• 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 One flesh is “marriage” and here’s why.

DustinM said:
Is it possible that you're presupposing this to justify your position that sex = one flesh = marriage and a harlot is going in and out of one flesh/marriage unions with each man she lays with?
Click to expand...
Yes he’s doing exactly that. It’s called eisegesis. He’s assuming the conclusion, then using the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to explain marriage.

It’s a metaphorical logical fallacy soup and is nauseating.
 
DustinM said:
It's odd to me that you keep seeming to have a problem with me having many questions, and no answers, when I'm trying to understand your position on something, not tell you mine. I'll chalk it up to internet discussion and since we don't know each other not think too much of it.

My position is not that a man marries a woman solely by making a covenant with her. I can't say I have a position on the matter that I could fully defend, as it's still something I'm attempting to understand as should be clear by my commentary, if not then that's on me for being unclear.

So while I freely admit I'm trying to understand and engage in debate, you seem to be making definitive claims, and then are frustrated by me asking you to defend and explain your position's inconsistencies.


Your claim as far as I can tell you made pages back was that David's concubines became Absalom's wives and ultimately widows, because they were described as living as widows (while under David's authority). It seemed at the time that you were using that as evidence to show that sex = marriage or transfer of ownership. If that's not an accurate description of your position, my apologies and mistake. If it is, I ask again...

Were David's concubines Absalom's because God severed the marriages and ownership David had of them and "gave them to Absalom" , or was it by the act of Absalom sleeping with David's concubines alone that transferred ownership to Absalom?
Click to expand...
By God giving them to him to marry
 
DustinM said:
Isn't it an assumption to say the woman at the well was a harlot? She's not described that way as far as I can tell, if you assume that then don't you have to assume things about the 5 men she was with? Do you not find it at all odd with how often the description of harlot is used that this woman isn't called that but merely a woman?

If she wasn't a harlot, isn't it possible that she was involved in 5 divorces, perhaps her adultery each time, perhaps other reasons, and the man she was currently with she wasn't married to? Isn't all of that just assumptions when the text doesn't call her a harlot?

Is it possible that you're presupposing this to justify your position that sex = one flesh = marriage and a harlot is going in and out of one flesh/marriage unions with each man she lays with?
Click to expand...
You still haven't answered my question though I keep answering yours
 
I’m sorry, didn’t realize this was your thread, or your forum. I’ll be more careful in the future.

Did you have a question?
 
NickF said:
I’m sorry, didn’t realize this was your thread, or your forum. I’ll be more careful in the future.

Did you have a question?
Click to expand...
Yes. If a man marries a woman by making a covenant with her,then how can making a covenant with a divorced woman constitute adultery, and why would a enuch not be able to make a covenant?
 
Off-gridinwv said:
2sam.12:11
Click to expand...
Thankyou.

Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

Note the wording of the highlighted passage. This does not say that God will take David's wives and make them the wives of another man, who will then lie with his own wives that God has given him. On the contrary, it specifically says that when he is lying with them, they are still David's wives ("he shall lie with thy wives"). So God was saying he would physically take David's wives and give another man access to them to defile - but not actually give them to the other man as wives.
 
Off-gridinwv said:
By God giving them to him to marry
Click to expand...
FollowingHim said:
Thankyou.

Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

Note the wording of the highlighted passage. This does not say that God will take David's wives and make them the wives of another man, who will then lie with his own wives that God has given him. On the contrary, it specifically says that when he is lying with them, they are still David's wives ("he shall lie with thy wives"). So God was saying he would physically take David's wives and give another man access to them to defile - but not actually give them to the other man as wives.
Click to expand...

Which makes perfect sense being that the entire point of it was to punish David for doing that very thing, having a woman delivered to him who belonged to another man (Uriah) and lying with her.

David had men deliver Bathsheba, had sex with her and she still belonged to Uriah
That sex created a baby in her and she still belonged to Uriah
It wasn't until Uriah was killed and David took Bathsheba as a wife that she was his wife.

If God severed David's marriages, Absalom wasn't doing anything like David did, they were free women gifted to him by God. If David never cared for the 10 concubines in the first place, it's not really a punishment. And finally, if they were Absalom's widows at the end of the story, David has no reason to keep them locked up, while giving them food and shelter, but never letting them remarry or bear children.
 
Off-gridinwv said:
Yes. If a man marries a woman by making a covenant with her,then how can making a covenant with a divorced woman constitute adultery, and why would a enuch not be able to make a covenant?
Click to expand...
How are you defining the words “marries” and “covenant”.

Before I can answer, I need to know what you’re talking about.
 
Off-gridinwv said:
Yes. If a man marries a woman by making a covenant with her,then how can making a covenant with a divorced woman constitute adultery, and why would a enuch not be able to make a covenant?
Click to expand...

If you're referring to Jesus talking about divorce, which I assume you are... "divorce" is part of the problem with the translations. We read "divorce" and assume it means what we think divorce does, a full on legal and spiritual severing of the marriage. But it doesn't have to be translated as divorce. It can just as easily be "send away".

"but I say to you that everyone who divorces (sends away) his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced (her that is sent away) woman commits adultery."

It seems feasible to me what Jesus is really saying here is that anyone who sends away their wives for anything other than sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery with the man she will end up joining to.

