|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 2/14/2006 10:01:02 PM
|
|
|
alaska
Posts: 171
Joined: 12/11/2005
Status: offline
|
You don't get it. We are not holding Jewish culture as the deciding of what is truth. Your adherence to their culture appears to cause you to disagree that the leaving and cleaving, which was what the Truth himself said, is what defines that which God has joined together.
Enter another dual definition, bound, yet not bound. Like, wife, yet not wife, or, married, yet not married, or, put away, yet not put away.
Aren't you saying that she who is "yet not bound" by Jesus' words is in reality bound by your words?
Are you still maintaining that "premarital divorce" is an oxymoron?
Of course it is by ignoring first century definitions. Even the filthy NIV grasped the concept of being married, yet not married, in Gen. 19.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 2/15/2006 12:27:54 AM
|
|
|
neuronstatic
Posts: 947
Joined: 7/14/2005
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: alaska
You don't get it. We are not holding Jewish culture as the deciding of what is truth. Your adherence to their culture appears to cause you to disagree that the leaving and cleaving, which was what the Truth himself said, is what defines that which God has joined together.
Enter another dual definition, bound, yet not bound. Like, wife, yet not wife, or, married, yet not married, or, put away, yet not put away.
Aren't you saying that she who is "yet not bound" by Jesus' words is in reality bound by your words?
Are you still maintaining that "premarital divorce" is an oxymoron?
Of course it is by ignoring first century definitions. Even the filthy NIV grasped the concept of being married, yet not married, in Gen. 19.
This is where we disagree. I get it. You do not.
I do not hold the Jewish culture as the deciding point of truth. However, you seem to want to completely abandon the context of what Jesus said and write in your post-modern KJV way of thinking. In other words, it is not the Jewish culture that is the measure of truth, but the Jewish culture was the context of Jesus' teaching in the NT.
Yes I maintain that premarital divorce is an oxymoron. Once a woman was betrothed to a man, she was called "wife" and he was called "husband". This is from the Law and from the Talmud. The betrothal was binding and required a divorce to break. Hence Joseph had a predicament on his hands when Mary was pregnant and she was his wife and they had not yet had sexual relations.
"Filthy NIV". Tsk, tsk. You sound dangerously close to a TOS violation.
Note what you said "being married, yet not being married". You are close, but no cigar. Once betrothed you are married, HOWEVER you cannot have sexual relations with your wife until the completion of the marriage requirements.
Betrothal is not like the western thought of engaged. It is something much more binding and richer.
Please cite your references for "first century definitions" other than your own opinion.
_____________________________
Click here for an example of God blessing a man with a second chance at marriage in a new wife.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 2/16/2006 12:10:11 AM
|
|
|
alaska
Posts: 171
Joined: 12/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Note what you said "being married, yet not being married". You are close, but no cigar. Once betrothed you are married, HOWEVER you cannot have sexual relations with your wife until the completion of the marriage requirements.
I don't need to cite any definitions; you just agreed with me!
You have just admitted that they were not completely married. Husband and wife but not yet completely husband and wife.
But this state of not yet "one" is because of what they have not yet done, the leaving and cleaving, which Jesus said is that which qualifies them to enter the ranks of those who God has joined together that man may not put asunder.
But again, you don't believe that anyway.
Since your doctrine leaves the divorcing up to the decision of the "innocent party", man may very well put asunder.
Is it not true by your doctrine that man may very well put asunder what God has joined together even though Jesus said, "what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder"? Yes?
< Message edited by alaska -- 2/16/2006 12:53:10 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 2/16/2006 12:39:42 AM
|
|
|
alaska
Posts: 171
Joined: 12/11/2005
Status: offline
|
"Filthy NIV"
Well, we're not supposed to turn this thread into a version/translation corruption filthy-NIV /thread.
But it does have direct connection with the divorce thread since the word fornication, which is a major player in the discussion, is ommitted in the NIV in the 5 places in the NT where the words adultery and fornication are listed side by side which would ordinarily produce consideration that there is some difference between the two words. Seeing that scholars agree that the NIV is NOT to be used for serious Bible study because of it's loose paraphrases, we should agree for the sake of avoiding confusion brought in by that filthy thing to not allow it in this most vital of discussions. Vital? Absolutely. The changing of the word porneia/fornication, which word does not necessarily pertain to the postmarital sin, into words that can ONLY pertain to the post marital sin is an extremely serious crime producing very serious consequences.
Especially since there existed in their reality the single wife who could be put away before becoming completely married. That qualifies the exclusive premarital definition of "fornication" to be considered with regard to Jesus' exception statement. And seeing that it fits gramattically with the context with regard to their culture and most importantly supports Mark and Luke and 1 Cor. 7:39 to mean exactly what they say without the need of editing those verses, the magnitude of the importance is indescribable.
As indescribable as the torments of hell for an indescribable eternity.
Oh, I believe that if the moderators were thoroughly educated on the extreme corruption contained in the NIV they would ban its use on this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 2/16/2006 8:36:03 AM
|
|
|
stateofgrace
Posts: 2004
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Please don't assume that the forums management is ignorant of the claims of folks who hold your view on that topic, Alaska.
From the range of doctorines document:
Unacceptable:
Forceful and sustained argument that any one widely available modern translation is uniquely dangerous, a product of a harmful conspiracy, or alternatively, supernaturally accurate. Crosswalk.com will have zero tolerance for the aggressive and disruptive tactics of a minority of lovers of the King James translation who make this issue a basis for fellowship with other Christians.
_____________________________
America Needs Revival. Will you commit to pray for it?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 2/16/2006 1:06:25 PM
|
|
|
neuronstatic
Posts: 947
Joined: 7/14/2005
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: alaska
quote:
Note what you said "being married, yet not being married". You are close, but no cigar. Once betrothed you are married, HOWEVER you cannot have sexual relations with your wife until the completion of the marriage requirements.
I don't need to cite any definitions; you just agreed with me!
You have just admitted that they were not completely married. Husband and wife but not yet completely husband and wife.
But this state of not yet "one" is because of what they have not yet done, the leaving and cleaving, which Jesus said is that which qualifies them to enter the ranks of those who God has joined together that man may not put asunder.
But again, you don't believe that anyway.
Since your doctrine leaves the divorcing up to the decision of the "innocent party", man may very well put asunder.
Is it not true by your doctrine that man may very well put asunder what God has joined together even though Jesus said, "what therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder"? Yes?
Whatever.
What God does is up to Him. What God joins, He joins. What God allows through His will to fall apart, falls apart. Or do you not believe in the supremacy of God's will?
The betrothed man and woman are bound. They are "one" and further becoming one. Married couples spend the rest of their lives becoming "one". Sex is just one part of marriage but marriage is NOT built on sex. Let me repeat that with emphasis.
Marriage is NOT built on sex.
And subsequently, poor sex is NOT a reason for divorce. You see, that is the kind of thinking that led to those early problems that Jesus was trying to correct. You may not divorce your wife simply because you are unhappy with her. And from the OT through to the NT, divorce means the dissolution of MARRIAGE. It does not mean the breaking of engagement. It does mean that something bad has happened to a husband and a wife, regardless of their stage of marriage.
Of course there are others who think being a good husband or a good wife is merely being a good sexual partner. That could be someone like you. I don't know so I will not assume. But being a good husband is so much more than satisfying a wife.
To be "one" is to know to get an aspirin for your mate even before they ask for it, because you "just know". To be "one" is to not have to say verbally "it is time to go" at a party, because you "just know". To become "one" is not an act. It is a lifelong commitment. It starts when you both realize the bond already exists in your hearts. It becomes binding when she says "yes I will marry you", and is not supposed to end until the death of a spouse.
However, just as sin entered the world through one man Adam, sin enters the marriage through one or both spouses. And as the sin builds over time, they one become "two". There was a time when I thought I could never have been a "two" again with my first wife. When she left, I still held onto a "oneness" for a while. But God, who is rich in mercy and grace, healed my heart and my mind. He replaced that missing part with Himself and allowed me to be open to His will and leading. It was mysterious how simply it vanished. Over 2 decades of "oneness" evaporated. This was not of myself. This was of His mercy.
And it was much to my surprise He so quickly found another person, in a very similar situation, that also had lost their "oneness". And just as mysteriously as my old oneness vanished, a new oneness was growing. We were "one" even before she said "yes I will marry you", and we had never had sex or so much as kissed.
So you see, I do not speak from theoretical or academic presumptions and contrived examples of closed doors. I speak the truth from life, given as only God can give. I speak only as God wills. I post here only because I truly believe I am to declare the truth as He has given it to me. So I know His will for my life. It is vastly important that each of you know God's will for your lives. But you cannot know God's will for another person's life. He does not deal with us that way. So seek Him and do as He leads you. How He leads others is up to the sovereign God of creation.
He does not lead us into temptation. He is not the author of confusion. He is God. Not any of you.
_____________________________
Click here for an example of God blessing a man with a second chance at marriage in a new wife.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 2/16/2006 1:11:06 PM
|
|
|
neuronstatic
Posts: 947
Joined: 7/14/2005
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: alaska
Especially since there existed in their reality the single wife who could be put away before becoming completely married.
A "single wife"? You amaze me.
quote:
ORIGINAL: alaska
Oh, I believe that if the moderators were thoroughly educated on the extreme corruption contained in the NIV they would ban its use on this forum.
Any mods want to comment on this?
_____________________________
Click here for an example of God blessing a man with a second chance at marriage in a new wife.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 2/16/2006 1:21:52 PM
|
|
|
Fritzpw_Admin
Posts: 7663
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: online
|
I'll comment... take the discussion on translations to a different thread or be prepared to be kicked off of this one.
_____________________________
Fritz
Senior Manager of Social Media
fritz@salemwebnetwork.com
Want to see my latest online project? Check out http://budurl.com/CWonFacebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 2/17/2006 8:38:24 PM
|
|
|
alaska
Posts: 171
Joined: 12/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
A "single wife"? You amaze me.
This is really pretty easy to resolve.
By our definition of wife today, is it not true that there is no such thing as a single wife?
But by acknowledging that the ancients used the word wife for her who had not yet left and cleaved to her husband, which wife may very well have still been a virgin, is it not reasonable to refer to her singleness since she is not joined with her husband and is still a virgin? Can we respect some aspect of the definition of "single" and yet respect their usage of words designating her as a "wife" even though she is still living in her fathers house and is a virgin waiting for the ceremony? Only then will she cleave to her husband for only then will her husband have left father and mother to cleave to her. They will then live together.
It really isn't that much different than today where we don't say "wife" when referring to the engaged, but rather "wife-to-be". Since the ancient betrothal was much more serious than engagement, it is reasonable to accept their usage of the word "wife" with regard to the woman not yet joined to her husband. And they knew as well as we that there was a difference between wife and "wife". Can you not see the difference? I am the one amazed.
You cannot grasp the difference? They were both called "wife".
The one "wife" is yet "single" and was still a virgin in many cases.
[She is still a virgin and still living in her father's house and you can't afford her the designation of "single" to some degree even though she is in a heavy duty type of engagement? Is she not in any way "single"? I think this is an issue of your personal faith of how you believe words should be used.]
The other "wife" had left her father's house and was designated by Jesus' words as she who is bound to her husband until death because she fulfills the mandate: "he created them male and female. Therefore shall a man leave father and mother and cleave to his wife and they twain shall be one flesh. They are therefore no more twain but one flesh. What therefore God has joined togoether, let not man put asunder".
Why do they leave and cleave? Well, simple, he created them male and female with that natural desire to marry! He created it to work like that.
Notice that their designation of one is after the leaving and cleaving.
And man is not to put that asunder.
You have admitted that your doctrine cannot agree with that.
And what about your refusal to accept as gramattically correct, a real life example showing how an exception statement can emphasise prohibition? Are you afraid that by agreeing that language does in fact work that way that your interpretation of the exception statement can be challenged? But this refusal seems to be somehow connected with an unreasonable lack of flexibilty to accept the practical difference between the betrothed and married wives.
Go to the remarriage thread to post 532 for a demonstration of the complexity that can be caused by an exception statement inserted within a statement relating to what is or is not caused depending on whether or not the exception statement is applied. This real life example puts the effect of an exception statement in a way we can understand that exception statements can very well be used to emphasise prohibition and NOT at all provide for allowance of that which is under discussion.
Yet the pdf seem to insist that an exception statement HAS to provide allowance even though I have clearly proven that to not be the truth.
ATTENTION TRUTH LOVERS
Here is a challenge;
Let the pdf (pro divorce folks, ie, divorce for adultery folks) come up with their own real life example having a similar construct to my example wherein the exception statement is directly related to whether or not something is caused as is the case in Matthew 5:32. They will then have the opportunity to show that an exception statement in that configuration can be used to allow to some degree that which is under discussion (5:31). The example must also possess an appropriate parallel to 5:31 and a "but I say to you" phrase as we see in my example and in Matthew 5:32.
I am not the one adding words to 5:32. The various verses, Mt. 1:18-20 Deut. 22:23,24 Deut. 20:7 establish the available option along with the the possible meaning of "fornication" that 'putting away for fornication' can be looked at to pertain exclusively to the premarital divorce. By applying those Bible provided definitions, the verses can be looked at, if tried to, to make perfect sense and to fit perfectly grammatically with regard to what is or is not caused (verse 32). By applying those first century definitions, the whole of Matt. 5:31,32 are perfectly gramattically correct and need no changing.
Here is the opportunity for the pdf to provide their own real life example to show how their interpretation of 31,32 can fit without adding or changing words. Most likely the last clause paralleling the last clause in 5:32 will have to be dramattically altered.
I do not believe that a language parallel, successfully demonstrating how Matt. 5:31,32 can mean what they say it means, will be presented here.
My example is on page 22 of the remarriage thread, post 532. It successfully demonstrates that the exception statement as found in the context of Matthew 5:31,32 can serve to prohibit and NOT provide allowance to divorce even though verse 31 is a reference to an OT precept that did allow divorce.
Make full proof of thy ministry.
< Message edited by alaska -- 2/18/2006 2:35:52 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 2/17/2006 8:57:35 PM
|
|
|
alaska
Posts: 171
Joined: 12/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
is not supposed to end until the death of a spouse.
Hmm, "not supposed to"
If we are to add "supposed to be" in 1 Cor. 7:39, instead of saying "the wife is bound to her husband", it would read; "the wife is supposed to be bound to her husband for as long as he lives."
But how on earth can we change the rest of the verse to make sense?
This is shocking!!! There is no way to make it work!!!!
Someone please try to add some variation of "supposed to be" or "not supposed to" in Mark 10 or Luke 16:18 or Matt. 5:32; 19:9.
They are "supposed to be no more twain"?
What therefore God has "supposedly" joined together?
"Let not man put asunder" must be altered to mean:
let not man believe that they are not supposed to put it asunder.
Or:
God is not supposed to say, let not man put it asunder.
< Message edited by alaska -- 2/18/2006 1:57:57 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 2/18/2006 9:32:49 PM
|
|
|
neuronstatic
Posts: 947
Joined: 7/14/2005
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: alaska
quote:
A "single wife"? You amaze me.
This is really pretty easy to resolve.
By our definition of wife today, is it not true that there is no such thing as a single wife?
If you are a wife, you are bound and you are no longer single. Having sex does not make one married. When Jews were "one flesh" with prostitutes, they were not considered married. The prostitute was not called a wife. A wife is much more than a semen receiver. However your insistance that one is not a wife until they have had intercourse is irritating.
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
Genesis 2:24 (YLT)
therefore doth a man leave his father and his mother, and hath cleaved unto his wife, and they have become one flesh.
Funny how this man cleaved unto his wife. Interesting order of events I think. While not necessarily precise, the order gives a wife before one flesh. And the woman he cleaves to is his wife. Just interesting.
So do I have intercourse with a woman to then transform her into a wife? Or do I hold dear to my wife and subsequently we have sexual relations?
Just exactly what magic transformation do you attribute to carnal relations?
A wife is a woman bound to a man. Not a single woman who is available. Or perhaps the rest of us have some misunderstanding of the binding nature of a wife? Do you think a wife is a bound woman or a free single woman?
The term "single wife" is an oxymoron. That would either be a widow or an ex-wife of some fashion but entirely inappropriate to refer to either of them as a single wife. No such thing in the real world.
quote:
ORIGINAL: alaska
And what about your refusal to accept as gramattically correct, a real life example showing how an exception statement can emphasise prohibition? Are you afraid that by agreeing that language does in fact work that way that your interpretation of the exception statement can be challenged? But this refusal seems to be somehow connected with an unreasonable lack of flexibilty to accept the practical difference between the betrothed and married wives.
I listened to your construct. You finally got one grammatically correct and you yourself refuse to believe what it says. Your example says "you may open the doors for emergencies and maintenance". And using the grammatical parallels, a man may divorce his wife for porneia. Yet you have refused to believe that repeatedly. And it was even your example.
You had your chance. It failed to do what you had hoped. It was a flawed example for your position. It reinforced mine instead. Thank you.
quote:
ORIGINAL: alaska
Here is a challenge;
Let the pdf (pro divorce folks, ie, divorce for adultery folks) come up with their own real life example having a similar construct to my example wherein the exception statement is directly related to whether or not something is caused as is the case in Matthew 5:32.
Why do you quibble over definitions of words and craft statements in veils of English grammer subterfuge? Why not just read the word of God for what it says. My example would be:
Matthew 5:31 (Youngs Literal Translation)
31 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
Note that was the literal translation of the words and it was deemed that "porneia" was "marital unfaithfulness". You can call it fornication all you like but it STILL does NOT change the fact that a man may divorce an unfaithful WIFE legitimately.
Truth seekers know this to be true despite your best efforts to hide it, to mask it, to redefine it, and change the very words of Jesus.
I will play no further English word games with you. Go play your English language example someplace else.
_____________________________
Click here for an example of God blessing a man with a second chance at marriage in a new wife.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 2/18/2006 9:56:04 PM
|
|
|
neuronstatic
Posts: 947
Joined: 7/14/2005
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: alaska
quote:
is not supposed to end until the death of a spouse.
Hmm, "not supposed to"
If we are to add "supposed to be" in 1 Cor. 7:39, instead of saying "the wife is bound to her husband", it would read; "the wife is supposed to be bound to her husband for as long as he lives."
But how on earth can we change the rest of the verse to make sense?
This is shocking!!! There is no way to make it work!!!!
Someone please try to add some variation of "supposed to be" or "not supposed to" in Mark 10 or Luke 16:18 or Matt. 5:32; 19:9.
They are "supposed to be no more twain"?
What therefore God has "supposedly" joined together?
"Let not man put asunder" must be altered to mean:
let not man believe that they are not supposed to put it asunder.
Or:
God is not supposed to say, let not man put it asunder.
Stop being ridiculous please. If you do not want to seriously debate the issues, stop posting.
< Message edited by neuronstatic -- 2/18/2006 9:57:28 PM >
_____________________________
Click here for an example of God blessing a man with a second chance at marriage in a new wife.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 2/19/2006 11:57:25 AM
|
|
|
alaska
Posts: 171
Joined: 12/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
31 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
That is NOT what Jesus said.
There is a word for "adultery" and there are words for "marital" and "unfaithfulness" in Greek. Jesus did not use any of those words for the sexual sin referred to in the exception statement. He used "porneia" whose apparent cognate in English is fornication, which word has more than one definition, one of which points exclusively to the sexual sin of the single. The above chosen words, marital unfaithfulness (adultery) do not have an option of usage as does the word fornication/porneia which was the word Jesus actually used. Their words, marital unfaithfulness, can only pertain to the post marital sin because modern day usage of "marital" pertains exclusively to the joined in marriage. But Jesus' actual word used, porneia/fornication, can pertain exclusively to the premarital sin where the context accomodates that definition.
One of the best ways to demonstrate the validity of an interpretation of something is to create a parallel to show a similar grammatical construction and word function using something we can relate to in the real world today. Language is like mathematics in a way. Things can be proven using the laws and rules of language the same way in principle that things can be proven using mathematics.
My invitation for the pdf to present a grammatical parallel was addressed to the lovers of truth. I believe that lovers of truth can appreciate the validity in making full proof of the ministry of teaching by providing grammatical parallels to demonstrate the mechanics, usage and meanings of complex sentences found in the scriptures. But of course the pdf would have to agree that what Jesus said, as recorded, was grammatically sensible. Mostly what we've seen in way of explanation is reference to part of 5:32 with all of 31 ommitted and the last clause of 32 also ommitted and thereby also its effect and connection with what is not being caused by the divorce for fornication. If Matt. 5:31,32 is so simple as they claim it is when ommiting parts of it, creating a parallel of all its clauses that makes sense should not be difficult.
The above quote by Young which uses the wrong words, at least has the phrase right concerning what is being caused. One of the main reasons for desiring the pdf to supply a real life example is to demonstrate in a parallel the effect of an exception statement with regard to what is being caused. Do the pdf even believe that something is being caused? By creating a parallel of all the clauses in 31,32, it will show the complexity of function of an exception statement coupled with and dependent on a statement concerning what is caused. If their sentences are parallel showing similar mechanics and structure it should make sense grammatically and on a common sense practical level.
The quote you made above from Young does not exhibit a practical common sensical meaning, which proves that it is wrong. A language person would say; if the speaker (Jesus) meant what you say he meant, then the words there need to be changed to express that because what you say he meant, even by your choice of paraphrase, is NOT what the paraphrase is saying!!
Anyone marrying the divorced woman, in the last clause, apparently by that paraphrase, contrary to other Bibles, suggests that it is referring to the woman divorced for adultery. So anyone marrying a woman divorced for adultery is committing adultery? So nobody can marry a woman divorced for adultery? I thought according to the pdf that divorce is supposed to dissolve the marriage after which both parties can marry someone else!!!
The pdf commentary will claim that the above paraphrase means something other than what those words say. They must disagree with the very words they claim support their position! They must disagree with its statement that if anyone marries a woman divorced for adultery, that man commits adultery.
By changing fornication to adultery and rewording the last clause to pertain to the woman divorced for adultery, a grammatical nonsense has been created. It cannot be alllowed to speak for itself because it doesn't make sense of itself!!!
It will be claimed that the Greek this, and the Greek that, but if it made sense in the Greek, it would make sense in English. It doesn't make sense in Greek as changed and it doesn't make sense in English as changed. But it does make sense in both Greek and English if not changed when respecting the validity of the premarital divorce and how exception statements in that configuration can be used to emphasise prohibition.
As my example in post 532 of the remarriage thread demonstrates.
A correct straight across translation of the last clause in 5:32 would read something like this:
and whoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery.
This wording is easily understood to mean 'anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery' suggesting any divorced woman from a joined marriage.
That would mean you can't marry any divorced woman from a joined marriage regardless of why she was divorced. Now that fits perfectly with what Mark 10:11,12 and Luke 16:18 and 1 Cor. 7:39 plainly state. Those references are not complex statements.
The leaven of changing fornication to adultery in 5:32 spread to the need of changing the last clause to somehow fit the initial change. But then it denies the claim of the changers that divorce dissolves the marriage! It does this by prohibiting anyone from marrying the woman divorced for adultery in the last clause!! Confusion at its finest.
The pdf desperately need to provide a real life example to prove that a language parallel of their version of Matt. 5:31,32 can be made that makes sense.
I have provided such an example proving the grammatical and commonsensical validity of the tdf (till death folks) position.
I am still waiting for a competent attempt by the pdf.
No parallel to date has been offered up for discussion.
< Message edited by alaska -- 2/19/2006 1:30:47 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 2/19/2006 7:13:27 PM
|
|
|
stateofgrace
Posts: 2004
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Alaska, I am going to respectfully ask you to quit labeling people around here as "pro divorce." Now, I am rather on edge due to some recent surgery, and am likely not to mince words if pushed.
Your language is rude and disrespectful to the utmost degree.
It would be more accurate to say that some people believe that divorce is biblically allowable in certain situations....and some people don't. Of course, putting it that way doesn't give you a cute little tag line to sterotype people with, but it would be more accurate then your label is.
I have never counseled someone to get a divorce. If asked, I would counsel someone to NOT initate a divorce. I WOULD counsel an abused spouse to seek shelter, with the intention that the marriage eventually be healed through prayer, discipleship and counseling. Therefore, I am NOT pro-divorce. And I once again ask you to stop using this term to describe people around here who have similarly told you that they are not pro-divorce.
I have tried, I believe, in the past, to explain that even many of the divorced partiapting here, are not in favor of divorce. And many of the divorced participating here were abandoned. Many of have been treated with extreme cruelty by the very one who vowed to stay by their side...are you showing them mercy or pouring salt on their wounds?
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Matthew 5:7)
< Message edited by stateofgrace -- 2/19/2006 7:14:27 PM >
_____________________________
America Needs Revival. Will you commit to pray for it?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 2/20/2006 8:15:51 AM
|
|
|
neuronstatic
Posts: 947
Joined: 7/14/2005
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: alaska
He used "porneia" whose apparent cognate in English is fornication, which word has more than one definition, one of which points exclusively to the sexual sin of the single.
However, porneia is NOT exclusively translated as "fornication". And "fornication" is NOT exclusively used for pre-marital sex. You "apparently" like to overlook that fact.
From the Greek lexicon:
porneia, noun feminine
1. illicit sexual intercourse to include adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
2. metaphor for the worship of idols, eating food offered to idols
From Websters 1828 Dictionary
fornication, noun
1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman.
2. Adultery
3. Incest
4. Idolatry; a forsaking of the true God, and worshipping of idols
While you like to stand on the imagined meanings of words where you say "porneia means fornication" and "fornication is pre-marital sex only", the facts do not support this. That is why the word porneia is translated differently in different Bible versions.
In the KJV (which I believe is your favorite), the word "fornication" is used loosely for general immorality and idolatry as well as some use for pre-marital sexual sins. There is no binding of the use of the word to the immorality of the single person in the KJV. It is only bound as such in your imagination.
Therefore, your insistance on such a binding is without justification and not supported by the facts.
Don't believe me? Do a keyword search for "fornication" in the KJV and tell me you really believe all those places it is used are speaking of "pre-marital sex" only.
_____________________________
Click here for an example of God blessing a man with a second chance at marriage in a new wife.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 2/20/2006 11:59:15 AM
|
|
|
alaska
Posts: 171
Joined: 12/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Don't believe me? Do a keyword search for "fornication" in the KJV and tell me you really believe all those places it is used are speaking of "pre-marital sex" only.
You are very plainly twisting my words. It is a form of slander. But you have said you are not really reading what I write anyway but then you slander me because you have misunderstood. Must I quote what I have said to prove that I have never said that fornication always means premarital sex? That word possesses more than one definition. When words possess more than one definition the context points to what definition is applicable in that particular usage. There are a number of words like that. In the lists of sins in the scriptures, sometimes fornication is listed alone taking on its wide ranging definition including adultery.
Fornication can be used, where the context where it is found accommodates, to pertain exclusively to the premarital sin. When speaking to the single, Paul says, to avoid fornication.
Because of the difference of the words adultery and fornication, it can be said all adultery is fornication but not all fornication is adultery. The words sexual immorality is not a suitable replacement for the two words fornication and adultery. The word adultery is a specific type of sexual sin involving the violation of someones marriage. Where two single folks commit sexual immorality, it cannot be called adultery. The single word in English that can be used and understood to pertain to that sin is fornication. The word adultery does not apply. But the scriptural usage of 2 separate words has been replaced by the use of a single definition wording; sexual immorality, which diverts from the biblically provided usage of two separate words possessing differences of definitions and applications. The specific sexual immorality of "adultery" is self defining by using that word. And since fornication can sometimes be used to pertain exclusively to the unmarried, that possible definition is lost when using the all encompassing wording of sexual immorality. Since "wife" could pertain to a woman not yet completely married, and since "fornication" can pertain to the sin of those not completely married, it is a rash jumping to conclusion to quickly judge that the putting away a wife for fornication has to relate to putting away a completely married wife for adultery! The context must dictate what definition of fornication fits the context and grammar and makes practical sense.
It is not practically sensible to interpret a complex sentence (5:31,32) in a manner that non complex sentences (1 Cor. 7:39 Mark 10:2-12 Luke 16:18) cannot mean what they are plainly and simply saying.
In Greek in 5 places in the NT, the words fornication and adultery are listed side by side. Since adultery is connected specifically to the post marital offence, then where adultery and fornication are listed side by side, it naturally causes one to consider that fornication must therefore relate to all other sexual sins, especially the premarital sexual sins collectively.
So the word fornication (porneia) in the Greek, as in English, does relate specifically to the premarital where the context accommodates that definition such as where adultery and fornication are listed side by side.
Those words are listed side by side in Matt.. 5:32; 19:9.
I think since the translators used an apparent cognate of porneia, fornication, the burden of proof seems to lie with you to prove that it is not a cognate by showing that it does not take on a specific premarital definition in the Greek as I have demonstrated how it does in English.
In the Greek are you claiming that when they address single people having sex (sexual immorality) that it is not correct to say in the Greek that they have fornicated (committed porneia)? To say porneia cannot be legitimately used in Greek to describe specifically the sexual sin of the single, as it can in English, is a far stretch of the imagination. Unless that can be proven, I think the claim that porneia in 5:32 cannot pertain to the sin of the single needs to cease.
So produce evidence that the Greek 'porneia' cannot be used to pertain to the single as the English 'fornication' can be used to pertain to the single.
You refuse to produce a language parallel, which parallel can also be done in Greek with the same effect. Will the reasonable request that evidence be provided proving that porneia cannot be used as its counterpart in English is used also be refused?
Also, since you agree that the word "married", or forms thereof, can pertain exclusively to the betrothed where the context dictates that, is that not evidence that "marital unfaithfulness" with respect to the ancient definition of "marital' can also mean what Joseph was about to do to Mary? So even suffering the incorrect dual-word replacement, "marital unfaithfulness", you seem to have admitted that it can relate to the sin of the betrothed.
The real challenge is for you to explain what is caused in 5:32, and how its relationship to the exception statement can make any sense when fornication is changed to adultery.
There has been no attempt at answering this directly.
I would like someone who is very familiar with how languages work to answer this. Neuro doesn't seem to be able to appreciate the value of making a parallel as a practical means of answering this.
I have provided a parallel which makes perfect sense and supports that 5:31,32 can be read to mean what I say it means. The allowers of divorce have not provided this practical means of clarifying understanding to demonstrate how 5:32 can mean what they say it means.
Your keyword search of fornication agrees with me in 1. that the word can relate to the premarital sin.
When definitions under a word are numbered it normally means that the context in which the word is found must indicate which definition the word is taking on in that particular context. Their culture of putting away before joining together in marriage provides the context for the premarital definition to be considered. And after further consideration, it is concluded that that is the only definition that will fit gramattically in that context and make sense with the entire context in which it is used.
< Message edited by alaska -- 2/20/2006 9:30:42 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 2/24/2006 10:27:01 AM
|
|
|
babbred
Posts: 566
Joined: 5/5/2005
Status: offline
|
| |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
