• 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.

Prayer request Needing Prayer

Status
Not open for further replies.
FollowingHim said:
I hope this makes it clearer.
Click to expand...

Based on our prior exchanges, not at all.

By your prior assertions, God wants us all to eat spaghetti from a bowl is a perfectly valid interpretation of Acts 1:18
"Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." simply by explaining that bowels are a reference to intestines which look like spaghetti & bowel is one letter away from bowl so this verse is commanding us to eat spaghetti from a bowl & not a plate.
 
Tesfalcon said:
A more direct precedent is God sending Judah into captivity.
Jer 24:5 — 7
Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel; Like these good figs, so will I acknowledge them that are carried away captive of Judah, whom I have sent out of this place into the land of the Chaldeans for their good. For I will set mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land: and I will build them, and not pull them down; and I will plant them, and not pluck them up. And I will give them an heart to know me, that I am the LORD: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but He likened Judah's proclivity to serve other God's to adultery.
 
Tesfalcon said:
At this point, that's outside the scope. Sandra is reluctant to agree to her return. Healing has to happen first.

I'm home daily now, but I work 11 hr shifts 6 days a week. Not much time free for anyone, even myself. It should slow down in March(?) & return to 5 day work weeks.
Click to expand...
Of course, but once that does occur, and we are all praying for that, is it possible she might be willing to make that sacrifice?
 
Tesfalcon said:
1) Some argue that God did that already in Exodus - Deuteronomy.
2) While it may or may not be as you say (I don't recall that aspect specifically), is the brick wall analogy wrong?
Click to expand...
I think @FollowingHim 's point is still valid, that using a verse here or there, we can see that often certain Scriptures can get misused. You have come to the right place though, because we often have somewhat heated discussions in these forums about our differing doctrinal points of view.
 
Tesfalcon said:
Based on our prior exchanges, not at all.

By your prior assertions, God wants us all to eat spaghetti from a bowl is a perfectly valid interpretation of Acts 1:18
"Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." simply by explaining that bowels are a reference to intestines which look like spaghetti & bowel is one letter away from bowl so this verse is commanding us to eat spaghetti from a bowl & not a plate.
Click to expand...
Now that is a real stretch of the imagination!
 
Tesfalcon said:
At this point, that's outside the scope. Sandra is reluctant to agree to her return. Healing has to happen first.
Click to expand...
Sandra agreeing to something, is not really relevant here. What Scripture teaches, is the only thing of importance.
 
rockfox said:
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Please allow me to clarify what I'm getting at. The husband who allows the wife to jerk him around using threats of leaving is submitting himself to his wife. This is an unstable situation because it is not natural for a woman to be the head of the house. The relationship ends up being ruled by the chaotic winds of emotion.

Sometimes his submission "works" (as in they stay together, miserably so with the man in a state of Stockholm Syndrome ), but it is still contrary to God plan and very often she ends up leaving him because a) it's against nature and b) it's a part of relationship breakdown.

Whatever method one uses to end the threats of leaving, they must end for there to be a healthy relationship.
Click to expand...
That is a false dichotomy though, because...
Please enlighten us.
Click to expand...
If you read the remainder of my post, where I said
...and for the husband, that way may be telling her to "put up or shut up", or it may be just telling her to "shut up and stop talking like that." OK, maybe not use the words "shut up", but realize that the enemy of our souls is at work here, and help her to realize that she is under attack from that enemy, and that those thoughts that she is expressing, are coming from the pit of hell.
Click to expand...
-not highlighted in the original post-

you will see the enlightenment that you are looking for.
 
Daniel DeLuca said:
...and for the husband, that way may be telling her to "put up or shut up", or it may be just telling her to "shut up and stop talking like that." OK, maybe not use the words "shut up", but realize that the enemy of our souls is at work here, and help her to realize that she is under attack from that enemy, and that those thoughts that she is expressing, are coming from the pit of hell.
Click to expand...

We had conversation about her threats, both pleasantly & unpleasantly, several times before the final put up or shut up conversation. It was tried. We warned her that talking lead to actions. These were her actions.
 
