Moderator
Staff Member
Marriage
Active
Nope just repeating what the Word says u can argue with YH on that since ur words supersedes His.. not my monkies not my circus
common law marriages are validated in the eyes of Texas law using several factors, including statements from friends, relatives and other relevant parties that support this relationship status. Other components used to validate a common law marriage can include joint bank accounts or shared credit cards. again.. witnesses to the marriage..
Like I said we r told to follow the laws of the Land unless it goes against YH..
Why does it seems many Christians like to make the word complicated like to add a bit take away a bit? Act like ya need a degree too understand what YH tells His children.. His word is so simple even a child can understand yet what many wanna do is to make sure a child thinks they won't be able to.. very sad what is going on in that circle.. j s
Moderator
Staff Member
BUMP
Moderator
Staff Member
fornication (n.)
c. 1300, from Old French fornicacion "fornication, lewdness; prostitution; idolatry" (12c.), from Late Latin fornicationem (nominative fornicatio), noun of action from past-participle stem of fornicari "to fornicate," from Latin fornix (genitive fornicis) "brothel" (Juvenal, Horace), originally "arch, vaulted chamber, a vaulted opening, a covered way," probably an extension, based on appearance, from a source akin to fornus "brick oven of arched or domed shape" (from PIE root *gwher- "to heat, warm"). Strictly, "voluntary sex between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman;" extended in the Bible to adultery. The sense extension in Latin is perhaps because Roman prostitutes commonly solicited from under the arches of certain buildings.
fornication | Etymology of fornication by etymonline
"fornication, lewdness; prostitution; idolatry" (12c.), from Late Latin fornicationem… See origin and meaning of fornication.
www.etymonline.com
Moderator
Staff Member
fornication (n.)
c. 1300, from Old French fornicacion "fornication, lewdness; prostitution; idolatry" (12c.), from Late Latin fornicationem (nominative fornicatio), noun of action from past-participle stem of fornicari "to fornicate," from Latin fornix (genitive fornicis) "brothel" (Juvenal, Horace), originally "arch, vaulted chamber, a vaulted opening, a covered way," probably an extension, based on appearance, from a source akin to fornus "brick oven of arched or domed shape" (from PIE root *gwher- "to heat, warm"). Strictly, "voluntary sex between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman;" extended in the Bible to adultery. The sense extension in Latin is perhaps because Roman prostitutes commonly solicited from under the arches of certain buildings.
fornication | Etymology of fornication by etymonline
"fornication, lewdness; prostitution; idolatry" (12c.), from Late Latin fornicationem… See origin and meaning of fornication.
... however, the word fornicator/fornication is not necessarily correct, especially with our modern understanding of it.
Looking at/from the Greek, we see another word or two used. It can shed some light upon the more correct understanding that the reader will benefit from.
One is 'whoremonger'
Another, 'sexually immoral'.
It does depend on the translation and/or version of the Bible you refer to/with.
Looking at the Greek, we might also note that the word/term used is applicable to men. Changes the plot a bit.
πόρνος
pornos
There is also:
πόρνοι
(pornoi) — 2 Occurrences
1 Corinthians 6:9
GRK: πλανᾶσθε οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι
NAS: neither fornicators, nor...
KJV: neither fornicators, nor...
INT: Be misled neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters...
Revelation 22:15
GRK: καὶ οἱ πόρνοι καὶ οἱ
NAS: and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers...
KJV: and whoremongers, and...
INT: and the the sexually immoral and the...
-----
A few bits to chew over
Bless you ....><>
Loyal
Ok, well then you're not a fornicator.. you're just a sexually immoral whoremonger, I feel better now. For a minute there I was worried.
Moderator
Staff Member
and as always, it is sensible to understand the use of a word (in this case, fornicator) in the context we find it and that includes the 'setting' and 'audience' to who is is/was addressed.
Either way and every way, it is/was a serious matter and those who practice such will come under severe judgment.
