Does the Bible give any provision for getting married after a divorce? Seems like all I see is NO?

That depends upon how you understand the bible. Some people see it as literal, others see it as allegorical. One thing is for certain, it contradicts itself over and over. What I try to take from the bible is the meaning behind what is being said instead of simply looking at the literal words. For me, I would say that there are people in the bible to whom either God, Jesus, or other religious people spoke directly about marriage after divorce because of their situation at that time. To me, that doesn't necessarily mean that what was said literally applies to entire world thereafter. In the end, it is probably you who has to decide for yourself what you believe the bible says on marriage after divorce.

rondatchr,<P>I read your post when you first, well, posted it, but figured I'd lay back and let some others have a stab at it.<P>With all due respect to Arwyn, who is correct about the Bible being interpreted differently by different people, the Bible does not "contradict itself". Although this is a favorite argument of people who will try to detract from the Bible's authority - usually so that they can substitute their own opinion - calling it "relative truth".<P> The Bible will seem to contradict itself to those who try to read it "intellectually". The Bible is a work of God's spirit, and cannot be interpreted by mortals acting in the absence of the Holy Spirit. Man must never think that he can fully understand the mind of God. God is so much more complex than man, and God's Word, the Bible, is beyond physical man's ability to understand. Scripture must always interpret scripture, not "what you take it to mean", so if things seem to contradict other things, continue to study - but do it PRAYERFULLY.<P>All that being said, I really don't have an answer to your question. Jesus said that the only "acceptable" reason for divorce is infidelity. Even then, he didn't say that the mate of an unfaithful spouse MUST divorce him or her. God does seem to dislike divorce.<P> In Genesis, God said "It is not good for the man to be alone". I would imagine this would also mean that "the woman" shouldn't be alone. Paul, admittedly speaking for himself, says that he wished all men could be as he was - that is unmarried - and not sexually active. However, celibacy is generally viewed a being a spiritualy gift, soem people have it, some people don't. Even Paul admits that "it is better to marry than to burn" (with unsatisfied desire, that is, not in hell).<P>Personally, I see this as meaning that unless you can remain sexually pure - which means no sex unless you're married - then you should be married. <P>I think you'll find that all except the most legalistic churches will respect people who remarry - though I would imagine that after your 3rd or 4th divorce, you might find your support waning. (that's a joke...) The position of elder or deacon may or may not be open to you in this situation, depends upon the church.<P>Continue to pray about your situation. Ask your pastor, priest, rabbi, or whatever to talk with you about it. Listen to what God says to you, both through the Bible and where he leads you.<P>Val

Thanks V, it's always nice to have biblical chat. On the matter of contradictions in the bible, they do exist, if you take the bible literally. This is something on which most biblical scholars under whom I have studied would agree. Saying this does not detract from its authority rather lends credence to the arguement that the scriptures are divinely inspired yet still written by humans. <P>I have nothing against those who believe that the bible is in fact written entirely and only by God who used the people who wrote it as instruments. In fact, I say more power to you. I also find it interesting that you say "that man must never think that he can fully understand the mind of God". With this, I completely agree which is why I would never try to interpret what God is saying through scripture to somebody else. That, to me, is dangerous. <P>This all being said, I am just one person with my own thoughts and I, once again, do not presume that others should agree but should decide for themselves, what is correct.<P>Respectfully,<P>Arwyn

Hi Arwyn,<P> Yes, I appreciate a spirited (sic) discussion of the Bible from time to time. Though, except to help rondatchr get her answer, this may not be the best place for it.<P> I'd love to get more into the contradictions that you are talking about, since all of my theologically-connected sources say that although there will *seem* to be contradictions, none actually exist. (not that "credentials" mean a theologian or scholar is infallible, of course)<P> If you like, you can e-mail me at vvetter@tribune.com to give me some specifics.<P> I know that I can find some seeming contradictions to some doctrines people spew (especially the predestination question - my personal favorite, I can always get into a good Calvinist/Arminian debate!)I can accept "not knowing", but that other people insist that they have THE answer drives me nutz!<P>All the best,<P>Val

Yes, there ARE contradicitons in the Bible. The biggest one I can think of offhand is this one: In the Old Testament, it claims "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth". In the New Testament, it claims we should "Turn the other cheek". Explain THAT one!!

