• 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.

General What do we know about TTWCM?

Maddog said:
You have a rigid stance on cleaving and one flesh.
Click to expand...
Yes. Thank you. I’m trying.

Maddog said:
Gen 2:24 is the explanation and one of the first commands to our humanity. Leave- cleave-one flesh in that order.
Click to expand...

So Adam and Eve didn’t have a valid marriage? Adam couldn’t “leave” his non-existent parents. You can’t claim that God was a stand in for Adam’s parents because Adam didn’t leave God or his “house” at the time of the marriage. The only way your formulation could be correct is if the very marriage your proof text is describing was invalid. That seems unlikely.

Maddog said:
Of course a man be one with another man and a woman with a woman but neither of those are one flesh.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. This is a terrible claim. Scripture tells is that male homosexuality wreaks destruction in the flesh, there is no way it could ever be a one flesh. And obviously women can’t be one flesh together so this is just a ridiculous argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yan
Maddog said:
Cleave is to divide (in spite of modern commentary's redefinition)
Click to expand...
No, it is NOT. It is to join. I have already explained this carefully in a previous post - you are basing this whole faulty detail on the KJV english combined with a modern definition of the words. This post you have ignored, but need to respond to because you are still using the same argument.
FollowingHim said:
This whole argument is based on the English word "cleave", which is just a choice of the KJV translators. It appears in almost no other English translations, and certainly does not appear in the Hebrew.

The original word is "dabaq", which means to join. Period. It does not mean to cut apart like the English word "cleave" can, it means to join. The English word "cleave" also meant that when the KJV was translated, but the meaning has been changed since by "modern wordsmiths" as you state, which is why modern translations no longer use it as it is potentially misleading - people can be misled just as you have been misled. More recent translations use words like "joined", "united", "hold fast" etc, which render the meaning of "dabaq" more precisely to a modern English speaker without the potential for misunderstanding.

Your hypothesis that the word "cleave" refers to the parting of the labia in intercourse is nonsense.
Click to expand...
You now seem to be saying that "cleave" means to leave the parents - either way, you're still using it to mean divide. It does not and never can mean divide.

If I am wrong, please clarify exactly what Hebrew or Greek word you are referring to that is translated "cleave" and means "to divide".
 
Interesting study notes-
The KJV translates Strong's H1695 in the following manner: cleave (1x), join (1x), stick (1x).
The KJV translates Strong's H8156 in the following manner: clovenfooted (3x), cleave (2x), rent (2x), cleft (1x), stayed (1x).
The KJV translates Strong's H1692 in the following manner: cleave (32x), follow hard (5x), overtake (3x), stick (3x), keep fast (2x), ...together (2x), abide (1x), close (1x), joined (1x), pursued (1x), take (1x).
The KJV translates Strong's H3867 in the following manner: join (10x), lend (7x), borrow (3x), borrower (2x), abide (1x), cleave (1x), lender (1x), lender (with H376) (1x).
The KJV translates Strong's H1234 in the following manner: cleave (10x), ...up (9x), divide (5x), rent (4x), ... out (3x), break through (3x), rend (3x), breach (2x), asunder (2x), hatch (2x), brake (1x), burst (1x), cleft (1x), break forth (1x), pieces (1x), tare (1x), tear (1x), win (1x).
The KJV translates Strong's G4347 in the following manner: cleave (2x), be joined (1x), join (one's) self (1x).
The KJV translates Strong's G2853 in the following manner: join (one's) self (4x), cleave (3x), be joined (2x), keep company (1x), variations of 'reach' (1x).
 
We are at an impasse as readers of english. You can see how various uses of the word "cleave" come from different root words. Without the layman's tool Strongs concordance or similar tool, confusion could result. We desperately want a word-for-word translation but that is really not practical. The ancient Hebrew(etc) writings use an idiom(idea) and the translators needed to translate a Hebrew IDEA into something that makes sense(an english idea) for us late-to-the-game neanderthals, hence Idiom for Idiom translation.
To be fair to the english- cleavage on a woman could be the divide between breasts, or could be the divide between gluteous maximus(butt cheeks) as well the feminine portion anterior(opposite the posterior). Male generally does not have "cleavage" except our posterior.
With the wholly opposite definitions of "cleave" in english as well the 7 different root words leading up to that, it is a wonder that we get anything correct. The translators had a hard time selecting any word let alone "cleave". Perhaps a better tact is to leave off "cleave" for its dualistic definition.
Very few here are scholars but even scholars have a bias or opinion. So sometimes I have a different opinion to that of a "scholar" based on extant knowledge of english language, and my perception of the scholars' bias.
Many here have a bias- some well founded and others' less. It is the deep dive into scripture that keeps me around whereas the shallow sacred cow theology- read that "because I say so and my stick is bigger than yours" reigns supreme and forces me to back away from other's bloviating.
 
