|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 7/17/2008 9:33:11 PM
|
|
|
SealedEternal
Posts: 1173
Joined: 3/20/2006
From: Milwaukee, WI
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: p.progress
OMG here we go again. And here I go with another too long post for some:
Long yes, but also very sincere and well thought out. I for one have been reading every word and rather appreciating the effort. If people don't care to take the time to read them they are free not to, but it is rude and disrespectful in my opinion when people make disparaging and sarcastic remarks after someone has put the effort into explaining something to them.
SealedEternal
_____________________________
For information on Marriage and Divorce http://sealedeternal.bravehost.com/1.html
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 7/18/2008 10:57:34 AM
|
|
|
p.progress
Posts: 150
Joined: 12/23/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
You and some others love to think that you have it all figured out and that 'we' all are wrong and that because 'we' don't know or understand the original languages or the teachings of the so-called 'early church fathers' etc.,
This one is way too funny!!!
Most of those (the majority on this thread) who have argued against your strange doctrine have typically done so by presenting Scripture first. The argument about the teachings of the Early church, and the original languages, etc... has always been brought up first by those promoting the strange doctrine you advocate as a means to prove that certain scriptures should be understood differently than what the plainly seem to mean. Those of us who know the biblical languages and/or history of the early church simply responded when factually incorrect information was presented to try and support your strange doctrine.
So, you seem to be saying that when you and others on this forum, who by your own admission do not understand the biblical languages or early church history, begin by presenting factually incorrect information about the original language of the bible and/or early church history to support your point that is OK? But when when people who have studied these things address the errors you present, something is wrong with them doing so? Sounds pretty funny to me!
Note: To use your own type of language: What is 'funny' here, is that now you do claim to "know" the "biblical languages and history of the early church".So you "know" " the "biblical languages [plural] and history of the early church"? I recall you in the past have admitted that you don't 'know' the Greek - or at least that well; and that as for Hebrew, you took it for five years; and the early church history, you "know" that too? It saddens me that this enormous wealth of 'knowledge' about so many wonderful things, has not been much service to you in your understanding of the subject at hand.
And to correct your statements above regarding myself: "...by your own admission do not understand the biblical languages or early church history..." I never said I don't "understand biblical languages or early church history". I am not by any means nearly as scholarly as you are - or at least seem eager to present yourself to be - who knows the real truth there. I 'know' I don't, and no saint today NEEDS TO KNOW the original languages or even early church history...it can certainly be a great asset to be sure...when it is guided aright; by sincerity of faith, love of the truth, love of God, sincere love of the brethren, love of thy neighbor, fear of God and a desire to stand unashamed One Day before God in glory - which when percieved rightly, will cause the growing saint to ever be alert and desirous to be instructed "in the way of God (and truth) more perfectly", so as not to have to give the kind of account that brings shame to him or Christ, or damaged others while living in this world.
Look where it - all this learning, got the Pharisees in Christ and the apostles time, or the scholars of the Romish religion down through the centuries; and where all the learning has lead so many 'scholars' in the numerous sects of modern Christendom within Protestism. I care not for any of it. So I am in no way concerned even less impressed by your alleged superior credentials or your too obvious attempts at trying to take on the role of a 'priest' who alone holds the secrets to the scriptures, etc., etc., etc.
Discovery of the truth does not require I be so 'learned' as you put out that you are.
Now:
I understand that what I teach is 'strange' to you; as you are looking upon what at least I have presented on this whole question, from a perspective that rejects the clearest teaching the Word of God ITSELF lays out before a sincerely seeking heart for truth. I have not called as my witnesses the so-called 'early church fathers' nor well known or respected commentators, scholars or the like. I do know enough Hebrew and Greek to see that what is presented in the scriptures. I use the KJV - but am not a 'KJV Only' person, I use other versions as well; lexicons; Hebrew and Greek and English dictionaries, and so forth; I do have an interest in the thoughts of others as well...
But do I pretend to 'know' these things in depth? No. Nor anyone else that I have read on what you call my side. There may be statements given that seem to or some are eager to claim that others on my side claim to be so learned, but I don't think that is the case - perhaps I'm wrong, I don't read everything that has been written herein. As for appealing to the languages or the early church history, again, I don't fit that catagory, I stick mainly arguing from the scriptures testimonies.
Anyway, I catagorically reject the notion that it teaches the truly "strange doctrine" that has been asserted as fact by you and those that are likeminded in this error you assert as fact and scriptural. It is your cliams (not all) that are strange, a stranger in deed to the writings of the Lord and his apostles the prophets before them and even to a number of so-called eraly church fathers (but I care not about their claims) - no matter how many times you try to use falacious and weak arguments to claim the contrary.
I know that I have presented an adequate if not a very compeling argument for the case against legalized adultery; and in addition, for the case FOR TRUE 're-marriage'. Which is the re-pentance of, re-turning to and re-conciliation with one's spouse, of a man and his once lawfully joined wife - AND if possible, the re-uniting of a (original lawfully joined) husband and his wife together again, as one [in peace] in true 're-marriage', if they had 'legally' put asunder their 'legal' ties. Otherwise, they need not 'remarry' at all, but reunit as God would be pleased for them to do.
Those who are likeminded on 'MY' side of this argument, have done so as well. WE don't - or at least I don't have all the answers. BUT I DON'T buy into the notion (believe) that a few less clear phrases or words out of a passage here and there, myoptically focused upon, to the exclusion of everything else that is NOT 'less clear', but are PLAIN & the CLEAR & the REPEATED...enough, possess the weight you and others (including scholars and the like) think they do, or try to manufacture out of them.
Out of time. Enough. Next time address the real content of my posts, or as you might say, error. Show me - us all where what I have said is so strange as you claim. Discect it using the very passages I cite; show us where I have taken what I have used out of its context. Stop the other "vain bablings" that do nothing to correct or sharpen my inferior knowledge of these passages. You'll find me amiable to that, if you have a mind to.
Reminder: A more accurate term for what YOU and those who LIKE you, wrongly refer to and couch in the expression 'remarriage'; . What YOU ALL are talking about is NOT 'remarriage', BUT RATHER legalized adultery...what Christ and Christ through Paul, PLAINLY expressed in the phrase: "marry another"; REFERRING TO, the man who treacherously" puts away his wife - "the wife of" his "youth", the wife of "thy [his] covenant".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 7/18/2008 11:33:13 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2934
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
Note: To use your own type of language: What is 'funny' here, is that now you do claim to "know" the "biblical languages and history of the early church".So you "know" " the "biblical languages [plural] and history of the early church"? I recall you in the past have admitted that you don't 'know' the Greek - or at least that well; and that as for Hebrew, you took it for five years; and the early church history, you "know" that too? It saddens me that this enormous wealth of 'knowledge' about so many wonderful things, has not been much service to you in your understanding of the subject at hand.
Let's see your argument looks something like this:
1) You tell us the original langauge says "X" to support your argument.
2)I respond and give you all of the reasons that the original language does not say "X"
3) You respond by telling me that "no saint today NEEDS to KNOW the original languages", and then call me a pharisee because I do???
To tell you the truth, this kind of argument is so dishonest I don't know how you can present it and keep a straight face. The FUNNY (or SAD) part is that you expect people to accept this kind of reasoning!
BTW - I don't think every believer needs to know the original languages and I have stated that several times in this thread. But those who INSIST on telling everyone else what the original language means, and why their ENGLISH translations are misunderstood or wrong, should at least study the langauge before making these kinds of statements! Studying the biblical language might in those cases might help avoid the kind of interpretive errors that have been so often presented in this thread by those who do not know the language.
Another FUNNY (or SAD) issue is that some who present your strange doctrine have tried to explain why there understanding of the original language is superior to the opinion of every scholar who has studied the language????? How does one ever come to the conclusion that they no more about the original langauge of the bible (without any study) then those who have spent a lifetime studying the language????????????
< Message edited by benelchi -- 7/18/2008 11:42:32 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 7/18/2008 12:23:36 PM
|
|
|
the_silver_cup
Posts: 18
Joined: 6/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: p.progress
the POINTS I have attempted to make in my posts have little to do with living a 'happy' life.
That much is certain.
quote:
ORIGINAL: p.progress
As for Michal, please notice this time, that I was referring NOT to the health of her relationship to David her rightful husband. That is another matter and issue altogether.
Not referring to the health of the relationship doesn't make it go away. She had a husband that followed her crying--she was remarried to someone who cared about her and David had nothing to do with her. It should be obvious that a more logical conclusion to her barrenness is that she was in a real state of abandonment inside what you are trying to call God's will. I don't think you have a valid example of your point here. David's many wives and children don't fit your theory in the first place.
The David-Michal state of non-relationship is outside of the bounds of the relationships we are told to have as Christians. They were not being reconciled, there was never a miraculous healing of their relationship this side of heaven and while David held all the cards Michal suffered. This idea should not please anyone and no doctrine of Christian inability to enter a new marriage can be based on David, who had not only multiple wives but concubines as well. This is some real microscopic Bible surgery in my *humble* opinion.
quote:
ORIGINAL: p.progress
Years go by, and when David finally was in a position to reclaim his wife, he did. And whether you like it or not, or understand it or not, or accept it or NOT: this was David's DIVINE RIGHT.
Nothing like taking possession of the former king's daughter to show you are the man for the job. Kingly right or kingly wrong?
quote:
ORIGINAL: p.progress
I think you would do the very same.
I've already read how it turned out...how dumb would that be?
quote:
ORIGINAL: p.progress
Be careful in your posts with both your facts and your attitude. I am attempting to do the same. Farewell.
Disagreeing with confidence is a bad attitude since when? However I apologize if I seem overboard to you.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 7/18/2008 1:07:06 PM
|
|
|
the_silver_cup
Posts: 18
Joined: 6/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: p.progress
You say: The perfect relationship.
Answer: Your sarcasm is misguided and out of place here. I am not so flippant with this sad case, why are you? Nobody has said - not me anyway, that their marriage was quote: '...perfect'. Is that what you think I have implied? Rather that's what it appears you want to pin on me perhaps. Sober up.
If my illustrations are indeed "sarcasm" they are at least recognizing the microsurgery involved in imagining David's forceful reaquisition of Saul's daughter as a New Testament scenario.
quote:
ORIGINAL: p.progress
And as for comment of yours, quote:
"At least there was no divorce, huh?"
The fact that such a comment seems to roll so easily off your tongue prompts me to say this to you: If you have any further silly comments to say, don't waste my time or others with them. As for me say what you want as time goes by, BUT if you have nothing to add in a serious way, don't expect any further responses to your posts from me, other than what I'll answer here. And my answers are not necessarily given for your sake or to you, but to all, though I answer here in this post to you.
I'll tell what's "serious"...telling people that loveless relationships which cause harm to one another are irrevocable for eternity--including the harm of divorce. What responsiblity do you accept for someone who might stay in harm's way, whether in a harmful marriage or after a harmful divorce, because of the LAW which you espouse? But we are not under the law.
quote:
ORIGINAL: p.progress
As for your comment: "At least there was no divorce, huh?". While David did not put away his wife Michal - we are not told he did, so I'll assume nothing in that regard - that point is to be observed for what it is. It could be said, that David had a 'right' to put Michal away and given her, 'her walking papers' (bill of divorcement). It might be argued by some that what she fell under the terms of Deut. 24:1-4, that is, some indecent and shameful. Whether it did or not matters not, for that provision was for the hard of heart; and David was not of that kind. How about you?
Oh, David's heart! So loving to those concubines and miscellaneous non-heirs to the throne. Just such a poor example I can't believe you keep using it. I'm incredulous at this.
quote:
ORIGINAL: p.progress
So yes, 'at least there was no divorce'. But said with respect and compassion and not in a flippant manner, it ought to bring a sense of sobriety to the discussion. And it is an example in scripture, which adds to the testimony of the endurance of David's love for God, and to the fact that the godly do not divorce EVEN IN SUCH CASES.
What other famous Bible polygamists can reinforce your argument?
quote:
ORIGINAL: p.progress
Remarriage again I say, is not 'marrying another' against God's law, or even 'marrying another' in conformity to his law. The term 're-marriage' and 're-marry' can it my opinion, ONLY be discriptive of a man or woman who is re-pentive of their former desertions and sins against their first and lawful spouse, and re-turns to them, and who re-conciles themselves to them and then they - when possible - marry them again. This ONLY in my opinion, be rightly refered to as a literal RE-MARRIAGE'.
No number of years of abandonment and poverty would be sufficient for one to suffer and endure while another remarries--that's almost mandatory in this economic setup--closing the door on the relationship, but your greatest understanding is that the person out in the cold must stay there... "Wasn't that great when that divorced Christian slept in a box on the street--what a sacrificial existence!" And you know you're also denying repentance to someone who may have sinned in adultery---are they not forgiven when they repent? People move on, move away, associations change but it's only acceptable to you to abandon a faithful spouse in a second marriage to return to a marriage that ended forty years earlier? It is completely unloving to advocate the abandonment of a second spouse who may be totally dependent and totally faithful to God. I don't know why you don't see that what you're saying just doesn't work.
It's one thing to believe a marriage is a commitment and that there should be no divorce. It's another thing to refuse to deal with the reality of divorce and all that follows it.
I'd rather be someone who picks up the pieces than someone who throws them away.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 7/18/2008 1:51:11 PM
|
|
|
p.progress
Posts: 150
Joined: 12/23/2006
Status: offline
|
As one ex-professional actor (R.Reagan) repeatedly said to another amature actor (J.Carter) during their debates: "There you go again!"
So I repeat: "...Next time address the real content of my posts, or as you might say, error. Show me - us all where what I have said is so 'strange' as you claim. Dissect it using the very passages I cite; show us where I have taken what I have used out of its context. Stop the other "vain bablings" that does nothing to correct or sharpen my [apparent] 'inferior' knowledge of these passages. You'll find me amiable to that, if you have a mind to." [Apparently you don't]
But no, you'd rather prove nothing by your bambastic good words, fair speeches and great swelling words of vanity - SAVE you have nothing to say of any real substantive nature on the questions at hand - at least in answer to my claims and interpretations of the passages being addressed in my posts.
Now to correct you yet again:
You say: "Let's see your argument looks something like this:"
1) You tell us the original langauge says "X" to support your argument.
I did NOT say any such thing - specifically or otherwise that I can recall in the last posts or even in others. Not in the way you are presenting it here at least. I did not say that, "the original langauge says "X" to support" what I have stated. I do appeal to the meaning of Greek or Hebrew words as much as I can dig them out from the LIMITED KNOWLEDGE I have of these languages - and that is via the tools that I have at my disposal and the LIMITED skill I have developed in using them. LIMITED - I did not say I knew these 'original' languages; and neither did I say that I was wholly unfamilar with them in previous posts, or even the history of the early church. I have some knowledge of these. So I did not say that "the original langauge says "X" to support". I appeal not to the specific or even general meaning of any specific word contained in the Word of God, not to 'rest my case' upon. I do know better than that, and my posts don't reflect that kind of 'exergesis'.
My MAIN POINT benelchi has been this: That I don't rely upon anything that some of the so-called experts or semi-experts, try to persuade and bambosal the 'peons' (like myself) into accepting to be the meaning of a PASSAGE or the teaching of scripture on a particular SUBJECT, taught in the scriptures. This is a generalization and will sound rather disparaging of such, but what I hear at times and has been a fact of history, is that such seem to be quick to use the methods of what I would call their ancient predecessors, who worked to dismiss the interpretive sense and reasoning that the 'unlearned' man has come to see to be the truth of Scripture. Unlearned to be sure, even as the apostles appeared to the Pharisees to be. And unlearned they were, in such things that these 'learned' men esteemed to be important and true. I don't get into arguments about things I know I don't know, or may consider I don't know enough to intelligently argue over. Enough.
You say: "2) I respond and give you all of the reasons that the original language does not say "X""
You "...respond and give you [me] all of the reasons that the original language does not say "X""??? When??? Where??? All you have done is what you have done in this and the later post...attack me by taking things out of context or outright inventing things I've allegedly asserted or said.
Where is, WHERE ARE THE SUBSTANTIVE rebuffs to my "strange doctrine" as you accuse me of? Where is the "heresy" I am guilty of promoting here? Take what I have claimed about the scriptures - my exegesis (if you'll allow me to refer to it that way); and "line upon line..." filet (fila) my warped and corrupt handling of the word in such cases. Be a brother to me here, show me how, where and when I have misconstrued the PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE THAT I'VE CITED!!! Do THAT - STOP all this other mumbo-jumbo. ["...language usually calculated to obscure and confuse."]
You say: "3) You respond by telling me that "no saint today NEEDS to KNOW the original languages", and then call me a pharisee because I do???"
There you go again. Now I called YOU a Pharisee - you PERSONALLY, a Pharisee? And where in my post did I call you this benelchi? In this section:
"Look where it - all this learning, got the Pharisees in Christ and the apostles time, or the scholars of the Romish religion down through the centuries; and where all the learning has lead so many 'scholars' in the numerous sects of modern Christendom within Protestism. I care not for any of it. So I am in no way concerned even less impressed by your alleged superior credentials or your too obvious attempts at trying to take on the role of a 'priest' who alone holds the secrets to the scriptures, etc., etc., etc.
Discovery of the truth does not require I be so 'learned' as you put out that you are. "
I certainly spoke strongly about those who for all their superior learning, yet have ended up more corrupt then those that they thought to be superior to. I even equate you with those who certainly seem to imply (my perception from your posts) that alleged knowledge sets them apart from the unlearned, and that it is implied that to really come to a correct understanding of the meaning of the scriptures requires such learning. I did not call you a Pharisee benelchi. In this you are falsely accusing me at last one thing. If you are a Pharisee, I thing from my understanding and defintion of that word, that I would haev to be able to observe you and your actions. A thing I cannot do in that I do not know you or your habits to make that judgment call. Please be careful in what you say and claim I said. And please, as I have said again and again, let us stick to the issuses at hand. What have I said in my presentation - my claims about the scriptures and their meaning in regard to the question of the OP, that are contextual incorrect? I have laid out much to chew on and if in error here or there or altogether so, show me where. Let us 'debate' these things. Reread what I've said in the posts above ALL OF WHAT I'VE SAID, and show me from the texts I cite and appeal to, my alleged error and "strange doctrine". Stop the rest.
You say: "To tell you the truth, this kind of argument is so dishonest I don't know how you can present it and keep a straight face. The FUNNY (or SAD) part is that you expect people to accept this kind of reasoning!"
Ok now I'm outright dishonest. Shame on you. YOu don't know me, you take things I've said way, way out of context...now that you hae so confused yourself with what you think I've said or and meant by what I said and what you think I've said: You come to the righteous judgment that I am dishonest. So stop writing to me. Rebuke me twice and then reject me benelchi; that's what your suppose to do with a "heretick" you think or have claimed that I am. FOr God's sake, care about me, do as I asked, show me my error and you'll find me amiable to that. In gentleness instruct me. I'm very serious if you think that I am so out there. Just start correcting the substance of my claims, and stop attacking me or focusing on secondary peripheral things you want to chide me or others for. Take me serious here and do that.
The next post you write - if you continue to go on about everyting else SAVE addressing what I have asked and challenged you here and previously to direct you energies towards; you'll I dare say find me silent about from then on. If you won't treat me as an "heretick" [KJV], then I will you. I am interested in the truth. I don't care what the truth is, I just want to discover it. I believe that I have some understanding of it in this area. Show me where I am wrong, but do it skillfully and honestly. I have go reason to believe what I believe other than I am convinced I have some light in it at present. It would be easier, much easier for me to accept the interpretations you and others advocate on this question of adultery, etc - both overall and personally.
The rest of your post I leave uncommented upon. I'm done.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 7/18/2008 2:38:19 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2934
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
The use of "X" in my last post was just as a reference to a variable because what I described has happened numerous times on this forum. Since you don't seem to understand variables, let me fill in X with the actual content from a recent exchange I had with you.
You here introduced an argument by appealing to the definition of the Hebrew word 'ervah'
quote:
By the way, the "uncleanness" he found "in her" was not adultery, fornication or anything of that sort of sexual nature - although the word for 'uncleanness' there as well as 'unclean' in Deut. 23:14 means nakedness, nudity, shame and pudenda (implying shameful exposure). Rather, it speaks of the kind of shame that comes from being seen, if seen when exposing oneself to "ease" oneself of bodily waste, as in the woods; such is the meaning of ervah, the Hebrew word for "unclean" and "uncleanness" in these two passages in Deut. 23 & 24. Otherwise if it meant adultery or fornication, she would be certainly found guilty of these, and put to death, according to the command of God.
I pointed out both the historical, and interpretive difficulties of your definition.
quote:
Actually the question is not what 'ervah' means, but what does the construct 'ervat devar' mean and defining this has been something debated for several thousand years. Here is a link where I discussed this almost a year ago.
Additionally, the proposition that you put forth that the law only applied if the woman remarried, but not if the man remarried stands in contradiction to even the very oldest commentaries we have on this passage i.e. those going back to the time of Christ.
You attacked me for knowing the language and history and recognizing your error.
quote:
Opps, my mistake. For sake of argument, let me yield to your scholarly-ship-ness (Am I spelling this right or perhaps making this word up? Either way or otherwise, I think you might be able to discern my point).
But to the yielding: I'll for the moment concede...Your right. The "question is not what 'ervah' means, but what does the construct 'ervat devar ' mean". SO what does it mean? Oh, and yes, what is a construct?
Does the fact that I failed to use the proper word or tence (or whatever) of the word 'ervah' ('ervat'); and failed especially as well (apparently) to include the word 'debar' or 'devar' negate my 'interpretive' conclusions? You say that the meaning of this 'construct' has been "debated for thousands of years".
