Can't possibly be??? (CLARIFIED July 15, 2025)
The great majority of Bible believers hold to the traditional teachings on sex & marriage, yes, even myself for most of my life Then 22 years ago, I got my first clue that two of the beliefs on sex & marriage might be counterfeit (without any truly valid commandment anywhere in the Bible).. Then after starting this webs\ite 11 years ago (at age 68), I gradually kept stumbling across another counterfeit commandment (9 total, all on sex & marriage!). There have been some followers all along, but it was rejected by the great majority until about 4 years ago, when it startetdd to really catch hold (locally).
But don't get the wrong idea. The Lord does have true commandments on sex & marriage (or "works of the flesh," whatever your denomination calls them) that still remain (Gal. 5:19-21, see vv16-26 & 1 Cor. 6:9-11, see entire chapter). Yes, most modern translations say "immorality" instead of "fornication," but there has continually been contention for hundreds of years, over what that Greek word actually means.
But also, little by little, the Lord even opened my eyes that He had also hidden His approval of exactly the opposite on several of the main counterfeit-commandments. Now if that hidden approval is truly valid, then that means that-that so-called commandment has to be truly counterfeit!
For "all scripture is "God-breathed," "sharper than any 2 edged sword" (2 Tim. 3:16-17 & Heb. 4:12). Yes, many manuscripts are "messed up some," but we will know exactly what was originally written, if someone develops a properly-weighted-majority of all the ancient manuscripts (more than 5,000, eliminating any that are truly counterfeit).
So, how could that be?
"An enemy has done this." (Matt. 13:28, see vv 24-30). And that is why so many Christians eventtually fall into sexual- &/or marriage- sins. Most Christian believers start out faithfully, but as the years go by, many, yes, most of them, end up giving-in (many even doing it secretly), just like Jesus warned (Luke 13:23-24, see vv 22-30).
But don't get the wrong idea. Yes, these new teachings will greatly reduce the percentage of those that fall, but even so, many will still fall anyway (thinking that they are forgiven, while still repeatedly coming back to that same sin (i.e. haven't truly repented & haven't stayed repentant)). So take heed to what Jesus warned in that last text, for what He warned will still happen!
That is also why so many young people leave the Lord, because Satan has stolen God's preferred ways of escape ("the way of escape" 1 Cor. 10:13, NKJV (which the KJV mis-translated!), see vv 1-13). Yes, I have seen many couples bring back a wayward son or daughter. Also several years ago, one wayward son brought his father back to "obedience: (that was the first incident fulfilling the 2nd fulfillment of the 2nd part of Mal. 4:5-6). More will follow (please see Matt. 17:11-13)). God alone gets the glory!
Yes, "Flee fornication" (1 Cor. 6:18, KJV, see vv 13b-20) is one way of escape, but it certainly isn't "the way of escape." for the person can still have temptation after he/she flees, but also, the problem doesn't really get resolved that way!" So, what is "the way of escape?" Well, you won't find it in most modern translations. For the vast majority of translators are loyal believers in "Satan's Biggest Trap!"
Yes, the Lord decided to let these false commandments continue all those years (which started before Noah's Flood). all the way till our day, so that everyone (in this coming day) can & will take advantage of the great contrast between the two lifestyles. It will be far-more than just a great evangelistic tool.
When the Lord pours out the Holy Spirit & we take the Gospel to the world, we will see a vastly greater harvest because of it---yes, even before the Antichrist gets let-loose! Hallelujah!
Now, you would think that the following would be just the opposite: But this new belief will usher in the Age of Righteousness , which is abundantly prophesied in the prophets, especially in numerous places in Isaiah! But "none" of us even knew that there was going to be a surprise "age of righteousness"---which will even occur before the Antichrist gets started!
This righteousness (i.e. those who overcome, Rev. 21:7) will achieve righteousness from from gifts of the Holy Spirit (lest even one of us should boast about overcoming, similar to Eph. 2:8-10), but this gift of the Holy Spirit has not yet been given: (the 5th, 6th & 7th Spirits of God, each progressively stronger). (Also, the first 4 Spirits of God were given to the early Apostles, but will also be re-given someday, with even greater power,, Rev. 5:6, see vv 1-6).
Now if the Lord gives us righteousness during that same span of time, then how can you complain if the Lord also makes the standard on sex & marriage more reasonable??? For those sinners who come back to the Lord will also overcome, not just us! Yes, many of those that leave the Lord, think that God is very unreasonable (e.g. "no sex whatsoever until you get married"---which even violates a law of nature (revealed in the Bible, 1 Cor. 7:5, see vv 1-5 & entire chapter)).
Yes, it can be done, & I was one of them. But that temptation got worse & worse, the longer it took to find that spouse, whom the Lord wanted me to have. When I was still single, there were a number of guys who gave-in, who were quite a bit younger than me. But when they sinned, they were not the same again (1 Cor. 6:18, see vv 12-20). But in contrast, I haven't seen any of those who are now practicing these new teachings, be harmed like those guys were. (Something to think about).
Thank You, Lord for giving me my wife by age 25, for I seriously doubt that I would have made it another year, if I had-had to wait one more year to meet my future wife. So don't say that it isn't a law of nature, for many of us know from experience that it truly is a law (the law of the temptation increasing the longer you abstain from any sex at all)
So please read on & prayerfully examine whether these so-called commandments are truly false.
July 15, 2025
(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 reveals).
(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 (or might 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 can't possibly be valid, or a few other texts that aren't really valid, either.
