Yup. Sounds good to me. Sounds to me like God is in that equation. Now what's this bit of double-talk you're peddling about sojourners and such nonsense that no longer applies to us today? Tsk* Tsk* The way you carry on, you'd think the seed of Cain stowed away on Noah's Ark. 

No, but they were married.  You fail to prove otherwise all through this post. 

I thought that you said that stuff no longer applies to us. 

What?

I guess you don't consider yourself a Jew. 

I know where this is going and it's another topic.  You want to expand this "sinners ain't really married" into an encyclopedia, but I'm going to keep boiling this portion of your heresy down to this area, since I'm not trying to get a commentary published. 

That's okay because I don't think you are either. Yup. Probably the first ordinance of God to Man and Woman. In case you did not notice, it was called ONE FLESH. 

You post a Hebrew word for flesh and that is suppose to seal your theory. (You are artificially bold because you intimidate most people away with your frank talk about polygamy.)  It's reckoning time, and your going to fall hard.

Now there's the clincher:  It could not be "spoken against in the scriptures". Yes. Very good, but you really have to do much better than that to convince old scannerman that you have the truth. 

I haven't seen a clincher yet.

The scriptures say that if a man joins an harlot the two become one flesh also. I suppose that you would also like to think that this is godly, sanctified, and undefiled, marriage but I don't.

The problem you have building your theories with this verse is that the verse said an harlot.  An harlot is not qualified to marry.  It is a joining, but it's outside the parameters which govern marriage, so it is casual fornication and not marriage.  

And if a man takes another man's wife, 

Nothing else matters if a man takes another mans wife, it is adultery.  If such a woman allowed herself to be taken, then she wasn't saved, and according to you theory she wasn't married if she wasn't saved.

that isn't godly, holy, or sanctified either; neither is it ordained of God. 

It's unlawful because she was another mans wife. duh

They call that "adultery",  by the way. 

That depends on what they you are talking about.  In most churches they would make up a story of how cheated on she was, so then she becomes the erroneous innocent party, so the preacher says, "He broke the wedlock by cheating on you" so her new marriage has the preacher's full blessing. Theys believe all sorts of doctrines.  A conversation about they is endless. 

So you see, not all marriage is godly, holy, sanctified, or undefiled, no matter how much you want it to be.  

And I told you why.  The other mans wife is still bound to her first husband.  (Rom 7:2-3)

But I agree that it is a "marriage" (union) of a sort, after a type, a shadow, under that old covenant of the flesh, ONE FLESH, to be precise. I don't think that it is very godly.  

Well they join and thus defile each others temples regularly, but it's not a lawful union, because it is against the rules which govern marriage. It's not complicated either. 

I understand that you want all marriage to be justified in the eyes of God but it just isn't so - not REAL marriage... not GODLY marriage. 

Whatever, but all relationship are not real marriages, because God won't recognize them. 

I know how much you would prefer to glory in your flesh before God in this but sister, it just doesn't wash. God isn't interested in your tokens of flesh and blood or even in the condition of your bed sheets anymore. 

I some what agree with that, but in a different way and it broadens the topic, so another time perhaps.

Jesus is the GENUINE COVENANT now. If you don't have Him you really don't have a marriage. 

THAT is what you have not been able to prove.  I plainly showed you some married sinners and these bold unbiblical declarations are all you can come up with as a rebuttal. 

Oh sure, you may have "one flesh" at best. If you want to call that "marriage" you go right ahead... the sodomites and catamites and lesbians are right beside you on that one. Go stand with them. 

Gay people = apples   Virgins and true bachelors & widows = Oranges.

The flesh profiteth nothing.  because they join in the flesh and are given to join in the flesh but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge

If a young man or woman is not a whore or a whoremonger, they will not be judged as such.

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Hebrews 13:4

Did you get that? I hope you did. Does it say, "all marriage is honourable"? NOPE. It says, "marriage is honourable in all". 

Haha, or to some people it might say "Marriage is to be held in honor among all" or maybe "Marriage should be honored by all"

One should not nit-pick semantics over a kjv passage that is comprised of added English words like the first portion of Hebrews 13:4 is.

What sort of marriage is honourable in all? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. So what sort of "marriage is honourable in all" ? One flesh? I hardly think so. Is taking another man's wife honourable? Is it sanctified? Is it holy and undefiled? 

Casual sex with an harlot is forbidden, and I told you why. 

I think not. Keep your hands to yourself, you filthy-minded woman. Nothing good can come out of the hole you are talking about. Keep it covered because so far, all that has come out of it stinks to high heaven. I know of sodomites that put up better arguments and they stink too. Wash ye, and make ye clean. 

Hahaha (and I'm really laughing) and you've run out of gas.

 Apparently you're assuming that Lamech was the first man to have more than one wife, but the scripture says nothing of the sort.  If God wanted us to know who the first man to take more than one wife was, the Bible would have made it clear that it was the first time such a thing happened. You assume too much.

It's the first record of polygamy and polygamy is not going to prop you up or save you in this discussion. 

  Just like you would assume that all union in the flesh is godly marriage or genuine. Do you really think that the Holy Spirit is optional??? 

God will decide who has his Spirit and who does not.  That is a wait and see issue.

This is the lamest argument against two wives I've heard yet. 

I never argued against polygamy. The polygamy issue has allowed you to artificially become bold.  You use the polygamy issue to intimidate most people from a dialog with you. (and it works well)  That won't work with me.  You may use polygamy to muddy the water as pertaining to men and second, third, forth, fifth, ect . . .  wives, but you can not do so with women.  You get a woman who has been remarried while her first husband lives, and she is an adulteress, and whosoever marries her commits adultery, even after you get all done preaching heresy to her.

Do you also believe that we should be back in the garden chewing on roots and berries, buck naked, and romping with the animals? 

Ouden doesn't sell gas here.

Precedence is no justification for what you're trying to prove here. 

Precedence determines what the bible considers a marriage, because Jesus didn't lie. The Precedence I outlined is very problematic, and frankly, blows holes all in your theory. 

In the beginning there was no divorcement because there was NO SIN  

Your still out of gas.

Unless your beloved sinner kids repent of their sins, get baptised in Jesus name, and get filled with the Holy Ghost, their marriage is full of fornication, they will die in their sins, they won't make it to the MARRIAGE, and they're gonna get cast out! 

All those sinner kids had to do was get in the ark. It wasn't their marriages which had God wanting to destroy them, it was the evil they were committing.  Ham's marrage wasn't his problem, it was what he did to his drunk Dad, and that would not have happened if he hadn't been a married sinner, just like those who drown in the flood.

Now go wash your mouth and keep that hole closed until something better comes out of it. Shame on you! Your husband should give you a good spanking. Then again, it wouldn't surprise me to discover who wears the pants and who is donning the tutu. 

Hahaha (I'm really laughing some more) and you're still running on empty.

You're right. Stay here with the rest of the stinkers who ran over here with you. 

I plan on it, and my words will stay here to burn your eyes every time you look at them.

You don't want to debate with Jacobs Trouble. 

I'm debating with him right now, although it isn't much of a debate.  My first post about the married people who drown in the flood, bent him over and spanked his butt before the Whole World Wide Web!

If you stepped into Full Bible Truth your garments would be so filthy everyone there would have to smile and hold their noses. Jacobs Trouble would probably feel so sorry for you that he might be obligated to give you a proper burial.  

proper burial?  Ouden will protect me here, I'll stay here.

Not once did Jesus call this GODLY MARRIAGE. 

He just said marriage, and he said they were for life.

Not once did He say it was sanctified.

You tried.

Not once did He call it clean, and not once did He say that it was undefiled. STOP glorying in your flesh and get down to some serious repentance.

You lost.

Please don't tell me that you also believe the Church is the Son. Wait a minute... You embrace this filthy doctrine of devils too??? Well, no wonder!

I'd be ready to change the subject too if I were you.

Now SNW people.  That is how you handle a snake.