[Search for users]
[Overall Top Noters]
[List of all Conferences]
[Download this site]
| Title: | The Glory of God is Intelligence. |
|
| Moderator: | BSS::RONEY |
|
| Created: | Thu Jan 28 1988 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Apr 25 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 460 |
| Total number of notes: | 6198 |
359.0. "Trial By the Waters of Jealousy" by MIZZOU::SHERMAN (ECADSR::SHERMAN 235-8176, 223-3326) Fri Jul 06 1990 17:12
I binge-study and lately I've been hitting on the topic of the Second
Coming, which led me to adultery/fornication as it is a type of
thing that is typical of the last generations before the Coming.
Anyway, I found a section of scripture that I don't quite understand.
I was reading in Numbers 5 and ran across the "famous" (according to
Smith's Bible Dictionary) trial by the waters of jealousy. In Smith's
it is suggested that this ritual was seated in ancient custom known to
Moses. Yet, the beginning of the chapter starts with "And the LORD
spake unto Moses, saying," which leads me to believe that this was a
revelation. I'm confused. This "trial" requires a miracle to prove
guilt. I have my doubts as to how many times a miracle really did
prove guilt.
I doubt that this sort of trial would work today. It could be argued
that this was part of the law that was superceded by the Atonement.
But, I suspect that it is more likely one of those places in the Bible
where somebody changed or inserted something. Adultery is one
of the most abhorrent of sins then and now. It used to be that an
adulterer would be stoned to death. Now, an adulterer can be
excommunicated. But, it seems according to this scripture that there
was a time when a woman could drink some dirty water and that would
(likely) be the end of it.
What think ye?
Steve
| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 359.1 | | XCUSME::QUAYLE | i.e. Ann | Mon Sep 10 1990 08:21 | 4 |
| A woman?
aq
|
| 359.2 | | RICKS::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 225-5487, 223-3326 | Mon Sep 10 1990 10:08 | 3 |
| Hi, Ann! I'm sorry. I don't think I understand the question.
Steve
|
| 359.3 | Confusion reigns... is it Monday? | XCUSME::QUAYLE | i.e. Ann | Mon Sep 10 1990 18:26 | 12 |
| Hi, Steve.
>But, it seems according to this scripture that there was a time when
>a woman could drink some dirty water and that would (likely) be the
>end of it.
The women drank the dirty water? These were women taken in adultery?
What about their partners in the sin?
Thanks,
aq
|
| 359.4 | | RICKS::SHERMAN | ECADSR::SHERMAN 225-5487, 223-3326 | Mon Sep 10 1990 22:37 | 7 |
| That's just it. Their partners seem somehow to have gotten off the
hook. Besides the lightness of the test (requiring a miracle to punish
the wicked) the male partner doesn't even have to show up. I have the
feeling that this bit of scripture is either spurious or that someone
has done a lot of adding to and taking from.
Steve
|