Maddog said:
We are at an impasse as readers of english. You can see how various uses of the word "cleave" come from different root words. Without the layman's tool Strongs concordance or similar tool, confusion could result. We desperately want a word-for-word translation but that is really not practical. The ancient Hebrew(etc) writings use an idiom(idea) and the translators needed to translate a Hebrew IDEA into something that makes sense(an english idea) for us late-to-the-game neanderthals, hence Idiom for Idiom translation.
To be fair to the english- cleavage on a woman could be the divide between breasts, or could be the divide between gluteous maximus(butt cheeks) as well the feminine portion anterior(opposite the posterior). Male generally does not have "cleavage" except our posterior.
With the wholly opposite definitions of "cleave" in english as well the 7 different root words leading up to that, it is a wonder that we get anything correct. The translators had a hard time selecting any word let alone "cleave". Perhaps a better tact is to leave off "cleave" for its dualistic definition.
Very few here are scholars but even scholars have a bias or opinion. So sometimes I have a different opinion to that of a "scholar" based on extant knowledge of english language, and my perception of the scholars' bias.
Many here have a bias- some well founded and others' less. It is the deep dive into scripture that keeps me around whereas the shallow sacred cow theology- read that "because I say so and my stick is bigger than yours" reigns supreme and forces me to back away from other's bloviating.
Click to expand...
Outside of the meaning of the word cleavage, you’re leaving a lot of questions unanswered. It seems like your ideas haven’t been trialed by fire.
 
If you are a student of scripture and have no questions, you are not a student of scripture. Even after the most severe melting pot, dross still remains.
 
Maddog said:
Interesting study notes-
The KJV translates Strong's H1695 in the following manner: cleave (1x), join (1x), stick (1x).
The KJV translates Strong's H8156 in the following manner: clovenfooted (3x), cleave (2x), rent (2x), cleft (1x), stayed (1x).
The KJV translates Strong's H1692 in the following manner: cleave (32x), follow hard (5x), overtake (3x), stick (3x), keep fast (2x), ...together (2x), abide (1x), close (1x), joined (1x), pursued (1x), take (1x).
The KJV translates Strong's H3867 in the following manner: join (10x), lend (7x), borrow (3x), borrower (2x), abide (1x), cleave (1x), lender (1x), lender (with H376) (1x).
The KJV translates Strong's H1234 in the following manner: cleave (10x), ...up (9x), divide (5x), rent (4x), ... out (3x), break through (3x), rend (3x), breach (2x), asunder (2x), hatch (2x), brake (1x), burst (1x), cleft (1x), break forth (1x), pieces (1x), tare (1x), tear (1x), win (1x).
The KJV translates Strong's G4347 in the following manner: cleave (2x), be joined (1x), join (one's) self (1x).
The KJV translates Strong's G2853 in the following manner: join (one's) self (4x), cleave (3x), be joined (2x), keep company (1x), variations of 'reach' (1x).
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.

Which Bible verses are you referring to, and what Hebrew or Greek words are used in those specific verses?
 
Hey FH- do you really want me to cite over 100 verses? The purpose was to show the word "cleave" and how else it was used and translated based on the 6 different Hebrew and 1 Greek words. You are not looking at the relevance. If you wanted to, you could. I GAVE it to you. Pick your fav study tool but please don't dismiss it out of hand without so much as a courtesy look. There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see.
 
Maddog said:
Hey FH- do you really want me to cite over 100 verses?
Click to expand...
No, as almost all of those are off topic. The point is not the English word "cleave" in general, it is the meaning of the Bible on a specific issue. You are discussing a man leaving his father and mother and cleaving unto his wife. What verses are you referring to there, and which Hebrew / Greek word is used there which is translated cleave? All that matters is the meaning in that specific verse.

