• 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.

One Flesh - a biological perspective

I think that we are becoming a bit too seminally focused.

I see that becoming one flesh is a process. Here a little, there a little.
We’ve already discussed the exchanges made with merely touching. Then kissing.
Seminal injections are definitely the bridge-too-far if there aren’t any intentions to make the relationship permanent on the part of either party. I would probably include external applications of that particular fluid in the “you have gone too far to consider it just playing ” category. Mainly because of what it imparts, remember that your skin is the largest organ of your body. Yes, it is an organ and it absorbs similarly to the way that other organs do.

We start the process of becoming one while dating. Exchanges are made even when all zippers are kept firmly in the upright position.
Kissing turbocharges the process.

Please show me the Biblical dating process, I couldn’t find one.
It looks to me like they never started the process until they were fully committed.
 
FollowingHim said:
I'm not moving another discussion over here. This is an entirely standalone discussion of the one term "one flesh". It may hopefully inform that other, more wide-ranging discussion about when marriage begins or what marriage is anyway. But I certainly hope that other broad discussion is not moved over here and floods out this narrow one. I'd like to keep this one to the narrow topic of the definition of a couple of words and how that is informed by biology.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that clarification, Samuel. That makes perfect sense to me. I formally withdraw my two questions above that remain unanswered in the other discussion and will restrict myself here to microbiomusings.

Should I repeat my request for clarification on the definition of "theological mumbo jumbo" here? Or take it back to the circular "Where does It-What-Shan't-Be-Named begin" discussion?
 
steve said:
I think that we are becoming a bit too seminally focused.
Click to expand...

I concur. It makes me feel left out, given that I no longer produce any.

And, on a serious note . . .

steve said:
Please show me the Biblical dating process, I couldn’t find one.
It looks to me like they never started the process until they were fully committed.
Click to expand...

Dating is decidedly dangerous, especially as 'dating' is generally currently defined: the gradual process of engaging in supposedly premarital sex until you get tired of that person and start up the process with someone else.
 
Keith Martin said:
Should I repeat my request for clarification on the definition of "theological mumbo jumbo" here? Or take it back to the circular "Where does It-What-Shan't-Be-Named begin" discussion?
Click to expand...
I don't think I should try to define a specific phrase I typed quickly without considering nailing down a precise definition of before using the term! It might be the wrong phrase anyway. Instead, I'll explain my point.

In your previous post which that was in reply to, you had been identifying a particular state of being which you identified with the terms "one-flesh-ness" and a "covenant". You were then trying to theologically define precisely when that state began. This as far as I could see was the exact "when does marriage begin" debate all over again, just without using the word "marriage" and substituting some other terms instead. I have not been talking about covenants at all (I think they are very important to marriage, but not the topic of this discussion). I felt this was getting off-track from the focus of this thread.
Keith Martin said:
Furthermore, does one-flesh-ness occur with seminoral microbiomageness? I ask because that's definitely my love language. And at what point does the covenant achieve lift-off -- when I'm yelling, "Don't stop now!" -- or or later?
Click to expand...
 
The two SHALL BECOME (future tense as I understand it) one flesh. I am a very simple dude and not a deep theologian nor scientist. But did a shallow dive on the word "flesh" and came up with this- it means a body and that means to this simple gentile a baby. Why cant we just insert the word BABY in place of the word flesh and call it good. The old Hebrew mind didn't know about the microbiomes of the mouth and gut but he did know the activity made a baby. Are we making it too complex? I am all for the creation of the one flesh and have participated in a fair amount of "sharing" but is not the sharing but the creating. The wonder-full aspect of two entirely separate genetic strands zipping together to create an entirely unique entity is mind-boggling. Yay God!
 
Maddog said:
The two SHALL BECOME (future tense as I understand it) one flesh. I am a very simple dude and not a deep theologian nor scientist. But did a shallow dive on the word "flesh" and came up with this- it means a body and that means to this simple gentile a baby.
Click to expand...
Very interesting suggestion. I don't think it really works with verse 23 though. The context is that Adam is calling Eve, herself, "flesh of my flesh". The subject of the discussion appears to be the woman herself. In verse 23 Adam says that Eve is the same flesh as him, and then in verse 24 we are told all wives will be the same flesh as their husbands.

I think if verse 24 is interpreted as talking about babies, that actually introduces a whole new topic that is not under consideration in the previous verse, and is therefore more complicated - not simpler.

However, I would be interested in any comments from the Hebrew experts here on whether the baby suggestion is a plausible reading of the text.
 
On that topic of One Flesh it's amazing how science has proven that something from the Bible is literally true:

https://askmarissa.com/microchimerism-women-absorb-men-dna/

Microchimerism: Women Genetically Become The Men She Has Sex With

There is a biological phenomenon in which a woman absorbs and then harbors for her entire life a significant number of cells that originated in a different individual, other than from the 23 chromosomes of genetic material from each biological parent which created her as an embryo at conception. This hosting of foreign genetic material that takes up residence in almost every tissue of a female’s body, most significantly within the brain, is a (purportedly) 93,000-year-old biological defense mechanism known as Microchimerism. Microchimerism is defined as the occurrence of cells that originate from another individual and are therefore genetically distinct from the cells of the host. There are four different ways that this can happen naturally (i.e. without medical procedures, such as blood transfusions, organ transplants, etc.) :

  1. An abortion (whether chemical, spontaneous, or induced)
  2. A male twin that vanished
  3. An older brother transferred by the maternal circulation
  4. Sexual intercourse
What this basically testifies is that women are Chimeras, as, unlike men who are made up of genetic material from only their mothers and fathers, women are designed to be sponges for genetic material from anyone. Pregnancy with a male child is the most popularly talked-about way that explains why a women has foreign male DNA in her body.

From conception until birth, cells travel back and forth from the mother and the fetus (via the placenta), and vise-versa. From a cellular standpoint, it goes without needing much explanation that this will result in the mother retaining DNA from her son (or daughter, but for the sake of this article, we will only focus on Y-DNA). What this infers is that the child is not the only one who is receiving DNA, but that the mother is being imprinted by foreign DNA from the fetus (yes, a fetus is a foreign body to a pregnant woman; you can love your growing baby with all your Heart, but the body still sees it as a foreign body…even a parasite).

Research into male microchimerism has concluded that as much as 10 per cent of the free-floating DNA in the mother’s bloodstream comes from the fetus, and much of it remains in her cells for the rest of her life. It is important to note that, while a full-term pregnancy will result in the mother having a longer opportunity to harbor more cells from her child, the fetal cells from a miscarriage or an induced abortion will still leave a genetic imprint on the mother, just not as full-fledged of an impact. Also, most of these cells disappear precipitously as time passes after the incident, especially in the case of a chemical abortion (an unknown miscarriage within 5 weeks of pregnancy) up to any abortion (spontaneous or induced) up to about 8 weeks.

Many scientists, as far back as 1830, have wracked their brains in trying to figure out, “WHY?”

What is the purpose of Microchimerism in a female?

Microchimerism is an ancient defense mechanism that augments a women’s ability to fight microorganisms (both viruses and bacteria), helps to prevent cancer and infections, and it lends super-regenerative properties to her tissues (as is seen with the shorter-than-expected recover after childbirth and even in healing C-sections). They also add strength to her mental strength, in which she should expand her perceptions and reasoning faculties to that of her male partner in times of peril (although, this will only be true in cases of women who mate with domineering, powerful, warrior-like men, or “Alpha Males”; a less-dominant and capable man will leave his imprint on a women post-coitus, although in a detrimental way in which she will develop his beta, omega, and so forth style of thinking).

Within the perplexing super-specialty field of Auto-Immunology, much controversy has arisen, as research is deliberately suppressed to conceal the scientific data which proves that women will INEVITABLY absorb the DNA from every man she with whom she has sexual intercourse, and that the overload of such foreign genetic information from multiple partners is met with an auto-immune response that results in unexplained illnesses such as Grave’s Disease, Lupus, Multiple Sclerosis, ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease), Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, dementia, certain cancers, and many other lesser known neurologically degenerative conditions.

This damaging form of Microchimerism results from the flow of genetic material that is carried by a man’s Sperm. After ejaculation during sexual intercourse, Sperm breaks the blood barrier of the uterus and meanders up to the brain, where it finds its way into the nuclei of the neurons. The neurons are then subject to a process known as Genetic Recombination, in which the cells are forever altered, in favor of the genetic material being carried by the sperm.

To simplify this (as well as to strongly reiterate) is that this means that a women will become an amalgamation of every man with whom she has sexual intercourse. A woman will begin to develop the traits and characteristics, both physically and mentally, of the men who have ejaculated in her—and she then inevitably passes these imprints onto her children. In the case of a husband whom she loves, this is a very endearing and romantic concept, which is considered “Divine Union,” in ancient texts. For example, this instructional advice (or warning) is repeated four times over in the Bible in the Old Testament/Tanakh and the New Testament alike. Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:8, and Ephesians 5:31 all ring the same sacred Truth, verbatim, that we need to pay attention to:

“For this reason a man shall forever leave both his father and his mother, and forever be joined to his Wife, and the TWO shall become ONE flesh.”

While this is a powerfully endearing rule from our Creator, inspiring a deeper Love and ever-growing affection with every act of sexual intercourse between a Man and his Wife, what does this mean for women and her children who have had even just more than one partner? Whether a woman is a virgin or not truly does have an impact on future children’s physical traits.

In animals, it is noted that while breeding, the first stud used should be the one and only for future inseminations. Otherwise, subsequent offspring with a new stud will not be nearly as well-built or mentally sharp. If a woman paid attention to the Animal Kingdom, and registered how important maintaining virginity until marriage was genetically, the discipline to remain respectful to herself, her future husband, and the offspring she has with him would come very easily. Not only does present-day society suppress scientific research that a woman retains the DNA of every man she has sex with, but it is clearly and explicitly written in almost every ancient religious book.

Whether or not you, the reader, are religious has no bearing on the fact that religious texts carry many hidden truths within them. Even for the religiously devout, please do not only see these texts as religious. One needs to accept these scriptures as human testaments to experiences—guides, so to speak. Although many who are highly educated scoff in their advanced scholarship at the “absurdity” of taking anything from these books that are the words of illiterate men from 2000+ years ago, and then there are those who are overzealous at taking these scriptures as overly literal and are blinded to the real-life metaphors contained within, we all need to compromise by setting aside credentials and creed and instead concede to the plausibility that these “ancient” words surpass both academia and religion and need to be considered from every angle.

There is a reason—and a VERY good one at that—as to why a woman must preserve her virginity for the man she marries, as well as only marrying his brothers if her husband were to die young. Microchimerism is VERY real, and even ONE previous sexual partner will leave his imprint in a woman’s brain, as well as in her future offspring with her husband. While the husband’s sperm is fertilizing the egg with his DNA, the genetic imprints left behind from the sperm from his wife’s previous partners have permeated into her blood stream, into the brain, and into the coding of said husband’s child(ren), making small but very noticeable alterations in the child(ren).
 
MeganC said:
There is a reason—and a VERY good one at that—as to why a woman must preserve her virginity for the man she marries, as well as only marrying his brothers if her husband were to die young.
Click to expand...
She doesn't have to only marry his brothers. Only if she hasn't had any children with the first husband. And it has nothing to do with microchimerism, only to do with inheritance.
 
Just to be honest here I did not write that article. I just quoted it.
 
FollowingHim2 said:
She doesn't have to only marry his brothers. Only if she hasn't had any children with the first husband. And it has nothing to do with microchimerism, only to do with inheritance.
Click to expand...
Sometimes there are more than just one reason for His Laws.
He didn’t state all of the reasons that certain flesh doesn’t qualify as meat, and science has shown us His wisdom.
 
Much as it would be nice to believe that article @MeganC as it does back my point, we have to be careful not to just believe something because we want to! She makes a lot of major claims, and states that they are proven by science, but I have not seen such proof and think she's making a lot of it up.
MeganC said:
Microchimerism is defined as the occurrence of cells that originate from another individual and are therefore genetically distinct from the cells of the host. There are four different ways that this can happen naturally (i.e. without medical procedures, such as blood transfusions, organ transplants, etc.) :

  1. An abortion (whether chemical, spontaneous, or induced)
  2. A male twin that vanished
  3. An older brother transferred by the maternal circulation
  4. Sexual intercourse
Click to expand...
Point 1 is incorrect - microchimerism is not caused by "an abortion". It is caused by pregnancy. She actually says this herself a few paragraphs later, even though it's not on her list. A woman will retain cells from her children - including those who are aborted or miscarry, and those who survive to term.

