Some people would be willing to kill a whole city over a situation where a girl willingly went to be with a young man. A prince in fact. Even with all of that, the young man knew he was not yet married to her. Genesis 34.
-
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.
General What do we know about TTWCM?
- Thread starter The Revolting Man
- Start date
Are you lonely Mark? Have I not been showing you enough attention?
Good point. I'll have to ponder this further:
The rapist? You’re trusting the pagan rapist to understand God’s plan for marriage? There is so little scripture to support your stance that you have to go to a pagan rapist?
Of course if I’m worried about metaphorical contradictions then I may have just caused a huge one.
Are you missing arguing with @Mark C so feel the need to poke him in the hope of getting another argument going?
Both of you, just drop it. This could be a productive discussion if you two don't needle each other.
He started it.
Children, children...
One time:
Enough said, but it is important. And it is the ONLY proper way midrash from later letters, for example, can be properly understood in context.
Yes, this has all been "done before."
(Samuel: I bristle at "show me the verse" for reasons you know well. Since YHVH 'changes NOT, and is the "same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow' that should be a more straightforward task than it sometimes seems to be here. I contend He meant it.)
So far, so good. In fact, "adding to," and "subtracting from" His Instruction (commandments, in this case) is explicitly prohibited no less than 3 times in Scripture.
Enough said, but it is important. And it is the ONLY proper way midrash from later letters, for example, can be properly understood in context.
The father (at least twice, explicitly) has explicit VETO power over a daughter's (and wives') vows. That is not, repeat NOT, the same as "requiring permission." But it's arguably a good idea, certainly demonstrated by practice and tradition. (Even with brothers attempting to fill in.) Just not "required."
Yes, this has all been "done before."
(Samuel: I bristle at "show me the verse" for reasons you know well. Since YHVH 'changes NOT, and is the "same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow' that should be a more straightforward task than it sometimes seems to be here. I contend He meant it.)
I’m fine with all of that until you imply that vows have something to do with marriage.
Matthew 19 records that Jesus is recalling the unity of man and woman calling it something the God has joined together. Paul contrasts that with the one flesh aspect with a prostitute. Question: Does God join the man and the prostitute? To follow that Jesus said that it should not be made asunder. How does one "make asunder?" This leads one to think that when a man has done the deed, he is not permitted to stop. The one flesh is supposed to be permanent. "DONT DO IT(divide asunder)" Jesus said. Unless of course "dividing asunder" doesnt mean ro stop having sex.
Then show it to me in scripture. If not just be there then it just be there. Chapter and verse this thing and let’s get back to the lesbians.
Yes, the passage says it right there.
Divorce or out away.
Careful, you’re about to find yourself in a very uncomfortable place, agreeing with me….
It kind of does, it kind of doesn’t. It means divorce, which means you stop having sex.
What? We’re off track here, maybe you can cite the verse you’re thinking about because clearly I’m thinking about something different.
You have a rigid stance on cleaving and one flesh. These are intimately related but not the same. Gen 2:24 is the explanation and one of the first commands to our humanity. Leave- cleave-one flesh in that order.
Leave is simply to become a new family head.
Cleave is to divide (in spite of modern commentary's redefinition)
One flesh is the result of dividing the flesh. It is very simple. So simple in fact that people have done it without explanation for many millenia.
Now we codify it by giving it names and then society redefines it to justify their activity. Of course a man be one with another man and a woman with a woman but neither of those are one flesh.
Leave is simply to become a new family head.
Cleave is to divide (in spite of modern commentary's redefinition)
One flesh is the result of dividing the flesh. It is very simple. So simple in fact that people have done it without explanation for many millenia.
Now we codify it by giving it names and then society redefines it to justify their activity. Of course a man be one with another man and a woman with a woman but neither of those are one flesh.
This seems extremely unlikely. Again, what scripture are we talking about?
When I look up “divide asunder” I only find Hebrews 4:12. That’s not a passage focused on one flesh or divorce. What am I missing?