|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/27/2008 10:55:55 PM
|
|
|
Jude4
Posts: 146
Joined: 1/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: keepingfaith
They were called husband and wife during betrothal. This verse is clear, it says he thought she'd been unfaithful BEFORE they came together and BEFORE they were married.
The concept is simple when we compare all of scripture together, but some want to isolate certain verses out and pick out words and claim it could mean this or that, so they "interpret" it to mean something else but in fact everything they say it could mean is contradicted by dozens of other verses. Yet when you look at all of scripture together and realize that the exception was for Old Covenant men to divorce their wives during or at the conclusion of the betrothal period because they found her to have committed fornication, suddenly all of these seemingly contradicting verses harmonize together perfectly into a consistent message. Rather than admitting that they keep running back to their couple of proof texts that they "interpret" to offer loopholes and look for "experts" to validate their position, while it is patently obvious that they are contradicting most of the Bible on the subject, and their own loopholes are self refuting because they contradict one another.
SealedEternal
One fact is certain, Jesus referred to the allowance as being for the hardhearted. In regard to the example of Joseph & Mary, nothing in Scripture gives evidence beyond a doubt, that Joseph would have been unjust, or hardhearted, for putting her away privately, other than the message delivered by the angel. I mention that only to make the point, that if we consider engagement as similar to betrothal, and one or the other was found to be unfaithful during that time, I can't see that it would be hardhearted to call off the wedding plans.
_____________________________
REV 21:7-8
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/27/2008 10:58:24 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1228
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
What I had remembered was the "but not yet "bâ‛al"" stand you had made. As I pointed out in that portion of the thread "bâ‛al" is the Hebrew word for Husband, so while you did say they were husband and wife during the betrothal, you also said that he was not yet "bâ‛al" (husband) until after the marriage. So while it is true that I did unintentionally misrepresent you, it was not "an outright lie", I just forgot you defined the English "husband" differently than the Hebrew "baal" (husband). A distinction that no translator makes.
Here is a reference to my post dealing with this issue months ago.
quote:
Most translators prefer (v.)married and (n.)husband because they convey better the relationship understood by a Hebrew reader, so I will use those terms. In Mt. 1:19 again the Hebrew translations states that Joseph is her husband (her baal). He cannot be her husband(n. baal), if she is not already married (v. baal) to him. Your argument about the grammar and word definitions in these passages makes absolutely no sense!
You're confusing the noun form of of the word with the verb form. It literally means owner in the noun form, and to rule over or be lord over in the verb form. The husband was called her ba‛al (noun) from the moment a covenant was made between the two, even though they continued to live separately during the betrothal period, so he was regarded as her owner since he had usually literally purchased her with a dowry. He didn't actually rule over, or lord over (ba‛al verb) her however until the betrothal period had ended and he took dominion of her from her father.
It's confusing to us since we always think of becoming husband and wife and being married as the same thing, but in Old Testament marriages it was a two step process. A man could be the husband or lord (ba‛al noun) of a woman who he had paid a dowry for, yet he still hadn't begun to take dominion (ba‛al verb) over her.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/27/2008 11:15:03 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1228
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jude4
One fact is certain, Jesus referred to the allowance as being for the hardhearted. In regard to the example of Joseph & Mary, nothing in Scripture gives evidence beyond a doubt, that Joseph would have been unjust, or hardhearted, for putting her away privately, other than the message delivered by the angel.
It would not have been unjust if Mary had been guilty as he thought, because he would have been following the letter of the law which is perfectly legitimate. The Law itself however was a rigid set of rules and regulations given by God to His hard hearted unregenerate people because they couldn't keep the spirit of the Law in their unregenerate state.
quote:
I mention that only to make the point, that if we consider engagement as similar to betrothal, and one or the other was found to be unfaithful during that time, I can't see that it would be hardhearted to call off the wedding plans.
Engagement isn't the same as betrothal because in the Old Covenant marriages the man paid a dowry and they made a legally binding covenant at the beginning of the betrothal, and the law stated that they were bound for life from that day forward. That's why the Deuteronomy provision offered a "divorce" for betrothed couples, and why Joseph was going to "put away" Mary rather than just calling off the marriage.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 "If there is a girl who is a virgin betrothed to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor's wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
In the Old testament a betrothed woman was already considered the man's wife even though they weren't married.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/27/2008 11:21:50 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4566
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
What I had remembered was the "but not yet "bâ‛al"" stand you had made. As I pointed out in that portion of the thread "bâ‛al" is the Hebrew word for Husband, so while you did say they were husband and wife during the betrothal, you also said that he was not yet "bâ‛al" (husband) until after the marriage. So while it is true that I did unintentionally misrepresent you, it was not "an outright lie", I just forgot you defined the English "husband" differently than the Hebrew "baal" (husband). A distinction that no translator makes.
Here is a reference to my post dealing with this issue months ago.
quote:
Most translators prefer (v.)married and (n.)husband because they convey better the relationship understood by a Hebrew reader, so I will use those terms. In Mt. 1:19 again the Hebrew translations states that Joseph is her husband (her baal). He cannot be her husband(n. baal), if she is not already married (v. baal) to him. Your argument about the grammar and word definitions in these passages makes absolutely no sense!
You're confusing the noun form of of the word with the verb form. It literally means owner in the noun form, and to rule over or be lord over in the verb form. The husband was called her ba‛al (noun) from the moment a covenant was made between the two, even though they continued to live separately during the betrothal period, so he was regarded as her owner since he had usually literally purchased her with a dowry. He didn't actually rule over, or lord over (ba‛al verb) her however until the betrothal period had ended and he took dominion of her from her father.
It's confusing to us since we always think of becoming husband and wife and being married as the same thing, but in Old Testament marriages it was a two step process. A man could be the husband or lord (ba‛al noun) of a woman who he had paid a dowry for, yet he still hadn't begun to take dominion (ba‛al verb) over her.
SealedEternal
I understand your contention, and I still disagree with it. It doesn't make a lot of sense to say that "he is her owner, but he has not yet owned her" does it?
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/27/2008 11:35:17 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1228
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
I understand your contention, and I still disagree with it. It doesn't make a lot of sense to say that "he is her owner, but he has not yet owned her" does it?
It does seem sensible to me to say that he was her owner but hadn't yet begun to rule over or be lord over her. Here's another example in scripture:
Genesis 19:14 Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, and said, "Up, get out of this place, for the LORD will destroy the city." But he appeared to his sons-in-law to be jesting.
I realize that different terms are being used here, but the concept that they regarded these men as being family already, but they hadn't yet become married is consistent throughout the Old Testament betrothal terminology.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/27/2008 11:38:53 PM
|
|
|
Jude4
Posts: 146
Joined: 1/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
In the Old testament a betrothed woman was already considered the man's wife even though they weren't married.
This is correct, and something I am well aware of. I am only addressing the aspect of ending a betrothed relationship, in the same light as we would an engagement in the west. Everyone I have known, has made the assumption, that the one they were engaged to, was figuratively their husband or wife, if not literally. The Jewish practice did require a writing of divorce, whereas we here would just as for the ring back. Either way, the practice of calling off a wedding, where vows would be exchanged, upon the knowledge that sexual purity was violated during the engagement/betrothal, would not be an act of hardheartedness from the evidence of scripture.
_____________________________
REV 21:7-8
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/27/2008 11:40:36 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1228
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
Here's another example, although again with different terminology:
Deuteronomy 20:7 'And who is the man that is betrothed to a woman and has not married her? Let him depart and return to his house, otherwise he might die in the battle and another man would marry her.'
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/28/2008 12:05:34 AM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1228
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jude4
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
In the Old testament a betrothed woman was already considered the man's wife even though they weren't married.
This is correct, and something I am well aware of. I am only addressing the aspect of ending a betrothed relationship, in the same light as we would an engagement in the west. Everyone I have known, has made the assumption, that the one they were engaged to, was figuratively their husband or wife, if not literally. The Jewish practice did require a writing of divorce, whereas we here would just as for the ring back. Either way, the practice of calling off a wedding, where vows would be exchanged, upon the knowledge that sexual purity was violated during the engagement/betrothal, would not be an act of hardheartedness from the evidence of scripture.
My understanding is that the Laws of Moses in general were given due to the hardheartedness of His people. They were rigid regulations for stony hearted people, while the New Covenant is where God writes the spirit of the law on our hard hearts with His Spirit, so that we keep the Spirit rather than the letter:
2 Corinthians 3:2-18 You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory. Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away. But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.
Hebrews 10:14-17 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM," He then says, "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."
Romans 2:29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
Romans 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/28/2008 2:08:07 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4566
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
I understand your contention, and I still disagree with it. It doesn't make a lot of sense to say that "he is her owner, but he has not yet owned her" does it?
It does seem sensible to me to say that he was her owner but hadn't yet begun to rule over or be lord over her. Here's another example in scripture:
Genesis 19:14 Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, and said, "Up, get out of this place, for the LORD will destroy the city." But he appeared to his sons-in-law to be jesting.
I realize that different terms are being used here, but the concept that they regarded these men as being family already, but they hadn't yet become married is consistent throughout the Old Testament betrothal terminology.
SealedEternal
There are two difficulties with this passage, first the word 'chatan' means both bridegroom and son-in-law, and second the literal reading of this passages is 'and Lot went out and spoke with his son-in-laws taking of his daughters ....." this construction can refer to those pledged to be married but most often refers to those already married, some bibles footnote the alternate reading i.e. 'and Lot went out and spoke with his son-in-laws married to his daughters'
It also could be that the idiom shouldn't have been applied here and 'to take' should have been treated literally as it is in verse 15. No other instances of the participle construction 'to take' carries the idiom of marriage in the OT.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/28/2008 2:26:32 AM
|
|
|
blessednw
Posts: 668
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
I just don’t understand why anyone would just make stuff like this up and present it as truth? Is there no consideration that someone hearing this might actually know the langauge and be able to spot the deception? Throwing in a few Strong’s numbers, and few Hebrew grammar terms doesn’t add any credibility to the argument unless they are used in a way that is consistent with Hebrew grammar.
This kind of talk reflects character.You say you want honest debate, but you break the rules in that supposed effort.
Someone knowing Hebrew does not impress me as someone willing to walk in godliness, they do not automatically go together. The Hebrew scholars have debated so many things for years, and they were experts "in the language". So what?
The different schools of thought on degrees of acceptable divorce were an issue during Jesus' time, and He set them straight with a rather limiting view, that they did not appreciate. Today's disciples don't all like His commands either.
I recommend you show some respect. Knowing Hebrew does not automatically make you able to understand the truth about the design and purpose of marriage, and obviously hasn't given you any convictions about honoring the commands to NT believers about their marriage vows.
Understanding God's word comes from relationship with Him, it is not meant to be understood outside of that.
You want to know about credibility? Character speaks louder than any pride at knowing Hebrew.
_____________________________
This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/28/2008 2:32:38 AM
|
|
|
blessednw
Posts: 668
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
I understand your contention, and I still disagree with it. It doesn't make a lot of sense to say that "he is her owner, but he has not yet owned her" does it?
It does seem sensible to me to say that he was her owner but hadn't yet begun to rule over or be lord over her. Here's another example in scripture:
Genesis 19:14 Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, and said, "Up, get out of this place, for the LORD will destroy the city." But he appeared to his sons-in-law to be jesting.
I realize that different terms are being used here, but the concept that they regarded these men as being family already, but they hadn't yet become married is consistent throughout the Old Testament betrothal terminology.
SealedEternal
And that "owning" also implies full responsibility for her provision, which presumably would not have completely been transferred from father's house to husband's house. She is spoken for, but "in process" of full completion of the transfer of stewardship, or husbanding, rather.
_____________________________
This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/28/2008 10:10:20 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4566
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
This kind of talk reflects character.You say you want honest debate, but you break the rules in that supposed effort.Someone knowing Hebrew does not impress me as someone willing to walk in godliness, they do not automatically go together. The Hebrew scholars have debated so many things for years, and they were experts "in the language". So what?
I never have said that knowing Hebrew is required for Godliness, but the post I responded to was an argument about Hebrew grammar, and knowing Hebrew does help to identify the fictitious nature of the argument given in that post. When you say "so what?", I have to wonder did you even read my post, or is it that you just don't care that the argument was made up? I provided enough info, including an example in Spanish, so that those who do not understand Hebrew could understand the fictitious nature of the argument presented. You many not care that the original poster made up a rule about Hebrew grammar that DOES NOT EXIST in the Hebrew langauge to prove his point, but I do. The issue has NOTHING to do with the fact that the poster does not know Hebrew, it has everything to do with the fact the he presented a fictitious argument about the grammar of the Hebrew Language; even making invalid references to some of the Hebrew verb constructions i.e. qal, niphal, hiphil in his argument!
In this post you attack my character because I reacted when someone made up a fictitious argument to "prove" their point, but you say nothing against the one who made up the argument in the first place; I assume because he agrees with you? However, when other posters in this forum have presented fictitious arguments supporting my point of view, I have addressed those issues with the original posters even though I agreed with their point of view, and if you remember I even defended SealedEternal when someone who agreed with my point of view unfairly attacked him because he didn't quote from the KJV. To me, it really matters when someone presents a lie, even if that lie seemingly adds support to my viewpoint, and if you believe that reflects badly on my character, so be it; however, what does it say about your character when you are so willing to accept a fictitious argument because it supports your point of view?
You are correct that Hebrew scholars do debate nuances in the Hebrew text of the bible, and often they don't agree. If the poster had taken the side of any of those scholars and had presented an argument that reflect some knowledge of the language I would not have responded as I did. When I debate issues about the Hebrew text with other students of Hebrew I don't look for agreement in everything, but I do look for an honest exchange. Most Hebrew scholars do respect the position of scholars with whom they disagree because the other scholars DON'T invent evidence to prove there point, they just interpret the evidence differently; there is a BIG difference.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/28/2008 12:29:52 PM
|
|
|
blessednw
Posts: 668
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
This kind of talk reflects character.You say you want honest debate, but you break the rules in that supposed effort.Someone knowing Hebrew does not impress me as someone willing to walk in godliness, they do not automatically go together. The Hebrew scholars have debated so many things for years, and they were experts "in the language". So what?
I never have said that knowing Hebrew is required for Godliness, but the post I responded to was an argument about Hebrew grammar, and knowing Hebrew does help to identify the fictitious nature of the argument given in that post. When you say "so what?", I have to wonder did you even read my post, or is it that you just don't care that the argument was made up?
I am saying that knowing Hebrew and some conjugations does not an gifted expositor make. Nor one with revelatory insight into deeper meanings in God's word.
I am saying that the way you speak of Sealed shows low character. I do read your posts, too, prayerfully, actually. It does not appear to me that he is lying about tenses, based on what you posted.
I am semifluent in two languages, and fluent in a third, on top of my original language. I am not expert, on what this could possibly mean when studying ancient ideas, and customs in English. I am very aware however, of those who would taunt their skills to somehow have the upper hand in a debate, and how using intimidation and ridicule works to discredit the listener's own reasonings.
I think the Bible is best understood by the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, and clear and plain reading of clear commands, in one's mother tongue.
I think the current church is in grave error by relegating marriage to an undecided concept of undetermined commitment length, giving POWER to abuse, abandon, commit adultery against one's mate, and other rebellions. I think that is what at issue here, not how to find loopholes and try to pin the concept of divorce on God.
It is man's solution, like most religious kinds of control, to deal with a problem that the ones executing it have resigned themselves to God not being big enough for that problem.
I also think, the knowledge of God's design of one man/one woman for life is not meant to be tampered with, nor sought out in alternative mates, which God calls adulterous. This knowledge of His design must be revealed too, by the Holy Spirit, in order to be believed. Though it is written in plain language.
_____________________________
This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/28/2008 1:30:29 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4566
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
I am saying that the way you speak of Sealed shows low character. I do read your posts, too, prayerfully, actually.
Clearly you DON'T read my posts because the attacks you have made against me, were regarding a post made by LoyalGypsy and not Sealed.
quote:
I am semifluent in two languages, and fluent in a third, on top of my original language. I am not expert, on what this could possibly mean when studying ancient ideas, and customs in English. I am very aware however, of those who would taunt their skills to somehow have the upper hand in a debate, and how using intimidation and ridicule works to discredit the listener's own reasonings.
There is nothing subjective about the fictitiousness of the argument that was presented. I presented enough information in my post so that the arrangement could be evaluated by a non Hebrew student. If you still believe I am misleading people, you are more than welcome to check the facts for yourself. Here are some References:
Barons has published two books of Hebrew Verb conjugations for the English reader:
201 Hebrew verbs fully conjugated in all the forms by Abraham S. Halkin (This is a good publication for the biblical Hebrew student)
501 Hebrew verbs by Shmuel Bolozky (This publication is better for the modern Hebrew student)
There is a Hebrew/English version of the Luach Paalim, by Ezri Uval - Asher Tarmon
Additionally the information I provided can be checked in almost any Hebrew Grammar.
