Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 9

RW

I have been asked to “make a parallel sentence to demonstrate that put away and divorce are not the same.” That should not be necessary because “divorce” and “put away“ are translated from totally different words. “Put away” is translated from “apoluo.” Divorce is translated from “apostasion.” The Romans, and perhaps other unbelievers, who did not know the Law or had no respect for the Law, likely used apoluo to refer to divorce, as some preachers today in their writings. But Jesus certainly did not use the word unscripturally or inaccurately.

Here is the sentence that shows divorce and put away to be different. I’ll upgrade it to a conversation:

A Jewish woman told her father that her husband would not give her a divorce and since he had put her away she was not able to marry. Her father went to her husband and reminded him of what Jesus said: “You commit adultery against her (Mk. 10:11) by putting her away but not according to the law that requires giving the certificate. And, according to Jesus, you make her to commit adultery as well as any man that marries her.

Below is a passage that make it is clear that put away and divorce are not the same thing:

Jeramiah 3:8 “And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.”

If one insists that divorce and put away are the same thing then he have God saying “I divorced her and I divorced her”, which is redundant. God does not talk like that. He divorced her but the message was that he did not just put her away, which would not have freed her to marry. But since he did actually divorce, according to the Law, Israel was able to marry Christ (Rom. 7:4).

Below is another passage: Isa 50:1 “Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away?”

If “put away” and divorce are the same thing then all that would have been needed to say is “where is the put away”? Do you not see how silly that would be?

I have written a 280 page book called, 'Put Away But Not Divorced." It is FREE to anyone looking to understand the Bible's teaching regarding the question, "Who May Marry?".

LJ Your parallel is supposed to parallel the sentence structure of Matt 5:31,32. You left that part out of the challenge. So you have still not provided a parallel. And you still refuse to answer the questions asked of you.

LJ RW Is it reasonable that if a Biblical sentence is explained in a manner so that it functions in a certain way, then a parallel sentence should be able to be made after the same general format, which will demonstrate that function? Please, yes or no.

CD Here is the sentence format again....Don't leave out anything. It must be exact as Christ stated. Here are the 6 parts of Matt 5:31,32 broken down for easier identification:
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife,
2) saving for the cause of fornication,
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Here is a parallel for an example:
A) You have heard it said that leaving that door open during the summer is OK
B) but I say to you;
1) Whoever leaves that door open,
2) saving that someone installs the new screen door.
3) causes flies to get in the house,
4) and whoever sees it open and does not shut it will also be seen as having caused flies to get in the house

Line 1 continues with the same topic as established in Line A.
Please provide a parallel where line 1, can switch to a different topic and make perfect sense.
The 'different-meanings' theory requires the topic to switch in line 1 after the "but I say unto you...".
Therefore if the 'different-meanings' theory has any credibility, a sentence after the same sentence format should be able to be created that can demonstrate such a switch to a different topic.

RW Keep on mind that the z KJV recently translated Apoluo as divorce. There is no logical reason for their inconsistency. The ASV was consistent, as were a lot of versions.

LJ RW, You wrote: "I have been asked to make a parallel sentence to demonstrate that put away and divorce are not the same. That should not be necessary because “divorce” and “put away“ are translated from totally different words."

Can anyone provide two words that are genuinely agreed to be synonyms? Guess what? They are two entirely different words!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If the debate police were to show up now, you would be issued a citation.

LJ RW, Is it that you are involved in a remarriage, which the 'permanence of marriage' folks recognize as adultery, and therefore it is necessary that you defend your state of being?

TB Here is the definition of the words put away in the Jer. & Isa. scriptures you used. If you will notice, part of the definition is "be divorced" Are you straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel?
H7971
שׁלח
shâlach
BDB Definition:
1) to send, send away, let go, stretch out
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to send
1a2) to stretch out, extend, direct
1a3) to send away
1a4) to let loose
1b) (Niphal) to be sent
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to send off or away or out or forth, dismiss, give over, cast out
1c2) to let go, set free
1c3) to shoot forth (of branches)
1c4) to let down
1c5) to shoot
1d) (Pual) to be sent off, be put away, be divorced, be impelled
1e) (Hiphil) to send
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 2394

RW THE definition? Strong does not add divorce.

TB RW What are you trying to say? Your reply doesn't make much sense.

RW Yes, TB, it makes sense. Look at Strongs definition shalach (the O.T. equivalent of apoluo). He does not ADD divorce to the definition. Do you not know that scholars are not inspired? Their definition is their opinion. If they cannot support their opinion with scripture then they have failed in their efforts to correctly define a word.

TB RW Pretty presumptuous and biased on your part to say "does not ADD" rather than does not include!

For Strong's # H7971 שׁלח shâlach

BDB includes "be divorced", and Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament devotes over one printed page to show the many different forms of this root word along with the definition of each form and which form is used in specific scriptures. For the form of the word that is used in Jer. 3:8, the definition is: "specially to divorce a wife".

LC Then explain the words no longer as in no longer two but one flesh. And also till death do you part.

LJ No longer, as long as they live, are they two. They take on the status that Adam and Eve had. And remember Eve was literally made from his rib, making her literally one flesh with Adam. All subsequent God-joined marriages since that first one have taken on that reality. Since the 'one flesh' status of Adam and Eve was impossible to end, except by death, so also the God-joined marriage.

LC That was for RW, Mr. Thesaurus.

LJ LC Thanks for clarifying.

