-
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.
What Are Your Thoughts? Rebellious Wives.
- Thread starter Raw Truth
- Start date
Some good points but I don't follow the apocrypha as scripture.
I also think there is a difference between a wife who is in temporary rebellion vs final rebellion. Granted one may lead to another, but it is an important distinction to make. The first needs loving correction by washing with the Word; the second deserves to be cast aside.
I also think there is a difference between a wife who is in temporary rebellion vs final rebellion. Granted one may lead to another, but it is an important distinction to make. The first needs loving correction by washing with the Word; the second deserves to be cast aside.
Excellent video, @Raw Truth. I love the way in which you combine establishing the standards for wifely behavior with asserting the heavy extent to which husbands are to teach, demonstrate patience and exhibit forgiveness. Those statements about providing opportunities for repentance are golden.
Agreed. Also as Keith mentioned, the washing by the Word and correction is mentioned, mid way slightly closer towards the end.
I appreciate the feedback.
The Apocrypha was in the AV1611 and is now removed, my question is, WHY?? My answer is there are truths in Apocrypha that the enemy wants us to be in the dark on.
So, I like the fact that @Raw Truth quotes the Apocrypha in his videos.
Not in the Apocrypha but talked about.
Joshua 10:13 KJV And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
2 Samuel 1:18 KJV (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.)
Let's not forget the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel that is mentioned in 1st and 2nd Kings.
1 Chronicles 29:29 KJV Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer,
There are more.
Wouldn't we all like to be able to read those books that you pointed out that are mentioned but did not survive the passage of time? I think however interesting they might be, God did not deem them important enough to survive. The 66 books we have are sufficient to understand His plan and really make up the necessary Basic Information Before Leaving Earth.
I don't claim to be an expert on the apocrypha, but from what I have read, they were only found in later versions of the LXX and not in earlier versions, nor the Hebrew Bible. Many early church fathers rejected them. The new testament doesn't quote them. There are many apparent contradictions in them. They don't claim divine inspiration, and lastly they were not written by or do not carry the words of any prophet.
Is the Apocrypha Inspired of God?
Why the Apocryphal books don't belong in the inspired canon of Scripture.
www.christiancourier.com
I guess I regard them as ancient historical fiction?
Always open to someone changing my mind though.
Ok, I am trying not to derail this thread but I believe this has everything to do with @Raw Truth since he quoted from the Apocrypha. Here is a link to a video that YaHshua, Jesus himself quoted from the Apocrypha, and just so you know I have the Geneva Bible 1560 and KJV Apocrypha. YaHshua quoted from the ApocryphaWouldn't we all like to be able to read those books that you pointed out that are mentioned but did not survive the passage of time? I think however interesting they might be, God did not deem them important enough to survive. The 66 books we have are sufficient to understand His plan and really make up the necessary Basic Information Before Leaving Earth.
I don't claim to be an expert on the apocrypha, but from what I have read, they were only found in later versions of the LXX and not in earlier versions, nor the Hebrew Bible. Many early church fathers rejected them. The new testament doesn't quote them. There are many apparent contradictions in them. They don't claim divine inspiration, and lastly they were not written by or do not carry the words of any prophet.
Is the Apocrypha Inspired of God?
Why the Apocryphal books don't belong in the inspired canon of Scripture.www.christiancourier.com
I guess I regard them as ancient historical fiction?
Always open to someone changing my mind though.
Ok thanks for the video Edward. I will concede that one of my former points was incorrect, that it was not quoted. But does that automatically mean that simply because a work is quoted that it arises to the level of scripture? Do the works of Aratus, Euripides, and Menander belong in the Canon simply because they were quoted in the NT?
If you are arguing for their inclusion, how do you explain the passages that allude to praying for the dead and giving alms to the poor as atonement for sin. Sounds pretty RCC to me.
I won't derail this thread further Stev-o.
If anyone wishes to discuss further they can PM me or start a new thread. I did feel I had the right to respond however.I REALLY have an issue with the entire concept of rebellion. I've seen it far too much and most of the times I've seen it, it wasn't because of the woman. I've seen men who created a clusterflap of a marriage, were carismatic enough to get two or three women into the house, then watch it self destruct right in front of him. It self destructed because it had no FOUNDATION. He was supposed to create that foundation, and when he didn't he had woman in his household that were there for sex and an easy life - fighting every second of every day to get anything done. Then, the ladies (or the newest one) WANT to stay, LOVE them, and WANT that family they were promised,... leave.
Jesus had disciples join him and for a while he trained them, but then he set them on jobs. Men marry and for a while it's the squishy lovie kissie, and then he has to set them on jobs. If the household is not sectioned out, and responsibilities given, then that household is fighting. Eventually a woman will become, "Rebellious," and want out. No one wants to hang in a sinking ship. Calling her rebellious and demanding she conform is going to get you a knife in the back eventually. No one likes that. Getting your house IN ORDER means to get it IN ORDER. Things where they belong, things put up, bills paid, cars services, JOBS ASSIGNED, RESPONSIBILITIES CHOSEN. Then, and only then will the woman start to feel her place again, and want what is there.
No, I've seen true, "rebellious women," do their best to destroy a family. My response to that is simple. "You know how the family runs. You don't like it, there's the door. We'll help you pack, because the house has rules and if you don't like it, the rules are not going to change. Your choice."
And before you ask, yes, I did that once. She had to make her mind up and needed a little pressure to make the decision. I'll not tell how it worked out, but I can tell you this... my family is two layers. WE love each other dearly, but our marriage is based on a solid foundation, not a wishey-washey emotion. Emotions bring two people together, emotions make us happy and sad and angry - the marriage is above that.
@Matthew Hudson I kind of wish I had read this post before the one on "father rule." It gives more context to where you are coming from. Doubtless men can make (and have made) a mess of things in too many cases and ultimately we are responsible for it. Moreover, our frailties and failures have terrible repercussions on those that depend on us. Rebellion (by a man) breeds rebellion by those who follow. Am I following?
Exactly. I have a series started about men getting their households in order linked below.
Even if a man is out of order, women still are commanded to obey. The man however, is out of order with TMH and the Father will chastise him.
Last edited: