Meat Common Misconceptions and Mistranslation Issues

[Keith Martin]

Now, I could be wrong when it comes to the Hebrew. There could be a translation issue. But in english it is abundantly clear that the requirement is that the man will in the future or immediately afterwards endow her to be his wife.

Except that, in the literal translations the exhortation associated with 'shall' is that the man must pay the bride price. The marriage already exists; the expectation is that the man will then formally acknowledge the marriage and make restitution for having attempted to steal something from the woman and her father. It's not about whether or not they get a license. If copulation requires payment of a bride price, then ipso facto she is already a bride.

In some senses, the desire to add human tradition in the equation beyond the scriptural assertion that the one-flesh relationship constitutes a marriage in the eyes of Yah reminds me of the degree to which many Christians will twist themselves into pretzels trying to take credit for their own salvation, placing the onus of importance of how salvation occurs at the moment of formal acceptance. This elevates faith to be a work that gives the primary credit to the individual, whereas the credit for salvation belongs solely with Yah and Yeshua, as their Gift occurred in the past, and even the ability to have faith only follows Yah having written it previously on the individual's heart.

Man takes virgin; they're married. The Exodus and Deuteronomy passages are only concerned with the man taking full responsibility for having made them one flesh. Remember, too, that 'endow' and 'endowment' fully imply something related to payment.

 

[Keith Martin]

But in english it is abundantly clear

I assert that it's almost always a mistake to assert that anything written in a non-scriptural language thousands of years after the fact through numerous translations can ever be abundantly clear.

 

[Keith Martin]

It’s an enormously important distinction. If it read “had or has” endowed it would mean the act of copulation created the relationship of wife.

If it reads a future imperative it means he “will be required to” do the thing. The thing being “endow her to be his wife”.

Just as the 2nd amendment reads, the government shall not infringe. It does not mean they haven’t. It means they “must not” they are constrained to not infringe.

Exact same grammar and meaning.

Your logic is appropriate, @NickF; it's just associated with a misplaced premise.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Now, I could be wrong when it comes to the Hebrew. There could be a translation issue. But in english it is abundantly clear that the requirement is that the man will in the future or immediately afterwards endow her to be his wife.

Read other translations, there is a bit more of a difference here than normal so clearly there’s room for debate. I like the Young’s because it bolsters my case, so clearly the inspired Word of God.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Except that, in the literal translations the exhortation associated with 'shall' is that the man must pay the bride price. The marriage already exists; the expectation is that the man will then formally acknowledge the marriage and make restitution for having attempted to steal something from the woman and her father. It's not about whether or not they get a license. If copulation requires payment of a bride price, then ipso facto she is already a bride.

In some senses, the desire to add human tradition in the equation beyond the scriptural assertion that the one-flesh relationship constitutes a marriage in the eyes of Yah reminds me of the degree to which many Christians will twist themselves into pretzels trying to take credit for their own salvation, placing the onus of importance of how salvation occurs at the moment of formal acceptance. This elevates faith to be a work that gives the primary credit to the individual, whereas the credit for salvation belongs solely with Yah and Yeshua, as their Gift occurred in the past, and even the ability to have faith only follows Yah having written it previously on the individual's heart.

Man takes virgin; they're married. The Exodus and Deuteronomy passages are only concerned with the man taking full responsibility for having made them one flesh. Remember, too, that 'endow' and 'endowment' fully imply something related to payment.

 

[NickF]

Except that, in the literal translations the exhortation associated with 'shall' is that the man must pay the bride price. The marriage already exists; the expectation is that the man will then formally acknowledge the marriage and make restitution for having attempted to steal something from the woman and her father. It's not about whether or not they get a license. If copulation requires payment of a bride price, then ipso facto she is already a bride.

Man takes virgin; they're married. The Exodus and Deuteronomy passages are only concerned with the man taking full responsibility for having made them one flesh. Remember, too, that 'endow' and 'endowment' fully imply something related to payment.

With all due respect Keith, this is terrible logic and begins with the assumption that your base assertion is a given.
If I go to a car lot and jump in a truck, crank it up and drive off. I do not own the truck. It's not my truck. I must take ownership first, taking it for a ride does not constitute ownership.

1. We all agree to have a woman is to own her correct?
2. The father owns her first.
3. Screwing her does not transfer ownership. It only creates a one flesh relationship. This is called one flesh. Echad basar. Literally "united bodies". Nowhere in scripture does it clearly state that echad basar constitutes ownership.
4. Obtaining a thing from another requires transfer of ownership through purchase or voluntary giving. Not just taking.
5. A man can choose to Give a daughter, but another man cannot just simply take and legally own. That's theft.

