Dec 6, 2024
(updates are headed in "ALL CAPS")
For ALL Jewish divisions & Christian denominations, even for Latter-day Saints & for Muslims (if they want to see what the "traditional" Bible & Jewish Tanakh reveal).
(NEW Nov. 11, 2024:)
-----------------
Jewish-Jews, you don't have to read all of that "Christian stuff." Just scan down, looking for the books in the Jewish Tanakh (the same books as the Christian Old Testament, except arranged in a different order). Also, get an idea of what we are saying in that particular section & then carefully read it in your own Tanakh.
Then after that, carefully re-read your covenants in the Torah. Then you will see that Adonai never commanded any such thing in any of your covenants with Adonai. Yes, Adonai's genuine commandments are there on sex & marriage (even including "more than one wife"), but not even one of these other, so-called commandments are even mentioned in the Torah, nor even in the entire Tanakh.
But in the process of examining our case in the Tanakh, you "should stumble onto" Adonai's hidden approvals of exactly the opposite of most of these so-called commandments that Adonai didn't make (for all but one of them are hidden in the Tanakh). These are there to give you double assurance that it wasn't Adonai that made them!
But what about the Mishnah & the Ghemahrah (for Orthodox Jews)? Even Orthodox Rabbis admit that these were added to make a hedge about the Law," not to replace it. They say that "the bottom line" is what the Torah says, not what the Mishnah & the Ghemahrah say.
---------------
And, any Christians who did read this message to the Jewish-Jews, if so, then how is it that the Jews have always been keeping several of these so-called "commandments???" If they were valid commandments, then wouldn't the Lord have also put them into their (Old) covenant??? But they aren't there, & that is easy for us to verify by just reading the covenants with Israel in the books of Exodus through Deuteronomy. Think about it.
NEW, Dec. 6, 2024:
LIBERALS, Yes, we authors are Christian Bible believers, but this is also written for you people, liberal Jews, liberal Christians, Liberal Muslims, etc. For it is important for you Liberals to now see that you no longer have to "outright disobey" God anymore (in terms of sex & marriage).
You were the first ones to see that "There's somethin' fishy about them there commandments." But rather than just outright disobeying, you will now see exactly what it is that is "fishy" (if you read our case).
Yes, our case is written for Bible believers, because they are the hardest ones to convince. But if you want to play it safe & make sure that you aren't disobeying God, then just heed these new freedoms (if you are convinced, of course, & surely you will be more than convinced), And don't forget to pray & ask God to help you decide.
END Dec. 6
END of Nov. 11, 2024:
(As you will see, I'm "a talker," not a writer. Think of iat as if you were reading a written transcript of a recorded seminar).
(New, Nov. 8, 2024:)
For those of you who have held to the traditional beliefs on sex & marriage--but have never carefully examined this website--if so, then you will earnestly believe that our case cannot possibly be true. That's what all of us earnestly believed before this was discovered, including myself, many years ago. For we earnestly believed that the Bible (or Tanakh) does teach all of these things.
But don't get the wrong idea. Yes, there are genuine teachings on sex & marriage, for they are clearly written in the Bible. But there are 9 more of them (or 10, with #4 & #6 overlapping) And yes, we did have texts in the Bible that we thought, justified the rest of those teachings, but not so in God's eyes (not so in the Bible & Tanakh). But not even one of those texts truly proves that any of those 9 extra teachings are valid.
(ENHANCED, Nov. 25, 24:)
(Don't Forget to shut out your emotions, so that you can honestly, prayerfully, carefully examine our case).
AN EXAMPLE OF TEXTS THAT CAN'T BE COMMANDMENTS
(e,g, Can a command or instruction have two meanings & still prove that it means the 2nd meaning instead of the first, in terms of marriage??? Would the Lord outright give the sinner a "loop-hole" to get out of it, where they could say, "No, that text is just talking about the first meaning & isn't even talking about the 2nd meaning."??? No, the Lord never does that.
Would that be fair to the sinner, to be so vague on such an important subject???). Wouldn't the sinner reply, "But Lord, why didn't you make it clear. I thought it meant..."???
(READER, this upsets many of you, because there isn't really any other text in the Bible that justifies this belief of only one spouse, except Gen. 2:24. We said this in general because there are also other cases where they make a text have 2 meanings when it doesn't really.