Rewinding to the thread, fornication does not equal marriage in any way.
If a man is married, what would have been 'fornication' as we tend to think of it, is adultery. While no fornication or adultery is okay, what we see in the nine New Testament occurrences of the word relates to those who 'practice' or, habitually do such things.
Also of note is that those who do, can not be one with Christ's Body nor Bride.
Keeping the union of the Believer and Christ in mind is how we should look at and interpret and do marriage.
Bless you ....><>
Active
Then explain Jacob's SURPRISE in the morning. Aere you even familiar with the story???
Wrong again. David FORCED himself on her, and Joined flesh. They were married at that point. The ceremony that they had afterwards was nothing but window dressing. Old testament folks (because of the "hardness of their hearts", and the impossibility of change) were legally allowed to to participate in Bigamy, as long as they did it according to Mat 5 :31:32.
BUT HEY!!!! in the NEW COVENANT, Jesus brought us back to the original intent: ONE man, and ONE Woman, for life, and anything else is a SIN, which can be repented of, and forgiven/cleansed.
Loyal
Read the texts. They don't support your claims.
Last edited:
Active
Correction: "My interpretation of the texts doesn't support your claims". It's called "Theology" which is like noses. Everybody's got one.
Loyal
Theology is unlike noses, in that it's not possible to have a wrong nose.
You are wrong on this point about marriage. I'll spell it out for you again, even though others have done it perfectly well for you several times already in this thread.
2 Samuel 11:26 says when Bathsheba became David's wife.
When the mourning was over, David sent and brought her to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son.
This is after David has slept with Bathsheba, she tells him she is pregnant, David attempted a cover up, then arranged for her husband Uriah to be killed.
The text does not say that Bathsheba becoming his wife after the period of mourning this was a formality, window dressing or anything similar. It simply says that this was when Bethsheba became his wife.
If your understanding of marriage is correct, then then author of 2 Samuel is wrong, because on your reading David and Bathsheba became man and wife when they first slept together.
This is not a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of reading the text accurately.
Member
That only works if you admit, at that point she has 2 husbands.
Once uriah dies then that "problem" is solved
Anyhow there technically wasn't a law on the books that made statutory rape a sin, so in a sense david only committed adultery, he was within his authority as a king to do whatever he wanted, except for the adultery part.
Or we can just admit david knew what he was doing.
God could have chosen to keep uriah alive and have david killed.
Member
Anyhow, speaking from experience, three times in my life, but twice with the same person 18 years apart:
There is a boundary line that when crossed, at which you have known a person and something, no matter how small, is an irreversible function. Physical sexual contact is not required.
So when you read the countless stories of folks who divorce and run away with a childhood or highschool crush.. they wouldn't have done that if their minds were not irreversibly affected by the prior experience, which often was not sexual but it was a greater intimacy than what they were able to experience the second third or tenth time later.
The jews knew all this stuff thousands of years ago. Hence the strict rules of their culture to stop the young men from running on hormones.
The circle jerk over trying to use human rules to define what a marriage is, is just a waste of time. Everyone knows who they should have stayed with, and who not to committ adultery with.
Obviously, the "rules" just allow the human authorities to restore order. But they dont result in righteousness because the rules, cannot change the past.
As Jesus said, he who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery. This was true 6000 years prior to Jesus too.
There is a boundary line that when crossed, at which you have known a person and something, no matter how small, is an irreversible function. Physical sexual contact is not required.
So when you read the countless stories of folks who divorce and run away with a childhood or highschool crush.. they wouldn't have done that if their minds were not irreversibly affected by the prior experience, which often was not sexual but it was a greater intimacy than what they were able to experience the second third or tenth time later.
The jews knew all this stuff thousands of years ago. Hence the strict rules of their culture to stop the young men from running on hormones.
The circle jerk over trying to use human rules to define what a marriage is, is just a waste of time. Everyone knows who they should have stayed with, and who not to committ adultery with.
