|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/24/2006 3:34:48 PM
|
|
|
neuronstatic
Posts: 906
Joined: 7/14/2005
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
So do tell us again using your "real life example", simply and without 8 paragraphs trying to explain it. In other words show us a clear example from NT Scriptures that demonstrates this assertion. No explanations. It must stand on its own. Please give us book, chapter, and verse.
< Message edited by neuronstatic -- 1/24/2006 4:03:16 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 - 1/24/2006 4:31:44 PM
|
|
|
alaska
Posts: 171
Joined: 12/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Since the NT is a real life document and the subject under discussion is isolated by nature (it is specific and relates to an isolated topic with exclusive-to-itself particulars), requiring another in-house example is not necessary. Any example from real life usage of language will be just as valid as if there were another similar and unique usage found in scripture.
However, since there are other examples in scripture possessing components of duality of meanings, which open the door to alternative interpretations of scripture (which again have led to wrong understandings because the duality of meanings is not perceived as in this case concerning the premarital divorce), I will not use those other examples possessing duality of definitions because they are hotly debated as is this topic. Also, those other examples possessing duality of definitions do not incorporate exception clauses into statements pertaining to them.
Jesus' statements in Matt. 5 and 19 are indeed unique having both duality of definitions, not familiar with in modern usage, and an exception clause that relates to a closely associated aspect of his main topic, which type of usage of exception clause I will demonstrate.
The false teaching that has resulted by the lack of perception of duality of definitions of words (not only in this topic relating to the premarital divorce) are adamantly adhered to partly due to the unwillingness to acknowledge that a false teaching could have been accepted for so long and by so many. Old bad wine is for many hard to part with even when overwhelming proof is presented showing it to indeed be old and bad.
But this subject of the denial of the permanency of marriage, (till death do us part) stands out among any other wrong understanding because marriage is such an integral part of most of our lives so that the wrong understanding is much more than a wrong understanding: it is a damnable heresy, that is, those embracing it will do things resulting in their own damnation as a result of believing in it.
So I will choose to use a real-life example from the everyday world which cannot be disputed because it will demonstrate the use of an exception clause in a simple situation we will all be able to relate to, not possessing words with outdated dual definitions.
The situation Jesus addressed is not simple to modern man because of the existance in the first century world and long before, of duality of definitions of the words wife, husband and putting away that do not exist in the modern usage of those same words.
I will try to post the example that I have been offering to post for so long the next time I post. I am at school now and I need to retrieve the example from my computer at home.
Next time.
Are you excited?
< Message edited by alaska -- 1/24/2006 4:43:09 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/24/2006 4:41:23 PM
|
|
|
laura...
Posts: 2743
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: NE Ohio
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: alaska
Since the NT is a real life document and the subject under discussion is isolated by nature (it is specific and relates to an isolated topic with exclusive-to-itself particulars), requiring another in-house example is not necessary. Any example from real life usage of language will be just as valid as if there were another similar and unique usage found in scripture.
However, since there are other examples in scripture possessing components of duality of meanings, which open the door to alternative interpretations of scripture (which again have led to wrong understandings because the duality of meanings is not perceived as in this case concerning the premarital divorce), I will not use those other examples possessing duality of definitions because they are hotly debated as is this topic. Also, those other examples possessing duality of definitions do not incorporate exception clauses into statements pertaining to them.
Jesus' statements in Matt. 5 and 19 are indeed unique having both duality of definitions, not familiar with in modern usage, and an exception clause that relates to a closely associated aspect of his main topic, which type of usage of exception clause I will demonstrate.
The false teaching that has resulted by the lack of perception of duality of definitions of words (not only in this topic relating to the premarital divorce) are adamantly adhered to partly due to the unwillingness to acknowledge that a false teaching could have been accepted for so long and by so many. Old bad wine is for many hard to part with even when overwhelming proof is presented showing it to indeed be old and bad.
But this subject of the denial of the permanency of marriage, (till death do us part) stands out among any other wrong understanding because marriage is such an integral part of most of our lives so that the wrong understanding is much more than a wrong understanding: it is a damnable heresy, that is, those embracing it will do things resulting in their own damnation as a result of believing in it.
So I will choose to use a real-life example from the everyday world which cannot be disputed because it will demonstrate the use of an exception clause in a simple situation we will all be able to relate to, not possessing words with outdated dual definitions.
The situation Jesus addressed is not simple to modern man because of the existance in the first century world and long before, of duality of definitions of the words, wife, husband and putting away that do not exist in the modern usage of those same words.
I will try to post the example that I have been offering to post for so long the next time I post. I am at school now and I need to retrieve the example from my computer at home.
Next time.
Are you excited?
So, in other words, you don't have any New Testiment or even Old Testiment support forcing the exception clause to pertain only to pre-consumated marriages.
_____________________________
This is what the Lord says: “Stop at the crossroads and look around. Ask for the old, godly way, and walk in it. Travel its path, and you will find rest for your souls. But you reply, ‘No, that’s not the road we want!’ Jer 6:16
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/24/2006 8:08:48 PM
|
|
|
lastblast
Posts: 1619
Joined: 9/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: laura...
So, in other words, you don't have any New Testiment or even Old Testiment support forcing the exception clause to pertain only to pre-consumated marriages.
Mt. 1:18-24. Blessings in Him, Cindy
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/25/2006 8:27:23 AM
|
|
|
Restored_Heart
Posts: 826
Joined: 7/23/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lastblast
quote:
ORIGINAL: laura...
So, in other words, you don't have any New Testiment or even Old Testiment support forcing the exception clause to pertain only to pre-consumated marriages.
Mt. 1:18-24. Blessings in Him, Cindy
As addressed before, betrothal was considered to be married, but not consumated - so for betrothal to be put away it required a writ of divorce - just like regular marriage. This does not show that this example of divorce was for betrothal only, it just shows that they viewed betrothal as seriously as marriage.
This process could also have been used for those that were already married as addressed in the OT. (Deuteronomy) - it followed the Biblical law prescribed there.
_____________________________
These feet are made for swimming (3 inches already)....
About to hatch (4 weeks to go - or less.... less would be ok)
"Ya mom, I got to see "Some Italian guy" in concert..."
Some Italian guy? (Carman) :p
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/25/2006 9:45:22 AM
|
|
|
laura...
Posts: 2743
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: NE Ohio
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hunterjumper777
quote:
ORIGINAL: lastblast
quote:
ORIGINAL: laura...
So, in other words, you don't have any New Testiment or even Old Testiment support forcing the exception clause to pertain only to pre-consumated marriages.
Mt. 1:18-24. Blessings in Him, Cindy
As addressed before, betrothal was considered to be married, but not consumated - so for betrothal to be put away it required a writ of divorce - just like regular marriage. This does not show that this example of divorce was for betrothal only, it just shows that they viewed betrothal as seriously as marriage.
This process could also have been used for those that were already married as addressed in the OT. (Deuteronomy) - it followed the Biblical law prescribed there.
Exactly.
_____________________________
This is what the Lord says: “Stop at the crossroads and look around. Ask for the old, godly way, and walk in it. Travel its path, and you will find rest for your souls. But you reply, ‘No, that’s not the road we want!’ Jer 6:16
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/25/2006 9:49:46 AM
|
|
|
lastblast
Posts: 1619
Joined: 9/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hunterjumper777
quote:
ORIGINAL: lastblast
quote:
ORIGINAL: laura...
So, in other words, you don't have any New Testiment or even Old Testiment support forcing the exception clause to pertain only to pre-consumated marriages.
Mt. 1:18-24. Blessings in Him, Cindy
As addressed before, betrothal was considered to be married, but not consumated - so for betrothal to be put away it required a writ of divorce - just like regular marriage. This does not show that this example of divorce was for betrothal only, it just shows that they viewed betrothal as seriously as marriage.
Laura asked for biblical evidence of putting away BEFORE consumation of marriage. Mt. 1:18-24 shows such an instance. Interesting to note that this example is found in the very book where the "exception" clause is found. In Him, Cindy
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/25/2006 10:14:44 AM
|
|
|
laura...