But first, let's examine Gen. 2:24 to make sure that it can't be a commandment or instruction on "only one spouse:" (Gen. 2:24, ESV) "Therefore a man shall leave his father & his mother & hold fast to his wife, & they shall become one flesh." The opposers of "only one spouse" say, "Oh, that is just talking about them consummating the marriage by becoming one flesh with each other. It's not even talking about "only one spouse." But those in favor of only one spouse reply, "Yes, it means that but it also means "only one spouse." So who is right?
No, it can't be "a toss-up?" For the Lord, in making a commandment or instruction, the Lord always makes sure that it warns the sinner. 1 Tim. 1:9-11 makes it clear that commandments/instructions are primarily for those who will be disobedient, "...not laid down for the just, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly & sinners,..." (vs 9, ESV).
If a so-called commandment or instruction doesn't warn those who would disobey it, to not do it, then it isn't a commandment or instruction. And here in Gen. 2:24, the so-called sinner can honestly justify his belief in the very same verse (vs. 24). So Gen. 2:24 certainly doesn't warn the sinner to not have more than one spouse. If the Lord wanted it to be a commandment or instruction, He would have made it clear, either here or someplace else, to not have more than one spouse. But He didn't.
Some translations even translate it "& the two shall become one," leaving out the word "flesh." But the Hebrew manuscripts say "...one flesh." Even Jesus didn't call it "and the two shall become one," but called it "... one flesh" twice in Matt. 19:5 & 6.
Yes, He had to keep it "one flesh" in verse 5, because He was quoting Gen. 2:24, but He could have said in verse 6, "So they are no longer 2 but one," but instead, He said, "...no longer 2 but one flesh" (ESV). Why didn't He? To make it clear for our sake: That is why Jesus used "joined together" in verse 7, "What God has joined together...," instead of saying, "What God has made one, let no man separate," which He could have said if that was what it meant. But Jesus made it clear that He was talking about being joined together as "one flesh" in marriage, not as the 2 becoming one & only one (spouse). At that time the Roman Empire didn't allow anyone to have more than one wife, period! But Jesus foresaw our day when we would need that.
END Nov. 25, 24
In answer to "there isn't really any other text supporting only one spouse," some of you would reply, "Oh yes, there is. The Bible calls a woman an adulteress if she lives with another man." (Rom. 7:3, ESV, see vv 1-3.
It is surprising that the ESV would translate it "another," for the ESV is supposed to be the most accurate translation. (It's because they wanted the text to also forbid "more than one spouse," not because that is actually what it actually said).
The Greek word there actually means a "different" man (I.e. instead of her husband (See ALT2, Analytical-Literal Translation #2 (& probably #1 & #3 as well)). This agrees with what Jesus said in Matt. 19:9 that whoever divorces his wife & marries another commits adultery (see vv 3-12). No, it's in divorcing his & in marrying another that he commits adultery, not in just marrying an additional wife.
But how is it that no one had more than one wife in the days of Jesus? It was the Gentiles that forbade it, not the Lord. Israel was ruled 600 years by 4 huge empires (starting with Chaldea (Babylon), onward. All 4 empires limited it to only one wife. But their view of it was much different than ours, for Gentile rulers felt (& were) at liberty to go to temple prostitutes, even to whores & traditional prostitutes, etc., etc., much different than our society.
No, You won't find any place in the entire Bible (if properly translated) that forbids more than one spouse (not even one place that forbids the husband nor forbids the wife). Just ask several pastors/professors & those who have read the Bible lots of times, & they will give justification by Gen. 2:24, which we just showed that it isn't valid, or a few other texts that aren't really valid, either.
In fact, the only way that plural marriages properly work in an equal-equal society, is for both husbands & wives to have more than one spouse (but not too many spouses for either one, & also always, "as long as you both shall live" for each marriage).
Yes, "plural-wives" did work to some extent in "Old Testament" days, but that was only because so many men were killed off in wars. But it certainly doesn't work in an equal-equal society. (The rich, the popular & the famous, & the muscle-men would get lots of them, & thus, many men would be left without any wife at all),
But isn't it against the law??? In the last 40 years, there has been a way for anyone (man or woman) to marry more than one. That is how the Fundamentalist "Mormons" have been legally doing it for many years. (But don't get the wrong idea. The Lord doesn't recommend harems (see the E-book "Greatest Deception" at the very bottom of this site)).
But please (those of you who are repulsed by all of this). Could it really be that these "9" really are "Satan's Biggest Trap" & have always caused so much of the world to be so ungodly? No, this system can work even better than "only one wife, if everything is done properly?