This is all basic logic and abundantly evident through the whole counsel of scripture.

I never asserted they must obtain a license or sign a contract. But ownership transfer MUST occur or it is theft and punishable. Yes he Shall pay for her. This begs the question, what if he doesn't pay for what he just took? Doesn't logic dictate that if you take something and don't pay for it you have stolen? So if he has not paid, and he has not been given, he has stolen something. The thing he took does not rightly belong to him.

My assertion is this, he must S4117 mahar (acquire by paying for) the bride. Additionally if the father refuses to give her to him to be his wife, the man must STILL pay the bride price of virgins because he took her virginity and defiled her. This would be righteous and just. You can't sell her as a virgin anymore, he took the value of that without permission, defrauding the father.

 

[James Pease]

With all due respect Keith, this is terrible logic and begins with the assumption that your base assertion is a given.
If I go to a car lot and jump in a truck, crank it up and drive off. I do not own the truck. It's not my truck. I must take ownership first, taking it for a ride does not constitute ownership.

1. We all agree to have a woman is to own her correct?
2. The father owns her first.
3. Screwing her does not transfer ownership. It only creates a one flesh relationship. This is called one flesh. Echad basar. Literally "united bodies". Nowhere in scripture does it clearly state that echad basar constitutes ownership.
4. Obtaining a thing from another requires transfer of ownership through purchase or voluntary giving. Not just taking.
5. A man can choose to Give a daughter, but another man cannot just simply take and legally own. That's theft.

This is all basic logic and abundantly evident through the whole counsel of scripture.

I never asserted they must obtain a license or sign a contract. But ownership transfer MUST occur or it is theft and punishable. Yes he Shall pay for her. This begs the question, what if he doesn't pay for what he just took? Doesn't logic dictate that if you take something and don't pay for it you have stolen? So if he has not paid, and he has not been given, he has stolen something. The thing he took does not rightly belong to him.

My assertion is this, he must S4117 mahar (acquire by paying for) the bride. Additionally if the father refuses to give her to him to be his wife, the man must STILL pay the bride price of virgins because he took her virginity and defiled her. This would be righteous and just. You can't sell her as a virgin anymore, he took the value of that without permission, defrauding the father.

Who owns the woman in this verse that gives her over to you? Would you say God?

Deuteronomy 21
10¶'When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and Jehovah thy God hath given them into thy hand, and thou hast taken captive its captivity,

11and hast seen in the captivity a woman of fair form, and hast delighted in her, and hast taken to thee for a wife,

 

[NickF]

Who owns the woman in this verse that gives her over to you? Would you say God?

Deuteronomy 21
10¶'When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and Jehovah thy God hath given them into thy hand, and thou hast taken captive its captivity,

11and hast seen in the captivity a woman of fair form, and hast delighted in her, and hast taken to thee for a wife,

My assumption is her owner is dead and she is a spoil of war the same as silver and gold, cattle, and other goods.

 

[The Revolting Man]

With all due respect Keith, this is terrible logic and begins with the assumption that your base assertion is a given.
If I go to a car lot and jump in a truck, crank it up and drive off. I do not own the truck. It's not my truck. I must take ownership first, taking it for a ride does not constitute ownership.

1. We all agree to have a woman is to own her correct?
2. The father owns her first.
3. Screwing her does not transfer ownership. It only creates a one flesh relationship. This is called one flesh. Echad basar. Literally "united bodies". Nowhere in scripture does it clearly state that echad basar constitutes ownership.
4. Obtaining a thing from another requires transfer of ownership through purchase or voluntary giving. Not just taking.
5. A man can choose to Give a daughter, but another man cannot just simply take and legally own. That's theft.

This is all basic logic and abundantly evident through the whole counsel of scripture.

I never asserted they must obtain a license or sign a contract. But ownership transfer MUST occur or it is theft and punishable. Yes he Shall pay for her. This begs the question, what if he doesn't pay for what he just took? Doesn't logic dictate that if you take something and don't pay for it you have stolen? So if he has not paid, and he has not been given, he has stolen something. The thing he took does not rightly belong to him.

My assertion is this, he must S4117 mahar (acquire by paying for) the bride. Additionally if the father refuses to give her to him to be his wife, the man must STILL pay the bride price of virgins because he took her virginity and defiled her. This would be righteous and just. You can't sell her as a virgin anymore, he took the value of that without permission, defrauding the father.

