Genesis 2:24-25a: this (one flesh) then that (man and his wife/woman): "Therefore a man shall forsake his father and his mother; he will cling to his wife, and the two of them will be one flesh. Both of them were naked, the human and his wife." [CVOT]
[Full disclosure: I am the bastard son of the bastard daughter of a prostitute.]
I was claiming that God does deal with premarital sex and puts in place a system of adjudication for it, found in the payment to the father of the woman. The claim I was refuting here was not that sex does or does not equal marriage, but whether or not God deals with sex before marriage -- though I can certainly see how our differing stances would impact our approach to those verses. Either way though, perhaps they would deal with sex before formalized marriage then?
I agree it's definitely not how things should happen, I was taking the stance that the parties involved seemed to have the mindset that Dinah was not or was not yet Shechem's wife even though they had had sex.
I think you're introducing the red herring honestly @Keith Martin. You are introducing the concept of "marriage". A thing called "marriage" doesn't exist in any of these verses.
And @The Revolting Man is also introducing the concept of "marriage" and equating this with the words "one flesh". Again, the word "marriage" doesn't occur in that verse. It just says they are "one flesh" with a harlot. If @NickF is correct when he says "one flesh" = "sex", then obviously if you have sex with a harlot you've had sex with a harlot.
Precisely. There is only:
On a lighter note, I first read that as "Genesis 34 throws a wench into both of y'all's arguments".
Imagine you survive a plane crash on a tropical island. Out of the wreckage you find a knife, stamped with the logo of the airline company. You take it and use it for the entire year you are on the island. You could not have survived without it, it goes everywhere with you, it's your dearest and most important possession.
Nope, we’ve covered this before. Paul wasn’t saying “don’t have sex with a harlot, don’t you know that means you had sex with a harlot?”
No, you are misunderstanding what others are saying because of this whole word definition issue that I mentioned above. You assume sex = "one flesh" = marriage = must be ended by divorce. If any one of those equivalences are incorrect, then your above statement is wrong. For instance, if "one flesh" does not equal "marriage", your string of assumptions is incorrect.
Exactly.
So TTWCM occurs when?
It's certainly a real conundrum, and Scripture addresses it in numerous places, but some of the problem is the distinction between ownership and possession. Perhaps ownership in particular may remain in question and favor an interpretation that the father retains ownership, but does that, in reality, stop the two from being in this TTWCM?
Research what a vow is. The scripture seems to mention it as a vow to the LORD everytime or be talking about it in that context. We think of this as a vow to a person but I mean towards a vow like a nazarite vow or the vow that the Pharisees took when trying to kill Paul. I have lots of hours into numbers 30 because of marrying Lara without the blessing of her father. He didn't disallow it but wasnt happy. This didn't actually apply anyway because she was living in my household without a proper covering anyway. Also notice its only in the day of hearing for the father, but a husband can break a vow whenever. However if the husband breaks it in a day after his hearing, then he bears the guilt of the vow.
Also where do you see a woman's vow to her husband for ownership in the scripture? Can you cite it, because I would be interested in adding that to my study.
You’re not reading the passages. Christ uses the phrase one flesh when talking about divorce. You get divorced from a one flesh relationship. That’s not a definition issue. You know this.
So to help clarify are you saying sex=one flesh?