|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 5, 2018 2:08:44 GMT
As far as I knew from the past the female took the guy's last name when she married. But nowadays in some countries it's weird and they changed it. Some woman keep their last names and don't change it. I only agree to taking his name and I'm glad my church requires this. What do you think on this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 2:29:35 GMT
In india, the usual custom is, girl keep the name of her father before marriage, and after that, applying the last of her husband, could be the name of her husband or familial name of the husband.
According to me, this is legit, though my wife has not changed her surname :P :P
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 5, 2018 2:47:11 GMT
In india, the usual custom is, girl keep the name of her father before marriage, and after that, applying the last of her husband, could be the name of her husband or familial name of the husband. According to me, this is legit, though my wife has not changed her surname :P :P She should change it!
|
|
|
Post by AmericanCharm on Jun 5, 2018 3:41:36 GMT
The female should take the males last name.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Jun 5, 2018 3:42:31 GMT
As far as I knew from the past the female took the guy's last name when she married. But nowadays in some countries it's weird and they changed it. Some woman keep their last names and don't change it. I only agree to taking his name and I'm glad my church requires this. What do you think on this? I agree, she should take her husband’s last name. Mark 10:7-8 KJV [7] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; [8] And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 1 Corinthians 11:3 KJV [3] But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. The Bible seems to support this; the man is the head of the woman and they are one when married. It only makes sense for the woman to change her surname to her husbands.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 3:55:12 GMT
In india, the usual custom is, girl keep the name of her father before marriage, and after that, applying the last of her husband, could be the name of her husband or familial name of the husband. According to me, this is legit, though my wife has not changed her surname :P :P She should change it! I won't force this on her. I appear or sound harsh, but I am sweet guy :P :P
|
|
|
Post by Lone Wanderer on Jun 5, 2018 4:26:12 GMT
It does not matter because your kids can change their own names too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 4:53:41 GMT
As far as I knew from the past the female took the guy's last name when she married. But nowadays in some countries it's weird and they changed it. Some woman keep their last names and don't change it. I only agree to taking his name and I'm glad my church requires this. What do you think on this? I agree, she should take her husband’s last name. Mark 10:7-8 KJV [7] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; [8] And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 1 Corinthians 11:3 KJV [3] But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. The Bible seems to support this; the man is the head of the woman and they are one when married. It only makes sense for the woman to change her surname to her husbands. How can the Bible support taking a man's surname by a woman if there were no surnames at all when the Bible was written? Regarding the question itself, to me it's irrelevant. In most cases in Poland women still take husband's surname, but definitely there is no requirement. I also know a guy who took his wife's surname, but mainly because his father was an asshole and he wanted to get rid of his surname. And there are a lot of people who don't bother with such trivial details.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Jun 5, 2018 4:57:31 GMT
I agree, she should take her husband’s last name. Mark 10:7-8 KJV [7] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; [8] And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 1 Corinthians 11:3 KJV [3] But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. The Bible seems to support this; the man is the head of the woman and they are one when married. It only makes sense for the woman to change her surname to her husbands. How can the Bible support taking a man's surname by a woman if there were no surnames at all when the Bible was written? Regarding the question itself, to me it's irrelevant. In most cases in Poland women still take husband's surname, but definitely there is no requirement. I also know a guy who took his wife's surname, but mainly because his father was an asshole and he wanted to get rid of his surname. And there are a lot of people who don't bother with such trivial details. There were surnames when the Bible was written. One example is Judas Iscariot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 5:08:55 GMT
How can the Bible support taking a man's surname by a woman if there were no surnames at all when the Bible was written? Regarding the question itself, to me it's irrelevant. In most cases in Poland women still take husband's surname, but definitely there is no requirement. I also know a guy who took his wife's surname, but mainly because his father was an asshole and he wanted to get rid of his surname. And there are a lot of people who don't bother with such trivial details. There were surnames when the Bible was written. One example is Judas Iscariot. No, it's not a surname.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Jun 5, 2018 5:21:00 GMT
There were surnames when the Bible was written. One example is Judas Iscariot. No, it's not a surname. Luke 22:3 KJV [3] Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. Acts 10:5 KJV [5] And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter: Acts 12:12 KJV [12] And when he had considered the thing , he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying. Acts 15:22 KJV [22] Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely , Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: Matthew 10:3 KJV [3] Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Pontius Pilate was of the Pontii family in Rome. No, the Bible doesn’t specifically address the issue, but it would seem to support the wife taking the husbands surname via the verses I provided, the husband being the head of the wife and both of them becoming one under the head which is the husband. Shrug
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Jun 5, 2018 9:50:43 GMT
A woman can and refuse the name of her husband ... but I know from my no one will refuse!
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 6, 2018 6:43:36 GMT
When I was getting a marriage license once (don't ask why we postponed it and didn't get one but anyway... xD) they really didn't want me to change my last name. They wanted our names to stay the same. She was like yeah you can change and have same last name or he can take yours or you can take his. But after saying that she was like trying to say that not changing our last names to match was better and blah blah blah. I was like no I want to change it but she's like are you sure and whatever. I was getting mad. She didn't want me to change it to his. And he was trying to calm us down
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 7:37:51 GMT
Luke 22:3 KJV [3] Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. Acts 10:5 KJV [5] And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter: Acts 12:12 KJV [12] And when he had considered the thing , he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying. Acts 15:22 KJV [22] Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely , Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: Matthew 10:3 KJV [3] Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Pontius Pilate was of the Pontii family in Rome. No, the Bible doesn’t specifically address the issue, but it would seem to support the wife taking the husbands surname via the verses I provided, the husband being the head of the wife and both of them becoming one under the head which is the husband. Still, these are not the surnames. You quoted the English translations of the Bible, which may mention the surnames. But there were no surnames back then, and certainly "Peter" is not a surname at all. For comparison, the Polish translations mention "names" or how certain individuals were called. Back then to differentiate between few people sharing the name the others were referring either to the father's names (John son of Zachariah) or their place of origin (Jesus of Nazareth). John's nickname was the Baptist, but it was his surname, no Roman or Jewish official was referring to him this way, neither to Jesus as Jesus Christ. Same with Judas - Iscariot refers to his place of origin, which is Kariot. Same you had with the kings and dynasties. For instance, first dynasty ruling in Poland was Piast. It doesn't mean that the first king, Bolesław, had a surname Piast. No, it means that his ancestor had a name Piast (according to the legend). So he was just a descendant of Piast, just like Jesus was supposedly a descendant of David. Doesn't mean that Jesus had a surname Davidson or something. Although currently many surnames are made by referring to the name of someone's ancestor (just like mine) or to the place of origin, or even occupation, and many others. But this came to existance when surnames started to be used. In case of the Romans, these are not surnames neither. It is sometimes considered to be something similar, but as you probably know not everyone was using them. It was the name of the house/family, something like in the case of dynasties. So, some Roman lady married to a Roman consul surely took the name of his family (due to the fact that Rome was strongly based on patriarchy), but some random plebeian girl not necessarily. So, technically, the Bible doesn't support (nor is opposed to) taking husband's surname by his wife. Simply because there was no such a thing. Saying that it does is basically guessing, but at the same time, why the wife shouldn't dye her hair to her husband's hair colour? Or change the first name to masculine equivalent? The Bible says nothing about it, probably because it's a ridicilous idea, but I'm pretty much sure that the authors of the Bible had more important thoughts to share than caring about women's names.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Jun 6, 2018 7:48:25 GMT
Luke 22:3 KJV [3] Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. Acts 10:5 KJV [5] And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter: Acts 12:12 KJV [12] And when he had considered the thing , he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying. Acts 15:22 KJV [22] Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely , Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: Matthew 10:3 KJV [3] Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Pontius Pilate was of the Pontii family in Rome. No, the Bible doesn’t specifically address the issue, but it would seem to support the wife taking the husbands surname via the verses I provided, the husband being the head of the wife and both of them becoming one under the head which is the husband. Still, these are not the surnames. You quoted the English translations of the Bible, which may mention the surnames. But there were no surnames back then, and certainly "Peter" is not a surname at all. For comparison, the Polish translations mention "names" or how certain individuals were called. Back then to differentiate between few people sharing the name the others were referring either to the father's names (John son of Zachariah) or their place of origin (Jesus of Nazareth). John's nickname was the Baptist, but it was his surname, no Roman or Jewish official was referring to him this way, neither to Jesus as Jesus Christ. Same with Judas - Iscariot refers to his place of origin, which is Kariot. Same you had with the kings and dynasties. For instance, first dynasty ruling in Poland was Piast. It doesn't mean that the first king, Bolesław, had a surname Piast. No, it means that his ancestor had a name Piast (according to the legend). So he was just a descendant of Piast, just like Jesus was supposedly a descendant of David. Doesn't mean that Jesus had a surname Davidson or something. Although currently many surnames are made by referring to the name of someone's ancestor (just like mine) or to the place of origin, or even occupation, and many others. But this came to existance when surnames started to be used. In case of the Romans, these are not surnames neither. It is sometimes considered to be something similar, but as you probably know not everyone was using them. It was the name of the house/family, something like in the case of dynasties. So, some Roman lady married to a Roman consul surely took the name of his family (due to the fact that Rome was strongly based on patriarchy), but some random plebeian girl not necessarily. So, technically, the Bible doesn't support (nor is opposed to) taking husband's surname by his wife. Simply because there was no such a thing. Saying that it does is basically guessing, but at the same time, why the wife shouldn't dye her hair to her husband's hair colour? Or change the first name to masculine equivalent? The Bible says nothing about it, probably because it's a ridicilous idea, but I'm pretty much sure that the authors of the Bible had more important thoughts to share than caring about women's names. They are very much so surnames. Let me give you a little history on my surname. Travers was given to those people who collected tolls at bridges in the medieval era in modern day UK. It comes from the word "traverse". Where do you think the surnames "Smith" or "Schumaucher" come from?
|
|