NEW, July 9, 2025:
But an even bigger "punch-line" is the simple question, "Was it too hard for God to say (in the New Testament, for plural wives were allowed in the Old Testament), was it too hard for the Lord to say (through one of the Apostles), "A man shall not have more than one wife." and also say there or somewhere else, "A woman shall not have more than one husband."??? The Lord could have easily moved one of the Apostles to include that in one of their books.
So why didn't He??? Wouldn't the Lord clearly warn us if it were truly wrong??? Since the Lord didn't include those statements in the Bibl---I was about to say that it isn't proof, only 90% likely. In the minds of those who insist that "it is only one spouse," you are thinking it is 90% likely or something like that. But in the mind of the Trinity (who all have the same values, it's 100% likely that it isn't true.
First of all, all three of Them are all knowing & would have "breathed" it into the scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Amplified Bible), so that sinners could know that, in the New Testament, that it is now wrong. The Trinity, foreseeing or foreknowing that many of us would be claiming that there is no such commandment forbidding plural wives nor for women having plural husbands.
But also, many of us Christians who were anti-predestination, now believe that God did predestine the whole universe, with all of us making our own choices, & without forcing anyone to be saved or to be lost. (Up till "now," we didn't even realize that it was even possible for the Lord to even do that). About 10 years ago, Nuclear Physicists concluded that there isn't any law that holds the nucleus of the atom together (except for the ones who don't want anyone to believe in God). For there can't be "no God," for something is holding all of those atoms together, for by all the laws of nuclear physics, the nucleus of the atom should explode, especially the big ones like Uranium.
Also Col. 1:17b (ESV), speaking of Jesus (see vss 13-20), "...and in him all things hold together." (a literal translation from "the Greek:" "...all things were & are holding together." So the Bible reveals that it is Jesus who is holding together everything, everyk particle of every atom in the whole universe (roughly 60 million light-years in diameter---beyond imagination!). (I can hardly wait for Jehovah's Witnesses to see this soon. Jesus is holding all of that together, even when Jesus was in the tomb! Only God could do that, which most of us have always believed, but this is now proof!
MORE to be said "soon" (7-10-25)
But Jesus made it clear that the Father is bigger & greater than Himself (John 14:28b, see vv 27-31). Well if Jesus knows what to do at every micro-second throughout the whole universe, then would it be too hard for the Father to picture all that Jesus would do at every pica-second (one millionth of a millionth)---it's beyond our capabilities to even imagine that the Father could even picture all of that for even one day, but He did! For Jesus & the Bible frequently speak as if predestination really is so. So
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 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 probably not used aat all in Hebrew except here. Why? 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).
NEW & CLARIFIED Jul. 10, 2025
WHAT ABOUT the LESSSER FORMS of SEX? Does the Greek word really mean "Sexual Immorality"?
Good news, Old readers! About 7 months ago, the Lord opened my eyes to God's "hidden" approval (which is boldly revealed to those who translate Old Testament Hebrew, but pro-immorality translators refused to translate what it actually says. And yes, 7 months ago, I discovered (through the Lord's help) double proof that the "hidden" approval truly ihas to be talking about the lesser forms of sex & it has to be even approving of sharing the lesser forms of sex (if shared appropriately in a godly way).
For I have noticed that the Devil is moving a number of our followers to act more like the world, than like Christians. Satan moves them to do that in order to cast a reproach upon these new teachings. So followers, please put away feelings of lust & loose ways, & act like Jesus would have you to be. So please, don't let the Devil cause you to cast reproach on these new teachings. Thank you for your effort.
Well then, why didn't you read it months ago??? Because each time that I would write on this website for about 3 hours & quit. But each time when I came back, I would find several pages deleted at the end. After the 3rd time of that happening, after losing 15-20 pages at the end, I had to completely quitt, lest he deleted even more. So all of what I am talking about here, was deleted.
But almost 7 months later, the Lord was moving me to get back to writing these proofs in this website. I thought, & still do, believe that the Lord will stop Satan from deleting these proofs. 'But even the last 2 times that I have come to edit this website, he has already deleted a page or so at the end, just like had 7 months ago. But I can only believe that the Lord will stop him from deleting, pretty much from now on---unless what I wrote wasn't good enough in the Lord's sight. So, here goes!
CONTINUING what I had formerly (recently) written
Unlike the other issues discussed in this website, which are relatively recent issues, there has been contention over this particular issue for hundreds of years. Why? Because the early Protestant reformers thought that the concept of sexual immorality came out of Catholicism (but had no idea that there were also 8 other counterfeit commandments).
Neither did they know that all 9 of these actually started in the days of Adam & Eve's first children, long before Christianity, long before the Old Covenant of Moses, long before Noah). (Yes, evolutionists,, it won't be long before you will be convinced the evolution evidences are a deception. Not only have nuclear physicists concluded that there is no law that holds the nucleus of the atom together (held together by God), but also astronomists unknowingly found that the universe was made out of nothing 7 billion years ago, God's number (the black holes are negative mass).
Some of the early Protestant translators saw that the correct side of the issue stands out boldly in the Bible. much more boldly than it does on any of the other 8 issues on sex & marriage----especially to those who can accurately translate the Old Testament. And as you will see, that's why the KJV (of 1611) translated that word, "fornication" instead of "sexual immorality," because they saw (proved) that these things never included the lesser forms of sex.
Briefly, fornication is illegitimate sexual intercourse (becoming one flesh with someone, either vaginally or anally, whom he/she isn't married to, & it is a general term that also includes adultery). That word doesnot include the lesser forms of sex. (The lesser forms of sex are any oth