Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Revival Churches > RCI Discussion Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Ex_Member
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Date Posted:12/06/2010 6:17 AMCopy HTML

Early translators of the Bible used the English word “Fornication” incorrectly. The English Dictionary meaning is ‘sex outside of marriage’ but the Biblical meaning is ‘unlawful sex’. You need to read what God declared as unlawful sex. So when the NT refers to “fornication” it is referring to either man with man, woman with woman, man or woman with beast, prostitution, sex with no intention of marriage, relationship with an unbeliever, incest and idolatry and not someone who may have slept with their partner before a marriage certificate. Latter translations of the Bible use the words “sexual immorality” or such instead of the word “Fornication”. ” The word “fornication” comes from the word “porneia” which was a district where the heathen visited prostitutes thus the term “flee fornication” or “flee porneia” as we read in 1Cor 6 v 18. Two Christian people who have slept together are not prostitutes unless they have slept with another party before. The Bible direction is for them to get married. The Word of God never used the Word “fornication” against anyone unless one of the engaged couple was not faithful and had a sexual encounter with another party. There was no penalty for a couple who had sex before a wedding ceremony however they needed to marry. Exodus 22v 16 If any man entice a maid that is not betrothed and lie with her he shall surely endow her to be his wife. Deut22 v 28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her and they be found. Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsels father fifty shekels of silver and he shall be his wife because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. Some laws of God were just common sense transactions which was not counted as evil, fornication or had a penalty as we read in Ex 22v 16 and Deut 22v 28-29. Some however were evil, was fornication and had a penalty such as Deut 22v 23-24. Here is an act of fornication which was called evil and had the penalty of death. Deut22 v 23-24. If a damsel that is a virgin and be betrothed (engaged) to an husband, and a man find her in the city and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them out unto the gate of the city and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel because she cried not being in the city and the man because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife, so thou shalt put away this evil from you. The Jewish culture has a better understanding about fulfilling a marriage than do many Christians allowing their children to marry if necessary once they have completed their Bar Mitzvah or Bit Mitzvah regardless of Government laws. (however when they are of legal age the couple register their marriage with the Government)
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #51
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:28/01/2011 10:25 PMCopy HTML

Ian - Jesus teaches us that the 'marriage bed must be kept pure' - I'm purposefully omitting the biblical citation because you are so legalistic the opposite has arisen in me.

Nobody, Ian, needs to understand Greek or Ancient Hebrew in order to understand the above teaching of Christ.

Your ultra-conservative, fundamentalist and legalistic interpretation of Scripture is only ONE interpretation. You do not deliver God's authority, only your own bigoted version.

The truth is Ian that we are all responsibile for our own actions and behaviours in this world. We are human beings and not intended to be robots. People meet, fall in love and feelings, yes feelings Ian, feelings flow through individuals towards each other. In these cases feelings of love and sexual feelings which are normal to the human race. Yes, we must be responsible and marriage is the goal between two soulmates.
 
But can you not see, Ian, that what you've done here partly is to impose your ultra-conservative views on two young people who met, fell in love, and whose relationship was then destroyed by a church, in a way that is as legalistic and formulaic as those imposed by the church or CULT in the first place.

The marriage bed must be kept pure. And what else do you want to add to that?


Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #52
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:28/01/2011 10:33 PMCopy HTML

Guest or 'Robert' - don't know if you're new here, but just in case you are, Ian thinks EVERYTHING he says is correct. He seems incapable of rational reasoning on many occasions. He is never able to accept when there is an alternative point of view. He points the finger at people who dispute with him, and also demeans, bullies and discourages them.

Warning. Don't expect rationality.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #53
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:28/01/2011 11:09 PMCopy HTML

Biblianut. Ah, yes. A feature of cults and some fundamentalist strands of controlling 'Christianity' teach that emotions and feelings are wrong. That we are not to listen or pay attention to emotions and feelings because they can lead us astray.

Wrong.

Emotions and feelings are God-given. They help us discern things. They help us know what and who we like and dislike. They tell us when things are right and wrong with us. They give us insight in to other people. They are an integral part of being human. Emotions and feelings are not wrong.

But, we should, as responsible people, try to control them in a way that is pleasing to God. We should not give in to physical, sexual or strong emotions and feelings that lead us astray. That's why we must pray to God for guidance, and not listen to the false doctrines of controlling churches and people.

You gave an example where one person is married and the other not, yet they have strong feelings towards each other. I believe that the Bible teaches that adultery is wrong, therefore, the two people would be commiting sin if they gave in to their feelings. But that's not to say that the feelings in themselves are wrong. It depends on how the people deal with those feelings. And if this relationship really was God-given, then God would cause the circumstances to develop to enable them to be together. For example, the married person would eventually become divorced through natural circumstances, leaving him/her free to marry the one he really loves.

That's why it's important, if we are Christians, to look to God and not man or church, to give us guidance. He protects us from making mistakes we'd live to regret if we chose to follow the desires of the flesh rather than the Holy Spirit.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #54
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:28/01/2011 11:59 PMCopy HTML

AN&S,

You know the drill.

Guest or 'Robert' - don't know if you're new here, but just in case you are, Ian thinks EVERYTHING he says is correct. He seems incapable of rational reasoning on many occasions. He is never able to accept when there is an alternative point of view. He points the finger at people who dispute with him, and also demeans, bullies and discourages them. 'Yes', I'm sure that I do.

Warning. Don't expect rationality. From you? Never, m'dear.

Ian - Jesus teaches us that the 'marriage bed must be kept pure' - I'm purposefully omitting the biblical citation because you are so legalistic the opposite has arisen in me. Nobody, Ian, needs to understand Greek or Ancient Hebrew in order to understand the above teaching of Christ. And nobody has said that such is necessary.

Your ultra-conservative, fundamentalist and legalistic interpretation of Scripture is only ONE interpretation. You do not deliver God's authority, only your own bigoted version. If you believe this is true, then PROVE otherwise. The truth is Ian that we are all responsibile for our own actions and behaviours in this world. Except for Robert, it seems. With him apparently everyone else is responsible. We are human beings and not intended to be robots. People meet, fall in love and feelings, yes feelings Ian, feelings flow through individuals towards each other. In these cases feelings of love and sexual feelings which are normal to the human race. Yes, we must be responsible and marriage is the goal between two soulmates. Marriage is indeed the goal. Which is what I've been maintaining all along, in case you hadn't noticed.
 
But can you not see, Ian, that what you've done here partly is to impose your ultra-conservative views on two young people who met, fell in love, and whose relationship was then destroyed by a church, in a way that is as legalistic and formulaic as those imposed by the church or CULT in the first place. The marriage bed must be kept pure. And what else do you want to add to that? Simply that you probably shouldn't try to introduce or defend your multiplied rants with Scripture. Your capacity to engage in exegesis is worse than your capacity for level-headed and objective conversation.

Goose.

Ian

P.S. Does 'goodbye' mean something other than the accepted definition of the term, to you?
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Biblianut Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #55
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5380
  • Posts:218
  • From:Australia
  • Register:30/11/2010 9:39 PM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:29/01/2011 12:06 AMCopy HTML

Biblianut. Ah, yes. A feature of cults and some fundamentalist strands of controlling 'Christianity' teach that emotions and feelings are wrong. That we are not to listen or pay attention to emotions and feelings because they can lead us astray

Me thinks you are missing my point on what Ian is addressing. 

If one is professing to be a Christian then one must behave as such and obey the command of God as it is presented in His word.

Emotions and feelings are God-given. They help us discern things. They help us know what and who we like and dislike. They tell us when things are right and wrong with us. They give us insight in to other people. They are an integral part of being human. Emotions and feelings are not wrong.

For starters, when did I say that emotions and feelings are wrong?

But, we should, as responsible people, try to control them in a way that is pleasing to God. We should not give in to physical, sexual or strong emotions and feelings that lead us astray. That's why we must pray to God for guidance, and not listen to the false doctrines of controlling churches and people.
Absolutely

You gave an example where one person is married and the other not, yet they have strong feelings towards each other. I believe that the Bible teaches that adultery is wrong,

The bible teaches also that ‘fornication’ is sin

therefore, the two people would be commiting sin if they gave in to their feelings. But that's not to say that the feelings in themselves are wrong. It depends on how the people deal with those feelings. And if this relationship really was God-given, then God would cause the circumstances to develop to enable them to be together. For example, the married person would eventually become divorced through natural circumstances, leaving him/her free to marry the one he really loves.
That's why it's important, if we are Christians, to look to God and not man or church, to give us guidance. He protects us from making mistakes we'd live to regret if we chose to follow the desires of the flesh rather than the Holy Spirit.

If you believe it depends on how people deal with those issues then one must be aware of how God would have one deal with. The warnings are there so that one should not fall to this temptation.

It is not about being legalistic or some magical gift of the Holy Spirit to stop one from sinning, He doesn’t protect us from making mistakes, we are fallen creatures and we are going to succumb to temptation at times, but it doesn’t mean we can justify ourselves by not heeding to his commandments.

 

Note: I John1: 5-10

 

I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
Biblianut Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #56
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5380
  • Posts:218
  • From:Australia
  • Register:30/11/2010 9:39 PM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:29/01/2011 12:52 AMCopy HTML

A further point to this comment;

 

“You gave an example where one person is married and the other not, yet they have strong feelings towards each other. I believe that the Bible teaches that adultery is wrong,”

 

What you are implying, in the light of the topic under discussion, is that the party that is married can justify his actions because it is ‘fornication’ on his part but ‘adultery’ on part of the other party.

I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #57
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:29/01/2011 2:05 AMCopy HTML

Biblianut.

Quite simply, you have misinterpreted what I've said.

Nothing new, Ian makes a point of that. And I've noticed how many people take their cues from him.

I did not attempt to justify anything. You've misunderstood my point. And, quite frankly, I can't be bothered repeating myself.

God, so many of you on here set yourself up as such experts, yet see behind it all and there's not much substance at all.

The genuine voices are few and far between.
Biblianut Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #58
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5380
  • Posts:218
  • From:Australia
  • Register:30/11/2010 9:39 PM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:29/01/2011 4:07 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Guest
Biblianut.

Quite simply, you have misinterpreted what I've said.

Nothing new, Ian makes a point of that. And I've noticed how many people take their cues from him.

I did not attempt to justify anything. You've misunderstood my point. And, quite frankly, I can't be bothered repeating myself.

God, so many of you on here set yourself up as such experts, yet see behind it all and there's not much substance at all.

The genuine voices are few and far between.

Well there you go, forgive me for misinterpreting you. It's mutual. You appear to be the expert, what is it called? "a drip under presure"?

For your information, I don't consider myself an expert by any means, after 36 years of mind bashing and spiritual abuse from Revival one does not have to be a "Philadelphia Lawyer" to see things for what they are after gaining a bit of correct knowledge and instruction, any not only from Ian who's done the work to show us.
You think your views have substance I suppose.
I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
Epios Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #59
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/05/2010 5:54 PM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:29/01/2011 5:52 AMCopy HTML

 And if this relationship really was God-given, then God would cause the circumstances to develop to enable them to be together. For example, the married person would eventually become divorced through natural circumstances, leaving him/her free to marry the one he really loves.



Guest,

I'm really confused with why God would cause these circumstances to develop enabling this to come about.  Would you mind giving some examples of how the married person would eventually become 'divorced' (not widowed?) through natural circumstances leaving him/her free to marry the one he really loves, and all with God's help?  And what of the other party in the marriage?  Would God show complete disregard for him/her in fulfilling the wants of the two who desire each other?
.
I find what you say puzzling especially as Jesus frequently illustrated what God's law demanded by referring to the inviolability of marriage.  Luke 16 : 18, Matt 5 : 28 - 33, Mark 10 : 2 - 12 to quote a few.  
 
Epi

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #60
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:29/01/2011 8:18 PMCopy HTML

Reply to Epios

 And if this relationship really was God-given, then God would cause the circumstances to develop to enable them to be together. For example, the married person would eventually become divorced through natural circumstances, leaving him/her free to marry the one he really loves.



Guest,

I'm really confused with why God would cause these circumstances to develop enabling this to come about.  Would you mind giving some examples of how the married person would eventually become 'divorced' (not widowed?) through natural circumstances leaving him/her free to marry the one he really loves, and all with God's help?  And what of the other party in the marriage?  Would God show complete disregard for him/her in fulfilling the wants of the two who desire each other?
.
I find what you say puzzling especially as Jesus frequently illustrated what God's law demanded by referring to the inviolability of marriage.  Luke 16 : 18, Matt 5 : 28 - 33, Mark 10 : 2 - 12 to quote a few.  
 
Epi

 Hi Epi,

Yes it doesn't occur to folk in their thinking that in nature, God's character is highly moral and this is clearly reflected within the confines of His word. His word, the Bible is our guaranteed source.


Blessings

Eric
.

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #61
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:29/01/2011 10:10 PMCopy HTML



Ian, your Lexicon states that “fornication” is “unlawful sex’. You are so focused on pointless matters of man’s law to grasp the understanding of your Lexicon.

The answer is simple. Go into the OT and study “God’s Law” about sex and you will see what is “Lawful” and what is “unlawful” Duet 22 would be good start.

Guest.

 Guest,

My my private library has around 20 or more lexical sources and as for Ian being light years head of me, I would imagine Ian to have a much better lexical range than little ole me so I would exercise some care when using the word "lexicon" as a singular entity ..

So if you think that Deuteronomy 22  is a good place to start then I would say "nay" but instead I would direct you to start in Exodus Chapter 20 where you will find the whole Torah nicely summed up in what we students of the Word of God know as the Decalogue...

Enjoy

Eric
.

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #62
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:30/01/2011 12:17 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Biblianut

Guest, 47#

 

What I believe your advocating here is because of the emotion and love you have for each other justifies having intimate relationship contrary to God’s command.

 

I am not going to go into personal details here as it is now no body else’s business.

 

Supposing a couple, met through a “church” and fell extremely in "love" which each other, one already in a unstable marriage situation not yet divorced, the other never married. Even though deep down they felt it ok to be intimate they fell victim to their sexual urges and desires for one another. If so, why would that be any more of a sin than what you are presenting. What ever labels one puts to it, love on the one side, fornication/adultery on the other, is still the same. 

I’m sorry; sin is sin which ever way you look at it.

 

The thing now to consider; what will be the outcome of all this, will it bring hell and damnation on those two or has the Lord made a way of escape?



Hello again Guest,

There is a difference in the two.

One is adultery which was unlawful and was “fornication” and there was a penalty for this. The other was lawful and was not “fornication” nor was there a penalty but they were to marry and a dowry of 50 shekels paid. Deut 22.

In my situation there was nothing to repent of, other than scripturally we were to marry but RCI did not follow scripture, support our relationship but by their miss use of scripture condemned us.

I have had plenty to repent of in my life but not this.

I was thrown out of school when I was 12 years of age because of misbehaviour. By the time I was 13 had a rat tail, mullet and a skin head. My hair had also been coloured more time than the colours in a rainbow. My face had had more metal in it than a milkman’s horse. More dirt came out of my mouth than in the fields of Werribee. I was somewhat illiterate (but finished my year 12 examination and more in my late 20’s) My “attitude” would have made “Ian” look like Goldilocks. Yes I had plenty to repent of.

I had a social worker assigned to me, cleaned me up a little and got me a job in a supermarket at 14 years of age. I was given a youth allowance if I stayed at the job which at the time was collecting trolleys and putting fruit on the supermarket shelves.

At about that time Mum took me to RCI, as she had been going there for the last few months. There I was baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit. I hung on to every word that was spoken at the meetings and thought the sun shone out of every Pastors backside. For the first time I knew I had a future. We were taught how God would bless everything we put our hand to. We were told how God would provide for us and not to worry about our food for tomorrow or a home to live for these were provided to those that loved the Lord. (as we had had problems with lack of food at times and had to live in caravan parks when Dad went through some of his “episodes”) For the first time I thought I had a “family” within the Church.

Within a few months I had met my girl friend and had another “family”. I got on well with the parents and they always had the door open for me. My relationship grew with my girl friend till such a stage it had become “very intimate” until one day we got caught out. We were summoned down stairs and spoken to by the father. He did not say much other than said your intimacy was for marriage and we should start planning for the future. I had no problem with what he said and would have been happy to marry his daughter at any time. At work I now had many more responsibilities and was paid a lot more by the supermarket but maybe not quite enough for marriage although I was used to living on not much at all. In any case I believed God would supply our needs. Everything seemed to carry on normally with the parents and my girlfriend over the next two weeks but when the father said that he was going to talk RCI about our relationship I thought that this may not be such a good idea yet on the other hand maybe RCI would accept our relationship. Anyway a week later I got a phone call from one of the “Oversight” and told that I could no longer attend RCI because I had committed “fornication” but would be maybe allowed back when I was older and married. I was shocked and could say nothing back in response. I rang the patents and they would say little to me other than I was not to see my girlfriend again. I tried in vain to speak to my girl friend and parents over the next few weeks but it was all in vain.

I went through much grief and prayed, fasted and read my Bible. The scriptures opened up to me on the situation. What the Father had said to me originally was the way to go: plan for the future and marry my girl friend. But when RCI came into the situation everything went ugly and pear shaped. If RCI believed like I did that God blessed everything we put our hand to and that He provided our every need then marriage could have been granted to us at any time but rather RCI gives into peer pressure of their social standards rather than following the Spirit and Word of God. RCI falsely uses the Word of God to enhance their rules and regulations.

RCI’s incorrect translations on “fornication” have falsely condemned a lot of young couples. God unites young couples and allows marriage. Don’t fall for the same mistakes as RCI.

Guest #47

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #63
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:30/01/2011 12:53 AMCopy HTML

Epi, all I'm saying is that some people have made the wrong decisions in life. They may have married the wrong person, for example, and perhaps been subject to some kind of abuse in the relationship. And what I mean is, if that person then becomes a Christian or was already a Christian but then realises that the relationship they are in is destructive, then I do not believe that it is God's will for someone to remain in an unhealthy relationship - despite what the fundamentalists would say. 

Some Christians with a certain view on marriage would even advocate that a person remain in a marriage, even if that person is subject to physical violence, because no 'adultery' has been committed. I don't take that view.

God wants his Children to live fulfilling lives and I believe, where a relationship is not ordained of God in the first place, it will come to a natural end, somehow, through some kind of circumstance. Unless, of course, the parties concerned are brainwashed by cult, church etc to believe that they have to accept such destructive circumstances.

Now, I am not saying this applied to any of the posts any guests have put here. I'm merely trying to show you that life is not 'black and white'. That's why it's crucial to make the right choices in the first place, with God and not Man's guidance.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #64
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:30/01/2011 1:06 AMCopy HTML

Guest, I see exactly where you're coming from. And it's good that you can see the situation for what it was - a very unhealthy, controlling and destructive situation for you. I'm glad you're out of that now.

How ridiculous that they labelled you a 'fornicator'! But these cults are masters at unacceptable judgement and condemnation.



Biblianut Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #65
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5380
  • Posts:218
  • From:Australia
  • Register:30/11/2010 9:39 PM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:30/01/2011 2:26 AMCopy HTML

Guest 71#

 The way I see it; we (man) can put any title to it that we wish, the bottom line is; it is with God we have the issues. It is with him we are held accountable. Now if we are not going to attempt to abide and walk in His command, and it is very clear that we walk in the ‘new covenant’ and not the old, then that determines our outcome.  We do fail, we are fallen creatures. As I tried to point out previously, there is only this that we need to do; confess, repent and walk on in Christ. You by your own confession do not repent but go on in a self righteous condition. Show us something from the New Testament (covenant) that justifies your pov and I would suggest you have a look into what ‘repentance’ means in light of NT.

I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #66
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:30/01/2011 4:56 AMCopy HTML


Eric,

You would be better chance of survival following Mr Magoo rather than Ian.

I would suggest you give your 20 Lexicons to some one who reads them.

What are you trying to show me in Exodus 20, as I was showing you in in Deut. 22 what the Law showed was legal in sex and what was not.

Guest #47
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #67
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:30/01/2011 5:06 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Guest

Guest, I see exactly where you're coming from. And it's good that you can see the situation for what it was - a very unhealthy, controlling and destructive situation for you. I'm glad you're out of that now.

How ridiculous that they labelled you a 'fornicator'! But these cults are masters at unacceptable judgement and condemnation.





Thank you,

I see you that you are a "fighter" for the Truth and have wise council.

Keep the good work going.

Guest #47.

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #68
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:30/01/2011 6:07 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Guest

Reply to Guest



Ian, your Lexicon states that “fornication” is “unlawful sex’. You are so focused on pointless matters of man’s law to grasp the understanding of your Lexicon.

The answer is simple. Go into the OT and study “God’s Law” about sex and you will see what is “Lawful” and what is “unlawful” Duet 22 would be good start.

Guest.

 Guest,

My my private library has around 20 or more lexical sources and as for Ian being light years head of me, I would imagine Ian to have a much better lexical range than little ole me so I would exercise some care when using the word "lexicon" as a singular entity ..

So if you think that Deuteronomy 22  is a good place to start then I would say "nay" but instead I would direct you to start in Exodus Chapter 20 where you will find the whole Torah nicely summed up in what we students of the Word of God know as the Decalogue...

Enjoy

Eric
.


Eric,

You would be better chance of survival following Mr Magoo rather than Ian.

I would suggest you give your 20 Lexicons to some one who reads them.

What are you trying to show me in Exodus 20, as I was showing you in in Deut. 22 what the Law showed was legal in sex and what was not.

Guest #47

Then perhaps this might enlighten you:


Enjoy your 'reading'

Eric
..

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #69
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:02/02/2011 1:27 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Biblianut

Guest 71#

 The way I see it; we (man) can put any title to it that we wish, the bottom line is; it is with God we have the issues. It is with him we are held accountable. Now if we are not going to attempt to abide and walk in His command, and it is very clear that we walk in the ‘new covenant’ and not the old, then that determines our outcome.  We do fail, we are fallen creatures. As I tried to point out previously, there is only this that we need to do; confess, repent and walk on in Christ. You by your own confession do not repent but go on in a self righteous condition. Show us something from the New Testament (covenant) that justifies your pov and I would suggest you have a look into what ‘repentance’ means in light of NT.



Guest #75

You sound like one of Job’s three “lost” friends.

God’s command in my “event” was to marry. Marriage was in the control of the Parent’s and RCI. They both let God down on this issue. God prefers obedience rather than repentance. RCI has done neither and I am sure they have let down many young couple’s condemning them and separating them rather than supporting relationships and helping the couple’s into marriage. As I have said before couples in this situation should be allowed to be engaged and married at an appropriate time. This would fulfill God’s word in regard to couple who have engaged in sex before the actual marriage ceremony or certificate.

Guest #47

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #70
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:02/02/2011 1:49 AMCopy HTML

Some years ago I when I was in Fiji I came across a Christian couple who were living as husband and wife with a young child who had not yet been “legally” married. As inquisitive of the matter as what I had been through in the past, I asked some questions. The problem was that the couple had a sexual relationship before the actual ceremony and was found out when it was discovered that the woman was pregnant. The male took up his responsibilities’ as a husband to care for “wife”. The reason they had not yet had an official wedding was because the “Husband” had not yet paid the dowry, being two pigs. The “Husband” was at the time busily working in the market garden to earn money to look after his “Wife” and to buy the pigs, so he could have his wedding. At no time did the village or would I condemn the “Husband or Wife” or call what they did “fornication” or “sexual immorality” as they were committed to “Marriage.”

On another occasion I was talking to my Mother about the “fornication” issue, as she no longer shares the same views as RCI (or Ian). At my Mother’s present Church there were some new African Immigrants (I think maybe from Somalia) and there was an engaged Christian couple living together who had not yet been married. They were quite open to say that they shared a bed and engaged in sexual relations. On investigation it was found that the traditions of the Christian Church in Africa that this was ok to live as husband and wife when you were engaged and have a “Wedding” at a later time, as the village would have a communal wedding at a particular time of year. But as they were forced from their village because of a war they did not get their wedding but was to be arranged at a later date in Australia. Again I would not consider their relationship “immoral” or “fornication” as they were committed to each other.

 

Guest #47 


Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #71
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:02/02/2011 2:37 AMCopy HTML


can you give us any bible verses you reckon supports your idea that sex before marriage is only fornication if there wasn't any intention to get married later? FWIW my English dictionary defines fornication as: noun. voluntary sexual intercourse between unmarried persons. This agrees with the first definition in the Greek dictionary that Eric pasted.

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #72
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:02/02/2011 6:02 AMCopy HTML


Guest 47 .. Unlawful sex is simple sex outside of marriage. There is no scripture that I can find supporting your self justifying statement:

" with no intention of marriage "

I would suggest that the couple living as a married couple were doing just that - living in a sexual relationship with always the intention but never the will to satisfactorily remedy the situation and carried out the intention.. This is a situation a good pastor would be engaging with the couple to bring to fruition a marriage. If you are a pastor administering what appears right to you without direct reference and guidance from the  Word to remedy the situation, you deliberately dishonour the Word of God. As a pastor you should be ministering to the couple and counseling accordingly. But it seems a pastor you are not and you need to repent.

Eric.


 
Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #73
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:02/02/2011 6:06 AMCopy HTML

Marriage was in the control of the Parent’s and RCI

What a dangerous half truth. You need to "man up" and accept:

1) you could have chosen to remain celibate after your relationship was "broken up"

2) you and your "missus" lacked what it took to remain faithful to each other

The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
dogmafree Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #74
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9580
  • Posts:416
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:22/02/2006 12:26 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:02/02/2011 12:56 PMCopy HTML

Umm... is it just me, or is it getting very STUFFY in here?! smiley11





Dog.
"for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2)
Epios Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #75
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/05/2010 5:54 PM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:02/02/2011 1:43 PMCopy HTML

Reply to Guest


God’s command in my “event” was to marry. Marriage was in the control of the Parent’s and RCI. They both let God down on this issue. God prefers obedience rather than repentance. RCI has done neither and I am sure they have let down many young couple’s condemning them and separating them rather than supporting relationships and helping the couple’s into marriage. As I have said before couples in this situation should be allowed to be engaged and married at an appropriate time. This would fulfill God’s word in regard to couple who have engaged in sex before the actual marriage ceremony or certificate.

Guest #47


Guest #47,

I have never liked the RCI's harsh treatment and lack of help for those who err, are sorry, have to confess it to someone, are repentant and then face expulsion for all to know and see and talk about. All are sinners, RCI pastors included.  However, if you displayed the same arrogant attitude then as you do now I can hardly blame RCI for putting you out of their fellowship, which might have resulted in spoiling your chances of marriage at a later date to this young girl.  You have only yourself to blame. 

You seem intolerant of the scripturally based counsel given you here, yet you go off in your own rather foolish way quoting what you think are God's commands in your "event" and how God was let down on the issue and what God would prefer.

My friend may I suggest repentance in obedience to God would be a good start to a healthy understanding of what God would prefer.

May God hold you in his care.

Epi
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #76
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:02/02/2011 4:41 PMCopy HTML

Yes, it's getting incredibly stuffy in here! My goodness, so many self-righteous people on here who cry 'repent, repent' for no reason whatsoever apart from someone exhibits an opinion that does not tally with what the ex-Revivalists, Revival sympathisers, half-Revivalists, and even Revivalist-haters think.

Actually, the views about sexual morality espoused by most people on here can be termed a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint, rather than one associated with any church or particular to Revivalism. Taking a sentence of scripture literally and applying that across the board without regard to personal, cultural, social, economic, and spiritual circumstances is to be a Fundamentalist.

Scripture has to be taken in its full context and throwing Greek words around is not going to help, enlighten or convince someone of your opinion.

The guest has pointed out real life situations of people in different cultural contexts to highlight the fact that God does not condemn people who are having sexual relations whilst in a serious relationship, where 'marriage' has not yet occurred. He has shown this intelligently and without resorting to spiritual harrassment, unlike many of the responses.

Telling him/her to 'repent' really is rather childish and you people should grow up and realise that the world is much bigger than your Fundamentalist stance would allow you to grasp.

Can some of you not realise that 'marriage' can also be spiritual? The human ceremony is merely a legal response to this. So if two people who God intends to be together in the Spirit 'do it' before the bride dresses up like a white meringue and the guy gets to wear his best suit for the day, so what - as long as they intend to remain together as a couple.

Let's make it clear - I'm not saying sex before marriage is OK in any context. Of course it's not because you have to be careful you do not end up having to marry the wrong person if a child is produced. And many people do find themselves in that situation. But between two Christian people who meet, know they are meant to be together and fully trust God that it is the right thing to do? Come on - grow up!

What's next - the world really was created in 6 days? You mean 6 human-type days? Really? Wow!!! What - not 6 God-type days? And we should know that a day with the Lord is like a thousand on earth. Mmm, what's that scripture again?

Get the point? No?

Not surprised.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #77
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:02/02/2011 11:29 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, AN&S.

Good to see that you presist in 'leading with the chin'! I wish that all my disputants were so inclined.

Yes, it's getting incredibly stuffy in here! My goodness, so many self-righteous people on here who cry 'repent, repent' for no reason whatsoever apart from someone exhibits an opinion that does not tally with what the ex-Revivalists, Revival sympathisers, half-Revivalists, and even Revivalist-haters think. Actually, the reason that so many people have been advising young Robert to 'repent' has to do with the fact that his opinion doesn't tally with what Scripture presents; it has nothing to do with what the RCI may, or may, not think.

Actually, the views about sexual morality espoused by most people on here can be termed a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint, rather than one associated with any church or particular to Revivalism. Taking a sentence of scripture literally and applying that across the board without regard to personal, cultural, social, economic, and spiritual circumstances is to be a Fundamentalist. Fundamentalist?! Scripture must be read literarily before it's read literally, a simple fact that I've maintained here for years, and a practice that I've used to convincingly demonstrate Revivalist error for just as long. What you've clearly failed to notice is that young 'Robert' has been presented with cultural, social, spiritual, historical and linguistical evidence that disproves his pet theory. Ergo it's not a case of 'us' being 'fundamentalist' in our approach at all, it's more the case of you and he being unduly arrogant and intractable in yours. Scripture has to be taken in its full context and throwing Greek words around is not going to help, enlighten or convince someone of your opinion. Apparently presenting the full range of contextual evidence isn't going to 'help', 'enlighten' or 'convince' those who refuse to have their opinions informed by the facts very much either. But I already knew this, having engaged with Revivalist pastors over many years.

The guest has pointed out real life situations of people in different cultural contexts to highlight the fact that God does not condemn people who are having sexual relations whilst in a serious relationship, where 'marriage' has not yet occurred. He has shown this intelligently and without resorting to spiritual harrassment, unlike many of the responses. Actually, 'Robert' has done nothing of the sort. All that I've seen from him is opinion; he hasn't backed it up with a shred of biblical evidence, nor has he been able to produce a shred of social, historical, cultural or linguistical evidence either. And yet in spite of these serious deficiencies, you've been convinced, eh?

Telling him/her to 'repent' really is rather childish and you people should grow up and realise that the world is much bigger than your Fundamentalist stance would allow you to grasp. Telling him to 'repent' is actually the (1) biblical and, (2) the Christian thing to do. So ... ?

Can some of you not realise that 'marriage' can also be spiritual? The human ceremony is merely a legal response to this. So if two people who God intends to be together in the Spirit 'do it' before the bride dresses up like a white meringue and the guy gets to wear his best suit for the day, so what - as long as they intend to remain together as a couple. Is that so? And where is the biblical warrant for this 'spiritual marriage' concept? When has it ever been promoted in the historic Christian Church? How would it be administered? Why would it preferred over the received practice? Who would determine when a 'spiritual' marriage should take place instead of a 'normal' marriage? Care to do a little theologising, so as to provide some sort of support for your view? Let's make it clear - I'm not saying sex before marriage is OK in any context. Except for your 'spiritual marriage' context, apparently. Of course it's not because you have to be careful you do not end up having to marry the wrong person if a child is produced. And many people do find themselves in that situation. But between two Christian people who meet, know they are meant to be together and fully trust God that it is the right thing to do? Come on - grow up! 'Grow up'? Is that your response to Christians who choose to place stock in God's revelation inscripturated, and who consequently seek to assess all personal theories against this standard (would you like for me to quote a Scripture validating such an approach)? 'Grow up', indeed. However, isn't it interesting that 'Robert' clearly didn't trust God that 'fornicating' was the right thing to do, and that he clearly wasn't meant to be 'together forever' with his former girlfriend? So given these very clear facts, just how does your 'theory' work in his case, mmm?

What's next - the world really was created in 6 days? You mean 6 human-type days? Really? Wow!!! What - not 6 God-type days? And we should know that a day with the Lord is like a thousand on earth. Mmm, what's that scripture again? You really are profoundly ignorant, aren't you? Not just of Scripture, but concerning the beliefs of those you seek to engage with here. Consequently I'd suggest you spend your time reading more, and pontificating less, as you're waaaay behind.

Get the point? No? I, for one, 'get the point' perfectly. The point is that your opinions are about as vacuous and as biblically defensible as are 'Robert's'. I knew that biblical and theological studies weren't your 'bag'; you've just now convinced me that philosophical argumentation and logical reasoning aren't either!

Goose.

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #78
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:03/02/2011 12:30 AMCopy HTML

G'day, Dog.

