Search results

There ya go, Rich. Since it was bothering you so much, I removed the part you zoomed right in on to find fault with in that articleREADERS SEE->Click->>> Deuteronomy 24:1-4 cannot be about sexual sinHowever the Strongs and the Thayers BOTH use 'ervah' and 'dabar', so you will have to forgive...

Of which it remains that it could refer to any improper behavior, including exposing herself to others and more. It could be any improper behavior that occurs later in the marriage. Agreed

In Devarim KD:A-D it is `ervat davar [ayin-resh-vav-tav dalet-veit-resh]. It varies from the root ervah. What is the difference? The difference is that the phrase does not indicate a sexual sin but instead an ambiguous 'uncleaness' as supported by it use in Deut 23 where the same phrase ERVAH...

(Richard_oti;51998) A word of caution here. I would be careful of making such statements as I have made bold above. For if perchance you are in error, you compound that error by such. Im pretty sure I covered my bases on that one As for 'one flesh', it appears from my POV you have yet to come...

If I may ask, what is it that you wonder about? Oh, its nothing too major, nothing Id base doctrine on.But lets say God had forbid a man to marry someone and he did anyway.I wonder if the situation wouldnt be the same on an individual level that Ezra 10 shows more broadly where they had taken...

(tim_from_pa;51980) You just don't understand the difference between Judah and Israel, and that God had two nations of people after they split as prophesied. Can't prove that wrong. It's in black and white over and over again ---house of Israel and house of Judah. The text even says both. So...

Ok guys, back to scripture and doctrine and providing actual evidence...at least for me

(tim_from_pa;51987) Ever hear of the psychological phenomenon called "projection"? That's just a scientific sounding name for the pot calling the kettle. Tell me then, Tim....what innocent brother or sister have I unjustly 'judged'?Disagreeing with your unscriptural theories isnt judging...

(tim_from_pa;51982) Sealed:Yes, I was taken back when I read that to you as well. Then you dont know as much about David as I do.Dont fool yourself into believing that HERE is the only contact he and I have. This has been going on for what...about 2 years now ?Ive concluded that the only way...

(tim_from_pa;51980) You just don't understand the difference between Judah and Israel, and that God had two nations of people after they split as prophesied. Can't prove that wrong. It's in black and white over and over again ---house of Israel and house of Judah. The text even says both. So...

(SealedEternal;51981) Well that's a wonderful Christian attitude to have, but it does illustrate your heart condition. No, it shows that Im very sick of seeing your hardhearted judgment of your innocent brothers and sisters.Im starting to understand that a soulless attitude such as yours may...

(tim_from_pa;51977) Zec:11:10: And I took my staff, even Beauty, [this is Israel]and cut it assunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all [i.e. all the people of Israel] the people.Zec:11:11: And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me...

(SealedEternal;51976) You're correct that it is unscriptural. I fully understand that when we let emotion take over we find all sorts of pragmatic reasons why we think we know better than God and should allow people an exit from their marriages and an attempt at a redo. However, we see from...

(tim_from_pa;51968) Simply put, it is not right to divorce. Yes, a person is allowed to divorce if the spouse has been unfaithful as Jesus taught, but then both people ought to stay divorced or be reconciled again unless one or the other dies.In the OT, the Lord divorced Israel, He did not...

(SealedEternal;51965) Not likely Billy.SealedEternal Youre right...here or at CF. Your doctrine is just too easily refuted.

Tell me, Davey....do you see the outcome being any different this time around ?

(SealedEternal;51947) Secondly, your position is illogical because according to you adultery is both the grounds for divorce and the sin one commits in remarriage at the same time. Semantics.This is why you are called 'legalist' by many.You are so intent on scrutinizing the letter that the...

(SealedEternal;51947) By the way, your own proof texts disprove your position. Hardly.That you fail to understand them because youre so intent on doing away with anything that gets in your way means pretty much nothing...as per usual. First of all, Mat 5:32 says that the woman who is innocent of...

Very peculiar.I just did a text search of 'sabbath' of all the letters from Romans to Jude and the ONLY instance I could find of it was this...Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:Seems pretty odd...

(SealedEternal;51932) Jesus said that adultery is the sin one commits by remarrying after a divorce, but nowhere in scripture does it say that adultery is grounds for divorce: Actually scripture shows quite conclusively that sexual immorality IS grounds for divorce.You simply change the...