Been having a major disagreement with boyfriend and needing some insight and/or advice.

[Carry_Your_Name]

If you're not married young, chances are you're going to fail somewhere down the road. If you want a pure love, you'll want you and your spouse to be a pure as possible. The more it is shared, the more it is diluted. That's just my personal opinion.

I remember a sermon on this passage of 1 Cor. 6:12-20, in which the pastor preached a similar message on the negative consequence of "casual sex" especially for women. The more "casual" sex you've had, the more desensitized you are, and the harder it will be for you to develop a meaningful, intimate, committed relationship with a long term partner. It's like a tape adhered onto a surface, then ripped off and adhered onto another surface. No matter how carefully the tape is removed from the previous surface, it will be less cohesive; repeat this a couple of times, it'll be unable to stick on any surface.

 

[D-D-W]

Then what counts as a legitimate marriage?

The making of a covenant between the 2. Anything less is the sin of fornication if there is sex involved.

 

[Tenchi]

We no longer lives in such an “ideal” world, marriage is not arranged, women are not traded like property by anybody’s authority, the only thing that “gives” her to a man is her own consent.

This is all pretty much fluff and nonsense to God. Marriage is His institution, whatever contortions His creatures may make of it. On His side of things - the only side that really matters - He has not altered what marries a man to a woman to suit the cultural currents of any particular society. God set the parameters for marriage in the very first marriage of Eve to Adam and has not changed those parameters since He first established them. Man has layered on various ceremonies, legal steps, dowries, etc. to the act of marriage but, as far as God is concerned, what marries a man to a woman is the same now as at the beginning in Eden.

If you wanna stick to the Bible, then there was betrothal (Matt. 1:18), that’s the only result of “giving” of the woman. During this period the couple were NOT publicly acknowledged as husband and wife as they were NOT supposed to “come together” - until they were officially married.

You're not comprehending what I'm writing. Dowries, betrothals, ceremonies, written contracts, etc - these are all Man's additions to the business of marrying a man to a woman, not God's. Man has made the sex act the central feature of marriage, but this merely reflects Man's fleshly nature. Adam was married to Eve, not by sexual relations, but by decree of God who gave Eve to Adam, not as Adam's girlfriend, or fiancee, but as his wife.

Likewise in Gen. 2, the “giving" of Eve to Adam by God was only a betrothal, which would only made her Adam's fiancee;

Genesis 2:20-25
20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.
21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

The passage concludes with a description of Eve as Adam's wife, not his fiancee, not his betrothed, not his girlfriend. In the passage, there is nothing like, "And Adam lay with Eve and they became truly, fully married." But there is God giving Eve to Adam as his "helper fit for him," as "bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh," as his wife.

In God's word, two become one flesh by (physically) joining together, not by the "giving" of anybody; if the two do not join together, then they're not of one flesh. "One flesh union" is the result of "joining together", not the other way around.

Simply look at the passage above. Consider verse 24, in particular. What is the order of things set out in the verse? Does a man hold fast to a woman who only becomes his wife after they've become "one flesh" physically? No, the man holds fast to his wife and they shall - in consequence of being husband and wife - become "one flesh" physically. The sexual relations of a husband and wife follow their being married to each other; those relations are not the means of their marriage.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

This is all pretty much fluff and nonsense to God. Marriage is His institution, whatever contortions His creatures may make of it. On His side of things - the only side that really matters - He has not altered what marries a man to a woman to suit the cultural currents of any particular society. God set the parameters for marriage in the very first marriage of Eve to Adam and has not changed those parameters since He first established them. Man has layered on various ceremonies, legal steps, dowries, etc. to the act of marriage but, as far as God is concerned, what marries a man to a woman is the same now as at the beginning in Eden.

Then what exactly is this "what" that marries a man to a woman other than those "various ceremonies, legal steps, dowries, etc"? Adam and Eve were the first human beings, afterward, no woman is created out of man's rib, and no woman is brought to a man the way Eve is brought to Adam; no other couple in the bible were married like that, "giving" of the woman to the man by her father or a matchmaker is NOT the same as "giving" by God, the only thing that remains the same is the joining of the couple into "one flesh" union - no matter in what society under what cultural influence.

You're not comprehending what I'm writing. Dowries, betrothals, ceremonies, written contracts, etc - these are all Man's additions to the business of marrying a man to a woman, not God's. Man has made the sex act the central feature of marriage, but this merely reflects Man's fleshly nature. Adam was married to Eve, not by sexual relations, but by decree of God who gave Eve to Adam, not as Adam's girlfriend, or fiancee, but as his wife.

God's giving of Eve to Adam is one thing, He brought Eve to Adam as he brought all the animals to him; Adam's acceptance of her in 2:23 - as his wife - is another. This marriage was NOT forced by God, Adam rejoiced over her when he woke up. Should he held an attitude as he did in 3:12 - where he subtly blamed God for giving Eve to him, he might not have consented to the marriage.

And to be cIear, if you believe marriage is a covenant, then that "decree" is the same as betrothal, sex is the final act that seals the deal, like signatures on a contract. Those signatures themselves don't draft the contract, what does draft the contract is the betrothal - the equivalent to modern day dating and engagement. Again, in Matt. 1:18-19, Mary was BETROTHED to Joseph, they were not married yet, nonetheless the angel called Mary his wife: "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife." Obviously the angel was referring to Mary as Joseph's betrothed bride at that point, she was NOT his wife yet; Joseph was "minded to put her away secretly", then he "took" to him Mary his wife" after the dream, only then could she be officially acknowledged as his wife; and they didn't consummate the marriage until Jesus was born. If Mary were already recognized as his legally wedded wife, Jesus wouldn't be "supposedly" the son of Jospeh and maligned as "born of fornication".

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus. (Matt. 1:18-25)

The passage concludes with a description of Eve as Adam's wife, not his fiancee, not his betrothed, not his girlfriend. In the passage, there is nothing like, "And Adam lay with Eve and they became truly, fully married." But there is God giving Eve to Adam as his "helper fit for him," as "bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh," as his wife.

Only was Eve his wife when they were one flesh union, and how did that come to be? By getting joined to her, which, as I pointed out, sealed the deal, then and ONLY then did they become "one flesh". Gen. 2:22 is NOT any kind of ceremony or certification as you think it is.

Simply look at the passage above. Consider verse 24, in particular. What is the order of things set out in the verse? Does a man hold fast to a woman who only becomes his wife after they've become "one flesh" physically? No, the man holds fast to his wife and they shall - in consequence of being husband and wife - become "one flesh" physically. The sexual relations of a husband and wife follow their being married to each other; those relations are not the means of their marriage.

I did consider 2:24 in particular, where "joined to his wife" is referring to sex, "one flesh union" is the result of that, that's the correct "order of things" which you have reversed. 2:24 is NOT limited to "wife", since a man could become one flesh with a harlot if he's joined to her, according to Paul. A harlot is not the john's wife before he's joined her, neither is she afterward, still that makes them one flesh union.

 

[Dave...]

I remember a sermon on this passage of 1 Cor. 6:12-20, in which the pastor preached a similar message on the negative consequence of "casual sex" especially for women. The more "casual" sex you've had, the more desensitized you are, and the harder it will be for you to develop a meaningful, intimate, committed relationship with a long term partner. It's like a tape adhered onto a surface, then ripped off and adhered onto another surface. No matter how carefully the tape is removed from the previous surface, it will be less cohesive; repeat this a couple of times, it'll be unable to stick on any surface.

That can also play into another interesting fact that when a man and a woman are married as virgins, the success rate of those marriages is 95%. That's why, for the couple in the OP I say, if they were virgins, and now consider themselves to be married, no harm done.

I probably shouldn't say this, but I also wonder if that guy shared his thoughts about the physical part being the marriage before they had sex. It's sounds like he wanted her for marriage all along. I don't know enough to say, but it sounds suspicious to me.

Dave

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

This is all pretty much fluff and nonsense to God. Marriage is His institution, whatever contortions His creatures may make of it. On His side of things - the only side that really matters - He has not altered what marries a man to a woman to suit the cultural currents of any particular society. God set the parameters for marriage in the very first marriage of Eve to Adam and has not changed those parameters since He first established them. Man has layered on various ceremonies, legal steps, dowries, etc. to the act of marriage but, as far as God is concerned, what marries a man to a woman is the same now as at the beginning in Eden.

