Does the Bible refer to the Law in a manner that indicates division of it into two parts?
954319
Jesus spoke quite explicitly about the written Scriptures and the oral traditions. Bible students today also see a clear difference between the so-called "Torah" (the written Hebrew Scriptures, or "Old Testament") and oral works which became the Mishnah and Talmud.\n\n(Matthew 4:4) [Jesus] said: “It is written, ‘Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth through Jehovah’s mouth.’”\n\n(Deuteronomy 8:3) Not by bread alone does man live but by every expression of Jehovah’s mouth does man live.\n\n\nClearly, Jesus respected the written Scriptures and taught respect for them. By comparison, note the disdain with which Jesus referred to the oral traditions:\n\n(Matthew 5:43-44) You heard that it was said, ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to you: Continue to love you enemies and to pray for those persecuting you; \n\n(Matthew 15:6-9) . . .And so you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you, when he said, 8 ‘This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. 9 It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.’” \n\nLearn more:\nhttp://watchtower.org/e/20050101a/\nhttp://watchtower.org/archives/index.htm#bible
564889
well not real sure about this. the bible speaks of divorce not seperation.. so i would have to say NO it is not the same in His eyes... a serperation is just leaving for awhile and divorce is giving up and leaving forever.. but , remember, the bible allows divorce for certain things.... God bless
314050
The first modern system of dividing the Bible into sections was devised by Catholic Cardinal Hugo in the mid-thirteenth century. Hugo, who was compiling a concordance to the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible, found it necessary to divide the Bible into sections. These sections basically became the chapters we are acquainted with today. As yet, there were no divisions into verses.\n\nLater, in 1445, Mordecai Nathan, a Jew, divided the Hebrew Old Testament into chapters. He and a later scholar by the name of Athias are credited with the further breakdown of the Old Testament into verses.\n\nIn 1551, the New Testament was similarly subdivided into verses. This work was accomplished by the famous English printer, Robert Stephens—of all things, while riding on horseback from Switzerland to France! Ever since that time, the Bible has followed his chapter-and-verse system.
686799
In the Bible it says "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another:  and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching."  \n\nsorry, I misquoted the first time
1121685
What Does the Bible  Say?\n\n“WHAT God has yoked together let no man put apart.” (Matthew 19:6) We often hear those well-known words by Jesus Christ quoted as the final pronouncement in a marriage ceremony.\n\nBy those words, though, did Jesus mean that all marriages are to be permanent and that there is not to be any divorce whatsoever? Taking the words by themselves, that would appear to be the case. However, what prompted Jesus to make such a statement? Was he setting out something new?\n\n‘Not the Case From the Beginning’\n\nJesus’ statement quoted above was part of his answer to the Pharisees’ question: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?” (Matthew 19:3-6) Not being satisfied with the answer, the Pharisees questioned him further by asking: “Why, then, did Moses prescribe giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” Thereupon, Jesus said: “Moses, out of regard for your hardheartedness, made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but such has not been the case from the beginning.” Then he added: “I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery.”—Matthew 19:7-9.\n\nWe must note that Jesus’ statement, “such has not been the case from the beginning,” was made in reference to divorce that was accomplished by “giving a certificate of dismissal.” In other words, when God instituted the first marriage between Adam and Eve, he did not provide them with “every sort of ground” for dissolving their marriage. As a perfect couple, they had every reason to make their marriage a success. It would be successful if they continued to live according to God’s law and direction.\n\nWhen mankind lapsed into sin and imperfection, so did the institution of marriage. (Romans 5:12) Since humans were no longer perfect, human relations became strained and tainted by selfishness, greed, and self-interest. That was what Jesus referred to as “hardheartedness,” because of which the Mosaic Law made room for divorce. Yet, Jesus reminded the Pharisees: “Such has not been the case from the beginning.” Now, under imperfect conditions, mates should put forth the effort needed to resolve any difficulties and problems instead of using them as grounds or excuses for breaking up their marriage. However, Jesus pointed out that there is one exception, namely, fornication. Marital infidelity can be grounds for breaking up a marriage.\n\nRegards\nshakespeare
1179358
The Constitution does not discuss any Biblical laws.  The expressed reason for that can be found in the Establishment Clause of Article One of the Constitution.  Lengthy debate accompanied this clause in the Constitutional Convention.  Ultimately it was decided that the institutions of government and religion MUST be kept separate and independent of eachother to prevent future infringement upon either one upon the other.  As a result, this clause is typically referred to as the 'separation of church and state' clause.\n\nConstitutionally and historically, it is apparent that the constitution has no legal precedence for any amendment that would in any way limit the rights or priveleges of American citizens.  No amendment (other than Prohibition, which of course was repealed) has ever provided that rights be lost.  The founders of the U.S. and drafters of the Constitution make clear that constitutional law and religion do not, and should not mix.
995408
definetly... you cant pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe. it's an all or nothing game and the old testement is part of the bible.
349472
There is a difficulty with this question, at least as usually asked.  It assumes any distinction will be a nice, neat one like that made made between ""hand" and "foot",   or perhaps, on the other hand, that the words are pretty much interchangeable.\n\nFor the purpose of this question, the second view is much closer to the truth than the first.   Because each of these CAN be and is used to speak of the whole "inner being", that is, in at least some important contexts, they CAN be interchanged. (Examples cited by Source #1 -Luke 1:46-47; Phil. 1:27; Matt. 20:28, cf. 27:50; Heb. 12:23, cf. Rev. 6:9)\n\nThe key point to note is that the Bible is NOT interested in laying out a careful distinction of the human person into a number of distinct "parts".  If we head down that road, we'll have to add in "heart" and ""mind", not to mention "kidneys"...  each of which has its own emphasis and flavor, and each of which appears in its own figures of speech.   In other words, you cannot take ANY of these words and simply be interchange it wherever it may appear with one or more of the others.  That is, each carries a particular idea, or better cluster of ideas.   BUTthat does NOT mean that we should start thinking that each refers to a distinct "part" of a human person.  In fact, the biblical writers are not interested in laying out a detailed "structure" of man.    (Looking at someone from the point of view of their ideas, emotions, will, etc. does not mean that you think each of these is a distinct "part".)\n\nI've listed three links below which, at different levels, lay out the facts very nicely -- I won't try to do the same here.   But basically, I believe the biblical view boils down to this:  man [each person, that is] is a unitary/unified being, but there are TWO basic 'aspects'.   I hesitate to say too much about 'parts' because the complete person is created to be BOTH.  Thus our "inner being" ('immaterial') -- most often called "soul" or "spirit"-- is joined to the physical/material body.  (But it is NOT the Greek view of the "real person"/"spirit" trapped inside a body that it wants to escape.  The Hebrew & Christian hope is the RESURRECTION of the body -- in our being COMPLETE beings, 'body and spirit/soul'.)\n\nThe sources discuss the few (two actually) passages that seem to distinguish "soul" and "spirit" very well.  The point is to emphasize the COMPLETE person, not to divide him up.     In fact, the 'greatest commandment' does the same thing ('Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength!')   We would miss the point if we tried to use it as a list of our distinct "parts" -- and we'd probably be further confused in this, because the OT and NT versions have slightly different lists!  \n\nMuch of the confusion on this question stems not just from the assumption I mentioned at the start, but from a related assumption that each of these words is used in only ONE sense, a neat technical sense, the same whenever it is found.  But, like much of human language, this is simply not so.   In fact, we ourselves continue to use these words in a variety of senses.   Example: "When I finally arrived not a soul was there!"  In this case the word simply means 'persons' or 'individuals'  (it has this as ONE of its biblical uses).   "I was very troubled in my soul"  and "He spoke with such soul" are two other uses that clearly do not have exactly the same sense as the first.\n\nThis should not be troubling, since we are perfectly able to distinguish the range of meanings of words in our own language; the same is true of biblical Hebrew and Greek.  Reading through ALL the passages that use these words we are generally pre
1082317
Actually the laws that were done away with are the "laws contained in ordinances".\nSite:\nhttp://community.webshots.com/photo/80628344/2012353330047993148Lqpai\n\nMany people confuse these with the Seventh Day Sabbath and Sabbath Feast Days.\n\n\nThe Laws Contained in Ordinances = Eph.2:15 & Col.2:15\n**It seems that most believe these two texts are saying that the Sabbath and/or Sabbath Feasts are done away with. Let me ask you a question: who wrote these books; wasn't it Paul? Paul kept the Sabbath (Acts 17:2) & Sabbath Feasts (Rom.5:11) like Jesus; then these texts must not be talking about that, when the Bible says to follow Jesus (Col.2:6) and the Apostles (Eph.2:20). If you believe the Bible is inspired (2Tim.3:16) & is the truth (John 17:17); continue on!\n**If everyone read the Bible clearly on these matters like Jesus did; then they're wouldn't be false interpetations! The Bible says in Colossians 2:16-17 "Let no man therefore judge you....which are a shadow of things to come" inwhich Jesus showed openly.\nIt explains some of these ordinances in Colossians 2:20-22 "Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?"\nNow Hebrews 9:9-13 explains it more! \nSee: Heb.9:10 "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and diverse washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."\nThe other part to this about "judging on the Sabbath,...etc." are in: \nMark 2:23-28; 7:2-23; Luke 13:10-16; 14:1-3 & John 5:8-10; 7:23-24.\nNotice in every matter; the Pharisees thought it was wrong to eat with unwashed hands, to heal on the Sabbath, helping out people/animals on the Sabbath as other things; but Jesus always came back with Bible answers to them!\nSo what is actually done away with is "the judging of these days" and the animal sacrifices!
720233
it refers to the four corners of the earth, which is an expression we still use today.  the Bible also refers to the circle of the earth.  did you know that?
224249
1. Father\n2. Mother\n3. Son\n4. Daughter\n5. Son's Wife (Daughter-in-law)\n\nAnd division is required when you separate the light from the dark or the truth from lies.  It doesn't appear that in this scripture it is allegoric.  He usually started off by telling when he was using a parable to make a point.  He was just using this example of division because it was commonplace for a son to take a wife and have her live with his family (not vice versa).  He was saying that the truth of the Lord will separate the believers and the non-believers, even in their own immediate families.\n\nResponse:  Read the entire text around your verses, not just one verse of your picking or choosing to distort.  The only allegory I see is the one you are creating.  Clearly none exist in the text you quoted.  It's pretty cut and dry.
1012435
Divorce - leviticus 21 discusses not marrying a divorced woman, deuteronomy discusses not divorcing one's spouse as well as what grounds there are for divorce.....\n\nPiercing/Tattoos - leviticus also addresses tattoos, and I don't recall any scriptural reference to piercing exactly although leviticus does address "cutting" yourself.  However this was in reference to those who were marking their bodies for other god's.  So personally I don't think this means that current day "trendy" tattooing or piercing is against God.  (Unless your tattoo or piercing is done in worship of another god).\n\nJealousy - numbers discusses making offerings for jealousy, so it would be assumed by these verses that it is displeasing to God.  However the bible does give plenty of indication that God is a jealous God when his creation is bowing in worship to other false Gods.  Specifically there is a verse in Psalm 78 & 79 about it.\n\nRemarriage - see divorce response as this was addressed in leviticus and dueteronomy.\n\nSuicide - there is no direct mention of suicide in the bible, however some denominations consider suicide a form of self murder and therefore it is a sin b/c murder is a sin.  This is debatable and frankly open to interpretation.  Personally I don't believe in the whole "go to hell if you commit suicide" camp.  There is nothing scripturally to back that up, therefore I don't buy it.\n\nFalse Teachings - we are told to beware of false prophets and false teachings in several books of the bible including:  Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Micah.\n\nWitchcraft - is mentioned throughout the OT as being against God, specifically found in the books Dueteronomy, 2 Kings, 2 Chronicals, Micah, Nahum and Galations.\n\nSpiritual Gifts are addressed in many forms, sometimes specifically (1 Corinthians) and other times in the mentioning of "talents" given by the Lord to accomplish specific tasks. Such as those who were responsible for building the tabernacle (Exodus)\n\nUnconditional Love -   will have to think on this more.\n\nHomosexuality - God clearly states that he abhors it.  this can be seen in the story of Soddom and Gahmorrah and in a few other places where it addresses men laying with men, women laying with their kind, etc.  HOWEVER, this does not give room for us to hate gays.  We should still love them, because we are commanded above all things to love.  Love the sinner, hate the sin.\n\nThe Trinity - We can see the first address of the pluralism of God in genesis when God says "let US create man in OUR image".  This definitely indicates more than one.  Then through out the bible we see references to God the father, Jesus the son, and the Holy Spirit.  Jesus says that he was with the father in the beginning, he uses the name I AM which is also the name God used in the OT, etc.  \n\nDrinking Alcohol - Jesus made water into wine... and frankly it was a common drink of the time ... water was generally dirty and not good for consumption.  So wine would have have been used and even drunk by children.  Not uncommon.  However, the bible does address drunkeness and moderation. Genesis addressed Noah being drunk, Lots daughters get their dad drunk, etc.  In these instances being drunk leads to not so great things and is obviously displeasing to the Lord.\n\nPre-marital sex... Exodus discusses the pentaly to for sleeping with a virgin, this is a prime example of it not being favored by God otherwise there would not be a penalty for it.  Levitcus 21:13 clearly states the woman he marries must be a virgin.  Dueteronomy also addresses the importance of virginity.\n\nOther religions - or false Gods (taking interpretation of your question here) is addressed in Psalms, Jeremiah, Romans, 1 Corithinians, 1 Timothy, and more.  God clearly doesn't like us turning to false Gods, bowing to idols, etc.  In fact the first commandment we have is that there shall be no o
904027
You dont need a lawyer to tell you what the Constitution says anymore than you need a priest to tell you what the Bible says.\n\nRead it for yourself. The wording is quite clear.
