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.

You say that it seals a theory because you reject the truth. My frank talk about Bible Marriage is what in fact bothers you. Most people are intimidated when they are presented with aspects of the truth that they don't care for. All sorts of spirits in them start to writhe. Sometimes they suddenly get ill.  Often they can't handle the truth because those spirits in them are offended. They resort to threats and lies and false witness. If I should fall, I pray that I fall on the right side of the sword and that I fall to the glory and honor of the Only Wise God. If I do not fall, what then? I have lifted the standard higher and I have honored my Lord and saviour even the more.

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.

If the gospel be hid, it is hidden to them that are blind.

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.  

That you conveniently edited the scripture from that statement is no great wonder. God called marriage one flesh and did so to the faces of Pharisees even more zealous than you. This is the same sort of marriage that you are trying to say is "godly", "sanctified", "holy", and "undefiled". Let's put back the scripture that came with that statement and do not reject the truth:

Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? 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. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. (1 Corinthians 6:15,16,17)

I hope you caught that this time. I really tried to get you to see what Jesus was saying there in the blue letters but since you can't seem to make out those words: "for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit."  I have put them here for you in red: And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Mark 5. Look it up.  

What was the ONE FLESH Jesus was talking about? What was the ONE FLESH that Paul was talking about in Corinthians? A: It was the same ONE FLESH signified by the two aramaic words that I posted. Jesus and Paul were talking about what that translaters called "marriage". Godly, or ungodly... not all marriage is godly. If you cannot receive this truth, then Jesus said, " Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you." Because you reject the truth.

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.

I'm glad we agree on this much. When a man takes another man's wife, that is adultery. That is a good definition to stick to. Put away your encyclopedia and stick to the word. She surely wasn't married to Jesus if she wasn't saved. This is true. All they had was the corrupt version, the fleshly version, and a covenant that wasn't even sanctified by God.

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

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

It still doesn't make it godly marriage. It doesn't make it authentic because God did not authorize it.

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. 

That is surely a problem. Making up stories and bearing false witness is not from God. When the preacher says wedlock is "broken by adultery" it is because the preacher is right. Wedlock is seriously damaged by adultery. Some say that it can be repaired but in this world and in this time I will be honest and say that it is highly unlikely that it will ever heal. That is why adultery is so wicked. Evenso, the husbandman is married to an adulteress until which time he honors the law just as it is written: he finds uncleaness in her and gives her the bill (because his heart is not so hard) or, he hands her over to the authorities and they stone her to death with her adulterous partner. BTW... they should bring back that law too, so that the husband has an option. IMHO an adulteress and adulterer should beg for his or her life and a merciful servant of Jesus should have the option of forgiving such an horrendous crime. Like you said, he or she wouldn't even be saved if they did such a thing. It is not His will that any should perish.

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)

Yes. Even for as long as they both shall live. Nonetheless. If he or she is already dead, Jesus said, "Let the dead bury the dead." (Matthew 8:22) I refer to your statement about how adulteresses and adulterers are not even saved. They're dead in their sins, says the scripture.

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. 

It seems we agree again. But in the beginning it was not so. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put assunder. Once again we cannot agree that all marriage is godly. Only lawful union is godly because lawful union fufills the law. Not one single mortal being ever fulfilled the law outside of Jesus. So if those unions that are not found in Jesus then they are just not godly. God certainly did not put them together to be ONE FLESH , sanctified, undefiled, and holy, if it was all their idea to fornicate, commit adultery, and/ or rape, sodomize, or "marry" their pet dolphin. Under the old ordinance they are "married" in the flesh but how much can we trust in the flesh? Something sanctifies a marriage. Something makes it more than just CARNAL. What ever could that something be? Is it flesh joining to flesh?... or is it something else.

Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? 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. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. (1 Corinthians 6:15,16,17)

(continued)

Sinners are married alright... They're married to the wrong spirit.