WHAT IS TRUE MARRIAGE?

July 16, 2004

interesting, your interpretation of scriptures. i see no instance in scripture, even under the hebrew definitions of the word, in which concubine and wife are interchangeable.

and no, i didn't read deuteronomy wrong. first the man rapes the virgin, then he, under law, must pay the father fifty sheckels, and she SHALL be his wife, because he stole her virginity.

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

notice the order of events. first he has sex with her, and then he "shall pay" the father of the raped woman, and then she "shall be" his wife.

in no way can this be interpreted to mean she already had become his wife. he had humbled her... he had raped her. look up the hebrew definition. you'll find 'force', defiled', and other descriptive terms included in the definition.

furthermore, the marriage was not contingent. if the man lied and was proven wrong, he was NOT allowed to divorce her, EVER. he was made to pay a fine to her parents for having sullied her name. if it was proven that he had not lied, then the woman had to die by stoning.

divorce was not an option, either way.

sorry, i disagree with your assessment. wait, no i'm not sorry. i just disagree.

July 16, 2004

one more thing... where do you come up with leah and rachel being jacob's servants? jacob served their father for 7 years, and then another 7. they were certainly not HIS handmaids, and since they lived in their father's house, they couldn't have been someone else's handmaids either... unless you're implying they were their father's handmaids?

truthnluv · July 16, 2004

one more thing... where do you come up with leah and rachel being jacob's servants? jacob served their father for 7 years, and then another 7. they were certainly not HIS handmaids, and since they lived in their father's house, they couldn't have been someone else's handmaids either... unless you're implying they were their father's handmaids?

Jacob married Leah, Rachel, and the two handmaids. The handmaids were initially the servants of Leah and Rachel.

truthnluv · July 16, 2004

interesting, your interpretation of scriptures. i see no instance in scripture, even under the hebrew definitions of the word, in which concubine and wife are interchangeable.

and no, i didn't read deuteronomy wrong. first the man rapes the virgin, then he, under law, must pay the father fifty sheckels, and she SHALL be his wife, because he stole her virginity.

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

notice the order of events. first he has sex with her, and then he "shall pay" the father of the raped woman, and then she "shall be" his wife.

in no way can this be interpreted to mean she already had become his wife. he had humbled her... he had raped her. look up the hebrew definition. you'll find 'force', defiled', and other descriptive terms included in the definition.

furthermore, the marriage was not contingent. if the man lied and was proven wrong, he was NOT allowed to divorce her, EVER. he was made to pay a fine to her parents for having sullied her name. if it was proven that he had not lied, then the woman had to die by stoning.

divorce was not an option, either way.

sorry, i disagree with your assessment. wait, no i'm not sorry. i just disagree.

To humble a woman does not mean to force her. That is a lie you just made up off the top of your head. Deuteronomy 21:14 Read it. It has NOTHING to do with force.

The situation in Deuteronomy is obvious even in the english construction of the verse. It is also obvious in the Hebrew. You don't see it because you don't want to see it.

The man in Deut. 22 could only be proven wrong if there were no tokens of virginity(bloody sheets) for the woman. The legitamacy of the marriage WAS contingent upon her virginity. The bloody sheets either proved her virginity and the man could never divorce her. Or they could not be produced and she would be stoned for having sex with more than one man while the first man was still alive(adultery).

July 16, 2004

Could anybody here, Mods, just delete this topic, or at least close it. I agree with Kay above, it is not edifying to, or for anyone. It serves no purpose other than to divide.

In His Love,

Bro John

July 16, 2004

When a man has sex with a virgin she becomes his wife

So then technically, I'm not only married to my husband, but I'm also married to the guy I dated that worked in the lab at the hospital, right?

Kat

truthnluv · July 16, 2004

When a man has sex with a virgin she becomes his wife

So then technically, I'm not only married to my husband, but I'm also married to the guy I dated that worked in the lab at the hospital, right?

Kat

Read my previous post for what constitutes a marriage and the exception clauses for Christian women.

truthnluv · July 16, 2004

Could anybody here, Mods, just delete this topic, or at least close it. I agree with Kay above, it is not edifying to, or for anyone. It serves no purpose other than to divide.

In His Love,

Bro John

It's edifying for someone who wants to walk in the light of God's word.

It's edifying if someone is living in adultery and this truth gets them back in fellowship

It's edifying if someone is married and doesn't realize it

It's edifying if someone wants to follow God's ways instead of the world's

It's edifying if someone wants to follow God's ways instead of their own

Anyone who reads this post can look at what I say versus what you say and come to their own conclusions. Lots of people have questions about sex and marriage and they can get various opinions from this thread to help them live a holy life.

If you don't like this thread then please don't read it or follow it. I wouldn't mind if you ignored it completely since you've already decided to reject the truth.

If you ever decide you have any legitimate disagreements or questions that would be great.

In His Love

July 16, 2004

no, it's not edifying. you accused me of making up a lie off the top of my head when i absolutely did no such thing. perhaps you should study deut a little closer. the word 'humbled' in hebrew includes force and defiled in its definition, among other non-forceful words. the context of the scriptures i was referring to indicates the use of force. the passage itself, in KJV english, says:

Deuteronomy 22
25

stevehut · July 16, 2004

Lady C,

I agree this thread has taken a dangerous turn. But instead of being deleted, maybe it should just be closed, so that people could still read it. People need to be aware of the variety of views that are out there, even among "Christians".

BTW, I like your little slideshow. How'd u do that?