RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Life] >> Marriage



Message

alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/27/2006 11:28:42 PM)

Should they or should they not be opened for receiving?
It is a yes or no issue.
This kind of exception clause is not one which makes an exception to the rule. It directs the use of the doors to the practical use that everyone would agree to, which use was not even under discussion, as a means of showing that for uses under discussion the answer is a definate and absolute no. The practical necessary uses of maintenance and emergencies, yes, they can be used. For the use of that which is under discussion, that is out of the question at anytime.
The exception didn't change the meaning the sentence had before the exception was inserted.
The statement, "whoever divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery" doesn't change by the insertion of the exception clause because that kind of exception clause isn't an exception to the rule but a means of emphasising prohibition as in the example.

Does the exception clause in the example allow the opening for receiving?
No.
But the discussion at hand was the opening for receiving. How can you have an exception clause that doesn't relate directly to what is being discussed? Yet I have demonstrated such an exception clause that did not change the statement of prohibition the statement possessed before it had an exception clause.
Hence, Mark and Luke could make the statement without the exception and it is true as written even though an exception clause is not present because the meaning of the statement with the exception clause does not change the meaning of the statement without it.
Addressing "whosoever", which includes the innocent party, Jesus says divorcing is not allowed for any reason given in Mark and Luke. That absolute truth is not changed by the type of exception clause I have demonstrated, which type fits perfectly with the context and mode of speech Jesus is employing in Matt. Jesus directs to a reason everyone would agree with, (the premarital divorce for fornication), which was not what was under discussion, as a means to emphasise that whoever divorces his taken/joined wife and marries another commits adultery.

So is my example understood to mean that the doors may indeed be opened for receiving???
If it is agreed that the example does in fact prohibit opening those doors for receiving, even though an exception clause is present, then the argument that an exception clause has to be an exception to the rule of what is being directly addressed should cease to be used by the enemies of the till-death-do-us-part position. It is simply not honest to maintain that the exception clause has to relate to the post marital divorce.

The opponents have the burden of proof to demonstrate that an exception clause has to relate directly to what is being addressed.

I believe that interpreting Jesus' exception clause to relate to divorce for adultery is a form of illiteracy.



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/28/2006 4:50:10 PM)

alaska, you put forth an example that had 42 words in it. Your explanation around it was 909 words. So it is your assertion (in over 900 words of extra discussion) that the example means "open these doors at any time and you will be fired". Is that what you are saying?

Using that understanding you just put forth, you say "if the building is on fire and people are dying, you will be fired if you open this door to save yourself." In other words, your understanding requires people to burn to death or get fired.

Here is your example again:

31. You have heard it being discussed that the doors should be opened for receiving during the day.
32. But I say to you, that whoever opens those doors, except it be for maintenance or emergencies, will cause themselves to be fired.

Hunterjumper had it right. This example says, in plain English, the following: "do not open this door except for maintenance or emergencies or you will be fired".

And that explanation was 27 words. You stand corrected. You have contradicted your own assertions with your own example. You have proven yourself wrong. Thanks. We were getting tired of saying it.



Restored_Heart -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/28/2006 5:09:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: neuronstatic

Using that understanding you just put forth, you say "if the building is on fire and people are dying, you will be fired if you open this door to save yourself." In other words, your understanding requires people to burn to death or get fired.



Granted, it is important, if at all possible, to fight the fire for as long as you can... But if someone is pouring gasoline on the fire, while the other is trying to beat the fire back, the fire cannot be put out.
People should fight to save the marriage as long as possible, but sometimes it is a total loss.



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/29/2006 2:48:18 AM)

You are both skirting the issue. You refuse to answer the question and put words in my mouth that clearly show that you do not understand what I have written.

Is it not so that I have used an exception clause that did not relate directly to the discussion at hand?
Opening for maintenance or for emergencies was not what was being discussed yet the exception clause pertained to maintenance and emergencies!
The exception did not pertain to what was being directly addressed and yet it made sense.
So the argument that an exception clause has to directly relate to what is being discussed in its context has been discredited.



In the example, the exception clause allows the opening for emergencies (apparently neuro didn't understand that) and at the same time supports that they are definately not to be opened for receiving. Neuro convenienly left out the effect that previous statement, 31, has on the meaning of both sentences together in their context. Really Neuro, who could agree with you that a fire is not an emergency?

Reading verses 31 and 32 consequetively causes verse 31 to affect how 32 is understood.
That's how language works.
In my example, an exception clause is present in verse 32 that does not create permission to do what is under discussion in verse 31!
I believe the same kind of effect of that kind of exception clause is found in Matt. 5:31,32.
That makes Mark 10:2-12 to mean exactly what it appears to say.

