quote:

Can you provide a reference to one Hebrew scholar that supports your strange interpretation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: laura...


And, yet, Augustine's opinions and writings are not scripture and he wasn't an Apostle. Paul, who was an Apostle, whose writings are scripture, says that if an unbelieving spouse abandons the marriage the innocent spouse is not bound to the marriage. Who you going to believe -- Augustine, a great church leader or Paul, an Apostle? I will stick with the one whose writings are scripture.

Or better yet...Jesus, who is God, who gave us the exception clause "except for 'pornia'".

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

Again, I ask:

Can you provide a reference to one Hebrew scholar that supports your strange interpretation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SealedEternal

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

The problem is that we know that the Hebrew custom was for the parents to keep the cloth from the wedding night to ensure that their daughters name was not slandered. This practice has continued throughout history and is still practiced today in some cultures. The issue being dealt with in Du. 22 is solely that of a slanderous accusation made against a wife after the wedding, not on the wedding night. Why do you think the parents kept (and still do keep) the proof of their daughter virginity?

I answered that already. Because Old Covenant men routinely looked for ways to create loopholes in God's Laws as you do. I'm sure there were many innocent women whose husbands wanted to ditch them 20 years later, who then asked her to prove she was a virgin 20 years earlier when her husband married her. Then when they said they didn't have evidence anymore, their husband said, "Good. Consider yourself divorced as per the Law of God." That was obviously never God's intent in creating this Law, and is a blatant abuse of it.

It is after the wedding night that the man would have known his wife isn't a virgin, and it is then that he would be able to present his case to the elders. That is the only possible time that such a discovery could be made, and that is when the "evidence" would still be viable. Common sense tells us that is what the text is speaking to.

Obviously the spirit of the Law was to permit a man to extricate himself from a marriage covenant that he made in good faith with the assumption that he was receiving a virgin bride. She had defrauded him in a sense, so he had a way of rescinding the offer. He had that one opportunity, when he took (lâqach) his wife and went in to her as the text says. It is absurd to suggest that decades later the woman was expected to prove she was a virgin decades earlier, as if the evidence would even be viable at that point. And if the poor woman's parents accidentally misplaced or washed the cloth, the man could hold that over her head forever, and cast her away whenever he felt like it. That is not at all the intent of this Law and we both know it.

quote:

The purpose of this law was to protect the wife from slanderous accusations made by the husband. If, as you contend, this was something that only happened on the wedding night, the husband would have presented the unstained cloth as proof of his brides infidelity himself, her parents would not yet have received it!

It was to protect her from slanderous accusations as well as protecting him from being defrauded in his marriage covenant. He purchased her from her parents with the understanding that she was a virgin. If she wasn't then they cheated him in a sense. The cloth was regarded as evidence either way. It either proved her innocence or it proved he had been defrauded. The main point is that all of this was determined on the wedding night, and would be settled then.

quote:

Additionally, concluding that divorce was only permitted on the wedding night based on the grammar of Du. 24:1-4 is completely ridiculous. It would would be like reading "when a man marries he must stop dating other women" and then concluding that after the wedding night it would be OK for him to date other women

What kind of logic is that? "When" is an adverb that means "what time or at what point something happens"According to your analogy the man has to stop dating when (at the point that) he marries his wife, but then you go on to say that it means he may date the next day. That means he didn't stop dating when he married her as your text say. You're whole analogy is flawed and based on a false comparison, but now I see why you seem to have difficulty understanding simple statements in scripture. "When a man takes a wife and marries her" means at he found indecency in her "at the point" that he took his wife and married her.


SealedEternal

quote:



I don't look to men to tell me what God says. I gave you His Words which to me are clear, but if His Word isn't good enough for you then I guess we'll never see eye to eye. Also, if you don't accept that "when" really means "when" then how can I possibly reason with you? You're tinkering with words as the Pharisees did with the Old Covenant Law to change the meanings of simple statements by God.

If your "experts" think that the Old Covenant Law was allowing divorce for lack of virginity discovered 20 years into a marriage, then I think their position is absurd and does not fit the clear wording of the text. Lack of virginity could only be found at one point in time, which is "When a man takes (lâqach) a wife and marries her". That is a reference to a specific point in time, and common sense dictates that it could only be so.

SealedEternal

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:



I don't look to men to tell me what God says. I gave you His Words which to me are clear, but if His Word isn't good enough for you then I guess we'll never see eye to eye. Also, if you don't accept that "when" really means "when" then how can I possibly reason with you? You're tinkering with words as the Pharisees did with the Old Covenant Law to change the meanings of simple statements by God.

If your "experts" think that the Old Covenant Law was allowing divorce for lack of virginity discovered 20 years into a marriage, then I think their position is absurd and does not fit the clear wording of the text. Lack of virginity could only be found at one point in time, which is "When a man takes (lâqach) a wife and marries her". That is a reference to a specific point in time, and common sense dictates that it could only be so.

SealedEternal

And yet you come up with this very twisted interpretation by making an argument based on the grammar and vocabulary of the Hebrew langauge, a language you DON'T UNDERSTAND AND HAVE NEVER STUDIED, and then reject the opinion of every one who has!

quote:

Don't you think that those who have studied and know that langauge might just be more qualified to give an opinion about the grammar and vocabulary than you are?

quote:

Do you realize how completely ludicrous it is that you place your opinion about the Hebrew grammar and vocabulary of this passage above every scholar who has studied the langauge?

quote:

As I see it the constant reference to the Hebrew grammar and vocabulary in your posts serves nothing more than to make your argument sound more credible to those who don't know the langauge i.e. a dishonest bluff! You seem to care little about what the langauge really says, and prefer to invent rules of grammar that just don't exist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

Although I have studied Hebrew, my use of Hebrew in this thread has been almost completely limited to refuting the completely fallacious information you keep trying to present on this thread.

You say "Fortunately the Bible has been translated into English", and "I believe God has spoken in a way that even those of us who aren't elitest Hebrew adepts like yourself can understand", and yet it is you who continues to bring up Hebrew vocabulary and grammar to try and defend your position??????????????????????????????

quote:

Here is how "when" is defined in the English dictionary. I have underlined all of those definitions that go beyond the narrow definition you have tried to force.

when –adverb

1. at what time or period? how long ago? how soon?: When are they to arrive? When did the Roman Empire exist?
2. under what circumstances? upon what occasion?: When is a letter of condolence in order? When did you ever see such a crowd?
–conjunction
3. at what time: to know when to be silent.
4. at the time or in the event that: when we were young; when the noise stops.
5. at any time; whenever: He is impatient when he is kept waiting.
6. upon or after which; and then: We had just fallen asleep when the bell rang.
7. while on the contrary; considering that; whereas: Why are you here when you should be in school?
–pronoun
8. what time: Till when is the store open?
9. which time: They left on Monday, since when we have heard nothing.
–noun
10. the time of anything: the when and the where of an act.

Only one out of the ten definitions given for "when" is defined as narrowly as you insist must be understood in Du. 24:1.

quote:

Would you define "when" so narrowly in the following sentence? When a man is married, he must not date other women? Does that really mean only on the day of his wedding?

quote:

Do you really believe people will buy your statement that "Anyone with a modicum of training in the English Language knows what "when" means, and that you are blatantly denying it"? Don't you realize that other people have English dictionaries too?

quote:


Here is how "when" is defined in the English dictionary. I have underlined all of those definitions that go beyond the narrow definition you have tried to force.

when –adverb

1. at what time or period? how long ago? how soon?: When are they to arrive? When did the Roman Empire exist?
2. under what circumstances? upon what occasion?: When is a letter of condolence in order? When did you ever see such a crowd?
–conjunction
3. at what time: to know when to be silent.
4. at the time or in the event that: when we were young; when the noise stops.
5. at any time; whenever: He is impatient when he is kept waiting.
6. upon or after which; and then: We had just fallen asleep when the bell rang.
7. while on the contrary; considering that; whereas: Why are you here when you should be in school?
–pronoun
8. what time: Till when is the store open?
9. which time: They left on Monday, since when we have heard nothing.
–noun
10. the time of anything: the when and the where of an act.

quote:

No, they all refer to a specific point in time which you deny. The whole purpose for the existence of the word "when" is to denote the specific time frame that something occurred, which is what the text we are describing denotes:

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatHarris

quote:

ORIGINAL: keepingfaith

quote:

Can you provide a reference to one Hebrew scholar that supports your strange interpretation?

Can you provide a reference to one early church father who shares your interpretation of the scriptures on remarriage? One that says remarriage is permitted in the case of adultery? One that says in all cases it becomes a lawful marriage whether entered into sinfully or not?

Not really sure why I should care what the early church fathers thought.
If they didnt write the scriptures, it is nothing but their opinion and not fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:


Here is how "when" is defined in the English dictionary. I have underlined all of those definitions that go beyond the narrow definition you have tried to force.

when –adverb

1. at what time or period? how long ago? how soon?: When are they to arrive? When did the Roman Empire exist?
2. under what circumstances? upon what occasion?: When is a letter of condolence in order? When did you ever see such a crowd?
–conjunction
3. at what time: to know when to be silent.
4. at the time or in the event that: when we were young; when the noise stops.
5. at any time; whenever: He is impatient when he is kept waiting.
6. upon or after which; and then: We had just fallen asleep when the bell rang.
7. while on the contrary; considering that; whereas: Why are you here when you should be in school?
–pronoun
8. what time: Till when is the store open?
9. which time: They left on Monday, since when we have heard nothing.
–noun
10. the time of anything: the when and the where of an act.