Before you accuse me of being one "who would taunt their skills to somehow have the upper hand in a debate, and how using intimidation and ridicule works to discredit the listener's own reasonings", you might consider looking at the information I presented and checking to see if it was accurate! This information is very objective and easily verifiable, and it does not change no matter what side of this issue you stand on! It is strictly an issue of Grammar, not of interpretation. A familiarity with any langauge that uses true verb conjugations (For example Latin or Semitic Languages) should make it easy to identify the falsehood of the "grammar rule" used in the argument to which I objected. PLEASE verify the information before making these kind of accusations against me!!!
BTW - Barron's makes Verb Conjugation books for almost every language, and they are commonly used by language students. The format is almost identical for each language. I also have 201 and 501 Spanish Verbs. Anyone who has taken any college language course probably has one of their volumes on their bookshelf.
< Message edited by benelchi -- 1/28/2008 1:43:30 PM >
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/28/2008 3:09:20 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1228
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
I understand your contention, and I still disagree with it. It doesn't make a lot of sense to say that "he is her owner, but he has not yet owned her" does it?
It does seem sensible to me to say that he was her owner but hadn't yet begun to rule over or be lord over her. Here's another example in scripture:
Genesis 19:14 Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, and said, "Up, get out of this place, for the LORD will destroy the city." But he appeared to his sons-in-law to be jesting.
I realize that different terms are being used here, but the concept that they regarded these men as being family already, but they hadn't yet become married is consistent throughout the Old Testament betrothal terminology.
SealedEternal
There are two difficulties with this passage, first the word 'chatan' means both bridegroom and son-in-law, and second the literal reading of this passages is 'and Lot went out and spoke with his son-in-laws taking of his daughters ....." this construction can refer to those pledged to be married but most often refers to those already married, some bibles footnote the alternate reading i.e. 'and Lot went out and spoke with his son-in-laws married to his daughters'
It also could be that the idiom shouldn't have been applied here and 'to take' should have been treated literally as it is in verse 15. No other instances of the participle construction 'to take' carries the idiom of marriage in the OT.
How does that apply to the other verse I posted?
Deuteronomy 20:7 'And who is the man that is betrothed to a woman and has not married her? Let him depart and return to his house, otherwise he might die in the battle and another man would marry her.'
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/28/2008 3:16:28 PM
|
|
|
blessednw
Posts: 668
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
I am saying that the way you speak of Sealed shows low character. I do read your posts, too, prayerfully, actually.
Clearly you DON'T read my posts because the attacks you have made against me, were regarding a post made by LoyalGypsy and not Sealed.quote:
You are wrong again about me. I did read your post and you did not give credit to the author of the post you quoted.
LG can defend his own posts.
There is nothing subjective about the fictitiousness of the argument that was presented. I presented enough information in my post so that the arrangement could be evaluated by a non Hebrew student. If you still believe I am misleading people, you are more than welcome to check the facts for yourself.
quote:
I was not referring to subjectivity alone, but to attitude. I have experienced this first hand, and I don't find it enlightening. I think you tried to teach a hebrew lesson, at a higher level than most beginning students could get, and so I think you were not making a good point. If you want to teach Hebrew, you should teach it at your student's level. And of course, make sure they want to learn from you.
Here are some References:
Barons has published two books of Hebrew Verb conjugations for the English reader:
201 Hebrew verbs fully conjugated in all the forms by Abraham S. Halkin (This is a good publication for the biblical Hebrew student)
501 Hebrew verbs by Shmuel Bolozky (This publication is better for the modern Hebrew student)
There is a Hebrew/English version of the Luach Paalim, by Ezri Uval - Asher Tarmon
Additionally the information I provided can be checked in almost any Hebrew Grammar.
Before you accuse me of being one "who would taunt their skills to somehow have the upper hand in a debate, and how using intimidation and ridicule works to discredit the listener's own reasonings", you might consider looking at the information I presented and checking to see if it was accurate! This information is very objective and easily verifiable, and it does not change no matter what side of this issue you stand on! It is strictly an issue of Grammar, not of interpretation. A familiarity with any langauge that uses true verb conjugations (For example Latin or Semitic Languages) should make it easy to identify the falsehood of the "grammar rule" used in the argument to which I objected. PLEASE verify the information before making these kind of accusations against me!!!
BTW - Barron's makes Verb Conjugation books for almost every language, and they are commonly used by language students. The format is almost identical for each language. I also have 201 and 501 Spanish Verbs. Anyone who has taken any college language course probably has one of their volumes on their bookshelf.
I don't think superior language study is what makes or breaks it for reading one's Bible and understanding Gods' purpose in His teachings and commands. The design of marriage does not require even a beginner's level of Hebrew to understand.
I think arguing over Deut 24's meaning of "when" is a foolish argument. It seems that it is resurrecting the Hillel and Shammai debate, when Jesus said neither of them were correct. God's design stands.
After all, Hebrew can be used for unrighteousness, witness the idolatrous generations in our beloved OT. They spoke and conjugated fluent Hebrew. Would I take seriously their explanation of the Bible? Not hardly.
I don't think the "facts" you post on conjugation undo the idea that God does not teach divorce, nor does He leave a loophole. I am pretty tired/amused at all the intricate ways that man keeps pinning his own weak faith and poor choices on His Creator.
< Message edited by blessednw -- 1/29/2008 5:56:38 PM >
_____________________________
This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/28/2008 5:07:51 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1228
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessednw
I don't think superior language study is what makes or breaks it for reading one's Bible and understanding Gods' purpose in His teachings and commands. The design of marriage does not require even a beginner's level of Hebrew to understand.
I think arguing over Deut 24's meaning of "when" is a foolish argument. It seems that it is resurrecting the Hillel and Shammai debate, when Jesus said neither of them were correct. God's design stands.
After all, Hebrew can be used for unrighteousness, witness the idolatrous generations in our beloved OT. They spoke and conjugated fluent Hebrew. Would I take seriously their explanation of the Bible? Not hardly.
I don't think the "facts" you post on conjugation undo the idea that God does not teach divorce, nor does He leave a loophole. I am pretty tired/amused at all the intricate ways that man keeps pinning his own weak faith and poor choices on His Creator.
Playing with words to promote false doctrines while appearing to be scriptural is a technique as old as the Bible itself:
2 Timothy 2:14 Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers.
1 Timothy 6:3-5 If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.
The house of Shammai seemed to interpret Deuteronomy 24:1 to say that a man might not divorce his wife unless he found her in some unclean thing, something dishonest and wicked such as adultery; but the house of Hillell say, if she burnt his food, or spoiled it by over salting, or over roasting it. The most powerful "rabbi" within Pharisaism named Akiba arose in the early 2nd century, and he took it upon himself to put the "oral law" into a written form, called the Talmud. He taught that even if he found another woman more beautiful than her or more agreeable to him she was guilty of "ervâh" or uncleanness and thus could be divorced in favor of a more attractive wife.
These men were all experts in Hebrew even more so than people today, but all they used this knowledge for was to find new and better ways to tinker with the terminology in order to make the text say whatever they wanted it to mean. Jesus however rebuked the Pharisees of His day and essentially called them adulterers for their manipulation of God's word that resulted in unlawful divorces and subsequent illegal second marriages. That's the real intent of Matthew 5 & 19, but many use His rebuke against the Pharisees and turn it completely on it's head and use His condemnation to do the exact same thing and create loopholes of their own.
We know that the vast majority of scripture absolutely refutes the doctrines that people try to create by cleverly "interpreting" certain terms out of context, but they nevertheless continue to claim they have found their loopholes and that the rest of the verses that refute them therefore don't matter.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/28/2008 7:15:09 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4566
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
I point out something said by one who supports the "no remarriage ever" viewpoint that was absolutely and unquestionably false, and I provided the documentation to prove it. But rather than addressing that issue with the one who presented the false information the rest of the "no remarriage ever" group just attacks my character because I raised the issue. Somehow they believe that they can win the argument by questioning my faith, motives, etc... rather than addressing the facts.
Here is a sample:
quote:
I am very aware however, of those who would taunt their skills to somehow have the upper hand in a debate, and how using intimidation and ridicule works to discredit the listener's own reasonings.
Playing with words to promote false doctrines while appearing to be scriptural is a technique as old as the Bible itself:
I recommend you show some respect. Knowing Hebrew does not automatically make you able to understand the truth about the design and purpose of marriage, and obviously hasn't given you any convictions about honoring the commands to NT believers about their marriage vows.
When one is so willing to go on the attack to defend a lie, it is clear that there is not interest truth or open discussion, and since it is clear that those who believe in "no remarriage ever" on this thread would rather assassinate the character of those who disagree with them, rather than address the issues or engage in a discussion, I see no further reason to continue this discussion with those who have chosen to engage in this way.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/28/2008 8:02:09 PM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 1010
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
I don't think superior language study is what makes or breaks it for reading one's Bible and understanding Gods' purpose in His teachings and commands. The design of marriage does not require even a beginner's level of Hebrew to understand.
AMEN! I don't know diddly about Hebrew and I'm not afraid to admit it. But I know Jesus Christ and He showed me the truth that set me free and I love Him for it!!!
My Bible doesn't say "you will need to know Hebrew in order to comprehend what you are about to read..." It was meant for the common man to be able to discern the truth. The confusion doesn't come from Him- His words are so clear. If a scholar or expert in Hebrew tells me the sky is green when I see the sky is blue, I'm going with what I see with my own eyes.
I always thought it was so odd that I could supposedly move on and marry someone else, but my husband could not because he was still "married" to me?
I agree with blessnw- there's really no reason to even argue about "our right" to remarry when He has given clear commands to remain unmarried or be reconciled and He has clearly revealed His will is one marriage for life. We shouldn't be looking for excuses not to obey Him.
The rest doesn't matter, if one stops at and heeds 1cor7:10-11. Along with walking out 1cor13 towards a spouse who is wayward. That is what we are called to, not arguing over this til the cows come home. We are called to DIE to self and pick up our cross and follow...
You cannot open your Bible without seeing that our God is a God of reconciliation and restoration. That is always His will. Who would not want to be in His will? The safest place to be...the only place we have His protection and provision, His purpose and plan.
My Pastor gave a very profound sermon on 1cor13. He said anyone can love someone who loves them and makes them feel good. But Jesus calls us to a hard kind of love, knowing we will get nothing in return and loving those who don't deserve it- that is the true test of the Christian faith.
Someone who loves like that will find God's purpose for their life. So I can at least know I have found and am walking out God's purpose for me, whether He ever restores or not.
I'm grateful that Jesus waited for me.
< Message edited by keepingfaith -- 1/28/2008 9:00:27 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/28/2008 9:23:28 PM
|
|
|
Jude4
Posts: 146
Joined: 1/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
My understanding is that the Laws of Moses in general were given due to the hardheartedness of His people. They were rigid regulations for stony hearted people, while the New Covenant is where God writes the spirit of the law on our hard hearts with His Spirit, so that we keep the Spirit rather than the letter:
Friend, thanks for posting the scriptures. The Word can not be refuted by the wisdom of this world. I must say though, whoever does not approach the word with childlike submission, will not understand the mystery of godliness, or even foundational truths such as grace, obedience, etc.. I learned this the hard way, but thank God for his kindness that leads to repentance.
I don't disagree with your understanding of the subject at hand. If I held to a different understanding about Deut 24, it would be minor, and have no effect on the truth that Jesus revealed concerning this practice. If one chooses to appeal to this allowance, it's an implicit admission of hardheartedness.
Without associating betrothal and engagment, what is your conviction about the point I made in the previous posts? If a man and woman are engaged, both assuming the other to be a genuine believer, and one was immoral before the wedding, do you see it as hardhearted to end the engagement? Just curious.
_____________________________
REV 21:7-8
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/28/2008 10:04:44 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1228
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jude4
Without associating betrothal and engagment, what is your conviction about the point I made in the previous posts? If a man and woman are engaged, both assuming the other to be a genuine believer, and one was immoral before the wedding, do you see it as hardhearted to end the engagement? Just curious.
If the woman had presented herself as being a virgin and he found out she was lying about it, I wouldn't necessarily consider the man hard hearted for calling off the wedding. I probably would be willing to forgive whatever past sins she may have committed if she was now a new creation in Christ, but the fact of lying about it would probably bother me more than anything. If it bothered someone else to the point that they no longer desired to marry the person, I wouldn't necessarily accuse them of hard heartedness.
Like I said before, what I interpret Jesus referring to there is that the Old Covenant Jews were so hard hearted that Moses had to have specific rules and regulations with specific penalties for every little situation that could possibly arise. They couldn't just keep the spirit of the Law and behave righteously and lovingly toward one another without God meticulously providing specific regulations for every aspect of their lives. In the New Covenant God softens our hard hearts and writes His Laws upon them so that we ar able to keep the spirit of the Law through His Spirit in us, so that it is not necessary to give us specific regulations for every move we make.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
[Deleted] - 1/28/2008 11:38:42 PM
|
|
|
Deleted User
|
[Deleted by Admins]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/29/2008 9:29:38 AM
|
|
|
Restored_Heart
Posts: 917
Joined: 7/23/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
I point out something said by one who supports the "no remarriage ever" viewpoint that was absolutely and unquestionably false, and I provided the documentation to prove it. But rather than addressing that issue with the one who presented the false information the rest of the "no remarriage ever" group just attacks my character because I raised the issue. Somehow they believe that they can win the argument by questioning my faith, motives, etc... rather than addressing the facts.
Here is a sample:
quote:
I am very aware however, of those who would taunt their skills to somehow have the upper hand in a debate, and how using intimidation and ridicule works to discredit the listener's own reasonings.
Playing with words to promote false doctrines while appearing to be scriptural is a technique as old as the Bible itself:
I recommend you show some respect. Knowing Hebrew does not automatically make you able to understand the truth about the design and purpose of marriage, and obviously hasn't given you any convictions about honoring the commands to NT believers about their marriage vows.
When one is so willing to go on the attack to defend a lie, it is clear that there is not interest truth or open discussion, and since it is clear that those who believe in "no remarriage ever" on this thread would rather assassinate the character of those who disagree with them, rather than address the issues or engage in a discussion, I see no further reason to continue this discussion with those who have chosen to engage in this way.
blessed et al
Think about it this way....
Say that I agreed with you that the sky is blue.... You and I could support each other on that argument.....
But what if I said that the sky is blue because the sun causes the atoms in the atmosphere to exude a blue pigment that makes us see blue?
Just because we agree that the sky is blue, should you support me?
If you are honest, you should not.
That is what benelchi is trying to say. You can agree with Sealed, but his agrument as to what Dt 24 is saying is wrong and founded on a bad premise.
A wrong interpretation and wrong grammar rules should honestly not be supported. You can agree with his position, but not his supporting argument.
_____________________________
It not that I don't think that the health care system needs reformation, but with the Gov't's track record, I fear that it will be like trying to sculpt a statute of my great-grandmother by using a shotgun.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/29/2008 11:47:45 AM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 1010
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
A wrong interpretation and wrong grammar rules should honestly not be supported. You can agree with his position, but not his supporting argument.
My point about the sky being blue was not in reference to who is right in this minute little argument over Deut. It was about Jesus showing me that we are joined in marriage for life, and how all the scriptures reconcile to prove that. I will never second guess His Word because of what some scholar or expert in Hebrew says.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/29/2008 12:13:17 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4566
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
blessed et al
Think about it this way....
Say that I agreed with you that the sky is blue.... You and I could support each other on that argument.....
But what if I said that the sky is blue because the sun causes the atoms in the atmosphere to exude a blue pigment that makes us see blue?
Just because we agree that the sky is blue, should you support me?
If you are honest, you should not.
That is what benelchi is trying to say. You can agree with Sealed, but his agrument as to what Dt 24 is saying is wrong and founded on a bad premise.
A wrong interpretation and wrong grammar rules should honestly not be supported. You can agree with his position, but not his supporting argument.
I tried this exact approach about a month ago here, but those who support the "no remarriage" point of view on this forum just can't seem to grasp the idea that some arguments may be invalid even if they support your conclusions. More disturbing to me is that when the can't defend an argument the resort to attacking the faith, character, and motives of those who disagree with them. I guess it probably should be considered a complement when these guys make such personal attacks, realizing that these same people also question the faith, character and motives of people like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Tyndale, Wesley, or more modern leaders and thinkers like FF. Bruce, Chuck Swindoll, Chip Ingram, RC Sproul, and it seems even those like John Piper who only slightly disagree with their perspective. I guess for them it is either 100% agreement on this topic or you must be an apostate.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