So let's try this again, is it not true that in my example, even though there is an exception clause, it didn't relate directly to what was under discussion (opening for receiving) and at the same time did not provide allowance for opening for receiving?

Will this again refused to be answered?
Knowing the implications in answering honestly, I understand your refusal.

Yes, the exception clause did not relate to opening for receiving and therefore also did not provide any allowance to do so. The meaning of the statement, "whoever opens the doors for receiving will cause themselves to be fired" did not change with the addition of an "exception clause". This kind of exception did not open the door for allowance but rather emphasised prohibition.

Is this a shocking revelation to those entrenched in the lie that a sentence with the words "except it be for" or "saving for the cause of" HAS to provide allowance to that which is under discussion? Will it continued to be maintained that, yes, it has to?

So we have exception clauses that can provide allowance, which clauses relate directly to what is being discussed and we have exception clauses that do not relate directly to what is being addressed as in the example above that serve to emphasise determination to not allow in any way what is being discussed.

By applying each of these possibilities to any given context, the context should indicate which one is correct, similar in principle to whether we conclude that "bow" means what you wear or what you shoot. In an earlier example the context showed that the bow had to be what was shot.
In Matt. 5:32, the woman put away for fornication is not being caused to commit adultery by being so put away. But the last clause says that whosoever marries her that is divorced commits adultery, implying any divorced woman.
The actual context of where the exception is found would support that the exception cannot relate to the woman in the last clause without causing Jesus to contradict himself.
But when applying the definition of the exception clause to be prohibiting divorce, along with the knowledge that there did exist a premarital divorce (where the engaged couple were called husband and wife), then the exception can be read to pertain to the premarital divorce and the last clause relates to a woman who is divorced after marriage so that the exception clause and the last clause do not contradict each other.
2 different kinds of divorces. The one is being caused to commit adultery the other is not because she is still single (has not cleaved to her husband). The exception clause did not change the meaning of the sentence without the exception clause:
whoever divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery.
A man is therefore not to divorce his wife because he is by so doing dealing treacherously with her by what it causes her to do.



TimothyTwo226 -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/29/2006 2:34:39 PM)

quote:

Reading verses 31 and 32 consequetively causes verse 31 to affect how 32 is understood.
That's how language works.
In my example, an exception clause is present in verse 32 that does not create permission to do what is under discussion in verse 31!
I believe the same kind of effect of that kind of exception clause is found in Matt. 5:31,32.


One issue here....No man/person can make another person sin.

If anything, if a man divorces his wife except for adultery, then he is in sin.



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/29/2006 3:14:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

You are both skirting the issue. You refuse to answer the question and put words in my mouth that clearly show that you do not understand what I have written.

For starters, we are addressing the issue directly. It is you who have skirted the issue entirely and started the banter on this esoteric adventure in English. Clearly we understood the example, you may justifiably open the door for emergencies and maintenance, any other use is cause for dismissal. Clearly Jesus likewise said you may justifiably divorce for porneia, any other use of divorce constitutes sin.

However, when it comes to your explanation of what is clearly NOT there, no, I don't understand whatever it is you see in the words, when it simply does not exist. You are trying to twist the words of God to build a reality of your own making. You have given your grand example, and it only reinforces what I and others have said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

Is it not so that I have used an exception clause that did not relate directly to the discussion at hand?

It is not so. Your exception directly related to opening the door. The subject was "opening the door". The exception said "only under these circumstances can you open this door". Clearly, you are greatly overstretching the use of English. And clearly you are trying to introduce a foreign language construct into the original Greek.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

Opening for maintenance or for emergencies was not what was being discussed yet the exception clause pertained to maintenance and emergencies!

What was under discussion was "opening the door". The exception clause for maintenance and emergencies was not a discussion on "maintenance" or "emergency" situations. It was a reference to them in regard to opening the door. Your example also used the word "fired", as in "sacked" (losing your job). Neither was that word a discussion on all aspects of losing a job. It was a reference to a consequence.

How can you reasonably explain that words used in sentences do not mean what they say? Clearly you are trying to do something terribly weird with English syntax and lexical understanding, and you are doing this to something originally written in Greek. Jesus was a good enough speaker to get his point across to billions of people. No one needed 900+ extra words to explain 40+ simple words.

You are greatly confused. Stop confusing others. Jesus said there is an exception. Stopy denying the words of Jesus, or twisting them to support your particular view.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

The exception did not pertain to what was being directly addressed and yet it made sense.

The exception, as I already described in this post, WAS DIRECTLY ADDRESSING THE SUBJECT. It gave clarification to the subject. As in any good writing, clauses in sentences should NOT be orphans of other topics. Instead, a clause injected into a sentence should carry additional information about the topic of the sentence, or not be there at all. I think Jesus was well aware of what He was saying and to whom He was saying it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

So the argument that an exception clause has to directly relate to what is being discussed in its context has been discredited.

Only in your mind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

In the example, the exception clause allows the opening for emergencies (apparently neuro didn't understand that) and at the same time supports that they are definately not to be opened for receiving. Neuro convenienly left out the effect that previous statement, 31, has on the meaning of both sentences together in their context. Really Neuro, who could agree with you that a fire is not an emergency?

Here is where I formally protest. You have continually twisted my words. You have continually attempted to discredit what I have said by stating something that is overtly nonsensical and tried to attribute it to me.

Do not do this again.

We all understand that the exception clause allows for the opening of the doors in emergencies. We understand that, but you seem to disallow the opening of door for any exception, per your original assertions about the unrelated effect of the exception clause given by Jesus.

Therefore, if the door may justifiably be opened for emergencies in your example, then given that your example is patterned on the Matthew 5 and/or Matthew 19 verses for exception clauses, then a person may justifiable divorce for porneia.

Your example supports that conclusion. Do you deny this?

Regarding the "fire is not an emergency", you obviously have little understanding of satire used for effect. I never asserted that a fire was not an emergency and YOU KNOW THAT. Again, stop that nonsense now. I am tired of you.

There is no need to comment again on your now 1000+word explanation of the 42 word example. Your theory of the example has been discredited.



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/29/2006 11:32:03 PM)

quote:

Regarding the "fire is not an emergency", you obviously have little understanding of satire used for effect. I never asserted that a fire was not an emergency and YOU KNOW THAT. Again, stop that nonsense now. I am tired of you.

But Neuro said:
quote:

Using that understanding you just put forth, you say "if the building is on fire and people are dying, you will be fired if you open this door to save yourself." In other words, your understanding requires people to burn to death or get fired.


Sure looked to me like you plainly revealed that you believe the example says a person can't open the door for a fire. I was not being sarcastic or malicious. Either way you claimed that my understanding required people to burn to death which was a slander. Please cut out the nonsense. See the confusion it has wrought? And to add insult to injury I am accused of perceiving your words to be satire. You have spoken falsely to have claimed that I knew what you meant, which meaning was contrary to the actual words you used!


It is the pro-divorce folks who have emphasised that Jesus is not just discussing divorce in Matt. 5:31,32 but specifically the post marital divorce as Deut. 24:1-4 is very clearly addressing the post marital divorce. Therefore the exception clause in Matt. 5:32, according to them, has to directly relate to the post marital divorce as per Matt. 5:31 thus allowing the postmarital divorce.

The example I provided, showing how an exception can work, deliberately made the opening of the door for a specific reason in verse 31 in order to parallel the specific post marital divorce being addressed in Matt. 5:31.
So my example inserted an exception clause that did not pertain to the specific reason in verse 31 as a means to demonstrate that an exception clause need not pertain to what is being directly addressed and therefore also that it may not be an exception to what was initially directly addressed.

The focus of the example is not merely the opening of the door but very specifically the opening for a specific reason, verse 31.
Jesus is also not merely addressing divorce (seeing there also existed a premarital divorce for fornication) he was very specifically addressing the postmarital divorce which the pro-divorce folks have been very urgent to emphasise, holding the notion that an exception clause in the following verse has to pertain to an allowance of the post marital divorce seen in the previous verse.
Yet my example introduced an exception clause that did not provide allowance to any extent of that which that example initially directly addressed: the opening for receiving.
A reasonable person will acknowledge the principle established concerning the mechanics of language and recognise as legitimate the choice to believe that the exception clause in Matthew 5:32 does not pertain to the kind of divorce which verse 31 directly addresses. And seeing that this understanding of the exception clause allows those believing it to not take upon themselves the burden of having to denounce what Mark and Luke and Paul plainly said, it would seem that more people would come around to denounce rather the error of their ways.
But alas it is not to be; but more hard speeches, by those who will not now be convinced, against him who has said, "let not man put asunder".



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/30/2006 6:47:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

Sure looked to me like you plainly revealed that you believe the example says a person can't open the door for a fire. I was not being sarcastic or malicious. Either way you claimed that my understanding required people to burn to death which was a slander. Please cut out the nonsense.

I was using sarcasm to illustrate, not you. Apparently we speak a different English.

