HOME CHAT ROOM #1 CHAT ROOM #2 Forum Topics Within The Last 7 Days REGISTER ENTER FORUMS BIBLE SCHOOL CONTACT US

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine Christian Family Fellowship Forums & Chat Rooms
(formerly Maritime SDA OnLine)
Consisting mainly of both members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Welcomes and invites other members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to join us!

Click Here To Read Legal Notice & Disclaimer
Suggested a One Time Yearly $20 or Higher Donation Accepted Here to Help Cover the Yearly Expenses of Operating & Upgrading
Donations accepted: Here
ShoutChat Box
Newest Members
Knowreason, Jeff Wickham, michaeljav, Nrothe, Theophilus
1300 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums118
Topics8,849
Posts190,239
Members1,300
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
Seventh-day Adventist Church In Canada Links
Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada

Newfoundland & Labrador Mission

Maritime Conference

Quebec Conference

Ontario Conference

Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference

Alberta Conference

British Columbia Conference

7 Top Posters(30 Days)
kland 54
Rick H 48
APL 21
Daryl 20
April
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
Member Spotlight
ProdigalOne
ProdigalOne
Alberta, Canada
Posts: 812
Joined: June 2015
Show All Member Profiles 
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Live Space Station Tracking
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
Last 7 Pictures From Photo Gallery Forums
He hath set an harvest for thee
Rivers Of Living Water
He Leads Us To Green Pastures
Remember What God Has Done
Remember The Sabbath
"...whiter than snow..."
A Beautiful Spring Day
Who's Online
12 registered members (D R, Daryl, dedication, Wendell Slattery, Theophilus, ProdigalOne, Karen Y, 5 invisible), 759 guests, and 11 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 16 of 16 1 2 14 15 16
Re: The Bible and Polygamy [Re: Mountain Man] #135405
07/25/11 11:07 PM
07/25/11 11:07 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
NJK, okay, you win. I'm outta here. It's not so much your theology that is driving me away - in particular, it's your cruel and bitter spirit. This situation reminds of the bully in the sandbox. Now that you've driven everyone away - you can have the sandbox all to yourself.


You actually defeated yourself. I personally won’t begin to miss, in an SDA Forum, people who can’t back up what they are saying with sound Biblical exegetical Truth. To think that you actually think that I begin to take any blame for any of your actions and decisions is, summarily said, laughable.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: The Bible and Polygamy [Re: glenm] #135406
07/25/11 11:07 PM
07/25/11 11:07 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Originally Posted By: glenm
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
NJK, okay, you win. I'm outta here. It's not so much your theology that is driving me away - in particular, it's your cruel and bitter spirit. This situation reminds of the bully in the sandbox. Now that you've driven everyone away - you can have the sandbox all to yourself.

Hi Mike, I bailed out for similar reasons several weeks ago.

My impression is that the Maritime forums are foundering, and one of the big reasons is because false teachers and fanatics are being catered to.

The other day I ran across an interesting quote, that directly pertains to this situation:

Quote:
There will be those who will claim to have visions. When God gives you clear evidence that the vision is from Him, you may accept it, but do not accept it on any other evidence; for people are going to be led more and more astray in foreign countries and in America. The Lord wants His people to act like men and women of sense. {Ev 610.2}

There are all sorts of Bible and EGW statements about not interacting with false teachers and so on, and if we ignore such statements, we're going to get ourselves into ever deeper trouble as the end approaches.


That is the easy thing to do. However for the sake of those who may think that what these false teachers are saying is true, especially in such publically accessible settings, I personally choose to engage them and make them prove that what they are claiming as truth is Biblical.

For people who claim to care so much about their Church, I don’t see much backing up of these claims in concrete actions. Talk about ‘False Shepherds who are only looking out for themselves’ (cf. Isa 56:10-12).


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: The Bible and Polygamy [Re: glenm] #135408
07/26/11 12:43 AM
07/26/11 12:43 AM
Mountain Man  Offline
SDA
Charter Member
Active Member 2019

20000+ Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
Originally Posted By: glenm
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
NJK, okay, you win. I'm outta here. It's not so much your theology that is driving me away - in particular, it's your cruel and bitter spirit. This situation reminds of the bully in the sandbox. Now that you've driven everyone away - you can have the sandbox all to yourself.

Hi Mike, I bailed out for similar reasons several weeks ago.

My impression is that the Maritime forums are foundering, and one of the big reasons is because false teachers and fanatics are being catered to.

The other day I ran across an interesting quote, that directly pertains to this situation:

Quote:
There will be those who will claim to have visions. When God gives you clear evidence that the vision is from Him, you may accept it, but do not accept it on any other evidence; for people are going to be led more and more astray in foreign countries and in America. The Lord wants His people to act like men and women of sense. {Ev 610.2}

There are all sorts of Bible and EGW statements about not interacting with false teachers and so on, and if we ignore such statements, we're going to get ourselves into ever deeper trouble as the end approaches.

Thank you for the great advice and awesome quote. As soon as NJK is banned from these forums things should return to normal. This is the worst infiltration we've encountered.

Re: The Bible and Polygamy [Re: Mountain Man] #135412
07/26/11 01:25 AM
07/26/11 01:25 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Read the Forum Rules Mountain Man and you’ll find the steps to take to get that done.... but of course there, you’ll also have to prove/justify your request with factually valid points.


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: The Bible and Polygamy [Re: NJK Project] #135423
07/27/11 11:37 AM
07/27/11 11:37 AM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Quote:
NJK: First of all where in the Bible, Elle, are you getting the punishment of ‘slavery for 50 years’ instead of 7 years, for being unable to pay 50 skekels?

Elle: My words was a maxmum of 49 years according to the law of Jubilee to pay up the sum of 50 shekels of silver + the dowry price. All debts are cancelled at the Jubilee.

NJK : That is again my question. Deut 15:1ff states that debts are to be cancelled at the upcoming 7th year period (i.e., not necessarily after 7 years, but e.g., if the debt was incurred in a 6th year of a sabbatical cycle, it was to be cancelled the next year). So where are you getting this law of ‘up to 49 years’. I only see “up to the 7th year”. Thus they were to be cancelled even long before the Jubilee year.

The debt released on the sabbatical year of the land in Deut 15:1 is only a temporary release which gives the slaves time with their family and a rest for their own soul. Just as we all do every 7th day. On the 8th year they resume their work to their creditor until it is fully paid or until the Jubilee. Whatever comes first.

Quote:
Elle : Well at least according to God’s law, the Israelites never observed it once, nor did they ever gaved rest to the land (and their slaves) every 7 years.

NJK : While that may seem likely, I do not see concrete proof of this in the Bible. As usual, notoriety is usually based on bad/controversial behavior and so we find most of those wayward times recorded in the Bile. However there are many years that are not so recorded and they may have included periods of strict obedient living, indeed long enough to have a perfectly observed Sabbatical Cycle of 7 years or even a Jubilee Cycle of 50 years. And that is even in part because, while Israel did never let their land keep its fallow Sabbath, which is tangibly why they were sent from it off to Babylon (2 Chr 36:20, 21), they may have been distinctly observing the “remissions of debts” aspect of the Law as they would have seen its concrete reason vs. the fallow land requirement which they had to trust God’s wisdom for. Also, as I understand it, the mention of a separate 49 years (7 weeks) in Dan 9:25, is to mark off the first Sabbatical cycle since the restoration (i.e., 457-408 B.C.) and it very well may have been that Israel, since the Sabbatical punishment of the Babylonian deportation was careful to observe the Sabbatical cycles. Their great care for this post-the Captivity is seen in the writings of Josephus which documentedly cover the 400-1 B.C. time period of Israel.

So your wholly dismissive conclusion does not seem to be factual to me.

Is it written in Josephus document that they gave the land a rest every 7 years, temporarily release their slaves debts for the sabbatical year, and release their entire debt on the Jubilee? If so, I would like to see a reference of this. My hunch it is not there for following God to this level requires great spiritual maturity which I don’t believe they have acquired it nor come close to it. I do believe that they did reform to some extend after their captivity experience; however, I’m sure it was a partial and an “outside” reformation with a strong legalistic flavor.

Quote:
Elle = Where did you get the 7 years to pay up 50 shekels? ???Jacob??? If so, with Jacob it was not a 50 shekels price for the bride's dowry he was working for. It was a work agreement because the rich dowry of unknown amount for the bride was stolen before hand and he had nothing to offer. However Jacob had some barganing power for he was an experienced older worker which has more value than a young unexperienced man and he didn’t had sex with her prior like the young man who violated the laws in Ex 22 and Deut 22.

NJK : Not at all. It indeed did not even remotely come to my mind. Deut 15:1ff law for the remission of debt was what I saw addressed this situation.

Deut 15:1 does not address this situation at all. It all depends on how much this young man has to pay up after selling everything he owns to pay partially or wholly. He may have the funds if he comes from a rich family and might escape slavery. Also according to the law of redemption, it allows a close kinship (Ga’al = a redeemer) to pay it up for him.

Quote:
Elle : The laws are define separately. An act can violate several laws. So all the laws violated needs to be accounted for when it is time for judgment. In this situation of Deut 22 which Ex 22 Law is implied in this case, it only specifies the restitution for the father’s name, and defines that the young man has no choice in the matter of marrying or not this young girl. It is up to the father. Whereas in Ex 22, there's a possibility that the younr man may opt to not marry her for it only states the obligation to pay the dowry price in that law. Plus in Deut 22 adds that this young man don’t have the option to put her away all the days of his life.

NJK : I see the “cases” for the laws of Ex 22 & Deut 22 to actually be distinct. Again the punishment was less strict for Exod 22 because, ironically enough it could have been a moment of passion among friends. (And not even the promiscuous equivalent of today’s “friends with benefits” mentality which does not actually necessitate this considered “passion” of the Exod 22 case. However in Deut 22, after stating the general case of what would be a demonstrated rape situation in vs. 23-28 of an engaged woman, which I see also then recursively applies to the rape of a non-engaged woman; the distinct case of a non-engaged woman who manifestly has consented to relation, by never reporting this and them being “discovered,” which could be long after the fact, (e.g., through a parent’s questioning based on various observations, then the penalty in Deut 22:28, 29 applies and the punishment for this demonstrated consensual act of pure lust between two probably strangers is to be, at least forced marriage. So God had a lower tolerance for acts of adultery that were not based on any “understandable” passion at all but mere base behavior..


According to your understanding, I disagree that Ex 22 penalty is less than Deut 22. Let’s do a comparison:

Ex 22 : Sex between Friends without following the laws of betrowal

-Large Dowry Sum : This Young man has to pay the dowry of virgin which will be a maximum sum in his case, plus potentially doubled it for he has stolen this maiden’s virginity. This young man will have no bargaining power for he is in the fault by breaking the bethrowal law, dishonoring the family, dishonoring the law of the land, and bringing shame to this young girl for life.
-May not have the girl as a wife: The law states that the Father may refuse to give his daughter as a bride. It is always the decision of the Father to give the hand of his daughter to whom he deem worthy of her hand. That’s why there is a law of bethrowal in the land. This law requires the young man to come to the father of the maiden and ask for her and bargain a dowry price. This has to be done before courtship.

