The Origin of Marriage

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

My belief: ALL "evidence" shall be evaluated honestly and equally, that includes biblical amd secular.

So, if the historians who say that the Sumerians "invented marriage" refuse to consider the evidence I cited from Genesis 2, you would therefore accept the decision of the historians over the plain biblical evidence that they are wrong?

 

[AlexBC]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

So, if the historians who say that the Sumerians "invented marriage" refuse to consider the evidence I cited from Genesis 2, you would therefore accept the decision of the historians over the plain biblical evidence that they are wrong?

The problem with using Genesis2 as historical evidence is that there are no other pieces of contemporary historical record to support it.

I'm pretty sure we even have some translated divorce documents from around 2500BC from the Sumer.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

The problem with using Genesis2 as historical evidence is that there are no other pieces of contemporary historical record to support it.

I don't think you're getting my point. We would have to reject the entire Bible if it depended on extrabiblical proof. Your viewpoint is flawed. God is the only authority we need. Even if you can only accept the early works of the Bible as allegorical rather than anecdotal, the truth of Who established marriage would still stand.

I'm pretty sure we even have some translated divorce documents from around 2500BC from the Sumer.

And, begging your pardon, who cares?

 

[Jared]

Interesting conversation.

Marriage pre-dating the bible is not a problem. It is analogous to Mat 5, the sermon on the mount. That scripture is descriptive not prescriptive. This is what the kingdom of God is like, and Jesus lays it out.

The account of Adam and Eve is descriptive, not prescriptive. The nature of things predates the description of things. The nature of marriage predates the biblical description of how humanity works. Humanity was created a certain way. As we function according to said design we flourish. The bible describes how to flourish and how not to flourish. How it has occurred in the past and the remedy for us to be able to reestablish a proper functioning humanity.

Fighting our design has gone on long before the bible. Yet, we see the evidence of mans similarity in the evidence of the various cultures similar stories, values, and basic cultural concerns. They are manifested differently but ultimately, man has always had ethical, moral, and creator questions. I think this speaks for the truth of a creator not against.

 

[Atothetheist]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

I think you're correct.

We got derailed by Ato refusing to accept the necessity of a homosapien pair for the propagation of the species.

Their is no necessity. You are just plain wrong.

 

[Atothetheist]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

So, if the historians who say that the Sumerians "invented marriage" refuse to consider the evidence I cited from Genesis 2, you would therefore accept the decision of the historians over the plain biblical evidence that they are wrong?

The problem with Genesis is that it has been conclusively denied.

Unless you are a YEC, then there is no argument, because I am a evolutionist, and a nonbeliever, the book, to me, is an account of myths.

Their are biblical historians, and their are real historians. By real historians I don't mean to get you to think one is better than the other, I was just commenting on how there are historians of the Bible, and i believe they would accept that marriage was never originally Jewish, nor Christian.

Genesis is no longer evidence, it has been disproven as a literal creation account.

 

[Atothetheist]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

I don't think you're getting my point. We would have to reject the entire Bible if it depended on extrabiblical proof. Your viewpoint is flawed. God is the only authority we need. Even if you can only accept the early works of the Bible as allegorical rather than anecdotal, the truth of Who established marriage would still stand.And, begging your pardon, who cares?

Sumers were not christian, nor Jewish, yet they had the institution of marriage, which concludes three things.

One, The Sumers were able to construct a system of marriage, without the belief in YHWH.

Two, YHWH helped them contruct such a marriage system.

Or three, All of the documents were forged, and this is just one big mistake.

Genesis two is not evidence because it is basedmon a myth, and a creation accnt we have concluded did not happen the way as described.

We know that the first ever organisms to produce offspring were Asexual, and aseuality still continues today.

 

[Free]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

The problem with Genesis is that it has been conclusively denied.

Unless you are a YEC, then there is no argument, because I am a evolutionist, and a nonbeliever, the book, to me, is an account of myths.

Their are biblical historians, and their are real historians.

Genesis is no longer evidence, it has been disproven as a literal creation account.

Wow. A lot of unsupported assumptions in that there post.

 

[Atothetheist]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

Wow. A lot of unsupported assumptions in that there post.