628123
Sharia law is divided into two main sections:\n\n1.The acts of worship, or al-ibadat, these include: \n       a.Ritual Purification (Wudu) \n       b.Prayers (Salah) \n       c.Fasts (Sawm and Ramadan) \n       d.Charities (Zakat) \n       e.Pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj) \n2.Human interaction, or al-mu'amalat, which includes: \n       a.Financial transactions \n       b.Endowments \n       c.Laws of inheritance \n       d.Marriage, divorce, and child care \n       e.Foods and drinks (including ritual slaughtering   and hunting) \n       f.Penal punishments \n       g.Warfare and peace \n       h.Judicial matters (including witnesses and forms of evidence)
920265
The passage of inspired text to which you refer finds place with in the context of the Lord's conversation with the Jews who were tempting him in an effort to "catch him in his words" as they often did.  The Jews knowing of the continued controversary about marriage law which found much addressing between the Jews who insisted that Moses allowed divorce for any reason, and the Jews who contended that that which Moses' law was restricted to divorce based upon adultrey only, well realized that the marriage, divorce, re-marriage topic was hotly contested. They concluded that such was indeed the best of subjects with which to put the Lord in the proverbial hot water before the then present audience.\nThe Lord, however, being wise to the foolishness of such simply asked the question; "have ye not read" the Scripture? The Lord plainly refered the Jews to the Garden of Eden when God established his law regarding marriage. It is of good importance to notice that in the context of Matt.19:1-12 the Lord twice referd to the "begining," going back to God's law regarding marriage established in the Garden.  The Lord explained that God's law was never intended to be set aside concerning marriage, and that God intends that marriage is to be for life, and that divorce was never even so much as mentioned in the Genesis record. Thus the importance of that which the Lord stated in Matt.19:6 "That which God hath joined together, let not man put assunder."\nThe Jews then followed up with the question; "why did Moses then command " that a bill of divorcement be given?  Jesus informed the Jews that Moses did so because of the "hardness of the hearts" (Matt. 19:8) of the Jews.   Notice again the Lord's comment when he stated; "but from the begining it was not so" (Matt.19:8). \nThe Lord plainly revealed the fact that God's law pertaining to marriage was to be forever sealed, that is marriage is for life and only in the case of adultery may one (an innocent party)  put away a mate. Only the innocent mate in a marriage has the right to divorce a spouce who has committed adultery.  The innocent party then has the right to re-marry with God's approval, and only the innocent party (Matt.19:6). \nThe Lord plainly declared that one who was put away for adultery has lost the right to re-marry and must remain single. One guilty of adultery must come to the knowlege of the truth and comply with God's marriage law and remain single. For one to re-marry, who has committed adultery, places one in a continoius state of adultery. Thus the reason the Lord prohibited the mate guilty of adultry to re-marry.  It must also be realized that the only reason the Lord authorized divorce is in fact adultery.  If a divorce occurs in which neither spouce has committed adultery then neither spouce meets the requirements of the only exception authorized by the Lord to indeed acquire a divorce. Thus neither spouce has the right to re-marry, for neither one has indeed met the law establishing the exception the Lord allowed.\nAfter the Lord had well explained this matter to the Jews then present, (the 12 apostles also being present) the apostles concluded that if that which the Lord had just set forth in verses 4-9 were true it would be better to never marry if one could not divorce his spouce (Matt.19:10). The Lord of course gave this a ready reply. The reply is indeed recorded in verses 11 and 12\nNotice: \nVerse 11; "But he (Jesus) said unto them, all men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given."     The passage is this by way of explaination. \nFirst; note that the words "But he said" are used. This of course settles the matter of the authority. It was Christ who said what he said.  Therefore, all men ought to heed well that which has been declared in the passage.\n\nSecond; The Lord stated, "All men cannot receive this saying."
50389
According to the Bible it is.
757829
I am reminded of Mark Twain's statements: "Its not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me, its the parts I do."\n\nOften the Bible is so simple that we need help to misunderstand it.