alorian
04-05-2007, 09:46 PM
Know is a four-letter word used in some translations of the bible to describe an act used to consecrate a marriage. Others say laying with somebody, etc.

When two people engage in such an act, they are bonded together. Marriages weren't considered actual marriages until consecrated in such a manner.

Two questions:

Once connected like this is it possible to fully be free of that bond?

Can one bond with more than one person this way?

A church lesson from last night prompted me to ask these things.

unshakeable15
04-05-2007, 09:57 PM
Hmm. Good thread. i'm interested to see what people say. i'm not really sure what i would like to respond to this, actually, but it definitely has the gears moving (and it's rather loud, they haven't moved in a while. ;))

skynes
04-06-2007, 03:55 AM
Once connected like this is it possible to fully be free of that bond?

I 'think' that although you can be free of that person, traces of that bond will be forever stuck to you. And likewise, bits of you will be stuck to them.

Can one bond with more than one person this way?


Yes. It's called Adultery. It's one reason why God was so against it, especially harlots.

1 Cor 6:16 "Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For "the two," He says, "shall become one flesh." "

You'll have a rather messy spirit after you join with 6 or 7 or more people.

The Lamma
04-06-2007, 10:53 AM
Yes. It's called Adultery.

Do note that even David, Solomen, Jacob, and many other Bible people had several wives.

skynes
04-06-2007, 11:00 AM
Do note that even David, Solomen, Jacob, and many other Bible people had several wives.

And? Got a verse where God commanded multiple wives? Off the top of my head, I can't think of any.

The Lamma
04-06-2007, 11:16 AM
No. You're right, there is no verse saying to have multiple wives. But there isn't a verse saying you shouldn't have multiple wives. You're just not allowed in North America.

skynes
04-06-2007, 11:34 AM
But there isn't a verse saying you shouldn't have multiple wives.

Matt 19:5 "and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"

Deuteronomy 17:17 "Neither shall he multiply wives for himself; ..."

alorian
04-06-2007, 12:43 PM
One of my favorite things about you Scott is that you back yourself up with scripture as often as you can.

What if the "knowing" is forced upon somebody, is there still a joining of spirits?

kittygirl
04-06-2007, 04:46 PM
there's emotional adultry too. Like calling another girl other than your girlfriend MORE, or meeting alone with a female coleage. The same goes for women too...

The Lamma
04-06-2007, 05:00 PM
Deuteronomy 17:17 "Neither shall he multiply wives for himself; ..."

Oh, thanks. You, once again, proved me wrong. Isn't that why we have discussions, to learn? :)

there's emotional adultry too. Like calling another girl other than your girlfriend MORE, or meeting alone with a female coleage. The same goes for women too...
Also note this verse.

Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

alorian
04-06-2007, 06:28 PM
there's emotional adultry too. Like calling another girl other than your girlfriend MORE, or meeting alone with a female coleage. The same goes for women too...

What if said girl is merely a friend?

skynes
04-07-2007, 01:30 AM
Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Wheeee he's learning :)

Oh, thanks. You, once again, proved me wrong. Isn't that why we have discussions, to learn?

The fruits of research :P I actually wasn't certain of there was a clear anti-polygamy (multiple wives) verse in scripture. So I searched for it.

NightCrawler
04-07-2007, 06:23 AM
there's emotional adultry too. Like calling another girl other than your girlfriend MORE, or meeting alone with a female coleage. The same goes for women too...
I disagree. It is bad, but I wouldn't call it adultery of any form, that sounds like a stretch. (regardless of the invention of the phone, is there any example you can think of where something like what you are saying is in Scripture?)

The Lamma
04-07-2007, 08:20 AM
Yeah, the only adultery is 1) actually commiting it, and 2) what Matthew 5:28 says, that lust is adultery.

And yes, Skynes, I am learning. :P

HogeyTheBear
04-07-2007, 09:19 AM
Emotional adultury?? What? Oh no! Without going whacko here I gotta say that you sound like you made that up. Kindly remember that if you have a boyfriend and he calls someone else female more than you, he might just be good friends with her. Sure ytheres a good possbility that he likes her, but it's whether or not he's lusting after her. Think about ity. Basing it after him just calling her a lot means you're jealous and YOU"RE the one sinning.

Don't get caught up in that.

If he's actually going through something whereh e commits himself emotionally to 2 girls then just dump him. Sounds cold but he needs a crude awakening.

dawn of light
04-07-2007, 10:12 AM
I 'think' that although you can be free of that person, traces of that bond will be forever stuck to you. And likewise, bits of you will be stuck to them.
I 'think' that you can be absolutely totally free of that person. I think it would take a lot of time praying through it and a lot of reading and a lot of healing from God. Many people just don't get to that place because they don't handle it correctly.

there's emotional adultry too. Like calling another girl other than your girlfriend MORE, or meeting alone with a female coleage. The same goes for women too...
I think calling it adultery is a little bit of a stretch too. It can be called relationship "unfaithfulness" though. If you're going to someone of the opposite sex for the emotional connection that you should get from your spouse/gf or bf. It's a clear sign of that person not being fully committed to the relationship. But I don't think it bonds them in the way that the Biblical "knowing" someone does.

What if the "knowing" is forced upon somebody, is there still a joining of spirits?
That's a good question. Since I'm often such an idealist, I'd like to think that it wouldn't...
But then where is the line drawn between forced, coerced, or manipulated?? What about a girl who is too drunk to stop it or under the influence of a date rape drug?

skynes
04-07-2007, 11:01 AM
One of my favorite things about you Scott is that you back yourself up with scripture as often as you can.

Thank you.

