Subject:
|
Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:25:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2165 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
> **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 bride{groom}"?
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:
> 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?
And you're right insofar as it's not clear who the bridesmaids are "for", but
what *is* pretty clear (as was John's point) is that:
1) It's not actually trying to compare heaven to a bridegroom having 10 virgins
2) It's not saying that these 10 virgins in the story are waiting to have sex
with the bridegroom
3) It's not endorsing polygyny
Your point (Scott) in pulling that quote out appears indeed to be just a joke,
just like John ascertained, as further evidenced by the ";)" that directly
followed the quote. However, if it really wasn't, then perhaps you'll let us
know what your point was.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
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
|
|
|
|
