18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man[** you do not have permission to see this link **] there was not found a helper as his partner. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,
“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,[** you do not have permission to see this link **]
for out of Man[** you do not have permission to see this link **] this one was taken.”
24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.
1. i see here that the text seems to be saying that woman was created for the man because she was suitable, nowhere does the text deny that multiple woman can be one flesh.
2. some have used this text to argue that originally god wanted monogamy, but i don’t see it.
3. did the writer of the creation story have monogamy in mind?
I find compelling this statement of yours: “Some have used this text to argue that originally God wanted monogamy, but I don’t see it,” since the reading of text always leaves free space for interpretation.
Theorists and philosophers of language above all, have pondered about it.
Some people think that the text itself poses an infinite and unpredictable series of questions to the reader, who answers always legitimately, with his interpretation.
For others, there is a limit to the power of the reader: can we force the text to say things that it surely doesn’t say? Are limits to interpretation?
I don’t belong to the positivist side of the “querelle.” To me, the reader is free to impose his view on the text since, like the text, he does not exist.
If something cannot be used to tell a lie, it cannot be used to tell the truth.
I’m just saying what is right to say concerning the current issue. What I said before was about another time.
Bart D. Ehrman and you must be faithful right down to the last letter.
I have to be consistent with the moment.
If something cannot be used to tell a lie, it cannot be used to tell the truth.
Are you lying now or telling the truth?
I’m just saying what is right to say concerning the current issue. What I said before was about another time.
What would you say the current issue is? Are you trying to communicate?
Bart D. Ehrman and you must be faithful right down to the last letter.
Ehrman and Robert seem to be making an effort to be consistent. They are trying to communicate. Are you trying to communicate?
I have to be consistent with the moment.
Are you lying now or telling the truth? Are you trying to communicate?
The issue now is not about interpretation, but about authority.
It seems more fit to me not to go through Semiotics since the point is not just about: “Did the writer of the creation story have monogamy in mind?”
It’s how a religious text can inform your life, and what that text considers acceptable. Otherwise, why insist on such an argument?
So, of course, I would say that the text is irrelevant, also to the reader. Underlining the problem of text interpretation does not fit the moment.
If I say that the sky is dark tonight, would it be acceptable tomorrow at dawn?
The language used in the Hebrew of Genesis 2:24 is quite strong.
יַעֲזָב can be translated as “he will abandon” or even “he will forsake”.
דָבַק in the Qal stem means “to cling to”, “to stay with” or “to stick with”.
So you might render the verse: “Therefore a man will abandon his father and his mother, and cling to his wife, and they will be one flesh.”
The emphasis on the extremity of this switch and the firmness of the subsequent attachment suggests, to me, an exclusive relationship.
Further, scholars generally attribute this story (Genesis 1-2.4) to the Priestly school of writers, dating the composition to roughly 500 BCE. I don’t think there’s much evidence for polygamy as a common practice in Judaism during the Second Temple era, despite the fact that in earlier times it appears to have been generally accepted.
Stephen Ballentyne said
The language used in the Hebrew of Genesis 2:24 is quite strong.יַעֲזָב can be translated as “he will abandon” or even “he will forsake”.
דָבַק in the Qal stem means “to cling to”, “to stay with” or “to stick with”.
So you might render the verse: “Therefore a man will abandon his father and his mother, and cling to his wife, and they will be one flesh.”
The emphasis on the extremity of this switch and the firmness of the subsequent attachment suggests, to me, an exclusive relationship.
Christ and his disciples.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)