NEW, NOV. 24, 24
"BUT, IT SEEMS SO WRONG"
Let me ask you, how successful have marriages been, even among Church people, even among upright, Bible believing members??? Yes, divorce & remarriage is less now than several years ago, but it is still terrible in God's eyes, especially among those who marry beautiful women. Women have a way of aging (men, too). They certainly don't look as beautiful 10 or 20 years later. But it's not only their beauty that diminishes, but also, they aren't nearly as lively, either. And you know what happens to many marriages.
And you answer yes, but that is because they are not controlling their lusts, nor keeping their vows. And you are right. That is why the Lord allowed these counterfeit commandments, because they are do-able. But the trouble is that only a few make it without falling into genuine sexual sins or marriage sins (that truly are wrong) as the years go by. That is why Jesus warned us that only a (very) few would be saved (Luke 13:23-30, Matt. 7:13-14 & 21-27).
But what else could Jesus say, for these counterfeit commandments have been regulating things for thousands of years before & almost 2,000 years after Him??? He had to warn them. Would that mean that God wouldn't have a surprise teaching at the end of time, where more (no all) would be saved???
But also, look at the great contradiction involved. Which is worse, adding on another spouse, while still loving the first, or getting rid of your spouse (usually hating & despising him/her, because he/she stands in the way of them getting the other. The Bible makes it clear that it is a terrible sin to get rid of your spouse & marry another. Jesus Himself said so (Matt. 19:3-12).
(MORE TO BE ADDED
But could
But also, could it be that you could eventually end-up fighting against God, Himself, by rejecting this now, without prayerfully, carefully examining it???
(END of ENHANCING Nov. 12, 24:)
Yes, keep pondering over both sides these issues, but prayerfully/carefully read-on & consult with your most trusted friends & see what they think. OK? Thank you!). "
How Could These "9" Ever Get into Everyone's Beliefs?
This message took all of us by surprise. for we hadn't thought about the possibility (for those of us who truly believe that there is an Enemy called the Devil & Satan) that he & his hosts have been (& still are) inculcating these traditional values into each & every one of us, all across the whole world (except for some variation in some places), inculcating it all of our lives within each one of us, ever since birth.
For the Bible speaks of a vast number of fallen angels (1/3rd of all the angels (Rev. 12:7, see vv 7-12)), that each one of us could easily have, at least, one "guardian devil" (& some having far more than that, Luke 8:30-33, see vv 26-33) to, at least, hinder our walk with the Lord.
(END, Nov. 11, 2024)
They not only fill us with tempting feelings, but also inculcate these traditional values on sex & marriage. And yet, those of you who don't believe that there are any devils, think, "Now, that's ridiculous, for the devils would be promoting righteousness, while at the same time, tempting people to sin!"
Yes, it does seem that way, but is it truly contradictory? Far from it!!! Everyone thinks it's terrible to take away a restriction, but they don't realize the great difficulties it can cause to add on an extra restriction. For what if it is forbidding God's primary way of escape from that particular temptation??? Then won't a lot more of them fall into that temptation, if all they can do is flee from that restriction???
Fleeing doesn't always resolve the tempting feelings--yes, it diminishes it, but it doesn't get rid of those tempting feelings. There can still be a lot of "temptation," even after fleeing from that person or situation. But in contrast, in taking God's primary way of escape, instead of just fleeing from it, virtually eliminates the tempting feelings, yes, even for days.
Isn't the Lord Wiser Than We Are?
Most of you know that good parents have learned how to offer the child something good, to take the place of what the child shouldn't be playing with. They have far greater success than the parent who angrily scolds the child & then quickly jerks it out of his/her hands.
When an angry parent does that, the child "is all torn-up about it" & now longs to have that "thing" more than ever!!!
Many (not all) youths & singles react the same way to "no sex whatsoever until you get married." The youth (those younger than age of 30) react in a similar way as a child having his "toy" angrily jerked away from him. (More than 50% of them, 60% on the average) react with either 1) but there are those who stay in the churches, pretending to be good, but hiding what they are doing (doubly especially older divorcees), or 2) ignoring this rule (which consists of both those within the churches & quite a few of those that left "church" all together, or 3) leaving & outright disobeying the rule or 4) by choosing to be either become agnostics or atheists or 5) (a few who) outright rebel against God & against all that He stands for.
Now if we parents know how to handle that kind of a situation, then don't you think that the Lord, being infinitely wiser than we are, also knows how to provide us something good (something that is truly acceptable in God's eyes) to take the place of what is not acceptable (i.e. to take the place of what we are really being tempted of)??? [Guidelines are given in the E-book ("Greatest Deception") at the very bottom of this website, on what is needed to be acceptable].
