PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Sept 17, 2018 15:53:55 GMT -5
I am really confused. The KJV is also clearly talking about giving away a girl on her wedding day. I don’t know how a man can give away his own virgin wife.
I’m going to have to step away from this thread.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Sept 17, 2018 16:00:52 GMT -5
This whole thing started because I made a little comment about teenage girls staying home to save money and be safe. I do not want to provoke my sisters here into any kind of stumble. If this teaching cannot be accepted, that’s OK. The argument is on the verge of getting out of hand, and I do not want an out-of-control argument. It is better for me to back away than to provoke something worse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2018 16:11:42 GMT -5
I am really confused. The KJV is also clearly talking about giving away a girl on her wedding day. I don’t know how a man can give away his own virgin wife. I’m going to have to step away from this thread. okay, I think i see why you understood it the way you did.......and see if this helps. Take a look at the Greek word for "giving in marriage" there....it can mean to marry, but was translated as giving in marriage because in scripture a woman doesn't "marry", rather she is "given in marriage"....whereas a man "marries". I think this is to imply that the young woman is covered and under protection and authority as she is being given to another covering in marriage. I don't think it means that what you are saying in general about this subject is wrong...it might need a little tweeking is all, I'm not sure.
|
|
|
Post by tlsitd on Sept 17, 2018 16:52:54 GMT -5
I'm calling a little time-out on this discussion to bring attention to something I see happening here: Emotion is leading certain folks to go on about things that they think are being done or said for this reason or the other, and aren't actually addressing what other people said or asking for clarification about what was said---they're just making judgments in emotion and then ranting about something they think was said or done for some reason or other; and what has actually been said doesn't even matter because people are just going with their feelings, like riding a wave. Making assumptions and inflammatory presumptive statements and using those presumptive statements to criticize something that one perceives to be being done or said is just terrible conduct and practice, and it really derails and muddies a discussion. I'm sorry, but it really is, and it needs to stop. Anyone who is guilty of doing this needs to step back and consider their ways. It reminds me of someone inciting a mob by appealing to people's emotions, so that they don't even question whether what the rabble rouser is saying is actually based on fact---which he counts on. It would be like someone saying, "I think we need to love homosexuals." And another person saying, "You see there, he supports homosexuality. He probably is one. Man lover! Is this what we want our culture to be about? Are we going to stand for this?" And everyone starts chanting, "No-No-No!" Then the rabble rouser goes on a rant about the evils of the insidious pro-homosexual agenda, with the mob chanting and all excited, rather than there being a constructive discussion about how to love homosexuals. Ignorant zeal is not good. And impetuousness is not a virtue; nor is speaking before hearing. I recommend that everyone here be quicker to listen and slower to speak, and more sincere about trying to understand and discuss rather than making assumptions and judgments, or going on personal rants. I'm editing this comment after re-reading some of the posts. (I don't want to be guilty of doing the very thing I criticized!) To be more specific, I've taken personal offense to a response of Butero's and would like everyone here to be more careful about reading and responding to other people's posts (as I just went back to do, to make sure I wasn't making a mistake, which is why I am editing this post now) and addressing the subject matter of the post, rather than making overgeneralizing or exaggerative comments or judgments based on how we feel. I've seen this happen on more than one thread. I may have been guilty of doing the same at times. But let's try to be more careful in our discussion about what we say and ask questions if we don't understand what someone meant, rather than assuming that we do---especially if we're going to criticize them for something.
|
|
|
Post by 2fw8212a on Sept 17, 2018 17:01:46 GMT -5
I am really confused. The KJV is also clearly talking about giving away a girl on her wedding day. I don’t know how a man can give away his own virgin wife. I believe it is talking about sexual intercourse and marriage.
"Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy." - 1 Corinthians 7:25
"Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife." - 1 Corinthians 7:27
"But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you." - 1 Corinthians 7:28
"But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry." - 1 Corinthians 7:36
"Nevertheless he who stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but has power over his own will, and has so determined in his heart that he will keep his virgin, does well." - 1 Corinthians 7:37
"So then he who gives her in marriage does well, but he who does not give her in marriage does better." - 1 Corinthians 7:38
Yes, it is what I believe Paul was talking about.
"as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand..." - 2 Peter 3:16
Blessings to you in Jesus' name!
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 17, 2018 19:55:23 GMT -5
The subject of dead-beat Christians is actually a perfect circle back to celibacy. Please bear with me while I try to thread this needle. Here are Paul's words about celibate women: But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry.But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better. (1 Corinthians 7:36-38)A woman is under the head of her father (or parental figure) until she marries. In this passage, the father is choosing whether his daughter should stay in his household or not. Her wishes are a factor, but she cannot force her father to endorse a marriage, and neither can she demand to live with him if he thinks marriage is best. So then what? The woman moves out because she doesn't like her father's choice? Now she must take on Adam's burden and be her own head of household, which isn't God's design. Her father is her head until she marries. That doesn't mean her father can abuse her, but he is supposed to be the breadwinner for his daughters until they get married. If the father dies, she should depend on a brother or cousin until marriage (the Old Testament law laid this out) -- failing this she should devote herself to the church and be under a pastor. The last thing a woman should do is to go around being a loose canon with no man in her life whatsoever. Been there, done that, and it descends into feminism/hatred toward men at lightning speed. Let's look at what else Paul said about unmarried women: At the same time they also learn to be idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention. Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; for some have already turned aside to follow Satan. (1 Timothy 5:13-15)A woman with no male role in her life is in great danger. Paul wanted every woman to have a head of household. Only those women with no other option were allowed to expect their income on the church's dime. And I personally do not believe this applies only to living in a formal church shelter. If an unmarried woman with a low-income job is constantly expecting charity from her Christian friends to get by, she's living on the church's dime. Corrie Ten Boom lived with her father until she went to prison, and she was "married" to the Jewish refugee crisis. Queen Elizabeth depended heavily on an elder male advisor who was like her uncle (because her father was dead), and she was married to England. Esther obeyed Mordecai. Joan of Arc lived with her parents while she was married to France. Every woman needs to have the marriage experience and also have a man in her life. This is Bible teaching and made manifest in the lives of Christian women. TLSITD, this is the New Testament teaching that Candance gave I was referring to from page 7. This is where it all started, and she only references New Testament scriptures to make her initial case, thus it is a New Testament teaching. If she went back later and referred to Old Testament examples, that doesn't change these New Testament scriptures.
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 17, 2018 20:00:04 GMT -5
I am really confused. The KJV is also clearly talking about giving away a girl on her wedding day. I don’t know how a man can give away his own virgin wife. I’m going to have to step away from this thread. Even though I am KJV only, I often will overlook that someone posts scripture from a translation I don't particularly like, including Lights. I hardly ever say anything about it. If I was to see that the person's translation said something that was completely different from the KJV Bible, and I noticed it, I would say something. I suppose she is claiming that this comes across different in the KJV Bible. I am shocked that she would do that based on her constantly defending modern English translations, but I will take a look at the verses in the KJV Bible just to see, but from my recollection, I think the message is the same.
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 17, 2018 20:05:33 GMT -5
(That's page 10, Butero.) When I read your response, you didn't say Candance misinterpreted the scripture. You said that there were reasons it won't work, and then went on to mention things like the Father might not be willing to take care of his adult daughter till she marries, and how times have changed. I don't see how you can even argue that these are not excuses for not following it. That is what led to my discussion about how cultural changes are not relevant.
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 17, 2018 20:11:43 GMT -5
The subject of dead-beat Christians is actually a perfect circle back to celibacy. Please bear with me while I try to thread this needle. Here are Paul's words about celibate women: But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry.But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better. (1 Corinthians 7:36-38)A woman is under the head of her father (or parental figure) until she marries. In this passage, the father is choosing whether his daughter should stay in his household or not. Her wishes are a factor, but she cannot force her father to endorse a marriage, and neither can she demand to live with him if he thinks marriage is best. So then what? The woman moves out because she doesn't like her father's choice? Now she must take on Adam's burden and be her own head of household, which isn't God's design. Her father is her head until she marries. That doesn't mean her father can abuse her, but he is supposed to be the breadwinner for his daughters until they get married. If the father dies, she should depend on a brother or cousin until marriage (the Old Testament law laid this out) -- failing this she should devote herself to the church and be under a pastor. The last thing a woman should do is to go around being a loose canon with no man in her life whatsoever. Been there, done that, and it descends into feminism/hatred toward men at lightning speed. Let's look at what else Paul said about unmarried women: At the same time they also learn to be idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention. Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; for some have already turned aside to follow Satan. (1 Timothy 5:13-15)A woman with no male role in her life is in great danger. Paul wanted every woman to have a head of household. Only those women with no other option were allowed to expect their income on the church's dime. And I personally do not believe this applies only to living in a formal church shelter. If an unmarried woman with a low-income job is constantly expecting charity from her Christian friends to get by, she's living on the church's dime. Corrie Ten Boom lived with her father until she went to prison, and she was "married" to the Jewish refugee crisis. Queen Elizabeth depended heavily on an elder male advisor who was like her uncle (because her father was dead), and she was married to England. Esther obeyed Mordecai. Joan of Arc lived with her parents while she was married to France. Every woman needs to have the marriage experience and also have a man in her life. This is Bible teaching and made manifest in the lives of Christian women. Mmm...I think it's a bit of an over-generalization to say that all single women who have no man in their life are or become feminist man-haters, or that they are all loose cannons, running around doing whatever they please---generally evil---and sponging off of the resources of the church. (Really, sister?) Does the Lord only guide women who have a man in their life? Does He not also guide those who do not? If they are single, they should be following Him in submission to His authority in their lives and doing His will.
I know it was the tradition of previous generations and societies for women who did not marry to live with their parents, and that their father was their authority until they married and provided for them (part of the reason their fathers wanted to marry them off); and unmarried women cared for their parents in their old age. Sometimes they worked with their fathers in a family business. That was the way it worked; but obviously, times have changed and that is not always the way things work today. And not all cases are the same either. I don't believe that it's always God's will for an adult unmarried woman to live with her father; that's something she would have to know by faith, whether it is or isn't. Sometimes it may not even be possible. But the pastor does not take the role of her spiritual head if she is unmarried and not in her father's household. The New Testament doesn't teach this.
It does teach that the head of every man in the church (not of every woman) is Christ, and that the head of every married woman is her husband. In every case in which a woman's spiritual head is referred to, it is with regard to husbands and wives, not daughters and fathers. The wife is a part of her husband's body just as the church (the brothers) is Christ's body.
In Biblical times, unmarried women lived in their fathers' households unless they married, and their father was their authority because they lived with him and he provided for them, and he filled the role of a spiritual authority---or else another near male relative. (This is what I understand.) It wasn't the custom for unmarried women to live alone or to provide for themselves. It just wasn't the way society worked back then---or even up until recent centuries.
But society has changed, and while I am anti-feminism, I do believe that Scriptural teachings sometimes (not always) have to be considered in the light of the way things are today. That way of doing things just doesn't work for most people today, for various reasons. Most fathers would probably be indignant at the thought of having to support an unmarried daughter, and would tell her she needed to get a job. He might not want her to live with him either. Not all women have fathers, or male relatives who would fill that role. And, obviously, not all fathers or male relatives of a Christian woman are Christians and would be willing to follow Christian rules. A woman's father might be of some other religion with different rules. In the OT example, everyone to whom that arrangement pertained was of the same religion. It would be like America being Christian (which it isn't), and a theocracy, with everyone living according to the teachings of Christianity. Christians have no such nation today as the Jews had, where everyone in that society lived by the same religious laws.
Every Christian's personal situation is different, and every Christian woman has to do whatever she knows the Lord's will for her to be---which is hardly the same as being a "loose cannon".
Paul never said anywhere that he wanted every woman to have a male head of household. He told Timothy not to enroll the younger widows (under the age of 60) in the church distribution, because, according to their whims, they would eventually want to get married---not because it was the Lord's will for them to, but just because they wanted to, which would have been a breach of faith for someone who had purposed to remain single after her husband died, and was put on the dole with that expectation and commitment. Then he said that if these young women were put on the dole (rather than devoting themselves to charitable works) they would become idle gossips, going about from house to house. So it was better that they marry and have a husband provide for them than rely on the church to do so. Whenever Paul recommended marriage for a woman, it was always as an alternative to something less desirable, whether it was ungodly behavior (as in the case of the widows he mentioned in 1 Timothy 5), or divided devotion to the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:32-35).
I will also add that Corrie Ten Boom and her father were both Christians (Mr. Ten Boom was a devout Christian), Esther and Mordecai were both Jews, and that Queen Elizabeth and Joan of Arc and their lives really have nothing to do with Christian women and the Bible's instructions for them. Joan of Arc was definitely not following the Lord's commands (if she was even a true Christian), and Queen Elizabeth was an ungodly woman who was also definitely not following Jesus Christ---whatever those women may have thought or what others may have thought about them. (That's like Christian men using the Crusaders as an example of something for the church.) This is the post I was referring back to, where it all began. This is nothing but reasons why we don't need to follow the scriptures as written today. It is not disputing the interpretation Candance gave. I don't know how you can deny that is what you did. Had you said it was misinterpreted, and given a different interpretation, that would have been a different matter, but that is not what you did. You went on about how it used to be, as opposed to how it is now.
I am not adamant about the interpretation. I haven't looked at it that thoroughly, but I did notice that the objections were based on how our culture has changed, and obstacles that might exist when it comes to some following this teaching. Until this is dealt with, anything that was added from the Old Testament doesn't matter. This is based on a New Testament teaching.
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 17, 2018 20:38:58 GMT -5
But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry.But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better. (1 Corinthians 7:36-38)
But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better. KJV Bible
At the same time they also learn to be idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention. Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; for some have already turned aside to follow Satan. (1 Timothy 5:13-15)
And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully, For some are turned aside after Satan. KJV Bible
These are the passages side by side. I took the verses as PG4Him posted them and place the KJV that I use after them. My question would be, does anyone disagree with the actual interpretation that Candance gave to these passages in her original post that is found back on page 7 of this thread? If so, how do you interpret them? I already heard the challenges we face in this modern society that exist and make it difficult to do as the Bible says, but did she actually interpret it wrong?
I will say that no matter which version I read this in, it does appear that the decision is in the hands of the Father, not the daughter. It is not speaking of a man choosing to remain unmarried himself or a woman choosing to remain unmarried herself. No matter which translation I read it in, it doesn't say that.
What has stood out to me about the other passage is the advise Paul gives. He doesn't advise these young women to become independent young ladies working with their own hands to earn a living. He advises them to "marry, bear children, and guide the house." This is the role God intended women to fulfil, to be a homemaker. Our society has moved away from that, but this is God's order.
Anyway, I am willing to consider different opinions here, if they are Bible based, and not based on how our culture has changed.
|
|
|
Post by tlsitd on Sept 17, 2018 21:24:15 GMT -5
Mmm...I think it's a bit of an over-generalization to say that all single women who have no man in their life are or become feminist man-haters, or that they are all loose cannons, running around doing whatever they please---generally evil---and sponging off of the resources of the church. (Really, sister?) Does the Lord only guide women who have a man in their life? Does He not also guide those who do not? If they are single, they should be following Him in submission to His authority in their lives and doing His will.
I know it was the tradition of previous generations and societies for women who did not marry to live with their parents, and that their father was their authority until they married and provided for them (part of the reason their fathers wanted to marry them off); and unmarried women cared for their parents in their old age. Sometimes they worked with their fathers in a family business. That was the way it worked; but obviously, times have changed and that is not always the way things work today. And not all cases are the same either. I don't believe that it's always God's will for an adult unmarried woman to live with her father; that's something she would have to know by faith, whether it is or isn't. Sometimes it may not even be possible. But the pastor does not take the role of her spiritual head if she is unmarried and not in her father's household. The New Testament doesn't teach this.
It does teach that the head of every man in the church (not of every woman) is Christ, and that the head of every married woman is her husband. In every case in which a woman's spiritual head is referred to, it is with regard to husbands and wives, not daughters and fathers. The wife is a part of her husband's body just as the church (the brothers) is Christ's body.
In Biblical times, unmarried women lived in their fathers' households unless they married, and their father was their authority because they lived with him and he provided for them, and he filled the role of a spiritual authority---or else another near male relative. (This is what I understand.) It wasn't the custom for unmarried women to live alone or to provide for themselves. It just wasn't the way society worked back then---or even up until recent centuries.
But society has changed, and while I am anti-feminism, I do believe that Scriptural teachings sometimes (not always) have to be considered in the light of the way things are today. That way of doing things just doesn't work for most people today, for various reasons. Most fathers would probably be indignant at the thought of having to support an unmarried daughter, and would tell her she needed to get a job. He might not want her to live with him either. Not all women have fathers, or male relatives who would fill that role. And, obviously, not all fathers or male relatives of a Christian woman are Christians and would be willing to follow Christian rules. A woman's father might be of some other religion with different rules. In the OT example, everyone to whom that arrangement pertained was of the same religion. It would be like America being Christian (which it isn't), and a theocracy, with everyone living according to the teachings of Christianity. Christians have no such nation today as the Jews had, where everyone in that society lived by the same religious laws.
Every Christian's personal situation is different, and every Christian woman has to do whatever she knows the Lord's will for her to be---which is hardly the same as being a "loose cannon".
Paul never said anywhere that he wanted every woman to have a male head of household. He told Timothy not to enroll the younger widows (under the age of 60) in the church distribution, because, according to their whims, they would eventually want to get married---not because it was the Lord's will for them to, but just because they wanted to, which would have been a breach of faith for someone who had purposed to remain single after her husband died, and was put on the dole with that expectation and commitment. Then he said that if these young women were put on the dole (rather than devoting themselves to charitable works) they would become idle gossips, going about from house to house. So it was better that they marry and have a husband provide for them than rely on the church to do so. Whenever Paul recommended marriage for a woman, it was always as an alternative to something less desirable, whether it was ungodly behavior (as in the case of the widows he mentioned in 1 Timothy 5), or divided devotion to the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:32-35).
I will also add that Corrie Ten Boom and her father were both Christians (Mr. Ten Boom was a devout Christian), Esther and Mordecai were both Jews, and that Queen Elizabeth and Joan of Arc and their lives really have nothing to do with Christian women and the Bible's instructions for them. Joan of Arc was definitely not following the Lord's commands (if she was even a true Christian), and Queen Elizabeth was an ungodly woman who was also definitely not following Jesus Christ---whatever those women may have thought or what others may have thought about them. (That's like Christian men using the Crusaders as an example of something for the church.) This is the post I was referring back to, where it all began. This is nothing but reasons why we don't need to follow the scriptures as written today. It is not disputing the interpretation Candance gave. I don't know how you can deny that is what you did. Had you said it was misinterpreted, and given a different interpretation, that would have been a different matter, but that is not what you did. You went on about how it used to be, as opposed to how it is now.
I am not adamant about the interpretation. I haven't looked at it that thoroughly, but I did notice that the objections were based on how our culture has changed, and obstacles that might exist when it comes to some following this teaching. Until this is dealt with, anything that was added from the Old Testament doesn't matter. This is based on a New Testament teaching.
I went on after this post to address her interpretation Scripturally. You can find that beginning on page 10 of this thread. This was just my initial take on her post, and it does contain references to Scripture (see end of paragraph two, paragraph three, and second to last paragraph), as well as some logical points---not excuses---about why that sort of arrangement wouldn't work for many people today because of the way that society has changed. I wasn't making a case for not following the Scriptures today, just giving my opinion about her post based on what first stood out to me, which subject I gave more thought to. If you read on you'll have a much better understanding of our discussion of this subject.
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 17, 2018 22:11:25 GMT -5
I realize you had a conversation with her, but the main thing I am looking for from you is to simply explain what those verses of scripture mean that were back on page 7 that I just re-posted with the KJV of the Bible in addition to the Bible translation PG4Him used. Just explain what they mean and where or if you disagree with the interpretation Candance gave, and if so, why. I understand the challenges that exist today with the way our culture has changed, but that should not be our concern. We need to know what the Bible is saying and meaning. If our society has changed in such a way where we cannot do what scripture says, we can discuss that after we first address what the Bible is saying. So let's begin with that. Do you disagree with the basic interpretation Candance gave? If so, what does it mean, in your opinion? It would help me a lot to get that out of the way first.
|
|
|
Post by tlsitd on Sept 17, 2018 22:28:32 GMT -5
I realize you had a conversation with her, but the main thing I am looking for from you is to simply explain what those verses of scripture mean that were back on page 7 that I just re-posted with the KJV of the Bible in addition to the Bible translation PG4Him used. Just explain what they mean and where or if you disagree with the interpretation Candance gave, and if so, why. I understand the challenges that exist today with the way our culture has changed, but that should not be our concern. We need to know what the Bible is saying and meaning. If our society has changed in such a way where we cannot do what scripture says, we can discuss that after we first address what the Bible is saying. So let's begin with that. Do you disagree with the basic interpretation Candance gave? If so, what does it mean, in your opinion? It would help me a lot to get that out of the way first.
I addressed what she believed the Bible was saying in those Scriptures on page ten of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 17, 2018 22:33:27 GMT -5
I realize you had a conversation with her, but the main thing I am looking for from you is to simply explain what those verses of scripture mean that were back on page 7 that I just re-posted with the KJV of the Bible in addition to the Bible translation PG4Him used. Just explain what they mean and where or if you disagree with the interpretation Candance gave, and if so, why. I understand the challenges that exist today with the way our culture has changed, but that should not be our concern. We need to know what the Bible is saying and meaning. If our society has changed in such a way where we cannot do what scripture says, we can discuss that after we first address what the Bible is saying. So let's begin with that. Do you disagree with the basic interpretation Candance gave? If so, what does it mean, in your opinion? It would help me a lot to get that out of the way first.
I addressed what she believed the Bible was saying in those Scriptures on page ten of this thread. That scripture is clearly speaking of a Father and daughter, and you seemed to dismiss that. Forget about that conversation. Just taking those scriptures as written, as I placed them side by side with her translation and the KJV translation, just give us the proper interpretation. You can even add your own translation to the mix if you want and place it along side these two.
|
|
|
Post by justinadams on Sept 18, 2018 5:00:00 GMT -5
The story of Ruth has other value however, as moral instruction for Christian women, and should be appreciated as such. This is an area where you and I will probably always disagree. I reject any notion that we must obey the Old Testament to the letter. But I see the old as the shadow of the new. The old gives us a conceptual framework to understand many implied facets of the new. I don't believe the Jews were a random bunch of people Jesus chose for His human birth. Let's not imagine that anything 'new' obliterates anything 'old' when it comes to the Lord who is the same yesterday, today and forever. Imagine His laws, ideas and commandments all written down on huge transparencies down thru the ages that are then overlaid. Some of the writings will be enhanced or built upon and some will shine thru unabridged forever. None will be destroyed though some might even be more to the point and emphasized. Nothing the Lord High God ever said or prescribed is to be taken lightly. If our modern medics had only read the Tanach, thousands of women in childbirth clinics would not have died due to infections. It was only ' by accident' that the male doctors who did postmortems in the morning, and delivered children in the afternoon... Just by accident, the idea to wash their hands came into being. This is one example of countless others of how the Tanach can be referenced for our well-being and health. Many of our best medics in the past were bible believers and WHOLE BIBLE READERS.
|
|