This is bloody proverb. Point isn't about metal as chemical particle. Proverbs are never taken literally.
Point is that examination by others makes you better. So your comment about beryllium and molydbenum makes zero sense.
-
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.
GRR... I am annoyed at two of our more public voices
- Thread starter Man_in_the_Middle
- Start date
Point is that examination by others makes you better. So your comment about beryllium and molydbenum makes zero sense.
Maybe you don't, but unfortunately sometimes other men do. For instance, I have a friend who has been married for 25 years. She has a very aggressive personality; in my opinion, she oversteps with her husband quite often. I'd never respect a man who let me treat him the way she treats her husband. However, her husband is a little "slow" and a bit of a goofball who probably couldn't even tie his own shoes without her guidance. And from what I've heard, he was like this in his marriage prior to her and has been this way his entire life. He doesn't seem too keen on changing. Her husband gets offended at anyone who suggests they do anything differently within their marriage. He's made it clear that he likes "bossy" women, and he prefers their marriage the way it is. He sought out a woman with her personality type because she is what he needed.
It drives me absolutely insane to watch. By no means do I think it should be the norm, but they're hardly the downfall of society. They've managed to do something that neither you nor I have, which is have a successful marriage for 25 years with four beautiful, well-adjusted children.
Point being- their marriage works for them, and in the end, that's all that really matters, regardless of what any of us think about it.
They're both kind, caring people who would do anything for those around them. They have a legal marriage certificate and had a wedding in their church. Shockingly enough the church didn't catch fire and the world didn't end.
I'd argue that people with such stern black-and-white opinions, such as your own, are also contributing to the destruction of the family unit in a more minor way. Your opinions make marriage nearly unattainable for some men and women. I'd much rather see people who have marriage on their minds and hearts seek a less-than-biblically-defined marriage than to be forever lonely, family less, and childless because they're not masculine or feminine enough to full fill their pre-designated roles.
Sometimes it appears as though you're promoting your version of biblical marriage to the determent of marriage in general. Nearly any form of marriage between a man and a woman is good and he who finds a wife finds a good thing.
Last edited:
Right, or if they were unbelievers and ordered you to apostasize. There’s a safety valve built into that command.
There is a lot of sense in this statement that we’ve never delved into from a monogamous standpoint.
The greatly lamented @Keith Martin talked about something similar around polygyny. He thought we raised the bar for entry to that far too high. It’s interesting to think about that for monogamy too.
People told @windblown and I we were making a mistake and on paper they were right. I was unemployed and living with my parents. She wasn’t a believer at the time and I certainly wasn’t living like one.
We both had multiple failed relationships and multiple co-parents and a combined 9 children. It should have never worked but somehow it did. In our weakness He is strong, and He was very strong in our early marriage.
I'm certainly guilty of doing this myself. I sort of assumed the bar needed to be higher due to the propensity for drama, lol. I'm curious what other people think though?
For years I've made the mistake of thinking that I wasn't submissive or perfect enough to be a wife.
And the irony is that you’re not, and that’s completely okay. Your husband won’t be good enough man to be a husband.
I have a brother in law who found a very good thing in his wife. They have been married quite a while, they have four children, and I'm sure there are many people who would not have thought either of them were "marriage material "
Marriage is where the whole is more than the sum of the parts. It's a beautiful thing indeed.
It's never too late to correct that mistake.
It is
Thank you
I do really enjoy the single life though, lolMoriah's post piqued my interest is in the initial post by @Man_in_the_Middle. I'm curious if a husband desires another wife only for sexual purposes what are his "obligations" to her as husband? What are her obligations to him as wife? I'm asking because Paul says for husband's to love their wives. Not that this prohibits other forms of marriage but I'm curious to what degree of responsibility does the husband have to:
"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself."
"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself."
Last edited:
BiblicalLiteralist
Member
Exodus 21:10 (1Tim5:8, 1Cor 7:3) and Levtiticus 18:18. Love is a verb in the bible it is the result of doing something, these are the minimum. Modern love is a noun it is a description of a feeling or a statement of a feeling. Making sure the most basic needs for life are met, wants are a bonus.
I thought Exodus referred to not depleting the first wife's rations and martial rights? If I remember correctly. I'm curious what the husband's responsibility would be to the additional wife? Paul's teaching of "love your wife" would apply to all wives, right?
