 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