So then you agree that in your example, the door can be opened per the exception clause of fire and maintenance without any punishment? Is that your position?

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

Yet my example introduced an exception clause that did not provide allowance to any extent of that which that example initially directly addressed: the opening for receiving.

Your quote doesn't match the Matthew 5 structure then. It says "for any cause" and then gives a cause. Your example says "for receiving" and then gives two reasons".

In both cases the subject being directly addressed was "the reason for X" where X is opening a door in you example and divorce in Jesus' words. The clause in both cases gives a "the only valid reason for X".

Your example said "you have been told you can open the door for receiving, but you cannot, you can only open it for fire and emergency".

Jesus said "you have been told you can divorce for any reason, but you cannot, you can only divorce for porneia".

Your logic is flawed to attempt application to Jesus' words in that He did not give permission for divorce for porneia. Completely flawed.

Matthew 5:31-32 (NAS)
    31 "It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE';
    32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.


Matthew 19:3,7,9 (NAS)
    3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"
    7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?"
    9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."


What is directly being addressed? The conditions under which one may divorce.

The error in their thinking? Any cause.

Jesus gave correction: only for porneia/unchastity/immorality.

So then clearly (and per your example), the subject being directly addressed was being clarified through the exception clause.


There is no confusion.



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/30/2006 7:25:57 AM)

Over the course of this thread there have been several attempts to find a reason to promote the concept that ALL divorce results in sin of both parties in the divorce. This is entirely wrong.

It was said that there was no exception for divorce and that "what God has joined, let no one separate" and that was taken to an out of context position and made to say "there was no justifiable divorce". But clearly Jesus gave the exception twice in Matthew. Once in Matthew 5:31-32 and again in Matthew 19:3-9. There was also an allowance given in 1 Corinthians 7:15 for divorce in the case of abandonment by a non-believer.

It was also said that exception clause was for some reason other than divorce and that the language construct was created so that Jesus was giving exception to something other than divorce in Matthew. That line of thinking was flawed in that it introduced a completely out of place language construct in Matthew 5.

It was also said that "well Jesus only meant you could divorce for immorality before the consumated marriage and Jesus only excused it for betrothal". Yet that was taken out of context entirely. In Israel, once you were betrothed, you were married and divorce was required to break the betrothal bond just like it was required to break the marriage bond. There is no basis to this conjecture and is culturally incorrect.

It was also argued since the account of Jesus being tested by the Pharisees was also given in Mark 10:2-12 and that particular section did not contain the exception clause, then there was a conflict in the Scriptures. To resolve that conflict, some attempted to hold the Matthew account in error and sought to dismiss the exception clause. However, we cannot so easily declare the Scriptures in error, a different congruence must be sought to explain the apparent differences. One such congruence was given in that Matthew and Mark had two different human authors with two different writing styles and two different emphasis in the gospel letters. While this is insufficient for some, it works fine for others. Seek your own congruence, but one cannot simply dismiss the scriptures because they disagree with what they say.

So then, I think those are the main points that were debated. Are there any others regarding justifiable divorce?



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/30/2006 7:29:06 AM)

Everyone, remember, while God allows divorce, He by no means requires it. It would be good to reconcile if that is possible. But that is not always possible. And just because a spouse commits porneia/immorality/adultery once, does not mean you must run out and divorce them. Divorce is never easy. It hurts and it causes enormous emotional and other trauma to all involved.

Though I stand on the side that stands by the Scriptures that give justification for divorce for the reasons of immorality and abandonment, I know first hand how painful it is and I encourage one and all to avoid it if possible. I had justification, I chose not to seek divorce. Yet, my ex-wife continued with it and I was then divorced not by my choosing, but certainly it happened.

So before anyone else condemns us to the fires of hell for standing by the Scriptures and saying "there is justifiable divorce", think on the entireity of Scripture. Remember that God does not so readily condemn those of us that seek His face and His kingdom, the believers. He provides grace and mercy in abundance for all manner of human error. So then, divorce is not something that is "good" per se, but sometimes it is allowed by God to work out something good in our lives.

All things work together for those that love Him. He loves us and always provides our needs. He is our loving father. He disciplines us. No discipline seems good at the time, but it produces good fruit.

Had I not had those truths to stand on, I don't know how I would have made it through my divorce. It was that "hope unseen" that I held to. Not hope in my ex to stop the divorce, but hope in God to do good things for me as I tried to remain upright and repentant every day and keep myself from bitterness.

