Subject:
|
Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:38:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1993 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
| |
As much as the quote is great out of context, it looks pretty clear that
that’s not what’s intended.
|
I don’t get it; am I missing something obvious? What makes the “ten virgins”
“bridesmaids for the bride”?
|
Whoa!
Girl-on-girl-on-girl-on-girl-on-girl-on-girl-on-girl-on-girl-on-girl-on-girl-on-girl
action, straight from the pages. I’ll have to reread this book after all.
Dave!
|
**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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
