She was very much a Godly woman. Bless you for your consideration and prayers.
Was sex Adam and Eve part of the curse
- Thread starter Burn1986
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
wow OP put this in BDF?
I have been reading a bit of it esp Jesuslives contributions.
I think what she said about how there might have been sex before 'the fall' which didn't end in pregnancy (who knows?) is something to think about, after all, Adam and Eve were both naked and not ashamed.
They probably were just being human and naturally curious about each other for the most part and wouldn't have thought it was something to be ashamed of, or hidden away. Maybe they were in the courtship stage of getting to know each other.
I have been reading a bit of it esp Jesuslives contributions.
I think what she said about how there might have been sex before 'the fall' which didn't end in pregnancy (who knows?) is something to think about, after all, Adam and Eve were both naked and not ashamed.
They probably were just being human and naturally curious about each other for the most part and wouldn't have thought it was something to be ashamed of, or hidden away. Maybe they were in the courtship stage of getting to know each other.
In our church we have plenty older singles, 40, 50, 60, 70... in different fellowships. We all helping out in different capacity.
Older ones not necessarily want to get marry. Many are content.
Yes, they were both being human just like the rest of us.
I wonder if “atomization” of society and disintegration of communities are the necessary cost for urbanization and modernization. The decline of marriage and birth rate is observed in all industrialized countries, and within each country, in all advanced, urbanized areas. Marriage is still a blessing, it’s just become a luxury and a privilege.
reneweddaybyday said:
Lovette said:
reneweddaybyday said:
But if you answer truthfully, then another of your assertions would be revealed to be just another claim bordering on the ridiculous.
all you are doing is changing what constitutes "access to God" to the "method of access" ... all in your efforts to avoid admitting your initial premise was faulty.
God tells us Moses spoke to Him face to face:
Exodus 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend
Deuteronomy 34:10 And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face.
... more changing the criteria ... are you now claiming that if the Holy Spirit does not descend upon someone "like a dove", they do not have access to God through the Holy Spirit?
Scripture reveals there is only One upon Whom the Holy Spirit descended "like a dove" ... the Lord Jesus Christ.
God's Word reveals in many passages of Scripture that He spoke to folks and the Holy Spirit did not descend upon them "like a dove".
And it is again noted that you refuse to answer whether the tabernacle in the wilderness was unnecessary ... not because you do not know the answer, but because answering correctly exposes your faulty premise regarding the marital relationship being a reflection of the "great mystery concerning Christ and the church.
"The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage"
are we currently in "this age" where we are "given in marriage"? or
or are we currently in "that age" where we will "neither marry nor are given in marriage"?
You have again exposed your deceitful handling of Scripture ... smh ...
.
yes I understand the tabernacle in the wilderness "was never meant to be permanent".
Does that mean the tabernacle was unnecessary during the time it was "a temporary measure"? ... even in our day and time there is relevance in studying the tabernacle ... have you ever studied how the tabernacle reflects the Lord Jesus Christ?
Lovette said:
Why do you rant about that reflection when you're already in one body with the Lord?
reneweddaybyday said:
Discussing Scripture is not "ranting" ... just as correcting your misinterpretation of Scripture is not "lying".
At the time the tabernacle in the wilderness was in existence, was the tabernacle unnecessary? It's a simple question. You know the answer is "no", yet you cannot bring yourself to admit such a simple truth.
But if you answer truthfully, then another of your assertions would be revealed to be just another claim bordering on the ridiculous.
Neither Moses nor any of these other names had access to God through the Holy Spirit, we do, therefore your argument is irrelevant.
Do you really believe Moses had "no access to God through the Holy Spirit? Have you ever read Numbers 11:16-25?
While I understand that what was made available to the born again believer after the Lord Jesus Christ ascended up into heaven is a change from what was available before He ascended, the same Holy Spirit which was at work during OT times is the same Holy Spirit at work in our day and time.
Was the Holy Spirit merely rested upon them or permanently dwelling in them? Do you even know the difference?
I'm happy to discuss Scripture with you, Lovette, but you need to stop changing the criteria every time your claims are refuted.
more of your changing the criteria which is fallacious engagement in discussion.
all you are doing is changing what constitutes "access to God" to the "method of access" ... all in your efforts to avoid admitting your initial premise was faulty.
God tells us Moses spoke to Him face to face:
Exodus 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend
Deuteronomy 34:10 And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face.
And have you ever read 1 Peter 1:10-11?
1 Pe 1:10-11 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
And the word "in" was not added by translators. The Greek word en is in the text.
1 Pe 1:10-11 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
And the word "in" was not added by translators. The Greek word en is in the text.
... more changing the criteria ... are you now claiming that if the Holy Spirit does not descend upon someone "like a dove", they do not have access to God through the Holy Spirit?Scripture reveals there is only One upon Whom the Holy Spirit descended "like a dove" ... the Lord Jesus Christ.
God's Word reveals in many passages of Scripture that He spoke to folks and the Holy Spirit did not descend upon them "like a dove".
Neither Moses nor any of these other names had access to God through the Holy Spirit, we do, therefore your argument is irrelevant.
nope ... it is totally relevant in refuting your claim that just because marriage is a mere "reflection" of a deeper truth that means the "reflection" is irrelevant ... just like the tabernacle reflecting the Lord Jesus Christ is not "irrelevant" and the marriage relationship reflecting a great mystery is not "irrelevant".
The Lord explicitly taught that there's no marriage in resurrection, marriage is the hallmark for "sons of this age".
This is just more of your changing the criteria tactic. You cannot even answer "no" to the question "Do you believe the tabernacle in the wilderness was unnecessary because the tabernacle was only a foreshadow of the heavenly Holy of Holies?"
What is wrong with you?
your "loaded question" analogy fails. Asking you whether a foreshadowing makes the shadow "unnecessary" or "irrelevant" is a legitimate question about typology in Scripture ... the question is not logical fallacy about some sort of "cheating on your exam" malfeasance ... you again fall back on another vacuous claim in your ongoing effort to remain in rebellion concerning the marital relationship.
And it is again noted that you refuse to answer whether the tabernacle in the wilderness was unnecessary ... not because you do not know the answer, but because answering correctly exposes your faulty premise regarding the marital relationship being a reflection of the "great mystery concerning Christ and the church.
nope ... it is totally relevant in refuting your claim that just because marriage is a mere "reflection" of a deeper truth that means the "reflection" is irrelevant ... just like the tabernacle reflecting the Lord Jesus Christ is not "irrelevant" and the marriage relationship reflecting a great mystery is not "irrelevant".
As long as you don't have sex and make babies with the Lord Jesus Christ, it's irrelevant.
your vacuous claims border on the ridiculous.
you refer to a future reality ...
"The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage"
are we currently in "this age" where we are "given in marriage"? or
or are we currently in "that age" where we will "neither marry nor are given in marriage"?
You have again exposed your deceitful handling of Scripture ... smh ...
.
I did not say "we do not know everything that was happening in Corinth" ... here is your question to which I replied (bold mine):
I understand Paul was responding to specific matters the Corinthians had written about (1 Cor. 7:1). But what, specifically, were those matters?
my reply:
We don't know.
In vv. 1–5, Paul began by clarifying "in order to avoid fornication" ... we do not know the specifics in the letter written by the church for which they sought guidance.
In vv. 6-9, Paul also speaks of folks having a "proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that". I believe you have indicated your "gift of God" is not being married. Have you ever read Proverbs 18:22? A single person's "gift of God" may be the "this" and the married person's "gift of God" may be the "that" in 1 Corinthians 7:7.
In vv. 10-16, Paul wrote about ...
remain married ... "let not the wife depart" "let not the husband put away his wife" – vs 10 ... "let him not put her away" – vs 11 ... "let her not leave him" – vs 12 as well as "separation and divorce"
reconciliation ... "if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband" – vs 10
separation ... "if the unbelieving depart, let him depart" – vs 15
note the emphasis on remaining in the marriage as opposed to leaving the marriage.
In vv. 25-28, Paul wrote about remaining unmarried if single, remaining married if married, and he also said it is not a sin to marry.
Again, we have no certainty concerning the specific questions which the church had requested Paul to provide guidance. You may presume you "know what issues Paul was addressing" based on the guidance provided by Paul, and that is nothing but supposition on your part.
reneweddaybyday said:
Paul counseled the believing spouse to remain married to an unbelieving spouse which appears to be in conflict with "be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers", but which is in full alignment with what Jesus taught concerning divorce when the pharisees tried to tempt Him. Paul's counsel in 1 Corinthians 7:12 further confirms the high regard God places on the marriage covenant ... the voluntary commitment between husband and wife.
Both Jesus and Paul said don't put away in the situations about which they were discussing.
What is written in 2 Corinthians 6:14 mirrors what God told the children of Israel many years ago ...
Exodus 34:12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:
...
16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
God gave sound commandment to the children of Israel ... and it would be best to follow God's instruction in our day and time. However, if a believer is married to an unbeliever, hopefully and prayerfully, the unbelieving spouse becomes a believer as he or she witnesses the godly behavior of the believing spouse.
I already stated Paul counseled the believing spouse to remain married to an unbelieving spouse. Again, this instruction further corroborates the high regard God places on the marriage covenant ... the voluntary commitment between husband and wife.
I did not say "all we know is the guidance Paul gave" ...
All we know is the guidance and counsel Paul gave to the church in response to specific questions or issues the church brought up in a letter to Paul. All we can do is guess at what was in the letter.
What I have claimed to be unknowable are the issues brought up by the church to which Paul provided his guidance and counsel.
Your claim that you have "substantial evidence about the issues they raised" is pure supposition on your part.
.
reneweddaybyday said:
Lovette said:
reneweddaybyday said:
Also, how do you know what is in the heart of others so that you can claim with complete (or any) certainty that "many don't" come for the Lord?
Have you ever considered that the congregation at the church you attend is comprised of believers who are in various stages of their walk in the Lord? We all start out as "babes in Christ" and mature in the Lord Jesus Christ to the point where we are able to digest strong meat.
Have you ever considered praying during the church service? Pray for the pastor who is teaching the Word of God ... pray that those in attendance receive the Word of God taught by the pastor. You can pray while listening to the pastor. Prayer is so beneficial in the body of Christ.
dating is not marriage unless a married couple goes out on a date.
hookup is a casual noncommittal interaction which has nothing to do with the marital relationship. Husband and wife are in a voluntary committed relationship.
Look at the pattern of "Abraham's model" ... Abraham married his half-sister, Sarah ... Isaac married his cousin, Rebekah ... Jacob married his cousins, Leah and Rachel.
also fyi ... medieval kings and queens were not "following Abraham's model" in selecting wives/husbands for their kids ... they were interested in political advantage, territorial gain, combining wealth, economic trade, establishing powerful alliances with foreign kingdoms. If they were "following Abraham's model", they would have had their children marry siblings, half-siblings, cousins ... they would not send emissaries to foreign kingdoms to arrange a marriage with a non relative.
and please note Genesis 11:29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah. No record of Terah bringing Sarah to Abraham ... does that mean Abraham's marriage was not a godly marriage because of another of your absurd notions that parents must bring the wife to the husband?
.
For your "logic" and your "own theory" to be correct, you would have to show that God included the fact that He will cause a deep sleep, take a rib out of man, close up the flesh, make a woman, and bring the woman to the man in Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:7-8, Ephesians 5:31.
All of these verses exclude what you want included.
Your "logic" fails ... the text does not corroborate your "own theory".
Lovette said:
None of these verses address dating or whatever process that led to marriage in the first place. Nice try.
reneweddaybyday said:
And none of them state that in order for a marriage to be godly, God must cause a deep sleep to fall upon a man, take a rib out of him, close up the flesh, make a woman, and bring the woman to the man ... which is your absurd criteria for what you claim would be a true godly marriage. Nice try.
sigh ... your personal restrictions on the marital relationship hinder you from full understanding of Scripture concerning the matter. You are free to believe that there are no true godly marriages in our day and time because God has not done with any man alive today what God did with Adam in taking his rib, making a woman for him, and bringing her to him. That line of reasoning utterly fails as has been shown to you over many posts submitted in this thread.
If the only thing your church is teaching is "a marriage counselling session and the wellbeing of the nether region", you might want to consider going to a church that focuses on the Lord Jesus Christ ... just sayin'
Like I said, if all your church is teaching is "marriage counselling and the wellbeing of the nether region", you might want to consider going to a church that focuses on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Also, how do you know what is in the heart of others so that you can claim with complete (or any) certainty that "many don't" come for the Lord?
Have you ever considered that the congregation at the church you attend is comprised of believers who are in various stages of their walk in the Lord? We all start out as "babes in Christ" and mature in the Lord Jesus Christ to the point where we are able to digest strong meat.
Have you ever considered praying during the church service? Pray for the pastor who is teaching the Word of God ... pray that those in attendance receive the Word of God taught by the pastor. You can pray while listening to the pastor. Prayer is so beneficial in the body of Christ.
Please provide Scripture (chapter and verse) which indicates anything about dating or romancing, which are modern inventions.
You keep rambling on God's establishment of marriage, all that I'm saying is that this establishment followed a fixed model: it is determined for you that it's not good for you to be alone (Gen. 2:18), a "help mate comparable to you" is arranged for you (Gen. 2:18), and they're brought to you (Gen. 2:22).
you have repeatedly said I am "lying by omission" if I do not include Genesis 2:18 and Genesis 2:22 in the context of Genesis 2:24. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
You continue to exclude from Genesis 2:22 that God took "the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman" in your insistence that the only godly marriage is stated in Genesis 2:22.
you equate "dating or hookup" with marriage.
dating is not marriage unless a married couple goes out on a date.
hookup is a casual noncommittal interaction which has nothing to do with the marital relationship. Husband and wife are in a voluntary committed relationship.
You continue to talk out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you claim that arranged marriages are a "medieval" practice and on the other hand you claim that if a marriage is not arranged, the marriage is not godly.
fyi ... I do not "refuse" what is written in Genesis 2:18-24 ... what I reject is your absurd notion that in order for a marriage to be a godly marriage, God must do as you insist (i.e. take a rib from a man, make a woman, bring the woman to him). That is you adding an absurd requirement to marriage.
Look at the pattern of "Abraham's model" ... Abraham married his half-sister, Sarah ... Isaac married his cousin, Rebekah ... Jacob married his cousins, Leah and Rachel.
also fyi ... medieval kings and queens were not "following Abraham's model" in selecting wives/husbands for their kids ... they were interested in political advantage, territorial gain, combining wealth, economic trade, establishing powerful alliances with foreign kingdoms. If they were "following Abraham's model", they would have had their children marry siblings, half-siblings, cousins ... they would not send emissaries to foreign kingdoms to arrange a marriage with a non relative.
and please note Genesis 11:29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah. No record of Terah bringing Sarah to Abraham ... does that mean Abraham's marriage was not a godly marriage because of another of your absurd notions that parents must bring the wife to the husband?
.
reneweddaybyday said:
Lovette said:
reneweddaybyday said:
Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 6:15-18 describes an act of sin/fornication ... you are calling a wife a harlot and you are equating sin/fornication with the intimacy of the undefiled marriage bed in your complete and utter rejection of Scripture concerning marriage.
However, in Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:7, Ephesians 5:31, God' instruction is that the husband is to cleave/join unto the wife ... to be one flesh with the wife.
Man (whether married or not) joining to the harlot is fornication ... fornication is sin.
However, husband joining to the wife is not sin.
I asked "do you consider marriage to be honorable?"
Why can't you answer the question?
.
if you believe that sexual intimacy is the only meaning of "one flesh", you are limiting yourself to a carnal understanding ... again, par for the course with you.
Two becoming one refers to much more than a sexual union. Two becoming one relates to the whole existence between man and wife. The marriage relationship consists of a unity which encompasses the joint lives of husband and wife. In marriage, two lives unite together as one ... emotionally, intellectually, financially, spiritually, and in every other way. The husband and wife become one in purpose. They are so close that they function like one person, balancing each other's strengths and weaknesses so that both separately and together they fulfill their God-given calling.
Like I said, if you would quit focusing so much on the carnal and consider the spiritual, your understanding of the marriage relationship would align with what is written in Scripture. Your "worldly" view has blinded you from fully comprehending the marriage relationship.
Lovette said:
1 Cor. 6:15-17 explicitly indicated that "two become one flesh" is referring to sexual intimacy for husband and wife. Do you become one with a harlot "emotionally, intellectually, financially, spiritually, and in every other way?" I'm letting the word of God interpret itself, you're interpreting it with your own bias and doctrines.
Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot?
reneweddaybyday said:
nope ... and it is duly noted that you are now calling a wife a harlot. Another of your vacuous claims which borders on the ridiculous.
I do not reject Paul's teaching ... I reject your ridiculous misinterpretation of Scripture.
Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 6:15-18 describes an act of sin/fornication ... you are calling a wife a harlot and you are equating sin/fornication with the intimacy of the undefiled marriage bed in your complete and utter rejection of Scripture concerning marriage.
you again misconstrue the point concerning "one flesh" being more than just sexual union.
A wife is not a harlot. there is no fornication from which a husband and wife are instructed to flee (1 Corinthians 6:18) when they engage in sexual intimacy.
Do you believe what is written in Hebrews 13:4 ...
Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
In Proverbs 7, God's instruction is to turn away from the harlot.
However, in Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5, Mark 10:7, Ephesians 5:31, God' instruction is that the husband is to cleave/join unto the wife ... to be one flesh with the wife.
Man (whether married or not) joining to the harlot is fornication ... fornication is sin.
However, husband joining to the wife is not sin.
Do you believe what is written in Hebrews 13:4 ...
Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
... do you consider marriage to be honorable? It does not appear so from your comments in this thread.
you answered a question I did not ask.
I asked "do you consider marriage to be honorable?"
Why can't you answer the question?
.
And you know the question itself is loaded and irrelevant, we're not "at the time."
Since God spoke with him face to face, surely there was no holy spirit acting as a medium, right? If the Holy Spirit is perceived as an independent third person, not a mere projection of God the Father?
"Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Was any of them born again in spirit? "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. 16:7) So how did they have the Holy Spirit when Christ hadn't even come? It's not changing pf criteria, it's the plain word of God. Holy Spirit as the Help officially descended on the Pentecost, like a dove or not.And have you ever read 1 Peter 1:10-11?1 Pe 1:10-11 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.And the word "in" was not added by translators. The Greek word en is in the text.
Scripture reveals there is only One upon Whom the Holy Spirit descended "like a dove" ... the Lord Jesus Christ.
God's Word reveals in many passages of Scripture that He spoke to folks and the Holy Spirit did not descend upon them "like a dove".
It is only a mystery to those who don't have an intimate relationship with Christ, and therefore using worldly, carnal marriage as a substitute. Why would you need a "foreshadowing" when you're already experiencing the thing? Is the Lord Jesus Christ enough, or do you have to add marriage on top of it, using "foreshadowing" as a lame excuse?
The only thing exposed is your own ignorance of the relationship with Christ. If you're worthy of "that age” where there's no marriage, don't you think a "foreshadowing" of that should be no marriage in "this age" as well? Do you wanna live "that age" or not? Are you worthy of "that age" or not?
Your argument confuses not knowing the exact wording of the Corinthians' original letter with being unable to identify the issues Paul addressed. In 1 Corinthians 7:1, Paul explicitly refers to their letter, and the rest of the chapter discusses sexual relations, celibacy, marriage, separation, mixed marriages, and remarriage. Although we cannot reconstruct every detail with certainty, these textual clues provide substantial evidence. Historical inference is not the same as baseless speculation.
Proverbs 18:22 affirms the goodness of marriage; it does not establish that everyone must marry. Paul explicitly recognizes different gifts (1 Corinthians 7:7), recommends singleness (vv. 8, 26), and says marriage is not a sin (v. 28). He distinguishes what is permissible from what may be preferable. You cannot emphasize the goodness of marriage while ignoring Paul's equally explicit endorsement of singleness.
Second Corinthians 6:14 and Exodus 34:12–16 concern avoiding spiritually compromising relationships; they do not command believers who are already married to unbelievers to divorce them. That is precisely why Paul addresses existing mixed marriages separately in 1 Corinthians 7:12–16. Instructions about entering a relationship do not automatically determine how an existing relationship should be handled.
Furthermore, Paul's preference for preserving marriage is not an absolute command to preserve it at all costs. In verses 10–11, he acknowledges the possibility of separation, and in verse 15, he instructs believers to let an unbelieving spouse depart. Whatever the implications for remarriage, Paul does not require believers to prevent abandonment at all costs.
Your own qualification that Jesus and Paul prohibited divorce “in the situations about which they were discussing” acknowledges that context matters. We cannot know every detail of the Corinthians' original letter, but we can identify the subjects Paul addresses and reasonably infer the concerns behind them. If you dispute a particular inference, demonstrate why the textual evidence does not support it. Simply labeling all reconstruction “pure supposition” does not refute the evidence.
It is the word of God, not my personal restrictions. For the record it is YOUR restrictions by insisting that the marriage institution is ordained by God, in that case a couple must marry in God's way, by God's design, right? And that inevitably leads to Gen. 2:18-22, and a practical interpretation is found in Gen. 24, I didn't make any of these up. If "making a woman out of a rib" sounds ridiculous to you, then drop your santimony, accept modern marriages as the result of modern dating as WORLDLY.
Look, "marriage counselling and the wellbeing of the nether region" are important issues, these are pressing challenges in the modern age, I don't blame either the pastor or the congregation for that. The problem is prescribing marriage as a magic fix and shaming the singles for these societal ills, in other words, the IDOLATRY of marriage, that somehow your salvation is found in marriage, instead of blood of Christ, even if you meet your partner and get married in ungodly ways.
How a couple got married in the first place if not for dating or hookup? I suggested arranged marriage, you're against that also, so what is it?
The absurdity is all yours. Again, I've shown you the bible's own practical interpretation of that in Gen. 24. "Flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone" is God's design, not mine.
See, another example of lying by omission. Sarah was Abraham's half sister of the same father. Do you seriously need a record of Terah bringing Sarah to Abraham as a half sibling, probably when they were still young?
"Because I thought, surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will kill me on account of my wife. But indeed she is truly my sister. She is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife." (Gen. 20:11-12)
No, I was letting the bible interpret itself regarding the mechanism of "two becoming one flesh". Only a wife is a harlot if you have had premarital sex with her. The act is the same, the difference is whom you have the act with.
If "two become one flesh" is limited to husband and wife in marriage, why was Paul quoting Gen. 2:24 when describing fornication with Harlot? How could one become one flesh with a harlot when they're not married?
I consider marriage as honorable as the couple. Do you consider a product honorable when the materials are defective? Do you consider a meal honorable when the ingredients are spoiled?
My whole point over the past month is simple - you want a marriage to be honorable and godly, get married in an honorable and godly way by arrangement, following the original design in Gen. 2:18-22 and the example in Gen. 24. If you call it "absurd" and stick to your own way, don't call it "honorable" or "godly". You can't have it both ways.
Your views on 'one flesh' are right on target. Outstanding response. Well done.
I thought two became three i.e they went forth and multiplied.
But maybe I am wrong and the curse wasn't painful and sorrowful childbirth for Eve and the never ending back breaking toiling and pulling out weeds for Adam
Maybe it was something else...?
But maybe I am wrong and the curse wasn't painful and sorrowful childbirth for Eve and the never ending back breaking toiling and pulling out weeds for Adam
Maybe it was something else...?