Would you like me to teach you basic biology? Or how about the Big Bang theory?

I made the post revelent to the topic.

If you want me to comment on that fully, I will be MORE than happy to do so.

 

[Atothetheist]

Interesting conversation.

Marriage pre-dating the bible is not a problem. It is analogous to Mat 5, the sermon on the mount. That scripture is descriptive not prescriptive. This is what the kingdom of God is like, and Jesus lays it out.

The account of Adam and Eve is descriptive, not prescriptive. The nature of things predates the description of things. The nature of marriage predates the biblical description of how humanity works. Humanity was created a certain way. As we function according to said design we flourish. The bible describes how to flourish and how not to flourish. How it has occurred in the past and the remedy for us to be able to reestablish a proper functioning humanity.

Fighting our design has gone on long before the bible. Yet, we see the evidence of mans similarity in the evidence of the various cultures similar stories, values, and basic cultural concerns. They are manifested differently but ultimately, man has always had ethical, moral, and creator questions. I think this speaks for the truth of a creator not against.

Just because people want to know how they came into being does not at all mean that it supports a God hypothesis.

Back then people had a thought that only superioir beings could create us, and they based it off of that.

The need for a creator doesn't valid the claim of the creator in any sense.

 

[Free]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

Would you like me to teach you basic biology? Or how about the Big Bang theory?

I made the post revelent to the topic.

If you want me to comment on that fully, I will be MORE than happy to do so.

I'm sure you would be but I find little disagreement, as there is more than one way of looking at what is stated in Genesis, not to mention the Bible doesn't set out to be a book on science.

I'm more concerned with the fallacious statement that "There are biblical historians, and there are real historians." There will be both good and poor historians on all sides but you would rather poison the well with a generalization. Biblical historians are real historians; they aren't necessarily "fake" or "pseudo" historians merely because you disagree with some things they say.

 

[TonkaTim]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

We got derailed by Ato refusing to accept the necessity of a homosapien pair for the propagation of the species.

Their is no necessity. You are just plain wrong.

All one has to understand is basic logic.

prop·a·ga·tion (prp-gshn)
n.
1. Multiplication or increase, as by natural reproduction.

For homosapien, propagation takes a pair(two) - 1 unique male + 1 unique female.

I'm sorry you refuse to accept the very most basic fundamentals of the science called biology. This is universally accepted & taught in elementary school all over the world.

 

[Atothetheist]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

All one has to understand is basic logic.

prop·a·ga·tion (prp-gshn)
n.
1. Multiplication or increase, as by natural reproduction.

For homosapien, propagation takes a pair(two) - 1 unique male + 1 unique female.

I'm sorry you refuse to accept the very most basic fundamentals of the science called biology. This is universally accepted & taught in elementary school all over the world.

Different breeds of dogs can sucsessfully copulate with eachother, it doesn't take two border collies, all it needs is a border collie and another dog.

This is the same with humans, we could have possible mated with subspeicies to get our soecies going, and then resorted to Homo Sapien and Homo Sapien sex.

 

[Jared]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

This is the same with humans, we could have possibly mated with subspeicies to get our soecies going, and then resorted to Homo Sapien and Homo Sapien sex.

At least you admit you are making bold assumptions.

 

[Atothetheist]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

At least you admit you are making bold assumptions.

Well, it is a safe bet, Jared.

After all, we know its possible, and it might have even happened.

This whole arguement was about wether or not two homo sapiens needed to, together, apear. I gave a counter arguement and all so far I have heard is: Nope, Nope.

I have linked to multiple SCIENTIFIC sourses that say "Quite possibly."

 

[Jared]

Just because people want to know how they came into being does not at all mean that it supports a God hypothesis.

Back then people had a thought that only superioir beings could create us, and they based it off of that.

The need for a creator doesn't valid the claim of the creator in any sense.

What if we are created to function a certain way? If marriage (between a man and woman) is the expression of people functioning as their design the result should be positive. The result is the human race continues. If marriage(between a man and woman) is not an expression of people functioning per their design the result would be negative.

