I'm kind of saying that the law can kill people which is no good. For instance a man who beats his wife for ten years has given his wife grounds for divorce even if he hasn't gone and had sex elsewhere and a man who out of weakness had sex once elsewhere and is truly sorry and repents and crucially still loves his wife as evidenced by his sorrow and repentance has not given grounds for his wife to divorce him.
Yes point taken,
I did not clarify on which Law.. you seem to be on the mosaic law.
we have laws against spousal abuse and it is a legal grounds for divorce..
we are both on the same page
I thought we were. LOL
Some though wont except this view though or that Christ taught this. Some well meaning Christians would say in affect that a woman has to take the beatings until she commits adultly or he does. Or that that she should separate without the ability to remarry because otherwise she sins. In other words although she is innocent she in affect still has to be punished with life long singleness and celibacy if the man doesn't commit adultery. Its all wrong in my view.
The point that I was making by starting this thread, and which most seem to have understood, is that things aren't always as we've been taught... especially when it comes to sex and sin.
Was Abraham guilty of adultery when he had sex with Hagar? Apparently not, for God approved of him. So, having sex out of the marriage arrangement doesn't appear to be sin in every case.
Then, was Jacob guilty of sin when he took two women (sisters) as wives, and thereafter had sex with their slave girls? Apparently not, because God approved of him.
The WTS appears to have reams of rabbinic documents on what constitutes "fornication" and "adultery," and on every other matter of daily life. However, the Bible definitions and examples are quite simple.
Don't get me wrong... I'm not condoning immoral practices. I'm just saying that we should each re-examine the values which have been set for us.
Fornication (gr. porneia, pronounced Por-neh-ee-ah) means, "that which is sold," and it refers to the types of illicit services that are sold by (male and female) prostitutes. So, it covers a wide range of lewd acts that one may engage in outside the marriage arrangement (but not masturbation).
Adultery (gr. moicheia, pronounced moh-ee-keh-ee-ah) refers to an act of unfaithfulness or betrayal (not necessarily fornication).
Moicheia is a Greek word, not a Christian word. And in a male-dominated society, it was generally used to describe an unfaithful wife. However, Jesus expanded the term to include husbands who were unfaithful to their wives, and to those men who would marry someone else's unfaithful wife.
So, what Jesus appears to be saying at Matthew 5:32 (and I'm not being dogmatic here), is that legal divorce (though not God's way) is the end of a marriage contract (and the possibility of infidelity). So, providing a certificate of release frees the faithful wife to marry again and from the social stigma of being called an adulteress (though hardly a matter of concern today).
The WTS "strains the weevils out of the flour" by creating rules as to who may remarry and who should be disfellowshipped if they do, in a set of rabbinic laws. However, Jesus' instructions appear to be based on whether there is a legal contract in effect, and what happens if a certificate of release hasn't been properly provided.
Jim thanks for the last post,,
I am not a very detailed person
I did not actually make the conection to where you were going...
Dear Jim and all others
It is a very interesting point, but unfortunately I haven't read so many translations and I do not know the one you are referring to, but I have read the NWT, in my own language and King James version of Matthew chapter 5 versus 32 and if I understand the meaning of "Causeth" they seems to be equal, where a more modern word maybe would have been "Expose", compared with the result Paul describe in 1 Corinthians chapter 7 versus 5, where most intimate separations ends up in adultery:
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except [it be] with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
If we take something or a verse out of the contents in the Scriptures, like the men behind The Watchtower Society and use a single verse as support for dogmas, it is and will always be a big mistake.
I remember a public speech about marriage and there was a good point and advice here, for persons who think of getting into a marriage: "You have a very short time to make a decision for a marriage, but you have your whole life to regret it"
There is no doubt in my mind what the Scriptures tell us about a marriage. A marriage is a life long relation, where there are only 2 things that can break it and release one of the parties:
1. If one of the parts commits adultery and the other part can't accept and forgive this. It is not up to the wrongdoer to cancel the marriage.
2. If one of them dies, then the marriage will end, as a natural fact.
There are no other possibilities, but of course it is complicated because we are imperfect, with hard hearts and as a consequence, Jehovah accepted the Israelites to break a marriage, by giving women a separation certificate. It changes again for the Christians and there was no other, than those 2, reasons for breaking a legal marriage.