Point 4 is completely unproven. Lots of people repeat it, but it's a misunderstanding. And as far as I am aware, her explanation for how it would work (below) is complete fantasy.
MeganC said:
This damaging form of Microchimerism results from the flow of genetic material that is carried by a man’s Sperm. After ejaculation during sexual intercourse, Sperm breaks the blood barrier of the uterus and meanders up to the brain, where it finds its way into the nuclei of the neurons. The neurons are then subject to a process known as Genetic Recombination, in which the cells are forever altered, in favor of the genetic material being carried by the sperm.
Click to expand...
It is known that women who have been sexually active, but have given birth to no children, have male DNA in their bodies. However, this could very easily come from early, unnoticed miscarriages (which are common), it does not prove that the DNA from sperm makes its way to a woman's brain.

If I am wrong, and someone can provide a scientific reference for it, I'd be quite pleased! But I am cautious to not believe something just because I like it.
 
Please know that I do not consider Snopes a generally-reliable source of information, but I went there after frustratedly reading so many articles about this microchimerism that were quoting each other in circle-jerk fashion, all the while disturbed by the unsourced claims and questionably-inferential conclusions. I agree with Sarah's assertion about the predominant biblical reasoning for the relevant aspects of the law relating (no pun intended) to inheritance, I like Samuel's analysis, and Snopes adds to that (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/women-retain-dna/). That bit about sexual intercourse being the way that male cells get introduced into the female brain was invented by the author. If f***ing sends male cells to the brain, then what would also have to be the case would be that a sexually-active woman's brain would undoubtedly be awash in semen.

Interesting concept, though. If taken seriously, it could be yet another explanation for the high incidence of divorce, because, given that most alpha males do not seek alpha females as partners, if protracted sexual intercourse with an alpha male led a woman to be an alpha female, then she would increasingly become someone less appealing to her husband, as well as increasingly come to desire getting out of the relationship so she could go find a beta or omega or other male to dominate.
 
Two questions (I haven't read the Snopes article, may or may not be addressed)

1. How does male DNA affect the appearance of an active woman w multiple (or, more) partners? Often those type of women have very hardened looks... the 'slut look'..

2. Many couples that are married for a long, long time begin to look alike and even act alike... how much of that is DNA v environmental? (Guessing no real answer, but seems related... the theory, she becomes more and more like him by 'injection.' )
 
You have to bear in mind that microchimerism is affecting a tiny number of cells in the body. So it is a stretch to assume it affects any particular thing, especially when there are other explanations available. It probably does something but nobody knows what, yet.
PeteR said:
1. How does male DNA affect the appearance of an active woman w multiple (or, more) partners? Often those type of women have very hardened looks... the 'slut look'..
Click to expand...
The most obvious explanation is that this is psychological - guilt is repressed by stubborn denial of fault, resulting in a hardened heart, reflected in facial expression.
PeteR said:
2. Many couples that are married for a long, long time begin to look alike and even act alike... how much of that is DNA v environmental? (Guessing no real answer, but seems related... the theory, she becomes more and more like him by 'injection.' )
Click to expand...
As stated earlier, my first guess would be that this is due to microbiology, simply because the microbiome is so numerous so sexual contact in altering the microbiome will alter a larger proportion of the body. However microchimerism might certainly play a part in this. And there could be other things we have not thought of also.
 
The term "one flesh" should not be interpreted so concretely.
This is just a term to refer to the union/companionship of man and woman..

The language of Genesis 1-2 is poetic. Therefore, the term must be interpreted according to the abstract image that the term brings.

If one flesh were what you say, it would make no sense for Christ to say that what God has joined together, man must not separate.
 
Yan said:
The language of Genesis 1-2 is poetic.
Click to expand...
Genesis 1-2 is most certainly not poetic. It is very concrete. Compare with real Biblical poetry, e.g. Psalms or Job, and you'll quickly see the difference.
Yan said:
If one flesh were what you say, it would make no sense for Christ to say that what God has joined together, man must not separate.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why that would make no sense. Can you elaborate?
 
Yan said:
If one flesh were what you say, it would make no sense for Christ to say that what God has joined together, man must not separate.
Click to expand...
FollowingHim said:
I don't understand why that would make no sense. Can you elaborate?
Click to expand...
My guess is that @Yan is implying that Christ's not-putting-asunder proclamation would have meant that, once inside a woman's carnal treasure, a man would have to remain physically linked up forever.

Which is cute, but that still doesn't prove poeticism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top