God Promised to Provide Us the Best Way of Escape
In fact, the Bible already tells us that the Lord/Adonai has provided "the: ['best'] way of escape": (You Christians need to know that KJV translators purposely changed it to "a way of escape, when their manuscripts said the way of escape, but the NKJV corrected it to "the..."):
1 Cor. 10:13, ESV says: "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, & he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will provide the way of escape that you may be able to endure it." (emphasis supplied, see vv 1-13). The fact that the Bible says "the way of escape" instead of "a way of escape" implies that there is "the [best] way of escape" for each & every kind of temptation, for stealing, for murdering, for coveting, for lying, & also for each kind of sexual- & marriage-temptation.
NEW, Nov. 12, 2024:
SELF-CONTROL KEEPS GETTING WEAKER IF YOU DON'T...
But what about the lesser forms of sex; are they just as bad as "doin' the real thing???" Everyone wants "to tie it down, thinking that it is sex itself that is wrong, but also, not even letting any singles even relieve themselves, sexually. But as you will see, in doing that, they are not only forbidding God's primary ways of escape.
They are also teaching CONTRARY to the scriptures, contrary to a law of nature that creates a greater & greater "handicap" as the years go by. Their self-control keeps on diminishing every year, thus gradually inclining them, "pulling them down," closer & closer toward "giving-in" to sexual sins. And many eventually do give-in, ---perhaps at first, only within their hearts & minds, but it keeps growing & eventually ends-up by "out-right doing what they were picturing."
But that was their mistake, in picturing the sin that they desired, which is also truly sin (Matt. 5:27-28, etc., see vv 27-30). In letting their heart & mind picture that sin, their desires gradually kept growing until they actually did it.
And many of you Bible believers justify "no sex whatsoever," saying, "Well, I made it!" Yes, you did, & so did I, but how many of your friends didn't make it? How many even left the Lord, largely because of this teaching? Did you ever stop to think that some of those friends had a much greater sex-drive than you do??? And that some of them also had a lot less self-control than you did??? Think about it...
Yes, I made it, but at times. It took all of the effort that I could possibly "muster," to keep from giving-in. But it was only through looking to Jesus & earnestly begging Him to strengthen me, that I made it. I was that close to "going-under" near the end of my life as a single (and yes, even a few times after marrying).
But many of my friends did eventually "give-in" and were visibly harmed by it & were not the same from that day, forward. They were "reaping the warning" to not commit fornication (1 Cor. 6:18, see vv 12-19).
(Sorry, as you will see, "fornication" is the actual meaning of that Greek word in the Bible (which is God's definition that is revealed in the Bible, not man's definition of "sexual immorality").
Did you know that your self-control weakens, the longer you go without, at least, relieving that sex-drive (& contrary to common opinion, there are ways to relieve oneself without picturing any sin at all (read on))? 1 Cor. 7:5b (ESV, see vv 1-5) counsels husbands & wives to not delay too long to come together (sexually), "...so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."
But if this is true for husbands & wives, then just think how much more true it is for Bible-believing singles, some of whom have to wait many years to find their spouse, all without even once relieving themselves from that sex-drive, all the way till they finally get married.
Singles, too, need to, at least, (appropriately) relieve themselves periodically (one way or another) and not delay too long, "...so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control"??? If they wait too long, then their self-control will become so weak that that-tempting desire will greatly over-power their self-control, & they will then choose to "dive-in." So, don't "play games with" temptation. Keep it "squelched," so that you don't end up "diving-in head-first."
And yet, "everyone" wants to tie it down, so that no one has any sex at all until they get married!!! I know what that is like, being a Bible-believer. It took me years to find my future wife. Each year my self-control weakened more & more, especially each August. But I am not alone. Lots of other people had the same problem of decreasing self-control, because of having to wait "too many years" to find their spouse.
The Catholics & others try to make this text (1 Cor. 7:5) mean that this was only said by permission, because the very next verse says such. No, far from it. Paul said that in verse 6 because he was starting to promote celibacy. But in contrast, this instruction in verse 5 was given because it is a law of nature be wary of, as we pointed out.
In fact, the ESV makes it clear that verse 6 is connected with verse 7 by making it a completely separate paragraph from verses 1-5: "Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as myself am...." Paul was a celibate, & that was what he was starting to promote. He wished that all "Bible workers," etc. were also celibates.
Now, doesn't it make a lot more sense for the promotion of celibacy to be said by permission, rather than "come together again, so that Satan may not..."? Yes, it does, especially because verse 5 is truly a law of nature to be wary of.
