• 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?

Scripture does NOT begin with marriage. As a matter of course we ought to use instead the word "Covenant" as it denotes an obligation very much unlike our modern "marriage" that includes homosexuals and lesbians. A distinction is helpful.
Consider the word "cleave." Modern wordsmiths have redefined it to mean BOTH joining together as well dividing apart. If we go to a related word "cleaver", we find a knife used to separate something- one piece from another. Not to be too terribly graphic here but the separating of a woman's flesh by a man is indeed a cleaving. Now don't get me wrong here, but joining together in embrace(coming together) is highly desired but is not the definition. Otherwise hugging my brother could be considered "cleaving." Nope nope- not doing that.
It is later that we find cleaving makes beautiful babies(for some of you- lol). Practically, the cleaving(separating the flesh) must take place before the unique DNA strands join together. It is for THIS reason that i maintain that cleaving is distinct from "one flesh". Not every cleaving results in a creation of a new flesh. I know some will differ from my parsing of words with unkind derogatory commentary but, I invite a thoughtful reflection. Further, scripture is clear that a father can nullify a daughters vow in the day he hears it. A daughter vows with a cleaving and daddy says no then that "covenant" is cancelled. So the cleaving (sex) is NOT a permanent decision if daddy has anything to say about it.
 
Maddog said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have no problem agreeing with you when you’re right. You’re just not right about this. And as usual, just show me the verse. Give me a scripture reference and I will publicly repent and recant every thing I’ve ever said on the topic.

There’s no scriptural reference. There’s just a lot of tradition of referring to marriage as a covenant. I reject tradition. I only accept scripture. So show me the scripture.
 
Maddog said:
Further, scripture is clear that a father can nullify a daughters vow in the day he hears it.
Click to expand...
Yes but what does a vow have to do with one flesh? You can be one flesh with a prostitute. There’s no vow involved there and you still have to dissolve that one flesh with a divorce. You’re adding the vow to “marriage” when no where in scripture is it ever so connected.
Maddog said:
A daughter vows with a cleaving
Click to expand...
This is completely made up out of whole cloth. You can not base this claim in the text.
Maddog said:
and daddy says no then that "covenant" is cancelled
Click to expand...
Whoaaa mule! Where does it say a father can nullify a covenant? Its vows that a father can nullify, but even if we allowed that a father could nullify a covenant, I have to ask the age old question. What covenant? Where in all of scripture is a covenant attached to marriage? You got nothing.
Maddog said:
So the cleaving (sex) is NOT a permanent decision if daddy has anything to say about it.
Click to expand...
Which he doesn’t by your own admission since you admit that the father has the power to dissolve vows, not covenants. Which is still irrelevant because covenants don’t have anything to do with “marriage”.

It was fun playing this game with you again. I hope we can do it again some time.
 
Numbers 30:3, 4. If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father's house in her youth; And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.
A vow by a woman can be cancelled by dear old Dad. Do you concede this point?
 
Maddog said:
A vow by a woman can be cancelled by dear old Dad.
Click to expand...

Which is why some patriarchal types will take a potential to bed and make her choice irreversible. Dad might be able to cancel or challenge a vow but there are some things that can't be undone.
 
The principle of a woman's vow being cancelled is also found in Verse 8 but this time by a husband. "But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her."
 
verse 13 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void.
 
On the other hand- "But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her."
The issue is: Does she have an authority head? You might even read into that "Is she owned by a male?" Dad is her original head but then "ownership" is transferred to another man. This is a protective measure not an oppressive measure. I believe the dad can forfeit that but i cant cite that one yet.
 
Last edited:
The cleaving is the beginning point but is not complete until approval by dad. If it was rape then the father can demand remuneration and cancel the cleaving.
 
For all intents and purposes, I believe the prostitute has no legit head. Her cleaving is very much frowned upon. This is not a typical activity of Yahweh's children so the rule for God's children does not apply. It's like this- God's rules are for God's children. They are good rules if the world chooses to live by them. It would be tantamount to expecting the world to live like Christians. It doesn't happen and is unrealistic to expect that. Regarding NT and even becoming "one flesh with a prostitute" doesnt mention cleaving or vows or dear ol' dad, so it is outside that paradigm of the Hebrew and presents a contrast. "Don't do that!" is the admonition.
 
Maddog said:
Scripture does NOT begin with marriage. As a matter of course we ought to use instead the word "Covenant" as it denotes an obligation very much unlike our modern "marriage" that includes homosexuals and lesbians. A distinction is helpful.
Consider the word "cleave." Modern wordsmiths have redefined it to mean BOTH joining together as well dividing apart. If we go to a related word "cleaver", we find a knife used to separate something- one piece from another. Not to be too terribly graphic here but the separating of a woman's flesh by a man is indeed a cleaving. Now don't get me wrong here, but joining together in embrace(coming together) is highly desired but is not the definition. Otherwise hugging my brother could be considered "cleaving." Nope nope- not doing that.
It is later that we find cleaving makes beautiful babies(for some of you- lol). Practically, the cleaving(separating the flesh) must take place before the unique DNA strands join together. It is for THIS reason that i maintain that cleaving is distinct from "one flesh". Not every cleaving results in a creation of a new flesh. I know some will differ from my parsing of words with unkind derogatory commentary but, I invite a thoughtful reflection. Further, scripture is clear that a father can nullify a daughters vow in the day he hears it. A daughter vows with a cleaving and daddy says no then that "covenant" is cancelled. So the cleaving (sex) is NOT a permanent decision if daddy has anything to say about it.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Maddog said:
Numbers 30:3, 4. If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father's house in her youth; And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.
A vow by a woman can be cancelled by dear old Dad. Do you concede this point?
Click to expand...
No, a vow to the Lord can be cancelled by the husband, also this exact same verbiage is extended to the husband, so clearly this passage is not primarily dealing with marriage, if it’s dealing with it at all.
 