What if the "knowing" is forced upon somebody, is there still a joining of spirits?
That's a good question. Since I'm often such an idealist, I'd like to think that it wouldn't...
But then where is the line drawn between forced, coerced, or manipulated?? What about a girl who is too drunk to stop it or under the influence of a date rape drug?

I would say the joining still occurs. No clear scripture to support that, but I'll share my logic.

1 Co 6:16 "Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For "the two," He says, "shall become one flesh." "

With a harlot, there is no emotional attachment. It's just pay up, get sex. Straightforward enough. Yet Paul still states that this makes them one flesh. So despite there being an absence of love and commitment etc. That bond still occurs.

You're asking about a separate scenario, where one side is unwilling. However if given above shows that emotions play no part in it, then even being unwilling may not have a part either. In the rape cases, the girl is mentally and spiritually screwed up for years to come. Even after it's all dealt with and done, even into marriage. There are still side-effects from it. (Read from either 'Every womans battle' or 'Captivating', can't remember which, could be both though)

Furthermore this 'knowing' is physical in origin. With the spiritual bonding being a consequence of the physical. So the physical action may be all that is required to bond them.

*expects a reply of 'thats not fair'*

Nothing in life is fair.

Like calling another girl other than your girlfriend MORE, or meeting alone with a female coleage. The same goes for women too...


There is still a way to handle even that without it being adultery. Let me explain using myself.

I have at least twice as many female friends as I do male friends. I'm not a sporty type and I prefer sitting about talking about things important to each other. (Yes I admit that is a much more girly thing to do). Since Laura and my timetables are different, it's now always possible for us both to meet a friend at the same time, I would also have friends who are just mine because of University.

One thing I do to protect myself from any problems like what you suggested is to tell Laura 'everything'. Every person, every conversation, every phone call. If even all I did was walk up the university hall with a friend, I'd tell her.

I 'think' that you can be absolutely totally free of that person. I think it would take a lot of time praying through it and a lot of reading and a lot of healing from God. Many people just don't get to that place because they don't handle it correctly.


Again, no solid support but when I thought of this and being totally free the connection sprung to mind of this and sin. Not suggesting bonding is sin, but sin is a form of bondage. Even in our redeemed lives now, we are afflicted by sins and temptations. It won't be until we die that we are fully freed from it. Therefore it's possible that this knowing bond is also un-fully-freeable until we die.

Another thing, divorce. Husband and Wife divorce. If they could be fully free of the others bond, I can't think of a reason why they wouldn't be able to remarry. Assuming it is because of that bond that stops a person remarrying (I believe God has a practical reason for everything) then if they could be rid of that bond fully, they should be able to remarry.

This probably couldn't be the case though since upon death a person is freed from that bond and can remarry. Also Paul said if one believes and one doesn't, if the unbeliever wishes to leave the marriage, let them. the believe is under no obligation there. Lol, I went and proved myself wrong on that last point. Saving you all the effort ;)

The Lamma
04-07-2007, 05:03 PM
I have at least twice as many female friends as I do male friends. I'm not a sporty type and I prefer sitting about talking about things important to each other. (Yes I admit that is a much more girly thing to do).

Thats totally me, too. Lol. And I do agree, there will always be side-affects. Every choice we make has long-term effects, in some way or another. And I also agree that a couple should be able to re-marry if they love each other and want to re-bond. I see nothing wrong with that.

Voice of Truth
04-11-2007, 07:05 AM
Do note that even David, Solomen, Jacob, and many other Bible people had several wives.


Just because God allowed it to happen does not mean he endorsed it.

In the very beginning God mad Adam and Eve.



Not Adam and Eve, and Judy, and Lorrain, and Sally and...well you get the picture.

The Lamma
04-11-2007, 11:47 AM
Note the verses that Skynes posten after that. He really did beat me there.

Matt 19:5 "and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"

Deuteronomy 17:17 "Neither shall he multiply wives for himself; ..."

frymeskillet
04-13-2007, 08:59 PM
No. You're right, there is no verse saying to have multiple wives. But there isn't a verse saying you shouldn't have multiple wives. You're just not allowed in North America.

As with Incest...Bible does preach against it from a man's point of view..saying he shouldn't be with his sister, mom, wife's mom, grandma, wife's grandma, aunt, etc. (it goes on forever)

...But apparently cousins are okay in the bible, many prominent people in the bible were "joined" with relatives in their not so distant family.

I think human and worldly morality have preached to us that it is wrong in any way...however, I still wouldn't do it.






ANYWAYS, back on subject then :P

skynes
04-14-2007, 04:52 AM
Given genetic corruption, I'd say it's not wise to join with a cousin. Though nothing in scripture forbids it (I think, have to re-read that bit)

Unregistered
04-14-2007, 10:02 AM
...But apparently cousins are okay in the bible, many prominent people in the bible were "joined" with relatives in their not so distant family.

Ew :D let's try not to go off on that tangent again. :P I'd have to agree with Scott. Things were a bit different back then (I'd have to assume), genetically speaking.

The Lamma
04-16-2007, 12:34 PM
Beethoven married his cousin. You're allowed to marry your cousin. The Bible says nothing against it. But yeah, before long genetic corruption isn't gonna allow you to marry your second cousin.

dawn of light
04-16-2007, 02:02 PM
I have a friend whose parents are first cousins. They were originally from a Hudderite colony so it was considered acceptable to them.

The Lamma
04-16-2007, 05:19 PM
No one said it isn't acceptible here. Its just that no one does it. (unless my mind went blank :o)

dawn of light
04-16-2007, 06:11 PM
But it's definitely not socially acceptable. Not sure if it's against the law or not.

The Lamma
04-16-2007, 06:45 PM
Never heard anything for or against it. That's probably 'cause it never happens.