• 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.

Numbers 30:2 and Vows

Do you see being one flesh different than being married?

Yes, because it is different. Being one flesh (sexual intercourse) is sex. Taking a woman is taking one. Sex seals the deal but is not the be all end all definition of that transfer of ownership. That’s why betrothal is regarded as being nearly almost indistinguishable from marriage in a punishment for breaking said relationship.

That’s why a man must endow her to be his wife if he sleeps with her. If sex transferred the ownership then the job would be done. It doesn’t. It simply devalues the virgin when she’s been slept with.
 
The position that sex constitutes TTWCM is nonsensical and illogical when held up to scripture.
 
Yes, because it is different. Being one flesh (sexual intercourse) is sex. Taking a woman is taking one. Sex seals the deal but is not the be all end all definition of that transfer of ownership. That’s why betrothal is regarded as being nearly almost indistinguishable from marriage in a punishment for breaking said relationship.

That’s why a man must endow her to be his wife if he sleeps with her. If sex transferred the ownership then the job would be done. It doesn’t. It simply devalues the virgin when she’s been slept with.
So if two become one flesh through sex should you separate the one flesh union?
 
Sex doesn’t equal marriage. If it did, then there wouldn’t be a command that if you sleep with a virgin, then you must either marry her or pay the father the bride price he demands. Also, then you’d be marrying a prostitiute if you slept with her and that is never shown in scripture as a reality.

There seems to be two pieces for a marriage vs concubine: sex and consent of the authority over the woman, assuming she’s still under authority.

In our culture fathers usually give up their authority when they make their daughters move out, get jobs and support themselves, amd solve their own problems without the fathers protection. By sending the daughters away, the daughter then has authority to decide who to marry.
You are marrying a prostitute when you sleep with her. That’s the explicit reason you’re given for not doing it. 1 Corinthians 6:16 leaves no wiggle room here. It says don’t “What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.”

This is a direct quote of Genesis 2:24, the verse that institutes one flesh, colloquially known as “marriage”.

If you have sex with a prostitute you are bound to her in the bonds of holy one fleshedness. En garde!

And all the old timers just face palmed because someone rattled my cage! Let the games begin!
 
So if two become one flesh through sex should you separate the one flesh union?
Depends what you’re talking about. Be careful to not conflate a description of marriage with a description of a one flesh union.

Making a beast with two backs is not described in scripture as TTWCM.

It’s described as holy when in right standing as in the bounds of TTWCM. It’s called playing the harlot. It’s called prostitution, or several other law breaking statuses. But intercourse is NOT defined in scripture as the thing that creates a marriage. If it was, a man would not be required to endow a woman “to be his wife”. She would already be his wife. Zec always jumps past this and doesn’t answer without circular reasoning.
 
You are marrying a prostitute when you sleep with her. That’s the explicit reason you’re given for not doing it. 1 Corinthians 6:16 leaves no wiggle room here. It says don’t “What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.”

This is a direct quote of Genesis 2:24, the verse that institutes one flesh, colloquially known as “marriage”.

If you have sex with a prostitute you are bound to her in the bonds of holy one fleshedness. En garde!

And all the old timers just face palmed because someone rattled my cage! Let the games begin!
Circular reasoning like you always use on this topic. Your viewpoint does not conform to the whole counsel of scripture or basic logic.
 
Circular reasoning like you always use on this topic. Your viewpoint does not conform to the whole counsel of scripture or basic logic.
Again, where’s your scripture? If one flesh isn’t “marriage” then where is marriage in scripture?

If Genesis 2:24 isn’t a marriage, explicitly describes as one flesh in the text, then where is there a marriage in all of scripture?

How do you form one? What’s the secret incantation?
 
Depends what you’re talking about. Be careful to not conflate a description of marriage with a description of a one flesh union.

Making a beast with two backs is not described in scripture as TTWCM.

It’s described as holy when in right standing as in the bounds of TTWCM. It’s called playing the harlot. It’s called prostitution, or several other law breaking statuses. But intercourse is NOT defined in scripture as the thing that creates a marriage. If it was, a man would not be required to endow a woman “to be his wife”. She would already be his wife. Zec always jumps past this and doesn’t answer without circular reasoning.
Endow means pay for not marry. Check the original.
 
Again, where’s your scripture? If one flesh isn’t “marriage” then where is marriage in scripture?

If Genesis 2:24 isn’t a marriage, explicitly describes as one flesh in the text, then where is there a marriage in all of scripture?

How do you form one? What’s the secret incantation?
Tbh there’s not much point in trying to convince you. I’ve read your entrenched viewpoint elucidated numerous times over dozens of pages of the debate. You’re convinced of your views and unwilling to engage on the real issue. Or else we are all speaking past each other.

If I thought there was actual hope of real consideration given, I might take the time. But I only have a couple days home before I have to leave for work again. So jousting to no productive end is low on my priority list.

Getting my homestead cleaned up and an addition built so I can find me another woman somehow feels like more productive than having fun fighting with you Zec 😆
 
But intercourse is NOT defined in scripture as the thing that creates a marriage. If it was, a man would not be required to endow a woman “to be his wife”. She would already be his wife. Zec always jumps past this and doesn’t answer without circular reasoning.
You should read Exodus 22:16 in more translations. He has endowed her to be his woman, there are no more steps left to take here. This verse deals only with what happens if the father is able to physically block possession.

The verse that far better supports yours position is Deuteronomy 22:22-28; although verse 29 pretty much clinches it the other way.

All that being said, this is my favorite debate and I look forward to having it again. Although maybe a little less so now that I have Allie’s and am no longer the lonely warrior doggedly defending truth against all comers. Melodrama makes everything more fun.
 
Tbh there’s not much point in trying to convince you. I’ve read your entrenched viewpoint elucidated numerous times over dozens of pages of the debate. You’re convinced of your views and unwilling to engage on the real issue. Or else we are all speaking past each other.

If I thought there was actual hope of real consideration given, I might take the time. But I only have a couple days home before I have to leave for work again. So jousting to no productive end is low on my priority list.

Getting my homestead cleaned up and an addition built so I can find me another woman somehow feels like more productive than having fun fighting with you Zec 😆
I don’t know, it’s a crucial important issue and frankly I’m not really happy with the small amount of ambiguity that exists around it on all sides. I’m open to evolution on the issue but I’m going to have to see scripture and then the proffered interpretation of that scripture is going to have harmonize across all of the relevant verses. Nothing else matters.

Almost every description of a “marriage” we have is described as one flesh. Divorce is also connected to one flesh. One flesh is formed by sex. My pea brain is left with only so many alternatives to that fact pattern.
 
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

If marriage=one flesh
It would read

Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, she is his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Lexicon :: Strong's H1961 - hāyâ

It shall come to pass. This is a future happening not already happened.

The tense is very important here. If sexual union creates TTWCM then there is no point in the laws preventing harlotry. There is no such thing as harlotry if you are correct. Only adultery.
 
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

If marriage=one flesh
It would read

Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, she is his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Lexicon :: Strong's H1961 - hāyâ

It shall come to pass. This is a future happening not already happened.

The tense is very important here. If sexual union creates TTWCM then there is no point in the laws preventing harlotry. There is no such thing as harlotry if you are correct. Only adultery.

I ask that you use the verb tenses consistent then. When the man shall pay he can take his woman. He cannot take her until he pays. They are still one flesh, but he must pay for the woman who he created a union with.

Answer me this by your logic, a man seduces a virgin and pays the dowry agreed upon and the father doesn't give the daughter. What happens if he has sex with her again? Does he pay again? Is he free to have sex with her as often as he likes? What does the aftermath of your logic lead to? Can the defiled virgin marry? Is she bound to the man that paid for her?

I conjecture that the father can refuse to release physical possession of the goods (woman) until the price was paid for her, if the man takes her without paying that would be kidnapping. If that father keeps her after the man pays that's prostitution. When the man pays he can take his goods, he must pay though because he has committed those goods to himself.



Here is some stuff on the original.

This word occurs in the qal stem
to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out

  1. (Qal)
      1. to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass
      2. to come about, come to pass
    1. to come into being, become
      1. to arise, appear, come
      2. to become
        1. to become
        2. to become like
        3. to be instituted, be established
    2. to be
      1. to exist, be in existence
      2. to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)
      3. to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)
      4. to accompany, be with

Here are some renderings whe its translated into english
The KJV translates Strongs H1961 in the following manner: was, come to pass, came, has been, were happened, become, pertained, better for thee.

Here's a definition
Strong's Definitions: הָיָה hâyâh, haw-yaw; a primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):—beacon, × altogether, be(-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, follow, happen, × have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, × use.

The verb occurs in the imperfect

Definition of "Imperfect (yiqtol)"
Generally designates an action which is continuous, incomplete, or open-ended. Rather than depicting an action as a single event, the imperfect depicts it as a continuing process. It is therefore typically translated as a present “He is running” or a future “He will be running,” although it can sometimes be translated as a continuous past “He was running.” The meaning of the imperfect therefore has more to do with how an action took place than with when it took place. The imperfect is most often treated as a present or future because it is easier to think of present or future events as incomplete and open-ended than it is to think of past actions that way
 
When the man shall pay he can take his woman.
*Bold emphasis mine* You have not substantiated this claim.

You’re assuming the question or begging the question, a logical fallacy. Your whole claim is based on this fallacy. Substantiate the root issue first. She does not belong to the man, but to the father. If he lay with her, he is required to make restitution for devaluing the maiden. To whom does he pay? The one who still has ownership.
Exodus 22:16-17 The father here can refuse. Guy still has to pay. What for? Because he damaged the father’s property. Guy doesn’t get the girl you say he’s married to. Exodus 21:4 the woman and the children she bore stay with the one who owns her.

Marriage is a woman being owned by a man. He is permitted scripturally to have sex with her when she belongs to him. Having sex does not convey property rights.

Betrothal is conveyance of that property right. Even if the sexual union has not occurred, the punishments with a betrothed woman are the same as married. Despite no echad bawar, she still belongs to the bridegroom.

Neither you or Zec have substantiated the claim that sex equals marriage. Every argument I’ve heard begs the question of an unsubstantiated claim.

If you can prove that claim I’ll agree with you guys. But you can’t cause it’s not scriptural.

Prostitution is not marriage. Harlotry is not marriage. If you guys were correct, God’s word would be redundant and multiple laws pointless and confusing. There is no need for laws against harlotry because harlotry would simply be adultery. But it’s not. You can tell cause the words are spelled differently.

You acquire a wife after you’ve paid for her in the scripture above. She isn’t your wife despite having already joining his flesh with the maiden.

That’s literally all one flesh means. United flesh. Not “marriage”. Two bodies embracing in sexual joinery. Don’t add to scripture and make it something extra scriptural.

Echad bawar (united flesh)
Flesh joined together means flesh joined together. I don’t see the scripture where God says flesh joined together means marriage.

Strong's Number
H1320
Original Word
בּשׂר
Transliterated Word
bâώâr
Phonetic Spelling
baw-sawr'

Strong's Number
H259
Original Word
אחד
Transliterated Word
'echâd
Phonetic Spelling
ekh-awd'
 
If sex = marriage then fornication wouldn’t exist. You’d be marrying and abandoning wives and the scripture would condemn that installers of having a category of sin l that is, essentially “hooking up”.
 
*Bold emphasis mine* You have not substantiated this claim.

You’re assuming the question or begging the question, a logical fallacy. Your whole claim is based on this fallacy. Substantiate the root issue first. She does not belong to the man, but to the father. If he lay with her, he is required to make restitution for devaluing the maiden. To whom does he pay? The one who still has ownership.
Exodus 22:16-17 The father here can refuse. Guy still has to pay. What for? Because he damaged the father’s property. Guy doesn’t get the girl you say he’s married to. Exodus 21:4 the woman and the children she bore stay with the one who owns her.

Marriage is a woman being owned by a man. He is permitted scripturally to have sex with her when she belongs to him. Having sex does not convey property rights.

Betrothal is conveyance of that property right. Even if the sexual union has not occurred, the punishments with a betrothed woman are the same as married. Despite no echad bawar, she still belongs to the bridegroom.

Neither you or Zec have substantiated the claim that sex equals marriage. Every argument I’ve heard begs the question of an unsubstantiated claim.

If you can prove that claim I’ll agree with you guys. But you can’t cause it’s not scriptural.

Prostitution is not marriage. Harlotry is not marriage. If you guys were correct, God’s word would be redundant and multiple laws pointless and confusing. There is no need for laws against harlotry because harlotry would simply be adultery. But it’s not. You can tell cause the words are spelled differently.

You acquire a wife after you’ve paid for her in the scripture above. She isn’t your wife despite having already joining his flesh with the maiden.

That’s literally all one flesh means. United flesh. Not “marriage”. Two bodies embracing in sexual joinery. Don’t add to scripture and make it something extra scriptural.

Echad bawar (united flesh)
Flesh joined together means flesh joined together. I don’t see the scripture where God says flesh joined together means marriage.

Strong's Number
H1320
Original Word
בּשׂר
Transliterated Word
bâώâr
Phonetic Spelling
baw-sawr'

Strong's Number
H259
Original Word
אחד
Transliterated Word
'echâd
Phonetic Spelling
ekh-awd'
So if I pay the father for restitution and then have sex with her again what happens? Can I rinse and repeat at a lower value?
 
Back
Top