It's an incredibly simple question and the answer will be 1-3 verses, as you well know.
 
Your question is simple to be sure but the appropriate answer is incredibly complex.
Let's rewrite the english scripture momentarily.
Gen 2:24 Therefore (for the reason cited before) shall a man leave his father and mother and shall
stick to, overtake, pursue hard, follow close(dabaq)
[his] woman(ish-shaw)
and be, or become, or come to pass (haw-yah)
alike, alone, altogether one (ekhawd)
body, person, flesh (bawsawr).
I rewrote the verse without the confusion of the word "cleave."
 
Now see "cleave" H1692 dabaq in different locations:

Deu 10:20 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.

Deu 30:20 That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

Jer 13:11 For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.

So "cleave" with the same root word is irrelevant? I think not. It rather should open up our understanding and the connotation of the word. "Cleave" is not fully defined by our simple word "sex".
 
That's all very simple @Maddog. What you're saying in your two above posts is:
  • "Cleave" in Genesis 2:24 is H1692 (dabaq),
  • That word consistently means "join closely" or similar every other time it appears.
Which is, incidentally, exactly what I had already said. No disagreement at all.

However, just above this you had said the exact opposite:
Maddog said:
Cleave is to divide (in spite of modern commentary's redefinition)
Click to expand...
Do you have a scripture that supports that assertion, or were you mistaken when you wrote that?
 
I assert that we have lost something in the process of translating. When we have scholars that knew substantially more than you or me use a word that is diametrically opposed to what they were saying, they caused the confusion unless something else is in play. They had so many words that could have been used yet dabaq was translated cleave. In Leviticus 1 for example sasa is translated cleave yet it speaks of the butcher of a bird for sacrifice- cut the critter open but don't cut the wings off. Dabaq may mean(as mentioned earlier) to take or even to pursue hard. That said, man is to dabaq (a) woman. To take a woman is to assert control in some way. Whether he owns after taking- Bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh indicates ownership, i.e. "MY" seem very possessive.
In the Greek society and I suspect earlier, to be a receiver of sodomy indicated a subservient position. It was common for a journeyman to have an apprentice that was also a sex object for his gratification homosexually. That same receiver later repeated that practice as he became the master to his apprentice. A heinous practice called pedastery- child abuse to an incredible level.
Relate that now to dabaq, now defined as Take or Pursue Hard. I maintain it IS possible for a man to dabaq (sex)his apprentice. That seems incredible to our sanitized society. To cleave would then be the antithesis of what God wants for mankind yet that word dabaq remains. Or not. Perhaps the dividing of flesh with a knife is what was intended and cleave is the right word.
 
The Revolting Man said:
Before we get all radical shouldn’t we first establish if “cleave” is what forms the “marriage”? If not then the definition of “cleave” becomes very obvious.
Click to expand...
Can one dabaq and NOT be married? see scripture referencing cleave WITHOUT a woman being the object of the cleaving- there are 30+ more. Therefore it DOES NOT mean marriage. Dabaq (as Cleave)does not necessarily mean sex and of course the aforementioned "marriage". The word "marriage" did exist in the ancient scholars vocabulary yet was not used. To insist otherwise reveals your "sex=marriage" bias.
"Marry" in Gen 38 came from Yaw-bam. Why didn't Yah via Moses use the word dabaq? The translators obviously thought sex meant marriage and no mention of cleaving is nearby.
 
Maddog said:
I assert that we have lost something in the process of translating. When we have scholars that knew substantially more than you or me use a word that is diametrically opposed to what they were saying, they caused the confusion unless something else is in play. They had so many words that could have been used yet dabaq was translated cleave. In Leviticus 1 for example sasa is translated cleave yet it speaks of the butcher of a bird for sacrifice- cut the critter open but don't cut the wings off. Dabaq may mean(as mentioned earlier) to take or even to pursue hard. That said, man is to dabaq (a) woman. To take a woman is to assert control in some way. Whether he owns after taking- Bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh indicates ownership, i.e. "MY" seem very possessive.
In the Greek society and I suspect earlier, to be a receiver of sodomy indicated a subservient position. It was common for a journeyman to have an apprentice that was also a sex object for his gratification homosexually. That same receiver later repeated that practice as he became the master to his apprentice. A heinous practice called pedastery- child abuse to an incredible level.
Relate that now to dabaq, now defined as Take or Pursue Hard. I maintain it IS possible for a man to dabaq (sex)his apprentice. That seems incredible to our sanitized society. To cleave would then be the antithesis of what God wants for mankind yet that word dabaq remains. Or not. Perhaps the dividing of flesh with a knife is what was intended and cleave is the right word.
Click to expand...
So, the translators got it wrong, yet we should still base our views on the word one translation committee 400 years ago used to translate it?
You're confusing yourself for no reason.
 
ask questions. That's what I am doing. Why? Oh no not of me, but of God and let the prejudice be revealed.
Ask why a word was used when a clearer word was so much more accurate. Those 400 years old translators did reveal their preferences when other issues came into focus.
 
Maddog said:
I assert that we have lost something in the process of translating. When we have scholars that knew substantially more than you or me use a word that is diametrically opposed to what they were saying, they caused the confusion unless something else is in play. They had so many words that could have been used yet dabaq was translated cleave. In Leviticus 1 for example sasa is translated cleave yet it speaks of the butcher of a bird for sacrifice- cut the critter open but don't cut the wings off. Dabaq may mean(as mentioned earlier) to take or even to pursue hard. That said, man is to dabaq (a) woman. To take a woman is to assert control in some way. Whether he owns after taking- Bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh indicates ownership, i.e. "MY" seem very possessive.
In the Greek society and I suspect earlier, to be a receiver of sodomy indicated a subservient position. It was common for a journeyman to have an apprentice that was also a sex object for his gratification homosexually. That same receiver later repeated that practice as he became the master to his apprentice. A heinous practice called pedastery- child abuse to an incredible level.
Relate that now to dabaq, now defined as Take or Pursue Hard. I maintain it IS possible for a man to dabaq (sex)his apprentice. That seems incredible to our sanitized society. To cleave would then be the antithesis of what God wants for mankind yet that word dabaq remains. Or not. Perhaps the dividing of flesh with a knife is what was intended and cleave is the right word.
Click to expand...
But you don’t have scripture to back it up. You can’t show that cleave means sex when God uses it. I’m not sure what pederastry has to do with anything either. We don’t see the word cleave, an English word that as you have pointed out got way over used, meaning sex anywhere in the text.

Did you make the mistake of thinking that it must be the same word in Greek that was being translated as cleave and then build a theology on it that you have been unwilling to amend once you realized the error?
 
Maddog said:
Can one dabaq and NOT be married? see scripture referencing cleave WITHOUT a woman being the object of the cleaving- there are 30+ more. Therefore it DOES NOT mean marriage. Dabaq (as Cleave)does not necessarily mean sex and of course the aforementioned "marriage". The word "marriage" did exist in the ancient scholars vocabulary yet was not used. To insist otherwise reveals your "sex=marriage" bias.
"Marry" in Gen 38 came from Yaw-bam. Why didn't Yah via Moses use the word dabaq? The translators obviously thought sex meant marriage and no mention of cleaving is nearby.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but I can’t follow what you’re trying to say. You have to show that cleave doesn’t mean simply to hold on to, to retain, to continue in a state of togetherness.

You have piled all of your hopes and dreams on this one word and you’re not making the case that it means what you say it means.

Didn’t you once claim that one flesh only meant pregnancy? And that only a marriage that produces a child is valid? I love your out of the box, original thinking. It’s bold and it’s fresh but you have to acknowledge that it’s also pretty extreme and needs some pretty extreme evidence.
 
Quick aside: (I don't have a dog in this hunt either.)

It is important to look at the context and etymology for most if not all Hebrew words. (Especially for those that despise the Masoretic 'vowel pointers.')

Most words can mean something, and the opposite. Two obvious, easy examples:

"Qadosh/kodesh/etc" (masculine, feminine forms) - "set apart." But set apart to Who, and for WHAT? I can mean "Kadosh l'YHVH" as Aarons gold headpiece said, or "set apart" to some pagan god, as the temple whores (same root word) were.

" Cherem" - "devoted." Devoted unto Who, or what? Again, opposite implication. To YHVH, or to destruction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top