Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Divorce
Line 14: Line 14:     
:Not at all. The problem with cases like this is that you lose the whole picture of what the Bible says, or in this case, what the Torah says. It's very clear elsewhere that this, "some indencency", is infidelity. It's the same language employed earlier and later in deuteronomy, with the same implications as the picture of salvation in Ezekiel, as well as the same implications as "doing evil" in the sight of the Lord in Judges. The Article simply asks for opinions. My opinion is that it's generally a bad idea to take snipits of the Bible, (Old or New Testament) when there's clearly an order to the thing. First, we establish -why- we need a messiah, then we get Jesus. It's like comparing directions for a cake: where in one instance, we have an instruction to say, "Bake the cake at 400*F," and at another instance, "Let cake cool." They're different stages of the very same process. And, if you look at earlier parts of Deuteronomy, ((Please, not in the KJV. KJV is a TERRIBLE translation for the modern era)) and even relook at this passage, you'll see what the point and thrust is. And no, the wife does not have any recourse. If she is found 'indecent', or to be an 'adulteress', there must be witnesses. This kind of 'putting out' can't just be an arbitrary thing. See Dueteronomy 17 at, i think, verse 6 and 7.. it's around there. [[User:Jdmeans|Jdmeans]] 11:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
 
:Not at all. The problem with cases like this is that you lose the whole picture of what the Bible says, or in this case, what the Torah says. It's very clear elsewhere that this, "some indencency", is infidelity. It's the same language employed earlier and later in deuteronomy, with the same implications as the picture of salvation in Ezekiel, as well as the same implications as "doing evil" in the sight of the Lord in Judges. The Article simply asks for opinions. My opinion is that it's generally a bad idea to take snipits of the Bible, (Old or New Testament) when there's clearly an order to the thing. First, we establish -why- we need a messiah, then we get Jesus. It's like comparing directions for a cake: where in one instance, we have an instruction to say, "Bake the cake at 400*F," and at another instance, "Let cake cool." They're different stages of the very same process. And, if you look at earlier parts of Deuteronomy, ((Please, not in the KJV. KJV is a TERRIBLE translation for the modern era)) and even relook at this passage, you'll see what the point and thrust is. And no, the wife does not have any recourse. If she is found 'indecent', or to be an 'adulteress', there must be witnesses. This kind of 'putting out' can't just be an arbitrary thing. See Dueteronomy 17 at, i think, verse 6 and 7.. it's around there. [[User:Jdmeans|Jdmeans]] 11:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Divorce ==
 +
 +
I think we need to look at the original verses mentioned Deut 24:1-4 and Mat 19:3-9.  In Deut Moses was the one who gave the right to divorce.  This was not from God.
 +
 +
In Mat Jesus gives us God word "...what God has joined together, let no one separate.".  Jesus also tells us that it was Moses' doing to give right to divorce because the people were "hard hearted". 
 +
 +
Due to our sinful natures we needed the divorce, but this is not what God intended, nor what he wants from his faithful.  I think Paul also has something about divorce but I will need to get that and enter later, unless someone else has that information.
 +
 +
Looking at this as Moses said, God said, there is no contradiction in the Bible, God's word.
3

edits

Navigation menu