quote:

ORIGINAL: Restored_Heart

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.

quote:

The only thing benelchi seemed to argue with was that he thought the grammar of the verse could be applied more broadly than the limitations that I put on it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Restored_Heart

quote:

The only thing benelchi seemed to argue with was that he thought the grammar of the verse could be applied more broadly than the limitations that I put on it.

With this part...

We have consistently shown that the "get" or divorce was needed at any part of the marriage time (from betrothal on)...

That is the flaw in interpretation, limiting it to and only to immediate marriage night....

quote:

ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil

treeclimber - that is a very good question. there are clearly personal agendas at stake here such as promoting of websites and businesses.

quote:

The Law never said anywhere that all divorce is acceptable if the correct paperwork is done

quote:

ORIGINAL: SealedEternal

Here is the fatal flaw in benelchi's position:

Deuteronomy 24:1 "When a man takes (lâqach) a wife and marries (bâ‛al) her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house"

He said that my position made no sense because I said that becoming husband and wife at the time of the betrothal is distinct from being married or becoming one flesh which didn't happen until the end of the betrothal. This is however the scriptural position as I can show from scripture:

Deuteronomy 20:7 'And who is the man that is betrothed to a woman and has not married (lâqach) her? Let him depart and return to his house, otherwise he might die in the battle and another man would marry her.'

Clearly this illustrates that (lâqach) or taking the wife happened after the betrothal was over which is the same word used in Deuteronomy 24:1 above. The text in 24:1 said that the man found the indecency when he "lâqach" (took her) and "bâ‛al" (took dominion over her), or in other words at the end of the betrothal period which is exactly what I had always said.

We see in other scriptures that in Hebrew marriages the two were considered husband and wife the moment they were betrothed to one another even though they hadn't been married (lâqach) yet:

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.

Matthew 1:18-19 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.

Mary and Joseph were bound together by a betrothal covenant and therefore regarded as husband and wife even though they had not yet come together or (lâqach). Joseph was planning on using the provision in Deuteronomy 24:1 to send her away because he thought she was sexually unclean due to the fact that she was pregnant, and he and she had not yet come together (lâqach) and become one flesh. This is the only scriptural example of Deuteronomy 24:1 in practice and it fits exactly what I've been saying, and what Jesus said as well:

Matthew 19: 3-6 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

First of all, the entire claim that God allows divorce and remarriage is refuted by Jesus immediately when the Pharisees ask Him the question, because His answer was an unequivocal NO! He says it is absolutely unlawful to God for us to try to separate what He Himself has joined together, so any claim that He was making provision here for divorce and remarriage is false.

This was His answer to the fundamental question of whether divorce of married couples is ever allowable, but many instead take His answer to a completely different question out of context. The Pharisees then go on to question Him about the Old Covenant Law and an apparent “exception” offered there:

Matthew 19: 7-9 They *said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" He *said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another woman commits adultery."

This was the reference to the Law of Moses in Deuteronomy 24:1 where it allowed a man to divorce his wife if she was guilty of being unclean WHEN he "lâqach" (took her) and "bâ‛al" (took dominion over her). Jesus acknowledged this provision and then immediately rebuked the Pharisees who He was speaking to by stating that every other "divorce" and subsequent "remarriage" was actually an adulterous relationship, because both He and they knew full well that they had broadened Deuteronomy 24:1 to refer to all sorts of exceptions just as many professing Christians do today, and because of this they were guilty of adultery and subject to stoning under the Old Covenant Law.

SealedEternal

quote:

ORIGINAL: Restored_Heart

quote:

The Law never said anywhere that all divorce is acceptable if the correct paperwork is done

You're right in this part.... But not in the "one" reason.

Divorce was allowed for reasons of sexual immorality.

Yes, the guilty parties were to be stoned, but that was not always done, and cannot be done now.

Jesus said that in Mt 5.

quote:

He did not condone divorce for "any" reason, and neither do I.

I also hold with the teachings of Paul, that says if an unbeliever leaves on their own, the believer is no longer bound.

These positions fit with the entirety of scripture, OLD and NEW testament.

quote:


quote:

He did not condone divorce for "any" reason, and neither do I.

I also hold with the teachings of Paul, that says if an unbeliever leaves on their own, the believer is no longer bound.

These positions fit with the entirety of scripture, OLD and NEW testament.



Paul only permitted to allow an unbeliever to leave for the sake of peace, but stated that the believer must remain unmarried or else reconcile, and if she remarried while her husband lived she would be called an adulteress. If your position were true Paul would have to be schizophrenic by contradicting everything else he said on the topic, as well as being in direct contradiction to Jesus Christ who said that everyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery unless they were an Old Covenant man who discovered sexual indecency in their wives when he married her.

When you try to create loopholes by isolating certain scriptures and reading your own interpretations into them rather than allowing scripture to interpret scripture, then your position will always be refuted by the rest of the scriptures which you ignore:

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:



Paul only permitted to allow an unbeliever to leave for the sake of peace, but stated that the believer must remain unmarried or else reconcile, and if she remarried while her husband lived she would be called an adulteress. If your position were true Paul would have to be schizophrenic by contradicting everything else he said on the topic, as well as being in direct contradiction to Jesus Christ who said that everyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery unless they were an Old Covenant man who discovered sexual indecency in their wives when he married her.

When you try to create loopholes by isolating certain scriptures and reading your own interpretations into them rather than allowing scripture to interpret scripture, then your position will always be refuted by the rest of the scriptures which you ignore:

That is NOT at all what Paul said about the situation Restored_Heart raised, to quote what you did is a complete distortion of what Paul said in 1 Co. 7. In Vs. 15-16 Paul specifically addresses the this situation i.e. "Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peaces. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?"

The verses you tried to apply to this situation make absolutely no mention of the involvement of an unbeliever, and the call to remain separate was directed at the wife who initiated the separation, not one who was abandoned by an unbelieving spouse.

quote:

So you admit that it is an Old Covenant Law and has no bearing on the New Covenant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Restored_Heart

quote:

So you admit that it is an Old Covenant Law and has no bearing on the New Covenant.

No... this is NOT what I said...

What I said was, by the LAW is was supposed to happen (in jewish society).

Jesus did not abolish the Law, He was the only perfect one to uphold the Law.

The purpose of the Law was to expose our sin.

The purpose of Jesus was to restore the sinful, through His sinlessness - by His grace and mercy, not our ability.

quote:



The person who is abandoned is only given permission to allow the person to depart for the sake of peace while Paul still specifically said she is legally bound to her husband until he dies. The bondage described in this passage is only in the context of dwelling together, and therefore it is adding to the text to suggest that she is unbound from the marriage itself and therefore free to remarry when Paul specifically said otherwise:

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:



The person who is abandoned is only given permission to allow the person to depart for the sake of peace while Paul still specifically said she is legally bound to her husband until he dies. The bondage described in this passage is only in the context of dwelling together, and therefore it is adding to the text to suggest that she is unbound from the marriage itself and therefore free to remarry when Paul specifically said otherwise:

Let's get this straight,

When Paul says they are no longer bound in vs. 1 Co. 15-16 he really didn't mean that they were not bound to the marriage, but only that they were not bound to remain living in the same home as the the spouse.

.... But when Paul says they are not bound a few verses later in the same chapter he really did mean that they are no longer bound to remain in the marriage this time.

Kind of sounds like you think you can redefine what it means to be bound whenever whenever the current definition gets in the way of your interpretation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SealedEternal

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

quote:

First, contrast between different Hebrew words cannot “eliminate”
the b) (Niphal) and c) (Hiphil) in any verb!

Hebrew verbs are conjugated much like Spanish or French verbs.

In Hebrew there are seven different verb constructions (binyanim) i.e. qal (light), niphal(passive), piel(intensive), pual(intensive passive), hiphil(causative), hophil(causative passive), hitpiel(reflexive)

Within these constructions there is a perfect, imperfect, imperative, and present participle.

quote:

Second, “to find favor in the eyes” is an extremely common Hebrew idiom that does NOT mean anything close to what you have implied;
Result of search for "qal":

quote:

In Du. 24:1 the root ‘matsa’ is conjugated ‘timtsa’; it is the conjugation that determines to which binyanim it belongs. Would you like to guess at which binyanim is used here?

quote:

Here are a few of the many other verses with the same construct “to find favor in the eyes”, although the translations vary the Hebrew construct is identical in all of these verses.
Ge. 19:19 “Now behold, your servant has found favor in your sight…”
Ge 32:5 “…that I may find favor in your sight”
Ge 33:8 “…and he said, “To find favor in the sight of my lord.””
Ge. 39:4 “So Joseph found favor in his sight…”
Ru. 2:2 “…in whose sight I may find favor…”

quote:

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.