For those who still don't get it:
Duh, and double duh. They were betrothed, she was committed to Yitzak, even though they had never met; had any other man slept with her it would have been adultery.
But, as I have said, and you seem to have denied until now, the precedent is in the final verse, and describes PRECISELY what you previously claimed you couldn't see, and pretended not to see as 'precedent': (and I contend the SEQUENCE is important)
And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took [laqach] Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.
The Covenant, arranged by the un-named 'good and faithful servant,' in the name of Abraham, which was offered and accepted (thus betrothal) was consummated, and the result was a marriage. The first described in such detail in the Book.
And the word "one flesh" never appears. So what? You won't find a better precedent for it, and succinct summary of the process, than v. 67.
It's so "eye rollingly stupid" you should be ashamed for even being that idiotically blind to the point!!!
Is it JUST POSSIBLE that YHVH Himself can teach more than one principle in a single story?
Like:
- what a 'good and faithful servant' looks like. (Is there a reason He never names that servant in the whole story???)
- what 'offer and acceptance' in a marriage look like. IMMEDIATELY AFTER He just showed us what "offer and acceptance" look like in a land contract, and the "first recorded deed" in human history (the cave of Macpelah.)
- what 'agency' (power of attorney) is. What it means to "come in the name of" a principal; in this case, Abraham, to effect a contract.
- what makes a 'marriage'
and even subtle things, like - did Rivkah have a choice? Absolutely - and this precedent makes it clear. She not only 'accepted,' she confirmed it by deed, first when she got on the camel and left her home, then when she consummated the marriage. No one forced her to come.
This story is so important, so central, and teaches SO many fundamental principles that are literally CENTRAL to the entirety of "English Common Law" that I have trouble wrapping my head around the level of ignorance it takes to deny what it is teaching.
Do what you want. I can't make the blind see. But if you ignore His stories, His parables, you have a pretty pitiful grasp of Scripture.
So, why then did you make this asinine claim?
Yeah, which is it? (I don't care - that was rhetorical. I think you just make it up to suit your ego, and deny it when it doesn't.)