Genesis 2:24

[Slumberfreeze]

Cool. I agree Eris,

edit: Um about what we were talking about at least. i have enjoyed a birthday libation and could not possibly read anything more than your response to me.

 

[Jason]

Actually, the Hebrew word "dabaq" is a non-sexual commitment. Everywhere it appears. You don't get to create special definitions out of nowhere just because a well-known word doesn't match your preconceived idea. That's the opposite of exegesis. When the words don't match your ideas, your ideas should change, not the scripture.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 does not describe how to rape a woman into marriage. In fact, it is THE EXACT OPPOSITE. The man does NOT get the woman unless her father agrees to give her to him.

And in 1 Corinthians 6:16, Paul says if you "join" (present tense) with a sexual deviant, you are (present tense) "one body" with them (check the rest of the chapter to see what he meant by that. Context man), because eventually (future tense) you're going to be participating ('one flesh', which has been a euphemism for sex for 4000 years).

Also, you continuously confuse commitment (on the part of the husband) with consent. They're not the same. There are examples in scripture and certainly culturally where a woman's consent is not asked for. But a man's commitment is indispensable.

Notice how the husband is the one who commits to his wife ("he will cleave to his wife")? What, you think it means sex but just doesn't count if she's the one in the lead sexually? Dabaq is a commitment. On the part of he husband.

Notice how the "two (TWO) become one flesh"? That's because it takes both of them to do it.

"What therefore God has joined together let no man separate. Ergo, the third element of Genesis 2:24 is not the action of the man, it is the action of God. The structure of the text supports that as well." That is wrong. And you don't know anything about the structure of the text. You just read it in Greek for the first time a couple of days ago. The Greek is not in doubt. The entire quote is referred to when Jesus uses the conjunction "hoste", because that is the purpose of that word. That's what it does in Greek. It's like a verbal "=" sign, like "given all that I just said, this is the result".

Assumptions are a bad method of figuring out what the bible says.

Joe - you are right. That is why that word is used for "flesh" instead of others, in the Hebrew and in the Greek (like the play on words of 'soma' versus 'sarka' of 1 Corinthians 6) . The connotation of a new family is arguably the most important.

 

[Eristhophanes]

"Deuteronomy 22:28-29 does not describe how to rape a woman into marriage. In fact, it is THE EXACT OPPOSITE. The man does NOT get the woman unless her father agrees to give her to him.

Oh Jason! LOL. You're still confused about this. It isn't whether the man gets her because he's already got her. The question is whether he gets to keep her. But that was the question for Exodus 22:16-17. The point of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 was that the father didn't have anything to annul because the woman didn't agree to be married, so the father doesn't get to decide whether the man can keep her. Which is why the text says "she shall be his wife" in the imperative, in the same way as the "three shalls" of Genesis 2:24. But only under conditions when (and they are discovered) the evidence indicates there was no agreement.

Jason, that was a nice attempt to confuse the issue, but when the words don't match your ideas, your ideas should change, not the scripture.

"Also, you continuously confuse commitment (on the part of the husband) with consent. They're not the same. There are examples in scripture and certainly culturally where a woman's consent is not asked for. But a man's commitment is indispensable.

Notice how the husband is the one who commits to his wife ("he will cleave to his wife")? What, you think it means sex but just doesn't count if she's the one in the lead sexually? Dabaq is a commitment. On the part of he husband.

Let's say you desire to marry a woman and now that you've finally admitted that her consent to marry isn't a requirement, observe how the husband demonstrates his intent to marry (commitment) in Genesis 2:24: With the act of sticking his penis in her vagina, something otherwise known as "the act of marriage" or the "consummation" of the marriage.

Which happens in the "shall cleave" portion as I have been saying all along.

And all of this whoopla over something so simple. The act of the man sticking his penis in the woman (the action that demonstrates intent) is the proof of his consent (commitment) to initiate marriage every single time. Think of it as having a very special pen to sign the covenant that's written in her blood.

What? No intent to marry? Then Don't Put Your Penis In Her Vagina!

The woman, being on the receiving end of that physical act, is married whether she consents or not when he "cleaves" her body, penetrating her body with his body, her vagina with his penis, in a specific physical act that initiates marriage: we call it sex.

You have been doing your best to write the sex out of it, but you can't, because the man demonstrates his commitment with that one very special physical act. Every time he has sex with his wife he reaffirms his intent and commitment. Every single time.

"Notice how the "two (TWO) become one flesh"? That's because it takes both of them to do it.

LOL, Jason, you're doing it again. You've already admitted the woman's consent/commitment isn't necessary and Christ said that God is the one who makes the two become one flesh but you're still confused about this. You spoke the truth when you said "it takes both of them to do it" but the two of them (which you imply is the man and woman) isn't the man and woman, but rather the man and God. The man acts (cleaves the woman's vagina), then God acts (makes them one flesh), the result of the man's act is God's act and thus the man and woman are no longer two but one flesh.

Your claim has now been reduced to the assumption that the man must have the specific intent to commit to the initiation of a marriage in order for the act of sticking his penis in a woman's vagina (his demonstration of commitment to marry) to produce a marriage.

The man's proof of commitment to marry is the consummation of marriage. If the man did not intend to marry, why was he engaged in the act of marriage?

 

[Jason]

"It isn't whether the man gets her because he's already got her. The question is whether he gets to keep her."

Your assumption. And nothing in the verse indicates he gets to keep her unless the father says he can marry her. Literally. That's what it says.

"the father doesn't get to decide whether the man can keep her. Which is why the text says "she shall be his wife".

Your assumption. And your ignorance of Hebrew. The word translated "shall become" means exactly that. Not IS. Not WAS. Not now. WILL BE. In the future. It is the form of the verb that denotes something will become. She is not his wife, but she will be his wife, and he has no choice about committing to her because he dishonored her. Everywhere we look, the Hebrew disagrees with your assumptions.

"observe how the husband demonstrates his intent to marry (commitment) in Genesis 2:24: With the act of sticking his penis in her vagina"

Your assumption. And nothing in the verse indicates that. In fact, the word translated cleave always denotes a non-sexual commitment. Every. Single. Time.

"The woman, being on the receiving end of that physical act, is married whether she consents or not when he "cleaves" her body, penetrating her body with his body"

Your assumption. And your ignorance of Hebrew and apparently English. While "cleave" has a secondary meaning in English of splitting or "penetrating", that is not the English usage meant here. And in Hebrew, there is a completely different word for that. You are very confused.

"Christ said that God is the one who makes the two become one flesh"

No he didn't. That's a lie. Um, I mean, a mistake. Christ said God yokes them together. The term he used is a very common term for marriage, in the bible and in other sources. Of course, maybe you just don't know this, as demonstrated by your severe lack of language education. Also, the conjunction "hoste" means that the entire quote is being referred to.

"The man acts (cleaves the woman's vagina)"

This is about as embarrassing as when you didn't know how to say "and". You have mistaken a secondary English meaning with a completely different Hebrew and Greek word, respectively. It's like the difference between how a tree is covered with "bark" or how a dog can "bark". Except the homonym doesn't exist in the original language. Only someone ignorant of the Greek and Hebrew would be in danger of confusing the two.

"The man's proof of commitment to marry is the consummation of marriage. If the man did not intend to marry, why was he engaged in the act of marriage?"

Does this even need a response? If you can't think of any time a dude has sex without intending marriage, you should get out more. A man having sex with a woman isn't proof of anything.

Oh, and all the Hebrew and Greek words that you've been introduced to this week still mean the same thing that they've meant for the last few thousand years. Not that I don't expect a wall of text in response telling me how I'm womanly and confused and sex=marriage because marriage=sex because sex=marriage because marriage=sex because sex=marriage. Knock yourself out.

 

[Eristhophanes]

Jason, the sum total of your argument is like that of the blind men who were feeling an elephant trying to determine what it was. Each one is wrong in his assessment and put together they get it completely wrong.

I will provide one example.

Numbers 30:3-5 is very simple. The father has the right to review any vow or agreement with binding obligations that his daughter makes, in the day he hears of it. If he chooses to say nothing his silence is consent to allow the agreement. However, if he chooses, he has the authority to nullify any agreement she has made, when he hears of it.

This authority of the father under Numbers 30:3-5 is tested in two cases.

In Exodus 22:16-17, we have a situation in which the daughter is seduced. In other words, she agreed to have sex and so enter marriage with the man. However, we see in verse 17 that the father has the authority to "refuse" her. He is exercising his authority under Numbers 30:5 to annul the marriage.

Jason said: " And nothing in the verse indicates he gets to keep her unless the father says he can marry her. Literally. That's what it says."

According to everything Jason has argued up to this point, Jason is claiming the man didn't commit to the marriage and therefore there was no marriage. So, if having sex with her wasn't a demonstration of commitment, then we have Jason saying that commitment is expressed some other way. With something that isn't in the text. Anywhere.

Yet, how can they not be married when the text refers to her as his wife? It doesn't say "pay a dowry for her to be his wife", it says "pay a dowry for her, his wife." remember Jason? We went over this before. It's kind of like Jacob and Rachel. He got her in marriage when he had sex with her but it took another 7 years to pay off Laban. Already married but he still has to pay the dowry.

Numbers 30:3-5 says the father gets to approve or disprove what has already happened, and what has already happened is they married. By having sex. If he does not forbid it, the man has to pay the dowry for her, his wife. If her father refuses, the marriage is over but he still has to pay an amount equal to the price for virgins.


In Deuteronomy 22:28-29 we have a situation in which the daughter is forced into the act of marriage against her will (as evidenced by the fact they were discovered). She did not agree to anything and lacking an agreement, her father has nothing to nullify. The judgment: "She shall become his wife."

Here, you try to argue that she becomes his wife at some point in the future but according to Genesis 2:24 there is nothing left to do. The man demonstrated his commitment when he dropped his trou, held her down and raped her. God made them one flesh. They are married. The word ("hayah" H1961) for "shall become his wife" in Deuteronomy 22:29 is the same as used in Genesis 2:24 where it says they "shall become one flesh." You claim that the "one flesh" means sex, but they've already had sex. Every element of Genesis 2:24 has been accomplished, but you're claiming that the marriage is at some point in the future.

Because you cannot tolerate what the Bible actually says: A man initiates marriage with the act of sex.

So you make the blind man's argument, yelling that you've got hold of an animal that is obviously a tree because every single time you blindly feel the same thing in other places in Hebrewland it's a tree. It cannot possibly be anything different and because you're blind you move forward and find a different animal like a wall, then another different animal like a snake, but you're blind and you can't see the elephant. But you keep going back to the tree, because you cannot admit the elephant exists.

 

[Jason]

"Because you cannot tolerate what the Bible actually says: A man initiates marriage with the act of sex."

Well, since the bible never says that, anywhere, I think I'm pretty safe.

Aren't you getting embarrassed yet? Here's another gem:

"Yet, how can they not be married when the text refers to her as his wife? It doesn't say "pay a dowry for her to be his wife", it says "pay a dowry for her, his wife." remember Jason? We went over this before."

Your ignorance of Hebrew, in a person that is so adamant about misrepresenting it, is staggering. The word used in that verse is NOT "ishshah", the simple noun that means wife. It is "leissah". Guess what that means? Guess how it's different than the noun by itself? "To become" isn't there for the same reason "and" wasn't in numbers 6. Because that's not how Hebrew works. Again, the original language disagrees with you at every turn. It's just that you're too uneducated in it to realize you're sticking your foot in your mouth.

You should spend the time you take writing overly long responses on message boards taking a class in biblical languages.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Hey Ref, can I get a ruling?

 

[Jason]

"Then I passed by you and saw you, and behold, you were at the time for love. So I spread My cloak over you and covered your nakedness. I also swore to you and entered into a covenant so that you became Mine, declares the Lord God."

Silly God. Don't you realize all you have to do is "bang" (as it has been said)? No vow necessary, you silly silly God.