Not sure what you mean by "enforced," but the gospel before Paul was "obey the commandments."
Why Stop At Birth?
- Thread starter ok doser
- Start date
glorydaz
Well-known member
Actually, it in fact does.
And I pointed out why.
Allow me to show you:
The word we translate as "uncleanness" means sexual immorality.
Strong's h6172
- Lexical: עֶרְוָה
- Transliteration: ervah
- Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
- Phonetic Spelling: er-vaw'
- Definition: nakedness.
- Origin: From arah; nudity, literally (especially the pudenda) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish).
- Usage: nakedness, shame, unclean(-ness).
- Translated as (count): the nakedness (22), nakedness (13), your nakedness (6), and the nakedness (2), their nakedness (2), bare (1), her nakedness (1), his nakedness (1), nakedness her (1), or the nakedness (1), to the shame (1), unclean (1), uncleanness (1), your own nakedness (1).
Spoiler
So yes, in fact, Deuteronomy 24:1 IS talking about sexual immorality.
Let's just address this one verse (it was one you cited yourself).
From what I gather, you're claiming "uncleaness" in this text is referring to sexual immorality, is that correct? Then I would ask why the woman wasn't stoned for her sexual immorality?
Deuteronomy 24:1
24 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
24 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Uncleanness does NOT just refer to sexual immorality....a woman was unclean when she was having her period and so many days after. Perhaps this woman had a "woman problem". Bet you didn't think of that, did ya?
glorydaz
Well-known member
I was referring to this "forced marriage" JR was talking about.
Yes, the gospel before Paul's was "obey the commandments", AND obey the laws set down by Moses for the nation of ISRAEL.
Because, again, the death penalty is NOT the punishment for fornication.
Fornication DOES NOT deserve the death penalty.
Did you notice that the woman was to be given a certificate of divorce?
Her uncleanness, her sexual immorality, was grounds for her husband to divorce her, as the law stated, and as Jesus reaffirmed in Matthew 5.
If it were the same Hebrew word, you would have a very strong point.
However...
The word translated as "unclean" in Leviticus 15:19 (see below) and and the next several verses is a completely different word than the word used in Deuteronomy 24:1 for "uncleanness":
| Strong's h2930 - Lexical: טָמֵא - Transliteration: tame - Part of Speech: Verb - Phonetic Spelling: taw-may' - Definition: unclean. - Origin: A primitive root; to be foul, especially in a ceremial or moral sense (contaminated). - Usage: defile (self), pollute (self), be (make, make self, pronounce) unclean, X utterly. - Translated as (count): Spoiler
|
What is the systematic method you use to rightly divide the laws for Israel from the laws for the rest of the world?
Do you have one? Or do you make any division at all between laws for Israel and laws for the world?
Because if you don't, or if you don't have a method to divide them, then how is it that you can say that murder should be against the law but laws against adultery should not be on the books?
glorydaz
Well-known member
Was the woman a fornicator while married? :think:
I thought you said fornicators were not married.
If she was married, sure seems to me like she'd be committing adultery, and should be stoned.
Since the passage isn't talking about adultery, but rather about sexual immorality, "uncleanness," I would think not.
Could you quote me on that?
I would agree.
If she were committing adultery.
But adultery (and fornication, for that matter) is only one form of sexual immorality.
Just like all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares, so too all adultery is sexual immorality, but not all sexual immorality is adultery.
glorydaz
Well-known member
My "systematic approach" would be to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's. Whatever government man is under is responsible for making laws and handing out punishments.
So then why should it be wrong for a government to take some of God's laws and use them as its own? (eg, the law against perjury)
glorydaz
Well-known member
glorydaz
Well-known member
I've also said adultery is fornication, yet I specified two unmarried persons in that post.
So then why are you opposed to having adultery being illegal?
If a government decides to agree with God's law, which says that adultery is a crime, then why do you oppose it being illegal?
glorydaz
Well-known member
You keep insisting her "uncleanness" was sexual immorality, but you're boxing yourself into a corner. The issue is uncleanness. Try and stick with that. The text says, "she may go and be another man's wife". What fault, then, are you charging her with that she can freely go be a wife to another Jewish man? Marrying a divorced women with the fault of sexual immorality is fine?