And whoever marries "her that is sent away", meaning sent away for anything but adultery/sexual immorality, commits adultery because she is still actually bound to her husband.

Given the amount of frivolous "sending away" that seems to have been happening, you'd be in a society just riddled with adultery due to improper divorcing and wife swapping.
 
DustinM said:
Given the amount of frivolous "sending away" that seems to have been happening, you'd be in a society just riddled with adultery due to improper divorcing and wife swapping.
Click to expand...
Read the family history of the Caesars to see this culture illustrated in graphic detail.
And looking a whole lot like modern celebrity culture.
 
DustinM said:
"but I say to you that everyone who divorces (sends away) his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced (her that is sent away) woman commits adultery."
Click to expand...
You almost have it, but bad translating has hidden the full truth.

Sending her out is not a divorce, it is merely a separation.
A separation without divorce papers, a get is what they call it.

You can see that if you kick your wife out without divorcing her, she cannot get remarried without committing adultery. And that adultery would be on you.
 
steve said:
You almost have it, but bad translating has hidden the full truth.

Sending her out is not a divorce, it is merely a separation.
A separation without divorce papers, a get is what they call it.

You can see that if you kick your wife out without divorcing her, she cannot get remarried without committing adultery. And that adultery would be on you.
Click to expand...
I do like this interpretation, as it seems simple and clean, but the thing I can't quite get my head around is how this relates to actual divorces with a get.

Under what circumstances may a man choose to divorce his wife formally, properly, with divorce papers? Is this restricted in any way, in your opinion?

If the answer is "no", and there is no restriction on divorce, we just have to do it properly with paperwork, then for several reasons I think this interpretation must be missing the point as it just ends up too narrow.
 
NickF said:
Have you read the 284 verses on covenant? You clearly and exactingly said you have not and would not. Has this changed? If you haven’t, I’m wondering how it’s absurd to point out you are doing what you said you’d do.

I’m shocked this is hard to believe. I read at over an 8th grade reading level. My 11 year old could read those verses in an afternoon.

You want people to be intimidated into bowing before your claims and just walk away. I’m not going to let you or anybody else proclaim something untrue and hold it up as gospel.


I have repeatedly, you had nothing to say other than condescension and bluster. You adamantly refuse to even agree on what a single word means. You’re too invested in what you think is truth to be convinced otherwise and you’ve demonstrated an extreme opposition to learning anything that doesn’t agree with your ideas. You dismissed every scripture that disagrees with your stance using opinion rather than logic or clear proof.

I don’t see any benefit to doing the work of studying this out for you. I’m not going to waste my time when I have far more important real life problems to take care of.
Click to expand...
There are no verses connecting covenant to marriage. None. You can’t make the case and you know you can’t make the case. Sticking on this issue is your way of avoiding admitting that you can’t make the case.

And I didn’t say that you didn’t read 284 verses in an afternoon. I said you didn’t do a comprehensive study that gave you an in depth understanding of the covenant.

You certainly didn’t find any thing in those 284 verses that would lead you to label what happened to Jacob a covenant.
 
FollowingHim said:
I do like this interpretation, as it seems simple and clean, but the thing I can't quite get my head around is how this relates to actual divorces with a get.

Under what circumstances may a man choose to divorce his wife formally, properly, with divorce papers? Is this restricted in any way, in your opinion?

If the answer is "no", and there is no restriction on divorce, we just have to do it properly with paperwork, then for several reasons I think this interpretation must be missing the point as it just ends up too narrow.
Click to expand...
As I said in an earlier post, the first part of the passage gives the exception of fornication, under which a get isn’t even needed because she has already committed adultery.

Yeshuah said that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.
1). Moses didn’t write law, so I think that this is just shorthand for “the law that you received from Moses after his interaction with Yah”.
2). We don’t know what the hardness of heart was. It usually assumed that he is so hard-hearted that he might divorce her for burning the toast. But what if his hoh was that he became a wine drinker that didn’t support his family? (Yes, a woman couldn’t divorce him, but the elders could require him to give her a get in cases of abuse)
But alternately, what if the hoh was hers? Didn’t do her job and didn’t care?

We aren’t given specifics, but you cannot make doctrine from silence.
Moses said that divorce was allowed.
Don’t forget that Yah divorced Israel for cause.
 
The Revolting Man said:
There are no verses connecting covenant to marriage. None. You can’t make the case and you know you can’t make the case. Sticking on this issue is your way of avoiding admitting that you can’t make the case.
Click to expand...
I can and have. And at the start I said I didn’t have time to give a thorough rebuttal and clear answer. That I’m working on a paper that does that. Just because you want my answer yesterday does not mean I’m wrong or avoiding admitting anything.
The Revolting Man said:
And I didn’t say that you didn’t read 284 verses in an afternoon. I said you didn’t do a comprehensive study that gave you an in depth understanding of the covenant.
Click to expand...
Ok, fair enough. Sure, an afternoon of reading doesn’t make for a comprehensive study. I didn’t purport to have done such a study. I did say I read enough to get the scriptural definition. And it’s not what you and WV dude keep implying.
The Revolting Man said:
You certainly didn’t find any thing in those 284 verses that would lead you to label what happened to Jacob a covenant.
Click to expand...
For someone who’s proud to have not read the verses in question, you sure are confident. I’d be embarrassed to stand so staunchly on such a foundation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top