A man and a woman can be brought together in whatever manner in a given culture and circumstance, how can you validate one as God's "giving" of the woman to the man while invalidate another? In cases of sex trafficking, is that God's "giving" - or human smuggler's giving? My point is that, with or without any human authority's approval, with or without mutual consent, it is the physical act, i.e. joining to her, come together, that actually confirms the marriage covenant and makes the couple a one flesh union. Even if they immediately separate after the act, a part of one will remain in the other and haunt them for the rest of their life.

Also, consent is NOT a nonsense modern concept. Gen. 2:23 is Adam's consent, as he gladly accepted Eve as flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone; Matt. 1:19 is Joseph's LACK of consent, he found out Mary was mysteriously pregnant and intended to send her away. If not for the angel's instruction in his dream, Mary would've been sent away, and there would be no marriage even though Mary had been supposedly "given" to Joseph through betrothal.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I probably shouldn't say this, but I also wonder if that guy shared his thoughts about the physical part being the marriage before they had sex. It's sounds like he wanted her for marriage all along. I don't know enough to say, but it sounds suspicious to me.

It sounds to me that he's a manipulative jerk who quotes bible verses out of context to justify his own carnal desire. I blame this on the churches who taught marriage as merely a license for sex and a fix for sexual immorality based on a misunderstanding of 1 Cor. 7:2. The primary function of marriage is to have and raise children, sex is obviously the means to that end, not the end by and of itself.

I'd say that marriage requires a capable, mature person who not only has a life worth living, but a life worth SHARING; and to have children, it also should be a life worth MULTIPLYING. You don't get married as a fix of your problems, you get married to share your life with your significant other. If you don't already have a life worth sharing and a desire to share, then don't marry, follow the advice in 1 Cor. 7:1 instead of 7:2 to fix sexual immorality - don't touch a woman at all.

Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. (1 Cor. 7:1-2)

 

[Tenchi]

Then what exactly is this "what" that marries a man to a woman other than those "various ceremonies, legal steps, dowries, etc"?

If you'd read my posts more carefully, you'd already have the answer to this question.

Adam and Eve were the first human beings, afterward, no woman is created out of man's rib, and no woman is brought to a man the way Eve is brought to Adam; no other couple in the bible were married like that, "giving" of the woman to the man by her father or a matchmaker is NOT the same as "giving" by God, the only thing that remains the same is the joining of the couple into "one flesh" union - no matter in what society under what cultural influence.

I've not indicated that God's making of Adam's wife should be repeated, or is a necessary part of how a man and a woman are married to one another. As I've already pointed out, what is useful to the question of marriage in the first instance of marriage is that Eve was given to Adam as his wife, not his fiancee or girlfriend. They were, in God's eyes, a married couple - husband and wife - without having had sex. This fact quite dissolves your idea that sex is what marries a man to a woman.

And we do see in Scripture (as I've already explained in an earlier post) that the giving of the first wife to the first husband is repeated in the instance of Isaac and Rebekah. We see also the law of Moses concerning an unbetrothed woman who is seduced into sex indicating, not that she is, by the sex act, now married to her seducer, but that the final say as to whether or not she will be married to her seducer rests with her father (Exodus 22:16-17), not with the fact that sexual relations have occurred.

This law plays out in stark fashion in the instance of the rape of Jacob's daughter, Dinah, by Shechem.

Genesis 34:2-6
2 When Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her and lay with her by force.
3 He was deeply attracted to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the girl and spoke tenderly to her.
4 So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, "Get me this young girl for a wife."
5 Now Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter; but his sons were with his livestock in the field, so Jacob kept silent until they came in.
6 Then Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him.

How does Scripture speak here of Shechem's rape and kidnapping (Genesis 34:26) of Dinah? Does the passage give any hint that what Shechem had done married Dinah to him? Not at all. Instead, Dinah is said only to have been defiled by Shechem, not married. Shechem, knowing this, goes to Jacob, her father, asking to marry Dinah; for only if Dinah's father gives her to Shechem as his wife will she be his wife.

So, then, the record of Scripture doesn't bear out the idea that sexual relations marry a man to a woman. No, God's law places the the marriage of a woman in the hands of her father who, as God did with Eve, gives her to a man as his wife and by doing so marries her to him.

God's giving of Eve to Adam is one thing, He brought Eve to Adam as he brought all the animals to him; Adam's acceptance of her in 2:23 - as his wife - is another. This marriage was NOT forced by God, Adam rejoiced over her when he woke up. Should he held an attitude as he did in 3:12 - where he subtly blamed God for giving Eve to him, he might not have consented to the marriage.

Are you suggesting that Eve was of a kind with the animals God had brought to Adam? I sure hope not. No animal was extracted directly from Adam, as Eve was; no animal was made specifically to be a helper to Adam, as Eve was; no animal was presented to Adam as his wife with whom he would produce succeeding generations of human beings.

I also never indicated that Adam was forced by God to marry Eve. I said only that Eve was given to Adam as his wife, not his fiancee or girlfriend. And your speculation that Adam could have rejected Eve is just that: speculation (and a red herring, to boot).

And to be cIear, if you believe marriage is a covenant, then that "decree" is the same as betrothal, sex is the final act that seals the deal, like signatures on a contract.

This is nowhere indicated in Scripture. Nowhere. But what I've explained about what marries people is repeatedly borne out in the Bible. See above.

Again, in Matt. 1:18-19, Mary was BETROTHED to Joseph, they were not married yet, nonetheless the angel called Mary his wife: "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife." Obviously the angel was referring to Mary as Joseph's betrothed bride at that point, she was NOT his wife yet; Joseph was "minded to put her away secretly", then he "took" to him Mary his wife" after the dream, only then could she be officially acknowledged as his wife; and they didn't consummate the marriage until Jesus was born. If Mary were already recognized as his legally wedded wife, Jesus wouldn't be "supposedly" the son of Jospeh and maligned as "born of fornication".

Of course, none of this is present in the text of Scripture at all. Betrothal and marriage in ancient Jewish culture were virtually synonymous, a betrothed woman under the Mosaic law regarded, for all intents and purposes, as married. And so, Joseph is described as Mary's husband (Matthew 1:19) and Mary is called Joseph's wife by the angel Gabriel (rather than his almost-wife, or not-quite-wife). That you refuse the term "wife" that the account in Matthew uses, redefining its plain meaning in order to sustain your mistaken view, is an illustration of the danger of insisting on an erroroneous interpretation of Scripture. Once one sets to imposing one's view on God's word, making it say what it doesn't, one rapidly grows blind to God's Truth, seeing only what one wants it to say rather than what it actually says.

Matthew 1:24-25
24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

This quite nails shut the coffin on your idea of sex being the key to marriage. Here, Joseph takes Mary as his wife without having sexual relations with her until after she gave birth to Jesus. And so, the instance you've chosen to make your case about sex and marriage actually serves to plainly and direclty refute your mistaken view.

Continued below.

 

[Tenchi]

Only was Eve his wife when they were one flesh union, and how did that come to be?

This isn't what the account in Genesis says. Here, again, you're imposing stuff on Scripture that isn't in it in order to maintain your mistaken view.

By getting joined to her, which, as I pointed out, sealed the deal, then and ONLY then did they become "one flesh". Gen. 2:22 is NOT any kind of ceremony or certification as you think it is.

See above. The account of God giving Eve to Adam as his wife says what it says no matter your attempts at eisegesis.

I did consider 2:24 in particular, where "joined to his wife" is referring to sex,

Genesis 2:24
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

"Be joined to his wife" is set in oppositional parallel to "leave his father and mother," the two conditions linked such that the latter explains what is meant by the former. In other words, what is meant by "joined to his wife" is "has left father and mother." What's in view is relational condition, not sexual activity (obviously, one doesn't leave off sexual relations with one's parents to take up sexual relations with one's wife). A man leaves the familial relationship he has with his parents, joined to them as their child in a dynamic where his parents are central figures in his day-to-day living (he's in their house, eating their food, obeying them, etc.), and takes up a new marital relationship, joined to a woman as his wife, who occupies the central place in his day-to-day living that his parents once occupied. As a consequence of this change of relationship, the husband and wife "become one flesh" physically. This order of things is plainly indicated in verse 24:

1. A man leaves his parents.
2. A man joins himself to a wife.
3. The man and his wife become one flesh.

Sex is the last thing to mark the marital relationship, being the result of a man and woman becoming husband and wife, not the means of their marital state.

A man and a woman can be brought together in whatever manner in a given culture and circumstance, how can you validate one as God's "giving" of the woman to the man while invalidate another?

