62
edits
Changes
Talk:Biblical Law Discussions (view source)
Revision as of 15:54, April 7, 2007
, 15:54, April 7, 2007no edit summary
:What recourse did the woman so situated have? Both husbands found "some indecency" in her, but we're not told what that actually means, was there anyways to restore her name and reputation?
:What recourse did the woman so situated have? Both husbands found "some indecency" in her, but we're not told what that actually means, was there anyways to restore her name and reputation?
:I think, though, the point of the article is missed, as it seems to infer that Jesus thought the Bible of His day was flawed (in, at least) this one area. This could be bad for people of a fundamental outlook on the Bible, that is the "all or nothing" crowd. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]</sub> 01:41, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think, though, the point of the article is missed, as it seems to infer that Jesus thought the Bible of His day was flawed (in, at least) this one area. This could be bad for people of a fundamental outlook on the Bible, that is the "all or nothing" crowd. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]</sub> 01:41, 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)