When it comes to the word â€Adultery " I agree with New Truth's idea, that it could mean prostitution and other forms of Scriptural forbidden and illegal relation of sex, like the use of " Fornication", which in both situations will harm others, directly or indirectly.
When we then look at what comes forth in Acts 15:29 and do as the WT, by making it to a new law for Christians, abstain from blood, strangled animals, meat offered to idols and fornication, as an absolute, it makes Paul to an apostate, since he admit the eating of meat offered to idols, by stating that an idol is nothing in 1. Of Corinthians chapter 10 versus 19 and forward, it was only a conscious matter and not to get others to stumble.
19 What say I then? That the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
Paul was absolutely no apostate in my eyes, so when the Scriptures use the word, abstain from, it is not an absolute, but as recommendations, to be able to live well.
That is the same situation in question of a relation between people that are married, one or both of them, that’s why Jesus he said, if someone continue to look at another person, to demand that person or have sex, it was equal to commit adultery. So whatever it is a physically or mentally act, is the question of committing adultery, when somebody isn't free and can get hurt.
In a situation where a man and women was free to be married, I’m convinced that Jesus didn't have such a couple in minds. Then I must admit, that I have commit adultery when I saw my wife, since she was beautiful and I look at her and I will be a liar, if I say that I didn't want to have sex with her, before we get married, like the description in the Songs of Solomon, which wasn't married either. That’s among other things why Paul said: Let them marry!
So in accordance to my best two cents, there is harmony in what Jesus he said and what Paul he wrote in 1. Corinthians chapter 7 especially that a separation and to be cut of from sex, could lead to adultery and not that a woman or a man commit adultery as soon as they separate.
10 And unto the married I command, [yet] not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from [her] husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband: and let not the husband put away [his] wife.
I therefore agree with you, if the meaning in English of the phrases and words mean that a person commit adultery when they separate is wrong. There will be a risk for adultery will occur, because of the way we are created, not that it has been committed.
Finally, rules and principles are valid and equal for both men and women, there is no difference.
1 of Corinthians Chapter 7.
1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman.
2Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5Defraud ye not one the other, except [it be] with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
6But I speak this by permission, [and] not of commandment.
7For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
10And unto the married I command, [yet] not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from [her] husband:
11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to [her] husband: and let not the husband put away [his] wife.
12But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such [cases]: but God hath called us to peace.
16For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save [thy] husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save [thy] wife?
17But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
18Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
19Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
20Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
21Art thou called [being] a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use [it] rather.
22For he that is called in the Lord, [being] a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, [being] free, is Christ's servant.
23Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
24Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.
25Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
26I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, [I say], that [it is] good for a man so to be.
27Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
28But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
29But this I say, brethren, the time [is] short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
30And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
31And they that use this world, as not abusing [it]: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
32But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please [his] wife.
34There is difference [also] between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please [her] husband.
35And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
36But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of [her] age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
37Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
38So then he that giveth [her] in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth [her] not in marriage doeth better.
39The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
40But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
Does the use of many unrelated scriptures prove your personal viewpoint, or is that a way of avoiding the need to address the points suggested in the preceding?
Does the use of many unrelated scriptures prove your personal viewpoint, or is that a way of avoiding the need to address the points suggested in the preceding?
Dear Jim.
If there is something you don't understand or agree with, I will be happy to hear your positive comments.
As the kind and loving Brother you are, I'm sure you will help me out, if there is something I have misunderstand, in question of translation, documents and about the principles in the Scriptures, what it really like to tell us all.
I'm also convinced that you are able to sort out what is relevant or not and also will have the format to do so, by being contructive. :thumbup:
As the kind and loving Brother you are, I'm sure you will help me out, if there is something I have misunderstand, in question of translation, documents and about the principles in the Scriptures, what it really like to tell us all.
Sorry, my brother.I just hate to see so many irrelevent scriptures used in a reply (smacks of others on the Board who try to make a point with huge amouints of cut and paste). The point isn't that the Bible condones adultery (it doesn't), nor do I question whether fidelity and love is required in a marriage (it is). I rather undogmatically raised a question about the proper translation of a particular verse. I am familiar with how the NWT and KJ translate it, but both Bibles are proven wrong in their translation of many verses, so I am allowed to question their rendering of this particular verse.
As I pointed out above, condemning a faithful wife who has been cruely set free by an unfaithful husband, as an adulteress (as their texts imply) doesn't withstand the scruitiny of the Greek text, and appears wrong.
If you go to my previous posts, you will find that the words adultery and fornication don't mean the same thing, and I was in no way questioning whether fornication or adultery are wrong.
Sorry, my brother.I just hate to see so many irrelevent scriptures used in a reply (smacks of others on the Board who try to make a point with huge amouints of cut and paste). The point isn't that the Bible condones adultery (it doesn't), nor do I question whether fidelity and love is required in a marriage (it is). I rather undogmatically raised a question about the proper translation of a particular verse. I am familiar with how the NWT and KJ translate it, but both Bibles are proven wrong in their translation of many verses, so I am allowed to question their rendering of this particular verse.
Of course you are and if you read the first chaper in my previously post, you can see that I appreciate you rise the question:
"It is a very interesting point, but unfortunately I haven't read so many translations and I do not know the one you are referring to, but I have read the NWT, in my own language and King James version of Matthew chapter 5 versus 32 and if I understand the meaning of "Causeth" they seems to be equal, where a more modern word maybe would have been "Expose", compared with the result Paul describe in 1 Corinthians chapter 7 versus 5, where most intimate separations ends up in adultery:"
The reason for posting all the scriptures was based at the contents of all and the different posts, as an answer to the personal felings, ideas and thoughts, among them, whether a marriage could be broken or not, without adultery was involved and the background, why it should be possible, seen in the light of human behavior and how we treat each other.
The question your answer rise, regarding the NWT and the King James translation is, are they wrong or correct in their translation of Matthew chapter 5 verse 32, even that they have wrong translations of other versus, as you mentioned?
As I pointed out above, condemning a faithful wife who has been cruely set free by an unfaithful husband, as an adulteress (as their texts imply) doesn't withstand the scruitiny of the Greek text, and appears wrong.
I fully agree with you and hope that you also saw my response to this:
"So in accordance to my best two cents, there is harmony in what Jesus he said and what Paul he wrote in 1. Corinthians chapter 7 especially that a separation and to be cut of from sex, could lead to adultery and not that a woman or a man commit adultery as soon as they separate.
The Scriptures states clearly, that a woman or a man isn't bound under such circumstances and it is only when we read a translation in the way you describe. In the real world or reality, such a situation will never be actual.
If you go to my previous posts, you will find that the words adultery and fornication don't mean the same thing, and I was in no way questioning whether fornication or adultery are wrong.
I have never been thinking in these terms, that you was supporting or positive to adultery and fornication was Ok and if you look at my post you will se that we are on the same level regarding the understanding and may I say, equality of what fornication and adultery means.
You have mentioned that a marriage can or should be broken, as soon as the contract was cancelled and I'm sorry to inform, that I haven't found any support for your idea, thoughts or wishes, in the Scriptures, since Jesus said quite clear in Matthew chapter 19 versus 7 -9:
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
There is nothing in the other parts of the Scriptures that indicate or even insinuate, that a woman has committed and been guilty of adultery, just because she has left her husband or when it comes to a man and Jesus says it wery clear, that a situation of adultery first takes place when they remarry, in Matthew chapter 19 verse 9:
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
So a question to you Jim and others, that support a possibility for divorce, when none of the parties have commited adultery will be interesting to hear, if you agree with Jesus words or not and also if this translation is wrong, or there are other places in the Scriptures, that changes the fact, that a marriage isn't a life long relation between a man and women, until the death depart, where furthermore couples have answer yes to each other, in front of God and wittneses, as a demand from the Authorities?
The law is perfect, a guidance and a light for our feets, unfortunately we are not perfect and thats why we have Jesus Christ as a savior and mediator between us and God, not The Watchtower Society or any other religious human created organisation, only Jesus Christ.
The point that I was making by starting this thread, and which most seem to have understood, is that things aren't always as we've been taught... especially when it comes to sex and sin.
Was Abraham guilty of adultery when he had sex with Hagar? Apparently not, for God approved of him. So, having sex out of the marriage arrangement doesn't appear to be sin in every case.
Then, was Jacob guilty of sin when he took two (sisters) as wives, and thereafter had sex with their slave girls? Apparently not, because God approved of him.
The WTS appears to have reams of rabbinic documents on what constitutes "fornication" and "adultery," and on every other matter of daily life. However, the Bible definitions and examples are quite simple.
Don't get me wrong... I'm not condoning immoral practices. I'm just saying that we should each re-examine the values which have been set for us.
Fornication (gr. porneia, pronounced Por-neh-ee-ah) means, "that which is sold," and it refers to the types of illicit services that are sold by (male and female) prostitutes. So, it covers a wide range of lewd acts that one may engage in outside the marriage arrangement (but not masturbation).
Adultery (gr. moicheia, pronounced moh-ee-keh-ee-ah) refers to an act of unfaithfulness or betrayal (not necessarily fornication).
Moicheia is a Greek word, not a Christian word. And in a male-dominated society, it was generally used to describe an unfaithful wife. However, Jesus expanded the term to include husbands who were unfaithful to their wives, and to those men who would marry someone else's unfaithful wife.
So, what Jesus appears to be saying at Matthew 5:32 (and I'm not being dogmatic here), is that legal divorce (though not God's way) is the end of a marriage contract (and the possibility of infidelity). So, providing a certificate of release frees the faithful wife to marry again and from the social stigma of being called an adulteress (though hardly a matter of concern today).
The WTS "strains the weevils out of the flour" by creating rules as to who may remarry and who should be disfellowshipped if they do, in a set of rabbinic laws. However, Jesus' instructions appear to be based on whether there is a legal contract in effect, and what happens if a certificate of release hasn't been properly provided.
My older sister was married to a elder, who's dad was the P.O. Her husband, was a creep. He was always looking at young girls, and inviting them over to spend the night. She used me at the time I was 7, to spend the weekend as a experiment to see if he would try something with me. The only this is, I did not know this..she did. She would send me alone to the store with this creep, and he would always hug me too long, or hold my hand and sit me on his lap and rub me. One night whle ther, he came into the room I was sleeping in, and sat on the end of the bed, and I pretended I was asleep. He was rubbing me, and I was terrified to even move.
When I got back home, I told my mother, and she told my sister. My sister took him to the elders, and they did nothing. He kept his post as elder. She got disfellowshipped because she got a divorce against him. He would not get a divorce, and the elders told her if she did, she would be DF. My mom was told to keep this quiet. I was never close to my sister after that, and to this day,for her using me to trap her husband. Who could do that to a little girl?
30 Years pass, she gets a call from an elder in the congregation her former husband was in. He asks her to have me write a written letter on what happened. This happened in 2005, when I was first having doubts about staying or leaving the WTS. This confirmed my reason to leave, and never look back, because this creep married a pioneer sister with two young girls, right after my sister divorced him. He ended up molesting those two girls for many years till the wife discovered it.
This is about the time I found out about silent lambs website, and the pedophile problem within the WTS, and I realized it was just a large cult. I also knew God was letting me know these things at the right time, to help me make the right choice.
so if the wts is condoning rape of children, and disfellowshipping those who come forward who talk, is'nt this the same as committing adultery with a child, since it is in the pedophiles heart for someone besides his wife, only in a sick perverted way? Since the WTS condones rape of children, they also are guilty of committing adultery against small children. SICK!
The point that I was making by starting this thread, and which most seem to have understood, is that things aren't always as we've been taught... especially when it comes to sex and sin.
Was Abraham guilty of adultery when he had sex with Hagar? Apparently not, for God approved of him. So, having sex out of the marriage arrangement doesn't appear to be sin in every case.
Then, was Jacob guilty of sin when he took two (sisters) as wives, and thereafter had sex with their slave girls? Apparently not, because God approved of him.
The WTS appears to have reams of rabbinic documents on what constitutes "fornication" and "adultery," and on every other matter of daily life. However, the Bible definitions and examples are quite simple.
Don't get me wrong... I'm not condoning immoral practices. I'm just saying that we should each re-examine the values which have been set for us.
Fornication (gr. porneia, pronounced Por-neh-ee-ah) means, "that which is sold," and it refers to the types of illicit services that are sold by (male and female) prostitutes. So, it covers a wide range of lewd acts that one may engage in outside the marriage arrangement (but not masturbation).
Adultery (gr. moicheia, pronounced moh-ee-keh-ee-ah) refers to an act of unfaithfulness or betrayal (not necessarily fornication).
Moicheia is a Greek word, not a Christian word. And in a male-dominated society, it was generally used to describe an unfaithful wife. However, Jesus expanded the term to include husbands who were unfaithful to their wives, and to those men who would marry someone else's unfaithful wife.
So, what Jesus appears to be saying at Matthew 5:32 (and I'm not being dogmatic here), is that legal divorce (though not God's way) is the end of a marriage contract (and the possibility of infidelity). So, providing a certificate of release frees the faithful wife to marry again and from the social stigma of being called an adulteress (though hardly a matter of concern today).
The WTS "strains the weevils out of the flour" by creating rules as to who may remarry and who should be disfellowshipped if they do, in a set of rabbinic laws. However, Jesus' instructions appear to be based on whether there is a legal contract in effect, and what happens if a certificate of release hasn't been properly provided.
My older sister was married to a elder, who's dad was the P.O. Her husband, was a creep. He was always looking at young girls, and inviting them over to spend the night. She used me at the time I was 7, to spend the weekend as a experiment to see if he would try something with me. The only this is, I did not know this..she did. She would send me alone to the store with this creep, and he would always hug me too long, or hold my hand and sit me on his lap and rub me. One night whle ther, he came into the room I was sleeping in, and sat on the end of the bed, and I pretended I was asleep. He was rubbing me, and I was terrified to even move.
When I got back home, I told my mother, and she told my sister. My sister took him to the elders, and they did nothing. He kept his post as elder. She got disfellowshipped because she got a divorce against him. He would not get a divorce, and the elders told her if she did, she would be DF. My mom was told to keep this quiet. I was never close to my sister after that, and to this day,for her using me to trap her husband. Who could do that to a little girl?
30 Years pass, she gets a call from an elder in the congregation her former husband was in. He asks her to have me write a written letter on what happened. This happened in 2005, when I was first having doubts about staying or leaving the WTS. This confirmed my reason to leave, and never look back, because this creep married a pioneer sister with two young girls, right after my sister divorced him. He ended up molesting those two girls for many years till the wife discovered it.
This is about the time I found out about silent lambs website, and the pedophile problem within the WTS, and I realized it was just a large cult. I also knew God was letting me know these things at the right time, to help me make the right choice.
so if the wts is condoning rape of children, and disfellowshipping those who come forward who talk, is'nt this the same as committing adultery with a child, since it is in the pedophiles heart for someone besides his wife, only in a sick perverted way? Since the WTS condones rape of children, they also are guilty of committing adultery against small children. SICK!
Dear Sister.
It makes me really sorry to hear your story and experience and it is my sincerely hope that you have been able to discussed the matter openly with your parrents and later on with Bill Boven, after you get to learn about Silent Lambs.
Jim has already mentioned the way The Watchtower organisation handle many cases, which are totally without love and care for those that has to be protected for any price, the innocent, weak and small children.
The Watchtower Society behaviour and handling of such cases are based at the same protection mekanism and instructions, as the Catholic Churchs get use of, silence the victims and keep the cases inside, within their own control and out of reach for the public, by using the two wittnesses rule, turn it to slander and silencing the ones who defends the victim, furthermore use the Scriptures, that a brother shall not go to Court against another brother, in an attempt to protect their own man created organistation and asses, but Jehovah see everything and even worser, they are doing it in his name. What a shame.
The Governing Body should have known their duty, obeying the Higher Authorities, laws and regulation, where they, as a minimum, have an obligation to inform and suggest the victim and their parrents to take contact to professionels and the Authorities, since elders do not have any education to handle cases of molestration and abuse, both for the sake of the victim and the molestrator.
I really hope that you have been able to go on and continue your life and will have in mind, that Jehovah and Jesus Christ will take care of those wrongdoers in proper time and hope that it can be a little comfort in the meantime for you and all others, that have had such a traumatic experience in their lives.
24 Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some [men] they follow after.
13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things [are] naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.