Cherry Picking the Bible- Leviticus and Other OT Rules

it doesn't say that the women leave their families for a reason, imo. jewish culture is matrilineal (the mother's line determines kinship... you're only a jew if your mother is a jew). i imagine it used to be matrilocal (families live with their maternal relatives) as well. however, some of the importance of this seems to have been lost on the actual writers of the bible... especially those with the paternal begats everywhere.oh. btw. you lost your link to the origins of the word wife a couple posts back. you typed v instead of hitting ctrl v. i'd love to see the link... your debate opponent clearly didn't bother to look at it or he would have, no doubt, mentioned that the v for vendetta movie has little to do with wives.

just kind of a side note. i find it interesting that jewish interpretation and writing (the little i've seen) says so very much about sex and christian writing says so very much about not ~(sex). (that's to be read as "the negation of all that is included in the set of sex.)insert greek ideals of purity here.i think it's entirely likely that the tanakh is talking about sex and paul is talking about marriage. it wouldn't be the first time a new culture reevaluated old material. the problem is that both interpretations are "correct" in a theological sense, but from different schools and are, unfortunately, likely to be entirely incompatible. it's kind of like "did jesus obey god by being fruitful and multiplying or did he obey god and be chaste?" both are "correct", but in entirely different spheres of thought.

you didn't read, dear.

quote:

---

i imagine it used to be matrilocal (families live with their maternal relatives) as well.

---

i suppose i didn't emphasize how "used to" i meant. i meant before the bible was written down. i think it's possible, even likely, that the jews started as matrilineal/matrilocal and then evolved due to outside influence. they simply kept the heritage bit out of habit.
note my statement here...

quote:

---

some of the importance of this seems to have been lost on the actual writers of the bible

---

i'm just saying that the writers were either making shit up, or they had forgotten the earlier connotation of such things. cultures evolve. it's what they do. and this proves what, precisely? 1. the stories are how accurate? 2. so the culture evolved out of the matrilineal/matrilocal phase... this doesn't change that it's an appropriate interpretation of the verse. Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

note. matrilineal doesn't mean matriarchal.but you know as well as i how many out of place sentences there are in the bible.

thanks for the link. it's very obvious that our understanding of the word wife to mean 'metaphysically linked partner of equal status deserving or love, cherishing, and so forth' is very, very new. anyone know when those vows were written? they were in the common book of prayer approved by henry number the 8. so, at the very earliest, our marriages date from the 15th century. however, they hardly had the same idea of marriage that we do. before then, it gets more and more different. sure, people fell in love before then. but only the ridiculously rich and powerful managed to actually marry those they loved. take even in the bible. david and solomon both appear to have wives they absolutely adored... but they were after the marriages to their other dozen wives. the simple fact that polygyny was so very commonplace tells you that their marriage contract was different than ours. they had more than one wife, so they couldn't possibly become one flesh in the mystical sense with all of them, could they? do the other wives become one flesh with each other? the purpose of the union was procreation and without such, there was no union. therefore it seems to me a very simple suggestion that the "one flesh" refers to the results of a good deep dicking.