-
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.
Prostitution vs adultery
- Thread starter FollowingHim
- Start date
With some self training, you could notice was she taken within 2 seconds of seeing her.
What I'm trying to say Boaz is special case and there is no need to "check assignability" as some special process because 2-seconds mostly automatic tasks do no deserve special mention.
Like what is first step in finding wife: Start noticing women around you. If you can't notice women, you can't certainly meet any women. Yet, this noticing is so automatic nobody bothers to spell it out exactly.
What special cloth, the marriage sheet?
That has nothing to do with identification of an unattached female.
You are as bad as Zec, reading in what you think should be the truth.
Read again, this time with understanding.
Something like this:
Hair Coverings for Married Women | My Jewish Learning
A discussion of Jewish law, custom, and communal standards concerning married women covering their heads.
www.myjewishlearning.com
I'm certain in ancient times there was something like this.
Not a bad idea, lol
I read posts closely until I hit a fatal flaw in the argument or until I see it’s something thats already been hashed out. At the point that the post disproves itself or I know the gist of the argument I move on to other things.
I don’t need to know what kind of intellectual sandcastle has been built on the beach, I just need to know what wave is going to knock it down. Once something is shown to not be true then it’s no longer relevant. All of the window dressing in the world doesn’t fix a bad foundation.
You take that back!
You and I seem to be referring to two different matters, so I'll clarify this as best I can.
My understanding of the Bible is that a man must:
1. Determine whether a woman is free for him to have a relationship with him or not.
2. If/when she is free, secure that relationship before he and she become intimately involved.
The instruction in the Bible makes it abundantly clear that no man has the right to intimacy with a woman that is not his. Examples abound in the biblical record of men securing a relationship with a particular woman and then engaging in physical intimacy with her. However, read Genesis Chapter 34 and see what happened when Shechem took Dinah and lay with her before she was his wife! Shechem violated Dinah (v:2) but only sort to attain her as his wife later on (see v:4). Jacob's sons killed Hamor and Shechem and wiped out all the males in the city because of what happened to their sister. Gen. 34:31, But they said, "Should he treat our sister like a harlot?" Shechem had no right to have sexual relations with Dinah and it cost him, his father, and all the men of their city their lives. To violate a woman is a serious matter!
Boaz is an example of a man who ensures he has secured a relationship with a woman, in this case, Ruth, before they make babies. I trust this clears up the misunderstanding. Cheers
Don’t make me do this Steve. Go read the commands around Levirate marriage. See what the bible actually says about it. The kinsmen redeemer is not connected to Levirate marriage.
I like you. I admire you. I don’t want to be mean to you but you have a false preconception about this. Levirate marriage and kinsmen redeemer seem to be two different concepts and I can prove it but it should painfully obvious if you just look at the passage about a Levirate marriage and note the lack of a link to a kinsmen redeemer or any Levirate marriage outside the home.
Last edited:
The link between kinsmen redeemer and Levirate marriage is made up Steve. It’s not in there.
Yeah but so do you since none of your marriages conform to that precedent!
You would have to show me where marriage contracts were a required element of forming a marriage. The fact that Isaac and Rebecca had one, an invalid one since the servant wasn’t negotiating on the behalf of one of the signatories but be that as it may, doesn’t mean every marriage needs one.
You don't have a %#!@$ damn CLUE on that score, and if we had a moderator with any class, you'd be censored for such an evil claim.
I disagree vehemently with you, and your views, and yet I don't demean your wife!!!!!
And once again you're distracted by a peripheral matter - whether Ruth was a levirate marriage, and other details of the illustration we were talking around - rather than the heart of my point. Let me be crystal clear @The Revolting Man.
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? If you disagree, precisely what do you disagree with?
To take a wife legitimately we must do two things:
1) Establish that she is available to become our wife, ie that she has no pre-existing commitments to any other man.
2) Have sex and become one flesh.
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? If you disagree, precisely what do you disagree with?
To take a wife legitimately we must do two things:
1) Establish that she is available to become our wife, ie that she has no pre-existing commitments to any other man.
2) Have sex and become one flesh.
Oh lord, calm down and stop clutching your pearls Nancy. No one said anything about your wife.
But I can promise you that your “marriage contract” was not negotiated by your father’s servant without your input which your wife’s brother. Your marriage doesn’t conform to that precedent you’re so obsessed with. You don’t believe it’s an iron clad precedent anymore than I do.
Aren’t you getting tired of me having to clarify your beliefs for you?
Yes, the bare minimum to take a woman legitimately you have to make sure you’re not committing adultery and have sex with her. You’re saying it little differently but that’s been my stance all along.
And I didn’t bring up Ruth.
This from the guy who calls other people inarticulate for allegedly not being able to write a cogent sentence!
I was damn tired a long time ago of you putting words in my mouth, and anybody else that you berate because you can't express whatever the hell it is that you believe coherently:
You, as usual, ignore Scripture which outlines your ignorance, and refutes your flatulence. Like the whole part in Ruth (ch 4:6-11, from "I cannot 'redeem it' to that whole bit about the sandal." Good grief.)
I took a firm stand on the most cogent precedent and single-verse explanation of marriage in the Book. And all you can do is pretend it doesn't matter. For idiotic reasons. I won't claim you're not as smart as anyone here who can see the obvious, just that you're blind. And proud of it.
I just did - again.
Clutch your own pearls and learn to write.
And if you are apparently claiming my marriages don't conform to you twisted understanding, at least learn to apologize:
You are truly a revolting excuse for a 'moderator.'
PS> I honestly don't think you even have a clue about what the word "precedent" even means.
Last edited: