Who let a vampire in here?!?!Some chick who makes money repeating all of the things that red pilled men want to hear, while not actually living that way herself. Sort of like the Tates do. I'm actually surprised to find myself agreeing with her on a couple of things in this video. Lord help me
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Pearl's debate analysis
- Thread starter Daniel DeLuca
- Start date
Old member changed her name.
I know, it's a joke... I don't think vampires are real...
Pearl has great content exposing simp / feminism dynamics, has a natural wisdom.
Here's another lady I stumbled on today. Some different terminology but it may be interesting seeing the conversation anyway.
Looks like The Chuck Colson Center is getting killed in the comments section:
Bible Marriages is killing it over there!
I will say this though, when we play this semantics game of claiming that putting away is different from divorce, it is not going over very well. It is a hard sell, and of course, those of us who are familiar with the argument are not all buying it. I would strongly urge that we take a different approach. It is making our case look weak.
I will say this though, when we play this semantics game of claiming that putting away is different from divorce, it is not going over very well. It is a hard sell, and of course, those of us who are familiar with the argument are not all buying it. I would strongly urge that we take a different approach. It is making our case look weak.
Last edited:
It’s not a semantics game, there is a huge difference.
How would you state it differently?
It has to be different or there’s a contradiction in scripture.
davidthebuilder
New Member
Dr. William Luck has a different argument which reconciles the "Certificate" vs. "Putting Away" distinction. He argues the certificate exists to protect the woman not to give the man license to divorce, but this doesn't reconcile God in Ezekiel and Jeremiah issuing a certificate to Israel after adultery.
The problem in today's society is not men divorcing their wives. It's wives divorcing their husbands, taking the man's property, and then re-marrying.
It's un-biblical to have a state issued marriage - another party in control of the man's possessions. Because that state rewards treason against the husband. However, the corporate world follows biblical guidelines. If an employee leaves - the employee can not take the corporation's assets. Whatever the employee came in with - the employee leaves with. Imagine if corporations were structured how marriages are structured with the state? An employee wants to leave Tesla or Apple? They get 50% of its stock and assets. How can a business be successful? Same with the husband. How can a husband run his household if the state encourages rebellion and treason against him - through the easy divorce and stealing of property.
It's un-biblical to have a state issued marriage - another party in control of the man's possessions. Because that state rewards treason against the husband. However, the corporate world follows biblical guidelines. If an employee leaves - the employee can not take the corporation's assets. Whatever the employee came in with - the employee leaves with. Imagine if corporations were structured how marriages are structured with the state? An employee wants to leave Tesla or Apple? They get 50% of its stock and assets. How can a business be successful? Same with the husband. How can a husband run his household if the state encourages rebellion and treason against him - through the easy divorce and stealing of property.
Last edited:
The Zelophehad's daughter situation, pokes a bit of a hole in that argument. They didn't come into the marriages with nothing.
If they take back what they came in with - there is no theft.
I suppose that might scare some men away from marrying a wealthy woman.
There is an additional book of wisdom from Solomon. It was in the original KJV, but later removed. But it does have a verse or two about the subject:
21 Never lose your head over a woman's beauty, and don't try to win a woman because she is wealthy. When a man is supported by his wife, there is sure to be anger, arrogance, and humiliation.
Don't worry.
You can still be gifted "properly" while she is still being alive. That's not illegal or immoral.
Point is that person doesn't lose "material base" which enabled them their station in life by legal theft via divorce etc.....
Certainly man won't be gifted that much by his oldie wifey.
Matthew 19:7
Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
People use this to claim that the torah of YAH wasn't perfect. Then they use that example to make the same case for monogamy only, and pretty much everything else they don't like or agree with.
It's an easy case to break. Simply ask them - where in the "Old Testament" does it say a man can send away his wife for any reason?
There is a process detailed in Deut 24:1 - and the reason implies sexual in nature - therefore - Yeshua was teaching torah. Therefore, whatever commandment Moses gave specifically to the Israelites in the wilderness was not the written word of YAH - but an oral commandment (concession because of the hardness of their hearts - for they were rebellious, stubborn, and some even tried to have Moses himself killed). The perfect Torah of YAH is very clear, and God in the flesh pointed the people back to the Word of God.
This debate was highjacked by Wilson. I heard that he changed the parameters of the debate at the last minute to be "how polygyny can save the west" versus "is polygyny a sin biblicaly." Which took the debate out of Rob an Abrie's court and put it into Andrew's. This is why Rob and Abrie kept trying to appeal to scripture and Andrew laughed it off and appealed to secular statistics. Which is what he is used to doing. He even said that he can't argue that polygyny is biblicaly wrong. Andrew typically destroys feminist when they talk about how violent and abusive men are to women and children by showing the actual police arrest data to show the opposite is true. He usually does a good job showing that the safest place for women is with their husbands and the safest place for children is with their father. Conversly the most dangerous and abusive place for both to be is when the mom gets a new boyfriend or step-dad and that guy does wrong to the kids and the mother.
The thing that Wilson did not take into account was that most of those countries in the polygyny belt are Muslim or socialist. Most Muslim nations that practice hard core Islam do not prosper and socialism destroys the economy of nations. The nations are impoverished because of despotism not polygyny. It is a non-sequitur or false comparison. The people who are well off and polygynist get over looked because they live in nations that outlaw polygyny so they have to be quiet about their private lives. So, they are not included in the stats.
I think that is about to change though. Due to to polyamorouse people and homosexual marriages being openly practiced it makes it hard to say that polygyny is a crime. Not that I advocate either.
I pray that as the tares come into bloom that the wheat harvest prospers.
No, Sirach/Ecclesiasticus is not in the KJV. https://www.biblesociety.org.uk/explore-the-bible/read/eng/gnb/sir/25/
I like to give them the Tyndale version of Matt 19:9 and challenge them whether they would question either the integrity or the scholarship of Tyndale. I then point out the word "adultery" is derived from the Latin Vulgate.
Matthew 19:9 - TYN - I saye therfore vnto you whosoever putteth awaye h...
Matthew 19:9 I saye therfore vnto you whosoever putteth awaye his wyfe (except it be for fornicacion) and maryeth another breaketh wedlocke. And whosoever maryeth her which is divorsed doeth commyt advoutry.... Read verse in Tyndale
www.biblestudytools.com
I had someone claim that they preferred versions that used better manuscripts, so I looked at the Erasmus text that Tyndale used, and I could see side by side, what that text said, and how the Latin Vulgate translated it. It is clear Tyndale did not trust the Latin Vulgate.
It's in the 1611 version of the KJV: