• 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.

1: When does marriage begin? - Sex

mystic said:
On the other hand, the Westermarck Effect is a name for the idea that "people who live in close domestic proximity during the first few years of their lives become desensitized to sexual attraction." (The thesis is quite sensible to me, no matter whether it accounts for the taboo on such relations — an idea noted in the above-linked Wikipedia article — or merely complements the taboo.)
Click to expand...
This may be God's way of still dealing with what shouldn't be. Any offspring resulting from such relationships are at great risk for congenital defects and moving into the following generation the same would be true for those offspring. I speak from personal experience on this matter. I have a niece who only lived 4 days because of major, I'm talking serious anatomy defects, as a result of sibling incest. I just can't wrap my brain around this sort of disfunctional thinking that says it's okay when Scripture clearly forbids it, and also because YHWH laws are written upon the heart of every human being.
 
Joleneakamama said:
The only place I am aware of that might indicate that is the verse that prohibits a man from marrying a woman AND her daughter. That did carry the death penalty...for the woman too! So this discussion about what constitutes marriage may help in understanding if incest is the same biblically as marriage, =a cohabiting sexual relationship, then maybe dad would get taken out and stoned.
It is always a good idea to study, and withhold judgment until the truth of a matter is clear.
Click to expand...
If one takes Scripture at face value--I don't see any way this sort of relationship could ever be sanctioned. Back in the day, even in America when stoning wasn't a method of punishment, other men in the community made sure they "took care of" the dad who would do such unthinkably towards his offspring.
 
FollowingHim2 said:
I watched a documentary once about brothers and sisters that were in relationships. They were in love, it wasn't just about sex. But one of the main reasons was because they were so similar. They'd found someone who was raised the same way, who had the same values, similar personality, and who they knew they got on with. They'd lived with them their whole lives already. So although we know it's wrong, I do understand them ending up in that place.
People also tend to pick a partner based on looks. They will choose someone who likes look them, whether they realise it or not. In the pre marriage course that Samuel and I did (looking back that was a bit of a waste of time....but anyway), there were 3 other couples, and all of them looked very similar to each other. It makes sense therefore, that someone would choose a close family member since they will look similar to them.
Click to expand...
Obviously these people in the documentary had not read the Word of God. If, perchance they had, then they purposefully chose to walk against light to prove they could beat the odds--very sad!
 
Mojo said:
Thanks for the reply, but are there verses to support the exclusion clause of "eligible"?
Click to expand...

You're welcome. I don't know of any verses that explicitly say she must be eligible, but here's how I see it;

If we say that sex with virgin initiates a legal marriage, then in those places where it says "thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of" and therefore sex is prohibited; marriage is legally impossible. One can steal another's goods, but the act of theft does not transfer ownership. So in likewise I would not expect that them having sex unlawfully to result in them being lawfully married... so I say "eligible" :)
 
Keith Martin said:
Some involve adult daughters and their fathers, which inherently removes even most of the power to coerce that would have been the case between a father and his minor child. Some involve the daughters being the pursuer. Of course, in most cases, a father/daughter sexual relationship will involve violation, but even in Scripture we have examples of daughters seducing their fathers.
Click to expand...

Sort of the reverse of an oedipus complex.
 
ZecAustin said:
Not to be controversial: I'm kidding of course I'm trying to be controversial, I don't think this passage refers to marriage....
Click to expand...
Interest peaked. Elaborate please.
 
Joleneakamama said:
The only place I am aware of that might indicate that is the verse that prohibits a man from marrying a woman AND her daughter. That did carry the death penalty...for the woman too! So this discussion about what constitutes marriage may help in understanding if incest is the same biblically as marriage, =a cohabiting sexual relationship, then maybe dad would get taken out and stoned.
It is always a good idea to study, and withhold judgment until the truth of a matter is clear.
Click to expand...

Amen to that sentiment! Like the Bereans, we should always be seeking further truth, because uncovering one truth never means that we're all the way there!

@Joleneakamama, could you please point me to where it states that a man marrying a woman AND her daughter carried the death penalty under The Law?

That particular verse (17) of Leviticus 18 is one of the most interesting sentences in the series of sexual marriage prohibitions contained in that section of Scripture, because semantically it's a departure from the sentences that precede it. Instead of listing individual near-kin prohibitions or listing either/or pairs, this one uses the connector 'and,' which distinguishes it as a prohibition not just against Woman A or Woman B but denotes that it's a prohibition against making love with Woman A and Woman B. This, like the whole you-can't-be-a-deacon-or-a-bishop-and-have-multiple-wives verses in the New Testament, clearly reflects the acceptability of having more than one wife (because what's the point in prohibiting a woman and her daughter if a woman and anyone else who isn't her daughter is already prohibited?) However, in its semantics, what is very rarely discussed is the possibility that this mother-and-daughter prohibition might be a prohibition against making love with them simultaneously, not necessarily a prohibition against marrying both of them. After all, why wasn't the same sentence construction used as in the preceding verses (and this shift is present in every translation of the Hebrew and Greek of which I'm aware)?: why not just say, "The nakedness of your wife's daughter you shall not expose?" I lean toward this interpretation, because, after all, neither of these women are your near kin, which had been the case in all of the preceding examples. And, if that's the intention behind this particular prohibition, again we have to consider the possibility that this is another example of emphasizing through omission (by limiting the expression to a specific prohibition exception) what isn't prohibited: making love with one's wives at the same time -- which means we're not restricted to always requiring them to wait their turns.
 
Joleneakamama said:
The only place I am aware of that might indicate that is the verse that prohibits a man from marrying a woman AND her daughter. That did carry the death penalty...for the woman too! So this discussion about what constitutes marriage may help in understanding if incest is the same biblically as marriage, =a cohabiting sexual relationship, then maybe dad would get taken out and stoned.
It is always a good idea to study, and withhold judgment until the truth of a matter is clear.
Click to expand...

In addition, among other context issues, it's always important to recognize that those of us who are not Israelites under the First Covenant are not subject to the now-fulfilled Law. If we were, we would be considered fools for the degree to which our culture narrows its focus to sexual sins. So frequently we hear about what an abhorrence it was/is to God for a man to lie with a man as with a woman, so much of an abhorrence that both men were to be stoned to death (ever notice that women being sexual with each other is never similarly condemned?), but one doesn't have to wander far from chapter 18 in Leviticus to discover in chapter 20 that children are to be stoned to death for one instance of cursing their parents, which was understood as publicly casting aspersions against one's parents in such a way as to bring dishonor upon them. I know it's common to bemoan how frequently we observe such behavior these days, but what isn't common is hearing Christians suggesting (as they sometimes do about homosexual men) that those children are just as guilty as gay men in the eyes of God -- or that they deserve to be stoned to death. And I can't remember if I've ever heard someone assert that a man who makes love with his wife during her period should, along with her, be severely punished, but the Levitical punishment for that transgression was to be banished from one's people.
 
rejoicinghandmaid said:
Obviously these people in the documentary had not read the Word of God. If, perchance they had, then they purposefully chose to walk against light to prove they could beat the odds--very sad!
Click to expand...

Definitely sad, but doesn't that put those people in the majority category in our culture? I feel confident that, if we pooled those who have never read Scripture with those who have almost never read Scripture, that group might by itself amount to over half of all American citizens. And if we added the folks whose only significant exposure to Scripture is the smattering of Bible verses they half listen to in church, then we very seriously might be talking about 95% of our fellow citizens (and maybe even 90% of our fellow Christians).

Just the general tendency to study Scripture among folks at Biblical Families conferences and at this website makes us a rather unusual group.

The more we study, the more we learn.
 
ZecAustin said:
I'm going to have to leave the rest of this to the individual to suss out for themselves ma'am. Suffice it to say that if every word is there for a purpose and has meaning then there are a lot of words there that aren't necessary if the meaning of the passage is "Don't marry sisters."
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's the danger of scriptural tunnel vision, narrowing down one's sight to focus on just one verse, or one sentence, or in some cases even just one phrase within a sentence -- and then going, aha!, this is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. God spoke so much more about any one topic than can be contained in one solitary verse, and in the context of this discussion we have a pot of gold surrounding the verse about marrying sisters (or any of the other verses). It takes not only dedicated contemplation but a mind open to nuances that likely weren't even meant to be uncovered upon one superficial or even in-depth reading. The more I read Leviticus 18, the more I realize is being said there -- and the more I realize that what is said also points to even more that doesn't have to be said.

Again, on this particular point, if God had meant to say, "Don't marry sisters," that is what would be written there. Instead, He said, "Do not marry sisters for the purpose of pitting them against each other or to vex them in any other way."
 
[I also have to wonder if the insistence in believing that Leviticus 18:18 means we're prohibited from marrying sisters isn't consciously or unconsciously motivated by a desire to justify condemning Mormonism.]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top