Elaborate a bit on what the warning was. I don't believe that you should "try" the conversation about the threats, but rather this is a continuing effort that you signed up for when you married her, whether you realized you were signing up for it or not. I will give you a pass in that, at the time, you were not really part of this community, that could work with you to help her understand that this is unacceptable. As was mentioned before, that ultimatum of yours appears to have been borne out of exasperation.
 
Tesfalcon said:
Based on our prior exchanges, not at all.

By your prior assertions, God wants us all to eat spaghetti from a bowl is a perfectly valid interpretation of Acts 1:18
"Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." simply by explaining that bowels are a reference to intestines which look like spaghetti & bowel is one letter away from bowl so this verse is commanding us to eat spaghetti from a bowl & not a plate.
Click to expand...
Not at all. That's ridiculous. I am NOT saying that every possible crazy interpretation is VALID.

I am saying that people can interpret things wrong, or simply differently to how you intended, and you therefore need to explain what you mean.

Try this:
"The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD." Hosea 1:2
What is my point?
 
FollowingHim said:
I am saying that people can interpret things wrong, or simply differently to how you intended, and you therefore need to explain what you mean.

Try this:
"The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD." Hosea 1:2
What is my point?
Click to expand...

Context is king. There are 4 here:
1) A verse by itself is uninterpretable.
Random verse. By itself. "See? I stumped you."

2) Marriage
Even an ungodly whore of a wife can be loved, entreated w, & reconciled.

3) Personal history
An old church taught that Hosea was non-canonical because marrying whores is immoral & God would never command someone to sin. Thus quoting Hosea 1:2 shows your lack of sincerity to the Word of God and your reliance on man's wisdom. What's next? A verse from the Apochrypha? Book of Jasher? Book of Mormon?

4) Politically
The land is committing great whoredoms. Soon, we will be reduced to marrying whores as our country is flushed down the Communist / Antichrist toilet.

5) Something else?
 
@Tesfalcon: I was thinking of two things. Not with relation to the current discussion by the way, that's just the first verse I saw when I opened the Bible and these are the thoughts that came to mind when I read it:

2) Basically what you said.

6) This was the beginning of the word of God to Hosea - and the first thing God told him to do was something horrendously unexpected. It took enormous faith for him to do that. Are we prepared for God to ask us to do the unimaginable?

So I agree with your first point. A verse on its own is uninterpretable. Everything needs context and explanation, because there are so many different things we can take from it. I just think that if you gave more of that in your communications with @AlexaH, it would probably make a big difference to how she perceives your words and how well she understands and responds to what you are saying.

I'm not going to argue about it with you any more though. I've said my point repeatedly, I think it's now simply over to you whether you'll take it on board and apply it in any way, or not.
 
FollowingHim said:
I'm not going to argue about it with you any more though. I've said my point repeatedly, I think it's now simply over to you whether you'll take it on board and apply it in any way, or not.
Click to expand...

Acts 17:11
Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
 
FollowingHim said:
Exactly. I was referring to 1 Corinthians 7:5. I also qualified it by saying "some" scriptural precedent, because this is not a direct application of that verse (as the verse is about temporary separation by mutual consent, not by the husband's edict), but has strong similarities to the situation described in this verse.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Tesfalcon said:
4) Politically
The land is committing great whoredoms. Soon, we will be reduced to marrying whores as our country is flushed down the Communist / Antichrist toilet.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to say that time is already past.
 
Daniel DeLuca said:
Yeah, but He likened Judah's proclivity to serve other God's to adultery.
Click to expand...

Adultery is allows for divorce. It's not a mandate. Preacher's son thought it was mandatory. Sat down w him & his dad. Turns out Dad was lying to get rid of the girl. Once he admitted that divorce was never mandated, son reconciled w his wife before the divorce was legally final.
 
Tesfalcon said:
Adultery is allows for divorce. It's not a mandate. Preacher's son thought it was mandatory. Sat down w him & his dad. Turns out Dad was lying to get rid of the girl. Once he admitted that divorce was never mandated, son reconciled w his wife before the divorce was legally final.
Click to expand...
The Biblical Families community here is in complete agreement with this truth espoused in Scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top