Well am I to presume here (as you did not inform us otherwise, but seem to appeal very often to scholars modern and 'ancient' to lend credence to your assertions) that these were scholars like yourself or greater ones than yourself perhaps, hmmm? If so you have inadvertently made a point that requires some reading between the lines here, but a point that I hope does not escape all other pions (did I spell that right?) like myself notice. As it is a great comfort to be aware of.
That being, IF ancient as well as MODERN (last five hundred years) scholars have been debating this issue over the 'construct' in this and other passages; then I am in good company. In that, if these 'expects' are in conflict with one another and can't agree on the meaning of this 'construct'; then I am not concerned in the least that you are in conflict with me or others regarding what the true and actual CONTEXTUAL interpretive meaning is of this 'construct' ['ervat devar'].
I have to trust that God in his wisdom has provided sufficient 'help' and 'counsel' in the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide the obedient and honest seeker into all truth...even an English speaking person two centuries and cultures removed from the days of the apostles and Christ. There were scholars in their days as well that were wrong...I see nothing new "under the sun" for us today.
No time to go further here. Please stop all the 'fancy' (forgive my language here) talk and if you are going to appeal to others, or those in the so-called early church or otherwise...start providing clear references so we peons can go to YOUR source and READ FOR OURSELVES what you claim THEY said and thought. I might even do that, as I am one who desires to examine and investigate. But frankly, I am more concerned about studying the words of God, than that of men. When I have time I'll address the other things you've said therein.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 7/18/2008 3:28:59 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4106
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
As far as "ervah" goes, rabbis Shammai and Hillel in the first century bc could not agree on the definition. So why does someone with a Strong's think he has the last word in defining it?
_____________________________
Avatar is Saphira 5 months and Louvena at 23 months!
We are now grandparents TWICE!!
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 7/18/2008 4:09:30 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2934
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
As far as "ervah" goes, rabbis Shammai and Hillel in the first century bc could not agree on the definition. So why does someone with a Strong's think he has the last word in defining it?
That is the amazing part to me, and it is not just the word 'ervah' (actually the phrase 'ervat devar') that they have done this with. They have also made similar claims for the words like 'ki', 'baal', etc.... And they expect everyone to accept their definitions as more authoritative than the definitions we find in our lexicons, or the commentary we read by those who really do know the langauge.
In one case when I when one of those pushing this strange doctrine was explaining to me issue of Hebrew Grammar, and I asked for just one reference from anyone who knew the langauge that supported the grammar claim being made; I was told that it did not matter if anyone supported the claim because he "couldn't possibly be wrong!" How someone who has never studied the Hebrew langauge can convince themselves that their explanation of Hebrew grammar cannot possibly be wrong, I will never understand!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 7/18/2008 5:23:07 PM
|
|
|
p.progress
Posts: 150
Joined: 12/23/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
As far as "ervah" goes, rabbis Shammai and Hillel in the first century bc could not agree on the definition. So why does someone with a Strong's think he has the last word in defining it?
Yes, if they could not agree - and they EVEN being Hebrew themselves, learned Hebrews to boot: How is it that "someone with a Strong's think he has the last word in defining it"? Or for that matter, 'think' this even with all the many 'tools' at the disposal of modern day scholars? Scholars who have even more than a Bachelors degree, or a Masters or even higher credentials in this generation; and especially a generation two thousand years and cultures separated from the time these two men lived - or when Christ or the apostles, or even their disciples lived?
But the fact that these men and others of such learning can't speak as one, but disagree with one another's interpretations and opinions in so many things, is not so much bewildering to me, much as it is all is instructive to me.
Their inabilility or refusal to "walk by the same rule" and "mind the same things" to "speak the same thing" or to be "perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" shows that no one ought to think that truth can only be discovered by scholars.
IT IS ONE THING to receive insight & understanding that 'scholars' can offer in the way a particular word of phrase, idiom (etc.) is used and might mean given the particular tenses (etc.) such are to be found in the original languages, and so on. It is another thing to blindly swallow and follow a scholars interpretation of the text - which might just well be his own "private" interpretive opinion, rather than the result of rightly dividing the word of truth.
If 'scholars' of the past ended up misconstruing and misrepresenting the true meaning of a passage; and more importantly, misconstrued, thus misinterpreted and misrepresented the teaching of God's Word (his Will) not just in a passage, but ended up misconstruing, misinterpreting and thus arriving at and promoting erroneous conclusions regarding the will of God on a WHOLE SUBJECT - perhaps a very great and important subject the scriptures speak to throughout the Word of God: then it is certain that this is not only possibly occurring today; but IS most definitely OCCURING...EVEN TODAY.
To be a 'scholar' in a language or the languages of the scriptures, does not automatically mean or translate into being invulnerable to misinterpretion, that is, incapable of arriving at erroneous (false) conclusions as to the original intent and true meaning God gave to a text or on a subject taught throughout the scriptures. The true meaning of a text and/or will of God regarding a subject, is found by first disovering and then gathering together everything (all) that the scriptures speak of on the same subject(s), and then fully harmonizing them all together, fitting them all together piece by piece, as if putting it together as one great puzzle, and then doing it again and again, till you 'know' the whole of it in total (piece connected to piece) and the whole of it from the perspective of each and every single piece. [Note: To determine the meaning of a thing (subject) in the scriptures may require doing the same thing in reference to other subjects that are necessary to take into account as well, when they are inseparably linked together].
We are all then in my opinion, on the same level in that regards: both the scholar and the unlearned are subject to being persuaded by both internal and external forces, to be dishonest with the Word of God, corrupt the facts of truth, and wrest out of their contextual sockets the 'proof-texts one employs to prove their contentions. Both the corrupting of words and passages declared to be all the 'prooftexts' available; and the failure to include other pertinant texts (which failure, makes it impossible to determine the sure and complete meaning of a text or a subject in question being discussed); will cause those who accept and follow such corrupted claims about the Word of God to be led astray in whatever areas they accept to be sound, but are not sound. The danger of corrupting the words of God is not limited to the so-called 'laity' or "unlearned men", but the experts can and have down throughout history, been the greatest offenders of this - only because they have had the greatest degree of influence over others.
It is typical for the 'unlearned' to lend their ears to those that possess and/or appear to possess a much greater degree of knowledge about a thing or things, and also make a very smooth, confident and pleasing presentation of their claims to others. BUT this is precisely WHERE the believer needs to take the Lord's and the apostles and the prophets instructions and warnings to heart. We all will stand to give account One Day to God for our own words, as well as our onw deeds, but also the thoughts of our heart.
I don't denounce the contribution of 'scholars' present or past. But I don't look to them or lean upon their interpretative claims on the meaning of a passage or a subject that the Word of God teaches on.
I do most definitely lean upon the translations (interpretations) that have only come by way of men - learned men, who are certainly in my opinion experts and scholars of some degree in the knowledge of the languages of scripture. But that is not the same as leaning upon them in their personal interpretive ideas of what this or that passage means in light of EVERYTHING ELSE that scripture reveals on that subject.
I am called to be eagerly diligent in my 'study' of the scriptures. To show myself approved unto God, a workman, who labors and so much so that I sweat in my labors to do what I can to arrive at the correct meaning and understanding of God's Word. I am still learning and growing in that discipline. I wish I was able to study the Hebrew and Greek to the degree I desire to and think have the intelligence to grasp. But I have not the time nor the resourses to do as I please in that regard, perhaps one day, but that is not to be now.
It is for this reason that I don't make too many or too strong a claim in knowing precisely or exacting the 'meanings' of the words of sentence structures (etc.) within these languages - not from my mental reservoir to be sure. I have limitations in that regard. But I would have to reject if any man should they try to claim that I have less of a 'chance' to arrive at the correct meaning of a passage or that of the teaching of God on a subject, than a 'scholar', merely because I am not a Hebrew of Greek scholar of some depth. If that were true then I'll just go join the Romish Religion or some such religion, sit down in the pews and let their priests to tell me what I NEED TO believe and do; and tell me what the scriptures mean in this or that passage and what they teach on this or that subject. It would be foolish to yeild to the belief that the Holy Spirit can't properly teach me outside of such help.
When scholars FAIL (KNOWINGLY OR IGNORANTLY) to simply "LET SCRIPTURE INTERPRET SCRIPTURE - by failing to COMPARE & HARMONIZE EACH WORD, PHRASE OR OTHERWISE in the scriptures, WITH & TO EVERY OTHER...ALL THAT OTHER PASSAGES FOUND SCATTERED THROUGHOUT tha tspeak to the same subject, I have come to the conclusion and need to take it to heart, that I have just as much of a 'chance' to 'figure out' the truth of a passage or the will of God on a subject, taught in the scriptures, as the next guy. This gives to me all the more reason not to easily swallow what those in this forum or elsewhere say (including those behind the pulpits across this nation and others) about a word, a passage or on a subject [such as the one in this forum] - in spite of the claims that are made as the meaning of a word and so on. It isn't the single word or an idium or a 'construct' or otherwise that fully determines the meanings of a passage or tha of a subject. I'll say it this way: The claims about the will of God on a subject, such as that which the OP questions seek an answer to, is not something that the non-scholars are unable to determine, on account of their limitations with regard to their lack of precise knowledge of the 'original languages'. It has been shown that even the elite or scholars of today and those in, before and after the times of Christ and the apostles were not immune from arriving at and claiming to be the truth, erroneous conclusions. As it has been said, there has been 'debate' over this or that word, passage or subject for centuries - and that by the so-called 'experts'! So either I chose to believe the claims of one or the claims of the other over the one - or I'll do all I can to try to discover the truth for myself on this or that at issue.
For example: And to rephrase something I have said:And so, that is why, though I have formulated somewhat of an 'opinion' regarding this word "ervah" - or as I have been corrected to refer to it as - the 'construct' of the words "ervat devar"; nevertheless I do not stand so heavily upon or depend upon my opinion in that area, as I have little confidence that I have a full enough comprehension as to it's exact meanig. But neither do I see that my failure in either 'knowing' or failure to express what I've said regarding the word 'ervah' [Strongs], by failing to speak of the 'construct' between the two words 'debar ervah' ("ervat devar") is of the most importance; IN THAT my failure in knowing and following whatever 'protocol' (or whatever) there is said to be in all this, caused or casues me to miss the point or fail to grasp the meaning of "uncleaness" as used in Deut.24:1.
And to be sure, if there is and has been ongoing debate since and before Christ, as to the exact meaning Moses meant for the 'construct' "ervat devar" in the precept found therein; THEN I - you and I, have just as much chance of discovering the true meaning of such things and 'right' to assert yours and my own opinion as the next guy - scholar or not! True or not? Expain how I am wrong in thinking this way if you think so.
What I am saying in all this is that as I have said elsewhere, I am not impressed by the claims of those that claim or imply they know the true meaning of a word or a passage, phrase or a subject in the scriptures, all because they say they know the original languages; who then try to also claim I am wrong and they are right in their interpretations, because of their alleged superior knowledge of the language; citing for example one's 'failure' to mention and speak about the 'construct' between the words "some uncleanness" ["ervat devar"], as if it is essential to bring up. To fail to see the connection between the word "uncleanness" and the word "some" right next to it in the words "some uncleanness" in Deut.24:1 is a failure in the art and science and discipline of scriptural exegesis to be sure. But that is not what had happened to me when speaking about this passage. I did not speak of the word 'some' [debar] at the time, nor brought up the issue of it being a 'construct' with 'ervah'. I didn't use that language because I am admittedly 'ignorant' of that way to express it. But my 'ignorance' of this, does not mean or translate into an inability to understand what is being said or spoken of in the passage or a passage. I don't care how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle or 'pin', I just want to know that the 'pin' or 'needle' is of sufficient sharpness, strength, size, shape and texture (free from rust or nicks) to do the job with , to sew properly and efficiently with. Or I might say that though it would be much better to be able to sharpen my needle with a very sensitive and sophisticated instrument such as a lazer or diamond fited machine; it is not absolutely necessary for me to sharpen it that way in order to make good use of the needle. I can use a file or even a stone to accomplish the same purpose...albeit it certainly will not fly nearly so beautifully through the material - but ti will get the job done.
[color=#663300]"Is it ok to get married when one is divorced?"
"Should a person who has been divorced and since re-married be allowed to serve as pastor/deacon/elder/minister/etc.?"
Let us see:
The "unmarried" widowers and the widows may 'marry another' without sinning against God's laws.
But that is not after a legal divorce, but a separation by death.
The "unmarried" virgins may marry without violating God's laws against adultery - if they meet the qualifiers.
But they have never been divorced either. Unless we are speaking of the 'loosing' of a betrothed wife, not a consumated wife.
The "unmarried" wife may marry again, but only their husband they had previously deserted and departed from.
This alone is a genuine and legitimate use of the hybrid term 'remarriage'.
Now the divorced 'may ' marry another as well; BUT NOT WITHOUT BEING CALLED AN ADULTERER.
< Message edited by p.progress -- 7/20/2008 3:49:53 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 7/18/2008 5:25:13 PM
|
|
|
p.progress
Posts: 150
Joined: 12/23/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
quote:
ORIGINAL: p.progress
OMG here we go again. And here I go with another too long post for some:
Long yes, but also very sincere and well thought out. I for one have been reading every word and rather appreciating the effort. If people don't care to take the time to read them they are free not to, but it is rude and disrespectful in my opinion when people make disparaging and sarcastic remarks after someone has put the effort into explaining something to them.
SealedEternal
Thank you, Look at what I have had to deal with.
And benelchi I see that I myself at times have spoken wrongly to you, please forgive me this wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 7/18/2008 7:06:00 PM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 840
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Another FUNNY (or SAD) issue is that some who present your strange doctrine have tried to explain why there understanding of the original language is superior to the opinion of every scholar who has studied the language?????
It is strange to me that you put so much weight in those who supposedly have studied the language, yet you reject the interpretations of most of the earliest church who lived shortly after the Apostles and were fluent in Greek- for many it was their native language.
According to what they wrote, your interpretation would be very strange to them. They did not see adultery via remarriage as a one time act (adultery is found nowhere in scripture to mean "covenant-breaking" either). They saw remarriage as entering into an adulterous affair and saw the original marriage as binding for life. They also did not see an exception for remarriage in the case of adultery- so they would have found your interpretation to be incorrect.
Matt 5:32
"Everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
I have only studied English for about 30 yrs... no other language. The only plain sense understanding I get out of this verse is that an innocent woman who is put away is committing adultery if she remarries, and that anyone who marries a divorced person is committing adultery.
According to your interpretation....UNLESS she COMMITS adultery against her spouse first (and he divorces her because of it)- she will commit adultery if she remarries. So in order to NOT commit adultery by marrying another, we MUST commit adultery against our current spouse? So the exception is given to the guilty party? How strange is that?
Then we go to the command to remain unmarried. It doesn't get any clearer than this... and unless you ADD to or REWRITE this text, there are no exceptions here. This has to apply to everyone- it is not possible that it applies to only one party, because we are bound to each other- made one flesh...never again two. If the innocent is free, than who is the guilty party committing adultery against when they remarry? If your interpretation is correct, there would be no reason for this command.
If these so called exceptions were true (which cover most cases), that means Jesus is giving the exception to the adulterers and the ones who abandon their families, but those who mutually divorce and do no harm to anyone are commanded to remain unmarried. I'm sorry, that's not the Jesus I know. I'm sorry, your theory just doesn't add up...
1 Cor 7:10-11
"But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife."
I don't take one word and insist that it means something. I reconcile the meaning of the verse with ALL of the scriptures. And I don't ignore parts within the SAME verse. Most modern translations, like NIV which has translated the word fornication to mean "marital unfaithfulness" (which can mean just about anything), have left off the last part of Matt 19:9 that says the innocent woman who is put away is committing adultery if she remarries.
If Pauls says a woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives... than I cannot be bound to my husband as long as he lives, and another woman also be bound to him as long as he lives... either I AM bound to him as long as his lives like Paul says, or I am not. Paul says I am.
Since he is NOT DEAD, Paul says if I marry another I will be called an adulteress. The only time that I will not be an adulteress if I'm married to another is when he is dead- according to Paul. (BECAUSE, as he said-as long as my husband lives I AM STILL BOUND TO HIM) Rom 7:2-3
Using my measly English skills, those are the plain sense understandings of those verses, that I cannot reject. You seem to insist that certain verses don't apply or don't mean what they say, but the word "fornication" that actually doesn't apply when you cross-reference it to its true context- you insist on applying.
