Amigo42

1 hour ago, Starise said:

I had to go through a divorce about 20 years ago. Ever since then I have seen it as one of those things I really didn't care to bring up, not only because the whole thing caused me great pain. Because as a Christian I felt I had failed, though it was not I who initiated or wanted the divorce I ultimately ended up being the one who had to work out the details finalizing it.

There are many Christians who went through divorce.Since I've been through a divorce I don't judge a brother or sister who has been through it. NEVER would I have considered a divorce. Many times we have no other choice. Mine was such a divorce.

Even if it was your fault for the divorce whoever you are. God will forgive you, hopefully valuable life lessons learned for life from it.

I don't personally think anyone should divorce unless they have very good reasons for it. Not one of those things you do on a whim without professional, hopefully christian counseling. If it had not been for the other party in my case I would still very likely be married to my 1st wife. I would have never initiated it ever.

Very well said!

This is just food for thought, but what do you all think?  When the Bible says that the flood was worldwide was it referring to the known world at that time or literally the entire world?  If the entire world, then what purpose since humans only inhabited a relatively small region at that time?  To them, this was the entire world that had flooded because they didn't know anything else.  What do you all think?

23 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

So, why does Jesus now call Satan "the ruler of this world"?
This phrase was the well-recognized short form of "the ruler of the darkness of this world," which Judaism used to refer to Satan, with "the darkness" referring to the world outside of Judaism; the Jews believed that Satan rules over the gentiles but not them.

 

Good point.  Context explains a lot when trying to understand what writers of the past meant by the statements made.  For example, I've read that "the mark of the beast" of revelation and "antichrist" actually had little to nothing to do with the modern day Christian understanding.  Instead, the writer of Revelation (John the Elder or John the Apostle) may have been referring to the current "beast" power of Rome that ruled at the time he wrote it (AD 90s).  The term beast was common code for Christians when discussing the pagan Roman empire which persecuted and killed Christians.  Instead, modern day Christians love to make this mean some one world government of the future run by the antichrist.

22 hours ago, JohnD said:

Underlying assumption to the OP title:

The OP has another person in mind as a

replacement for their current spouse...

OR they have convinced themselves

they are missing out on the perverted perks

of "freedom."

Just remember, friend. being where you are is 

what all the "free" folks are looking for. Just like

you did when you were "free."

Marriage is a roller coaster ride there are ups and

there downs.

I worked for Mayflower before my Postal job was available

and I moved many who were divorcing and the regret they had

(especially the exiting spouse usually the extramarital wanderer /

inquisitor). And in nearly 40 years of Postal work, I've seen the same

thing forwarding the mail of broken homes.

In the Navy I found folks who enlisted for 4 years who simply had a bad

month.

Don't make a stupid mistake based on flimsy feelings or temporary situations.

Marriage is as much about the commitment as it is about the love.

I concur with your analysis.  My question was kind of more theoretical.

6 hours ago, debrakay said:

I can only add my testimony and my belief to this.  My first marriage took place when I was 19 years old and 6 months pregnant.  It was a horrible marriage as he did not want to marry me but felt obligated because of the baby and his parents pressure to do the right thing.  We were completely incompatible at all levels and neither of us had a solid relationship with Jesus.  We both knew God existed but that was about it.  Even at this time I was seeking the Lord but he was not.  The marriage lasted 9 years though we separated and lived apart many times during that 9 years.  There was adultery on both parts during the marriage separations.   The marriage ended when I became born-again and he told me he wanted no part of my new found religion.  The marriage and the divorce were done before the eyes of man.  It was not a valid marriage in the eyes of God as He was not a part of our daily lives or our marriage.  

I then married a Christian man and we have been married for 38 years. 

My first marriage was not a marriage in the eyes of God as we were not living a Godly lifestyle.   Though there were wedding vows those vows were not seen, heard, or blessed by God.  The second set of vows was done with God, before God, and was a sacrament before God.  It was a valid contract and we remain faithful to that contract.

Not everyone will agree with how I see and understand marriage and the commitment made, through the eyes of God. During the first decade of my second marriage The Holy Spirit comforted me by telling me I was forgiven for my divorce.  He explained that the sacrament of marriage is only valid in His eyes if both are walking in relationship with Him.  Without Him the marriage vows are only valid in the eyes of man.  Anyone who walks with the Lord, and their spouse walks with the Lord, and they say the vows of the sacrament of marriage before God, is held to the contract for life.  Unless there is adultery in this marriage.  If there is adultery, He will forgive adultery, but forgiveness also needs to be given to the offender if at all possible.  Couples walking with the Lord should do everything possible to save the marriage.  The vows said before God should be held on to until there is absolutely no hope for survival of the marriage.  There is forgiveness for all sin when our heart is true to the Lord.

I appreciate your input.  It was very thoughtful and heartfelt.  I do agree with you that there is more than one way to view what is a true marriage in the eyes of God!  If someone's life becomes unbearable and it impacts their walk with the Lord or their life in negative way I believe God expects us to use the common sense that He gave us.

8 hours ago, Hopefully said:

I made the error of divorcing when I was very young and did not know the word.

Now that I know the word I have repented committing  adultery (dating after the divorce), and I realize I have to stay single for as long as my ex husband lives.

The good news is I didn’t remarry, and that we don’t need sex to survive. 

See that's tricky because I have a relative who single for years and remained technically "married" for several years even though she was only together for a few months.  Her husband started to cheat and have girlfriends, but even so people at church we're almost gleeful to tell her "nope you can't divorce.". Ironically, these same people were more than happy when their divorced older children had a chance remarry.  My point is that the Bible must be evaluated with wisdom.  Just because something is not mentioned doesn't mean it's not the correct choice for each person's particular situation.

We all know what the standard Christian answer is to this question, but in reality we all know half of all "Christian" marriages end in divorce.  Sometimes it works out for the better.  If you're not truly in love, is that fair to stay with that person keeping them from finding that?  

Here's another question.  Is the story of Adam and Eve literally or representative of God's creation of humans.  The word Adam means mankind or father of mankind.  Maybe the story is a symbol of God's creation of man.  Just a thought.  I don't know.  How do we know if it was meant to be literal?  We don't know the full context under which it was written.  I've heard that the genesis story was a rebuttal of the pagan creation models.  In other words, it may have been to show the way of the one true God.  At the same time, maybe the story is 100% literal.  I take from the story the overall message of the message of God's creation power.

17 hours ago, David1701 said:

Do you believe that was God was able and willing to breath out the Bible, so that it was free from error?  In other words, the Bible's inerrancy depends upon God, not man

Absolutely!  I do believe that he can, but I do not believe this is what he did.  I believe he allowed some degree of imperfection to shows our trust in Him and not simply in words written or spoken.

26 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Do you believe that the Bible is God-breathed?

If by God-breathed you mean, the Spirit of God inspired those who wrote the Bible, then yes I certainly agree.  However, God created us humans and all life with his own very hands, and look at how imperfect and corrupted humans have become.  Humans who were created perfect die, get sick, in some cases born with defect and deficiencies, and a litany of other ills of humanity due to disease of sin.  So, if perfectly created humans that were created by God's very hands have corruption, then anything that humans physically touch can be in error or corrupted in some way shape, or, form regardless of apparently inconsequential.  

I say all this to say that only God knows if there any genuine "errors" in the scriptures.  I don't think God want us to get weighed down with these details.  

28 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

It is something I have mentioned don’t know if anybody else has but if you read day 4 right after day 2 then 3 5,6 it’s about as smooth as it gets. There is no questioning how plants grow with no sun light etc. and the flow is spot on. And it just so happens evening and morning on some days are a verse by them selves.

the order is in older versions before numbering system I know but I don’t think God would confound the mind to prove His power in a explanation on creation. Don’t know since it’s OT writing could be a writing placement error long ago.

day 2 ends with the expanse being created day 4 starts with light being placed in the expanse.

The Second Day

6And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters, to separate the waters from the waters.” 7So God made the expanse and separated the waters beneath it from the waters above. And it was so.8God called the expanse “sky.” 

And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

The Fourth Day

14And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to distinguish between the day and the night, and let them be signs to mark the seasons and days and years. 15And let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth.” And it was so.

16God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. And He made the stars as well.

17God set these lights in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth,18to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

19And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

The Third Day

9And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered into one place, so that the dry land may appear.” And it was so. 10God called the dry land “earth,” and the gathering of waters He called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants and fruit trees, each bearing fruit with seed according to its kind.” And it was so. 12The earth produced vegetation: seed-bearing plants according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

13And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Thank you for providing this information.  There's always so much we're learning about the Word and its truth.  Maybe in later versions, it was reorganized for the logic and clarity.  More than likely priestly scribes wrote much of the OT after years of oral tradition.  I believe that Moses or his followers also wrote most or much of it.  The OT was scrupulously written and copied over centuries by priestly scribes who were devoted to such work.  Sometimes this was after centuries of oral tradition which was then written down.  

30 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

I’d like to see day 4 and day 3 genesis 1 get switched back but no one will dare ? 

Interesting.  I'm not familiar with this.

2 hours ago, David1701 said:

1 Kings 4:26 (ESV) Solomon also had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horsemen.

2 Chr. 9:25 (ESV) And Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots, and 12,000 horsemen, whom he stationed in the chariot cities and with the king in Jerusalem.

There are several possibilities that do not require there to be error here. The first, and most obvious, is that stalls for horses only are likely to be far more numerous than stalls large enough to be for horses and chariots.

There are other possibilities as well: for example, this is a quote from part of Gill's Commentary on 1 Ki. 4:26.

"...a reconciliation may be made, by observing, that here the writer, as Ben Gersom notes, gives the number of the horses that were in the stables, which were forty thousand, there the stables themselves, which were four thousand, ten horses in a stable; or here he numbers the stalls, which were forty thousand, and there the stables, which were four thousand, there being ten stalls in each; and the word there has the letter "yod" in it more than here, which is the numerical letter for "ten", and may point thereunto; or here the writer speaks of all the stalls for horses Solomon had throughout the kingdom, there of those only he had in Jerusalem. Benjamin of Tudela {g} affirms, that these stalls, or stables, which Solomon built very strong of large stones, are still in being in Jerusalem, and that there is no building to be seen like it any where; but no other writer speaks of them; nor is it at all probable that they should remain:..."

 

This may very well be realistic.  However, my point is that it's not really that important in the grand scheme of God's plan.  What if the truth is that it was just an error that a later scribe decided to correct.  I don't know.  Maybe not.  This is just a possibility.  If it were determined that it was a genuine error, would that cause doubt in a Christian's mind about the veracity of the entire Bible?  My point is that it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.  It shouldn't be that way.

3 hours ago, Sower said:

quote;   "I don't need him to be God to be my Savior"

Ok, but can you answer my question,

Do you believe Jesus has come in the flesh?

Your lack of response will answer for you...

Oh of course.  lol.  That's a basic requirement of being a Christian.  He most certainly did.  Amen!

11 hours ago, Waggles said:

The only reason the last verses of Mark 16 are controversial is because they clearly and unequivocally describe a Christian by these signs - as most mainstream faiths do not measure up to this then they call into question the veracity of scriptures.

Honestly, whether Christian scribes added clarification to the end of Mark years after it was written doesn't necessarily bother me especially if they had special insight.  Maybe they knew eyewitnesses and felt the need to provide additional insight.  I mean in those days, I'm not sure that was considered that controversial to them.  Also, the entire Bible more than likely has several of these scribal clarifications including the OT.  I don't think it's controversial if done in good faith.  

18 hours ago, Waggles said:

What small errors??

Identify them please.

One minor example that is pointed out by skeptics is the number of Solomon's Stables and horses.  Another is the issue of the supposed later added last few verses of Mark which weren't in earlier copies apparently.  Maybe later Christian scribes felt the need to elaborate the end of the story.  I don't know.  I'm only saying whether or not these are accurate criticisms or not, these issues don't change anything about the story.  These are not salvation issues and should not shake anyone's confidence in the Bible.

On 5/1/2021 at 8:13 PM, David1701 said:

Then on what do you base your claims that it contains error?  What are the claimed errors and how do you make that assessment?

Well, for example, skeptics will point out the following.  

1 Kings 4:26 says:

“Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen”.

2 Chronicles 9:25 says:

“Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

Now, this may be a scribal error.  I don't know.  I'm not making a determination.  I'm only saying this is something that may be pointed out.  Regardless, it's not a salvation issue. Look I trust the Word.  I'm only stating that God doesn't want us to be so focused on the issue of inerrancy to the point of missing the main point.  This is just my humble opinion not law.  God knows.  I don't know everything.  

31 minutes ago, Jayne said:

If you doubt the truth of God's word by doubting the stories of the Old Testament - especially the ones that the New Testament confirm as real [Adam/Eve, Flood, Jonah, the plagues and leaving Egypt, and MUCH more]...

...then why do you think Jesus Christ is real?  Doubt the first passage and doubt creeps in and covers the rest.

Thank you again for your thoughts.  That's actually my point.  There's a danger in focusing on the literal nature of each word because if a Christian is confronted with a genuine error, then one may panic.  My point is that there is no need to panic because the Bible is trustworthy, and those small errors or however you choose to describe them are not salvation issues.

23 minutes ago, David1701 said:

How would you propose to decide which of the words that God inspired are supposedly in error? Or do you think that some are inspired and some are not?

How would you know how much is in error and which parts? 

How could you trust any of it, if it contained an unknown quantity of errors that could not be identified?

How could you trust the overall gist of it, when that gist depends upon many of the details being literally and completely accurate?

You have not thought this through, have you?

 

Edited 10 minutes ago by David1701

Thank you for your question.  I've indeed thought on that, but again, I focus on the overall arch of truth of the Bible.  The Bible has proven itself trustworthy through archaeology, prophecy, science, and experiential knowledge.  

39 minutes ago, Waggles said:

So then share with us all these stories that are not true - merely illustrative ?? or poetical ?? 

I never stated that any particular story is not true.  I just meant that I don't get caught up in straining at gnats.  I don't think Christians should get caught up on the details.  For example, did Jesus feed 5,000 or did he feed 3,000?  Before the account was written down, it was told and retold for a few decades.  When stories are told and retold, sometimes small details change.  It doesn't mean the story is not true.  I just don't think God wants us to get up on the details.

37 minutes ago, Riverwalker said:

Once you have discounted the inerrancy of God's word, you have left the reservation.

2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

The lesson here to be learned is that just because something does not make sense to you, does not mean it is untrue, it just means it does not make sense to you.

God's word is truth, it is inerrant, it is LIFE

It was written by men, but inspired by the Holy Spirit, and even after have been written over a period longer than 1000 years, it is perfect and harmonious from beginning to end, and no group of men could that. Mohammed couldn't keep his own word straight over 40 years.

Time to get humble my friend and bow to the greater intellect and wisdom of God.

I agree the Bible is profitable for doctrine, reproof, and correction.  However, to say it is inspired, which it is, does not mean every word is 100% correct.  I could write a book that the Holy Spirit inspired me to write.  Does it mean it will be free from error or some genuine mistakes.  No.  It would overall still be an inspired word of God.

6 minutes ago, Sower said:

  "Is the Bible's version the most correct?"

If you haven't decided about that and have faith in the scriptures, why would you believe what it says.
Can you answer this;   Do you believe Jesus is God?
Do you believe Jesus has come in the flesh?
 

 

I believe Jesus is the Son of God and our Atonement.  I don't believe He is literally the Father because he never claimed to be. Jesus always deferred to the Father. However, I don't need him to be God to be my Savior.  The prophecy states that God has given him power.

“I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man,
Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days,
And they brought Him near before Him.
¹⁴ Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
Which shall not pass away,
And His kingdom the one
Which shall not be destroyed." (Daniel 7:13-14)

2 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

This is called a 'whale shark fish'. Quite possibly what Jonah met. Kid can play on the backs of these fish.

That's very interesting.  I have no doubt in God's power.  He can certainly do that.  He has creation power.  I just don't know if the story was originally understood as literal or like a parable.  We don't know even wrote it.  It could've been priestly scribes.  That doesn't mean the story is not true.

2 minutes ago, Jayne said:

Pardon me, but you seem like a skeptic yourself.

I am one  of those who believe what the Bible says about itself.  

• That is was penned by a many human beings.
• That is was WRITTEN by the Holy Spirit who "inspired" these human beings on what to say.

I am also one of those who believes that when the Bible speaks of a person by name - that the story is true.  Yes, the story of Jonah is true.  Is it the whale part that throws you?

For goodness sakes, Jesus Christ said the story of Jonah was true!

Yes, the whole earth full of people died in the Flood. Only 8 survived.

Why would the Bible NOT be true?

Hi thank you for your response.  I'm definitely not a skeptic, but I'm also just being honest.  Stories are sometimes changed when retold over decades.  That doesn't mean we can't have confidence in the overall message of the Bible.  Jesus came and died as our sacrifice so that we can be saved.  Amen!

Is the book of Jonah literal or a  parable of sorts.  Was there a worldwide?  Yes, I believe there was due to the untold number of flood stories across all cultures and background.  Is the Bible's version the most correct?  I believe it sounds the most logical, but it may represent a real world event that occurred before written language was created.  Did the flood destroy all except for a few souls.  I don't know.  Maybe a hundred people survived.  Maybe it was a thousand. Maybe a million.  I don't know.  However, the Biblical story represents a truth that really occurred at some point regardless if the details.