"Thou shalt not commit adultery"

[Dan_79]

Hi everyone.

I read somewhere (and have found myself saying the same thing) that since God commanded man not to covert another mans wife, this was to mean that extra marital affairs was already covered in this commandment and left adultery to mean mixing as in thou shalt not mix/adulterate/miscegenate thy seed because otherwise this is a repeat of another commandment.

What is everyones thoughts on this?

This resulted in me joining at least 2 racially driven Christian forums and feel the legitimacy to question it.

Dual seedlines etc etc

This has got me banned from a forum as I posted up a speech that basically called out who was ISRAEL and who was EDOM.

I dont wish to attack anyone on racial grounds, however once I adopted this belief I have found fewer and fewer Christians willing to debate this using scripture and I still believe the truth has nothing to fear from scrutiny (obviously its a very touchy subject I realize this.)

I need to know what is wrong with this based on scripture if its heresy I can drop it and move on.

Dan

 

www.hope-of-israel.org/7thcommandment.html

Edited April 16, 2018 by Dan_79
added link to source topic (omitted the CI one due to previous ban)

[Not me]

2 hours ago, Dan_79 said:

Hi everyone.

I read somewhere (and have found myself saying the same thing) that since God commanded man not to covert another mans wife, this was to mean that extra marital affairs was already covered in this commandment and left adultery to mean mixing as in thou shalt not mix/adulterate/miscegenate thy seed because otherwise this is a repeat of another commandment.

What is everyones thoughts on this?

This resulted in me joining at least 2 racially driven Christian forums and feel the legitimacy to question it.

Dual seedlines etc etc

This has got me banned from a forum as I posted up a speech that basically called out who was ISRAEL and who was EDOM.

I dont wish to attack anyone on racial grounds, however once I adopted this belief I have found fewer and fewer Christians willing to debate this using scripture and I still believe the truth has nothing to fear from scrutiny (obviously its a very touchy subject I realize this.)

I need to know what is wrong with this based on scripture if its heresy I can drop it and move on.

Dan

 

 

I think the meaning of what it means to “covet they neighbor wife, ox or anything that is your neighbors” has to do with wanting what is theirs. Something different from adultery. For it deals with “possession(s)”. Nothing to do with the male female relationship. 

That’s  been my understanding. But if it’s something that concerns you, I’m sure if you keep asking God with a pure heart He will reveal the truth to you. 

Much love in Christ, Not me

Edited April 16, 2018 by Not me

[frienduff thaylorde]

2 hours ago, Dan_79 said:

Hi everyone.

I read somewhere (and have found myself saying the same thing) that since God commanded man not to covert another mans wife, this was to mean that extra marital affairs was already covered in this commandment and left adultery to mean mixing as in thou shalt not mix/adulterate/miscegenate thy seed because otherwise this is a repeat of another commandment.

What is everyones thoughts on this?

This resulted in me joining at least 2 racially driven Christian forums and feel the legitimacy to question it.

Dual seedlines etc etc

This has got me banned from a forum as I posted up a speech that basically called out who was ISRAEL and who was EDOM.

I dont wish to attack anyone on racial grounds, however once I adopted this belief I have found fewer and fewer Christians willing to debate this using scripture and I still believe the truth has nothing to fear from scrutiny (obviously its a very touchy subject I realize this.)

I need to know what is wrong with this based on scripture if its heresy I can drop it and move on.

Dan

 

 

GOD told Samuel HOW he sees .    Samuel thought man it has to be the first born son that is GODS CHOICE, 

BUT GODS response was ,     I don't look on the outside ,  BUT ON THE INSIDE.    the flesh profits nothing.

JESUS confirmed , paul confirmed it .   Adultery is not about skin tone ,   A white man can marry a black woman and if they believers THAT is  what matters .

As for adultery ,   DID you know that at this very moment many even within the christain religion are adulterers and adulteresses and know it not .

NOW this is darn scary and needs to be repented of and fast .  cause adulterers etc DO NOT INHERIT the KINGDOM .

Their is also such a thing a spiritual adultery as well.   And many are adulterers in that as well and yet say PRAISE YA JESUS and will be told I NEVER KNEW YA.

Anything that is loved above GOD , mother daughter , wife , friend etc,   WILLL Be told I never knew you as well.

Here is the first adultery that is between man and woman .    IF any puts away His wife for any reason OTHER than death or fornication .  THAT IS ADULTERY
and will NEVER be recognized in the eyes of GOD as anything OTHER THAN adultery .

NUMBER TWO thou shall make no image of anything of heaven and earth and bow down to it .................................

NUMBER three,  THEIR is only ONE GOD and HE shares HIS GLORY with no other .    SO interfaith is a lie from hell.

WE REALLY NEED to both heed and learn THE TRUE JESUS .   OR be told on the day , HIS DAY,  I never knew you.

I will leave us with something similar to what paul once said.

YOU who say gay marriage is abomination, WHICH IT IS    ,   but are you saying that AS YOUR HOLDING your second , third or fourth wifes hand .   YEAH

LETS MAKE SURE we aint just warning out against sin, but that we also aint LIVING IN IT ourselves .  

[Dan_79]

Some really informative answers to help me here.

Can I say thanks for not banning me moderators as I know its a dodgy topic.

Im a very gullible so Im told and it helps me to overcome to just ask people "what do you make of this" its having the courage to ask sometimes but I have held onto some very strange beliefs in the past and looking back I am suprised to learn where I picked them up from.

(edit: perhaps I'm asking man instead of God to show me and this causes error!)

 

Thanks

 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Dan_79

[GandalfTheWise]

2 hours ago, Dan_79 said:

Hi everyone.

I read somewhere (and have found myself saying the same thing) that since God commanded man not to covert another mans wife, this was to mean that extra marital affairs was already covered in this commandment and left adultery to mean mixing as in thou shalt not mix/adulterate/miscegenate thy seed because otherwise this is a repeat of another commandment.

What is everyones thoughts on this?

This resulted in me joining at least 2 racially driven Christian forums and feel the legitimacy to question it.

Dual seedlines etc etc

This has got me banned from a forum as I posted up a speech that basically called out who was ISRAEL and who was EDOM.

I dont wish to attack anyone on racial grounds, however once I adopted this belief I have found fewer and fewer Christians willing to debate this using scripture and I still believe the truth has nothing to fear from scrutiny (obviously its a very touchy subject I realize this.)

I need to know what is wrong with this based on scripture if its heresy I can drop it and move on.

Dan

 

 

If mixing bloodlines was an issue to God, I doubt that Rahab (a canaanite) and Ruth (a moabite) would have been in Jesus' genealogy.

The way I would approach verses such as Exodus 20:14 and Deuteronomy 5:18 along with their quotations in the NT (Matt 5:27, 19:18, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, Romans 13:9, and James 2:11) is to do a serious word study to see how the Hebrew and Greek words used in those verses are used elsewhere in scripture.   To my knowledge, they are used predominantly to describe extramarital relations.

Note that passages such as Nehemiah 13 which deal exclusively with mixed bloodlines do not use the term adultery to describe it.  In Nehemiah 13:23-27, those relationships are described as marriages, not adultery.

To take a verse such as Ex 20:14 (You shall not commit adultery) and ignore its plain meaning (that is attested to by many NT quotations and uses) is not a good approach to Bible interpretation.

[Dan_79]

Thanks Gandalf.

I have a Strongs exhaustive concordance which I purchased to do exactly what you described, not long after I read on another forum I read a long debate regarding who it was who was that was employed or tasked to translate and it put a stumbling block infront of me or that I shouldnt trust Strongs.

Basically it was being interpreted that the modern bibles relied on who translated the dead sea scrolls to greek or latin or both into english and also doubt was placed on the insincerity of funding and a whole host of other details. Christian Identity adherents banned me from one forum and a non denominational forum banned me doing exactly the same thing (Im aware of laws governing the discussion of racial matters) but its been bothering me for a while now.

I found the whole thing very confusing at the time and still being influenced by the ongoing debate regarding immigration and that is something I cannot debate now due to losing ground on self reflection and the whole thing being externally motivated just like you already mentioned.

Also Im still confused as to what bible I should be learning from and reading or should I read as many as I can?

Thanks for your reply too

Edited April 16, 2018 by Dan_79

[Dan_79]

Am I allowed to post links to websites on here so I can maybe link where this topic is laid out?

[GandalfTheWise]

10 minutes ago, Dan_79 said:

Thanks Gandalf.

I have a Strongs exhaustive concordance which I purchased to do exactly what you described, not long after I read on another forum I read a long debate regarding who it was who was that was employed or tasked to translate and it put a stumbling block infront of me or that I shouldnt trust Strongs.

Basically it was being interpreted that the modern bibles relied on who translated the dead sea scrolls to greek or latin or both into english and also doubt was placed on the insincerity of funding and a whole host of other details. Christian Identity adherents banned me from one forum and a non denominational forum banned me doing exactly the same thing (Im aware of laws governing the discussion of racial matters) but its been bothering me for a while now.

I found the whole thing very confusing at the time and still being influenced by the ongoing debate regarding immigration and that is something I cannot debate now due to losing ground on self reflection and the whole thing being externally motivated just like you already mentioned.

Also Im still confused as to what bible I should be learning from and reading or should I read as many as I can?

Thanks for your reply too

Speaking for myself, I read the Bible in Greek (Greek NT and the Septuagint for the OT) and I started learning Hebrew this year.  My opinion is that the most commonly used English  translations are fine.  Just note that a few versions (for example the New World Translation by the Jehovah's Witnesses) introduce their bias into some passages.  

English versions fit into two general categories, translations and paraphrases.  A translation attempts to render the original Hebrew and Greek into the equivalent English meaning.  Because languages work differently, it is not possible to do this perfectly.  Translators have to make tradeoffs.  It's a long explanation, but basically one has the choice of trying to do word-for-word translation (with the result of unnatural sounding English at times that can lose ideas) or idea-for-idea translation (which results in natural sounding English but can depart from original word order at times).  Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages.   In contrast to translations, there are paraphrases.  A paraphrase tries to explain what a passage means.  Whereas translators focus on what the original says,   paraphrasers focus on trying to explain what the original says (often in their own words).  Given that most idea-for-idea translations (for example the NIV) are natural English, I don't see much use for paraphrases as a primary Bible anymore.  Back in the 70s when I became a Christian, I did read the paraphrased The Living Bible a lot because it was about the only natural sounding English version.  I then went to the NIV when it came out.

If you want to get a some sense of what translators consider, the NET bible (netbible.com) has many detailed translation notes.  This gives a good idea of what goes on in the translation process.

As a practical matter, most Christians use the Bible in 4 ways, 

1. Extended reading.  That is reading the entire Bible to see it as a whole.  My opinion is that this is best done with a translation that is comfortable to read.

2. Devotional reading.  This is the daily reading of perhaps a few passages or chapters as part of meditation and prayer.  My opinion is that this is best done with a translation that is comfortable for the reader.

3. Study.  This is in depth study of a particular passage or book.  My opinion is that this is best done by comparing several different translations as well as using different references such as Bible dictionaries, atlases, and such things that describe the history, culture, and context of a particular book.

4. Memorization.  For Christians for whom memorization is a blessing, many choose to use one particular translation and do all their memorization in that translation.  Some might look at a verse in different translations and choose which one they prefer or can best remember. 

 

From a historical standpoint, many of the common references that Christians use (such as Strongs or Thayers) are dated from before 1900.  They represent Christian scholarship at that point in time.  Many of these are now well out of copyright and have been reprinted and are available for free online.  Check the original publication date to see when they are from.  In practice, Christian scholars have been constantly at work to improve our understanding of Greek and Hebrew.  For its time, Strongs was a pioneering work that has blessed many Christians over the years.  In practice, it is still useful, but its age shows.  Few Christian scholars today  use Strongs not because it is "bad" or anything, but simply that much more work has been done since then and better resources are available. 

I used Strongs  fruitfully for many years myself.  It wasn't until I started getting serious about learning Greek that I sort of outgrew it and stopped using it for the NT.  I still at times use it for the OT.

[Dan_79]

4 hours ago, Yowm said:

They say the 'best' bible is the one you read. Just stay away from "The New World Translation" and "The Message", otherwise, you should be fine.

I was given the "Good News Bible" and how it ended up in my possesion was very strange to be honest. It is the only Bible I have read in book form. I was told to seek out KJV version by someone also which I still haven't read.

They are all downloadable for android phones these days but I actually like holding it and going through its physical pages.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Dan_79
changed grammatical error ( bool to book

[Dan_79]

Thank you Gandolf

Very helpful indeed.