Umm... is it just me, or is it getting very STUFFY in here?! I don't know that it's necessarily 'stuffy' but I do think this issue revolves around a proper appreciation of biblical theology, and fidelity to Scripture that should be normative for those who consider themselves 'Christian'. Whether I'm engaging with Revivalists, former Revivalists, Christians, Agnostics or Atheists, should the subject turn to Scripture in order to defend one position over another, then I will take a keen interest. From my perspective, it's clear with this issue that some people don't like being told, and shown, that they're holding onto the wrong end of the stick.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #79
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:03/02/2011 2:51 AMCopy HTML


Guest #82,

 Marriage in the beginning (Adam & Eve) had nothing to do with marriage ceremony or marriage certificates, nor does God ever in scripture command any of these. “Marriage” was a condition of the Heart to serve, cherish, be faithful to one another and bear children. Scripture would show that the marriage would be between two unbetrothed Believers. The same parallel is drawn between Christ and the Church, Israel and God (Hos 2). “Fornication” or “Idolatry” in the OT was when God’s chosen People were unfaithful to “The God of Israel” and served other “Gods”. When the Word “Fornication” is used in a human sense, this was referring to unlawful sexual act committed outside the bounds of a “Marriage” (1 Cor 6 v 15-20). Which were Prostitution, Homosexuality, Incest, Adultry etc. Casual sex without the intention of marriage was not in the sanction of “Marriage” either, as this was also a form of “idolatry” or “fornication” as there was no commitment to serve, cherish, bear children and be faithful to one another. All these unlawful acts had a punishment of death. Two people committed to one another who may have been sexually intimate were not counted as being “idolaters”, “fornicators” or “sexually immoral.” No punishment was given to them what soever as no sin had been committed. The dowry was paid (if the brides parent’s insisted on a dowry) and the marriage was publicly declared whether by ceremony or marriage certificate. (Deut 22 v 28-29) Other scriptures would also suggest that there was no wedding ceremony or marriage certificate but the couple moved in together as husband and wife. (Matt 1 v 18-21)

Guest #47


Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #80
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:03/02/2011 3:46 AMCopy HTML


can you give us any bible verses you reckon supports your idea that sex before marriage is only fornication if there wasn't any intention to get married later? FWIW my English dictionary defines fornication as: noun. voluntary sexual intercourse between unmarried persons. This agrees with the first definition in the Greek dictionary that Eric pasted.

Guest #82,

 Marriage in the beginning (Adam & Eve) had nothing to do with marriage ceremony or marriage certificates, nor does God ever in scripture command any of these. “Marriage” was a condition of the Heart to serve, cherish, be faithful to one another and bear children. Scripture would show that the marriage would be between two unbetrothed Believers. The same parallel is drawn between Christ and the Church, Israel and God (Hos 2). “Fornication” or “Idolatry” in the OT was when God’s chosen People were unfaithful to “The God of Israel” and served other “Gods”. When the Word “Fornication” is used in a human sense, this was referring to unlawful sexual act committed outside the bounds of a “Marriage” (1 Cor 6 v 15-20). Which were Prostitution, Homosexuality, Incest, Adultry etc. Casual sex without the intention of marriage was not in the sanction of “Marriage” either, as this was also a form of “idolatry” or “fornication” as there was no commitment to serve, cherish, bear children and be faithful to one another. All these unlawful acts had a punishment of death. Two people committed to one another who may have been sexually intimate were not counted as being “idolaters”, “fornicators” or “sexually immoral.” No punishment was given to them what soever as no sin had been committed. The dowry was paid (if the brides parent’s insisted on a dowry) and the marriage was publicly declared whether by ceremony or marriage certificate. (Deut 22 v 28-29) Other scriptures would also suggest that there was no wedding ceremony or marriage certificate but the couple moved in together as husband and wife. (Matt 1 v 18-21)

Guest #47


The original marriage between Adam and Eve was presided over by God. They didn't wear clothes either so I don't think it would be fair to say we should skip around naked because of their example, and the same principle applies to you using them as an example for marriage. Here's what we do know. Jesus Christ attended at least one wedding feast recorded in the bible so he clearly approved of the ceremonial aspect. He also spoke about the "marriage feast of the Lamb" that would occur between him and the church when this age ends. Your reference to Matt 21 v 18-21 also misses the mark because it shows you don't understand how Jewish marriages worked. A man and a woman were betrothed for up to a year before they were married in front of the community. During this time they weren't permitted to have sex and they weren't permitted to live together. After the wedding feast the bride moved with her husband into the husband's father's house for another year, and the weddings sheets were checked the morning after the wedding to make sure that the marriage had been consummated. Deut 22 v 28-29 doesn't support your argument either. For starters it talks about a rape. And a virigin who wasn't betrothed. And that the man wasn't able to divorce the girl afterwards. It doesn't say anything about how the marriage itself, it only says that under such circumstances the man had to take the virgin he raped as a wife.

I'll ask again do you have any bible verses that supports your idea that sex before marriage is only fornication if there wasn't any intention to get married later?

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #81
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:03/02/2011 5:51 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Guest



I'll ask again do you have any bible verses that supports your idea that sex before marriage is only fornication if there wasn't any intention to get married later?


How does "intention" guarantee responsible commitment ???

Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral - Hebrews 13:4 (NIV)



literally " pornous gar kai moichous krinei ho Theos - For the sexually immoral and adulterers, God will judge."

Eric
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #82
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:03/02/2011 6:02 AMCopy HTML


Guest #82,

I do not believe Deut 22 v 28-29 was rape but the woman being seduced by her boyfriend. But anyway there are other examples of marriage without a ceremony or contract.

Gen; Chapter 29.

Jacob believed on his wedding night that he was marrying Rachel, however it turned out to be Leah. The sexual consummation was recognized as marriage even though there had not been a wedding ceremony or contract for Leah. Jacob did what was honorable and took Leah as his wife.

 

Now regarding you question; do you have any bible verses that supports your idea that sex before marriage is only fornication if there wasn't any intention to get married later?

Guest #82 tell me what “marriage” is, then Maybe then I can answer your question?

Guest #47.

 



Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #83
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:03/02/2011 8:40 AMCopy HTML


You think Deut 22 v 28-29 describes the "seduction" of a virgin by her "boyfriend"? The passage says nothing at all about a "boyfriend" but it does say quite a bit about rape/violation.

The ESV reads  28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

The HCSB has  "28 If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, 29 the man who raped her must give the young woman’s father 50 silver shekels, and she must become his wife because he violated her. He cannot divorce her as long as he lives."

The KJV reads "28 If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, 29 the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives."

The NIV reads 28"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

The story about Jacob, Rachel and Leah is interesting because of what it says. In Gen 28 v 22 it expressly states 21 Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife that I may go in to her, for my time is completed.” 22 So Laban gathered together all the people of the place and made a feast. 23 But in the evening he took his daughter Leah and brought her to Jacob, and he went in to her." Laban was a Patriarch and in Gen Patriarchs served as priests before God for their families. Did you read that Laban gathered together all the people and made a feast? This was a wedding. Their was a priest (Laban), witnesses to the marriage (all the people of the place) and a wedding ceremony (Laban made a feast). Of course there wasn't a contract for Leag because Laban tricked Jacob, but there was a contract for Rachel and it was seven years of service!

I asked you for bible verses that you reckon supports the idea that sex before marriage is only fornication if there wasn't any intention to get married later. None of the bible verses you've called up so far have anything to do with my question, and now you're asking me what marriage is? How about you prove from the bible that what you think marriage is is correct and while you're at it show me the verses that support your ideas about fornication?
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #84
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:03/02/2011 1:22 PMCopy HTML


Guest #82, I am not going to argue Deut 22 with you. You say “rape”, I say “seduced”, you say “violate”’, I say humbled. So moving on;

God never commanded anywhere in scripture a marriage to have a written contract/marriage certificate or wedding celebration. (I am not against this as I have had both a wedding and a marriage certificate). But marriage was “Spiritual” and was to do with the condition of the “Heart”, to serve, cherish, bear children and be faithful to one another signified by the Shedding of Blood by the wife at marriage; Parallel to Christ and the Church.

  Jacob had a contract with Leban, which was to serve Leban for 7 years for Rachael. Leban also had a feast/wedding ceremony for Rachael and Jacob, as you say before many witnesses.

Jacob had no contract to marry Leah. Jacob had no feast/wedding ceremony for Leah.

So Guest, I ask you this question; Why was Leah recognised as Jacob’s first wife and not Rachael?

Guest #47.


Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #85
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:04/02/2011 12:15 AMCopy HTML


It's not really a case of what you think against what I think it's a case of what the bible actually says. You said "boyfriend" and "seduced grilfriend" but the bible clearly says a man who "happens to encounter" a "young woman who isn't engaged" and then he "rapes/violates" her. This is what all of the English translations actually say, so I really don't know where you got your interpretation from or how you think you can justify it. Which translations support your "boyfriend taking advantage of his girlfriend" theory? And how do you explain that all of the translations specifically identify that the virgin wasn't bethrothed? The Jews didn't have "boyfriends" and "girlfriends" in bible times they only had "betrothed" couples. None of this fits with your theory.

You also keep saying that marriage is "spiritual" and that it parallels Christ's marriage to the church. But you can't show me a single bible verse that supports this idea. Why? The new testament even says that the church is "betrothed" to Jesus Christ as his bride (just like Mary was bethrothed to Joseph as his bride) but that the wedding won't take place until the wedding feast of the Lamb at the end of this age! None of this fits with your theory.

You asked me how Jacob could be married to Leah? Gen 29 v 25 says that Jacob only realised it was Leah in the morning! The circumstances seem to fit the spirit of the later Deut 22 v 28-29 as Leah wasn't "betrothed", Jacob had his way with her, and consequently he was obligated to take her as his wife. The point I think you're missing is that what happened in the Patriarchal age is no more binding on us than is what happened with Adam and Eve in the garden. After the law was given to Israel, customs changed. Jewish marriage from Moses onwards involved betrothal for up to a year, followed by a marriage ceremony in front of witnesses, followed bya wedding feast, followed by the couple returning to the groom's father's house to live for another year. So where are the bible verses that you reckon support your theories?

Epios Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #86
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/05/2010 5:54 PM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:04/02/2011 2:22 AMCopy HTML


Hey Guests,

It's not necessary to print so many preceding posts with your reply. 

Regards

Epi
Uncoolman Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #87
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:10080
  • Posts:324
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:04/02/2011 5:33 AMCopy HTML

 Hi Epi

I think I'll go through all these posts and edit out the overly quoted quotes, so don't panic if you notice that your posts have been adjusted by myself. I'll surely not change any text.

Moddy.
Epios Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #88
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/05/2010 5:54 PM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:04/02/2011 6:25 AMCopy HTML


Hi Mod,

Thanks.  The "Today" was becoming very long








Thanks Mod,

Today is becoming very long and there's already much ado about fornication without the repetition.

Epi







Epios Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #89
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/05/2010 5:54 PM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:04/02/2011 6:34 AMCopy HTML

 

Mod,

Would you mind tidying up my post above at the same time.  I was interrupted half way through and the top should not have been included.

Thanks.

Epi

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #90
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:05/02/2011 4:02 AMCopy HTML

 

Guest # 96,

Many on this thread including yourself are caught up with Customs, Laws, Religion and Traditions of men and cannot see what marriage is.

The answer to how Leah and Jacob were married was easy. They had sexual intercourse and recognised God's Covent for Marriage.

When your Lexicon states “fornication” as 'unsanctioned sexual intercourse' or 'unlawful sexual intercourse' where does the “Church” go to find the answer 'The Bible' or 'Man'. If you go to 'Man' and look at Australian Law or Customs of Man, you will find Homosexuality, Prostitution and Casual Sex all legal. Your Bible would state that this was “fornication”.

Guest # 96 where are you going to find your answers 'Man' or 'God'.

I am happy to stick solely to the Bible to support my “theories”; If I quote out side the Bible then please correct me but like wise I expect the same from you and will correct you also when you step outside the Bible.

Guest # 47

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #91
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:05/02/2011 6:06 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Guest

 

Guest # 96,

Many on this thread including yourself are caught up with Customs, Laws, Religion and Traditions of men and cannot see what marriage is.

The answer to how Leah and Jacob were married was easy. They had sexual intercourse and recognised God's Covent for Marriage.

When your Lexicon states “fornication” as 'unsanctioned sexual intercourse' or 'unlawful sexual intercourse' where does the “Church” go to find the answer 'The Bible' or 'Man'. If you go to 'Man' and look at Australian Law or Customs of Man, you will find Homosexuality, Prostitution and Casual Sex all legal. Your Bible would state that this was “fornication”.

Guest # 96 where are you going to find your answers 'Man' or 'God'.

I am happy to stick solely to the Bible to support my “theories”; If I quote out side the Bible then please correct me but like wise I expect the same from you and will correct you also when you step outside the Bible.

Guest # 47


A small meditation on Hebrews 13:4 and it is readily obvious that sex before marriage is totally ruled out. Although we know with some surety that Paul was not the author of the long homily that Hebrews is, nevertheless whoever the author was, his intended audience was a 'believing' Jewish audience. The KJV states that Timothy wrote this epistle and if this is true then I can accept the thought or notion that the Christian church was a really an already established organism with its overseers etc. Timothy himself became established as an overseer under Paul's ministry. At this time I have not received any feedback from Ian as to whether this verse is transcribed as a command but nevertheless the ESV version writes it as if it is a command to highly regard marriage as something very highly precious with the marriage bed to be kept pure. The Church added this epistle to its canon for good reason so that we in the 21st century could be instructed by it..

So if a 'believing' person has committed fornication by engaging in pre-marital sex i.e. according to the BDAG lexicon, having been unchaste then that person has incurred a reproach and that person must engage in corrective counseling with his own pastor or overseer.

However if you are a member of a revivalist group then you would need to seek the counseling of an ordained orthodox Christian church leader and go from there in order to rectify the situation.

Eric

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #92
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:06/02/2011 12:34 AMCopy HTML

Eric,  Re #102

Until you understand what “Marriage” is, then you will not be able to understand what “Fornication” is.

I thought by the story of Jacob, Rachel and Leah in the last few posts, you would have understood what the Bible recognises as marriage.

What do you think “Marriage” is? Have you asked “Ian” what marriage is? If it is any help I will give you a clue; “Marriage Bed”.

Guest #47.

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #93
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:06/02/2011 12:48 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Epios

Reply to Guest



Guest #47,

I have never liked the RCI's harsh treatment and lack of help for those who err, are sorry, have to confess it to someone, are repentant and then face expulsion for all to know and see and talk about. All are sinners, RCI pastors included.  However, if you displayed the same arrogant attitude then as you do now I can hardly blame RCI for putting you out of their fellowship, which might have resulted in spoiling your chances of marriage at a later date to this young girl.  You have only yourself to blame. 

You seem intolerant of the scripturally based counsel given you here, yet you go off in your own rather foolish way quoting what you think are God's commands in your "event" and how God was let down on the issue and what God would prefer.

My friend may I suggest repentance in obedience to God would be a good start to a healthy understanding of what God would prefer.

May God hold you in his care.

Epi

Epi,

You seem to be taking an interest in reading this tread.

Maybe you can tell Eric and I what “Marriage” is?

Guest #47.


Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #94
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:06/02/2011 2:06 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Guest

Eric,  Re #102

Until you understand what “Marriage” is, then you will not be able to understand what “Fornication” is.

I thought by the story of Jacob, Rachel and Leah in the last few posts, you would have understood what the Bible recognises as marriage.

What do you think “Marriage” is? Have you asked “Ian” what marriage is? If it is any help I will give you a clue; “Marriage Bed”.

Guest #47.


Guest #47, do learn to read that the New Testament is addressed to a BELIEVING community or a community of faith. This is something that does not apply with the context of Jacob and Leah..

Nor I suppose is Hebrews addressed to a revivalist group or regime as an audience since one has hardly any grounds to consider a revivalist as being a part of the BELIEVING community..

To Ianos - got it !! the imperative mood of that paragraph is determined by the opening verb "meneto" therefore ESV is right.. It is a command to a BELIEVING community - an attribute that does not apply to revivalism.

Eric
.. 
Biblianut Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #95
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5380
  • Posts:218
  • From:Australia
  • Register:30/11/2010 9:39 PM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:06/02/2011 2:36 AMCopy HTML

Guest 47#

 

Explaining marriage, according to the bible, is too numerous to post on here as there are so many concepts about it, especially in the OT.

One needs to understand what creation is all about and acquire some good commentaries and bible dictionaries to see what marriage is about.

 

What I would like though, if I may, is pass this on;

The importance of marriage is clearly presupposed [to require as an antecedent in logic or fact] in the NT. It is based on God’s commandment as told in the creation story (Gen.2:24; Mt. 19:4-5; Mk. 10:6-7; 1 Cor.  6:16; Eph. 5:31).

Although the NT often looks on marriage from the husband’s point of view (as the head, cf.1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23), the OT traditions are so transcended that the husband’s special rights fall away and the shared life of husband and wife stands in the foreground (1 Cor. 7:3; Eph. 5:21-33; Col. 3:18-19).

Jesus takes a strong stand on the sacred nature of marriage in the Sermon on the Mount. Speaking on the seventh commandment (“you shall not commit adultery”), Jesus, the second Moses, likewise prohibits adultery (Mt. 5:31-32). Although Duet. 24:1 in principle permits divorce, Jesus prohibits divorce (Mk. 10:2-12), granting only on the grounds of the immoral spouse (Mt. 5:32- 19:9). (Mounce’s Dictionary)

 

What do you think “Marriage” is? Have you asked “Ian” what marriage is? If it is any help I will give you a clue; “Marriage Bed”. You cannot just take snippets of scripture and apply them to prove your own point of view.

Get yourself into some serious study. It is amazing what one might learn outside of Revival.

 

I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #96
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:06/02/2011 10:58 AMCopy HTML

 


Hi Ralph,

This guest is not quite together. Now it appears that he/she is insinuading that Ian hopped into bed with his wife before they were officially married.



Eric

dogmafree Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #97
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9580
  • Posts:416
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:22/02/2006 12:26 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:06/02/2011 11:35 AMCopy HTML


Hi Ralph,

This guest is not quite together. Now it appears that he/she is insinuating that Ian hopped into bed with his wife before they were officially married.



Eric


Eric,

Maybe they did.  Maybe they didn't.  Either way, it none of anybody else's business!

All this moralising is, frankly, on the nose!
"for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2)
Biblianut Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #98
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5380
  • Posts:218
  • From:Australia
  • Register:30/11/2010 9:39 PM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:06/02/2011 12:59 PMCopy HTML

Eric,
Not quite together?  You are being kind.
Geez, why is it people have to lower themselves to try and justify their own short comings

Dog,
I know of quite a few in Revival 'hierarchy' in that position and ready to pounce on others for similar doings. Self righteous hypocrites

Not about moralising, it's about getting the correct view according to Christian values.

I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
dogmafree Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #99
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9580
  • Posts:416
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:22/02/2006 12:26 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:06/02/2011 2:12 PMCopy HTML

Too many people worrying about other peoples' faults! smiley35
"for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Shakespeare (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2)
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #100
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:06/02/2011 9:05 PMCopy HTML

Reply to Guest
Guest # 96,

Many on this thread including yourself are caught up with Customs, Laws, Religion and Traditions of men and cannot see what marriage is.

The answer to how Leah and Jacob were married was easy. They had sexual intercourse and recognised God's Covent for Marriage.

When your Lexicon states “fornication” as 'unsanctioned sexual intercourse' or 'unlawful sexual intercourse' where does the “Church” go to find the answer 'The Bible' or 'Man'. If you go to 'Man' and look at Australian Law or Customs of Man, you will find Homosexuality, Prostitution and Casual Sex all legal. Your Bible would state that this was “fornication”.

Guest # 96 where are you going to find your answers 'Man' or 'God'.

I am happy to stick solely to the Bible to support my “theories”; If I quote out side the Bible then please correct me but like wise I expect the same from you and will correct you also when you step outside the Bible.

Guest # 47


You're very quick to judge other people but you can't seem to find any bible evidence that supports your opinions about fornication and marriage. I've read this entire thread a couple of times and I've noticed that you just don't respond to any points that trash your argument. You just go on ignoring them like nothing's happened.

There's been stacks of information posted about the marriage customs and practices of bible times but you've just ignored all of it.

Why?
RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.