What you mean by genetic characteristics?We have observed, in our life and others, that the wife takes on the genetic characteristics of her husband. And I don't think it's just through Microchimerism of pregnancies, especially considering how few pregnancies most people have.
What you mean by genetic characteristics?
Is she adopt slifestyle and beliefs of husband there is no genetic concept. Food influences looks, so this isn't genetic also.
Neither is preselection.Facial structure and hair color are the two obvious ones we've seen. There is some preselection on the first one but the second one not.
When I first met my father in law, he looked at us and said I looked like I could be his sister. We aren't related, and I don't look like his sisters at all! They favor their mom and my husband favors his dad.They looked so alike, the resemblance was uncanny, I kept looking at the two of them sitting together as I couldn't get over how they looked so much like twins!
My grandparents studied personology, and did marriage counseling using it to help couples better understand each other. That says that the very structure of the face, hands etc. is connected to personality and thought processes. It is possible we just relate better to people ....that we find we can relate to! Lol.Maybe we subconsiously prefer partners similar to us?
It's interesting you bring that up because I've always looked at "one flesh" as being about children--you and your wife literally become one flesh through your children.I'm going to go a little backwards in this string to a possible (and maybe probable) additional understanding of the phrase "one flesh." There is a metaphorical level (specifically metonymy) in which if I say "we are the same flesh and blood" (i.e. Abimelech in Judges 9:2) it is a way of saying "we are family."
There is a fairly old (and traditional) understanding of Adam's statement with regard to the birth of children. In a child the parents are quite literally one flesh. . . and one of the most compelling reasons to avoid divorce is the deleterious effects that such a separation has on the children of that union.
@FollowingHim , I am not disagreeing with the additional layers of meaning that have been discovered scientifically. Likewise, I am not minimizing the spiritual dimension (that may well be expressed and anchored in physicality). The great thing about God's Word is that it can be true in so many different ways and the depth of that truth can be mind-boggling. I'm only bringing up (yet another) way in which the scriptures are true.
I am not sure how much can be put down to changes, there's a lot of preselection. A friend's son just got married, and I first met his wife a few weeks after the wedding - too soon for anything to change. They looked so alike, the resemblance was uncanny, I kept looking at the two of them sitting together as I couldn't get over how they looked so much like twins! That's all preselection.
Natural sex implies that women would receive genetical material from husband. Is something absorbed and used for protein production?
That has been my position for a few years now- that the "one flesh" IS the baby. If it is the joining together via sex then that only is one flesh for a few glorious minutes then each goes their way. However remember the phrase "let no man divide assunder" could be the literal sacrificing of a child as was common during that day.It's interesting you bring that up because I've always looked at "one flesh" as being about children--you and your wife literally become one flesh through your children.
This is of course utterly ridiculous. When we are introduced to one flesh in the garden there is no child anywhere present and couldn’t possibly be for obvious reasons.That has been my position for a few years now- that the "one flesh" IS the baby. If it is the joining together via sex then that only is one flesh for a few glorious minutes then each goes their way. However remember the phrase "let no man divide assunder" could be the literal sacrificing of a child as was common during that day.
Side note- when is "cleaving" both dividing and bringing together(as in "shall cleave to his wife")? It isn't. I maintain that it is the splitting of the womans flesh during the insertion of the man. As a knife divides flesh by cleaving the same is said of sex. Let's not spiritualize something very basic to life. To me the fleshing out of scripture makes more sense instead of somehow making a wonderful beautiful one-ness of two spirits in a romantic way. Aren't we trying to get away from "Romanticising" scripture?
Now for the scholars here- is not the phrase "Shall become" in future tense as in it has not yet happened for that specific moment? In other words the act is not yet complete but when it is then the ONE FLESH is created. One flesh can also be created with a prostitute and in many OT cases that resultent child was sacrificed in typical idol temple worship as an appeasement of the gods. Probably the only difference between abortion today and child sacrifice of years ago is the lack of the sound of the cries.
The salesmanship of the deceiver is still there- sacrifice to me and all will be well with you. You won't have to worry about extra mouths to feed that you cant afford.
And that's the clincher. If "one flesh" is children, then only a very small portion of encounters with harlots would constitute "one flesh". This blatantly contradicts scripture so cannot be the answer.Given that we’re told that one flesh is formed when one lies with a harlot, irrespective of whether a new life is formed or not, why would you then search about for another explanation?
Good point. And we know Rachel belonged to Jacob and they were doing all the right things to make babies, but it was God who closed her womb. They would therefore have been joined and become one flesh (Gen. 2:24).The other thing about “one flesh” being a baby is that a barren woman or an impotent man could never be truly married.