Subject:
|
Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:47:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1920 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
| |
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 bridegroom”?
|
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.
|
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
(e.g.) you will see that there is some interest in the section of text I
referenced and you quoted more fully.
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
