so... what would an actual biblical marriage be?

[bailewen]

There apparently was no idea that women and men shared a 50-50 role in reproduction until pretty recently.

Kind of depends what you consider "recent". Talmudic teachings have been giving fairly 50-50 credit for a very long time.

http://www.cs.utah.edu/~spiegel/kabbalah/jkm04.htm

Text ‎4-12: Niddah 31a:

Our Rabbis taught: There are three partners in man, the Holy One, blessed be He, his father and his mother. His father supplies the semen of the white substance out of which are formed the child's bones, sinews, nails, the brain in his head and the white in his eye; his mother supplies the semen of the red substance out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair, blood and the black of his eye; and the Holy One, blessed be He, gives him the spirit and the breath, beauty of features, eyesight, the power of hearing and the ability to speak and to walk, understanding and discernment. When his time to depart from the world approaches the Holy One, blessed be He, takes away his share and leaves the shares of his father and his mother with them.

[Interloper]

Maybe, bailewen, but they were still clueless about actual biology, even the most basic idea of what "semen" is. I suspect that the "semen of the red substance" was menstrual blood, just as "semen of the white substance" is ejaculate. Like I said earlier, they had only the most superficially observable aspects of sexual reproduction processes to go by, and menstrual fluid and jiz... along with pregnancy and childbirth, are some of those most obvious ones.

[Steve James]

Question: someone once told me that the word "God" (not the name) is dual gender ... or is it neuter? Just curious.

[bailewen]

Maybe, bailewen, but they were still clueless about actual biology, even the most basic idea of what "semen" is. I suspect that the "semen of the red substance" was menstrual blood, just as "semen of the white substance" is ejaculate. Like I said earlier, they had only the most superficially observable aspects of sexual reproduction processes to go by, and menstrual fluid and jiz... along with pregnancy and childbirth, are some of those most obvious ones.

I made no comment whatsoever on the biological accuracy. I quick scan of the Talmud tractate quote I posted shows that it is entirely unscientific. I was just pointing out that it does give equal credit for the creation of a new life to both the husband and the wife. It's pretty 50/50. 5 aspects contributed by each [human] party.

Question: someone once told me that the word "God" (not the name) is dual gender ... or is it neuter? Just curious.

Biblically, there is no such word. There are just names and titles, lots of them. Most of them are gender ambiguous but not all. In genesis the implication is that G_d is a combination of both make and female which is why you get the rather confusing verse in Gen 1:27

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm

And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

Emphasis mine. The word here translated as "man", in Hebrew is "The Adam". Ha-Adam. "Adam" is preceded by the definate article "ha" or "the" which implies that "Adam" is almost more of a title or description than a name. It's what "man" is. The passage doesn't translate well because English does not allow for the sort of Gender ambiguity that is there in the original.

The term for "God" in the first few verses of Genesis is "Elohim" which, at first glance appear to be not only gender neutral, but plural. Classical Hebrew scholars explain that this is equivalent to the "royal we". My take on it is that it alludes to the sense of G_d as all the multiplicitious forces of nature. Those early passages of Genesis are incredibly dense with Kabalistic metaphor. The original "man" is described as being both male and female. It is only after the rib is removed that there is considered to be two sexes. The original Adam had not yet divided into heterosexuality and as it says that The Adam was created in His image, we can infer that G_d too is not divided into male or female.

[Michael]

The original "man" is described as being both male and female. It is only after the rib is removed that there is considered to be two sexes. The original Adam had not yet divided into heterosexuality and as it says that The Adam was created in His image, we can infer that G_d too is not divided into male or female.

Extremely interesting. Thanks for going into detail you all.

[Steve James]

The term for "God" in the first few verses of Genesis is "Elohim" which, at first glance appear to be not only gender neutral, but plural. Classical Hebrew scholars explain that this is equivalent to the "royal we".

What do you mean by "appear/s" in the first sentence? Just curious. But, the idea of the royal we is still gender ambiguous. Do you think it is deliberately ambivalent or is it descriptive? (I.e., was Elohim used because it described something or because something couldn't be precisely described?)

[Darth Rock&Roll]

I wonder if in 5000 years men will ponder the brothers grimm fairy tales as evidence of monsters and trolls? lol

The bible is written by humans, redacted, embellished, reduced, enlarged, reprinted, retranslated, rehashed and re-fed to humanity over the ages.