But many of you Bible believers are shaking your heads, "no," thinking that people cannot relieve themselves without thinking sin. Many of you are thinking like one of my pastors who agreed, saying, "The Bible doesn't [even] mention masturbation [in any shape, way or form], but what would you be THINKING??? "What a big, fat Deception!" Is anything too hard for the Lord???
The following miracle happened near the end of my marriage. She had already cut me off from love & sex for a full year. It's one thing to wait another year to get married; but it's another to be withheld from it, after you have experienced it for many years.
(It's not nearly as easy. That's why many divorcees give-in to fornication, especially those who believe that it is wrong to even relieve themselves. What a contradiction! Which is worse, committing fornication outside of wedlock, or relieving yourself without even picturing anyone & without picturing sin??? But they earnestly think that they can't relieve themselves without picturing sin. And so, their self-control keeps weakening).
Well by this time, I had carefully, prayerfully "studied" the whole Bible 3 times. When I finished the first time, I was amazed that the Bible didn't even mention anything similar to masturbation (for I was carefully watching for it).
So the Bible certainly can't condemn masturbation, not because it can't be wrong, but because apparently, there truly are acceptable ways to do it. But I didn't know that at that time & still assumed that it surely must be wrong in some way.
But now that "I was in a strait," having been withheld for a full year. So I started wondering why they say that it is wrong. Suddenly it hit me. I said out loud, "So, that's why they say it is wrong," because everyone thinks that it can't be done without picturing sin (Matt. 5:27-28, etc.).
Now you need to know that I had been (& still am to this very day) earnestly trying to fully overcome (Rev., chs. 2 & 3). So I said (probably out-loud), "That's IT!!! If I shut out all thoughts & all feelings & all picturing of anything, & only focus on what I am actually doing, then I can't possibly be sinning!" And that's what I did for the remaining 1 1/2 years while still living "with" her.
But I never realized what a miracle that was, all these years, not until about a month ago. I remembered a month ago that I had "loosened-up" & had done something different after 1 1/2 years, but I couldn't remember what that difference was.
The suddenly, I remembered the miracle that the Lord was working during that first 1 1/2 years. I was so determined to even shut out all feelings, just to make sure that I wasn't sinning in the slightest. But in remembering that recently, I realized that it wasn't me that shut-out all those feelings. It had to be God that was doing that, in answer to what I was determined to do. for I don't think any human could shut it out, especially those feelings that are so strong, yes, even shutting out the "climaxes," but He did it!!! So, is anything too hard for the Lord??? No.
After that, I loosened up & let the feelings come, but was still focusing only on what I was actually doing. For there is nothing wrong with experiencing those feelings, as long as "sin" is shut completely out of my (& your) heart & mind. (But there are also other acceptable ways that are discussed in the E-book ("Greatest Deception") at the very bottom of this site.
END NEW, Nov. 12, 24:
ENHANCED Nov. 13, 24:
God's Hidden Approval of Relieving "Self"
Before leaving "relieving one's self," we need to, at least, mention "the clincher." I think that all of you are now convinced that there is no such thing as "No sex whatsoever...," but the Lord also gave us extra assurance, double assurance that He truly approves of appropriately relieving one's self. That is how Paul was able to stay a celibate all those years, & not lose self-control by periodically relieving himself (without picturing sin).
But even in Paul's day, Christians were repulsed about relieving one's self, thinking that would be wrong. And that is why he switched to counselling husbands & wives, because they could accept that it was needed for husbands & wives.
But at the same time, he was hoping that singles would catch on, that the danger of weak self-control also applied even more to them, than to married people. Read the rest of 1 Cor. 7, especially verses 8 & 9. Paul was hoping that singles, especially celibates, would catch-on.
But he needed to warn them in verse 9, just in case they didn't catch-on, that they needed to marry if they couldn't maintain good self-control. I know of one godly Catholic who took that advice years ago (before we knew any of this) & dropped out of the priesthood & got married. He was wise.
But the point that I'm making is that this is God's hidden approval of periodically relieving one's self. Paul was an apostle & wrote much of the New Testament. He not only was practicing it all those years, but was also promoting it for celibacy. So if any of you are still hesitant, here is your proof that the Lord not only permits it, but also fully approves of it for all singles, etc.
God's Hidden Approvals of More than One Wife & of Women Having more than one Husband, Etc.
But relieving one's self isn't the only approval of the various, counterfeit "commandments/rules/regulations, or whatever you want to call them. The Lord has also hidden His approval in the Bible of men having more than one wife (2 Sam. 12:8, see vv 1-15). The fact that the Lord gave King David Saul's wives shows his full approval of more than one wife.
But also, the Lord even took it another step further. He (through the prophet Nathan) even told him that He would have given him even more---if it would have helped keep him from committing adultery. But more wives wouldn't have helped prevent this "mess" that David was in.
But also the Lord has also "well-hidden" full approval of women having more than one husband (Num. 30:6a, see vv 3-8). But note how the translators mis-translate it. "The Hebrew" in the first part of verse 6 says "If his-she marries a man," not "If she marries a man," like the ESV & others translate it.
"His-she" is not normally used in Hebrew because it is vague. It doesn't make it clear whether it is speaking of his wife or of his daughter (normally written either "his woman," if it is his wife, or "his daughter." But if the Lord would have said "his wife," then the whole world would have known that it was OK for a wife to have more than one husband.
And the Lord wanted to save this surprise till now, because it was the rebel Satan that caused these counterfeit "commandments" (his bigest trap), & it was best for that trap to be exposed near the end of time, so that everyone remaining could see the great contrast between the two. So the Lord used "his-she" here to hide this fact. This is probably the only place in the whole Bible that "his-she" is used.
But in this case, the text has to be speaking of his wife because it was already talking about his daughter in the previous verse. So if it were speaking of his daughter, then it would have just said "if she...," not "if his-she..."
But the Lord (through Moses) made it "his-she," instead of "his wife," so that they would have an excuse to translate it "If she..." & thus hide it. Even the Jews wanted that hidden, for it was speaking of his wife adding a 2nd husband & then making a silly- or rash-vow of abstainence from him! But they didn't even want their wives to even joke about about abstaining from sex with them.
Yes, they could nullify her vow, but they didn't even want their wives to even know about the possibility of having a 2nd husband, not realizing the benefit of women having more than one husband (that every man could also have more than one wife, not just "the rich" & "the great").
But the fact that she could make such a joking-vow as that, completely turned them off to the thought of wives having more than one husband. Yes, The Lord wanted this hidden, all the way from then till now, for Satan could then be caught in his very own trap at the end of time (Ps. 9:15-16 & 7:14-16). So the Lord thoroughly succeeded in accomplishing that.
Also, The Lord hid full approval of the lesser forms of sex, etc., but the next that thing we are going to briefly prove is the lesser forms of sex. So let's save the hidden approval till after we prove that the Lord never forbade the lesser forms of sex. Then we will briefly provide that hidden approval.
But in conclusion on these hidden approvals, the Lord did that, foreknowing that these things were going to be exposed as counterfeit near the end of time. He especially did that for you people that are so hesitant to believe these, just because He never commanded or required it.
So, He gave all of you double assurance by hiding these approvals, so that all of you would know that the Lord not only permits or tolerates these, but also fully approves of them (if done appropriately).
What About the Lesser Forms of Sex ("Sexual Immorality")?
"Everyone" (not all, for there has been great contention over this particular issue for hundreds of years, even among the translators of the NKJV (1982)) "everyone insists" that you have to tie it down, for they are thinking that it is sex itself is what is restricted to the husband & his own wife & to no one else.
Well, they were wrong about "only one wife" & about "only one husband" & about "no sex whatsoever until you get married." Could it be that they are also mistaken about what God is restricting in terms of sex with someone?
What is the symbol of marriage? (This doesn't prove it, but it does give a clue that they might be mistaken). The symbol of marriage is found in Gen. 2:24, "Therefore a man shall leave his father & his mother & hold fast to his wife & they shall become one flesh." (ESV). They call it "consummating the marriage."
But what happens if one of them refuses to consummate the marriage? That very thing happened to my sister. The man was so hung-up on sex (emotionally) that he couldn't consummate the marriage. "He just couldn't." When that happens, then that frees the other spouse to annul that marriage. So after a few months, she had to annul that marriage. That is allowed, for It's not really a marriage if they don't consummate it.
Normal "husband & wife sex" is called "becoming one flesh with each other." When they become one-flesh they are temporarily joined together (the penis going into the vagina or into the anus)."
Some believe that it is OK to go into the anus (while not married to each other), but not into the vagina. But they are deeply mistaken. That is also becoming one-flesh with (joined to) each other. Yes, even the children of Israel were going in anally with their wives, apparently as a form of birth control (implied in Lev. 18:22).
But you say, but that's Old Covenant. True, but anal sex is still becoming one-flesh with the person, which Jesus said, that [becoming] one-flesh still applies (Matt. 19:4-6, see vv 3-12). So don't listen to that reasoning that anal sex is OK, because it certainly isn't.