It is God's amazing grace that I saw at work. He allowed the divorce because of grace to me, to produce good fruit, and to put me into a state of being ready to do His service. He used these evil things to accomplish His will and the refining of me. This is something I know to be true. This is something God promised through His word and put into my heart.



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/31/2006 1:03:45 PM)

After all the multitude of your words, the issue is still being avoided and a competent answer to simple questions continues to be refused to be answered. After all said by Neuro, it remains that an admission that an exception clause may not relate to what is being addressed is not fothcoming.
Jesus is addressing the post marital divorce. The example I have provided showing how language works proved that the exception clause in the next verse need not necessarily pertain to an allowance of a postmarital divorce. Yet Neuro insists the exception has to pertain to that.
So lets try it again:
Is it not so that my example proved that an exception clause following what is being directly addressed need not translate as an allowance for what is being directly addressed?



hisway... -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/31/2006 1:23:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

After all the multitude of your words, the issue is still being avoided and a competent answer to simple questions continues to be refused to be answered. After all said by Neuro, it remains that an admission that an exception clause may not relate to what is being addressed is not fothcoming.
Jesus is addressing the post marital divorce. The example I have provided showing how language works proved that the exception clause in the next verse need not necessarily pertain to an allowance of a postmarital divorce. Yet Neuro insists the exception has to pertain to that.
So lets try it again:
Is it not so that my example proved that an exception clause following what is being directly addressed need not translate as an allowance for what is being directly addressed?



Your post are so "wordy" that it's hard to follow what in the world you are saying.



Restored_Heart -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/31/2006 1:38:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

After all the multitude of your words, the issue is still being avoided and a competent answer to simple questions continues to be refused to be answered. After all said by Neuro, it remains that an admission that an exception clause may not relate to what is being addressed is not fothcoming.
Jesus is addressing the post marital divorce. The example I have provided showing how language works proved that the exception clause in the next verse need not necessarily pertain to an allowance of a postmarital divorce. Yet Neuro insists the exception has to pertain to that.
So lets try it again:
Is it not so that my example proved that an exception clause following what is being directly addressed need not translate as an allowance for what is being directly addressed?


Alaska, you continue to pratice obfuscation of Jesus' words. Jesus was clear and it did pertain to the subject in which He was speaking.

God is not the author of confusion.

This is clear - divorce is ONLY allowable for certain reasons (porneia).

This does not make me pro-divorce, but only an interpreter of what Jesus said.

You may dislike the argument or the person making the debate, but do not twist what others have been saying and distort it into something that isn't true. You have done that several times. Allow your argument to stand or fall as it is. If it cannot stand on its own, or requires a lenghtly, convolution of thinking - this may be because the argument is weak.

Your exception clause argument is not clear, the explanations you provide only dim your meaning and our understanding of you.

Speak clearly so that the truth may be seen. If the truth is not what you think it should be, maybe you need to rethink your argument.



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (1/31/2006 3:06:10 PM)

[Note: to those interested, the post sharing the real life example of how an exception clause can be used to prohibit any allowance of what is under discussion can be found at post 121 on this thread]

quote:

Your example said "you have been told you can open the door for receiving, but you cannot, you can only open it for fire and emergency".

Jesus said "you have been told you can divorce for any reason, but you cannot, you can only divorce for porneia".


First of all, that is not what I said. That is your paraphrase used to accomodate the point you are trying to make.

Secondly, your interptetation of what he meant as you say it in your own words above disregards the immediate context of what is not being caused by divorcing for fornication. Your interpretation has to fit the context in order for it to be even considered.

Thirdly, the context created in verses 31,32 opens the door for an unexpected and profound pronouncement.
When the phrase; "but I say unto you" is used, this may indicate saying something that may not be liked.
Such as; You are aware of our discussion of when we will be taking a week off of work, but I say to you, there will be no week off from work.
Jesus says, "but I say to you" six times in that chapter and each time he is declaring something that they did not expect which was contrary to what they had been led to believe was alright. So I incorporated the "but I say to you" in my example:

31. You have heard it being discussed that the doors should be opened for receiving during the day.
32. But I say to you, that whoever opens those doors, except it be for maintenance or emergencies, will cause themselves to be fired.
The phrase, "but I say to you" introduced the context to say something profound and unexpected. When you have this type of voice created by the phrase, "but I say to you", an exception clause can be introduced as a means to say something contrary to what they expected.
In my example above, the exception serves this very purpose of emphasising prohibition contrary to the idea that an exception clause has to provide allowance to what is being addressed.
What is being addressed is the opening for receiving. The exception relates to opening for emergencies and maintenance as a means of emphasising there is no way the doors will be opened for that which is under discussion.