quote:

No, they all refer to a specific point in time which you deny. The whole purpose for the existence of the word "when" is to denote the specific time frame that something occurred, which is what the text we are describing denotes:

If you won't even agree with the English definition of the word, taken from an English dictionary, then it is really pointless to continue this debate with you.

quote:

You can make the text mean anything you want simply by redefining the definitions of the words

quote:

(something for which you have shown yourself quite adept); however, those definitions are not a reflection of what the author intended.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SealedEternal

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:


Here is how "when" is defined in the English dictionary. I have underlined all of those definitions that go beyond the narrow definition you have tried to force.

when –adverb

1. at what time or period? how long ago? how soon?: When are they to arrive? When did the Roman Empire exist?
2. under what circumstances? upon what occasion?: When is a letter of condolence in order? When did you ever see such a crowd?
–conjunction
3. at what time: to know when to be silent.
4. at the time or in the event that: when we were young; when the noise stops.
5. at any time; whenever: He is impatient when he is kept waiting.
6. upon or after which; and then: We had just fallen asleep when the bell rang.
7. while on the contrary; considering that; whereas: Why are you here when you should be in school?
–pronoun
8. what time: Till when is the store open?
9. which time: They left on Monday, since when we have heard nothing.
–noun
10. the time of anything: the when and the where of an act.

quote:

No, they all refer to a specific point in time which you deny. The whole purpose for the existence of the word "when" is to denote the specific time frame that something occurred, which is what the text we are describing denotes:

If you won't even agree with the English definition of the word, taken from an English dictionary, then it is really pointless to continue this debate with you.

I do agree with the very definition you posted but you don't. "When" always denotes at what time or period is being referred to. It depends on the context what time or period it would be. In this case it is referring to the point in time that the man took his wife and married her. You keep trying to suggest that "when" doesn't mean "when" here because it can refer to a different time or period in a different context, but that is irrelevent to the context of this usage.

quote:

You can make the text mean anything you want simply by redefining the definitions of the words

That's exactly my point. If you deny that "when" denotes the time something happened then you are denying the entire purpose of the word. If you can simply deny words mean what they mean then there is no possible way to have an honest debate of the facts.

quote:

(something for which you have shown yourself quite adept); however, those definitions are not a reflection of what the author intended.

What exactly did the author mean by "when he marries her" if not "when (at what time or period) he marries her" as your own definition states?

SealedEternal

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

You really need to contact the people at dictionary.com and let them know they don't understand the definition they provided either because that is where I got the definition, and these are the synonyms they provide for "when" on that same site:

although, during, if, meanwhile, though, until, whereas, while

quote:

Somehow you seem to have deluded yourself into believing that you are the only authority for the definition of English words, the definition of Hebrew words (even though you have never studied the language), the interpretation of biblical passages, etc..., etc..., etc... and won't even accept common sources (like the dictionary) that the rest of the English speaking world trusts as reliable.

quote:

If you WILL NOT agree with the rest of the English speaking world about what the definition of a word is, then communication with you will never be truly possible.

quote:

Please understand that when we cannot even look to the dictionary to find agreement on the possible definitions of a word, further discussion about how it should be interpreted is completely fruitless. I do not accept you as a greater authority than our dictionaries, nor will I ever, and since you will not accept our dictionaries as authoritative, we will never come to an agreement. Because of this it would be fruitless to continue this discussion with you any longer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fist.sensei

Sealed-

So you don't trust how man interprets the bible, eh?

Then why in the world do you keep quoting versions that were INTERPRETED into English from their original language?

You can't have it both ways... you either trust the "elitist theologians" that understood Hebrew and Greek enough to translate it into English, or you don't trust them, meaning you don't trust the translations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fist.sensei

Sealed-

So you don't trust how man interprets the bible, eh?

Then why in the world do you keep quoting versions that were INTERPRETED into English from their original language?

You can't have it both ways... you either trust the "elitist theologians" that understood Hebrew and Greek enough to translate it into English, or you don't trust them, meaning you don't trust the translations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

I have actually raised this exact same point before; the only thing that I can conclude is that he agrees with anyone who will support his conclusions and he disagrees with anyone rejects his conclusions.

quote:

When he presents something that is unanimously rejected by every scholar, he then simply dismisses the opinion of every scholar in favor of his own!

quote:

Somehow he seems to believes that the final arbiter of all truth is him alone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: malca

Marriage after being divorced is our heavenly Father's heart.A spouse with a hardened heart will not give the other spouse a divorce.They will want to control the person. A person who truly loves unconditionally will always give you a way out.
==========================
malca
Christian Drug Rehab

quote:

Can you provide a reference to one early church father who shares your interpretation of the scriptures on remarriage? One that says remarriage is permitted in the case of adultery? One that says in all cases it becomes a lawful marriage whether entered into sinfully or not?