Someone asked, "What are lesser forms of sex?" They are any kind of sex with each other, other than becoming one-flesh with each other (i.e. everything except "fucking," which is only allowed for the husband with his wives, or the wife with her husbands ("till death do you part").
END of ENHANCED Nov. 13, 24
NEW Nov. 14, 24
This issue on fornication vs sexual immorality is not new. There has been great contention over this for hundreds of years. There was even a lot of contention over it in translating the NKJV in 1982. You can see it in their footnotes:
They divided the translators into, at least 2 groups, and since the "sexual immorality-group" have been the "popular opinion" since about 1900 AD/CE ( but not always prior to that). They apparently got to pick which books (of the New Testament) that they would translate.
Obviously, they made sure that none of the "pro-fornication translators" were in their group &, of course, chose 1 Corinthians, where the proof is at. That way none of the "pro-fornication translators" could have them add a footnote of "or fornication."
That footnote "or fornication" is in several places in other books of the New Testament, but not in 1 Cor. In fact I remember that there is even 1 book where they translated it "fornicators" without even a footnote. But amazingly, even 1 Cor. 6:9 translates it "fornicators."
Side-Comment (How This Website "Started" (skip it if you want)
My guess is that they thought that people wouldn't know the difference between fornication & sexual immorality. I didn't either at that time, but in late 2,002, I looked it up in my old Merriam Webster dictionary (1963, which still had the traditional meanings on adultery & fornication ("voluntary sexual intercourse with a husband & someone other than his wife, or...")
I was so ignorant that I wasn't even sure that sexual intercourse meant "becoming one flesh." It I had looked it up in a Merriam Webster 10 or 15 years newer, it would have said something like "sexual immorality with..." But I didn't even know at that time that it had changed. But in late 2002, I caught on to the original definition (in the English language), that it didn't include the lesser forms of sex.
That was where my first discovering of Satan's Trap began. But it wasn't until 2007 or 2008 that the Lord started convicting me to start spreading this, (which I thought was a new teaching). Then in 2014 I started putting it online (VirginSaverD.org). But it only, really caught a hold in about 2021.
Then many upright, Bible-believing people, who would never switch without Bible proof, started believing these things. It started with loyal, Bible-believing College Students & singles, but also many loyal, married Christians have now also joined them. (And yes, Liberals, many of you have even caught-on, well-before the Bible believers did in 2021 (that is, those liberals who found out about it, but there are multitudes---both of Bible-believers & Liberals---who have never even heard about it).
Continuing Hidden Approval of Lesser Forms of Sex:
But there is a real contradiction in justifying "sexual immorality" by the Bible, because they can't back it up in the Bible. The Bible doesn't even mention any of the lesser forms of sex (not even one), little alone forbid even any (or all) of them. All it ever talks about is "lying with...," "knowing...," "going in...," becoming "one flesh" with each other..., never about the other forms of sex.
Nevertheless, I guess that they justify it because that is what the word means in societies all around the world. Also, they are thinking that they have to "tie it down!," i.e. that sex itself (any kind of sex) is what the Lord is forbidding (when they aren't married to each other).
But is that true? Is "any kind of sex with each other" what the Lord is forbidding, or is it the symbol of marriage (becoming one flesh) that the Lord is limiting to husbands & wives (who are married to each other)? Shouldn't the Lord (through the Bible) be the One to decide that, not society???
But more than that, does the world tell us what God forbids? Shouldn't the Lord, not the world, be the One to tell us what is right & what is wrong (through the Bible)??? How can you trust what society says??? Could it be that the Enemy has influenced what society believes???
Only the Bible is protected (2 Tim. 3:16-17 & Heb. 4:12), & even many ancient manuscripts (Greek manuscripts, not Old-Testament-Hebrew) have been tampered with to some extent (especially the two oldest ones who are in almost new condition, seldom copied from, which gives a clue that many scribes had refused to copy from those two oldest manuscripts).
The only reliable way to accurately determine what the Bible says, is through a properly weighted-majority of the ancient manuscripts (& eliminating any manuscripts that are proven to be counterfeit). Yes, the Majority Text is pretty good, but it would be even more accurate with a (properly) weighted majority. Then we could be certain of every, single word in the Bible.
Well then, where is the proof that the lesser forms of sex is only limited to husbands & wives that are married to each other??? Sorry, this theory that it includes the lesser forms of sex, doesn't even come close to having a proof, because the Bible doesn't even mention, little alone forbid, any of the lesser forms of sex.