Under discussion was Deut. 24:1-4 which Matt. 5:31, addresses. This is not only exclusively related to the postmarital divorce but also to the allowance of divorce for "any uncleanness" and the broad interpretation that implied.
So when Jesus said, "but I say to you" the reader needs to decide whether he is about to make a profound statement like he does for the other 5 times when he employs that statement and that the exception clause does not relate to the subject under discussion as a means to emphasise prohibition, or whether he is pinpointing an allowable divorce relating the exception to what is being discussed in verse 31.
My example proves that an exception can in fact relate to something other that what is being directly addressed (which Neuro and others fail to admit to) especially in the context of a "but I say to you".

So lets pretend for a second that the statement stopped at the exception clause. It would be an incomplete sentence with no definitive meaning up for interpretation of anyones imagination. But the sentence doesn't stop there. The mechanics of the language show that the woman put away for fornication is not being caused to commit adultery. Yet the last verse says it is adultery to marry a divorced woman implying any divorced woman.
This context fits with the premarital divorce we see Joseph about to do with Mary. If he divorced her, she would not have been caused to commit adultery seeing she had not been joined as one flesh which no man is to put asunder.
The NIV translators didn't see a connection between the wife who is not married and the premarital divorce we see in Matt. 1. They not only changed the word fornication to mean exclusively the post marital divorce (marital unfaithfulness) but also added words to Matt. 5:32 to make the grammar make some kind of sense to fit their violence committed against the Word of God. That filthy paraphrase also edited Matt. which reveals that a premarital divorce did exist at that time. Furthermore, the NIV ommitted the use of the word fornication ijn those places where the greek has both words, adultery and fornication, listed side by side.

The no divorce folks can not only leave Mark and Luke and Paul's words intact, they are also free to leave Matt. 5:32 in tact which indicates what is not caused when divorcing for fornication.
Any post marital sexual sin can be classified under the word adultery since it would violate the marriage. Yet Jesus did not use adultery in Matthew 5. He used a word that can apply to what unmarried people do. Mary was not married as in one flesh. The ancients were not unreasonable. They had enough sense to acknowledge that the woman put away before she was joined was different than a woman put away after she was joined as one flesh.
Jesus used what they were familiar with as reasonable (that she is not bound after being put away premaritally) as a means to make the profound statement in effect saying, you have heard that divorce is OK but I say to you unless you divorce your wife premaritally, you cause her to commit adultery and whoever marries any divorced woman commits adultery.
The exception here would not relate to what is being directly addressed and it would also emphasise prohibition to what is being directly addressed in the prior statement.

Just like my real life example shows how language can work.



TimothyTwo226 -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/1/2006 6:43:32 AM)

[/quote]After all said by Neuro, it remains that an admission that an exception clause may not relate to what is being addressed is not fothcoming. [/quote]


alaska...it would be sincerely appreciative if you'd use language that was geared more towards general understanding...the above has a double-negative and is very difficult to understand....at least for me...



Fritzpw_Admin -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/1/2006 2:47:08 PM)

ADMIN'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE

To everyone,

I want to be very clear about something.

The purpose of this thread is to dicuss the TOPIC of divorce.

It is NOT for the purpose of discussing YOUR divorce.

I have found that people who post with statements like, "so because I divorced my spouse I am now forever a sinner and never to be forgiven?" are opening themselves up to being hurt or hurting someone else.

If you are not able to participate in this topic without discussing the experience of YOUR divorce then I must request that you stay out of the thread.

Posts which ignore this warning will be removed without warning and may result in other action in accordance with the Terms of Service.

Thank you for your attention, understanding, and cooperation.

Please do not reply to this message within the Community.

Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.

Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/1/2006 4:02:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

[Note: to those interested, the post sharing the real life example of how an exception clause can be used to prohibit any allowance of what is under discussion can be found at post 121 on this thread]

Your example as given:

31. You have heard it being discussed that the doors should be opened for receiving during the day.
32. But I say to you, that whoever opens those doors, except it be for maintenance or emergencies, will cause themselves to be fired.

Ok, let me see if I can get this straight.

You contend that the example you gave shows that the point being discussed is "opening the doors for receiving" and that exception clause is for "opening the doors for emergency and maintenance".

Is that your point? That the exception clause of "for maintenance or emergencies" prohibits "opening for receiving". Is that it? But is that really all you have to base your dismissal of Jesus' words on?

Truly I say this: that is a thin narrow argument.

First of all, the translators used the word "except" for the English translation. And in this case the word "except" is used as a preposition, not a conjunction. In that case, the word except means "with the exclusion of".

Now to take your example and apply it with that meaning of except, though I think you are technically using it as a conjunction here (but I am not positive and the meaning does not change), one would have to say "with the exclusion of maintenance or emergencies". So then how does your 32 read now with some fixes for ?

"But I say to you, that whoever opens those doors, with the exclusion maintenance or emergencies, will cause themselves to be fired.

Now the thing being addressed in your 31 is "opening the doors for receiving", yet we see now 3 possible purposes for opening the doors: receiving, maintenance, and emergencies. So then your 32 contains an exception clause that does not address "opening the doors for receiving" at all. Instead it addresses the consequences of your 32 with "will cause themselves to be fired".

Your example is flawed. I hope now you can see that. Your syntactic and lexical argument has had enough ground given. I think it is clear that debate is done. Should you want to start a new example that arbitrarily illustrates the lexical point, have at it. Though the point is not relevant to divorce or this thread, but a hypothetical and arbitrary example of syntactic construction and lexical analysis of English.

However, since your example doesn't track with the text from Matthew 5:31-32. In that text no purpose for divorce was given. Instead a means of divorce was given in verse 31 with an implied purpose of "for any reason" (using understanding from Matthew 19). The means given was a "certificate of divorce". And the exception was not for the means of divorce, but instead an exception to the consequences given in verse 32.

So then your assertion that the exception clause given in verse 32 is prohibiting the allowance of divorce in verse 31 is without grounds and without merit. Instead, the divorce allowance stands for the exception clause given in verse 32. Also in verse 32 is the prohibition against divorce for anything not in the exception clause.

Does anyone not see this? Does anyone want this particular trail to be continued?



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/2/2006 1:43:48 AM)

Neuro,
Aren't you now resorting back to supposing that the definition of wife and divorce are limited to those couples who have cleaved or joined as is the restricted modern definition? Because "wife" also defined an unmarried betrothed woman, and since "put away" was also used to explain the termination of that engagement, the concept of "putting away a wife for fornication" takes on a new and legitimate possibility of understanding, especially since we see Joseph about to do that.
Your shifting my words around also doesn't fool anyone. You have left out a major component in Jesus' words which I also used in my example. He first says, "It hath been said... but I say unto you". Changing the order of wording effects the voice and impact of the sentence. It is not an issue of the ability of Greek to communicate an expression versus the ability of English to communicate the same expression. Both languages are capable of doing the same thing. Greek being a richer language is more able to express some things than English. But this is a straightforward thing easily transferred from the Greek to the English and able to be shown in parallel as my example demonstrates. An exception can divert to something else as a way to say, there is no way "what hath been said" is going to be allowed. Some of us if we had tape recordings of all our dealings with our kids would probably find the identical kind of usage of "except" found in my example.

Let's try this again, Is it not so, that an exception clause is used in my example (verse 32)that does not make an allowance of what is addressed of what they have heard (verse 31)?
Is a simple yes or no too much to ask?

This reminds me a lot of the situation with the catholics who had for so long persuaded so many that praying to Mary is a legitimate way to pray to God. It was so simple as found in the scripture that she is not the mediator seeing the scriptures specify that there is only one mediator. The common people after getting the scriptures in a language that they could understand could then see the simplicity of the truth of the matter as was plainly worded.
So we live in a time where human nature has gone full circle. Many pastors today are like the popish persons the reformers warned the humble new believers about. The fear of having to fall in line with the dogma of those under a man they dared to call Father, is not very different than pastors today who are afraid to contradict big names like John Hagee or whoever who are as mistaken in believing that divorce is allowed for adultery as the catholics are in believing that Mary possesses the role of an intercessor between men and God.
I hope people like Hagee would read threads like this and convert from the error of their ways. A lot of blood is going to be on their hands if they don't find repentance, for they have been endorsing what God hates. Frightful.



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/2/2006 7:08:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alaska

Your shifting my words around also doesn't fool anyone. You have left out a major component in Jesus' words which I also used in my example.

Alas, you explain it then. And can you do it in less than 100 words please?

Alas, I have tried to see your example many times. It simply is flawed. It does not do what you say it does. I will speak of it no further unless others offer some new insight.

And by the way, I only shift the words around in paraphrase without changing the meaning. And to include the most precise word for word translation of Matthew 5:31-32, here it is again from the NASB:

31 "It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE'; 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

And from the NIV which is a paraphrase:

31 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

And from the YLT:

31 `And it was said, That whoever may put away his wife, let him give to her a writing of divorce; 32 but I -- I say to you, that whoever may put away his wife, save for the matter of whoredom, doth make her to commit adultery; and whoever may marry her who hath been put away doth commit adultery.