Deut 22 : Forced Sex between Strangers

-50 Shekels of Silver :This sum could be less than most dowry bartering. I don’t know how much is 50 shekels is terms of relevancy in their time. Do you know how many years of average labor does this represents?
-No Dowry to pay: This dishonor the brides and does not bring justice to the fact that the betroth law was broken.
-Has the girl as a wife:The law does state that he cannot put her away.

Conclusion : This comparison shows that the Forced sex infraction has less of retribution than the consented sex between “friends”. It is because we are not taking account that the man that committed the crime of Deut 22 has also broken the law of betrothment that Ex 22 address. Only by taken into account all broken laws with the Deut 22 crime, can true justice be served and will bring Deut 22 retribution greater than Ex 22.

Quote:
Elle : Laws has it’s limitation of what it can describe. That’s why the people could come to the king and have a fair trial when the laws didn’t cover their specific case.

NJK : That indeed was to be the function of the king, which as several texts in the Bible shows was first and foremost a Supreme Judge..

I’m sure you are agreeing that first; the people had to try to settle the injustice between themselves by applying the law of the land. Then if they couldn’t resolve the matter, then they needed to proceed accordingly to a minimal to what is defined in their time and society. I disagree that it was first to go to the Supreme Court. We don’t even do that today. Before hand, there’s smaller court proceedings that has to be first.

The proper procedure to proceed depended on the time of the infraction -- before or after Israel had a King. Before Kings ruled over Israel, in Ex 18:25 Moses had set up a hierarchy of heads over the people to settle matters before to come to Moses or Aaron to judge the people. There were men set up over 10s, 50s, 100s, and 1000s people. The Supreme Court (to come to Moses or Aaron) was the last resort.

I don’t know if this hierarchy system was still in place after Kings were appointed over Israel. Probably not. And I haven’t studied if they were set up in some ways with smaller court room before coming to the king.

There is another level of settling matters which applied in both before and after kings it was via the Ga’al of the family. The Ga’al was the spiritual leader of the family which has two main function: (1) to insure justice was met for the victim (acted as an avenger of the blood) or (2) came to redeem a kinsman(acted as a redeemer). So in many situation, a case can be potentially be discuss and resolved between the Ga’al of both families, if the family had one representing them. The Ga’al was a type of lawyer just like Christ is for us.

Quote:
Elle : You read it again NJK, it first address(v.25-27) if the damsel is in the field and is betrothed, then v. 28 address if that damsel is not betrothed and uses specifically the word taphas -- to capture, seize. So because of the word taphas, it seems to be a continuance of v.25-27 by addressing the case in this situation if the damsel is not betrothed.

NJK: The distinction here and why “capture” has to be used is that this is neither an act of passion as in Exod 22, nor rape as in vs. 23-27. The “capturing” implies at least a non-planned relation, but one that was manifestly eventually consented with none the less and only brought to light when those two were “discovered”. And this “capturing” may have simply been a verbal convincing. The key word to me is that they were “discovered” and that is why they both are punished.

I disagree. The Hebrew word employed here( taphas --to capture, seize) implies a forced relationship. If it was a consensus relationship like you and MM are suggesting here, then there was other word as employ in Ex 22(pathah -- ”to open, i.e. be (causatively, make) roomy; usually figuratively (in a mental or moral sense) to be (causatively, make) simple or (in a sinister way) delude.”).

The word “discovered” does not only implied that they were secretly concealing your propose flinging affair. It can also imply that this young man could of threatened this young maiden, or she might feel guilty for many reasons and by fear she was silence. As this is often the case with young girls today who are silence when men has improperly engaged in sexual affairs with them.

Quote:
So I see the laws not imposing marriage for actual rape also applying to a non-engaged woman. Only where there is concealment of the act and it had to be “discovered” thus there really is no way of judicially telling what the actual circumstance was, that both parties are default held responsible for it.

I disagree with you.
#1. You are disregarding and making null the Law of betrothment
# 2 You are disregarding and making null that man has a responsibility over woman. It is man that is placed above the woman in creation by the fact that man was first created and woman was taken out of man. According to 1 Co 11:3, the order of God has placed man in direct subjection to Christ. Woman is placed under man. Man has the charge to keep the law and to subdue all under him. Man has the responsibility to keep his family in order. And that’s why there is the law of betrothment in place in society like Israel and other societies still today. Before courting a woman, this young man has the obligation to see the Father of the damsel and tell him his intention. If he doesn’t do this, this young man is dishonoring everyone and it is a crime against everyone and he alone is responsible for this crime whether this young girl teased him before hand, or it was a act “between friends”, or it was an act of “passion”, or whatever. All reasons has no weight on putting the offense on the woman regardless if this maiden is a whore in heart or not.


Blessings
Re: The Bible and Polygamy [Re: Elle] #135427
07/28/11 12:46 AM
07/28/11 12:46 AM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec

Due to the fact. Elle, that this particular, and actually, side issue in this polygamy topic further is not a personally pressing issue for me to currently seek to accurately understand, I cannot engage in an in depth discussion on it. However I’ll state the following succinct answers to your responses:

Originally Posted By: Elle
The debt released on the sabbatical year of the land in Deut 15:1 is only a temporary release which gives the slaves time with their family and a rest for their own soul. Just as we all do every 7th day. On the 8th year they resume their work to their creditor until it is fully paid or until the Jubilee. Whatever comes first.