< Message edited by keepingfaith -- 7/18/2008 8:03:40 PM >
_____________________________
"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." John 15:12-13
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 7/18/2008 7:32:50 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2934
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
And benelchi I see that I myself at times have spoken wrongly to you, please forgive me this wrong.
I appriciate that,
Thank you
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 7/18/2008 7:46:47 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2934
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: keepingfaith
quote:
Another FUNNY (or SAD) issue is that some who present your strange doctrine have tried to explain why there understanding of the original language is superior to the opinion of every scholar who has studied the language?????
It is strange to me that you put so much weight in those who supposedly have studied the language, yet you reject the interpretations of most of the earliest church who lived shortly after the Apostles and were fluent in Greek- for many it was their native language.
The early church permitted remarriage for those who divorced prior to conversion, and I agree.
The early church did not advocate that remarried people divorce in order to repent, and neither do I.
The early church did NOT said that those remarried would go to HELL unless they divorce, and neither do I.
The early church did NOT advocated that a remarried person return to their former spouse after divorcing because to do so would violate Scripture, and neither is this something I advocate.
Basically all of the most objectionable of the doctrines you advocate are ones that were not supported by the early church, nor have they been supported by most of the church throughout history, even to this very day. Yes, there are places I do disagree with the early churches teaching, but they are not the BIG issues. If you want an example of someone whose teaching aligns very closely to that of the early church, look to John Piper. He is someone whose ministry I support despite my disagreement with him on this topic, and someone that people who support your strange doctrine have insinuated is going to HELL. Isn't it funny that those espousing your STRANGE point of view always look to the early church, but then when given the example of someone like John Piper who holds more closely to the views of the early church than you do, the genuineness of his faith is questioned. Actually it really is not funny, it is sad.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 7/18/2008 8:11:59 PM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 840
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
The early church permitted remarriage for those who divorced prior to conversion, and I agree. please cite references and please cite scripture that supports this
The early church did not advocate that remarried people divorce in order to repent, and neither do I. they would have no reason to do that, because they called an adulterous affair, not a marriage.
The early church did NOT said that those remarried would go to HELL unless they divorce, and neither do I. Scripture says those in unrepentant adultery will not inherit Heaven. They would not have addressed this because they already said they did not view these as lawful marriages, they viewed these people as living in adultery. Clement of Alexandria taught that a person who marries a divorced person sins not only by committing adultery with another's spouse, but also sins against God by acting as an impediment to reconciliation of the original spouse.
The early church did NOT advocated that a remarried person return to their former spouse after divorcing because to do so would violate Scripture, and neither is this something I advocate. please reference- if you are speaking of the lack of them promoting this, that would make sense because they saw them as still bound to the person they were first married to, so there would be no reason to address something they believed to be understood by all.
the most important point they do not agree with you on. In the case of valid first marriages, they did not see remarriage as an option and they did not see the "exceptions" you see. They did not deem marriages that you deem lawful as lawful- they called them adulterous affairs. That is the most important issue here, not the others you are using to detract from the fact that they saw marriage as binding for life.
< Message edited by keepingfaith -- 7/18/2008 8:24:29 PM >
_____________________________
"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." John 15:12-13
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 7/18/2008 8:19:45 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2934
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: keepingfaith
quote:
The early church permitted remarriage for those who divorced prior to conversion, and I agree. please cite references and please cite scripture that supports this
The early church did not advocate that remarried people divorce in order to repent, and neither do I. they would have no reason to do that, because they called an adulterous affair, not a marriage.
The early church did NOT said that those remarried would go to HELL unless they divorce, and neither do I. Scripture says those in unrepentant adultery will not inherit Heaven. They would not have addressed this because they already said they did not view these as lawful marriages, they viewed these people as living in adultery.
The early church did NOT advocated that a remarried person return to their former spouse after divorcing because to do so would violate Scripture, and neither is this something I advocate. please reference- if you are speaking of the lack of them promoting this, that would make sense because they saw them as still bound to the person they were first married to, so there would be no reason to address something they believed to be understood by all.
I have already provided references to the early churches teachings, and I have provided verses that contradict your interpretation. I have asked you for references from the early church that supports any of the objectionable and unbiblical teaching that you espouse, and so far you have provided none. (as you did again in the above post).
As for the scriptures you have provided, I believe your interpretation is completely invalid which is why you have so much difficulty finding evidence of anyone in history who interpreted these scriptures as you do. In order to come to the conclusion you have you must ignore the exceptions given in Mt. 5 and 19, and 1 Co. 7, and ignore the instructions given in Duet 24:1-4.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 7/18/2008 8:30:33 PM
|
|
|
keepingfaith
Posts: 840
Joined: 5/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
I have already provided references to the early churches teachings, and I have provided verses that contradict your interpretation. I have asked you for references from the early church that supports any of the objectionable and unbiblical teaching that you espouse, and so far you have provided none. (as you did again in the above post).
I have not seen these, and I have not seen any scripture provided that says a divorce prior to conversion doesn't count. Scripture overwhelmingly refutes that.
The burden of proof doesn't lie on me, since they already said these marriages are NOT lawful. You are beginning with a FALSE premise and asking me to provide evidence regarding something that they didn't even acknowledge as a true marriage. Anyone can read for themselves what they taught and see what they virtually unamimously believed about the permanency of marriage.
_____________________________
"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." John 15:12-13
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Remarriage After Divorce - One Stop Thread - 7/18/2008 8:36:36 PM
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
