairs inappropriately.

If TTWCM is possession of a woman, then sex creates a one-flesh bond that carries with it the responsibility to take that woman as your own. However, sex with a prostitute, where it is agreed from the beginning that the woman does not belong to you, does not lead to possession of that woman. This means that you would divorce from a wife - a woman you are one flesh with and also possess - but not from a prostutitute - a woman you are one flesh with but do not possess. Because divorce is breaking the possession, not the "one-fleshness". You didn't make the one-flesh bond, God did, so you cannot break it either.

I don't think either you or I have any hope of persuading each other to think the same on this issue @The Revolting Man, I'm not trying to change your mind. However I do value our discussions as they force me to clarify my own thinking, and that is what I am trying to do here.
 
steve said:
To me, it is uncouth to consider taking a righteous man’s daughter against his will.
Starting a family relationship with disrespect for the father doesn’t appeal to me.

If he isn’t righteous, that shades things a bit.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure, though, that no one in this discussion is promoting taking any man's daughter against his will.
 
James Pease said:
Ok thanks for clarifying, I think that will help others to see what you are asserting. Interestingly if you are not the first person to have sex with her and she hasn't been given a certificate of divorce, then you and her have committed adultery by this stance.
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
FollowingHim said:
Genesis tells us that a man will cleave to his woman (she's already his woman), and the two will become one flesh. One flesh is something that inevitably happens within marriage - but is not necessarily the thing that forms it.

When Jesus talks about divorce (sending away a woman you possess), he says it is wrong because the two have become one flesh, therefore should not be parted. Does that mean one flesh = the act of possessing a woman? Not necessarily, they may be separate matters - or I might be splitting hairs inappropriately.

If TTWCM is possession of a woman, then sex creates a one-flesh bond that carries with it the responsibility to take that woman as your own. However, sex with a prostitute, where it is agreed from the beginning that the woman does not belong to you, does not lead to possession of that woman. This means that you would divorce from a wife - a woman you are one flesh with and also possess - but not from a prostutitute - a woman you are one flesh with but do not possess. Because divorce is breaking the possession, not the "one-fleshness". You didn't make the one-flesh bond, God did, so you cannot break it either.

I don't think either you or I have any hope of persuading each other to think the same on this issue @The Revolting Man, I'm not trying to change your mind. However I do value our discussions as they force me to clarify my own thinking, and that is what I am trying to do here.
Click to expand...
That’s your position clarified !? What the hell did it look like before?
 
The Revolting Man said:
Yes. I’m not always as lucid in text as I am in my head. Let me walk through it. 1 Corinthians 6:16 says “Or don't you know that he who is joined to a prostitute is one body? For, "The two," says he, "will become one flesh."

It literally quotes the marriage passage. If you join with a prostitute, and if you say that’s not sex I’m going to question your seriousness, then you are the same as whatever you think Adam and Eve were.

Sex causes one flesh. Unless it breaks the Law; i.e. adultery, incest, bestiality. Although I don’t consider those things sex. Someone will ask the question.
Click to expand...
What do you think for Amnon? Should he have not sent Tamar away? Lesser of two evils? ......"takes cover while hand grenade goes off"
 
James Pease said:
What do you think for Amnon? Should he have not sent Tamar away? Lesser of two evils? ......"takes cover while hand grenade goes off"
Click to expand...
I'll dive in to toss the hand grenade away: of course Amnon shouldn't have sent Tamar away, but, again of course, Amnon shouldn't have ever laid a hand, much less his genitals, on Tamar: he was forbidden to do so by Leviticus 18. Much is made in Talmud and elsewhere about how, technically, she wasn't his half-sister because her mother was a non-Jew prisoner of war and hadn't gotten full Jew Status yet. None of that negates the moral intent behind Leviticus 18 and smacks of typical loophole-seeking. Amon raped his half-sister. Violation. Amnon then arranges for her to be banished from the family. Violation. The 'exception' about Tamar not technically being his half-sister would, if anything, argue for fully expecting Amnon to marry Tamar, but when one sets aside that foolishness one is left with two competing sin sets: incest and putting away. Their father looked the other way, one of many things that combined to bring curse down on the family, but if we are to take real lessons from this story, we should feel compelled if a situation like that comes up in our lives to insist that the dilemma be fully weighed for the purpose of maximizing confession and restitution. Legend has it that Amnon was eunuchized as a result of this encounter, and that perhaps is a just outcome. Choosing among sustaining a marriage between brother and sister, condoning rape and condoning what was essentially divorce, the last choice is probably about as reasonable as choices in such circumstances come -- but imprisonment and castration combined with full efforts to ease the suffering of Tamar would probably be the ideal set of outcomes.
 
The Revolting Man said:
Am I misremembering something? I have bought they were half siblings? Doesn’t that carry the death penalty?
Click to expand...
Leviticus 20
17¶'And a man who taketh his sister, a daughter of his father or daughter of his mother, and he hath seen her nakedness, and she seeth his nakedness: it is a shame; and they have been cut off before the eyes of the sons of their people; the nakedness of his sister he hath uncovered; his iniquity he beareth.

Again "cut off" is the phrase that the interpretation hangs on.
 
Ummm, that was clearly rape, the penalty is stoning, in my remembrance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top