I still need to see a Scriptural support for that. I personally do not see that any enslavement of Israelites in Israel can ever extend beyond 7 years and Deut 15 laws seem to wholly cover that topic.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Is it written in Josephus document that they gave the land a rest every 7 years, temporarily release their slaves debts for the sabbatical year, and release their entire debt on the Jubilee? If so, I would like to see a reference of this. My hunch it is not there for following God to this level requires great spiritual maturity which I don’t believe they have acquired it nor come close to it. I do believe that they did reform to some extend after their captivity experience; however, I’m sure it was a partial and an “outside” reformation with a strong legalistic flavor.


From what I recall off the top of my head, you are quite correct here in saying that this post-captivity was merely for form and not out of deep Spiritual conviction. Indeed that hypocritical ‘outward show’ demeanor is what Jesus had to principally battle against by the 1st century A.D. I indeed do recall many instances in Josephus where Sabbatical years were mentioned, but as you say, the Socio-economic and Spiritual requirements in those laws were probably ignored.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Elle
Deut 15:1 does not address this situation at all. It all depends on how much this young man has to pay up after selling everything he owns to pay partially or wholly. He may have the funds if he comes from a rich family and might escape slavery. Also according to the law of redemption, it allows a close kinship (Ga’al = a redeemer) to pay it up for him.


...

Originally Posted By: Elle
...The Ga’al was the spiritual leader of the family which has two main function: (1) to insure justice was met for the victim (acted as an avenger of the blood) or (2) came to redeem a kinsman(acted as a redeemer). So in many situation, a case can be potentially be discuss and resolved between the Ga’al of both families, if the family had one representing them. The Ga’al was a type of lawyer just like Christ is for us.


Seems to me that any enslaving debt, as this imposed dowry debt was, could/should be forgiven by the Deut 15 laws. It also seems to me that the aiding, law of redemption provisions, were available to avoid two people truly in love from being able to marry.

Originally Posted By: Elle
According to your understanding, I disagree that Ex 22 penalty is less than Deut 22. Let’s do a comparison:

Ex 22 : Sex between Friends without following the laws of betrowal

-Large Dowry Sum : This Young man has to pay the dowry of virgin which will be a maximum sum in his case, plus potentially doubled it for he has stolen this maiden’s virginity. This young man will have no bargaining power for he is in the fault by breaking the bethrowal law, dishonoring the family, dishonoring the law of the land, and bringing shame to this young girl for life.
-May not have the girl as a wife: The law states that the Father may refuse to give his daughter as a bride. It is always the decision of the Father to give the hand of his daughter to whom he deem worthy of her hand. That’s why there is a law of bethrowal in the land. This law requires the young man to come to the father of the maiden and ask for her and bargain a dowry price. This has to be done before courtship.

Deut 22 : Forced Sex between Strangers

-50 Shekels of Silver :This sum could be less than most dowry bartering. I don’t know how much is 50 shekels is terms of relevancy in their time. Do you know how many years of average labor does this represents?
-No Dowry to pay: This dishonor the brides and does not bring justice to the fact that the betroth law was broken.
-Has the girl as a wife:The law does state that he cannot put her away.

Conclusion : This comparison shows that the Forced sex infraction has less of retribution than the consented sex between “friends”. It is because we are not taking account that the man that committed the crime of Deut 22 has also broken the law of betrothment that Ex 22 address. Only by taken into account all broken laws with the Deut 22 crime, can true justice be served and will bring Deut 22 retribution greater than Ex 22.


It seems quite straightforward to me that if someone only wanted a fling, and had to even “convince” someone else to do so, then being forced to permanently marry that person alone was quite a punishment. Indeed, that punishment pointedly said that ‘that offender could not freely sleep around and furthermore could never lawfully, and thus at the penalty of death for “statutory adultery” ever have a marital relationship with anyone else. So that law alone really nailed in the bud a person casually sleeping with someone they don’t even like at all because if they were ever “discovered”, he would be stuck with that person forever. That then left pre-marital relationship amongst actual close friends and Exod 22 understandingly”, yet still justly and strictly, covered that potential sinning course.

Originally Posted By: Elle
I’m sure you are agreeing that first; the people had to try to settle the injustice between themselves by applying the law of the land. Then if they couldn’t resolve the matter, then they needed to proceed accordingly to a minimal to what is defined in their time and society. I disagree that it was first to go to the Supreme Court. We don’t even do that today. Before hand, there’s smaller court proceedings that has to be first.

The proper procedure to proceed depended on the time of the infraction -- before or after Israel had a King. Before Kings ruled over Israel, in Ex 18:25 Moses had set up a hierarchy of heads over the people to settle matters before to come to Moses or Aaron to judge the people. There were men set up over 10s, 50s, 100s, and 1000s people. The Supreme Court (to come to Moses or Aaron) was the last resort.

I don’t know if this hierarchy system was still in place after Kings were appointed over Israel. Probably not. And I haven’t studied if they were set up in some ways with smaller court room before coming to the king. ...

You completely misunderstood me here. I did not say that the King was the ‘first and foremost’ resolution recourse in Israel, but that the function of the king was first and foremost that of judging. E.g., when Absalom wanted to demonstrate that he should be made king, he did so by showing how good of a judge he was. (2 Sam 15:2-6).


Of course this was, more than likely always, at a “Supreme Court” level taking the position of Moses, but that is besides my point that the King was to mainly decision such cases and other non-cases judicious matters. I had to do an in depth study on this topic in the course of my work on the 70 Weeks as it explained how and why the pointed stipulation in Ezra 7:25, 26 did indeed cause Israel to regain its lost political power, even if they were still ultimately under the authority of the Persian Empire.

Originally Posted By: Elle
There is another level of settling matters which applied in both before and after kings it was via the Ga’al of the family.


Didn’t the law of redemption have to (only) do with Levirate duties?? (e.g., Ruth 4:6, 7). If you don’t think/see so, state the reference where these laws as you are applying them in this situation are found in the Bible.

Originally Posted By: Elle
I disagree. The Hebrew word employed here( taphas --to capture, seize) implies a forced relationship. If it was a consensus relationship like you and MM are suggesting here, then there was other word as employ in Ex 22(pathah -- ”to open, i.e. be (causatively, make) roomy; usually figuratively (in a mental or moral sense) to be (causatively, make) simple or (in a sinister way) delude.”).

The word “discovered” does not only implied that they were secretly concealing your propose flinging affair. It can also imply that this young man could of threatened this young maiden, or she might feel guilty for many reasons and by fear she was silence. As this is often the case with young girls today who are silence when men has improperly engaged in sexual affairs with them.


I won’t presently be exhaustively examining the exegetical details here, but the context seems to me to support that this was, at the very least, and non-physically convinced-to-go-along relation, indeed when jointly considered with a “discovering” needed to find it out. As laws today cover, this was also an ‘aiding and abetting crime after the fact’, and thus any claim of “rape” was automatically rendered unsupportable.

Give that the penalty for rape was death of the rapist, then that woman, threatened or not, had absolutely nothing to lose nor fear by denouncing this criminal and having him taken into custody. It was only expected and intuitive for her to seek to protect her honor at any cost and the law and judicial system was entirely in her favor, and if everything else failed there was always the Court of God Himself who could injunctively decide an unresolvable issue. So any covering up here was out of a preference to do so and was then only seen as a stemming from a consent .

Originally Posted By: Elle
I disagree with you.
#1. You are disregarding and making null the Law of betrothment
# 2 You are disregarding and making null that man has a responsibility over woman. It is man that is placed above the woman in creation by the fact that man was first created and woman was taken out of man. According to 1 Co 11:3, the order of God has placed man in direct subjection to Christ. Woman is placed under man. Man has the charge to keep the law and to subdue all under him. Man has the responsibility to keep his family in order. And that’s why there is the law of betrothment in place in society like Israel and other societies still today. Before courting a woman, this young man has the obligation to see the Father of the damsel and tell him his intention. If he doesn’t do this, this young man is dishonoring everyone and it is a crime against everyone and he alone is responsible for this crime whether this young girl teased him before hand, or it was a act “between friends”, or it was an act of “passion”, or whatever. All reasons has no weight on putting the offense on the woman regardless if this maiden is a whore in heart or not.


Generally said, which to me manifestly can/should address this whole point, I rather see that the Man and Woman were originally on an equal status and it was only after Eve first and convinced Adam to sin (Gen 3:17a) that she was to be ‘ruled over by her husband’ (Gen 3:16b).


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Re: The Bible and Polygamy [Re: NJK Project] #135457
07/30/11 12:49 PM
07/30/11 12:49 PM
E
Elle  Offline
Active Member 2019
Died February 12, 2019

2500+ Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,536
Canada
Quote:
Elle : The debt released on the sabbatical year of the land in Deut 15:1 is only a temporary release which gives the slaves time with their family and a rest for their own soul. Just as we all do every 7th day. On the 8th year they resume their work to their creditor until it is fully paid or until the Jubilee. Whatever comes first.

NJK : I still need to see a Scriptural support for that. I personally do not see that any enslavement of Israelites in Israel can ever extend beyond 7 years and Deut 15 laws seem to wholly cover that topic.

Wow! Isn’t it amazing that we do not even know the most important law of all laws which is the ultimate Sabbath of all Sabbaths. This Law is the basis of the plan of salvation. You will find the Law of Jubilee in the entire chapter in Lev 25. The basic is the following:

(1) Sin is the breaking of the Law. All sins/crime are reckoned as a debt. Mat 6:12
(2) A debt has to be paid to his victim = Restitution which hard cases are determine by a judge (Ex 22:1-22; Deut 17:8-13)
(3) If he doesn’t have the money to pay up, then he has to sell everything(possession and land) he owns until the sum is gatered. If he still doesn’t have enough funds, then he(& family) is sold to slavery to work off his debt. (Ex 22:3; Lev 25)
(4) The selling of the land is really only a lease according to the value of what it can produced yearly until the coming Jubilee. Lev 25:15,16,23 Lev 27:16
(5) A near kinsman has the right to buy off the debt at any time. Lev 25:24-28, 48-49, 50-52
(6) If he wasn’t redeemed, all debts are cancelled at the Jubilee, no matter how large the remaining of the debt is or if he incurred additional debts. Every man returns to their land and family at Jubilee(DOA of the 49th year). Lev 25:8-13,28,54
(7) The Jubilee is not a choice, it is an obligation that God has declared as LAW.


Quote:
Elle: Deut 15:1 does not address this situation at all. It all depends on how much this young man has to pay up after selling everything he owns to pay partially or wholly. He may have the funds if he comes from a rich family and might escape slavery. Also according to the law of redemption, it allows a close kinship (Ga’al = a redeemer) to pay it up for him.

...

Elle:...The Ga’al was the spiritual leader of the family which has two main function: (1) to insure justice was met for the victim (acted as an avenger of the blood) or (2) came to redeem a kinsman(acted as a redeemer). So in many situation, a case can be potentially be discuss and resolved between the Ga’al of both families, if the family had one representing them. The Ga’al was a type of lawyer just like Christ is for us.

NJK : Seems to me that any enslaving debt, as this imposed dowry debt was, could/should be forgiven by the Deut 15 laws

No! Deut 15 does not forgive the debt. God put the law of the rest of the land every 7 year for us, so we would take a sabbatical year from our work. This law includes the slaves, the servants, the sojourners -- everyone in the land. This is what Deut 15 is addressing… all debt are to be released for that year; however it is not erased. It is only erased at the Jubilee in Lev 25.
Originally Posted By: NJK
. It also seems to me that the aiding, law of redemption provisions, were available to avoid two people truly in love from being able to marry.

I’m not following you nor understanding what you are trying to say? Could you please re-word it.

Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
According to your understanding, I disagree that Ex 22 penalty is less than Deut 22. Let’s do a comparison:

Ex 22 : Sex between Friends without following the laws of betrowal

-Large Dowry Sum : This Young man has to pay the dowry of virgin which will be a maximum sum in his case, plus potentially doubled it for he has stolen this maiden’s virginity. This young man will have no bargaining power for he is in the fault by breaking the bethrowal law, dishonoring the family, dishonoring the law of the land, and bringing shame to this young girl for life.
-May not have the girl as a wife: The law states that the Father may refuse to give his daughter as a bride. It is always the decision of the Father to give the hand of his daughter to whom he deem worthy of her hand. That’s why there is a law of bethrowal in the land. This law requires the young man to come to the father of the maiden and ask for her and bargain a dowry price. This has to be done before courtship.

Deut 22 : Forced Sex between Strangers

-50 Shekels of Silver :This sum could be less than most dowry bartering. I don’t know how much is 50 shekels is terms of relevancy in their time. Do you know how many years of average labor does this represents?
-No Dowry to pay: This dishonor the brides and does not bring justice to the fact that the betroth law was broken.
-Has the girl as a wife:The law does state that he cannot put her away.

Conclusion : This comparison shows that the Forced sex infraction has less of retribution than the consented sex between “friends”. It is because we are not taking account that the man that committed the crime of Deut 22 has also broken the law of betrothment that Ex 22 address. Only by taken into account all broken laws with the Deut 22 crime, can true justice be served and will bring Deut 22 retribution greater than Ex 22.

It seems quite straightforward to me that if someone only wanted a fling, and had to even “convince” someone else to do so, then being forced to permanently marry that person alone was quite a punishment. Indeed, that punishment pointedly said that ‘that offender could not freely sleep around and furthermore could never lawfully, and thus at the penalty of death for “statutory adultery” ever have a marital relationship with anyone else. So that law alone really nailed in the bud a person casually sleeping with someone they don’t even like at all because if they were ever “discovered”, he would be stuck with that person forever. That then left pre-marital relationship amongst actual close friends and Exod 22 understandingly”, yet still justly and strictly, covered that potential sinning course.

These are pure unreasonable diversions to offset the real issue at hand. What’s the problem NJK? Why don’t you want to acknowledge the word taphas used in Deut 22? Why don’t you want to admit that there’s more than your suppose reason that this was kept “secret”? The facts that you cannot see these shows that you are not objectional and not seeking truth in this discussion.

First, what you said doesn’t stand for in those days, woman were highly subjected to their man and it was highly the norm. It was not like what we see today. So if there’s someone to “be stuck” with another and being oppress, it is moreso the woman who has to endure being coerce into sex and work for the rest of her life to a foolish man. The fact that this man used forced(taphas) to get what he wanted initially shows that he is not a meek or kind man. Plus, in was lawful for men in those days could have several woman which makes the situation less possible for one particular woman to have power over the man. If she was too obstinate then he doesn’t have to sleep with her again or probably rape her if oppression/force is a type of kick for him. The point is that he has more the ability to make her life quite miserable for according to the laws and the ways of the land -- (1)he is the head/master of the house, and (2)he can have more than one wife if he desires. For sure the woman can complain which he has to endure, but he has the assumed right to beat her and to punish her because he is in authority. Whereas the woman doesn’t and her say has no weight especially to a foolish oppressive man.

So please, address the situation according to what scripture says and address the question at hand when you said that Deut 22 penalty was greater than Ex 22 which it is not.

Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
There is another level of settling matters which applied in both before and after kings it was via the Ga’al of the family.

Didn’t the law of redemption have to (only) do with Levirate duties?? (e.g., Ruth 4:6, 7).

??? Where did you get that??? Are the Levites the nearest kinsman to all the Israelites? No they were not and they were not considered as such. There were many NEARER kins. Just as Boaz was a near kinsman, but there was another that was nearer than he. So the nearest kin had the first right to redeem Ruth.
Ruth 2: 12 “And now it is true I am a close relative; however, there is a relative closer than I. 13 Remain this night, and when morning comes, if he will redeem you, good; let him redeem you. But if he does not wish to redeem you, then I will redeem you, as the LORD lives.

Her closer relative didn’t want to redeem Ruth because he had to marry her according to the law of Deut 25 (see Josephus in Antiquities, V, ix, 4) and he had to produce an heir for Ruth’s deceased husband Mahlon. Basically, all of the property Elimelech and Naomi had, would of went to Ruth’s child according to the law in Deut 25:5-10. So without marying Ruth he would of gladly taken up the property of Elimelech which he had already claimed, however when Boaz challenged him that he had to take account of the whole law and not only partially, then there was no more real financial incentive for the closest relative to redeem Ruth and Naomi, if he had to marry her.
Originally Posted By: NJK
If you don’t think/see so, state the reference where these laws as you are applying them in this situation are found in the Bible.