Anyone who takes it literally overall is mentally imbalanced, possibly retarded somewhat.

People who seek answers to life's problems might get some inspiration or two from it and it certainly doesn't take a genius to realize that it is in anyones best interest to not treat others badly because that will come back round to them. lol

overall it's a mass of cryptic nonsense from my experience, filled with contradictions and leading nowhere.
It is certainly not necessary to live one's life fully and bringing good to everyone around them.

It's just a book though.

[Interloper]

I made no comment whatsoever on the biological accuracy. I quick scan of the Talmud tractate quote I posted shows that it is entirely unscientific. I was just pointing out that it does give equal credit for the creation of a new life to both the husband and the wife. It's pretty 50/50. 5 aspects contributed by each [human] party.

Right, but scripture came before Talmud and Midrash, and then all those rabbis spent years trying to find rational explanations for pretty blatant misinformation in the scripture regarding reproductive biology, male-female contributions to it, and ecology in general.

[Chris Fleming]

"Jews are a bit unique in that we are allowed to question what we read"

You know, 'loper, not all Christians are Catholics.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

You know Chris, according to the pope, yes they are, and the rest of you are delusional.

[Chris Fleming]

You know Chris, according to the pope, yes they are, and the rest of you are delusional.

Too bad I won't be listening to you or the pope.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

You know Chris, according to the pope, yes they are, and the rest of you are delusional.

Too bad I won't be listening to you or the pope.

and you'll burn in hell for it.

well the pope part anyway. he is the churches father and he's given all you schism type people your fair warning.

[bailewen]

The term for "God" in the first few verses of Genesis is "Elohim" which, at first glance appear to be not only gender neutral, but plural. Classical Hebrew scholars explain that this is equivalent to the "royal we".

What do you mean by "appear/s" in the first sentence? Just curious. But, the idea of the royal we is still gender ambiguous. Do you think it is deliberately ambivalent or is it descriptive? (I.e., was Elohim used because it described something or because something couldn't be precisely described?)

I am referring to the fact that, in general, the suffix "-im" in Hebrew is used to denote the plural form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

Elohim has plural morphological form in Hebrew, but it is usually [2] used with singular verbs and adjectives in the Hebrew text. Traditionally, the God of Israel is understood as a singular Deity. Nevertheless, there is significant debate over the meaning of the plural morphology of "Elohim".

It's absolutely deliberately descriptive. There are dozens of different "names" of G-d that appear in the Hebrew, each with their own distinct meaning. Usually which one is used is a reference to what sort of relationship is being emphasized in the sentence. Although I haven't done truly serious research on the subject, it seems to me that "Elohim" is used most often to describe the sense of G-d in the most abstract way, like all the combined forces of nature. The root form, "El" is the most generic and is used as a suffix in names like "Isreal" (wrestles with god), Daniel (Judgement of God) or pretty much any angelic name at all. That's why the joke goes that Kryptonians were an Angelic race. They were created by a couple of Jewish writers and look at the names, Jorel, Kalel etc.

The only more completely genderless name in there is, perhaps, the tetragrammaton which really does represent all of creation. In any case, most of the holy names are also formulas. Their numerology tells you all sorts of things that are traditionally implied by their use.

[Steve James]

I am referring to the fact that, in general, the suffix "-im" in Hebrew is used to denote the plural form.

Yeah, I thought it was plural. That's why I asked why you used "seems."

[Chris Fleming]

You know Chris, according to the pope, yes they are, and the rest of you are delusional.

Too bad I won't be listening to you or the pope.

and you'll burn in hell for it.

well the pope part anyway. he is the churches father and he's given all you schism type people your fair warning.

And isn't that the situation all so prevalent in the past and even more so currently....that unbelievers will criticize and mock, saying that a person cannot know and enjoy Christ, and religious institutions will say that one must go through them and perform rituals, works, acts, odd beliefs and submit to the rule of man rather than of God.

But what does the Bible say? It says that the lover of Christ was chosen, redeemed and sanctified from even before the foundation of the world. And if this wasn't amazing enough, that person is qualified to enjoy Christ, "fully able to claim his share of the allotted portion of the saints in the light" (Col. 1:12).

Sorry, no mocker or self made religious dignitary can ever negate this inheritance or disqualify a person from their full right to claim and enjoy Christ as their all in all.