Debate : 25064


Off-Topic / Debate / 25064	25063 \| 25065

Subject:	Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:13:19 GMT
Viewed:	1837 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:

I don’t get it; am I missing something obvious? What makes the “ten virgins” “bridesmaids for the bride”?

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 specifically labelled “virgins”, and it’s considered traditional to have unmarried women/girls stand with the bride (and theoretically they’ll remain virgins until they get married).

Message has 1 Reply:

		Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
(...) 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)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
(...) 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)

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

Custom Search