First in Ex 22:4 a man can redeem his own trepass by restoring double its value, and in Lev 27:13-33 a man can redeem his vow(his own person or property that he had sanctified(given) to the Lord) by paying the value of it plus 1/5. So trepasses, vows, or no heirs, or natural disasters like drought like the possible case of Naomi and Elimelech to have moved in foreign land, can make so that we loose our possession. The nearest kinsman has the right to these possession before anyone(Num 27:11). This is the law that Elimelech closest kin was taking into account, however, he didn’t want to honor the law in Deut 25.

The main laws directly referring to the nearest kinsman’s right of redemption is found in Lev 25:25-54 and in Num 5:8. This is the law that gaved the right to Jesus to redeem Israel (by being from the line of Judah) and the world(by being born as a man -- the second Adam).
Originally Posted By: NJK
Give that the penalty for rape was death of the rapist, then that woman, threatened or not, had absolutely nothing to lose nor fear by denouncing this criminal and having him taken into custody. It was only expected and intuitive for her to seek to protect her honor at any cost and the law and judicial system was entirely in her favor, and if everything else failed there was always the Court of God Himself who could injunctively decide an unresolvable issue. So any covering up here was out of a preference to do so and was then only seen as a stemming from a consent .

I failed to correct your underlined assumed statement above in the previous post. If you read the discussion(page 7, 9,11-15, this point was clearly crossed examined and you are unbiblically in aggreement with MM which Green and I disagree in your interpretation. A man is put to death on the basis of committing adultery and not for commiting rape.

So you are basing your interpretation on a false assumption and that’s why you chooose to disregard explicit words like taphas describing the situation in Deut 22:28 and consider the sequential logic this law is presented so to support your unbiblical interpretation.
Originally Posted By: NJK
Originally Posted By: Elle
I disagree. The Hebrew word employed here( taphas --to capture, seize) implies a forced relationship. If it was a consensus relationship like you and MM are suggesting here, then there was other word as employ in Ex 22(pathah -- ”to open, i.e. be (causatively, make) roomy; usually figuratively (in a mental or moral sense) to be (causatively, make) simple or (in a sinister way) delude.”).

The word “discovered” does not only implied that they were secretly concealing your propose flinging affair. It can also imply that this young man could of threatened this young maiden, or she might feel guilty for many reasons and by fear she was silence. As this is often the case with young girls today who are silence when men has improperly engaged in sexual affairs with them.


I won’t presently be exhaustively examining the exegetical details here, but the context seems to me to support that this was, at the very least, and non-physically convinced-to-go-along relation, indeed when jointly considered with a “discovering” needed to find it out. As laws today cover, this was also an ‘aiding and abetting crime after the fact’, and thus any claim of “rape” was automatically rendered unsupportable.

Give that the penalty for rape was death of the rapist, then that woman, threatened or not, had absolutely nothing to lose nor fear by denouncing this criminal and having him taken into custody. It was only expected and intuitive for her to seek to protect her honor at any cost and the law and judicial system was entirely in her favor, and if everything else failed there was always the Court of God Himself who could injunctively decide an unresolvable issue. So any covering up here was out of a preference to do so and was then only seen as a stemming from a consent .

Originally Posted By: Elle
I disagree with you.
#1. You are disregarding and making null the Law of betrothment
# 2 You are disregarding and making null that man has a responsibility over woman. It is man that is placed above the woman in creation by the fact that man was first created and woman was taken out of man. According to 1 Co 11:3, the order of God has placed man in direct subjection to Christ. Woman is placed under man. Man has the charge to keep the law and to subdue all under him. Man has the responsibility to keep his family in order. And that’s why there is the law of betrothment in place in society like Israel and other societies still today. Before courting a woman, this young man has the obligation to see the Father of the damsel and tell him his intention. If he doesn’t do this, this young man is dishonoring everyone and it is a crime against everyone and he alone is responsible for this crime whether this young girl teased him before hand, or it was a act “between friends”, or it was an act of “passion”, or whatever. All reasons has no weight on putting the offense on the woman regardless if this maiden is a whore in heart or not.


Generally said, which to me manifestly can/should address this whole point, I rather see that the Man and Woman were originally on an equal status and it was only after Eve first and convinced Adam to sin (Gen 3:17a) that she was to be ‘ruled over by her husband’ (Gen 3:16b).

I know what you are saying above is what we have been taught in the church and is echoed in other denominations and the equality of man and woman is highly esteemed in the world. I do not agree with this stand for it is in contradiction with 1Co 11:3 and many other laws and principles depicted in scriptures. And it’s not because Eve fell that woman are in submission to man. Paul clearly explains that the order of God is establish due to the order of creation -- Man was created first and that Eve was taken out of man(v.12), and Eve was created for man and not vice versa(v.9). She is to be a help meet to man. So it has always been so and always will be for what God has establish is forever, for God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Your are not taken into account that the law of bethothment has been broken with the act of Deut 22. So like Boaz said to Ruth’s nearest Kinman, “Thou must not remember the laws by halves, but do everything according to them;…” Josephus Antiquities, V, ix, 4


Blessings
Re: The Bible and Polygamy [Re: Elle] #135470
07/30/11 09:57 PM
07/30/11 09:57 PM
NJK Project  Offline
Banned Member
Dedicated Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,098
Laval, Quebec
Again due to the lack of time Elle, I have for this side issue, here are my succinctly answers to your above response post, (indeed not even addressing, as I should, your several, factually speaking, variously subjectively, even biasedly, baseless, hyperbolic points couchings). I may have missed several minor points.

As I see it:

-I am not exegetically seeing/applying Lev 25 as you, non possibly enough to me, spiritually to another law. In the Pentateuch God actually states a law and stipulation fully and does not depend on the spiritualization of one law to understand another one. So in the Law itself, “debt” was not ‘spiritually sin’ [contra. your Point (1) fundamental view basis here] and furthermore n Matt 6:2 Jesus was speaking figuratively/illustratively. Your other points could easily also be debunked even if as defaultly ‘thus non/no longer -applicable,’ but my time fails me.

-The Law stipulations in Exo 22:4 are distinctly for thefts not rape. You are unjustifiedly confusing the laws here.

-Deut 15:1, 2 is clear that the debt is fully remitted. The debts of the Jubilee are also not for incurred debts as in Deut 15, but for the distinctly poor (e.g., sudden death of physical provider in the family). As an illustration the 7 year cycle was the emergency Employment insurance provision for people who cold actually repay it by the end of that cycle. The Jubilee was the more involved Welfare provision when the economy of Israel was wholly set aright, debt or not debt. I.e, properties were returned and fairly reallocated.

-I was saying that the law of redemption in regards to marriage was to help people get married if money was an obstacle. The redemption of properties in the Jubilees seems quite distinct to me. Also marriage Levirate redemption does not apply to a sin penalty payment aiding. Indeed it is not even a “redemption”.

-I am actually straightly going by you provided definition for taphas in #134834 which I see with the example given by Mountain Man of potentially having a figurative/non literal force, thus a mental convincing to consent. The issue of being discovered is determinatively key to me.

-In a forced marriage, both parties are equally “penalized”. I didn’t actually mean it from the male perspective only, that is however from where the Bible is stating this law.

-If a woman with a 100% chance of conviction, especially for a quick reporting neither scream for, nor reports a rape after the fact, then the only judicially logical conclusion was that she somehow consented to it. And like I said, in case of a wrong decision for either party, there was always the possibility to appeal to God through the priest (cf. Num 5:11-31).

-“Levirate” does not refer to Levites but to “The biblical institution whereby a man must marry the widow of his childless brother in order to maintain the brother's line”

-Deut 22:25-27: ‘(Only) The rapist was to be put to death’.

-Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 11:3 does not negate what was supposed to be before sin and particularly how it came to occur.

-In Deut 22:28, 29, which is what is pointedly under discussion here, there is no “betrothment”. It is just an act of consensual non-marital sexual relation(s).


“Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.” Matt 25:45 NJK Project
Page 16 of 16 1 2 14 15 16

Sabbath School Lesson Study Material Link
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
Most Recent Posts From Selected Public Forums
Should Churches Close Because Of Pandemic?
by D R. 04/05/20 06:54 PM
Why Bible Believers Should Oppose Vaccines
by kland. 04/05/20 02:16 PM
Coronavirus - potential impacts
by kland. 04/05/20 12:05 PM
When Does The Little Time Of Trouble Commence?
by ProdigalOne. 04/04/20 01:52 AM
Sunday Law Enacted In Panama!
by ProdigalOne. 04/04/20 01:47 AM
It Is Time To Repair The Breach!
by Green Cochoa. 04/03/20 11:25 PM
Seven Trumpets reconsidered
by Karen Y. 04/03/20 12:56 PM
The Constitution Is Being Repudiated!
by ProdigalOne. 03/31/20 01:36 AM
Vaccine Credibility
by kland. 03/30/20 11:49 AM
Meeting People Online: Current Tools
by kland. 03/27/20 11:24 AM
The Simple Cure for Coronavirus: COVID-19
by Rick H. 03/25/20 03:20 PM
Money in the Bank
by Rick H. 03/15/20 05:30 AM
The Lost Sanctuary Bible Study Guide
by dedication. 03/14/20 09:59 PM
Fires, fires and more fires
by Rick H. 03/14/20 07:32 AM
Most Recent Posts From Selected Private Forums of MSDAOL
Church Closure Puts Latter Rain on Hold
by kland. 04/05/20 05:45 PM
Ten Kings - One Hour
by kland. 04/05/20 05:19 PM
::S:: Nihar Justins dreams
by Wendell Slattery. 04/04/20 10:21 PM
What is the daily in Daniel 8:11?
by dedication. 03/30/20 01:29 AM
An Experience With a False Prophet
by Rick H. 03/28/20 06:55 PM
What is the Time of Jacob's Trouble
by Rick H. 03/23/20 12:57 PM
Pioneers' Beliefs about the Godhead
by APL. 03/20/20 12:16 PM
Churches Closing
by APL. 03/19/20 04:02 PM
Walter Veith Discusses Religious Freedom Movement
by ProdigalOne. 03/13/20 12:15 PM
Understanding the 1,260-year Prophecy
by kland. 03/11/20 12:36 PM
Pope Francis Is in Control
by Wendell Slattery. 03/07/20 10:00 PM
Forum Announcements
Visitors by Country Since February 11, 2013
Flag Counter
Google Maritime SDA OnLine Public Forums Site Search & Google Translation Service
Google
 
Web www.maritime-sda-online.com

Copyright 2000-Present
Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine).

LEGAL NOTICE:
The views expressed in this forum are those of individuals
and do not necessarily represent those of Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine,
as well as the Seventh-day Adventist Church
from the local church level to the General Conference level.

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine) is also a self-supporting ministry
and is not part of, or affiliated with, or endorsed by
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland
or any of its subsidiaries.

"And He saith unto them, follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men." Matt. 4:19
MARITIME 2ND ADVENT BELIEVERS ONLINE (FORMERLY MARITIME SDA ONLINE) CONSISTING MAINLY OF BOTH MEMBERS & FRIENDS
OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH,
INVITES OTHER MEMBERS & FRIENDS OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHO WISHES TO JOIN US!
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1