I'm doing no invalidating of anything. I'm pointing out what God's word says; it does the invalidating, not me.

In cases of sex trafficking, is that God's "giving" - or human smuggler's giving?

Obviously not. Ideally, it is, as Scripture plainly shows, to be the father who gives his daughter away as a wife to a man. Failing that, a relative, such as an uncle or older brother should give a woman away in marriage. And if none such are available, then her guardian should do the giving away.

My point is that, with or without any human authority's approval, with or without mutual consent, it is the physical act, i.e. joining to her, come together, that actually confirms the marriage covenant and makes the couple a one flesh union.

I understand this is your view. It's wrong. See above.

Even if they immediately separate after the act, a part of one will remain in the other and haunt them for the rest of their life.

This is nowhere indicated in Scripture.

Also, consent is NOT a nonsense modern concept. Gen. 2:23 is Adam's consent, as he gladly accepted Eve as flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone

??? The verse says nothing about Adam's delight at God's helper being given to him being Adam's consent to Eve as his wife. This is sheer speculation on your part, just more eisegesis that is obscuring the truth of God's word - and a strange red herring, as well.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

If you'd read my posts more carefully, you'd already have the answer to this question.

I did have answered it - mutual consent. Any third party's interference is man's doing, not God's.

I've not indicated that God's making of Adam's wife should be repeated, or is a necessary part of how a man and a woman are married to one another. As I've already pointed out, what is useful to the question of marriage in the first instance of marriage is that Eve was given to Adam as his wife, not his fiancee or girlfriend. They were, in God's eyes, a married couple - husband and wife - without having had sex. This fact quite dissolves your idea that sex is what marries a man to a woman.

Then that's irrelevant, none of that has any bearing in reality. From the fall in Gen. 3 and there on, mankind was banished from Eden into a sinful and broken world, whatever manner of "giving" in the first instance of marriage is no longer applicable, so what exactly is this "giving" afterwards? You practically equated the "giving" by the woman's father or other male guardian with the original "giving" of Eve by God, which is totally bogus, the only thing it reflects is your patriarchic, misogynistic view. A woman has the right to decide freely and responsibly on whom she marries or whether she marries at all, any third party's interference, as I pointed out, is man's doing, not God's.

And we do see in Scripture (as I've already explained in an earlier post) that the giving of the first wife to the first husband is repeated in the instance of Isaac and Rebekah.

No, it wasn't. Abraham's servant was tasked to find a wife for Isaac with specific instructions, and the woman's consent was required, Abraham's own oath was contingent upon it:

And the servant said to him, “Perhaps the woman will not be willing to follow me to this land. Must I take your son back to the land from which you came?” But Abraham said to him, “Beware that you do not take my son back there. The Lord God of heaven, who took me from my father’s house and from the land of my family, and who spoke to me and swore to me, saying, ‘To your descendants I give this land,’ He will send His angel before you, and you shall take a wife for my son from there. And if the woman is not willing to follow you, then you will be released from this oath; only do not take my son back there.” (Gen. 24:5-8)

We see also the law of Moses concerning an unbetrothed woman who is seduced into sex indicating, not that she is, by the sex act, now married to her seducer, but that the final say as to whether or not she will be married to her seducer rests with her father (Exodus 22:16-17), not with the fact that sexual relations have occurred.

In the eyes of God, sex is only between man and wife, the sex act itself joins them into one flesh union, the bride price is the compensation, a penalty for his fornication. With or without her father's - or any other human authority's consent, a bride price is mandated.

This law plays out in stark fashion in the instance of the rape of Jacob's daughter, Dinah, by Shechem.

Genesis 34:2-6
2 When Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her and lay with her by force.
3 He was deeply attracted to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the girl and spoke tenderly to her.
4 So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, "Get me this young girl for a wife."
5 Now Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter; but his sons were with his livestock in the field, so Jacob kept silent until they came in.
6 Then Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him.

How does Scripture speak here of Shechem's rape and kidnapping (Genesis 34:26) of Dinah? Does the passage give any hint that what Shechem had done married Dinah to him? Not at all. Instead, Dinah is said only to have been defiled by Shechem, not married. Shechem, knowing this, goes to Jacob, her father, asking to marry Dinah; for only if Dinah's father gives her to Shechem as his wife will she be his wife.

So, then, the record of Scripture doesn't bear out the idea that sexual relations marry a man to a woman. No, God's law places the the marriage of a woman in the hands of her father who, as God did with Eve, gives her to a man as his wife and by doing so marries her to him.

Description is not prescription, you've completely missed the point of the whole Dinah incident. This whole chapter of Gen. 34 is a cautionary tale about disproportionate vigilante justice - Simeon and Levi first tricked Hamor's tribe into a deal of circumcision, then slaughtered the whole city while they were healing. Because of this, Simeon and Levi lost their leadership position, the scepter was passed down to Judah, the fourth son (Gen. 49:10). It is also a jab at Jacob's mishandling of the situation, he didn't care about the victims of the massacre or his own daughter who was raped and sexually tramautized, he didn't even give any direct response to Hamor, his greatest concern was possible retribution - "I am few in number, they will gather themselves together against me and kill me. I shall be destroyed, my household and I.”

Also, there was no "God's law" at that time, Mosaic law didn't exist yet in Genesis, your argumen is invalid.

Are you suggesting that Eve was of a kind with the animals God had brought to Adam? I sure hope not. No animal was extracted directly from Adam, as Eve was; no animal was made specifically to be a helper to Adam, as Eve was; no animal was presented to Adam as his wife with whom he would produce succeeding generations of human beings.

You're the one who disregarded woman's own consent, and suggested that a woman can be "given" to a man by her father like a piece of property, not me.

I also never indicated that Adam was forced by God to marry Eve. I said only that Eve was given to Adam as his wife, not his fiancee or girlfriend. And your speculation that Adam could have rejected Eve is just that: speculation (and a red herring, to boot).

Nowhere in Gen. 2:22 says God brought Eve to Adam as his "wife", it only says God brought her to him, that's betrothal; only by Adam's own consent in Gen. 2:23 did he accept her as his wife. And it's not speculation that Adam changed his mind, in his own words, he later referred Eve as "the woman whom you gave to be with me", not as his wife or "flesh of my flesh".

Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.” (Gen. 3:12)

This is nowhere indicated in Scripture. Nowhere. But what I've explained about what marries people is repeatedly borne out in the Bible. See above.

Above is your own speculation. Everywhere in the Scripture indicates a betrothal that precedes marriage, a bride price be paid, and a sex act which confirms - not makes - the marriage covenant, that's the correct order.

 

[Tenchi]

Then that's irrelevant, none of that has any bearing in reality. From the fall in Gen. 3 and there on, mankind was banished from Eden into a sinful and broken world, whatever manner of "giving" in the first instance of marriage is no longer applicable,

Says who? You? Who are you to decide that the Fall has had the effect you propose here? I won't abandon God's order of things, His pattern, for marriage because you think it should be no longer applicable. Nowhere in Scripture will you find any statement indicating what you're assuming in the quotation above. Instead, as I showed in my last post to you, the pattern God established persists in Scripture long after the Fall.

You practically equated the "giving" by the woman's father or other male guardian with the original "giving" of Eve by God, which is totally bogus, the only thing it reflects is your patriarchic, misogynistic view.

As I demonstrated, it's what happened in the record of Scripture, whatever you might think of it.

A woman has the right to decide freely and responsibly on whom she marries or whether she marries at all, any third party's interference, as I pointed out, is man's doing, not God's.

Has someone said a woman isn't free to choose her mate? I haven't. As far as I can tell, this is just an attempt to shift the goalposts of the discussion and distract from the fact that the Bible doesn't support your view that sex marries a man to a woman. But if a woman wants to marry a man (or vice versa), God's pattern, followed throughout Scripture, is that she be given to him as his wife by her father (ideally). This isn't Man's doing but the plain, straightforward record of God's word.

No, it wasn't.

Yes, it was. Rebekah was given to Isaac as his wife by her father and to say otherwise is to deny the plain statement of Scripture.

Genesis 24:24
24 She [Rebekah] said to him, “I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, whom she bore to Nahor.”

Genesis 24:50-51
50 Then Laban [Rebekah's brother] and Bethuel [Rebekah's father] answered and said, “The thing has come from the LORD; we cannot speak to you bad or good.
51 Behold, Rebekah is before you; take her and go, and let her be the wife of your master’s son, as the LORD has spoken.”

Abraham's servant was tasked to find a wife for Isaac with specific instructions, and the woman's consent was required, Abraham's own oath was contingent upon it:

And the servant said to him, “Perhaps the woman will not be willing to follow me to this land. Must I take your son back to the land from which you came?” But Abraham said to him, “Beware that you do not take my son back there. The Lord God of heaven, who took me from my father’s house and from the land of my family, and who spoke to me and swore to me, saying, ‘To your descendants I give this land,’ He will send His angel before you, and you shall take a wife for my son from there. And if the woman is not willing to follow you, then you will be released from this oath; only do not take my son back there.” (Gen. 24:5-8)

None of this has anything to do with my point that the pattern God set in Eden was followed by Isaac in making Rebekah his wife. Just as God gave Eve to Adam as his wife (not his girlfriend or fiancee), Bethuel the father of Rebekah gave her to Isaac as his wife (not his girlfriend or fiancee).

The matter of Rebekah's agreement to being to Isaac's wife is irrelevant to the fact that pattern was repeated.

In the eyes of God, sex is only between man and wife, the sex act itself joins them into one flesh union, the bride price is the compensation, a penalty for his fornication. With or without her father's - or any other human authority's consent, a bride price is mandated.

This ignores my point, which is what I expected, since the point I made from the passage dissolves your idea that sex marries people to each other. It doesn't. The law I pointed to in Exodus 22 explicitly states that the father determines whether or not his daughter marries her seducer, not the fact that she'd had sex with her seducer.

Description is not prescription, you've completely missed the point of the whole Dinah incident.

The occasion with Dinah exactly conforms to the law in Exodus 22:16-17 where the father, NOT the sex act, determined whether or not a couple married. In this case, then, the description conforms to the prescription and is valuable in demonstrating it.

Whatever other lessons you may want to extract from the story, it illustrates that sex did not itself marry a man to a woman.

Also, there was no "God's law" at that time, Mosaic law didn't exist yet in Genesis, your argumen is invalid.

Nope. See above. Also, Abel knew to sacrifice correctly to God. How would he know to do so if God had not stipulated the proper sacrifice? There were, then, commands of God known before Moses received the laws from God on Mount Sinai.

You're the one who disregarded woman's own consent, and suggested that a woman can be "given" to a man by her father like a piece of property, not me.

What does this Strawman rendering of my remarks have to do with what I pointed out about your statement that Eve was presented to Adam just as the animals had been? You are purposefully speaking past my point, it seems to me.

Nowhere in Gen. 2:22 says God brought Eve to Adam as his "wife", it only says God brought her to him, that's betrothal

I already dealt with this scrambling effort to salvage your mistaken view. Look at my earlier posts.

And it's not speculation that Adam changed his mind

I didn't say that it was speculation that Adam changed his mind. Read my words with greater care.

Above is your own speculation. Everywhere in the Scripture indicates a betrothal that precedes marriage, a bride price be paid, and a sex act which confirms - not makes - the marriage covenant, that's the correct order.

See above. And my earlier posts.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Of course, none of this is present in the text of Scripture at all. Betrothal and marriage in ancient Jewish culture were virtually synonymous, a betrothed woman under the Mosaic law regarded, for all intents and purposes, as married. And so, Joseph is described as Mary's husband (Matthew 1:19) and Mary is called Joseph's wife by the angel Gabriel (rather than his almost-wife, or not-quite-wife). That you refuse the term "wife" that the account in Matthew uses, redefining its plain meaning in order to sustain your mistaken view, is an illustration of the danger of insisting on an erroroneous interpretation of Scripture. Once one sets to imposing one's view on God's word, making it say what it doesn't, one rapidly grows blind to God's Truth, seeing only what one wants it to say rather than what it actually says.

No, betrothal and marriage are NOT synonymous. A betrothed couple do not "come together", usually the groom departs to prepare a house for his future family, Jesus's promise "in my father's house" is a direct reference to that custom. If they were already husband and wife, then why did Lord Jesus suffer the bad reputation of a questionable birth - implied in all four gospels? Why was Jesus maligned as born of fornication instead of Joseph and Mary's legitimate son? Why was he called son of Mary - not Joseph, whereas every other man was commonly identified as the son of their father (i.e. Simon, son of Jonah)? The only reason is that their marriage was NOT consummated, and therefore not publicly acknowledged. It is your erroneous view that conflates betrothal with marriage, and your blindness to this cultural context which is key to a correct understanding of God's word.

Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary? (Mk. 6:3)
Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph ... (Lk. 3:23)
Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God.” (Jn. 8:41)

This isn't what the account in Genesis says. Here, again, you're imposing stuff on Scripture that isn't in it in order to maintain your mistaken view.

The mistaken view is yours. You didn't carefully read my post, as you don't understand that marriage is a sacred covenant which is not made but CONFIRMED by the sex act. In the biblical narrative, a covenant is ratified with a blood sacrifice, without which a covenant is not legally effective, as much as a contract without signatures is not legally effective.

Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matt. 26:27-28)

See above. The account of God giving Eve to Adam as his wife says what it says no matter your attempts at eisegesis.

See above yourself. Nowhere is the word "wife" in either Gen. 2:22 or 3:12 where "giving" was mentioned. It was Adam's own acceptance that makes Eve his wife.

Genesis 2:24
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

"Be joined to his wife" is set in oppositional parallel to "leave his father and mother," the two conditions linked such that the latter explains what is meant by the former. In other words, what is meant by "joined to his wife" is "has left father and mother." What's in view is relational condition, not sexual activity (obviously, one doesn't leave off sexual relations with one's parents to take up sexual relations with one's wife). A man leaves the familial relationship he has with his parents, joined to them as their child in a dynamic where his parents are central figures in his day-to-day living (he's in their house, eating their food, obeying them, etc.), and takes up a new marital relationship, joined to a woman as his wife, who occupies the central place in his day-to-day living that his parents once occupied. As a consequence of this change of relationship, the husband and wife "become one flesh" physically. This order of things is plainly indicated in verse 24:

1. A man leaves his parents.
2. A man joins himself to a wife.
3. The man and his wife become one flesh.

Sex is the last thing to mark the marital relationship, being the result of a man and woman becoming husband and wife, not the means of their marital state.

Then what "relational condition" is a john in with a prostitute? There's no marital relationship between the two, and yet they still become one flesh. That simplifies and clarifies the concept of "one flesh union" by reducing it to the simple sex act without any societal or relational complications. In your logic, Paul must've misquoted Gen. 2:2 - man only joins his wife with whom they become one flesh, it shouldn't be applicable to sleeping with prostitute since the prositute is nobody's wife, either before or after the sex act; yet again, in the eyes of God, fornication is the only ground for divorce because it joins a man with another woman, which breaks the previous union with his previous partner; and if neither has a previous partner, nonetheless it joins the man and the woman into one flesh. "Joining" is never limited to legally wedded wife, but applicable to any woman, and no change of any relationship is mentioned.

I'm doing no invalidating of anything. I'm pointing out what God's word says; it does the invalidating, not me.

Obviously not. Ideally, it is, as Scripture plainly shows, to be the father who gives his daughter away as a wife to a man. Failing that, a relative, such as an uncle or older brother should give a woman away in marriage. And if none such are available, then her guardian should do the giving away.

As I said, you equated the father's or other male guardian's giving as "God's giving", that's oppressive patriarchy that treats woman as property. In the book of Ruth, Boaz and Ruth met in the field, and they ended up married with nobody "giving" Ruth away to Boaz. The sex act, as I've repeatedly pointed out, doesn't draft but ratifies the marriage covenant.

Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the widow of Mahlon, I have acquired as my wife, to perpetuate the name of the dead through his inheritance ... (Ruth 4:10)
So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife; and when he went in to her, the Lord gave her conception, and she bore a son. (Ruth 4:13)

I understand this is your view. It's wrong. See above.

My view is biblical, yours is not. In Luke's account Mary is referred to as Joseph's BETROTHED wife, and that's only in NKJV; in other common bible translations it simply states "betrothed" or "PLEDGED to be married", no "wife" mentioned. You obviously don't know the difference.

Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. (Lk. 2:4-5)

This is nowhere indicated in Scripture.

So no negative consequence of sexual immorality is indicated in Scripture? "Will not inherit the kingdom" not included as one?

??? The verse says nothing about Adam's delight at God's helper being given to him being Adam's consent to Eve as his wife. This is sheer speculation on your part, just more eisegesis that is obscuring the truth of God's word - and a strange red herring, as well.

You're the one who obscures God's word by adding "wife" in Gen. 2:22, not me. You said that marriage was not forced by God upon Adam, he willingly accept her in 2:23, then how is that speculation?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Says who? You?

No, you - "I've not indicated that God's making of Adam's wife should be repeated, or is a necessary part of how a man and a woman are married to one another." Nowhere in the Scripture equates any male guardian's giving of the woman as God's giving, that's your crooked idea out of your antiquated patriarchal view.

As I demonstrated, it's what happened in the record of Scripture, whatever you might think of it.

You've demonstrated nothing. You don't even understand difference between betrothal and marriage.

Has someone said a woman isn't free to choose her mate? I haven't.

Yes, you have. You said ideally she should be given by her father or other male guardian, that's man's doing against the woman's and/or the man's own will. In the straightforward record of God's word, uncle Laban switched Rachel with Leah (Gen. 29:23) according to their own tradition, it was his own "giving" of Leah to Jacob, which neither Leah nor Jacob consented to.

As far as I can tell, this is just an attempt to shift the goalposts of the discussion and distract from the fact that the Bible doesn't support your view that sex marries a man to a woman. But if a woman wants to marry a man (or vice versa), God's pattern, followed throughout Scripture, is that she be given to him as his wife by her father (ideally). This isn't Man's doing but the plain, straightforward record of God's word.

That "ideal" is nothing but your own patriarchal view, you who lectured on me "description is not prescription" should get a taste of your own medicine.

Yes, it was. Rebekah was given to Isaac as his wife by her father and to say otherwise is to deny the plain statement of Scripture.

No it wasn't. Neither Laban nor Bethuel deliberately sent out Rebekah to meet Abraham's servant at the well, it was God's arrangement, Laban and Bethuel merely acknowledged that. Laban didn't "give" Rebekah to Isaac the way he did with his daughters to Jacob.

None of this has anything to do with my point that the pattern God set in Eden was followed by Isaac in making Rebekah his wife. Just as God gave Eve to Adam as his wife (not his girlfriend or fiancee), Bethuel the father of Rebekah gave her to Isaac as his wife (not his girlfriend or fiancee).

The matter of Rebekah's agreement to being to Isaac's wife is irrelevant to the fact that pattern was repeated.

You're twisting the plain statement of Scripture. Rebekah came to the well voluntarily, it was God's arrangement, the fulfilment of His promise to Abraham. If you truly believe that God's giving is the timeless pattern which He set in Eden, then that was truly God's giving of Rebekah to Isaac - not Bethuel's or Laban's. Rebekah's consent is utterly revelant, because if she's not willing, she's not the one for Isaac. Marriage by God's design is a spontaenous process, God does not force it upon anybody.

This ignores my point, which is what I expected, since the point I made from the passage dissolves your idea that sex marries people to each other. It doesn't. The law I pointed to in Exodus 22 explicitly states that the father determines whether or not his daughter marries her seducer, not the fact that she'd had sex with her seducer.

You're bearing false witness against me. My view is that in the biblical narrative, marriage is initiated by BETROTHAL and ratified by sex, that's only pattern of God followed throughout Scripture when it comes down to marriage. Your view, on the other hand, is equating God's giving with man's giving, and you justify your antiquated view of oppressive patriarchy with your own misinterpretation of God's word.

The occasion with Dinah exactly conforms to the law in Exodus 22:16-17 where the father, NOT the sex act, determined whether or not a couple married. In this case, then, the description conforms to the prescription and is valuable in demonstrating it.

Whatever other lessons you may want to extract from the story, it illustrates that sex did not itself marry a man to a woman.

Oh really? Then where was Jacob's decision - since he was the one who was supposed to determine? In the record of God's word, he heard of the rape but didn't make any decision, he entrusted his sons - Levi and Simeon - to handle it. From there on, Jacob didn't make a beep on anything until his sons slaughtered the whole city.

And Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter. Now his sons were with his livestock in the field; so Jacob held his peace until they came. (Gen. 34:5)

Nope. See above. Also, Abel knew to sacrifice correctly to God. How would he know to do so if God had not stipulated the proper sacrifice? There were, then, commands of God known before Moses received the laws from God on Mount Sinai.

That sacrifice was not ratified as law, it was following a precedence set by God himself - He sacrificed an innocent animal to clothe Adam and Eve. (Gen. 3:21) There was no law until Moses received it from mount Sinai.

For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. (Rom. 5:13)

What does this Strawman rendering of my remarks have to do with what I pointed out about your statement that Eve was presented to Adam just as the animals had been? You are purposefully speaking past my point, it seems to me.

I already dealt with this scrambling effort to salvage your mistaken view. Look at my earlier posts.

I didn't say that it was speculation that Adam changed his mind. Read my words with greater care.

See above. And my earlier posts.

Since you repeatedly ignore and twist my point, why should I dignify yours?

 

[Tenchi]

No, betrothal and marriage are NOT synonymous.

As the use of "wife" and "husband" in reference to Mary and Joseph in the Matthew 1 account demonstrate, they are virtually synonymous. And Joseph is called Mary's husband (and she his wife) before they had "come together" sexually. In fact, until Mary gave birth to Jesus, Joseph did not have relations with her. But this didn't mean they weren't husband and wife; the account states clearly that, for all intents and purposes, they were. The two travelled and lived together in the manner typical of a husband and wife, Mary going where Joseph went. And so, when Gabriel referred to them as husband and wife, I take him at his word, trusting that a heavenly messenger from God had a better understanding of the nature of their relationship than someone two millennia removed from Joseph and Mary.

If they were already husband and wife, then why did Lord Jesus suffer the bad reputation of a questionable birth - implied in all four gospels?

All the question does is confirm that the two were in a relationship with one another such that Mary becoming pregnant by someone other than Joseph would raise a question. And if they had not been essentially husband and wife, as the Gospel account in Matthew says they were, then Mary's pregnancy would not have been something over which Joseph would have needed to consider divorcing (putting away) Mary. I don't see, then, that the question of Jesus's birth helps your case any.

The only reason is that their marriage was NOT consummated, and therefore not publicly acknowledged.

??? This isn't the only reason. I realize it serves your view to say so, but it isn't so. The reason Jesus's birth was scandalous had to do with the fact that, in the eyes of the Jewish community and God (attested to by Gabriel), Joseph and Mary were husband and wife. That Mary had been made pregnant apart from Joseph in this circumstance is understandably a serious problem. But it was so, again, because they were, as Gabriel said, husband and wife.

The mistaken view is yours. You didn't carefully read my post, as you don't understand that marriage is a sacred covenant which is not made but CONFIRMED by the sex act.

But its not "confirmed" by the sex act. This is nowhere stated in Scripture. Sex is the normal consequence of a couple being husband and wife, but sexual relations have nothing to do with how they are made husband and wife any more than using the oars of a boat you're sitting in to paddle around a lake is what makes you an occupant of the boat. No, you have to be an occupant of the boat before paddling the boat around with its oars. The paddling is just the effect of being in the boat, not the means of being in the boat. So, too, sex and marriage. Sex is the natural, normal effect of marriage, not the means of being married. This is, as I've shown, what the Bible indicates repeatedly.

It is your erroneous view that conflates betrothal with marriage,

This is your Strawman contortion of my view. In point of fact, I've never made any such conflation. I understand, though, that you might think it helps your view to misrepresent mine.

In the biblical narrative, a covenant is ratified with a blood sacrifice, without which a covenant is not legally effective, as much as a contract without signatures is not legally effective.

??? I don't recall any "ratification" of the marriage of Adam to Eve. In the account in Genesis 2, there's no "and so Adam lay with Eve and thus they became husband and wife." They simply were husband and wife, made so by God prior to any relations they enjoyed with one another.

See above yourself. Nowhere is the word "wife" in either Gen. 2:22 or 3:12 where "giving" was mentioned. It was Adam's own acceptance that makes Eve his wife.

Genesis 2:18-25
18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

Would God, being perfect, make Eve less than "fit" for Adam so that Adam would have to consider whether or not he would accept Eve as his "helper" (i.e wife)? Is Eve ever asked if she wants to be Adam's wife? Does she get a chance to consent to God's arrangement of them as husband and wife? No.

19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.
21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

Here, Eve's creation is unique from all the other creatures God had so far made, being extracted from Adam's own body, not formed from the ground, as every beast of the field and bird of the air had been. She was not just another creature brought to Adam for inspection and naming but his "helper," his wife.