Posts: 2743
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: NE Ohio
Status: offline
|
quote:
Laura asked for biblical evidence of putting away BEFORE consumation of marriage. Mt. 1:18-24 shows such an instance. Interesting to note that this example is found in the very book where the "exception" clause is found. In Him, Cindy
No, that's not what I asked for. I asked for scriptural support forcing the exception clause to pertain only to pre-consumated marriages.
There is nothing in scripture that indicates that Jesus was only referring to the betrothal period when he gave the exception clause. There is nothing in scripture that states that divorce was only allowable during the betrothal period.
_____________________________
This is what the Lord says: “Stop at the crossroads and look around. Ask for the old, godly way, and walk in it. Travel its path, and you will find rest for your souls. But you reply, ‘No, that’s not the road we want!’ Jer 6:16
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/25/2006 11:05:07 AM
|
|
|
lastblast
Posts: 1619
Joined: 9/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: laura...
There is nothing in scripture that indicates that Jesus was only referring to the betrothal period when he gave the exception clause. There is nothing in scripture that states that divorce was only allowable during the betrothal period.
But we DO have scripture that clearly teaches that ADULTERY within a marriage does NOT dissolve the marriage bond---either in an extramarital sense or in the case of remarriages that Jesus called "adultery" (Rom. 7:2-3, I Cor. 7:39). Blessings in Him, Cindy
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/25/2006 11:27:59 AM
|
|
|
Restored_Heart
Posts: 826
Joined: 7/23/2005
Status: offline
|
Bringing this back up to look at 1 Corinthians 7 in context:
quote:
ORIGINAL: hunterjumper777
1 Corinthians 7:12-16; 39-40
quote:
12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
quote:
39A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.
Paul adressed this earlier in the text. He then goes into discussing that one should be content in the circumstance in which they find themselves. This would include finding contentment in their marriage - where God has placed them, or in any other situation.
Many divorces occur because of discontent - that is not what God intended marriage to be, but it does NOT disallow divorce.
We continue in this circular path. We can continue to pick out single verses, or look at the verses in context...
_____________________________
These feet are made for swimming (3 inches already)....
About to hatch (4 weeks to go - or less.... less would be ok)
"Ya mom, I got to see "Some Italian guy" in concert..."
Some Italian guy? (Carman) :p
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/25/2006 12:23:04 PM
|
|
|
lastblast
Posts: 1619
Joined: 9/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: laura...
Adultery does not dissolve the marriage bond. Divorce does. Pornea is a legitimate cause for dissolving the marriage bond by divorce. The parties do not have to divorce due to pornea but they are given the freedom to choose so.
I agree that adultery does not dissolve the bond of marriage----that is why a REmarriage does not dissolve the previous LAWFUL marriage as Jesus taught. Those who remarry are not entering into a lawful union before God, they are entering into an illicit relationship (commits adultery)-----according to Jesus.
I also agree that if in fact Mt. 19:9 is speaking about unlawful premarital relations, a person WOULD be free to remarry----as would have been the case with Mary if Joseph had put her away----since he had never been with her and since she had not yet left her father's house to join him (she had not fulfilled the "leaving and cleaving" of marriage yet as spoken in Gen. 3). She would have been considered DEFILED and the marriage contract broken due to her not coming to the marriage as a virgin (which was in their espousal agreements).
On the other hand, if a marriage is lawfully entered into----vows taken before others, leaving and cleaving on both parts-----a couple is JOINED by God---permanently. Rom. 7:2-3 does in no way support the notion that DIVORCE dissolves the one flesh union joined by God. The ONLY way Paul taught that a union could be dissolved was through the DEATH of one of the spouses-----in the case of Rom. 7:2-3---the one who is "innocent" of adultery. Paul does not say "if her husband divorces her, THEN she is free to marry another". No, He plainly teaches that she will only be free to marry another if her husband dies---if she marries before this time, she will be called an adulteress..... There's no indication that labelling of her changes at any time prior to her husband's death either (ie; remarriage is just a "one time sin" of entry).
Paul was THE teacher of Grace. He would not have been so careless in his words to the Church concerning the naming of a sin and the label given to one who commits such sin. In Jesus, Cindy
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/25/2006 12:26:47 PM
|
|
|
lastblast
Posts: 1619
Joined: 9/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hunterjumper777
Paul adressed this earlier in the text. He then goes into discussing that one should be content in the circumstance in which they find themselves. This would include finding contentment in their marriage - where God has placed them, or in any other situation.
Many divorces occur because of discontent - that is not what God intended marriage to be, but it does NOT disallow divorce.
I take issue with your belief that God places people in UNLAWFUL relationships (remarriages). God does not EVER place someone in sin (adultery). The flesh in disobedience does that. In Him, Cindy
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/25/2006 12:37:25 PM
|
|
|
neuronstatic
Posts: 906
Joined: 7/14/2005
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
Yet Laura's question stands: is there no OT or NT evidence to support the "real life example" of the exception clause for divorce to not mean divorce of marriage at any state?
So then, where is the evidence? There is none. There is no evidence that Jesus precluded all divorce. There is no evidence that Jesus specifically allowed divorce for pre-consumated marriage vs post-consumated marriage. In short, we have come to the conclusion that Jesus did give an allowance for divorce of a marriage when there is adultery/porneia/fornication/sexual immorality involved. This is what Jesus stated twice in Matthew.
So then, wouldn't you be ashamed to deny Christ's words as He spoke them in the holy Scriptures?
_____________________________
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 - 1/25/2006 12:51:43 PM
|
|
|
lastblast
Posts: 1619
Joined: 9/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: neuronstatic
So then, where is the evidence? There is none. There is no evidence that Jesus precluded all divorce. There is no evidence that Jesus specifically allowed divorce for pre-consumated marriage vs post-consumated marriage .
There is evidence. You just refuse to accept it. Mt. 1:18-24 is found within scripture for a reason. It shows a PRECEDENT of actions that were allowed/did occur. It also shows that it had nothing to do with HARD-HEARTEDNESS as Joseph was said to be a "just" man in considering putting her away privately, rather than publically. So what Joseph was thinking of doing with Mary was not related to the Hardheartedness that Jesus rejected. Jesus never gave any allowance for hardheartedness (unforgiveness, rejecting a spouse due to their sin, etc, etc).
The reality of the permanence of marriage is seen in Rom. 7:2-3. I know, you reject that as well, but the fact remains that you cannot answer why the "law" of marriage again is brought up in the other NT teachings on marriage by Paul---I Cor. 7:39. Paul again, affirms that marriage is LIFELONG---death being the only thing that will dissolve and free to marry again. The so called "analogy" of Rom. 7:2-3 is again taught by Paul in I Cor. 7:39.
Nowhere in either I Cor. 7---the entire chapter, or in Rom. 7:2-3 do we see that divorce dissolves the marriage joined by God-----only death is mentioned. In Jesus, Cindy
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/25/2006 1:24:17 PM
|
|
|
Restored_Heart
Posts: 826
Joined: 7/23/2005
Status: offline
|
The evidence of Joseph and Mary (who had gone through the betrothal ceremony and were therefore linked as married - see previous posts from Neuronstatic on Jewish betrothal law) shows that divorce because of fornication/porneia/sexual immorality was lawful and biblical. This doesn't show that it was for betrothal only.
I for one, am glad that Joseph listened to God and was a just man in his dealings with Mary (who was actually innocent, although she appeared defiled). This is an illustration of the grace that we should have in dealing with a spouse (betrothed or married). For those of us that were divorced by the unrepentant guilty spouse (as some of us are) - we demonstrated grace by taking them back and trying to reclaim the defiled and damaged marriage. In the case of our hard-hearted spouses, who left and divorced anyway, our efforts were in vain. We are NOT divorced because we were the hard-hearted, but because others were hard-hearted towards us. There IS a difference.
In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul was addressing this situation of leaving the marriage because of dissatifaction and hard-heartedness. In our cases - we did not leave - we were left, the divorces were not of our choosing.
You can choose to disagree - that is OK.
You can pray for us - we will pray for you.
Believe me - we searched the scriptures and prayed and sought God and His will for our lives. We did as He led us to - you may disagree that is your right.
Paul was encouraging believers to stay married because marriage is intended (God's will) to be permanent. We do not dispute that - we only recognize that all have sinned and fall short - sometimes this messes up the intention and produces consequences. God is still in control, but He allows things to happen.
edited to remove references to marriage after divorce - will be addressed in other thread
< Message edited by hunterjumper777 -- 1/25/2006 1:38:03 PM >
_____________________________
These feet are made for swimming (3 inches already)....
About to hatch (4 weeks to go - or less.... less would be ok)
"Ya mom, I got to see "Some Italian guy" in concert..."
Some Italian guy? (Carman) :p
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/25/2006 11:04:41 PM
|
|
|
alaska
Posts: 171
Joined: 12/11/2005
Status: offline
|
True, the word married was also used in relation to the engaged couple. That just shows another duality of definition. Do we suppose the ancients didn't have enough sense to understand the difference between the married and the married or the husband and the husband and the wife and the wife? Since these words had duality of definitions the context in which these words were used would indicate what definition applied.
Though 'wife' or 'married' could have been used for the couple not yet joined, those using those words knew very well that there was difference. In that situation the woman would not only be called wife but also a virgin in many cases. A virgin wife? Well, there did exist such a thing in ancient time.
The scriptures don't expressly say not to shoot mind altering get-high drugs.
Are we allowed to shoot drugs because the scriptures do not expressly state not to do so?
We come to that conclusion not to do so by a process of deduction based on the validity in scriptures that relate: drunkeness, defilement etc.
Sufficient Biblical evidence exists proving that there did exist a PREMARITAL divorce for FORNICATION. In the Greek the word porneia can be used in the same way that we can use fornication in English where the context shows it to NOT relate to adultery but to the premarital sin specifically.
So the case for deduction supporting the no divorce position would be something like this:
(Notice how much is based on scripture.)
1) In Mark 10:2-12 Jesus appears to mean exactly what he says. No divorce and no exceptions.
The verses containing the exception clauses can be understood to fully support and even emphasise the apparent straightforward meaning of no divorce and no exceptions by the scriptural facts that:
2) There did exist a premarital divorce for fornication (the sexual offence could not be called adultery because they had not yet become joined or cleaved together after having left father and mother which Jesus stipulated. Matthew 1:18-24
3) The man and woman in this unjoined state were given the titles of husband and wife.
See Deut. 22:23,24 Deut. 20:7 notice the word "taken" here as well as in Matt. 1. We can call that couple 'untaken' or 'not yet joined'.
Another main point fitting the context that the exception clause supports the no divorce position is based on how language works:
When addressing a topic possessing a very closely associated aspect of the same topic, especially when the terminology is applicable to both aspects, it is possible to insert a phrase, when addressing the main aspect, which phrase relates only to the associated aspect.
So the context favouring the exception clause to be referring to the premarital divorce is more that adequately accommodated for by scripture.
It is further accommodated by how language works.
So the deduction says something like; isn't it possible that since there existed the premarital wife and that her "husband" could put away such a wife BEFORE he joined with her, on account of her fornication (not adultery), that Jesus really could have meant what his words so clearly seem to indicate that he meant in Mark 10?
Those declaring that He could NOT have meant that, often argue because since He is plainly addressing the married (taken/joined) state, the exception clause CANNOT pertain to the premarital divorce.
It has been like pulling teeth to get anyone to agree to see an example from the real world showing how language works showing how an exception clause can in very fact be inserted into the middle of a sentence, which exception does NOT relate to what is being directly addressed.
The argument against the exception clause relating to something other than what is being directly addressed is based on the presumption that language doesn't work that way.
So when I offer to show an example of how language does work that way ( and that the unique ancient situation of betrohal accommodates it perfectly) all of a sudden, they don't want that. They want a specific direct reference forcing the exception clause to relate to the premarital divorce when the fact is that the scriptures do force the exception clause to apply exclusively to the premarital divorce as much as God's scriptures force us to forbid the use of marijuana by a very similar process of deduction.
