• 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

When simple is a good explanation, go with it. Flesh means flesh. Barrenness and impotence is the exception not the rule. As discussed earlier, sex alone is not the creation of marriage. Here's a tangent- why are not two MEN joined together in sex become one flesh? the argument of being connected at the cellular level or even microchimerism could still apply, or even the "oneness" of agreeing with each other in every aspect of life could still happen. It is because the new life is never created. However being one-flesh with a prostitute(making a baby) is always a possibility(read that in "future tense"). Another thing, isn't the marriage really just a contractual changing of ownership, i.e. purchase and sale agreement? The reason for the exchange is the creation of new life or maybe another reason. Was Solomon truly married to(as in being in agreement intimately) his many wives? I think not, that is absurd on its face. Imagine his "servicing" each of his wives and concubines- "Sorry you didnt get pregnant this go around, see you in three years when your turn comes up again!"
 
Maddog said:
When simple is a good explanation, go with it.
Click to expand...
Then don’t make a pile of conjecture to over complicate what scripture makes clear.
Maddog said:
Flesh means flesh. Barrenness and impotence is the exception not the rule. As discussed earlier, sex alone is not the creation of marriage. Here's a tangent- why are not two MEN joined together in sex become one flesh? the argument of being connected at the cellular level or even microchimerism could still apply, or even the "oneness" of agreeing with each other in every aspect of life could still happen. It is because the new life is never created. However being one-flesh with a prostitute(making a baby) is always a possibility(read that in "future tense").
Click to expand...
Bunch of unnecessary conjecture and maybes.
Maddog said:
Another thing, isn't the marriage really just a contractual changing of ownership, i.e. purchase and sale agreement?
Click to expand...
No it’s not just transfer of ownership.
Maddog said:
The reason for the exchange is the creation of new life or maybe another reason.
Click to expand...
There are many reasons to take a woman.
Maddog said:
Was Solomon truly married to(as in being in agreement intimately) his many wives?
Click to expand...
Yes, scripture says so.
Maddog said:
I think not, that is absurd on its face.
Click to expand...
It’s not absurd, the statement that it’s absurd is absurd.
Maddog said:
Imagine his "servicing" each of his wives and concubines- "Sorry you didnt get pregnant this go around, see you in three years when your turn comes up again!"
Click to expand...
This is where your conjecture falls apart. If the only purpose to marriage is pregnancy then sure, it would be difficult to impregnate all those women. But with organization, a single man could copulate with a dozen women a day easily.

Just because you have a hard time imagining something doesn’t mean it’s not true.

Adding maybes to formulate a new understanding of a VERY old concept is not proper handling of The Word.

Maaaaybe microchimerism is one flesh? That’s not what God says. He says it’s two fleshly bodies joining together. Don’t add to scripture to make a new idea.
 
Then a gay couple can become one flesh! Yay for the gays, boo for the lesbian because they don't have an outie. (now THAT's absurd)
 
Yay for the gays, boo for the lesbian because they don't have an outie
Click to expand...

Wouldn't "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."(NASB95) be clear enough to know that it cannot be a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, regardless of their parts or their intent or anything really?
 
I suggest going to scripture to understand what God is teaching rather than go to Man’s wisdom and knowledge. Do a word study on the term and see how it’s used in context. Also study each individual word and see what those mean.

When you get away from Scripture and create conjecture on what else it could possibly be, you end up with strange ideas that are not grounded in God’s Word.

If that’s what you want to do, by all means go ahead. But I’ll call a spade a spade.
 
Word study reveals Flesh means flesh(meat and bones). simple, done. I am pretty sure the ancient masculine mind didn't envision microchimerism or the wonder of romanticism in agreement on everything. However, making a baby was well known- do this and get that. Plow the field and plant seed and you get a crop. Have enough money? Buy another field and increase the yield. It's almost scalable!
 
Maddog said:
When simple is a good explanation, go with it. Flesh means flesh. Barrenness and impotence is the exception not the rule. As discussed earlier, sex alone is not the creation of marriage. Here's a tangent- why are not two MEN joined together in sex become one flesh? the argument of being connected at the cellular level or even microchimerism could still apply, or even the "oneness" of agreeing with each other in every aspect of life could still happen. It is because the new life is never created. However being one-flesh with a prostitute(making a baby) is always a possibility(read that in "future tense"). Another thing, isn't the marriage really just a contractual changing of ownership, i.e. purchase and sale agreement? The reason for the exchange is the creation of new life or maybe another reason. Was Solomon truly married to(as in being in agreement intimately) his many wives? I think not, that is absurd on its face. Imagine his "servicing" each of his wives and concubines- "Sorry you didnt get pregnant this go around, see you in three years when your turn comes up again!"
Click to expand...
I'll agree that a child is the evidence that a man and woman have become one flesh and yes sex=marriage as we see in the old testament by a man going in unto a woman and Jesus affirms in Matt.19. Think about it, if a man marries a woman by making a covenant or saying a vow then how would that constitute adultery when he marries a divorced woman and why would He mention eunuchs in the context. A eunuch wouldn't have any trouble making a covenant or saying a vow but he would have trouble having sex
 
NickF said:
But with organization, a single man could copulate with a dozen women a day easily.
Click to expand...
And a wise team of eunuchs managing his harem and planning his appointments on a calendar could also ensure that every one of those encounters was with an ovulating woman...
 
FollowingHim said:
And a wise team of eunuchs managing his harem and planning his appointments on a calendar could also ensure that every one of those encounters was with an ovulating woman...
Click to expand...
Or he should find a proper lady who will:

1. Find more ladies.
2. Make sure all ladies maximise time being pregnant and barefoot
 
I was referring to Solomon, and meant that it would actually have been technically possible for him to impregnate all of his wives, in the context of the fact that harems were managed, organised things.
 
FollowingHim said:
I was referring to Solomon, and meant that it would actually have been technically possible for him to impregnate all of his wives, in the context of the fact that harems were managed, organised things.
Click to expand...
I remember reading text how Solomon must have sacrificied his children.

Author stated that chances for conception are 5% per intercourse. So Solomon should have, on average, 360/20 = 18 children per year.

Where are all his children? Author think that because of Solomon's apostasy and Bible lack of mentioning large family, Solomon must have practiced child sacrifice.

Interesting what paying attention brings.
 
I would think the number of children would be much higher than that.

5% is 1/20 chance. How has that been derived - under what scenario? Well, if having sex once every 3 days, that's basically 10 times per cycle, 20 times per 2 cycles. Once per cycle within the fertile window (2/20 times with a possibility of getting pregnant), with a 50/50 chance of actual pregnancy, would give 1/20 chance of pregnancy.

Obviously those numbers could be played with differently, but my point is that it sounds reasonable for a monogamous or low-number polygamous man. It has no relevance whatsoever to Solomon.

If he was usually having sex with women during their fertile period (and he certainly had the ability to arrange things that way, and no doubt would have even if only due to the fact it would enhance his own pleasure), then the likelihood of pregnancy rises to more like 50%. Two women a day with a 50% chance of conception becomes 365 children per year.

So yes, where did they go? Maybe they were sacrificed - but I think it's likely we're all actually descended from him in some way.
 
MemeFan said:
Author stated that chances for conception are 5% per intercourse
Click to expand...
Where did that number come from? It's very low. I would think it was much higher than that.
MemeFan said:
Where are all his children? Author think that because of Solomon's apostasy and Bible lack of mentioning large family, Solomon must have practiced child sacrifice.
Click to expand...
I've heard this before. I think it's important to note that just because the bible doesn't mention something doesn't mean it wasn't there. The bible doesn't mention cats, for example. The large family of Solomon won't be mentioned because it's not important to the lineage. The point is who carried on afterwards.

Just saw Samuel's post.
FollowingHim said:
If he was usually having sex with women during their fertile period (and he certainly had the ability to arrange things that way, and no doubt would have even if only due to the fact it would enhance his own pleasure), then the likelihood of pregnancy rises to more like 50%.
Click to expand...
Or, as in my case, it's 100%.
 
FollowingHim said:
And a wise team of eunuchs managing his harem and planning his appointments on a calendar could also ensure that every one of those encounters was with an ovulating woman...
Click to expand...
Yes! This is what we read happening in the book of Esther in chapter 2. It was a very organised system.
 
FollowingHim2 said:
Where did that number come from? It's very low. I would think it was much higher than that.

I've heard this before. I think it's important to note that just because the bible doesn't mention something doesn't mean it wasn't there. The bible doesn't mention cats, for example. The large family of Solomon won't be mentioned because it's not important to the lineage. The point is who carried on afterwards.

Just saw Samuel's post.

Or, as in my case, it's 100%.
Click to expand...
You only have 7 children……
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top