One time years ago, a pastor who had heard about our website, but had never seen it, asked about it. You could tell by the way he spoke, that he thoroughly knew the Bible. I was explaining about the issue of the lesser forms of sex, about how the Bible is its own interpreter. Immediately. he "piped-up," "The Bible doesn't even mention the lesser forms of sex. So how can it mean the lesser forms of sex???"
I mention this, because I'm not the only person who knows that the Bible doesn't even mention the lesser forms of sex---yes, except in one place, & that is where God hid His approval of the lesser forms of sex. And that is what we are going to talk about next.
CLARIFIED, NOV. 18, 2024
OOPS! We forgot that this issue has a double proof that that word is only used for illegitimately becoming one-flesh, & nor for the lesser forms of sex (1 Cor. 6:15-16, see vv 9-18). It has always been the "sexual immorality-people" that have made such great contention, but they can't show anywhere in the Bible, that it also includes the lesser forms of sex, because the Lord didn't even mention them.
For those who haven't read the whole Bible, just ask several preachers & Christians who have read the Bible numerous times, "Does the Bible mention the lesser forms of sex? Or ask for a text that reveals that that the prohibition also includes the lesser forms of sex. Not one of them will be able to tell you anything valid. All that they will be able to tell you is that "That is what it means in societies all around the world." (But what does it mean in God's eyes???).
It is the "sexual immorality people" that are making such a big issue, because they have always felt that it is such a terrible thing to "lead these people astray," for allowing "un-marrieds" to have sex together ("lesser sex").
But does this upset the Lord??? If it does, then He is to be to blame, because the Lord never warned us that it also includes the lesser forms of sex--not even once--anywhere in the scriptures---doubly especially because there has been so much contention on whether or not the word means "sexual immorality" (in the Lord's eyes).
CLARIFIED Nov. 20, 2024
Didn't the Lord foresee that big contention? Yes He had to, because He wouldn't even need predestination in order to foresee that that-predicament would be coming. And so, He would have made it clear that the Lesser forms of sex were also wrong. No, the Lord would have made it clear so that all of us know that it includes the lesser forms of sex. For even sinners need to be warned, not just those who want to believe that way (see 1 Tim. 1:9-11).
Since God didn't warn us, then would the Lord have any right to be angry at us??? Wouldn't we complain, "But Lord!!! Why didn't you warn us; why didn't You make it clear???" No, the Bible makes it clear that God is holy, so holy that no one will be able to reproach Him. (That's why it says "holy" nine times in a row, in the great majority of the ancient manuscripts in Rev. 4:8b, because no one will be able to (legitimately) reproach Him.
No, this is proof enough that it isn't so, because the Lord never even mentioned the lesser forms of sex. God had to make it clear that the prohibition included the lesser forms of sex. But in not even mentioning the lesser forms of sex (except in His hidden Approval), then this is proof enough that it can't possibly be true.
But with the Lord revealing His approval of the opposite, it makes it "a double whammy." His approval means that the Lord not only tolerates people sharing (what we call) JSS-Love ("Jesus' Satisfying Solution," through the lesser forms of sex). His approval implies that the Lord fully approves & even recommends it (if properly done).
So let's look at that hidden approval first, for it has greater "weight" than the 2nd proof. Then after that, we will add-on the 2nd proof.
---Do you realize how powerful a case that we have built in this website (thanks to the Lord)??? We have had a "double whammy" on men having more than one wife, a "double whammy" on women having more than one husband, a double whammy on relieving one's self (& on the danger in not relieving one's self (in some way) over long spans of time), & now we are having "a triple whammy" on the lesser forms of sex. What are the odds of this being "just probability???" The odds of probability are far beyond measure. There is no way that these counterfeit commandments/regulations just happened. There's no way that God caused these counterfeit regulations. "Somebody supernatural (who lives for thousands of years)" had to cause these counterfeit regulations (especially because 'only one spouse" was even in effect prior to Noah's Flood). That's why God had to destroy the whole world (except Noah & his family, (but wait till later to see E-book on this). (For those who don't believe that there even was Noah's Flood, just ignore that).
But just wait until you see the great harm that these false commandments have indirectly caused societies, indirectly causing the collapse of every giant empire (by causing "breakdown of the family" in every great empire that has ever collapsed), repeatedly for thousands of years!
Hidden Approval of the Lesser Forms of Sex
And what do the supporters of "sexual immorality" do with this hidden approval (Lev. 15:24)? That text is the only place in the entire Bible where the
Copyright © 2024 virginsaverd - All Rights Reserved.
Powered by GoDaddy