• 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.

No such thing as wives.

FollowingHim said:
I don't think so. I strongly believe that any two people, if both truly decide to make it work, could end up happily married. That's why arranged marriage works - it doesn't matter if you don't love each other to start with, if you're both completely certain it is for life and you'll have to make it work, so put the effort in. While marriage fails when people think "I've found my soulmate, we're so in love", and then the honeymoon period ends and they think they must have made a mistake, so go looking for their 'real' soulmate.

A nut is designed to be a perfect match for a bolt, it even has almost no purpose other than fitting on a bolt. But it doesn't have a 'soulmate' bolt that is the only one it can be used with. It can be mated with any bolt of the same thread, and will work fine - provided they are assembled correctly. While it will function terribly even with the bolt it was sold with, if they are cross-threaded.
Click to expand...

I agree. The bolt and nut is very good. It would seem, true soulmates would be better defined, not by the connection to each other, but the connection they each individual have towards the purpose God has for them together and their desire to work towards that goal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You are using a term, soulmates, that has a specific meaning. A meaning that you probably don’t agree with.
I find it best not to use the word.
 
FollowingHim said:
I don't think so. I strongly believe that any two people, if both truly decide to make it work, could end up happily married. That's why arranged marriage works - it doesn't matter if you don't love each other to start with, if you're both completely certain it is for life and you'll have to make it work, so put the effort in. While marriage fails when people think "I've found my soulmate, we're so in love", and then the honeymoon period ends and they think they must have made a mistake, so go looking for their 'real' soulmate.

A nut is designed to be a perfect match for a bolt, it even has almost no purpose other than fitting on a bolt. But it doesn't have a 'soulmate' bolt that is the only one it can be used with. It can be mated with any bolt of the same thread, and will work fine - provided they are assembled correctly. While it will function terribly even with the bolt it was sold with, if they are cross-threaded.
Click to expand...

Even captured war brides worked in scripture. I think parents who know their children can do even better.
 
Older languages (Gk, Heb) didn't have a term for a married man or woman (apart from designating to whom they were married) because they didn't need it. Most if not all mature individuals were married, so the only required information was "whose woman is she?" (or "whose man is he?"). So Cheryl considered as a female of the species would be a "woman" and considered as a married/attached/spoken-for woman would be "Andrew's woman".

English apparently developed a need for a word that designated a person as married without necessarily caring to whom they are married. So Cheryl is described as married, a spouse, a wife, and maybe it matters that she's Andrew's wife but maybe it doesn't matter—it just needs to be pointed out that she is a married woman, not a single one. It's not hard to picture how a larger population with a mercantile culture could develop that need, while a smaller population in a pastoral or an agrarian setting would not.

Like the Eskimos having, what, 40 or 50 different words for different types of snow, while we stick to one noun and a handful of adjectives to describe the differences that matter to us (primarily to skiers...). A culture develops the vocabulary it needs for its purposes and context.

I don't think it helps our understanding to read the definition of our technical term "wife" back into the Greek or Hebrew vocabulary of centuries/millenia ago. The connotation is not there in the older languages, and it seems forced to me to try to read it back into it.

(PS - Even the older languages have words for maiden and crone. It's not like they didn't call out the differences that mattered to them at the time....)
 
andrew said:
Older languages (Gk, Heb) didn't have a term for a married man or woman (apart from designating to whom they were married) because they didn't need it. Most if not all mature individuals were married, so the only required information was "whose woman is she?" (or "whose man is he?"). So Cheryl considered as a female of the species would be a "woman" and considered as a married/attached/spoken-for woman would be "Andrew's woman".

English apparently developed a need for a word that designated a person as married without necessarily caring to whom they are married. So Cheryl is described as married, a spouse, a wife, and maybe it matters that she's Andrew's wife but maybe it doesn't matter—it just needs to be pointed out that she is a married woman, not a single one. It's not hard to picture how a larger population with a mercantile culture could develop that need, while a smaller population in a pastoral or an agrarian setting would not.

Like the Eskimos having, what, 40 or 50 different words for different types of snow, while we stick to one noun and a handful of adjectives to describe the differences that matter to us (primarily to skiers...). A culture develops the vocabulary it needs for its purposes and context.

I don't think it helps our understanding to read the definition of our technical term "wife" back into the Greek or Hebrew vocabulary of centuries/millenia ago. The connotation is not there in the older languages, and it seems forced to me to try to read it back into it.

(PS - Even the older languages have words for maiden and crone. It's not like they didn't call out the differences that mattered to them at the time....)
Click to expand...
In Rromani their is a word for boy child and girl child but not man or woman. The word Rom means husband and Romni means wife. So in Rromani culture your either a child or married.
 
Kevin said:
In Rromani their is a word for boy child and girl child but not man or woman. The word Rom means husband and Romni means wife. So in Rromani culture your either a child or married.
Click to expand...
Child as in, dependent or child as in, immature?

Just thinking about modern culture with college students living at home v. 35 somethings in the basement?
 
Ancient Paths said:
Child as in, dependent or child as in, immature?

Just thinking about modern culture with college students living at home v. 35 somethings in the basement?
Click to expand...
As under the fathers authority. Children 13 and older have to pay kimone (1/10 of money earned) to their father until they're married. They have No voice in matters concerning the kumpania.
 
Kevin said:
As under the fathers authority. Children 13 and older have to pay kimone (1/10 of money earned) to their father until they're married. They have No voice in matters concerning the kumpania.
Click to expand...
So, those who have no vested interest in the future of the family have no voice. And, it pays to get married and be invested... you keep your money.
 
Ancient Paths said:
So, those who have no vested interest in the future of the family have no voice. And, it pays to get married and be invested... you keep your money.
Click to expand...
For the most part. Roms still pay kimone to the BaroRom (patriarch) of the kumpania if they're part of one, 1 payday a month , but that money isn't the BaroRoms like when a child pays their father. Its set aside to help pay bride prices, create dowries, feastdays, birthdays, anniversaries, funerals and in case of emergencies.
The no voice in discisions, lack of personal authority, and a light purse is probably the reason for the tradition of marrying young, 14 for girls and 16 for guys. Not me, after my arranged marriage fell apart because our families fell in blood with Each other, I was a rebellious blacksheep who balked at our traditions for awhile. I had my reasons, most of them bad . Joined the military and waited til I was 24 to marry. It wasn't until I was married with a kid on the way that I started appreciating our traditions.
 
Kevin said:
For the most part. Roms still pay kimone to the BaroRom (patriarch) of the kumpania if they're part of one, 1 payday a month , but that money isn't the BaroRoms like when a child pays their father. Its set aside to help pay bride prices, create dowries, feastdays, birthdays, anniversaries, funerals and in case of emergencies.
The no voice in discisions, lack of personal authority, and a light purse is probably the reason for the tradition of marrying young, 14 for girls and 16 for guys. Not me, after my arranged marriage fell apart because our families fell in blood with Each other, I was a rebellious blacksheep who balked at our traditions for awhile. I had my reasons, most of them bad . Joined the military and waited til I was 24 to marry. It wasn't until I was married with a kid on the way that I started appreciating our traditions.
Click to expand...

I can see the deep wisdom in this old traditions. Most of us have lost all sense of community and family; we depend on the government for such functions. Which will almost always do them worse and create negative knock-on affects. And in the process we loose our sense of place and purpose in the culture.

All too often troubles in life become a one man against the world situation without any help from family, or even opposed by family.
 
Yep. One of the most difficult issues I’ve had to overcome with my children is how to keep them from making the same mistake I made as a teenager, where I felt like I had to do everything myself without anyone else’s help, specifically from my dad.

At this point, the answer I’ve found is to 1) start early and young with discussing, examining and having conversations about other peoples mistakes. Helping them see mistakes and corrections by watching people they know in real time.
2) Making sure that they see that I’m a real guy who makes lots of mistakes. I’m not perfect and my role and influence is not based on how perfect and omniscient I am. I’m just doing the best I know how.
3) My whole purpose in this season of life is invested in making sure that they have what they need to succeed on their own in beginning their own life and family.
 
Pacman said:
And on that note. I have two sons and three daughters to find "soul mates" for. Any takers. ;);)
Click to expand...

I have long thought that this was an important task for parents. While I have explored arranged marriage, I have never quite gone that far, but I have always tried to be clear to my children that I was here for them and if they wanted help that I was here for them and would do what I can for them.

Also, I have encouraged them to be in the front of the line and choose early. Don't wait for the leftovers. Also, that there are no perfect mates.

So far wth mixed success.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top