Homosexual marriage II

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

You are reading a bit too much into the good book. Marriage, as a social construct, did not even exist at the time that the Genesis was developed. "Wife" in the above context is simply our best modern conception of the relationships that existed at that point in time.

BJ, your historicity is abysmally lacking. Before you publicly display such lack of knowledge, at least check out wikipedia. Not to mention your atrociously inaccurate projection of anachronism by projection of the modern "wife" into the text under discussion. This is classic erroneous postmodernism at its finest. Thanks for the exemplary nature of the process.

What by the way, is the wedding breakfast bit, Butterbeer? I have never heard of it and would be most eager to learn from your "most reliably informed" source(s). BTW, my only wish for a time machine would be to correct certain errors in my own life, but I have the suspicion that the past being fixed, I could not do so as traveling into the past would erase the knowledge I have earned/learned the hard way. Thank God for forgiveness, redemption, and regeneration!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Or is that actually the point you are making?

All the Genesis text points to is the joining of man and woman. It makes no mention of the duration or restrictions around such a joining. It simply describes the nature of it.

Matthew has some quotes from Jesus on the matters of divorce and such, but that's the new testament. It's why Jews and Christian's see divorce differently even though they share the same Genesis.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Unless I'm missing something, your previous claim has been seriously downgraded. It certainly looked like before, you were making a positive claim that what was going on in the passage in question is not marriage in any recognizable sense (presumably, at least, if marriage didn't exist, itself a surprising claim, since Genesis only dates, IIRC, to around 500 B. C. E.), whereas now, you seem to withdrawn to a more agnostic position that it does not specify precisely what is going on.

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

All the Genesis text points to is the joining of man and woman. It makes no mention of the duration or restrictions around such a joining. It simply describes the nature of it.

Matthew has some quotes from Jesus on the matters of divorce and such, but that's the new testament. It's why Jews and Christian's see divorce differently even though they share the same Genesis.

Hmmm, in the context of only one man and one woman, who are subsequently described as living together until death and raising children who out do their parents in sin (inventing murder, Cain) and in seeking God appropriately when He asks for sacrifice (Abel). Nope, nothing there about fidelity, reproduction, family life and monogamy, no sireeeeeee!

[Midge]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

All the Genesis text points to is the joining of man and woman. It makes no mention of the duration or restrictions around such a joining. It simply describes the nature of it.

But duration is EXACTLY what it's talking about when it says "A man shall leave his father and mother and CLEAVE to his wife." The cleaving isn't the act of intercourse. It's the act of being bonded to one person so closely that you don't leave them for the rest of your life because they're literally part of you. The "one flesh" reference IS talking about intercourse in one sense, but it's also talking about duration in another sense. "One flesh" cannot be severed and survive. Slicing open and gutting a deer or a fish that was still alive would certainly mean death to the animal.

[Jonathan]

A friend of mine is a theologian, who regularly compares various Bible translations, studies available interpretations and takes the relevant Zeitgeist into consideration - all to get as close as possible to the original meanings of biblical texts.
Maybe I can ask him to look into Genesis 2:24.

[brownjenkins]

It's always amusing how much biblicals choose to read into a handful of words when it works for them, and how much they don't when it doesn't.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

It's true. The Bible is often used selectively to support a particular political or social agenda. People use the Bible to challenge others more than allowing it to challenge themselves.

[The Gaffer]

No, I think the bible might be onto something here, or at least the gospel according to Miriam Webster:

CLEAVE:

transitive verb
1 : to divide by or as if by a cutting blow : split
2 : to separate into distinct parts and especially into groups having divergent views
3 : to subject to chemical cleavage <a protein cleaved by an enzyme>

2) seems particularly apposite in the context of my first marriage...

[inked]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cleave

cleave
- 7 dictionary results
cleave
1    /kliv/ Show Spelled[kleev] Show IPA
–verb (used without object), cleaved or ( Archaic ) clave; cleaved; cleav·ing.
1.
to adhere closely; stick; cling (usually fol. by to ).
2.
to remain faithful (usually fol. by to ): to cleave to one's principles in spite of persecution.
Origin:
bef. 900; ME cleven, OE cleofian, c. OHG klebēn (G kleben )

—Related forms
cleav·ing·ly, adverb

cleave
- 7 dictionary results
cleave
1    /kliv/ Show Spelled[kleev] Show IPA
–verb (used without object), cleaved or ( Archaic ) clave; cleaved; cleav·ing.
1.
to adhere closely; stick; cling (usually fol. by to ).
2.
to remain faithful (usually fol. by to ): to cleave to one's principles in spite of persecution.
Origin:
bef. 900; ME cleven, OE cleofian, c. OHG klebēn (G kleben )


cleave
2    /kliv/ Show Spelled [kleev] Show IPA verb, cleft or cleaved or clove, cleft or cleaved or clo·ven, cleav·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1.
to split or divide by or as if by a cutting blow, esp. along a natural line of division, as the grain of wood.
2.
to make by or as if by cutting: to cleave a path through the wilderness.
3.
to penetrate or pass through (air, water, etc.): The bow of the boat cleaved the water cleanly.
4.
to cut off; sever: to cleave a branch from a tree.
–verb (used without object)
5.
to part or split, esp. along a natural line of division.
6.
to penetrate or advance by or as if by cutting (usually fol. by through ).
Origin:
bef. 950; ME cleven, OE clēofan, c. OHG klioban (G klieben ), ON kljūfa; akin to Gk glýphein to carve, L glūbere to peel

—Synonyms
1. halve, rend, rive.

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.


cleave 1 (klēv)
v. cleft (klěft) or cleaved or clove (klōv), cleft or cleaved or clo·ven (klō'vən), cleav·ing , cleaves

v. tr.

1.

To split with or as if with a sharp instrument. See Synonyms at tear1 .
2.

To make or accomplish by or as if by cutting: cleave a path through the ice.
3.

To pierce or penetrate: The wings cleaved the foggy air.
4.

Chemistry To split (a complex molecule) into simpler molecules.

v. intr.

1.

Mineralogy To split or separate, especially along a natural line of division.
2.

To penetrate or pass through something, such as water or air.


[Middle English cleven , from Old English clēofan ; see gleubh- in Indo-European roots.]
cleav'a·ble adj.

cleave 2 (klēv)
intr.v. cleaved , cleav·ing , cleaves

1.

To adhere, cling, or stick fast.
2.

To be faithful: cleave to one's principles.


[Middle English cleven , from Old English cleofian .]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Word Origin & History

cleave
"to split," O.E. cleofan "to split, separate" (class II strong verb, past tense cleaf, past participle clofen ), from P.Gmc. *kleubanan, from PIE base *gleubh- "to cut, slice." Past tense form clave is recorded in Northern writers from 14c. and was used with both verbs (see cleave (2)), apparently by analogy with other ME strong verbs. Common to c.1600 and still alive at the time of the King James Bible; weak p.t. cleaved also emerged in 14c. for this verb; cleft is still later. The p.p. cloven survives, though mostly in compounds.

cleave
"to adhere," O.E. clifian , from W.Gmc. *klibajanan , from PIE *gloi- "to stick." The confusion was less in O.E. when cleave (1) was a class 2 strong verb and cleave (2) a class 1 verb; but it has grown since cleave (1) weakened, which may be why both are largely superseded by stick and split .
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

Merely to point out that the context is important for the use of the word in a sentence, paragraph, article, essay, entire work, or text.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Merely to point out that the context is important for the use of the word in a sentence, paragraph, article, essay, entire work, or text.

The subjective interpretation of the context.

[Tessar]

BJ, keep in mind you're quibbling over the meaning of words when it's not even in the original language.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

As everyone knows, authorial intent is totally passe these days. It doesn't matter what the writer wanted (and thus, it doesn't matter about the original language); all that matters is how I can use a text to further my own ideological agenda.

EDIT: Just thought I should make clear: this is not a jibe at any particular persons, but at postmodern scholarship as a whole.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Tessar

BJ, keep in mind you're quibbling over the meaning of words when it's not even in the original language.

True, but it goes back to the original point. The idea that that one line in Genesis somehow implies "until death do us part" as we understand it today is an ubsurd level of reading into the text. Once again, it's why Jews see divorce in such a different light than Christians.

There are books with statements from Jesus that could be interpreted to such an extent, but Genesis doesn't even touch upon those details.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Jews, or at least the Jews I know, still see divorce as tragedy, as in every way unfortunate, as (in the words of the Gaffer, back at the beginning of the discussion) "a bad thing." It's just a bad thing which is permitted (albeit in a sexist mode).

I would agree with you, of course, that "cleave to his wife and become one flesh" does not logically necessitate "till death do us part;" however, it does seem to imply a certain degree of permanence, a strong preference for preservation of the bond.

[inked]

God creates one man, then one woman, and they have children and they live and they die.

IT is no stretch to argue for monogamy, fidelity, and till death do us part since they LIVED all.

Read their lives and don't look for anachronistic insertions that are not there because they derive from the lived experience and not vice versa.

[GrayMouser]

Congratulations, Argentina- one more to the growing ranks

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

As everyone knows, authorial intent is totally passe these days. It doesn't matter what the writer wanted (and thus, it doesn't matter about the original language); all that matters is how I can use a text to further my own ideological agenda.

Quite so.

My only quibble is with the "these days" part. Twas ever thus. Especially with regard to scripture. We are just a bit more honest about it "these days".

[GrayMouser]

And Ireland gets one step closer, bringing in civil partnership laws.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I would agree with you, of course, that "cleave to his wife and become one flesh" does not logically necessitate "till death do us part;" however, it does seem to imply a certain degree of permanence, a strong preference for preservation of the bond.

Maybe, maybe not.

If you read the entire context it might merely be an explanation of why men are physically attracted to women:

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.