What if we are created to function a certain way? If so, and you can follow that marriage is an expression of proper functioning between the sexes, is marriage of societal value? Can you see any evidence in our culture and society where traditional marriage is not functioning and the consequences are negative? IF, when marriage(between a man and woman) collapses does society flourish? Could this be an indicator of an inherent truth of its value and need to be supported?

I think you are fighting marriage because you have an issue with God, not marriage. Marriage is your straw man.

 

[Atothetheist]

Re: Chick-fil-A: True Censorship

I'm sure you would be but I find little disagreement, as there is more than one way of looking at what is stated in Genesis, not to mention the Bible doesn't set out to be a book on science.

I'm more concerned with the fallacious statement that "There are biblical historians, and there are real historians." There will be both good and poor historians on all sides but you would rather poison the well with a generalization. Biblical historians are real historians; they aren't necessarily "fake" or "pseudo" historians merely because you disagree with some things they say.

I actually editted the original post to clarify what I meant before you wrote this up.

 

[Atothetheist]

What if we are created to function a certain way? If marriage (between a man and woman) is the expression of people functioning as their design the result should be positive. The result is the human race continues. If marriage(between a man and woman) is not an expression of people functioning per their design the result would be negative.

What if we are created to function a certain way? If so, and you can follow that marriage is an expression of proper functioning between the sexes, is marriage of societal value? Can you see any evidence in our culture and society where traditional marriage is not functioning and the consequences are negative? IF, when marriage(between a man and woman) collapses does society flourish? Could this be an indicator of an inherent truth of its value and need to be supported?

I think you are fighting marriage because you have an issue with God, not marriage. Marriage is your straw man.

First of all, you can have sex without marriage. And that sex without marriage also produces children. We were Evolved to procreate, and we were evolved to take care of our offspring.

And yet, Jared, notice how none of my arguments towards marriage have any direct consequence towards God's existance.

I have not made a comment besides clarified about what the Bible means to me.

I am presenting evidence that first marriages were not as God had ordered them to be, they were group marriages, and homosexuals were allowed to marry as well.

None of these arguments I put forth directly have to do with God's existence.

Good job on picking up the wrong implications there.

 

[Atothetheist]

What if we are created to function a certain way? If marriage (between a man and woman) is the expression of people functioning as their design the result should be positive. The result is the human race continues. If marriage(between a man and woman) is not an expression of people functioning per their design the result would be negative.

What if we are created to function a certain way? If so, and you can follow that marriage is an expression of proper functioning between the sexes, is marriage of societal value? Can you see any evidence in our culture and society where traditional marriage is not functioning and the consequences are negative? IF, when marriage(between a man and woman) collapses does society flourish? Could this be an indicator of an inherent truth of its value and need to be supported?

I think you are fighting marriage because you have an issue with God, not marriage. Marriage is your straw man.

I am not fighting marriage, I am fighting the claim that One Man and one women was the original ways to marry; its not.

I am also arguing that marriage precedes christianity, and, some reports hint at, Judaism.

I do not claim that marriage is a bad thing, but that christianity, nor judaism is the founding of marriage.

 

[Free]

Speaking about marriage, I would like to know your interpretation of this, honestly curious:

■Marriage consists of one man and one or more than one woman (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).

■Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines or sexual slaves in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).

■A man might choose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man’s wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or a relative (Lev 18:11, 20:17, Lev 20:14, Lev 18:18). The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is not in the Bible.

■If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned to death (Deut 22:13-21).

■A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29), unless she was already a fiancé, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).

■If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).

■Women must marry the man of their father’s choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17).

■Women are the property of their fathers until married and the property of their husbands thereafter (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).

■The value of a woman might be approximately seven years’ work (Gen 29:14-30).

■Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14).

■Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39).

■It is better to not get married at all—although marriage is not a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).

This is a friend of mines observation, I would like to see something to respond to him back.

You might be honestly curious but I'm quite certain that BB isn't looking for answers to these supposed problems with Christianity. Tell him that exceptions do not prove the rule false, especially when they are based on laws that are so largely misunderstood.

God's intent for marriage has always been one man and one woman. That God permitted something else for a specific people, at specific points in time, for specific reasons does not mean that there is any contradiction or change to the rule. Most of those are beyond the scope of this thread.