Matthew 5:32

[halifaxchristian]

Personally...I like reading the New King James Version much better in the Old Testament. I do admit that the King James Version can be difficult at times there. However, with all honesty, I find the New Testament in the KJ version to be absolutely pleasurable and edifying. I just love the King James, the way it speaks to me, etc.

Let me say this. I am against the New King James more because of the effect it would have on non-believers and new Christians not sound in the faith. When they start reading statements like "some say this" "the most reliable say that" "some delete this"...it is not good for them at all. It is not building up their faith and confidence in God's Word. In fact, it can be purely destructive and lead people down the wrong road. Perhaps I am exaggerating in your opinion, but I would rather be safe than sorry.

I recommend that new converts and unbelievers read the King James Version, because even though it might take a little bit more effort to read, it is sound in doctrine and portrays confidence and stability in God's Word.

God bless you.

[Trust & Obey]

Well, when I first got saved I read the dreaded NIV (nearly inspired version) and I managed to have a vibrant walk in the Lord.

I am no longer NIV+ now that I am more mature in the faith, but it didn't have the ill effect on me that everyone suggests.

I'm not endorsing the NIV, I'm just pointing out that spiritual health goes far beyond what translation you read, although that is important. Which is why I bother to spend so much time discussing this issue.

I would not give a new-believer a KJV. The reason for that is because I want them to READ their Bible. And, if they discouraged with the KJV it can have an ill effect on their zeal and passion for the word. This is why I like to give out the NKJV. It is as accurate, if not more so than the KJV, and it is much easier to read while still maintaining the "awe" that the word of God should carry.

[halifaxchristian]

Trust...if I HONESTLY IN MY HEART thought that the KJV was hard to read...I wouldn't give a new convert one either. However, i think that that view is pure propaganda. I do. I do not find the KJV overly challenging. In my heart of hearts...if I thought I was doing someone a dis-service in doing so, I would change. But i believe that the King James Version is for today.

Even when people accuse the KJV of being "archaic", the context is like a built-in dictionary. Someone earlier mentioned the "kick against the pricks" verse in Acts. Although we do not speak like that anymore in this day...the context makes it clear what is being portrayed. Paul's actions were hindering Jesus' work. If the context won't clear up a "problem word"...then any pocket dictionary will.

Obviously I am not going to be handing out KJV to children or someone overtly slow...but any mature, intelligable human being should find no problems.

God bless.

[Trust & Obey]

Obviously I am not going to be handing out KJV to children or someone overtly slow...but any mature, intelligable human being should find no problems.

God bless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My wife is an intelligent and mature person and she has great difficulty with the KJV.

It really depends upon the person. I can read it well, but others cannot. Not everyone has the reading skills that you or I may have.

We need to be like Dr. J Vernon McGee. We need to "put the cookies on the bottom shelf so everyone can reach them."

The KJV has a reputation of being difficult for a reason. To many people it is difficult.

Now, if you grew up in a Baptist church and have been reading the KJV your whole life you won't have a problem with it... but, for a high school dropout who God saved from a life on the streets it may pose a problem and might not be the most appropriate translation.

I would never give out the NLT, The Message, or the Living Bible as these are either too watery (NLT) or are paraphrases (not even the word of God).

[Guest eponine]

Personally...I like reading the New King James Version much better in the Old Testament.

Edited August 12, 2005 by eponine

[JesusisGod2]

So by the way, what are your thoughts on Matt 5:32?

[halifaxchristian]

Personally...I like reading the New King James Version much better in the Old Testament.

[Trust & Obey]

So by the way, what are your thoughts on Matt 5:32?  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

This, as with all doctrines, must be considered by taking in the "whole counsel of God." This is one passage on the topic of marriage and divorce, but there are others that have to be considered to get the "full view."

I tackled the divorce and remarriage issue in another thread according to my understanding of Scripture when taken as a whole. Here it is:

******************

Divorce and remarriage is a very sensitive subject. But, the reason it is such a sensitive subject is because so many people are in violation of this biblical principle.

Here is what I have found the Bible to say about divorce and remarriage.

Remarriage is certainly allowed after being widowed:

Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

Rom 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Divorce is only Biblically allowed when an offending spouse has committed fornication.

Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Or, if a non-believing spouse is not willing to live with a believing spouse:

1Co 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

1Co 7:13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

So, if the unbelieving spouse departs, let them depart, It then says "a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases." In bondage to what? Namely, the marriage. Therefore, remarriage is permitted.

Now, if someone remarries it is to only be in the Lord.

1Co 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

1Co 7:40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

Now, in the above passage it is referring to a widowed spouse. But, the same principle applies. The discussion above is about being "bound by the law" to the marriage. So, as we saw in 1 Cor. 7:15 above, if an unbelieving spouse departs then the believing spouse in not under bondage [to the law].

But, Paul says in 1 Cor 7:40 that "But she is happier if she so abide (stay single).

Why is this? Because:

1Co 7:32 But I would have you without carefulness (fully of worry/anxiety). He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

1Co 7:33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

1Co 7:34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

1Co 7:35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

Paul is touching on the fact that our goal on earth isn't to settle down and get married. Rather, it is to serve the Lord. And, those who are single have a great advantage of not being hindered.

But, if one cannot remain in this state then it is better to marry than to "burn with passion (lust)."

1Co 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

1Co 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn [with passion/lust].

So, that is my breakdown of the remarriage thing.

We all know that God forgives sin. Adultery is a sin and it, too, is forgiven by God through repentance and the blood of Christ.

But, from that point on, a divorced Christian has guidelines on how to conduct the remainder of their life.

According to the word it is easy to see that if a woman commits infidelity that a man can divorce her (or she divorce him, if that be the case). But, the difficulty is whether or not the "offending spouse" has the liberty to remarry after being the cause of the divorce.

If that were the case, then someone could commit infidelity on purpose just to have a reason to divorce and marry someone else. Kind of slimy, but I wouldn't doubt it could happen.

Let's remember:

Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

[EricH]

There are several divorce / remarriage topics that are currently active. I am going to close all bugt one

Eric