Maddog said:
verse 13 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void.
Click to expand...
This is not true. Only vows to the Lord and if a husband can exercise this authority over his wife and his daughter it’s clearly not dealing with marriages as the wife is already married. You would have to price that marriages involve a vow to the Lord on the daughter’s part to claim they fit under Numbers 30.
 
Surprised but not surprised. Please be consistent. Either scripture directly copied and paste is true or it is not. I will give you a chance to right the wrong "This is not true." statement. Oh I can read and rationalize just fine here but it sure looks like truth according to TRM.
 
Maddog said:
Surprised but not surprised. Please be consistent. Either scripture directly copied and paste is true or it is not. I will give you a chance to right the wrong "This is not true." statement. Oh I can read and rationalize just fine here but it sure looks like truth according to TRM.
Click to expand...
What? I missed something apparently.
 
Is Numbers 30 about making a vow or a bond? Yes, undeniably. Is it all about a vow before God or does it include a vow before men? I believe it is about BOTH. A little further it speaks of a unmarried girl(daughter) then later separately a wife. Not the same character but the authority is the same- the head of the family, Dad or husband. HE has the authority to nullify either person's vow- both to God and to another person. If daughter has made a covenant with her body, DAD can approve or disallow that covenant(v5) in the day he hears of it. Verse 3 is important here in including the word "also". In similar fashion to what was done for a man(in making the vow), SHE has an out- an escape via dad, that a male does not have. It is a protective measure. In Bill Luck's Divorce and Remarriage book he cites examples proving the protective activity that God prescribed for a female. Now extending that, if a woman is forcefully "covenanted" then that is not necessarily a life sentence in that DAD can rebuke and negate that cleaving (daw-bak'; a primitive root; properly, to impinge, i.e. cling or adhere; figuratively, to catch by pursuit:—abide fast, cleave (fast together), follow close (hard after), be joined (together), keep (fast), overtake, pursue hard, stick, take)). Sex(cleaving) is most definitely fastening together but also can come apart. Man and woman are separate individuals that can be both united and subsequently divided. We are not super-glued together as a single entity except in a single manner when the DNA strands unite.
It is in this way that Mark 10:9 makes sense, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." The history of mankind is irrefutably vicious but widely known in its abuse of children. In another way of saying, "Don't cut up the babies and offer them as a sacrifice!" God Almighty joined the bodies in wonderful form, don't divide asunder. The modern version of dividing asunder is abortion.
 
Maddog said:
Is Numbers 30 about making a vow or a bond? Yes, undeniably. Is it all about a vow before God or does it include a vow before men? I believe it is about BOTH.
Click to expand...
Without question. The text is clear.

And, when the USA still followed the Constitutionally-referenced [English] Common Law, it was understood to be the basis for the three-day "recission" time, during which a husband could nullify any contract (purchase land, or a car, for example) made by his wife. (After that, it was assumed that he "knew, or should have known.")
 
Maddog said:
Is Numbers 30 about making a vow or a bond? Yes, undeniably. Is it all about a vow before God or does it include a vow before men? I believe it is about BOTH. A little further it speaks of a unmarried girl(daughter) then later separately a wife. Not the same character but the authority is the same- the head of the family, Dad or husband. HE has the authority to nullify either person's vow- both to God and to another person. If daughter has made a covenant with her body, DAD can approve or disallow that covenant(v5) in the day he hears of it. Verse 3 is important here in including the word "also". In similar fashion to what was done for a man(in making the vow), SHE has an out- an escape via dad, that a male does not have. It is a protective measure. In Bill Luck's Divorce and Remarriage book he cites examples proving the protective activity that God prescribed for a female. Now extending that, if a woman is forcefully "covenanted" then that is not necessarily a life sentence in that DAD can rebuke and negate that cleaving (daw-bak'; a primitive root; properly, to impinge, i.e. cling or adhere; figuratively, to catch by pursuit:—abide fast, cleave (fast together), follow close (hard after), be joined (together), keep (fast), overtake, pursue hard, stick, take)). Sex(cleaving) is most definitely fastening together but also can come apart. Man and woman are separate individuals that can be both united and subsequently divided. We are not super-glued together as a single entity except in a single manner when the DNA strands unite.
It is in this way that Mark 10:9 makes sense, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." The history of mankind is irrefutably vicious but widely known in its abuse of children. In another way of saying, "Don't cut up the babies and offer them as a sacrifice!" God Almighty joined the bodies in wonderful form, don't divide asunder. The modern version of dividing asunder is abortion.
Click to expand...
I’m very sorry, I don’t have the bandwidth for this right now. All of that lovely worded stuff was very nice, except you cant show me where vows or covenants or bonds have anything to do with marriage, so not one word of that is valid.

You have connect vows, covenants or bonds to marriage and THEN passages about those things are relevant to marriage.

I’m going to have to duck out of this one for now thiugh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top