23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Here, the conclusion of this account of Eve's creation and her being given to Adam indicates that God's giving Eve to Adam in unique relationship to him as his helper is the pattern for all human marriage relationships in which husband and wife are to "leave mother and father" and "hold fast" to one another. For the purpose of this discussion, though, verse 25 is very important, for it clarifies that the relationship of Adam to Eve was that of "man and wife" not merely man and girlfriend, or man and fiancee.

Then what "relational condition" is a john in with a prostitute?

He is guilty of sexual immorality - fornication or adultery, depending upon his marital status and has no relationship to the prostitute except as one sexual sinner using another sexual sinner to sin sexually (to the financial profit of the prostitute).

There's no marital relationship between the two, and yet they still become one flesh. That simplifies and clarifies the concept of "one flesh union" by reducing it to the simple sex act without any societal or relational complications.

Right. Joining one's body to a prostitute's body is, as Paul indicated in 1 Corinthians 6, not a ratification of marriage to the prostitute, but mere sexual immorality that the "john" ought to cease. He does so, not by acknowledging the prostitute as his wife, but by never having anything more to do with her.

Continued below.

 

[Tenchi]

In your logic, Paul must've misquoted Gen. 2:2 - man only joins his wife with whom they become one flesh, it shouldn't be applicable to sleeping with prostitute since the prositute is nobody's wife, either before or after the sex act;

??? Insofar as being "one flesh" refers to the sex act, the expression is applicable to any such act - even of a homosexual or bestial sort. Being "one flesh" in a sexual way is not unique to marriage, obviously.

In any case, this is all a deflection from what I pointed out about Genesis 2:24:

"Genesis 2:24
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

"Be joined to his wife" is set in oppositional parallel to "leave his father and mother," the two conditions linked such that the latter explains what is meant by the former. In other words, what is meant by "joined to his wife" is "has left father and mother." What's in view is relational condition, not sexual activity (obviously, one doesn't leave off sexual relations with one's parents to take up sexual relations with one's wife). A man leaves the familial relationship he has with his parents, joined to them as their child in a dynamic where his parents are central figures in his day-to-day living (he's in their house, eating their food, obeying them, etc.), and takes up a new marital relationship, joined to a woman as his wife, who occupies the central place in his day-to-day living that his parents once occupied. As a consequence of this change of relationship, the husband and wife "become one flesh" physically. This order of things is plainly indicated in verse 24:

1. A man leaves his parents.
2. A man joins himself to a wife.
3. The man and his wife become one flesh.

Sex is the last thing to mark the marital relationship, being the result of a man and woman becoming husband and wife, not the means of their marital state."

As I said, you equated the father's or other male guardian's giving as "God's giving", that's oppressive patriarchy that treats woman as property.

LOL! If you think Woke-speak is going to advance your view, you're wildly mistaken. Again, did God ask Eve what she wanted before He gave her to Adam? Did she have a right of refusal, as the modern feminist demands? The Genesis 2 account doesn't say anything about her first agreeing to God's giving her to Adam as his wife before she was given to him. And why should God have given her that right? He made her. He made her specifically to be Adam's wife. What right has she to tell her Maker what He will do with her? None. None at all. Read the last three chapters of the Book of Job where God makes this point very emphatically.

Do I think, then, that women today ought not to be free to choose their mate? Of course not. But the event in Genesis 2 where God unites Adam to Eve is, obviously, a singular one, no other human beings existing at the time and so no other spouse options available. And God did not intend that there should be other options or He would have made them. Today, though, the pool of options of spouse for a man is vast and with this change in options has come, quite properly, not just a choice for the man but a choice for the woman, too.

In the book of Ruth, Boaz and Ruth met in the field, and they ended up married with nobody "giving" Ruth away to Boaz.

Well, of course there wasn't anyone to give Ruth away; just read the story. Does Ruth, then, stand as the rule for marriage? Hardly. Instead, she is the exception that confirms the rule.

My view is biblical, yours is not. In Luke's account Mary is referred to as Joseph's BETROTHED wife, and that's only in NKJV; in other common bible translations it simply states "betrothed" or "PLEDGED to be married", no "wife" mentioned. You obviously don't know the difference.

This sort of jabbing retort doesn't help establish your view. In reality, I have been very biblical, referring repeatedly to Scripture that exposes your error. Not once have I added to the various texts I've offered to you, eisegetically interpreting them as you have done. As I see it, the very reverse of what you claim above is true. You've not been biblical - that is, faithful to the actual text of God's word - in asserting your views about sex and marriage very well at all.

So no negative consequence of sexual immorality is indicated in Scripture? "Will not inherit the kingdom" not included as one?

???

You're the one who obscures God's word by adding "wife" in Gen. 2:22, not me. You said that marriage was not forced by God upon Adam, he willingly accept her in 2:23, then how is that speculation?

See above.

Also, I said it was sheer speculation that Eve became Adam's wife only after he had agreed to accept her as such. The Genesis 2 account says no such thing about Adam receiving Eve as his wife. And Adam's later attempt to deflect responsibility for his sin onto God offers no ground, either, for your speculation. There's just no reasonable, sensible way, as far as I can see, to make his deflection indicative of his having chosen Eve as his wife.

In any event, this business about Adam choosing Eve is just a red herring and of no further interest to me.

 

[Tenchi]

Nowhere in the Scripture equates any male guardian's giving of the woman as God's giving, that's your crooked idea out of your antiquated patriarchal view.

Well, of course, you're free to think this of my view, but your doing so doesn't make it so. In reality, your labeling is just a deflection tactic, a fallacious effort to "poison the well" and distract from the substance of my remarks. And whether or not there is any explicit statement to the effect that a father gives his daughter in marriage as God gave Eve in marriage to Adam, the parallel between the two things described in Scripture is quite plain. I've made a case for why I say this, so I won't repeat my case here.

You've demonstrated nothing. You don't even understand difference between betrothal and marriage.

You often resort to this sort of thing when your arguments crumble....

Yes, you have. You said ideally she should be given by her father or other male guardian, that's man's doing against the woman's and/or the man's own will.

I pointed out what Scripture says. This is not the same as giving to you my own view. This is a simple distinction to make... It seems to me, you need to Strawman my view in order to distract from the collapse of your own.

No it wasn't. Neither Laban nor Bethuel deliberately sent out Rebekah to meet Abraham's servant at the well, it was God's arrangement, Laban and Bethuel merely acknowledged that. Laban didn't "give" Rebekah to Isaac the way he did with his daughters to Jacob.

Just more flat denial of the plain statement of Scripture. I guess it's in the nature of God's judgment on the one who denies His word that they have no qualms about doing so. Anyway, here, again, is what Scripture actually says:

Genesis 24:24
24 She [Rebekah] said to him, “I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, whom she bore to Nahor.”

Genesis 24:50-51
50 Then Laban [Rebekah's brother] and Bethuel [Rebekah's father] answered and said, “The thing has come from the LORD; we cannot speak to you bad or good.
51 Behold, Rebekah is before you; take her and go, and let her be the wife of your master’s son, as the LORD has spoken.”

That "ideal" is nothing but your own patriarchal view, you who lectured on me "description is not prescription" should get a taste of your own medicine.

Uh huh.

You're twisting the plain statement of Scripture. Rebekah came to the well voluntarily, it was God's arrangement, the fulfilment of His promise to Abraham. If you truly believe that God's giving is the timeless pattern which He set in Eden, then that was truly God's giving of Rebekah to Isaac - not Bethuel's or Laban's.

False dichotomy. It doesn't follow that if God arranged for Rebekah to be Isaac's wife that her father, Bethuel, didn't give her to Isaac. The two things aren't mutually exclusive, as the story illustrates - and they serve to further support my view.

You're bearing false witness against me. My view is that in the biblical narrative, marriage is initiated by BETROTHAL and ratified by sex, that's only pattern of God followed throughout Scripture when it comes down to marriage.

Nowhere in God's word does He command betrothal, or say that a marriage is "ratified" by the sex act. As I've shown from His word, marriages early-on in the record of Scripture were established upon a very different basis. God's method of marriage at the beginning was simply to give Eve to Adam as his wife, not girlfriend, or fiancee, or even as his betrothed.

Oh really? Then where was Jacob's decision - since he was the one who was supposed to determine? In the record of God's word, he heard of the rape but didn't make any decision, he entrusted his sons - Levi and Simeon - to handle it. From there on, Jacob didn't make a beep on anything until his sons slaughtered the whole city.

??? Was Dinah given to Shechem in marriage? No. And we know this because Jacob never gave her to Shechem as his wife. What's more, Jacob had not given the matter of Dinah's marriage to Shechem to be sorted out by his sons; they took matters into their own hands and in such a way as to garner their father's protest.

Genesis 34:30-31
30 Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You have brought trouble on me by making me stink to the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites and the Perizzites. My numbers are few, and if they gather themselves against me and attack me, I shall be destroyed, both I and my household.”
31 But they said, “Should he treat our sister like a prostitute?”

Nowhere in the Genesis 34 account concerning Dinah and her brothers is it ever said that Jacob had given it to his to see to their sister's situation. So, again, you're mishandling Scripture.

That sacrifice was not ratified as law, it was following a precedence set by God himself - He sacrificed an innocent animal to clothe Adam and Eve. (Gen. 3:21) There was no law until Moses received it from mount Sinai.

This is a purposeful talking past my point.

Since you repeatedly ignore and twist my point, why should I dignify yours?

If you want to yield the field of argument, just gracefully acknowledge you're in error and depart the discussion. These schoolyard retorts aren't helping your case any.

 

[Hidden In Him]

You've demonstrated nothing. You don't even understand difference between betrothal and marriage.

LOL! If you think Woke-speak is going to advance your view, you're wildly mistaken.

Gentlemen, these would be excellent and lively discussions if not for hostile comments that sour the entire thing for the reader. Editing posts, potentially banning participants from threads or shutting down threads altogether gets really old after awhile. Please address one another's points without insulting each other's character or intelligence. It's unnecessary, and it adds nothing to the discussion but rather significantly detracts from it.

Hidden

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

As the use of "wife" and "husband" in reference to Mary and Joseph in the Matthew 1 account demonstrate, they are virtually synonymous. And Joseph is called Mary's husband (and she his wife) before they had "come together" sexually. In fact, until Mary gave birth to Jesus, Joseph did not have relations with her. But this didn't mean they weren't husband and wife; the account states clearly that, for all intents and purposes, they were. The two travelled and lived together in the manner typical of a husband and wife, Mary going where Joseph went. And so, when Gabriel referred to them as husband and wife, I take him at his word, trusting that a heavenly messenger from God had a better understanding of the nature of their relationship than someone two millennia removed from Joseph and Mary.

No, they're not. In Luke's account Mary was only referred to as Joseph's BETROTHED, Angel Gabriel referred to Mary as BETROTHED wife, not my word, but Luke's in Luke 2:5. The biblical concept of BETROTHED is also exemplified in Ex. 22:16 where the virgin is considered as "not betrothed", betrothal is a vital step that precedes marriage. In the Nativity account, Mary was "a virgin BETROTHED to Joseph" (Lk. 1:27); throughout the journey from Galilee to Judea, Mary remained as Joseph's "betrothed". Scripture doesn't contradict itself, you do, you deliberately conflate "betrothed" with "married" and you double down on your error.

All the question does is confirm that the two were in a relationship with one another such that Mary becoming pregnant by someone other than Joseph would raise a question. And if they had not been essentially husband and wife, as the Gospel account in Matthew says they were, then Mary's pregnancy would not have been something over which Joseph would have needed to consider divorcing (putting away) Mary. I don't see, then, that the question of Jesus's birth helps your case any.

Jesus was called born of FORNICATION - not adultery. Had Joseph and Mary been publicly acknowledged as a married couple, the accusation on Jesus's questionable birth would be adultery. Fornication, on the other hand, refers to all kinds of sexually immoral behaviors, especially OUTSIDE of wedlock such as premarital sex, and that was the public's perception. Also, "putting away" doesn't mean divorce. If it were a divorce, annulment or any announcement to end their relationship, that would actually be a public humiliation of her by "making her a public example", "putting away" is quite the opposite of "making her a public example".

??? This isn't the only reason. I realize it serves your view to say so, but it isn't so. The reason Jesus's birth was scandalous had to do with the fact that, in the eyes of the Jewish community and God (attested to by Gabriel), Joseph and Mary were husband and wife. That Mary had been made pregnant apart from Joseph in this circumstance is understandably a serious problem. But it was so, again, because they were, as Gabriel said, husband and wife.

No, in the eyes of the Jewish community, Mary was only betrothed to Joseph, and she did not have sex with him. Had they been perceived as a legally wedded couple, there would be no such scandal on Jesus's birth. You don't know the difference between fornication and adultery as much as you don't know the difference between betrothal and marriage, those are not synonymous as you think they are.

But its not "confirmed" by the sex act. This is nowhere stated in Scripture. Sex is the normal consequence of a couple being husband and wife, but sexual relations have nothing to do with how they are made husband and wife any more than using the oars of a boat you're sitting in to paddle around a lake is what makes you an occupant of the boat. No, you have to be an occupant of the boat before paddling the boat around with its oars. The paddling is just the effect of being in the boat, not the means of being in the boat. So, too, sex and marriage. Sex is the natural, normal effect of marriage, not the means of being married. This is, as I've shown, what the Bible indicates repeatedly.

Marriage must be confirmed by the sex act, this is indicated in the Scripture wherever it says one "knew" his wife, starting from Gen. 4:1 where Adam KNEW his Eve. Why not just straightforward move to the conception of Cain? The purpose of this statement is a confirmation of the marriage like signatures on a contract, it cannot be skipped or trivialized as a mere "natural consequence" or marriage. In fact, in Jewish culture, sex is a well-intended, mindfully scheduled activity right after the woman's "purification bath", which is usually two weeks after her monthly bleeding, then she rejoins her husband in bed at the peak of her fertility when she's most likely to be pregnant, that's proven science behind the statement "he knew her and she conceived". Your view is a secular, humanistic view, not a biblical view.

This is your Strawman contortion of my view. In point of fact, I've never made any such conflation. I understand, though, that you might think it helps your view to misrepresent mine.

This is your cognitive dissonance. As long as you call betrothal and marriage synonyms, you're conflating the two. You have no view, only blindness.

??? I don't recall any "ratification" of the marriage of Adam to Eve. In the account in Genesis 2, there's no "and so Adam lay with Eve and thus they became husband and wife." They simply were husband and wife, made so by God prior to any relations they enjoyed with one another.

In the account in Genesis 2, God created Eve out of Adam and presented her to him, nowhere in 2:22 says or implies that God wedded them like a priest weds a couple at the alter, that's you reading your own perception into the text. They BECAME husband and wife upon Adam's acceptance of Eve in 2:23 out of his own free will, he didn't ask God to make a wife for him, neither did God forcefully impose such an arrangement upon him. Still up to this point, you're distorting my view by conflating "making of a marriage" with "ratification of a marriage" because, once again, you don't know the difference.

Genesis 2:18-25
18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

Would God, being perfect, make Eve less than "fit" for Adam so that Adam would have to consider whether or not he would accept Eve as his "helper" (i.e wife)? Is Eve ever asked if she wants to be Adam's wife? Does she get a chance to consent to God's arrangement of them as husband and wife? No.

19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.
21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

Here, Eve's creation is unique from all the other creatures God had so far made, being extracted from Adam's own body, not formed from the ground, as every beast of the field and bird of the air had been. She was not just another creature brought to Adam for inspection and naming but his "helper," his wife.

"i.e. wife" is your own misinterpretation. "Helper" is an "equal partner" as opposed to the animals - among which none is a "helper comparable to him" in terms of spiritual status. In fact, the Holy Spirit is referred to as the "Helper" in both old and new testaments, is the Holy Spirit anybody's wife? This is biblical concordance, the bible interprets itself and defines its own words.

I will lift up my eyes to the hills—
From whence comes my help?
My help comes from the Lord,
Who made heaven and earth. (Ps. 121:1-2)

Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. (Jn. 16:6)

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Here, the conclusion of this account of Eve's creation and her being given to Adam indicates that God's giving Eve to Adam in unique relationship to him as his helper is the pattern for all human marriage relationships in which husband and wife are to "leave mother and father" and "hold fast" to one another. For the purpose of this discussion, though, verse 25 is very important, for it clarifies that the relationship of Adam to Eve was that of "man and wife" not merely man and girlfriend, or man and fiancee.

The conclusion is an established marital procedure - 2:22, betrothal; 2:23, marriage; 2:24, consummation. No step shall be skipped, and the order shall not be reserved. Ex. 22:16-17 presents a scenario where the betrothal and marriage are skipped, a scoundrel directly enticed a woman into sex, in that case the betrothal and marriage must be retrospectively made up with a bride price in order to complete the procedure and make her his wife. If the marriage proposal is rejected, a bride price is still required, either way it must be paid as a conpensation.

The importance of verse 25, however, lies neither in Adam and Eve's inmodesty or their marital status, but their intimacy and innocence without any inhibition, this is exhibited by its stark contrast with their frantic behavior in Gen. 3:7 - what was the first thing they did after they ate the forbidden fruit? Cover themselves and hide from the Lord. When they were caught, Adam immediately blamed Eve and subtly blamed the Lord for giving Eve to him, that close relationship went sour, that intimacy and innocence were lost. Again, this is letting the Scripture interpret itself, not sneaking personal remarks into God's word just to make an argument.

He is guilty of sexual immorality - fornication or adultery, depending upon his marital status and has no relationship to the prostitute except as one sexual sinner using another sexual sinner to sin sexually (to the financial profit of the prostitute).

I was asking about "relational condition", not a charge. Whatever he's guilty of, it has nothing to do with your previous argument which was centered around a change of "relational condition". Since you admit he has "no relationship to the prostitute", his relationship with his parents does not change, he doesn't leave his parents and cleave to the prostitute, that debunks your ridiculous argument of "oppositional parallel".

Right. Joining one's body to a prostitute's body is, as Paul indicated in 1 Corinthians 6, not a ratification of marriage to the prostitute, but mere sexual immorality that the "john" ought to cease. He does so, not by acknowledging the prostitute as his wife, but by never having anything more to do with her.

Nonetheless joining to a prostitute makes one flesh union, and that has devastating consequences, especially a negative psychological impact to future relationships, which you dismissed and denied.

??? Insofar as being "one flesh" refers to the sex act, the expression is applicable to any such act - even of a homosexual or bestial sort. Being "one flesh" in a sexual way is not unique to marriage, obviously.

In any case, this is all a deflection from what I pointed out about Genesis 2:24:

"Genesis 2:24
24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

"Be joined to his wife" is set in oppositional parallel to "leave his father and mother," the two conditions linked such that the latter explains what is meant by the former. In other words, what is meant by "joined to his wife" is "has left father and mother." What's in view is relational condition, not sexual activity (obviously, one doesn't leave off sexual relations with one's parents to take up sexual relations with one's wife). A man leaves the familial relationship he has with his parents, joined to them as their child in a dynamic where his parents are central figures in his day-to-day living (he's in their house, eating their food, obeying them, etc.), and takes up a new marital relationship, joined to a woman as his wife, who occupies the central place in his day-to-day living that his parents once occupied. As a consequence of this change of relationship, the husband and wife "become one flesh" physically. This order of things is plainly indicated in verse 24:

1. A man leaves his parents.
2. A man joins himself to a wife.
3. The man and his wife become one flesh.

Sex is the last thing to mark the marital relationship, being the result of a man and woman becoming husband and wife, not the means of their marital state."

Of course it's not unique to marriage, it was YOUR argument which repeatedly pounded on the term "wife" - as though Gen. 2:24 is limited to marriage which results in a change of "relational condition" from familial relationship to marital relationship, but not an iota of that is applicable in Paul's interpretation of that verse. This is not a deflection, but invalidation of your argument built on a false premise - which you double down, once again. As I've pointed out, neither did the john "leave his parents" nor "join his wife", what's in the view is nothing but sexual activity. As far as Paul's concerned, the only relationship being jeopardized is the relationship with God, as sexual immorality with a prostitute defiles the body which is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and I believe apostle Paul had a better understanding of the Torah than someone two millennia removed from the early church. You can ruminate your own silly words and repost them a hundred times, that's nothing but your own deflection from what was originally the topic of the debate, which was Paul's quote of Gen. 2:24 in 1 Cor. 6:16.

LOL! If you think Woke-speak is going to advance your view, you're wildly mistaken.

I don't know what you mean by "woke-speak", you're the one who conflates words, and you're the one who does the trolling. All I did was honestly pointing out your erroes in a respectful, albeit harsh manner. How about you lay down your arrogance and heed the mod's admonition?

Again, did God ask Eve what she wanted before He gave her to Adam? Did she have a right of refusal, as the modern feminist demands? The Genesis 2 account doesn't say anything about her first agreeing to God's giving her to Adam as his wife before she was given to him. And why should God have given her that right? He made her. He made her specifically to be Adam's wife. What right has she to tell her Maker what He will do with her? None. None at all. Read the last three chapters of the Book of Job where God makes this point very emphatically.

What's clearly and plainly stated - twice is that a woman does have a right of refusal, as in the case of Isaac's potential bride, that's not a "modern feminist demand", but basic human dignity, not being treated like an animal or a piece of property. If you truly believe that Eve was made as Adam's "helper", then you should've fully acknowledged that,

Do I think, then, that women today ought not to be free to choose their mate? Of course not.

Yes you do, as long as you equate God's giving with man's giving, by doing so you're practically denying woman's right to choose - or not choose - her own mate, and espousing oppressive patriarchy over a woman's own autonomy.

Well, of course there wasn't anyone to give Ruth away; just read the story. Does Ruth, then, stand as the rule for marriage? Hardly. Instead, she is the exception that confirms the rule.

That's not an "exception to the rule", and that's far from an isolated anomoly. Just take a look at the other women named in Lord Jesus's genealogy, was Rahab the harlot "given" to Boaz's father by anbody? Who made the one flesh union of Tamar and Judah but Tamar herself? And what about Bethsheba, did Urial her husband, her father or her grandfather "gave" her to king David? According to various sermons and bible studies, she deliberately seduced king David by bathing on the roof.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

This sort of jabbing retort doesn't help establish your view. In reality, I have been very biblical, referring repeatedly to Scripture that exposes your error. Not once have I added to the various texts I've offered to you, eisegetically interpreting them as you have done. As I see it, the very reverse of what you claim above is true. You've not been biblical - that is, faithful to the actual text of God's word - in asserting your views about sex and marriage very well at all.

I but let the bible interpret itself, it is you who impose your own view on God's word, adding "wife" to Gen. 2:22 is one egregious example. You're not following God's order of events, you revised the past with what suits the present in your retrospective view, and you're still in denial.

I suggest you read this passage below carefully. King Abimelech "took" Sarah in which Abraham acquiesed, he "took" her in the same sense Joseph "took" Mary as wife, but the marriage was not ratified by consummation. Later it was the Lord who gave him a warning in his dream, He didn't let Abimelech "touch" Sarah, which obviously referred to as sex act - as it was defined in 1 Cor. 7:1. Had he "touched" Sarah, he would be guilty of adultery, and the greater consequence to Abraham would be the factual desolution of his marriage with Sarah by sexual immorality - "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” It was possible for the king to RESTORE Sarah since he was restrained by God from committing sexual immorality with her. Therefore sex is far more than a simple "natural consequence", it holds the power to ratify or dissolve a marriage. All of these is God's view and claim, not mine.

And Abraham journeyed from there to the South, and dwelt between Kadesh and Shur, and stayed in Gerar. Now Abraham said of Sarah his wife, “She is my sister.” And Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah. But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, “Indeed you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man’s wife.” But Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, “Lord, will You slay a righteous nation also? Did he not say to me, ‘She is my sister’? And she, even she herself said, ‘He is my brother.’ In the integrity of my heart and innocence of my hands I have done this.”And God said to him in a dream, “Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart. For I also withheld you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her. Now therefore, restore the man’s wife; for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you shall live. But if you do not restore her, know that you shall surely die, you and all who are yours.”(Gen. 20:1-7)

See above.

Also, I said it was sheer speculation that Eve became Adam's wife only after he had agreed to accept her as such. The Genesis 2 account says no such thing about Adam receiving Eve as his wife. And Adam's later attempt to deflect responsibility for his sin onto God offers no ground, either, for your speculation. There's just no reasonable, sensible way, as far as I can see, to make his deflection indicative of his having chosen Eve as his wife.

In any event, this business about Adam choosing Eve is just a red herring and of no further interest to me.

What is sheer speculation is your perception of Eve already being Adam's wife in 2:22. In Genesis 2 account, Eve was created as Adam's helper - an equal partner comparable to him, and she remained in that capacity until she was officially called his "wife" in 2:24, the transition from "helper" to "wife" took place in 2:23 where Adam accepted Eve as "flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone", that's not speculation, but reasonable, logical conclusion. It is you who consistently conflates different biblical concepts - "helper" with "wife", "betrothal" with "marriage", "God's giving" with "man's giving", and you have the audacity to accuse me of "woke speak"?