Deuteronomy 24:1
24 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
24 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
Rather, it was an "uncleanness" whereby she found "no favour in his eyes". He sent her away guiltless and she was able to marry again. Have you read the rules for uncleanness? Bodily discharges, sores, or abnormal flows of blood... Diseases such as leprosy. Perhaps the woman was a leper or had some bleeding disorder, and you keep accusing her of being an ally cat.
Leviticus 15:1-3
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When any man hath a running issue out of his flesh, because of his issue he is unclean.
3 And this shall be his uncleanness in his issue: whether his flesh run with his issue, or his flesh be stopped from his issue, it is his uncleanness.
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When any man hath a running issue out of his flesh, because of his issue he is unclean.
3 And this shall be his uncleanness in his issue: whether his flesh run with his issue, or his flesh be stopped from his issue, it is his uncleanness.
You're equivocating two different "uncleanness"-es.
Again:
...
Strong's h6172
- Lexical: עֶרְוָה
- Transliteration: ervah
- Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
- Phonetic Spelling: er-vaw'
- Definition: nakedness.
- Origin: From arah; nudity, literally (especially the pudenda) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish).
- Usage: nakedness, shame, unclean(-ness).
- Translated as (count): the nakedness (22), nakedness (13), your nakedness (6), and the nakedness (2), their nakedness (2), bare (1), her nakedness (1), his nakedness (1), nakedness her (1), or the nakedness (1), to the shame (1), unclean (1), uncleanness (1), your own nakedness (1).
^^^^
Used in Deuteronomy 24:1, et al
IS NOT
Used in Leviticus 15:3, et al
vvvv
Strong's h2930
- Lexical: טָמֵא
- Transliteration: tame
- Part of Speech: Verb
- Phonetic Spelling: taw-may'
- Definition: unclean.
- Origin: A primitive root; to be foul, especially in a ceremial or moral sense (contaminated).
- Usage: defile (self), pollute (self), be (make, make self, pronounce) unclean, X utterly.
- Translated as (count):Spoiler
Things that are different are not the same.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Well, I only saw the one post. Words mean lots of different things, so clarifying terms is always a good thing. Personally, I see fornication as between unmarried persons. Otherwise you'd say one was committing adultery if there was a marriage in the mix.
Oops, you're jumping to conclusions. I never once said if the government decided to make it illegal I would oppose it. It was illegal for years.
It's the sentence of death that I would object to....were the government ever decide to make it illegal again. I would object to that, because those harsh penalties would result in false accusations and even worse crimes for the coverup.
I'm talking basic common sense, here, which I believe is much needed in this discussion
glorydaz
Well-known member
Am I supposed to read that?
There's not a lot there. I truncated both of those posts to just the screenshots and the Strong's entries.
:thumb:
Fair enough.
So, there's a reason I also brought up perjury besides just to have an example other than adultery.
GD, do you know what the punishment for perjury (bearing false witness) is in the Bible? How about in our current criminal code?
(Bear with me as we go off topic for a moment, this will come back around to adultery in a moment.)
glorydaz
Well-known member
Here, while I study yours, you can check this out. And read what Jesus said about what Moses did.
| Adam Clarke Commentary Some uncleanness - Any cause of dislike, for this great latitude of meaning the fact itself authorizes us to adopt, for it is certain that a Jew might put away his wife for any cause that seemed good to himself; and so hard were their hearts, that Moses suffered this; and we find they continued this practice even to the time of our Lord, who strongly reprehended them on the account, and showed that such license was wholly inconsistent with the original design of marriage; see Matthew 5:31; (note), etc.; Matthew 19:3; (note), etc., and the notes there. |
Matt. 19:7 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.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I just read that in Bob's book, so, yes, I know.
Before you go too far trying to convince me that we should adopt God's laws for ungodly people, I will say it will not work. It didn't work for the Jews, and it won't work for us. God's law was never intended to make men righteous. It was never intended to make society at large righteous. It was made to show men their sinfulness and lead them to Christ.
It has always been the case, and will always be the case.
Instead of convincing us we should kill homosexuals, you should be convincing us to preach the Gospel to them. The heart must change before the flesh can change. Now, I'm tired. Keep your points short and sweet, and I'll try to address them tomorrow.