Well, Tommywife,<P> This'll probably be easily shot down, but in the interest of providing a response, I'll throw this into the ring:<P> The "eye for an eye" refers to just punishment or compensation by government. (same as now, as individuals, we have no responsibility or right to take "revenge" against someone who injures us. The government has that right, and responsibility - as in the death penalty for murderers. "He who sheddeth the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed")<P>The "turn the other cheek" is Jesus' instruction as to what we should do personally as Christians when someone harms us.<P>In case you think Jesus was "soft on crime", check out Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, or Luke 17:2.<P><BR> My answer may not be "the best" but as someone who believes the Bible to be the inerrant, inspired word of God, "contradictions" would reduce the Bible to a mere book written by men.<P> I've been taught that there are no real contradictions in the Bible, though there are many apparent ones.<P> Basically, you either believe the Bible is God's word, or you don't. If you put yourself into the "pick and choose" camp, you haven't left yourself a leg to stand on, and you have no source of absolute truth.<P> It's our job to understant God's word, not to interpret it to suit our particular needs.<P> I realize that I may have not given a very thorough or convincing argument, so I suggest that you consult someone who has more than a few theology courses under their belt. Preferably someone who is an ordained minister in a legitimate church. <P>Regarding differences in opinion about Biblical interpretations, I've heard more than one theologian say: "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater". As Christians, we're supposd to show unity in important matters (who Christ is, salvation, etc) and grace in less important matters (who should be allowed to be an elder, etc.)<P>Respectfully,<BR>Val

Ah, poor, silly gullible Val...<P> After an exhaustING search of internet sites, and thousands of "hits" on "Biblical Contradictions" (both pro and con), I at last am onto the game.<P> For me, and other earnest "seekers of truth", and others interested in learning more about God's word, there is no shame in not having all the answers. We read, study, meditate, and listen open-mindedly. With God's Holy Spirit in our hearts, the truth will be made known to us in time. (A very fancy way of saying "I don't have all the answers, but I DO have faith.")<P> I found that many of the folks who insist that there are contradictions in the Bible have a completely different axe to grind. Of all the sites that I took time to wade through, all of the ones that insist the Bible has contradictions are maintained by Athiests, Secular Humanists, Muslims, so-called "Freethinkers", or others interested only in discrediting Christians and Christianity. While all of the sites refuting these alleged contradictions are put up by Christian or Jewish organizations or individuals.<P><BR> So, I am ashamed, in a sense, that I got sucked into this argument thinking that people were honestly seeking knowledge. I never realized that some out there are craftily looking to take an opportunity to undermine a person's faith.<P> Arwyn, Tommywife, if you are truly looking for answers, desiring to follow God's will, then I suggest you choose your sources of Biblical interpretation very carefully. Be aware that that "helpfull" person you meet on an Internet forum might be following "someone" with a darker intent.<P>Val

You shouldn't feel ashamed for looking for "proof". (You still will/won't find it depending on who you talk to.)<P>As for "contradictions" in the bible. Ask a priest and he will say there are absolutely none, ask a theology scholar and he/she will tell you there are a few, ask me and I would tell you they aren't contractadictions but subtle differences. Try to remember that the bible was written over many years by many different people and each person will take from it a different story/meaning. As long as you believe that's good enough. <P>:-) Just a funny, I heard a story once about an atheist (sp?)/scientist and a priest. They were both having dinner at some event or another. and the atheist was arguing because the priest could not "prove" there was a god then there must not be one. The priest then told the scientist that HE could not prove that there wasn't a god and therefore there could be. This bothered the scientist portion of him so he tried and tried to prove there wasn't a god. Finally, he said he couldn't prove it unless he could be everywhere at one time, and if he were everywhere at once he would BE god :-D and he grudgingly he admitted there could be a god. <P>Just an amusing story I heard. (hope I described it o.k.) Anyway, like the priest and the scientist you could argue forever and not convince each other completely. <P>

How did this get to be a discussion of Biblical accuracy?

Unless you're being sarcastic, the issue of whether or not divorce is addressed in the Bible led to it.

I was being sarcastic. My apologies. The question of whether or not the bible is "infallible" might be better discussed in a religious forum. I'm not sure why so many conversations that start with "what does the bible say about…?" end up conversations about why people should accept the bible as "true" or "infallible" wholesale.

Nonplused,<P> I had a long, detailed message all crafted for you, and I hit a key that trashed it.<P>My point was, that since marriage is an institution defined by God, and explained in the Bible, it is appropriate to discuss what the Bible says about it in this forum. That will lead to the question of Biblical infallibility, interpretation, and authority. In fact, to answer the question: "what does the Bible say about....." without discusing it's authority would be an incomplete answer.<P> It would also be appropriate to discuss that topic in a religious forum - however, it's entirely possible that the subject of marriage might come up there as well. Since the two ARE linked (more closely than most people want to accept) either could be discussed in both places.<P> In other words, YES! The topic is appropriate to discuss here.<P><BR>Val