And from the NKJV which is a paraphrase:

31 “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

And finally from the KJV which is a paraphrase:

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

So keep your "putting away" arguments in proper context. Marriage was binding from the time of the betrothal through to the consumation and unto death.

So that no one be fooled, divorce in the Bible was NOT restricted to betrothal only. Period. There has never been a time in the history of the Jews that this was ever true, including now. Check it out, for yourself. That opinion is baseless and imagined only.



laura... -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/2/2006 10:34:04 AM)

Neuron,

A point of correction. the NIV, NKJV and KJV are not paraphrases, they are translations. Specifically, they are thought-for-thought translations. Whereas, the NASB and YLT are more word-for-word translations. They are all translated from original languages. A paraphrase is not from the original languages and is a paraphrase of another English translation. Usually from KJV.



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/2/2006 1:26:40 PM)

Ok, point taken. Those are not paraphrases of the original text. They are translations that rearrange the words from the original text somewhat to restore English word order. Is that a fair statement?



laura... -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/2/2006 2:01:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: neuronstatic

Ok, point taken. Those are not paraphrases of the original text. They are translations that rearrange the words from the original text somewhat to restore English word order. Is that a fair statement?


That would be a good description of NASB. NASB is a "literal" translation but the words are arranged in order to be grammatically correct in English. YLT is more literal and does less of the rearrangement of words which makes it a bit more difficult to read and can often muddy up the meaning.

NIV, KJV and NKJV are "thought for thought" meaning they take a statement or phrase from the original language and translate it with the English equivelant for expressing the thought of the phrase or statement. It's a good translation technique but can be a little more subject to the the translator's bent.

Most greek and hebrew scholars consider the NASB to be one of the most accurate translations overall .

To bring this back to the topic of this thread, I think the YLT of Matt 5:31-32 is probably the best in destinguishing between the words for "divorce" vs. "put away".



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/2/2006 2:11:06 PM)

"Dynamic equivalence" is just a subtil way of saying a loose paraphrase. That describes the NIV especially. The KJV was a plenary or word for word translation from the original languages. That's why we see italicised words in the KJV. they were being honest. If the NIV had an italicised word for every word not reaaly in the text, people wouldn't buy that dirty thing. Satan knows that attacking the foundation is the most effective. That is why a discussion about a major doctrine such as divorce will inevitably incorporate into it a denouncement of various "bibles". The NIV plainly used a LOT of very liberal uses of words NOT found in the text and the text they used was corrupt to begin with. That's also the same text the NASB used. The battle of divorce is also a battle of the bibles because they say different things.

Though adultery is fornication, not all fornication is adultery. There is a difference. Yet the NIV deleted the word fornication where it was found listed side by side with adultery. Satan comes to steal. See how he stole?

Though a Cadillac is a car, not all cars are Cadillacs.
Because a cadillac is a car and a volkswagon is a car, is a volkswagon therefore also a cadillac?
This is the kind of unsound reasoning employed by those claiming fornication has to be adultery. Fornication covers a range of sin while adultery is a specific type of fornication. Also the context where fornication is found can define what it means in that particular context.
The writers of the NT included both words, adultery and fornication together. The fearless NIV translators deleted "fornication". It did worse. In Matt. it defined fornication to mean a specific type of fornication, the post marital offence.
That's like finding the word car and changing it to cadillac.
Incompetent.



neuronstatic -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/2/2006 2:12:11 PM)

I agree. NASB is the most accurate overall. It is a shame that the YLT does not use modern English. I can't stand reading old English anymore.

And back to the topic, even in the thought for thought translations there is a consistency of the exception given in the same manner. The words vary as to the translation of porneia, but the thought structure remains the same.

Actually, that is a very good point you made Laura. The thought for thought translations retained the structure given in the exception clause. That indicates that all the translators and translations held that the exception clause was part of the same thought given in the context of where they put it. It would make no sense for every translator to move the exception clause to someplace away from where it is applied.

Yes, very good point.



alaska -> RE: Divorce - One Stop Thread (2/2/2006 2:19:40 PM)

31. You have heard it being discussed that the doors should be opened for receiving during the day.
32. But I say to you, that whoever opens those doors, except it be for maintenance or emergencies, will cause themselves to be fired.

Anyone can understand this. Whoever opens for receiving will be fired. The exception did not provide allowance as you claim it has to.
Because, there was a premarital divorce, the exception could apply to that as a way to prohibit divorce as my example pertains to something other that what was under discussion in ordere to prohibit the opening for receiving.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI