It's not a troubling verse in the least to me. Sex always forms a one-flesh union. That would only be troubling if you assumed "one flesh" = "marriage" = "the woman is now property of the man". As I don't assume that the verse is simple to understand and raises no problems. You're only troubling yourself by making a troubling assumption.
So just to clarify, you’re saying that the New Living Translation, more accurately described as a paraphrase, is more accurate than Young’s Literal Translation?
This is a very good point. Tamar was in a difficult situation negotiating with an aggressor. We cannot take her words as an accurate interpretation of the Law.
You really need to make a case for this possession thing. You’re hanging a lot of weight on that peg.
I made the case in a post yesterday, and your response was that you and I don't need to nut it out at present, which I agree with. But the case is here if we do decide to discuss it further:
Possession is everywhere in scripture that you read the phrase "my woman" ("my wife" in most translations). If I say "my chainsaw", I am saying "I possess that chainsaw", I'm not saying "I have an intimate relationship with that chainsaw". Same goes for women. My means my.
So it's everywhere - it's actually far more commonly mentioned than "one flesh". In the KJV, "One flesh" appears only 7 times, while "My wife" appears 15 times, and "His wife" appears 122 times.
Just read it in plain English rather than reinterpreting "his wife" to mean "one flesh".
Fair enough. You laid out an outline but you didn’t make a case. For instance, possession doesn’t appear to make any difference in the case of a war bride. It also doesn’t effect the woman bought, whose status doesn’t change until the one flesh.
I could write it up as a more detailed case one day, not today. But for now, note that I think we are looking for different sorts of proof. Coming from a scientific background, I'm used to making a hypothesis and then testing it by applying it to different situations. The hypothesis that is most consistent with all situations is considered "proven" until such a time as a situation arises which contradicts it.
And I’m coming from the standpoint of a sinner who needs to know what my Creator requires of me.
No translation is perfect - including YLT.
Biblically speaking, women are property. Bilhah and Zilpah were under the headship and ownership of Laban. When Jacob married Rachel and Leah they were given simultaneously. I'm not confident about this assertion so please correct me if I'm wrong. The text also says that Leah is the one who gave Zilpah to Jacob. Anyway, I think this is a poor example for this argument as there is not enough information given. We don't know who their father's were or if they were even alive at the time and the omission of information does not mean that their father was not asked at all. In the case of Ruth, she was a widow. She had no headship. Once headship is transferred it doesn't return to the previous owner if he dies, at least the Bible seems to support that.
No no, that’s a dodge and a misdirect. Is the NLT more reliable than the YLT? Is there a third, neutral option that would be more acceptable to both of us? NASB? KJV? Watchtower?
Ironically that was more or less the reasoning that led my father to change his mind. My husband was older, far more experienced, with a successful marriage, an already established life. He understood that for a young woman, someone like that brings a kind of guidance, leadership and security she would hardly get otherwise.
Exodus 22:17 Septuaigent says the same thing:
Modern society has its own version of Deut 21:10-14. What happens in every modern war? The women are raped by sometimes multiple men, and forced into sex slavery.
That's a cop-out response. We all know what a correct marriage looks like. That's easy.
You really want to avoid the most widely accepted translations don’t you? I’ve never even heard of that one.
These statements seem in conflict with each other and a little insulting.
The relationship wasn’t cursed and it did result in children. I don’t think we should read too much into it though. Obviously. Description versus prescription….