It is just that the processes of deduction (responsible for much of what we understand) employed by those supporting divorce and dissolvement of what Jesus said man is NOT to put asunder, have incorporated into those processes the ability to regard Mark 10:2-12 Luke 16:8 and 1 Cor. 7:39,11 as impossible to mean that which those verses so plainly appear to mean.
I was going to include my real life example until I read again the post that appeared to be willing to see it and realised that they don't really want to see it.
Come on now. How would you feel if you were labouring with someone to get them off of smoking dope and they weren't going to accept your counsel unless you showed them a scripture specifically forbidding the use of cannabis? And maybe cannabis better be spelled correctly too.
< Message edited by alaska -- 1/25/2006 11:22:35 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/26/2006 11:49:23 AM
|
|
|
neuronstatic
Posts: 906
Joined: 7/14/2005
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: alaska
Sufficient Biblical evidence exists proving that there did exist a PREMARITAL divorce for FORNICATION. In the Greek the word porneia can be used in the same way that we can use fornication in English where the context shows it to NOT relate to adultery but to the premarital sin specifically.
And more than sufficient Scriptural and translation source text exists to demonstrate that porneia meant sexual immorality of various kinds without any restriction to betrothal. Your assertion is entirely circumstantial and is simply unsupported opinion.
quote:
ORIGINAL: alaska
Another main point fitting the context that the exception clause supports the no divorce position is based on how language works:
When addressing a topic possessing a very closely associated aspect of the same topic, especially when the terminology is applicable to both aspects, it is possible to insert a phrase, when addressing the main aspect, which phrase relates only to the associated aspect.
So the context favouring the exception clause to be referring to the premarital divorce is more that adequately accommodated for by scripture.
It is further accommodated by how language works.
So the deduction says something like; isn't it possible that since there existed the premarital wife and that her "husband" could put away such a wife BEFORE he joined with her, on account of her fornication (not adultery), that Jesus really could have meant what his words so clearly seem to indicate that he meant in Mark 10?
Those declaring that He could NOT have meant that, often argue because since He is plainly addressing the married (taken/joined) state, the exception clause CANNOT pertain to the premarital divorce.
It has been like pulling teeth to get anyone to agree to see an example from the real world showing how language works showing how an exception clause can in very fact be inserted into the middle of a sentence, which exception does NOT relate to what is being directly addressed.
Your illustration is quite flawed. You are building a house of cards to force the scriptures to say what you want them to say. Just read God's word for what it is, and always do so in context (all manner of context) and scope.
quote:
ORIGINAL: alaska
The argument against the exception clause relating to something other than what is being directly addressed is based on the presumption that language doesn't work that way.
So when I offer to show an example of how language does work that way ( and that the unique ancient situation of betrohal accommodates it perfectly) all of a sudden, they don't want that. They want a specific direct reference forcing the exception clause to relate to the premarital divorce when the fact is that the scriptures do force the exception clause to apply exclusively to the premarital divorce as much as God's scriptures force us to forbid the use of marijuana by a very similar process of deduction.
It is just that the processes of deduction (responsible for much of what we understand) employed by those supporting divorce and dissolvement of what Jesus said man is NOT to put asunder, have incorporated into those processes the ability to regard Mark 10:2-12 Luke 16:8 and 1 Cor. 7:39,11 as impossible to mean that which those verses so plainly appear to mean.
I was going to include my real life example until I read again the post that appeared to be willing to see it and realised that they don't really want to see it.
I await the example from the NT scriptures. I want to see it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: alaska
Come on now. How would you feel if you were labouring with someone to get them off of smoking dope and they weren't going to accept your counsel unless you showed them a scripture specifically forbidding the use of cannabis? And maybe cannabis better be spelled correctly too.
Come on now, how would you feel if you were trying to demonstrate a consistent and biblical view of the Scriptures to someone and they won't accept it because it goes against their opinion? Jesus said if your spouse is a cheating idiot, you can be divorced from them justifiably and without guilt. We have shown you the clear verses that say that in Matthew. What more do you need?
Back to your language assertion. Show us a clear example in NT scripture that shows this language construct, and you cannot cite the TWO Matthew verse with the exception clause. For clarity sake, try using the NASB as it is the closest to a word for word translation to the original Aramaic text. We are waiting.
Now to further trod the path, let me re-iterate something else concerning exegesis and hermeneutics. The process of exegesis is to go to the scriptures and to seek what they contain, as they are written. Do critical analysis of them to better understand them in context. Once you have that analysis and understanding of their contents, then apply the principles of interpretation, methodically, using all of scripture as your context. I honestly don't see this taking place in any of your language examples thus far.
What I see is abstract creation of a language construct whereby two topics are intermixed in such a way that it seems purposefully confusing. This is akin to the English problems with sentences like "I saw the baby fall out of the corner of my eye". Mechanical translation would confuse the two potential meanings with "I saw the baby fall, but only briefly from the corner of my eye" and "I saw the baby fall out of the corner of my eye and I have no idea how it got there in the first place". Similar problems exist with "My uncle once shot an alligator in his pajamas". These kinds of sentences are confusion all around and that is why we call them poorly constructed in English.
Why then would Jesus, Himself God the Creator of the universe, purposefully inject confusion into His word? Doesn't God also say that He is not the author of confusion?
_____________________________
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 - 1/26/2006 4:10:13 PM
|
|
|
alaska
Posts: 171
Joined: 12/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
What I see is abstract creation of a language construct whereby two topics are intermixed in such a way that it seems purposefully confusing. This is akin to the English problems with sentences like "I saw the baby fall out of the corner of my eye". Mechanical translation would confuse the two potential meanings with "I saw the baby fall, but only briefly from the corner of my eye" and "I saw the baby fall out of the corner of my eye and I have no idea how it got there in the first place". Similar problems exist with "My uncle once shot an alligator in his pajamas". These kinds of sentences are confusion all around and that is why we call them poorly constructed in English.
The example I have, that demonstates that an exception clause can relate to something other than what is being directly addressed, is not a poorly constructed mess up as are the examples that you have shared with us like the man who had an alligator in his britches. Your examples also don't possess exception clauses. It appears that you anticipate my example to be as improper English as is found in your examples. That is not so.
Are you saying that if we can't find another case in scripture possessing all of the unique factors found in Matt. 5:32 that language cannot work that way?
What Jesus said is unique and complex (to us not raised with duality of definitions of those words).
Would you not count as valid an example from the real world plainly showing and without poor construction that an exception clause can be inserted relating to something other than what is being directly addressed and it makes perfect sense? My example does not possess duality of definitions. Its sole purpose is to show that exception clauses can relate to something else.
Once that usage of language is established and the unique factors are acknowledged that existed in their culture, looking at what Jesus said, understanding the exception to pertain exclusively to the premarital divorce will be as plain to understand as, "my uncle, while wearing pajamas, shot an alligator".
We can then create an example possessing all of the factors including the duality of definitions and the use of an exception clause, which when compared to 5:32 will be parallel in construction and be proper English.
This example will reveal that if someone reads it not aware of the duality of definitions their perception will be one of uncertainty and confusion.
Like; "with his bow in hand, he launched his projectile". What sense could be made of that to someone only aware of the existence of bows that you wear around your neck?
While being a legitimate sentence, to someone unaware that a word can mean other than what their limited knowledge permits, a simple statement can be open to all kinds of wild speculation. Did he untie his bow and make a sling out of it?
I am saying these things only to establish the principles with which we are dealing.
< Message edited by alaska -- 1/26/2006 4:30:34 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread - 1/26/2006 5:25:59 PM
|
|
|
Restored_Heart
Posts: 826
Joined: 7/23/2005
Status: offline
|
Instead of arguing language constructs and semantics, what is the example already?
_____________________________
These feet are made for swimming (3 inches already)....
About to hatch (4 weeks to go - or less.... less would be ok)
"Ya mom, I got to see "Some Italian guy" in concert..."
Some Italian guy? (Carman) :p
|
|
| | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