The way I'm understanding Paul's words are that the definition of love follows the mentioning of it. For instance, this would mean the definition of how to "love" your wife would be to-
"as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself"
Another question I have is how does a man "love his wife as his own body" if he views her primarily as a sex object?
I'm not suggesting this is prohibited in anyway and I certainly wouldn't devalue anyone's marriage if they made such an agreement (even though I don't think it's the best foundation). I'm just curious how a man applies Paul's teachings to a marriage that primarily involves sex or does he dismiss it all together? Am I misunderstanding something here?
Last edited:
Another verse:
Deut. 24:5
“A newly married man must not be drafted into the army or be given any other official responsibilities. He must be free to spend one year at home, bringing happiness to the wife he has married.
I wonder how many Hebrews were able to use this verse to evade military service.
If you were very popular with older men in city, maybe even half a decade of being free.
A man was also exempted from military service if he had planted a vineyard and had not yet enjoyed a harvest.
I see these verses as having priorities right. Our Creator wants us to LIVE and enjoy the fruits of our labors.
I see these verses as having priorities right. Our Creator wants us to LIVE and enjoy the fruits of our labors.
BiblicalLiteralist
Member
The way I see it, by citing what you can't diminsh it implies what every wife has a minimum right to from her husband. The listed things being the bare minimum at any time in history to support life.
Keeping in mind that life has become a lot more complicated then it was, for most, basic everyday life consisted of daily provision gathering and preparation, not a hard set 9-5 schedule sweeping dirt floors to pay your donkey insurance, HOA fees, and subscriptions. Im sure they had similiar local community things, but not to the extent that modern computing has allowed.
It does not say if you give a gift to one wife all wives must get a gift or the same gift, which I believe is what the quoran requires. This means a man only needs to be financially sound to handle these requirements, for multiple wives.
That means wife one might get less gifts then before wife two came along because those funds are now being used to cover wifes two minimums. But that doesn't equate to wife one being loved any less nor wife two being loved anymore. Nor does the man need to become any greater to afford gifts for either wife on top of the minimums.
Last edited:
As Joleneakamama pointed out - there were many other reasons to righteously exempt yourself from military service.
These same reasons would apply today - so between the Creator and the man - the man can righteously not attend military service. Say it's for an un-righteous war - the adversary has started and planned out - between his Creator and himself - the man can righteously find an easy reason not to attend military service for an un-holy war.
This is where I sometimes point out that a plural is not the immediate and instantaneous equal to the first wife or preceding wives.
Oh sure, it's fun for everyone to pretend that the new person is equal but the truth is she isn't.
In some situations the family isn't sure the new plural will even stay.
I experienced this when I joined my family and while my inner feminist chafed at it the fact was that my first obligation as a new wife was to:
1. Boink my husband whenever he wanted to.
2. Have babies for him.
3. Do chores that I could be trusted with doing.
Steve's obligations were to put a roof over my head, feed me, and clothe me.
I have no shame in saying that I started out as a concubine. "Wife" was a title I had to earn if only in my own eyes.
I still have an internal struggle with the idea that a new wife is best managed by a husband who wastes no time in getting her pregnant. It bothers me and my modern side is uncomfortable with it yet I can't help but acknowledge that this marriage and family dynamic works.
Since you’re a biblical literalist I have to point both that those protections only apply to wives who were bought and then made wives. It’s an extra layer of protection for particularly vulnerable wives. In fact this is the closest thing we can find to a definition of concubine in all of scripture, a woman with extra protections.
These don’t apply to “full” wives.
BiblicalLiteralist
Member
Interesting I never made that connection, can you elaborate further
It's a fallacy called an "argument from silence."
The ASSUMPTION is that it "only" applies to concubines. But Scripture does not actually say that.
It is made IN THE CONTEXT of bondservants.
But an equally-valid assumption is that it applies to all wives. And to deny that is to deny one of the primary rhetorical mechanisms that Shaul/Paul of Tarsus makes over and over, often called "the heavy and the light." I.e., "If THIS is so, THEN how much MORE this?" [Addendum: It is, in fact, a well-known, even 'standard' Hebrew thought-pattern, seen throughout Scripture.]
In other words, the at-least-as-reasonable 'assumption' is that if some minimum requirement exists, even for women that are bondservants, then "how much more so," for wives who choose the marriage voluntarily?
Indeed, that is why the "three minimum conditions" specified in Exodus 21:10 (food, raiment, duties of marriage) have been considered "standard elements" of a traditional marriage contract (ketubah) for millenia.
Last edited: