"Thou shalt not commit adultery"

[Dan_79]

Thanks Yown

 

[Dan_79]

Please read the link at the beginning of this topic which I have now added (afterwards because I was genuinely not sure if it would break forum rules).

I was banned from an online Christian forum for putting something similar accross (It must not of been taken well by one of the forum moderators). The link directs to an article which discusses and makes note of the same things essentially but omits naming names so to speak) as well as being clearly laid out with all the source material supplied.

Does anyone else feel this article or the premise of this commandment is erroneous (in regards to translation of "adultery") in it's present day form?

If so I would like to know why, please.

I have held the belief for some time that it is inconsistent with the rest of scripture (to make my position clear), but not being as well versed in scripture as many of these writers or to be able to debate it thoroughly and correctly it has been left a lingering doubt, I would appreciate knowing if it be incorrect, but reasoned clearly enough as to why (and without the negative stereotypes and labels being used in place of a sincere regard for the truth).

Kind regards

Dan

Edited April 17, 2018 by Dan_79

[HisFirst]

Not to mention the great man Moses and his black wife Zipporah - God did not have a problem with that union.

[Dan_79]

2 hours ago, HisFirst said:

Not to mention the great man Moses and his black wife Zipporah - God did not have a problem with that union.

Hi HisFirst:)

Yes. God did not have a problem with that union because according to the link in the first message the writer addresses this union and shows they were both infact from the SAME race.

Do you think the writer has got this part of scripture wrong? If so Why?

Moses and Zipporah

"…A man of the house of Levi…took to wife a daughter of Levi. And the woman conceived, and bare a son….And she [Pharaoh’s daughter] called his name Moses…." (Exodus 2:1-10).

"Now the priest of Midian…gave Moses Zipporah his daughter" (Exodus 2:16-21).

Only one race is represented in the marriage of Moses and Zipporah. Moses was a descendant of Abraham, an Israelite from the tribe of Levi. Zipporah was a Midianite, a descendant from Abraham through his wife Keturah’s fourth son Midian:

"Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him…Midian…." (Genesis 25:1-2)

Edited April 17, 2018 by Dan_79
spelling of name and insert quotations

[Dan_79]

13 hours ago, GandalfTheWise said:

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

 

Boaz and Ruth

"…And Booz [a Judahite] begat Obed of Ruth" (Matthew 1:5).

Ruth, a resident of Moab, is identified five times as a Moabitess in Ruth 1:22, 2:2, 2:21, 4:5, and 4:10. Once again, even if Ruth were a racial Moabite, she was not from another race. The Moabites were descendants of Abraham’s nephew Lot (Genesis 12:5) through his incestuous relationship with his eldest daughter:

"And Lot…dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him….And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father…. And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites…." (Genesis 19:30-37).

Only one race is represented in Boaz and Ruth’s marriage. In fact, there is no reason to even conclude that Ruth was a racial Moabite. She could not have been a racial Moabite for the same reason that Rahab could not have been a racial Canaanite: the Israelites were forbidden to intermarry with the Moabites. It was for this very reason that Ezra commanded the Judahites to put away their Moabite companions:

"…The people of Israel…have not separated themselves from the people of the lands…even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites….For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands….Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons…." (Ezra 9:1-12).

Had Ruth been a racial Moabite, Boaz would have been required to put Ruth away, if he had even married her in the first place. Ruth must have been known as a Moabite because she had lived in the country of Moab, a possession of the Reubenites at that time.

Evidence that Ruth was a Moabite by residence rather than by physical descent was demonstrated when Boaz applied the levirate law to her. The levirate law requires Israelite men to raise up a male heir for a deceased kinsman, in order to preserve his name and estate:

"If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother [or “nigh of kin,” Leviticus 25:48-49] shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel" (Deuteronomy 25:5-6).

"And he [Boaz] said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth…thou art a near kinsman. And he said,…it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit…will I do the part of a kinsman to thee…." (Ruth 3:9-13).

Had Ruth been from the forbidden lineage of Moab or from another race, the levirate law would not have applied because her previous relationship with Boaz’s kinsman Mahlon would have been unlawful and, therefore, adulterous. Had Ruth been a racial Moabite, the nearer kinsman (Ruth 3:12, 4:5-6) would have only needed to raise this objection to keep from having to redeem Ruth along with Mahlon’s land.

Ruth must have been an Israelite, or at least a descendant of a racially alike lineage with whom the Israelites were permitted to marry. Otherwise, Mahlon’s estate, in part or in whole, would have been lost to a non-Israelite descendant, which was one of the reasons that prompted Ezra to command the Judahites to put away their Moabite and other foreign wives in Ezra 9:1 - 10:3.

For the point under discussion, it does not make any difference whether Ruth was an Israelite or a Moabite. In either instance, she was of the same race as Boaz her husband.

Salmon and Rahab

"And Salmon [a Judahite] begat Booz [Boaz] of Rachab [Rahab]…." (Matthew 1:5).

Rahab is often alleged to be the Canaanite who helped the two Israelites spies escape from Jericho. There is no conclusive proof, however, that the Rahab who helped the Israelite spies in Joshua 2 is the same woman Salmon married, or that she was even of Canaanite descent. Rahab is never identified as a Canaanite. Although she lived in the Canaanite city of Jericho, it is speculation to identify her as a Canaanite from this fact alone. As an example, Moses, who was unquestionably an Israelite, was identified as an Egyptian by the daughters of Reuel:

"And when they came to Reuel their father…they said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds…." (Exodus 2:18-19).

Moses was known as an Egyptian, not because he came from the loins of the Egyptians, but because he came from the land of Egypt.

Because Rahab is listed in the book of Hebrews -- in the Hebrew hall of fame no less (Hebrews 11:31) -- she was very possibly an Israelite slave who resided in Jericho (Numbers 21:1). This could perhaps explain why the two Israelite spies sought her out and also why the king of Jericho suspected her of harboring them (Joshua 2:1-3).

It makes no difference whether the Rahab from Jericho was a Canaanite. Even if Rahab were a racial Canaanite, two races were not represented in Salmon’s marriage to Rahab. As already established, the Canaanites, although a forbidden lineage, were descendants of Ham, the brother of Shem who was a progenitor of the Israelites. Rahab and Salmon were from the same race and, therefore, their marriage was not interracial.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Dan_79

[HisFirst]

59 minutes ago, Dan_79 said:

Hi HisFirst:)

Yes. God did not have a problem with that union because according to the link in the first message the writer addresses this union and shows they were both infact from the SAME race.

Do you think the writer has got this part of scripture wrong? If so Why?

Moses and Zipporah

"…A man of the house of Levi…took to wife a daughter of Levi. And the woman conceived, and bare a son….And she [Pharaoh’s daughter] called his name Moses…." (Exodus 2:1-10).

"Now the priest of Midian…gave Moses Zipporah his daughter" (Exodus 2:16-21).

Only one race is represented in the marriage of Moses and Zipporah. Moses was a descendant of Abraham, an Israelite from the tribe of Levi. Zipporah was a Midianite, a descendant from Abraham through his wife Keturah’s fourth son Midian:

"Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him…Midian…." (Genesis 25:1-2)

Hi Dan79,

Ty for all that.

At the end of the day we are one blood

Just going back to Moses/Zipporah - Aaron and Miriam spoke against Moses wife because she was a Cushite woman (maybe this one isn't Zipporah but a secondary wife) - anyway..this was a union that Moses brother and sister didnt agree with.

Something happened to Miriam - she became leprous...I'll have to check the OT to see if it was a repercussion for the attitude against Moses because of his cushite wife.

 

[HisFirst]

1 minute ago, Sojourner414 said:

That would be Numbers Chapter 12.

Ty Sojo

[HisFirst]

I may be wrong, but is Cush in the line of Ham (Noah) : Cush>Egypt?

Cush>dark skin

[Dan_79]

1 hour ago, HisFirst said:

I may be wrong, but is Cush in the line of Ham (Noah) : Cush>Egypt?

Cush>dark skin

Im not sure to be honest, I have quite some study to do in the hope of being brought up to date.

The problem I have found is (being reletively new to bible studies) is not everyone is reading from one complete and agreed source, in faith we are but denominations and languages and opinions are differing on key points.

The main problem for me so far is knowing how to approach the topics (like this one and others) regarding "racial pedigree" contained within the bible while in the over saturation of the politically correct realm of internet censorship. It should not matter as long as we have a sincere (of heart) regard for truth and it can be discussed for that reason....we all have an oportunity to learn, drop heresy and biblical error and share or disseminate what is true.

Right.....

Cush! Ive put that on my study list now. Need to study the post flood lineage in detail. Noah was " perfect in his generation" is the first clue as he was chosen to father who would later become (Jacob) Israel.

 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Dan_79

[HisFirst]

28 minutes ago, Dan_79 said:

Noah was " perfect in his generation"

Some think this to mean > as in 'pure' bloodline without taint, unlike the nephilim - prodgeny of fallen angels/human women.