BiblicalLiteralist
Member
I was operating under the impression biblical.
-
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?
- Thread starter The Revolting Man
- Start date
Then you can't rely on social definition. And missionary when speaking with natives must make himself clear which definition he is using.
This was my point. It's about real "Authority" - Who's definition matters:
"A word means what I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less. It's about who is to be master, that is all." - Humpty Dumpty, to Alice
This is also why "justice," and "righteousness," and even logic mean nothing in a world where Evil is called 'good.'
It really is about "Who is to be Master, that is all."
"A word means what I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less. It's about who is to be master, that is all." - Humpty Dumpty, to Alice
This is also why "justice," and "righteousness," and even logic mean nothing in a world where Evil is called 'good.'
It really is about "Who is to be Master, that is all."
Assumptions are deadly.
And it we can't understand what the words really mean, there is no communication.
I am seeking the Biblical definition of who we consider to have the obligations that come with marriage. In other words, the broad definition of anybody to whom we would say "you have a wife/husband - but you're not doing it right, look here, the Bible says don't do that, and yes it applies to you because you're married".
There is also a narrower definition of what proper Biblical marriage should be, after the correction of all errors. We need that also, but it is not what I personally am chasing here.
There is also a narrower definition of what proper Biblical marriage should be, after the correction of all errors. We need that also, but it is not what I personally am chasing here.
Any man who
And, as we see, subject to veto by the father in many cases.
Note: Some will object to terms like "covenant," or "covering" that apply to that "narrower" definition. But I will contend that, like the precedents of much of His Instruction, many are taught by EXAMPLE. (See Yitzak/Rivkah, next week's story, Gen 23, etc; arguably THE primary such. Others, like Yakov's, "flesh out the details" and add caveats and insight.)
That is the definition of "man who is biblically required to marry a woman". It is not a definition of marriage itself.
Please show us the difference.
As you said, if the father vetos it, it is not a marriage.
So what is this "marriage" that the father might veto? That is the definition I'm looking for. You have provided conditions under which a marriage must be formed, or may be denied. But that does not define the word "marriage".
Looking at it another way, imagine yourself as a missionary walking into a village in a non-Christian culture, getting to know the people around you, and working out who is married to whom. What criteria would you use? You'd really do that quite instinctually, without going into the detail of who slept with whom back when they were virgins. I'm just trying to verbalise that.
Ckecking couple together who both carry rings or something similar.
30+ years old couple who live together.
People in conversation mentioning their partner. Often during introduction.
Three examples. Not a definition.
Veto is far too strong a word for what’s described in the text.
It's answer to bolded.
Precise definition is less important than what it's practicable.
It your plan to ask in first five minutes to ask somebody does he/she fullfill all formal requirements of marriage?
Scripture rarely 'defines' something, including marriage. But it does describe, and provide examples that serve as not only templates but precedents.
The best example I know of, and use as a proof text, is Genesis 24:67, which FOLLOWS the story that describes the first "marriage contract" (offer, acceptance, consideration, consummation) in the Book, and certainly lays the foundation. I believe even the order here is vitally significant:
And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her:
Note again that "marriage" is not defined, but a process is outlined, and the result is clear.
PS> This is a separate issue, but certainly the irony is apropos:
Note that we have a so-called "justice" on the not-so-USSC who can't even define "woman," but purports to be able to license "marriage" - and they don't have a CLUE what that is. But we do know that whatever-the-hell-it-is, it ain't His version.
I would say it defines, just not in formal and mathematic way. Definition of object includes it's border.
Pay attention when it says something isn't marriage or doesn't belong to marriage
Like they care. Social engineering to create just society.
Slight contradictions won't slow progress. They must be due to bad racists.
BiblicalLiteralist
Member
I want to re-address this statement. Explain what you mean when you say the Malachi passage doesn't make a direct statement when that is the literal word used for covenant with a woman. Malachi 2:14 "...yet [is] she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant." The word used for wife is Ishshah, and the word used for covenant is briyth.
I do explain it through out the course of this debate. In Malachi we don’t see a wife who has a covenant; we see a metaphor where the covenant is the wife of Judah. It’s an incredibly unique passage, the only one I’ve found where Judah, Israel or the church are described as the husband instead of the wife.
Malachi 2 is a powerful and important passage but it’s not telling us that wives are attained by a covenant. It’s telling us that Judah was about to be judged because they violated the covenant
The cleaving of the flesh is the beginning of the covenant. The covenant can be nullified by father within the day of knowledge but if not, the agreement she makes stands by acquiescence of father. The joining of the flesh begins a new flesh. Do not cut assunder that new flesh as the way of the world does.
Almost none of this explicitly laid out in scripture.
I understand TRM your reluctance to agree with anything I write. In the absence of definitive chapter and verse for what a "covenant" is and how it begins, how it can end, and resultant product, it is a basic summary. Come up with a more cogent statement instead of "Nope, you're wrong." You have yet to convince me in these many years I have been here.