Apparently? Give me the verses were god punished them for their wives?
Romans 6:7 "For he who has died has been acquitted from his sin".
Romans 6:23 "For the wages sin pays is death".
Acts 2:29 "...concerning the family head David, that he both deceased and was buried and his tomb is with us to this day".
Acts 2:34 "Actually David did not ascend to the heavens..."
As for which books were excluded, simply because the Catholics excluded them, doesn't mean the grounds for which they were excluded were wrong.
The Catholic Bible (The first Catholic version of the Bible, the Douay-Rheims [1610, revised 1750], most commonly referred to as the Douay version) contains the so-called apocraful books, 7 to 19 of them, depending on which version of the version.
So, as the Catholics claim, it is the so-called Protestant version (every other translation of the Bible) that has allegedly excluded books.
No, it's not "biblical". The Bible didn't invent marriage, guy.
Genesis 2:21-24 "Hence God had a deep sleep fall upon the man and, while he was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and then closed up the flesh over its place.
And God proceeded to build the rib he had taken from the man into a woman and to bring her to the man.
Then the man said: "This is at last bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. This one will be called Woman because from man this one was taken."
And that is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh".
This was written approximately 3,500 years ago, but is an account of the actual occurrence from over 6,000 years ago, written under inspiration.
If you're of the opinion that marriage isn't a Biblical first, it would help if you cited the evidence upon which you base your opinion.
____________________________________________
Regardless of one's particular adherence to any particular of the thousands of Christian sects of Christendom, none should take on the mantle of Judge in condemning or exalting anyone else. It simply isn't allowed.
I think this whole argument against Baldwin is hysterical, in a nervous breakdown sort of way. We're losing our Country, our Rights under its Constitution and we may very soon be facing soup lines under Martial Law and we choose to publicly jabber on about the definition of marriage, or whatever this thread is really about.
Ron Paul has endorsed Chuck Baldwin.
Chuck Baldwin has announce he will name Ron Paul as Secretary of the Treasury.
Congress has just given the Secretary of the Treasury immense power over our economy.
What the fuck is the question?????
Bosso
Gotta love it.
If you're so high minded about liberty, you shouldn't be seeking the federal government's approval on this private and personal contract between two individuals, which also happens to be a religious sacrament. Baldwin is totally correct in simply expressing the definition of marriage. Even Ron Paul when asked about this issue at a debate basically said that we don't need to legislate marriage and that all you need to do is "look it up" [the definition of marriage]. Personally, I am also of the contention that government has no business in recognizing ANY type of marriage (which inherently is heterosexual). Of course there is a difference between marriage and civil unions however.
