1-800-@IshChayil . . .
-
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.
Vetting a single woman.
- Thread starter Elijahsfire
- Start date
Just for the record, every woman I’ve ever been married to definitely falls under the non-widowed, non-virgin category . . . For almost 20 years now
Both of theses were presented as plain reading justifications for sex equals marriage on several threads.
Are plain readings not always applicable?
When it is we still have to take it in context and compare it to the rest of scripture.
I suggest that we reevaluate if the plain reading is applicable here.
Does it contridict other parts of scripture?
If so then it's the interpretation that causes the contradiction.
Does it add to or subtract from the words of G-d?
If so the interpretation is faulty and there is another way to veiw it that doesn't?
Does it change the nature of Yeshua?
If so and an interpretation makes Yeshua a sinner then the interpretation is faulty.
Does the interpretation the context of the situation support the interpretation?
The purpose of the question presented to Yeshua was meant to be a gotcha moment, showing Yeshua teaching against the law. How does this factor in?
Does the culture factor into the interpretation?
Is the interpretation coming from an understanding of Jewish culture and custom at the time or a modern Christian veiw of the scripture?
I like the points you made but not all.
Common sense is man's understanding, Its not a always in line with scripture. Common sense is also the Atheist bread and butter.
Nature was also corrupted by sin. Animals sometimes engage in homesexual behaviour, to dominate other animals some times out of frustration from not finding a mate. Animals also sometimes engage in cross species encounters. Both do not line up with scripture. Nature teaches us is the LGBQT communities bread and butter.
Deuteronomy 22: 28, he had no choice in some cases. There's a thread that discusses the limits of fathers rights. Like I said I'm a proponent of fathers rights, but it was pointed out to me that by plain reading his right to say no I'd limited to the very few mitzvots that states that he can say no and it "requires reading into the silence and is not obvious from reading the scriptures" to apply it across the board. Plus, nothing in leave and cleave says anything about a father having the right to say no. Plain reading it means leave ones parents and adhere firmly and closely or loyally and unwaveringly to spouse. Alot of arguments there if scripture says one must physically leave or not, the situation with Jacob and Leah while he was apart of Labans household for the seven years he had to work for Rachel comes to mind.
You'd have a better arguement with Numbers 30:3, but there are arguments about the limitations there aswell.
I think I know what your trying to say but, boyfriend/girlfriend are a modern convention nothing traditional about it. In Biblical times the reason a solider was required to stay at home with his wife for the first year was to try and produce an offspring. He would then be sent off to a military camp sometimes for years. Shepards spent more time in the field than at home living with their wife. Merchants who transported their goods could be seperated from their families for years aswell. In the Ancient world there are accounts of men doing their duty for their nation and providing for their families being gone for more years than they were home. That wouldn't be seen as living together. In some Essene comunities (the ones that supported marriage) the men lived comunialy and their wives and children in satellite villiages.
So what about Cohabitation. If two people are living together and engaging in intimacy with no corporate church marital vows or secular marriage contract.
As for the only after they're married only,
Luke 2:1-5
Now it happened in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus to register all the world’s inhabitants.
This was the first census taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria.
Everyone was traveling to be registered in his own city.
Now Joseph also went up from the Galilee, out of the town of Natzeret to Judah, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was from the house and family of David.
He went to register with Miriam, who was engaged to him and was pregnant.
The narrative had advanced some eight months from Luke 1:26-27, where it stated that Gabriel was sent to speak to Mary who“pledged to be married to a man named Joseph.” The Greek verb mnēsteuō was translated identically in both verses.
The translation suggests to me that an unmarried Jewish couple travel a long distance unaccompanied by other family members, living together before their marriage. Jacob was part of Labans hous for 14 years living with his wives before they were married.
I beleive your statement was not about tradition or living together but the Churches veiw of shacking up by their definition of fornication, porneia.
Illicit sexual intercourse aspects of Porneia
adultery, Leviticus 20:10
homosexuality, Leviticus 20:13
Intercourse with animals, Levitcus 20:15-16
sexual intercourse with close relatives; Leviticus 18
Prostitution, Leviticus 19:29
sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman, by interpetarion Mark 10:11-12 and Matthew 5:31-32
Sex between a man and a woman with no secular contract or Church sponsored marriage i.e. fornication, ???
Just like lesbianism, sex with out a ketubah is not explicitly forbidden or labeled as a sin. There's alot of you should nots or should get married, but no mitzvot that says it's a sin. Romans 7:7 "What shall we say then? Is the Torah sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the Torah.". I am no advocating sex out side of a covenant. There are still many things, that those of us who have woken up the truth that for most of our lives we have been misinformed, still have alot to learn about scripture.
Last edited:
@Kevin You're getting lost in the weeds of my secondary and tertiary arguments.
I'm not talking about cohabitation or all the various modern ways of relationships that is such a mess. Hence why I said traditionally. Nor am I basing my understanding on that. My core argument is based on scripture. I point to the analogs to it in our practice and common sense to show it makes sense to people in an organic way. leave & cleave fits with scripture and organic practice. sex=marriage fits with neither.
'Let us reason together' God once said. Seek understanding Solomon said. Common sense isn't always wrong. It can be right. Likewise you attack argument from nature. I was quoting the Apostle Paul there. If you don't like that approach; take it up with him. You're hacking at the sides, ignoring the core analysis of the scriptures.
This is your only attempt at my arguments from scripture and its a complete sideshow. You're not grappling at all with the actual logic of my claim.
I'm not talking about cohabitation or all the various modern ways of relationships that is such a mess. Hence why I said traditionally. Nor am I basing my understanding on that. My core argument is based on scripture. I point to the analogs to it in our practice and common sense to show it makes sense to people in an organic way. leave & cleave fits with scripture and organic practice. sex=marriage fits with neither.
'Let us reason together' God once said. Seek understanding Solomon said. Common sense isn't always wrong. It can be right. Likewise you attack argument from nature. I was quoting the Apostle Paul there. If you don't like that approach; take it up with him. You're hacking at the sides, ignoring the core analysis of the scriptures.
This is your only attempt at my arguments from scripture and its a complete sideshow. You're not grappling at all with the actual logic of my claim.
Hebrew is not my specialty. But I don't see any translation that leaves out that meaning. Just because it is in italics, does not indicate that that meaning is spurious. English is more wordy than Hebrew and translation isn't alsways a one-to-one endeavor.
This does bring up another argument that I hadn't thought to include earlier. We are wanting to know when 'marriage' starts. When are two people 'married'. Hebrew had no word for either marry or marriage. But 'marry' is commonly found in the English translation; but it is translated from words meaning things like: come, woman, take, caught, seized, took away, rule over, possessed, become, buy. None of these tie to sex. Rather, they all tie to paying a dowry for her, to taking her under your rule, to seizing her. This is all connected to the idea of leaving and coming under the husbands authority. Taking physical possession and authority over her.
And this fits the Ex 22:16. KJV here says "endow her to be his wife." endow here is more literally, "acquire by paying purchase-price" (i.e. dowry). So even if we toss out 'to be' we still have IF sex THEN acquire her for wife. This still works. He still has to acquire her. Until he pays for her, she is not his.
What we don't see here is anything that sounds anything like, "she became your wife the moment you had sex with her". Thats just not a concept taught anywhere in scripture; no scripture assumes that is how/when marriage is formed.
Furthermore, this matches the Ancient Hebrew and practices of that region and time. The post exile Jewish practice was for marriage to be formed by contract (ketubah) and dowry. The contract formed the marriage. This is also how the surrounding cultures (Assyrians, Babylonians, Mesopotamians) did it going back to before Abrams time. If you didn't have a contract you weren't considered to be married. Having sex didn't make you married.
Your logic has you chastising me one second for "reading into the silence" and making interpretations that you claim are not obvious is scripture then turning around and doing the same thing. The sideshow are the statements like the ones you make to avoid addressing issues brought before you and try to make it about the person not understanding your logic.
No I'm continuing to show the point about plan reading. I'm sorry if you dont understand and how the example you gave from Paul is abused and the plain reading used to justify homosexuality in the church.
Common Sense is not reasoning with G-d is resting on your own understanding. Just because we get it right every now and then doesn't make man's understanding correct.
Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
I will give you this, your very adept at sidestepping question, and changing the subject.
Side stepping the issues again, that's find take your ball and go home. I understand, you dont like being called out to be accountable for what your saying or it being pointed out that your doing the same thing your saying others are doing.
Going to take a whack at my own list from a very different world view from everyone else here with a focus on nuts and bolts issues that are important to me.
- No mothers. I realize some will find me harsh on some subjects but this is one of my hard stances.
- No whores. Do I need to expand on that?
- Honest. I have had more bad experience than I care to consider based upon the lies of women who purported to love me.
- 100% dedication to the family as a unit. This includes putting their own self interests and desires a distant second to the needs of the family. I do it and so I would expect the same from a wife.
- Warm and loving.
- Patient and forgiving of the flaws in others.
- Intelligent. I would really prefer someone three standard deviations above the mean IQ or better. At minimum someone who is one of the sharper tools in the shed.
- Willing to bear my children.
- Protector mindset. If a parent would not kill to protect their child then what use are they?
- Desire to be a mother and have an appropriate personality for the task
- Mother to other children mindset. I am not sure of how to phrase it more succinctly but what I am getting at is that my expectation is that all wives treat all children as well as their own and show them the same degree of consideration and love as ones they birthed themselves. One big happy family with no exclusion of anyone, ever.
- On board with the fact that I am in charge. That being said, I do Not ever wish to be put in the position where it is necessary for me to give orders. I prefer good communication on all fronts and for us to determine the best solutions together. I have a healthy ego but do not claim to have all or always the best answers. If she can think of something I have not then I wish to know.
- Strong. I have a thing about strength that extends to the women I find attractive and to the sort of friends I keep. I mean strength of personality and perhaps more important but related, strength of character.
- A true clear understanding and commitment to plural marriage and all of its inherent joys as well as its pitfalls
- Loyal. This should be self explanatory
- A stayer. If she is the type to ever leave and bring heartbreak to the family or to me, then I would rather never know her at all.
- A little dab of crazy. She will need that or something like it to seek this lifestyle after the world spends so much time telling people what a bad idea it is to consider. Also to fall for a big ugly ape like me will certainly require that dab of crazy.
I imagine there are lots of others in an ideal world. I mean I could go on about a good number of qualities I would like but I think I hit a good chunk of the important stuff.
- No mothers. I realize some will find me harsh on some subjects but this is one of my hard stances.
- No whores. Do I need to expand on that?
- Honest. I have had more bad experience than I care to consider based upon the lies of women who purported to love me.
- 100% dedication to the family as a unit. This includes putting their own self interests and desires a distant second to the needs of the family. I do it and so I would expect the same from a wife.
- Warm and loving.
- Patient and forgiving of the flaws in others.
- Intelligent. I would really prefer someone three standard deviations above the mean IQ or better. At minimum someone who is one of the sharper tools in the shed.
- Willing to bear my children.
- Protector mindset. If a parent would not kill to protect their child then what use are they?
- Desire to be a mother and have an appropriate personality for the task
- Mother to other children mindset. I am not sure of how to phrase it more succinctly but what I am getting at is that my expectation is that all wives treat all children as well as their own and show them the same degree of consideration and love as ones they birthed themselves. One big happy family with no exclusion of anyone, ever.
- On board with the fact that I am in charge. That being said, I do Not ever wish to be put in the position where it is necessary for me to give orders. I prefer good communication on all fronts and for us to determine the best solutions together. I have a healthy ego but do not claim to have all or always the best answers. If she can think of something I have not then I wish to know.
- Strong. I have a thing about strength that extends to the women I find attractive and to the sort of friends I keep. I mean strength of personality and perhaps more important but related, strength of character.
- A true clear understanding and commitment to plural marriage and all of its inherent joys as well as its pitfalls
- Loyal. This should be self explanatory
- A stayer. If she is the type to ever leave and bring heartbreak to the family or to me, then I would rather never know her at all.
- A little dab of crazy. She will need that or something like it to seek this lifestyle after the world spends so much time telling people what a bad idea it is to consider. Also to fall for a big ugly ape like me will certainly require that dab of crazy.
I imagine there are lots of others in an ideal world. I mean I could go on about a good number of qualities I would like but I think I hit a good chunk of the important stuff.
So any luck so far picking up women at Mensa?
No thank you.
In my brief experience, the mensa kids are tedious and entirely to full of themselves.
In my brief experience, the mensa kids are tedious and entirely to full of themselves.
I think the nuts and bolts issues you list are the things most of us would have in mind. Thanks for the input. Shalom
I would not have a hard time with a particular single mother I know of, who was raped by her boyfriend. I don't see that so much as a character flaw on her part.
C
Cap
Guest
True, discounting mother's does limit the point of offering a place of belonging in a Godly family to some who are looking for that security.
My unwillingness to entertain the notion of a single mother is not a reference to her character in my case. Simply a matter of preference. With respect to limiting the potential field of additional wives, I am not overly troubled by the smaller pool. I am perfectly happy with my two at this time. If we ever meet someone that should be a part of our strange little tribe then I expect that I will be perfectly happy with that as well. I suppose that my comfort allows me a touch more leeway in my thinking.
Last edited:
Dude, don’t be sneaking into my house and stealing my lists! Haha
C
Cap
Guest
With the idea of following something, or better someone, higher than oneself, individual preference is not always the chosen path for some. Also, polygamy as a principle goes beyond the individual desire for a family and finds its fulfillment in a broader societal application. I see the idea of plural families as something that is beneficial to society as a whole and not just the individual family. I may never actually get to live in a plural family but I do know that teaching others the principle and getting them to think in lines about helping others, women, who wouldn't have the ability otherwise, to live within a Godly home is a priority as far as I am concerned.
No argument with that but it simply (beyond the society large and agreeing that polygamy is indeed a good direction) does not apply to my circumstances. To each their own however and my proclivities simply leave a larger potential pool for those of a dissimilar bent to potentially benefit and I hope in fact that they do.
C
Cap
Guest
I understand what you are saying, and as far as the individual needs of a particular family go, I get your point. But I do assume that the concept of "beyond the society large and agreeing that polygamy is indeed a good direction" is an important part of why you are here. To share your experiences, and hopefully broaden the minds of those who have come to see that this lifestyle has purpose. My only point to add to the discussion was to bring out the idea that a lot of us here are doing this because of a 'higher' calling, if you will, and that may include relationships that others may find difficult to accept. It may be your preference to not increase the size of your family, I get that, but the statement you made was "No mothers. I realize some will find me harsh on some subjects but this is one of my hard stances." which implied that there was more to it than family size. To each his own, but I just wanted to make sure that the single mothers out there looking for Godly homes, know that there are still possibilities.
While many here feel it is good to provide them an opportunity for Godly homes, outside of the church the majority opinion of those advising men on vetting women for marriage seems to be to stay away from mothers. Many won't even have casual sex with them.