 | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —John Neal
|
| | | (...) The "ten virgins" are bridesmaids for the bride, not whatever you seemed to be implying (polygyny). Or were you just making some throw-away joke? JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) What makes you think the "ten virgins" are "bridesmaids for the bride"? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —John Neal
|
| | | | | (...) It's not what I think-- it is what biblical scholars think. So again-- leave the exegesis to the ones who know what they are talking about. JOHN (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | (...) So you don't know? Do you accept the work of these "scholars" without question? Your reply reminded me that you once said this: "I come from a traditional that believes that each and every person has direct access to God without the need of (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Do we have any of those here? (biblical scholars who know what they're talking about, I mean, I wasn't casting aspersions on everyone as far as knowing what they're talking about, mind you...) If we don't do we have to take your word for it on (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Made me curious, but yeah, I think John's spot-on on this one. Looks like it's just yet another quickie parable: "Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath set over his household, to give them their food in due season? (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Laswell
|
| | | | | (...) Nope, just five of them. ;P (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) I don't get it; am I missing something obvious? What makes the "ten virgins" "bridesmaids for the bride"? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) Whoa! Girl-on-girl-on-girl...rl-on-girl action, straight from the pages. I'll have to reread this book after all. Dave! (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) **Blush** I'll have another go at that: I don't get it; am I missing something obvious? What makes the "ten virgins" "bridesmaids for the bridegroom"? Scott A (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) Ahh, Scott, always to be counted on for persnicking the details. You were right the first time, in quoting "bridesmaids for the bride" rather than 'bridegroom' since that's what John posted initially: (...) And you're right insofar as it's not (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) As the header & my initial post suggests, my point was only that polygyny did exist in “biblical times” in historic Israel. I am not saying that the bible encourages it... only that it was not uncommon. If you read around ((URL)) you will see (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) Well... uh... since the quote you used really doesn't seem to imply a polygynal relationship between the bridegroom and the virgins unless taken out of context, shouldn't you have found a better quote, unless you were making a joke? I mean, as (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) I was in a polygonal relationship one time: a love triangle. The other guy was a real square, and it finally ended when she found out that he had a rectangular dysfunction. Dave! FUT: off-topic.what-have-I-done? (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Not to go off on a tangent, but that's plane nuts. I've had a few-- they seem to come and go, but mine are come n-gon. I guess it's a bad sine. DaveE (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.pun, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Pete White
|
| | | | | | | | (...) With these types of relationships it's important to approach from the right angle, and if it smells a bit fishy, try angling. But don't get snagged on a wreck......tangle ! It's often hard to enter Royal circles, just ask Di...amateur ! They (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.pun, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) What does it imply to you? (...) Do you think that negates my point? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) That you were making a joke? Great! A joke it was. (...) Negates your joke? By no means! Does it negate your "point" that polygyny was still common in NT times? No, but it unless it was solely a joke, your use of the quote had about as much (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | Somehow, I get the feeling you are being deliberately obtuse. Scott A (20 years ago, 25-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) Really? I kinda get the same impression... DaveE (20 years ago, 26-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —David Laswell
|
| | | | (...) Probably some sort of historical precedence. By modern standards, they probably wouldn't be, since they're characterized as waiting at the reception hall rather than being part of the wedding party itself. On the other hand, they're (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times" —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) None of which is clear (to me at least) in the text Dave quoted. Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