Obviously, the "rules" just allow the human authorities to restore order. But they dont result in righteousness because the rules, cannot change the past.
As Jesus said, he who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery. This was true 6000 years prior to Jesus too.
Active
And David had any number of wives. This is OLD Testament, remember
Member
This conversation needs to look at the moral and spiritual compasses and forget personal points. In the Old Testament, Adam and Eve were married without a J.P., Judge, or Pastor and other examples to examine. People dislike this truth because of their use of the infamous Back Seat for Sexual Release. They married and divorced those Hotties without license nor divorce decree. Yahova does not judge by man made laws.
Member
To Take a look at the compass you are referencing is not a bad thing at all it is even a necessity, but to fail to understand that the boat our lives are in did not begin and may not even yet be in a safe harbor and still has some sailing to do would be a position of error. A person's concept and even the substance of the reality of their life and their very personal identity can in a single moment crumble to the ground. At that moment the perspective you are left with, being apart of God's merciful plan, is oriented upward since at such a moment down offers no view of any redemption.
In all of this it may take two under God for a marriage but it only takes one not under God for a divorce. My view of divorce is put up against my view of Love which unfortunately for me is Love within me should not be allowed to fail. That is no failure within me or in any way at my hand should be allowed to defeat Love's substance. Or more simply stated at what point should I turn my face away? So that measure is eternal however that is not Biblical. Paul states if the unbeliever wants to leave let them leave. My hearts position establishing my conscience is in conflict with the advice and I choose to drop neither and live with both. There are many counsels from Jesus Himself that supports both. We are all individuals with a powerfully unique identity in Jesus Christ. Faith must lead, not any worldly thing, but conscience is not something to be dismissed out of hand because our personal integrity orbits around it and grief accompanies it's rupture. Yet Jesus's grip does not lesson and we whether it be law, or worldly desires, or any considerations at all, as followers of Jesus should harbor no concepts that would try to pry His fingers loose.
Active
I would offer the fall the foundation
They were married by the high priest of our calling Christ. Marriage by the creator. With a written document the book of law the bible . Not a book of philosophical theories
The fall . . . obeying the voice of a stranger that I would call a false prophet sent with false prophecy called a serpent, the most beautiful of all the creatures, In efect saying to the woman the signified weaker vessel to represent the bride the whole church . you will not surly die again look at my beauty and live forever (false prophecy ) Why trust in the things not seen.
Male and female made he mankind one creation. Two is used throughout as the one witness God has spoken
Genesis 3King James Version Now the serpent (False prophet) was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
1 Timothy 2:13-15King James Version13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived (neither shall you touch) was in the transgression Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
She shall be saved in childbearing ,speaks of those born again called the mother of us all (Galatian 6) The surrogate Christian womb the whole church (mankind ) Demonstrated by Paul suffering in pains of birth until Christ born again seed is formed Timothy a member as the chaste virgin bride the church
There the false prophet Satan deceived the woman by adding. ,true prorocy form the unseen Holy father came through Adam to signify Christ the husband of us all .Satan the father of lies from that very beginning murdered Abel the apostle sent with prophecy. he again as a false apostle sent with false prophecy added to prophecy neither shall you touch it . . touching it they both ate of the forbidden fruit false prophecy .
Virtue lost (two working as one) It was restored by Christ working with the Son of man redeemed mankind. Two working as one
Loyal
Bathsheba was no innocent in the matter, David was considered a beautiful man by many, and she was standing around nekkid, in an area that was easily seen by David. She knew that she was playing the temptress and david responded as most men would who had the power over ppl he did. She probably cared about her husband, but was not willing to go too long without the intimacy she desired. She probably regretted it, if she found out that David did what he did with her husband. But not so much that she stayed a widow. Neither were innocent in the matter, its a fallen world we live in.
Active
Simple!!! if you "JOIN FLESH", you're married (just ask Jacob).
Member
Roger that... turning on Dog Leg to Runway 10 Left.