Why? Why MUST ownership transfer occur?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Who owns the woman in this verse that gives her over to you? Would you say God?

Deuteronomy 21
10¶'When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and Jehovah thy God hath given them into thy hand, and thou hast taken captive its captivity,

11and hast seen in the captivity a woman of fair form, and hast delighted in her, and hast taken to thee for a wife,

My assumption is her owner is dead and she is a spoil of war the same as silver and gold, cattle, and other goods.

You can’t assume that.

 

[NickF]

Why? Why MUST ownership transfer occur?

Because theft is bad?

You can’t assume that.

Sure I can, you assume one flesh makes a marriage

 

[Keith Martin]

With all due respect Keith, this is terrible logic and begins with the assumption that your base assertion is a given.
If I go to a car lot and jump in a truck, crank it up and drive off. I do not own the truck. It's not my truck. I must take ownership first, taking it for a ride does not constitute ownership.

1. We all agree to have a woman is to own her correct?
2. The father owns her first.
3. Screwing her does not transfer ownership. It only creates a one flesh relationship. This is called one flesh. Echad basar. Literally "united bodies". Nowhere in scripture does it clearly state that echad basar constitutes ownership.
4. Obtaining a thing from another requires transfer of ownership through purchase or voluntary giving. Not just taking.
5. A man can choose to Give a daughter, but another man cannot just simply take and legally own. That's theft.

This is all basic logic and abundantly evident through the whole counsel of scripture.

I never asserted they must obtain a license or sign a contract. But ownership transfer MUST occur or it is theft and punishable. Yes he Shall pay for her. This begs the question, what if he doesn't pay for what he just took? Doesn't logic dictate that if you take something and don't pay for it you have stolen? So if he has not paid, and he has not been given, he has stolen something. The thing he took does not rightly belong to him.

My assertion is this, he must S4117 mahar (acquire by paying for) the bride. Additionally if the father refuses to give her to him to be his wife, the man must STILL pay the bride price of virgins because he took her virginity and defiled her. This would be righteous and just. You can't sell her as a virgin anymore, he took the value of that without permission, defrauding the father.

You're creating a straw-man-type red herring. Ownership does not equal marriage. We're talking about when marriage occurs. The marriage happens first, and the commandment requires that ownership take place afterward. More appropriately, the ownership transfer would have been arranged in advance; the verses in question address what to do when the ownership transfer isn't arranged in advance.

In fact, courts deal with this kind of thing all the time: man steals car and uses it; court requires that man pays for the car PLUS exacts a further penalty (fine or imprisonment).

 

[The Revolting Man]

Because theft is bad?

Sure I can, you assume one flesh makes a marriage

You have to assume that this is theft. I know you’re recent to this debate so I assume you haven’t read all of the ins and outs but some of the scriptural basis for sex=marriage, I Corinthians 6:16 is the big one, it says explicitly that laying with a harlot creates one flesh. There’s nothing else needed, simply lying with her creates the one flesh. No one can deal with it, no one can explain it, there’s no covenant, there’s no ownership transfer, there’s nothing but sex.

So I assume nothing. I’ve had this debate for years. I’ve seen every objection, every obfuscation but no one, not one, and we have some impressive intellects here, can tell me what I Corinthians 6:16 means of it doesn’t mean that sex equals one flesh.

I’m interested in your interpretation.

 

[NickF]

I'm not creating a straw man or red herring. I'm stating that your argument hinges upon your assumption that your initial premise is true which has not been established. To wit that marriage occurs at one flesh union. Your assumption is that is the point of origin. Everything else you are arguing is predicated upon that being true when it has not been established. That is all I'm saying. I'm saying your argument is built on a fallacy of Begging the Question.

You have to assume that this is theft. I know you’re recent to this debate so I assume you haven’t read all of the ins and outs but some of the scriptural basis for sex=marriage, I Corinthians 6:16 is the big one, it says explicitly that laying with a harlot creates one flesh. There’s nothing else needed, simply lying with her creates the one flesh. No one can deal with it, no one can explain it, there’s no covenant, there’s no ownership transfer, there’s nothing but sex.

So I assume nothing. I’ve had this debate for years. I’ve seen every objection, every obfuscation but no one, not one, and we have some impressive intellects here, can tell me what I Corinthians 6:16 means of it doesn’t mean that sex equals one flesh.

I’m interested in your interpretation.

I have read through all the massive threads on when marriage occurs and you are assuming something fairly massive. That one flesh creates marriage. You are absolutely correct that lying with her creates one flesh. Where you have not substantiated your claim is the fact that you conflate "one flesh" and "marriage". They are even spelled differently, that's how we can safely assume they aren't the same word. But you persist in using them as the same word. This is the logical fallacy of "begging the question" where you assume the conclusion based on your idea instead of supporting the conclusion with proof.

 

[NickF]

FWIW I'm totally fine with us all disagreeing on this because it's not really that important. But I do enjoy the mental jousting and subtle digs at each other. I'm over here having a good chuckle and enjoying myself. So if I somehow go over the line into breaking fellowship by being an obstinate ass, just let me know and I'll tell you that you're right

 

[James Pease]

You have to assume that this is theft. I know you’re recent to this debate so I assume you haven’t read all of the ins and outs but some of the scriptural basis for sex=marriage, I Corinthians 6:16 is the big one, it says explicitly that laying with a harlot creates one flesh. There’s nothing else needed, simply lying with her creates the one flesh. No one can deal with it, no one can explain it, there’s no covenant, there’s no ownership transfer, there’s nothing but sex.

So I assume nothing. I’ve had this debate for years. I’ve seen every objection, every obfuscation but no one, not one, and we have some impressive intellects here, can tell me what I Corinthians 6:16 means of it doesn’t mean that sex equals one flesh.

I’m interested in your interpretation.

It does say when a man joins himself or glues himself to, do you believe thats the same as sex one time? The prodigal son joined himself to the world, same word is used here.

 

[James Pease]

My assumption is her owner is dead and she is a spoil of war the same as silver and gold, cattle, and other goods.

So if a woman has no covering she is free game?

 

[The Revolting Man]

I'm not creating a straw man or red herring. I'm stating that your argument hinges upon your assumption that your initial premise is true which has not been established. To wit that marriage occurs at one flesh union. Your assumption is that is the point of origin. Everything else you are arguing is predicated upon that being true when it has not been established. That is all I'm saying. I'm saying your argument is built on a fallacy of Begging the Question.


I have read through all the massive threads on when marriage occurs and you are assuming something fairly massive. That one flesh creates marriage. You are absolutely correct that lying with her creates one flesh. Where you have not substantiated your claim is the fact that you conflate "one flesh" and "marriage". They are even spelled differently, that's how we can safely assume they aren't the same word. But you persist in using them as the same word. This is the logical fallacy of "begging the question" where you assume the conclusion based on your idea instead of supporting the conclusion with proof.

Oh! You dispute that one flesh is marriage! Wow. Okay. Let’s start over. When talking about divorce Jesus refers to what’s being broken as one flesh. The Union of Adam and Eve is described as one flesh.

The fact is that there is no such thing as “marriage” in scripture. That’s why our honored member @jeremy refer to it as This Thing We Call Marriage (TTWCM) . If one flesh isn’t marriage then there is no such thing as marriage.

 

[NickF]

Oh! You dispute that one flesh is marriage! Wow. Okay. Let’s start over. When talking about divorce Jesus refers to what’s being broken as one flesh. The Union of Adam and Eve is described as one flesh.

The fact is that there is no such thing as “marriage” in scripture. That’s why our honored member @jeremy refer to it as This Thing We Call Marriage (TTWCM) . If one flesh isn’t marriage then there is no such thing as marriage.

Hows about this. I don't really have time to get into a big theological discussion. I have in-laws to talk to about poly and departing hopefully peaceably from the church we've been attending for 6+ years all this week. I'll write out a longer form description of what I think scripture describes as this thing we call marriage. But not this week, I'd be putting this fun discussion ahead of the truly important items in my life and the things threatening my family and I just can't justify it right now. I will want a full scale assessment of my beliefs on the matter, and I'm sure I can count on you guys to help out with that.

Sound good?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Hows about this. I don't really have time to get into a big theological discussion. I have in-laws to talk to about poly and departing hopefully peaceably from the church we've been attending for 6+ years all this week. I'll write out a longer form description of what I think scripture describes as this thing we call marriage. But not this week, I'd be putting this fun discussion ahead of the truly important items in my life and the things threatening my family and I just can't justify it right now. I will want a full scale assessment of my beliefs on the matter, and I'm sure I can count on you guys to help out with that.

Sound good?

Lol, that’s fine. I hear that a lot.