Subject:
|
Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 24 Jul 2004 18:38:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1724 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
| |
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 bridegroom”?
|
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.
|
None of which is clear (to me at least) in the text Dave quoted.
Scott A
| |
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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: polygyny in "biblical times"
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
