quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: huckfinn327

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: huckfinn327

Greetings from Huckfinn,

The attached document was written by Leslie McFall in Feb. 2008 ... He contends that the "exception clause" in Matt. 19:9 of Erasmus' edition of Greek NT is a corruption of the true text ... a corruption that was specifically introduced by Erasmus. This new paper has a place in this debate.

http://www.btinternet.com/~lmf12/DivorceMcFALLview.pdf

Huckfinn

The argument presented by this author about the use of 'ei' in 'ei me epi porneia' is a little bit deceptive because the text used by most modern translators simply reads 'me epi porneia' i.e. 'not based on porneia'; there is no requirement for the insertion of 'ei' in order to understand the exception. Additionally, as the author pointed out Mt. 5:32 reads 'parektos logou pornei' and means the same thing...

Greetings Benelchi,

I do not believe you are being honest with your short reply ... you know that "other then proneia" or "not for porneia" can be interpreted as (Not Including Adultery) since adultery was and is a capital crime in Scripture i.e. punishable by death eliminating the option of divorce ... thus McFall contends like Laney that Divorce-Is-A-Myth and Erasmus has "opened" the door wide with his addition of ( ei' ).


For His Glory ... Huckfinn

The Greek version I looked at was the UBS 4th Edition, and the NA Greek addition read the same. These are the Greek texts that have been used by the translators of the NASB, RSV, NRSV, NKJV, NIV, etc... and they all interpreted this phrase (without the 'ei' in it) exactly the same way. So yes, it is a straw man to contend that this interpretation is due to a corrupt text introduced by Erasmus because the text used by almost all translators does not contain 'ei'

Additionally, although the 'ei' is not recognized as part of the original text, it is a bit of a stretch to blame it on Erasmus, and a far bigger stretch to contend that the opposite understanding is conveyed when it is removed.

quote:

This is a perfect example of why I don't often respond to many of keepingfaith's accusations i.e. because when I do make it clear that I did NOT say anything that she claimed I did, she continues to insist that I did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: SealedEternal

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

Do you realize that SealedEternal side stepped your question in his answer? He never really answered what you asked.

If as SealedEternal claims: Duet. 24:1-4 only permits divorce when when it has been discovered that the woman was unfaithful prior to the marriage.

And as SealedEternal claims: Mt. 5 and 19 only allow divorce when it has been discovered that a woman was unfaithful prior to the marriage.

How can it be that Jesus claimed that the Law of Moses was given because of the hardness of men's hearts, and yet permit the same thing in the NT law?

First of all I didn't "side step" anything but answered every question he asked with scriptural references. Secondly, Jesus didn't permit the same thing in the NT:

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

Jesus responded to the question of whether divorce was permitted by taking them back to Genesis and giving them an unequivocal NO! So the Pharisees thinking they have Him in a contradiction ask Him a different question about the Old Covenant Law:

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

He responds confirming there was a provision in the Old Covenant Law that was not given by God in Genesis, but was added to the Laws of Moses due to the hard hearts of the Jews. He then adds however that anyone under the Old Covenant Law who had divorced apart from the cause of "porneia" (immorality/fornication) was committing adultery. This was a condemnation against them since we know from history that the Pharisees had several different "interpretations" of this Law that were much more broad than finding her sexually unclean when he married her. Thus He was condemning the Pharisees, and implying that they should have been stoned to death as adulterers for their abuse of this Law.

In the New Covenant Jesus specifically said that everyone who divorces and remarries commits adultery without exception:

Mark 10: 6-12 "But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. And He *said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."

Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”

SealedEternal

So are you now acknowledging that Duet. 24;1-4 is speaking about divorce after the marriage and not simply a failed betrothal?

quote:

ORIGINAL: huckfinn327

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: huckfinn327

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: huckfinn327

Greetings from Huckfinn,

The attached document was written by Leslie McFall in Feb. 2008 ... He contends that the "exception clause" in Matt. 19:9 of Erasmus' edition of Greek NT is a corruption of the true text ... a corruption that was specifically introduced by Erasmus. This new paper has a place in this debate.

http://www.btinternet.com/~lmf12/DivorceMcFALLview.pdf

Huckfinn

The argument presented by this author about the use of 'ei' in 'ei me epi porneia' is a little bit deceptive because the text used by most modern translators simply reads 'me epi porneia' i.e. 'not based on porneia'; there is no requirement for the insertion of 'ei' in order to understand the exception. Additionally, as the author pointed out Mt. 5:32 reads 'parektos logou pornei' and means the same thing...

Greetings Benelchi,

I do not believe you are being honest with your short reply ... you know that "other then proneia" or "not for porneia" can be interpreted as (Not Including Adultery) since adultery was and is a capital crime in Scripture i.e. punishable by death eliminating the option of divorce ... thus McFall contends like Laney that Divorce-Is-A-Myth and Erasmus has "opened" the door wide with his addition of ( ei' ).


For His Glory ... Huckfinn

The Greek version I looked at was the UBS 4th Edition, and the NA Greek addition read the same. These are the Greek texts that have been used by the translators of the NASB, RSV, NRSV, NKJV, NIV, etc... and they all interpreted this phrase (without the 'ei' in it) exactly the same way. So yes, it is a straw man to contend that this interpretation is due to a corrupt text introduced by Erasmus because the text used by almost all translators does not contain 'ei'

Additionally, although the 'ei' is not recognized as part of the original text, it is a bit of a stretch to blame it on Erasmus, and a far bigger stretch to contend that the opposite understanding is conveyed when it is removed.

First you accuse Mcfall of being "deceptive" and then you belittle McFall to a "straw man" ... Have you honestly read his dissertation?

McFall reveals some solid evidence that Erasmus did infact "add" ( ei ) to his edition of the Greek N.T. ... McFall also reveals Erasmus' did this to promote his liberal view of divorce.

I wish you would be a little less pontifical in your debating scholarship ... I believe McFall must be given more room before one outrightly denounces him.

To His Glory Huckfinn

quote:

If the whole passage in 1 Co. 7 is considered, we understand that there are circumstances where a a spouse may separate, and even remarry. To say that Paul agrees (or that I disagree) is simply false. There are times that separating is wrong, there are times that choosing to divorce is wrong, and there are times where biblically divorce is permitted. Many of these circumstances are covered in 1 Co. 7 (the whole Chapter), and to simply ignore the portions that you don't like, and emphasize the ones you do is invalid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: keepingfaith

Jesus also refutes this claim in Luke 16:18 when He says "EVERYONE who divorces and marries another commits adultery." Since He says EVERYONE... that includes the man who abandons his wife and the wife he abandoned.

quote:


I'm not sure why you keep arguing with Jesus... He says your conclusion is not true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: keepingfaith

I take the whole context, and also compare scripture with scripture. I also look up the actual meaning of each word. We know that "not under bondage" and "not bound" were 2 different greek words with different meanings and both do not refer to the marriage bond. So that is a mistranslation.

Notice, it does not say- they are no longer bound to each other... it says the wife is "not under bondage". You have just added to the text something that is not there and claimed that Paul says there is freedom to remarry. But that's not what the text says- you are putting words in Paul's mouth. Since we know it is not possible for one person to be freed of the covenant and not the other... there cannot be such a thing as an innocent party exception (for abandonment or adultery). This would mean both parties are free, which would not be a reasonable conclusion, and scripture refutes that.

Jesus also refutes this claim in Luke 16:18 when He says "EVERYONE who divorces and marries another commits adultery." Since He says EVERYONE... that includes the man who abandons his wife and the wife he abandoned.

I'm not sure why you keep arguing with Jesus... He says your conclusion is not true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: keepingfaith

Jesus also refutes this claim in Luke 16:18 when He says "EVERYONE who divorces and marries another commits adultery." Since He says EVERYONE... that includes the man who abandons his wife and the wife he abandoned.

Let's see, Luke also said:

Lk 2:1 "Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth"

Did he really mean that Caesar Augustus' decree went out to every continent and island on the entire earth? After all he did say "ALL THE INHABITED EARTH!"

quote:


I'm not sure why you keep arguing with Jesus... He says your conclusion is not true.

HERESY ALERT!!!

It appears that Keepingfaith is now claiming to BE Jesus!

At least that is the only conclusion I can make from that last statement, as I was arguing with her and her conclusions, and she has equated that here as being the same as arguing with Jesus. That is just plain heresy!

quote:

"In fact, when the Pharisees asked Jesus about this particular Law in Matthew 19, He responded saying that whoever had divorced, apart from the cause that Deuteronomy 24 specified, which He said in Greek was "porneia", was committing adultery if they remarried."
"

quote:

"You are correct that this Law established the regulations for a woman who was found sexually unclean when a man married her. Verse 24 then describes this situation and adds an additional regulation. If you look at them side by side they are describing the same situation:

Deuteronomy 22:13 "If any man takes a wife and goes in to her..."
Deuteronomy 24:1 "When a man takes a wife and marries her..."

Deuteronomy 22:13-14 "and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, 'I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin"
Deuteronomy 24:1 "and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her"

Deuteronomy 24 has to be adding a provision to an existing Law, because it is written as though the Law is already known. It quickly reiterates the cause of Deuteronomy 22, but then adds another regulation calling for a divorce rather than a stoning, but says that the man cannot change his mind if she marries again.

Actually if you read the original Law in chapter 22 it also regarded the stoning as a type of divorce, rather than simply giving a certificate, but said that if she was found innocent of premarital fornication, that he could not divorce her all his days:"

quote:

quote:


I'm not sure why you keep arguing with Jesus... He says your conclusion is not true.

HERESY ALERT!!!

It appears that Keepingfaith is now claiming to BE Jesus!

quote:

(Quote of Benelchi) Yes, I did read his paper and the focus of his paper was that our translations are in error because of the addition of 'ei' into the text, and that without that addition we should understand that phrase to have the opposite meaning. Yes, this is a bit of a straw man because the text that most translators use does NOT have 'ei' in this phrase, and yet it is still understood with the exact same meaning by all of the translators. Additionally, this is not even an issue with Mt. 5 as a completely different vocabulary was used to denote "except".

quote:

ORIGINAL: huckfinn327

quote:

(Quote of Benelchi) Yes, I did read his paper and the focus of his paper was that our translations are in error because of the addition of 'ei' into the text, and that without that addition we should understand that phrase to have the opposite meaning. Yes, this is a bit of a straw man because the text that most translators use does NOT have 'ei' in this phrase, and yet it is still understood with the exact same meaning by all of the translators. Additionally, this is not even an issue with Mt. 5 as a completely different vocabulary was used to denote "except".

Greetings Benelchi:

Your words (above) fail to have a simple understanding of McFall ... McFall clearly states that the modern Greek Critical Text OMITS the ( ei ) yet the translators retain it ... He suggests a deliberate dishonest act of modern translators who "subjectly" translate (ei) into the text:

Referring to the W/H Critical Text and all the modern versions McFall states: "See Appendix A for a list of versions still supporting Erasmus' false doctrine despite the fact that these same English versions have rejected his underlying Greek Text (TR). It was not the work of pioneering conservative-evangelicals desiring to get back to the purest form of the original autographs texts, that finally got rid of Erasmus' deliberate addition to Mt. 19:9 (EI); rather it was left to the thorough-going objective assessment of the evidence of the manuscripts of liberals and radicals to get rid of it."

(Thus McFall states that the CT of W/H does not include the ( ei ) but at the same time the English translators fail to honor the Mt. 19:9 text with the proper trasnlation.) McFall goes on:

"A strange thing has occurred in English translations, namely, not a single, major English translation has departed from Tyndale's translation of Mt. 19:9 which was based on Eramus' faulty Gk. text ( ei ), and which accurately reflected Erasmus' opinion of what he thought Scripture taught (divorce and remarriage). Every modern English translation retains Erasmus' doctrine while at the same time rejecting his Gk. text. What a strange schizophrenic situation!"


For His Glory ... Huckfinn

quote:

ORIGINAL: p.progress



But I want to ask you, for it seems that you believe Christ did interpret "some uncleaness" in the Deut 24:1 passage as porneia: Do you think this? And if yes, how it is you think this.

quote:

When you say: "So the Pharisees thinking they have Him in a contradiction ask Him a different question about the Old Covenant Law" do you mean to say:
"So the Pharisees thinking they have Him in a contradiction ask Him a different question about [this particular] Old Covenant Law"?

And if yes, then fine. For it is certain he was still speaking about the Deut 24 passage they had asked him his interpretation on before hand.

So a different question, yes, yet dealing with the same passage; but questioning him on how it was he did not agree with them or rejected the 'for every cause' interpretative view espoused by one of their schools of thought.

quote:

You say: "He responds confirming there was a provision in the Old Covenant Law that was not given by God in Genesis, but was added to the Laws of Moses due to the hard hearts of the Jews."

When you say the above, do you mean to say: "He responds confirming there was a provision in [this particular Deut.24:1 passage under discussion here] Old Covenant Law that was not given by God in Genesis, but was added to the Laws of Moses [in Deut.24] due to the hard hearts of the Jews."

Or are you saying this provision is found somewhere else, as in the Deut.22 you quoted?

quote:

You say: "He then adds however that anyone who divorced apart from the cause of "porneia" (immorality/fornication) was committing adultery..."

Asked another way. Are you claiming that Christ was saying that the expression "some uncleanness" spoken of in Deut.24:1, is to be understood and interpreted to mean 'some whoredom', 'some fornication', 'some marital unfaithfulness'? And if so; than this is what you believe this was 'the provision' in the law Joseph was considering to act upon to 'lawfully' and righteously put away Mary?

quote:

I am a bit confused here, so please clarify for me something here. You said that:
"You are correct that this Law established the regulations for a woman who was found sexually unclean when a man married her. Verse 24 then describes this situation and adds an additional regulation. If you look at them side by side they are describing the same situation:"

You apparently meant to say that:
"You are correct that this Law [in Deut.22:13-21/22:23-24] established the regulations for a woman who was found sexually unclean when a man married her. Verse [one(1) of chapter] 24 then describes this situation and adds an additional regulation. If you look at them side by side they are describing the same situation.

Deuteronomy 22:13 "If any man takes a wife and goes in to her..."
Deuteronomy 24:1 "When a man takes a wife and marries her..."

Deuteronomy 22:13-14 "and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, 'I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin"
Deuteronomy 24:1 "and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her"

I understand how you might see and say this, but I do not see this. That
"they are describing the same situation" - simular yes, but not the same scenario.

quote:

You say: "Deuteronomy 24 has to be adding a provision to an existing Law, because it is written as though the Law is already known."

Your asserting that Deut.24 "has to be adding..." or providing additional information previously undelineated in instructions covering the scenarios of Deut.22:13 thru 29 - a less severe penalty for the sin of whoredom committed by a betrothed wife. But that is the language of conjecture here my friend, not certifiable.

quote:

It is based upon an assumption of that which is not spelled out sufficiently to confirm that it is no more than personal inference. I do not even see where this is even remotely implied to be an addenum to the scenarios presented in Deut.22. Not that there is no simularity or commonality in language; just not speaking about the same scenario. The contextual setting to me that is, is different. Yes they [Deut.22:13-21, 22-24, 25-27, 28-29 and Deut.24:1-4] are addressing issues that can arise in the process of taking a wife - a supposed "virgin"/"maiden" wife. But there is a difference in the meaning of "some uncleanness" in 24:1, and that of a unbetrothed daughter who is defiled by forced sex, or defiled by concentual sex; or a betrothed daughter who has been defiled by forced sex, or defiled by concentual sex - in this last case by her "playing the whore" "in her father's house". ; or that of the daughter accused of having played the whore "in her father's house".

quote:

In the case of the defiled unbetrothed daughter, she is not stoned, but forced to become the wife of the one who defiled her (unless her father utterly refuses to give her to the man). In the case of the 'raped' betrothed daughter, she is spared stoning, due only to the gracious assumption she cried out in the field and that she was clearly heard to have cried out for help in the city. In the case of the betrothed daughter now consumated on her 'wedding night', who is accused by her new husband of being defiled before he entered her, she is either stoned or spared stoning based upon whether or not her parents can produce the cloth that signifies she was a virgin on the wedding day. In the case of the married woman in Deut 24, there is no condemnation or penalty of death by stoning in this section and scenario, because the issue is not that of an accusation for alleged or proven defilement on her part; but a matter of personal displeasure on the part of the husband towareds his wife for "some uncleaness".

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi
First, it wasn't just liberal scholars who have been involved in assessing the evidence of the manuscripts, there have been a large number of very conservative scholars who have been equally involved.

Second, I absolutely reject the idea that hundreds of men have knowing conspired to mistranslate this verse, sorry but that doesn't fly.

Third, Most scholars do not see this as "Erasmus' doctrine", they see it as biblical doctrine.

Last, The underlying Greek supports the translation that these men have chosen without the inclusion of 'ei'. Take a look at any literal translation (like that from an interlinear)

quote:

In Romans 5:10 there is a word used for "reconciliation" that in the Greek is "ketallasso". This word represents a laying aside of wrath by ONE person, regardless of the other person's behavior. This is how God reconciled us to Himself when we were still sinners. He set aside His wrath, and we did not.