Amber Frey claims to read the Bible

[Hello6]

Why is it that every time you point out a glaring Biblical contridiction that the born again, rather than acknowledge that there could possibly be an error, says it's Satan?

Satan=copout

 

[2ndAmendment]

Why is it that every time you point out a glaring Biblical contridiction that the born again, rather than acknowledge that there could possibly be an error, says it's Satan?

Satan=copout

No contradiction anywhere in the Bible. Just lack of understanding for Spiritual things by those that don't comprehend or know the Holy Spirit. Satan is real even if you don't believe in satan just as God is real even if you don't believe in God. You are real; it doesn't matter whether I know you or not.

 

[pixiegirl]

Lots. But here are the major points. God originally ordained the union of man and a woman when He said it was not good for Adam to be alone and created Eve. The Bible does not really limit a man to one wife, but additional wives must be taken with the permission of all the previous wives and none of the wives can be deprived of their bed rights or other support when a new wife is added. Divorce is not part of the Biblical equation but was allowed because of the hardness of peoples hearts. The Bible says we should not be unequally yoked, i.e., Christian with non-Christian because it will cause strife. It says that a deacon or leader of a congregation should only have one wife. It also says it is probably best to stay single if you can, but it is better to marry if you cannot control your sexual desires. It says that a husband and wife should not withhold themselves from each other referring to sex so that there is no room for sin, i.e., fornication. Sex out of marriage is fornication which is a sin. A marriage was between a man and a woman and their union was declared publicly and recognized by the community. Some marriages were arranged by parents. Prospective husbands asked for permission to marry the daughter from the father or patriarch of the family. It was customary that the daughters married in order, oldest to youngest. A younger daughter could not marry until the older sisters were all married. A man who had a brother die without an heir would take his dead brother's wife to be his wife in order to raise an heir to his brother.

I know there is lots of controversy in my reply, but I can supply scripture on all of them if you want it.

So what you're saying is that besically you agree with what I've been told about marriage and the bible? " A marriage was between a man and a woman and their union was declared publicly and recognized by the community. " There are a ton of people out there (myself included) that have a public "union" that is recognized by the community. It is not nesecary to have a church or state ritual in order for two people to biblically be married?

 

[2ndAmendment]

So what you're saying is that besically you agree with what I've been told about marriage and the bible? " A marriage was between a man and a woman and their union was declared publicly and recognized by the community. " There are a ton of people out there (myself included) that have a public "union" that is recognized by the community. It is not nesecary to have a church or state ritual in order for two people to biblically be married?

It was and is custom to have a public ceremony or declaration. People didn't just shack up. The earliest mention of marriage in the Bible is in Genesis.

Genesis 29:15-30
After Jacob had stayed with him for a whole month, 15 Laban said to him, "Just because you are a relative of mine, should you work for me for nothing? Tell me what your wages should be."

16 Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. 17 Leah had weak [a] eyes, but Rachel was lovely in form, and beautiful. 18 Jacob was in love with Rachel and said, "I'll work for you seven years in return for your younger daughter Rachel."

19 Laban said, "It's better that I give her to you than to some other man. Stay here with me." 20 So Jacob served seven years to get Rachel, but they seemed like only a few days to him because of his love for her.

21 Then Jacob said to Laban, "Give me my wife. My time is completed, and I want to lie with her."

22 So Laban brought together all the people of the place and gave a feast. 23 But when evening came, he took his daughter Leah and gave her to Jacob, and Jacob lay with her. 24 And Laban gave his servant girl Zilpah to his daughter as her maidservant.

25 When morning came, there was Leah! So Jacob said to Laban, "What is this you have done to me? I served you for Rachel, didn't I? Why have you deceived me?"

26 Laban replied, "It is not our custom here to give the younger daughter in marriage before the older one. 27 Finish this daughter's bridal week; then we will give you the younger one also, in return for another seven years of work."

28 And Jacob did so. He finished the week with Leah, and then Laban gave him his daughter Rachel to be his wife. 29 Laban gave his servant girl Bilhah to his daughter Rachel as her maidservant. 30 Jacob lay with Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah. And he worked for Laban another seven years.

Now you might wonder why Jacob didn't realize that Leah was not Rachel. I do too, but that is not explained. Obviously marriage was an extreme commitment. Jacob worked for 14 years in order to marry Rachel and wound up with both Rachel and Leah, Rachel's sister.

 

[pixiegirl]

It was and is custom to have a public ceremony or declaration. People didn't just shack up. The earliest mention of marriage in the Bible is in Genesis. Now you might wonder why Jacob didn't realize that Leah was not Rachel. I do too, but that is not explained. Obviously marriage was an extreme commitment. Jacob worked for 14 years in order to marry Rachel and wound up with both Rachel and Leah, Rachel's sister.

I understand the commitment. But to me bringing his people together to have a "feast" is not a formal ceremony. :shrug: And there is no mention of even that for the younger daughter.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I understand the commitment. But to me bringing his people together to have a "feast" is not a formal ceremony. :shrug: And there is no mention of even that for the younger daughter.

That is our perspective. But the family of the bride brought together family and friends and recognized the union before the union was consummated. Although scripture does not state so, I believe that this kind of feast was held for every wedding. Jesus talked of wedding feasts in the Gospels and He attended the wedding feast at Cana where He turned water into wine.

 

[Hello6]

You are real; it doesn't matter whether I know you or not.

MPD ??

Reality is based on perception....

 

[2ndAmendment]

MPD ??

Reality is based on perception....

MPD or not, there is a real person somewhere typing at a keyboard or if you are very sophisticated at a microphone with voice recognition software doing the typing. I may or may not know you IRL, but whether I know you does not make you any less real. Just as many people do not know or believe in God, it does not make Him any less real.

 

[pixiegirl]

That is our perspective. But the family of the bride brought together family and friends and recognized the union before the union was consummated. Although scripture does not state so, I believe that this kind of feast was held for every wedding. Jesus talked of wedding feasts in the Gospels and He attended the wedding feast at Cana where He turned water into wine.

It's the grey area again (at least to me). Here in the 21st century it could be viewed as bringing the boyfriend/girlfriend to dinner to meet the parents and the family recognizing that person as such. For example, 16 year old Sally brings her boyfriend Joe home to have dinner with the family. It's now recognized and accepted by the family that they are together; is it ok for them to do the deed? If not why?

And does the bible reference the wedding as a requirement of God or just as a tradition? If there is no requirement for an actual ceremony then why can't a man just "take a wife"?

 

[2ndAmendment]

It's the grey area again (at least to me). Here in the 21st century it could be viewed as bringing the boyfriend/girlfriend to dinner to meet the parents and the family recognizing that person as such. For example, 16 year old Sally brings her boyfriend Joe home to have dinner with the family. It's now recognized and accepted by the family that they are together; is it ok for them to do the deed? If not why?

And does the bible reference the wedding as a requirement of God or just as a tradition? If there is no requirement for an actual ceremony then why can't a man just "take a wife"?

Not quit the same. Jacob had asked her father to marry or lie with Rachel. He worked for 7 years for the original privilege and got the wrong girl so worked another 7 years to get the girl he wanted. The father threw a party for the community to recognize the marriage. That is very different than coming over to the folks house for dinner and then hitting the sack.

He did not just "take" a wife. He made a commitment before even asking. He got the blessing of the family and they celebrated the union.

 

[pixiegirl]

Not quit the same. Jacob had asked her father to marry or lie with Rachel. He worked for 7 years for the original privilege and got the wrong girl so worked another 7 years to get the girl he wanted. The father threw a party for the community to recognize the marriage. That is very different than coming over to the folks house for dinner and then hitting the sack.

He did not just "take" a wife. He made a commitment before even asking. He got the blessing of the family and they celebrated the union.

But the "blessing of the family" was (for lack of better words) the father pimping or selling them both?

I can not believe that every "marriage" was a trade or sale of sorts. Is there a reference to any other type of marriage?

 

[2ndAmendment]

But the "blessing of the family" was (for lack of better words) the father pimping or selling them both?

I can not believe that every "marriage" was a trade or sale of sorts. Is there a reference to any other type of marriage?

I don't think it was pimping. Dowries and the like are still used in certain areas of the world. That is where a father pays a man to be his daughter's husband or a man pays the father to let him marry the daughter. In Turkey, the last time I was there, fathers put a bottle on the chimney of the house for every eligible daughter. If you want to marry the oldest daughter (they marry in order of age too), you throw a rock or use whatever means to break a bottle. I don't know what happens if you break more than one. They have the custom of dowries, too.

I don't see it as the father selling his daughter. It was Jacob's willingness to earn Rachel's hand. He was demonstrating commitment.

The term wife and marriage and wedding are used in the Bible many times, but there are few accounts of weddings. The actual process appears to have changed over time, but it always involved public recognition and lifetime commitment.

 

[Tonio]

Dowries and the like are still used in certain areas of the world.

I believe dowries are wrong for a couple of reasons. One, the payment system seems like glorified prostitution. Two, it forces the daughter into a marriage against her will. India has a long history of dowry brides being abused by their grooms when the family didn't pay the dowry.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I believe dowries are wrong for a couple of reasons. One, the payment system seems like glorified prostitution. Two, it forces the daughter into a marriage against her will. India has a long history of dowry brides being abused by their grooms when the family didn't pay the dowry.

I didn't say they were right or wrong, I said they are still used. People around here just seem to look for arguments.

Dowries and arranged marriages are even used in the United States. Right or wrong, they are.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Here is the best scripture I have found regarding those that accept Jesus as Savior and Lord, those that reject Him, and those that never hear or are incapable of understanding the gospel and Jesus is speaking.

John 5:19-29
19Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

20"For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel.

21"For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes.

22"For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son,

23so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

24"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

25"Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

26"For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;

27and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.

28"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,

29and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

Those that accept Jesus as Savior and Lord are not judged at all but "does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." and those that have never heard or died before or are incapable of understanding will be judged based on their deeds. Even though this passage specifically applies to the dead that come forth, it would apply also to little children, mentally incapable, and those that never hear of salvation through Jesus since when they die their spirit would also come forth. Little children, mentally incapable, and those that never hear of salvation through Jesus are judged on how they lived, good or evil. Those that hear and reject and die in the rejection are already judged for not believing. I don't think it could be any clearer.

 

[pixiegirl]

Here is the best scripture I have found regarding those that accept Jesus as Savior and Lord, those that reject Him, and those that never hear or are incapable of understanding the gospel and Jesus is speaking.

Those that accept Jesus as Savior and Lord are not judged at all but "does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." and those that have never heard or died before or are incapable of understanding will be judged based on their deeds. Even though this passage specifically applies to the dead that come forth, it would apply also to little children, mentally incapable, and those that never hear of salvation through Jesus since when they die their spirit would also come forth. Little children, mentally incapable, and those that never hear of salvation through Jesus are judged on how they lived, good or evil. Those that hear and reject and die in the rejection are already judged for not believing. I don't think it could be any clearer.

Little children, mentally incapable, and those that never hear of salvation through Jesus are judged on how they lived, good or evil.

I still have a problem with this. Given my very first example. What if the child is in the process or has just commited a sin before death. Children are incapable of judging right from wrong. I'd venture to say that most children under age 10 don't have a real comprehension of what evil is. If a child is raised by trash parents and is a rotten kid I just can't believe that if that child were to die that he could/would be held accountable for actions that he couln't comprehend were wrong.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Little children, mentally incapable, and those that never hear of salvation through Jesus are judged on how they lived, good or evil.

I still have a problem with this. Given my very first example. What if the child is in the process or has just commited a sin before death. Children are incapable of judging right from wrong. I'd venture to say that most children under age 10 don't have a real comprehension of what evil is. If a child is raised by trash parents and is a rotten kid I just can't believe that if that child were to die that he could/would be held accountable for actions that he couln't comprehend were wrong.

Don't know what else to post. I have researched scripture to show that God does not judge believers, non-believers are already judged by their choice, and those that do not comprehend are judged on what they did in life.

Some people, including kids, are evil. It is one thing for a kid to take a dollar to get some ice cream and totally another to push their grandmother down the stairs because they want something grandmother says they can have when she dies. I would say very few people, even little kids, don't know right from wrong.

Anyway, I have tried. If you still disagree with the Bible, there is nothing more I can do but pray.