|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: First Law of Marriage - Female Kinship - 10/27/2008 8:07:32 PM
|
|
|
crankius
Posts: 4251
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
I personally have considered that pods might be the best way to grow babies. When they're done growing, we can just go out to the garden and harvest us a baby!
_____________________________
Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself?
Ecclesiastes 7:16
First Car
|
|
|
|
|
RE: First Law of Marriage - Female Kinship - 10/27/2008 8:43:44 PM
|
|
|
carl54
Posts: 77
Joined: 5/31/2005
Status: offline
|
My thought exactly, PS103.
_____________________________
Walk in the Sirit and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. Gal 5:16
|
|
|
|
|
RE: First Law of Marriage - Female Kinship - 10/27/2008 8:57:25 PM
|
|
|
GregandJenny
Posts: 803
Joined: 2/16/2006
From: Near Seattle Washington
Status: offline
|
quote:
Is it just me, or is this thread getting more and more "New Agey" feeling?
Yep, when we look for historical patterns and look to historical culture instead of THE WORD OF GOD, this is what we get.
G
_____________________________
It does not have to be well with my circumstance to be well with my soul!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: First Law of Marriage - Female Kinship - 10/28/2008 9:32:13 AM
|
|
|
KerussoCharis
Posts: 36
Joined: 10/28/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
And there is absolutely NO scriptural basis for your bizarre assertion that Adam was a hermaphrodite.
hermaphrodite- an unambiguous assignment of male or female cannot be made
The Hebrew word "adham" means "human"
"Male and female created he them;
and blessed them,
and called their name Adam,
in the day when they were created."
Gen 5:2
Adam is also used as the name of the first male which makes for confusion.
"adham"/human contained the first woman, who was taken out of human's side in Genesis 2, hence "hermaphrodite" in the sense of the definition above is Biblically accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: First Law of Marriage - Female Kinship - 10/28/2008 9:53:15 AM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Harvie
quote:
ORIGINAL: tn1
quote:
ORIGINAL: Harvie
quote:
ORIGINAL: tn1
Marriage is far more than just a covenant between two individuals, but includes the families whether one likes it or not.
Not in our household. My marriage covenant includes (1) Christ and (2) my husband. That's it. There are no third or fourth parties involved.
Current American culture is significantly different than ancient near-eastern cultures through which the Scriptures were written. Is our American culture that values independance healthy, or the healthiest possible in this fallen world? I don't think so; rather, I believe personal maturity, and relational health is found in Interdependance. Independance is an attribute of adolesence; just like, Dependance is an attribute of childhood.
Hmmm.... why does it feel like you are trying to insult me? Anyway ... it is spelled "dependence". (Also, "interdependence" and "adolescence.")
And there is absolutely NO scriptural basis for your bizarre assertion that Adam was a hermaphrodite.
No, I wasn't trying to insult you at all. I avoid doing that as much as I can. I also try to keep from demeaning other's beliefs though they are very different from what I believe or have been taught. I appreciate the spelling correction.
Adam being a hermaphrodite is actually written of in Jewish tradition. And Gen.2:21 doesn't use the word "rib" but says that God took one of Adam's sides and formed Eve. Eve was "formed" from Adam, taken from Adam; so Eve was part of Adam when created, but then taken from Adam and formed as a seperate individual. So Adam also changed when Eve was formed from him. Scripture does not explain exactly what or how Adam and Eve were differentiated or Adam's original form, so we're left to speculate. Thus I used the word "likely" in my first post on this indicating that such was not specifically stated, but my opinion. Of course, you're welcome to have your own opinion as well.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: First Law of Marriage - Female Kinship - 10/28/2008 9:59:45 AM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
When I made the original post, I thought it would be interesting to discuss a non-traditional understanding/interpretation of scripture that few (including myself) have studied or seriously considered; but apparently this is not the forum to do so for instead of discussing the issue, it seems that most just want to denounce and demean it because it's so far outside their box. Oh well, have a nice day.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: First Law of Marriage - Female Kinship - 10/28/2008 10:08:12 AM
|
|
|
KerussoCharis
Posts: 36
Joined: 10/28/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ChelaW
Although I see what the author is saying, IMHO it seems like a bit of a stretch and I just cannot agree with this.
....
Of course, I'm sure the author gives much more evidence to support her stance in the book. And if there is convincing scriptural evidence, I'll gladly change my opinion!
Good attitude!
I have noticed in Scripture that the instruction to "leave your father and mother and cleave to your wife" is directed only to the husband and this is repeated at the creation, by Jesus, and by Paul: Click Here to see the 4 Biblical occurrences
I don't think the instruction refers merely to the physical. One can live at great distance from parents or even have deceased parents and still be controlled by them. "you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers" 1 Peter 1:18 (which verse applies to women too, but there must be something about the leaving and cleaving which will uniquely fulfill and complete a husband)
As for the "cleaving", perhaps this speaks of emotional intimacy which can be difficult for men.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: First Law of Marriage - Female Kinship - 10/28/2008 10:28:31 AM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
It seems to me that when men marry, they often disdance themselves from their families, emotionally speaking, and focus almost exclusively on their wife. Women on the other hand, most often stay very emotionally connected to their families. Both are evidenced by simply the number of contacts men and women have with their respective families after marriage. I'm not saying this is good, bad, or much less the way it should be, but it does seem to be a trend.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: First Law of Marriage - Female Kinship - 10/28/2008 10:36:04 AM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
Another thought, commands are given because one's selfish nature is typically bent to do the opposite. In other words, the man was commanded to "leave and cleave", maybe because men have a tendency to not do that. Whereas women seem to have more of a natural desire to cleave to her husband. In fact, isn't that part of the curse upon women that their desire shall be for their husbands even though it could cause them physical pain in child-birth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: First Law of Marriage - Female Kinship - 10/28/2008 11:08:46 AM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 2653
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: online
|
quote:
In fact, isn't that part of the curse upon women that their desire shall be for their husbands even though it could cause them physical pain in child-birth.
That is one of the most erroneously mistranslated (and therefore misapplied) passages in Scripture. A better understanding would be that the woman's desire is for her husband's position - that is, she'll desire to usurp his authority.
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: First Law of Marriage - Female Kinship - 10/28/2008 11:34:43 AM
|
|
|
KerussoCharis
Posts: 36
Joined: 10/28/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
In fact, isn't that part of the curse upon women that their desire shall be for their husbands even though it could cause them physical pain in child-birth.
That is one of the most erroneously mistranslated (and therefore misapplied) passages in Scripture. A better understanding would be that the woman's desire is for her husband's position - that is, she'll desire to usurp his authority.
Mistranslated and misapplied?
There is nothing in the passage about her wanting to usurp his authority.
She desires to satisfy, to please, to "be enough" for her husband. She desires his approval and affirmation which makes her vulnerable to his harsh rule. She makes her husband into an idol, puts him where only God should be.
|
|
|
|
RE: First Law of Marriage - Female Kinship - 10/28/2008 11:52:24 AM
|
|
|
crankius
Posts: 4251
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Genesis 5:2-3: 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created. 3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.
He created them distinct--male and female. He called them "adam" translated mankind. Adam had a male son in his own likeness--a male, not a hermaphrodite.
To assume that Adam was first created as a hermaphrodite, you have to deny that God created Adam as a distinct male, being the first male, and therefore called Adam.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Adam: man, mankind, human being, Adam (first man), or a city in the Jordan valley.
The entire context of each passage must be considered to know which adam is intended.
quote:
So Adam also changed when Eve was formed from him.
No--he was simply missing a rib, and then closed back up. The text does not even allude to a change in his sexual status. The rib was removed, and then God used the rib (away from Adam's body) to make Eve.
Gen 2:21-22 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; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Rib (Tsela`): side, rib, beam, rib of hill, side-chambers or cells, plank or board, leaves, side of ark
God took ONE of Adam's ribs--not one of Adam's sides.
1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
Adam was formed first, as a distinct male, and then Eve was formed second. There was no blended asexual human made first.
1 Cor 11:8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
Adam was a MAN, and Eve was formed from him and made distinct as a FEMALE.
Matt 19:4-6 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
A woman is to be made one flesh with her husband. She is no longer distinct with her own family, but now is completely one with her husband. She cannot be one with her husband if she is still one with her family. The husband has left his old family and has formed a new family with his wife. His wife is now one with him, part of his family, and no longer part of her father's household.
_____________________________
Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself?
Ecclesiastes 7:16
First Car
|
|
|
|
|
RE: First Law of Marriage - Female Kinship - 10/28/2008 12:23:44 PM
|
|
|
KerussoCharis
Posts: 36
Joined: 10/28/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crankius
To assume that Adam was first created as a hermaphrodite, you have to deny that God created Adam as a distinct male, being the first male, and therefore called Adam.
I don't see that as an either/or. I see that as a both/and.
One cannot look only at one account of creation. There are 3 accounts of the creation. The first account and third account in Genesis 1 and Genesis 5 are when they were created simultaneously and named by God (jointly) "Adam" (Gen 5:2) and they were "one flesh" quite literally.
The second account in Genesis 2 is when the woman was formed from part of the "one flesh" human.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: First Law of Marriage - Female Kinship - 10/28/2008 12:25:56 PM
|
|
|
crankius
Posts: 4251
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I don't see that as an either/or. I see that as a both/and.
But that view is wrong. God made them distinct--Male, and Female. To believe God first formed a hermaphrodite is to read into God's Word what isn't there, and deny what plainly IS there.
_____________________________
Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself?
Ecclesiastes 7:16
First Car
|
|
|
|
|
RE: First Law of Marriage - Female Kinship - 10/28/2008 12:56:40 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 2653
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: online
|
quote:
Mistranslated and misapplied?
Yep.
quote:
There is nothing in the passage about her wanting to usurp his authority.
How about Genesis 4:7? Sin's desire was for Cain. Did sin desire to please, satisfy and be enough for Cain? Or was it that sin sought to control Cain, and it was Cain's job to make sure that didn't happen (a job he failed at - just as many husbands fail at their job of being godly leaders, and let their wives usurp their authority).
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: First Law of Marriage - Female Kinship - 10/28/2008 1:02:21 PM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
In fact, isn't that part of the curse upon women that their desire shall be for their husbands even though it could cause them physical pain in child-birth.
That is one of the most erroneously mistranslated (and therefore misapplied) passages in Scripture. A better understanding would be that the woman's desire is for her husband's position - that is, she'll desire to usurp his authority.
It says,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
This scripture doesn't say anything about a woman wanting to rule over the man; rather, the curse was male dominance, patriarchy, the man ruling over the woman. And even though he would rule over her, and she would have pain in childbirth, she would still desire him and want a relationship with him.
But, I suppose you can read anything into it you wish.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: First Law of Marriage - Female Kinship - 10/28/2008 1:22:46 PM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 11916
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
quote:
But, I suppose you can read anything into it you wish.
Yes, one certainly can. The whole "Adam was a hermaphrodite" is the perfect illustration of that.
_____________________________
Fasten your seatbelts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: First Law of Marriage - Female Kinship - 10/28/2008 1:59:28 PM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
Mistranslated and misapplied?
Yep.
quote:
There is nothing in the passage about her wanting to usurp his authority.
How about Genesis 4:7? Sin's desire was for Cain. Did sin desire to please, satisfy and be enough for Cain? Or was it that sin sought to control Cain, and it was Cain's job to make sure that didn't happen (a job he failed at - just as many husbands fail at their job of being godly leaders, and let their wives usurp their authority).
The word "desire" (tasuqah) is also used in Song of Solomon 7:10 which says, "I am my beloved's, and his desire is toward me." The context determines the purpose of the desire.
Gen.3:16 does not indicate that the woman was going to seek to rule over man; rather, it specifically says that the man would rule over the woman.
Of course, seeing that patriarchy is a curse, with man ruling over woman (not a positive thing), the natural result of any oppression is the desire to be free from that oppression and to break the relationship. So, I suppose it's a good thing that women would desire men even though they are going to rule over them.
All known cultures thoughout history have functioned under the curse of patriarchy, though a few, extremely few, have exhibited female-kinship, otherwise refered to as matrifocality or matrilocality, where the female side of the family manages the family and family property passes down the maternal line, though the wife does not rule over her husband like the husband rules over the wife in patriarchy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: First Law of Marriage - Female Kinship - 10/28/2008 2:06:19 PM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ps103
quote:
But, I suppose you can read anything into it you wish.
Yes, one certainly can. The whole "Adam was a hermaphrodite" is the perfect illustration of that.
Agreed, scripture does not say specifically that the original human was a hermaphrodite, such is one way of understanding the evidence, though it is not conclusive. Of course, the other options are just as speculative, whether others are willing to admit such or not.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: First Law of Marriage - Female Kinship - 10/28/2008 2:10:07 PM
|
|
|
crankius
Posts: 4251
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
How exactly do you define the "curse of patriarchy"?
How does the female-kinship view understand this passage:
Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
_____________________________
Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself?
Ecclesiastes 7:16
First Car
|
|
|
|
|
RE: First Law of Marriage - Female Kinship - 10/28/2008 2:42:01 PM
|
|
|
KerussoCharis
Posts: 36
Joined: 10/28/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
How about Genesis 4:7? Sin's desire was for Cain. Did sin desire to please, satisfy and be enough for Cain? Or was it that sin sought to control Cain, and it was Cain's job to make sure that didn't happen (a job he failed at - just as many husbands fail at their job of being godly leaders, and let their wives usurp their authority).
Song of Solomon 7:10 "I [am] my beloved's, and his desire [is] toward me."
Same Hebrew word translated "desire" in Gen 3:16.
Gen 3:16 says her DESIRE shall be for her husband and he shall rule over her.
she yearns for relationship with him, but that has been broken and twisted by the Fall and instead of relationship and intimacy like they had in the Garden, he wants to protect his turf, he rules and she suffers under it
|
|
|
|
|
RE: First Law of Marriage - Female Kinship - 10/28/2008 2:48:15 PM
|
|
|
laura...
Posts: 3295
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: NE Ohio
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tn1
She points out that the man is told to leave his family, but the woman is not. In this she sees evidence that God originally intended female kinship. Female kinship is not matriarchy, per se, but it's close. The man leaves his family and joins the woman's family. This is done, primarily to protect women. A woman's natural protectors is her family. Men, being physically stronger and not challenged with child-bearing and rearing do not run nearly as great of a risk of being abused as a woman does; so God directed that men should leave their families and be joined to the woman's family (one flesh).
I do believe that there is a reason why God specifically states that the man shall leave his mother and father but does not so state that the woman shall leave her parents. However, I don't think it is because she needs her family's protection. The scripture declaring this, Genesis 2:24, precedes the fall of mankind. In the perfect world of the Garden of Eden such protection would be unnecessary.
quote:
In female kinship, the husband and wife are equal, but lineage and even property are traced through the wife and her family, not the man.
I have heard that Hebrew lineage is traced through the woman. I have not heard that property is as well. That seems unlikely to me as inheritances went to sons not daughters and the daughters of Zelophehad had to petition Moses for their right to inherit their father's property when he died without a male heir. (Numbers 27)
There's no conclusive evidence within scripture that upon marriage a man joins the woman's family. There is much more evidence that the couple forms their own family separate from both.
Perhaps the focus on the man leaving his parents is in order to clarify that once a man is married he is to be independent of his father's authority. It would be a given that the woman is now under her husband's authority but it would not necessarily be a given that the man is no longer under his father's authority.
It also clarifies that the woman does not become part of her husband's birth family as in she being now under his parents' authority. The couple become one "flesh", one "family", separate from all other families and they, alone, build their family.
That doesn't mean they completely cut ties with their respective families of origin. The families of origin can and should take on a supportive role and not an authoritative role.
_____________________________
This is what the Lord says: “Stop at the crossroads and look around. Ask for the old, godly way, and walk in it. Travel its path, and you will find rest for your souls. But you reply, ‘No, that’s not the road we want!’ Jer 6:16
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
PRAY 4 OUR TROOPS! (MY DH'S BACK FROM IRAQ & WAS JUST PROMOTED!) 