RW Perhaps some of you thought the parallel sentence should be made of what Jesus said, which seemed to be that he talked about put away and divorce in the same vein. However, that assumes that the KJV translated correctly. It did not. Look at an interlinear if you don't believe me. The word translated divorce in the KJV should be "put away" as it was translated in the SAME passage. Consistency is important in translating. The KJV messed up here. Note the following:

New Testament Translations that Do Not Translate Apoluo as Divorce in Matthew 5:32 Below are some versions that do not translate apoluo as divorce in Matthew 5:32 (emphasis added):

(ASV) But I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.

(Bible in Basic English) But I say to you that everyone who puts away his wife for any other cause but the loss of her virtue, makes her false to her husband; and whoever takes her as his wife after she is put away is no true husband to her.

(Confraternity Version - Holy Bible, New American Catholic Edition) But I say unto you that everyone who puts away his wife, save on the account of immorality, causes her to commit adultery; and he who marries a woman who has been put away commits adultery.

(Darby) But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except for cause of fornication, makes her commit adultery, and whosoever marries one that is put away commits adultery.

(DRB) But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

(Disciple Literal New Testament) But I say to you that everyone sending-away his wife except for a matter of sexual-immorality is causing her to commit-adultery. And whoever marries a woman having been sent-away [from her husband] is committing-adultery.

(Geneva Bible) But I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife (except it be for fornication) causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery.

(KJ3 Literal Translation Bible) But I say to you, Whoever puts away his wife, apart from a matter of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry the one put away commits adultery.

(LITV) But I say to you, Whoever puts away his wife, apart from a matter of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry the one put away commits adultery.

(Living Oracles New Testament) - Campbell) But I say unto you, whosoever shall dismiss his wife, except for whoredom, is the occasion of becoming an adulterous; and whosoever marries her that is dismissed, commits adultery.

(MKJV) But I say to you that whoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry her who is put away commits adultery.

(The New Testament by John Wesley) But I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, save for the cause of whoredom, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery.

(Worldwide English) But I tell you, no man may send away his wife unless she has committed adultery. If he does send her away, he is making her commit adultery. And if a man marries a woman who has been sent away from her husband, he commits adultery.

(World English Bible) But I tell you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries her when she is put away commits adultery.

(WTNT) But I say unto you: whosoever put away his wife, (except it be for fornication) causeth her to break matrimony. And whosoever marrieth her that is divorced, breaketh wedlock.

(Wuest) But, as for myself, I am saying to you, Everyone who dismisses his wife except in a case of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries her who has been dismissed, commits adultery.

(WYC) But I say to you, that every man that leaveth his wife [that every man that shall leave his wife], except (for) [the] cause of fornication, maketh her to do lechery, and he that weddeth the forsaken wife, doeth adultery.

(Young's Literal Translation) 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.

The strongest evidence of a proper translation of a word is the meaning rendered by respected translators. The ASV is the most respected for accuracy and reliability. Also, a few of the other versions noted above are highly respected and quoted from often. It is primarily the new versions, which are known for unfaithfulness to the original language, that in some instances render apoluo as divorce.

TB LOL So you are saying the ASV published in 1900-01

(American Standard Version - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Standard_Version
The Revised Version, Standard American Edition of the Bible, more commonly known as the American Standard Version (ASV), is a Bible translation into English that was completed in 1901, with the publication of the revision of the Old Testament; the revised New Testament had been released in 1900. It was originally best ...

Is more accurate and to be believed over the "new versions" like the KJV from 1611? LOL

RW You are showing your ignorance.

LC There is no parallel but Jesus and Moses. JESUS countermandated Moses. That is why he said,"but I say to you...." see the B U T, in grammar is a change in thought or direction. Moses said this, BUT I SAY differently. He used the but, not and. And means additionally like for example Moses said "x" and I add to what he said...but the big guy didn't use and, he used but.

TB Jesus DID NOT countermand Moses

LC Then why did he say,"but I say...."

RW No, LC, you CANNOT interpret a passage in a way as to have Jesus sinning. That is BAD hermeneutics. Very bad. Virtually ALL the commentators REJECT approach. Why do you think they do? Because it is BAD HERMENEUTICS. Barnes is one of the most respected and valuable commentaries. You might want to see what he says on the "but I say unto you" phrase, where Jesus used it.

LC Why do you think Jesus was wrong, perhaps Moses was wrong.

LC Perhaps you are right RW, but I say you are wrong.

LC See how that works grammatically.

RW LC, are you even trying to be reasonable. You accuse me of saying Jesus was WRONG? What did I say that led you to think and say that? Me thinks you are having a hard time distinguishing between tradition and truth. If it contradicts what you have been taught it has to be wrong, RIGHT?

RW Translations – Why They Sometimes Get It Wrong

Since the days of the Tower of Babel, where God confounded the people’s language, a communication problem has existed between people whose languages are different. When one needs to communicate with someone who speaks another language, he has only a couple of options. Sign language can be helpful, but it is greatly limited. The most effective means to interconnect is to find someone that speaks BOTH languages fluently and have him translate what is said in one language to the other language. Not only is it important that the one selected know the languages but also that he is someone who can be trusted to translate accurately. If a message is of great importance it is wise to have multiple qualified independent translators, and have them check one another's work. This would virtually assure that the communication is reasonably accurate.

The need for accurate translation is most important in the area of religion (Judeo Christian). The original language of the Bible was NOT English. Therefore, we who speak English are dependent upon translators to convert the original language to the language that we understand. While the Bible writers were inspired in their writing, translators are not. Also, various other factors can result in mistranslations.

Sometimes the mistranslation of a single word can create serious error that adversely affects many. One example is the Greek word “apoluo.” This word is used about 67 times in the New Testament, and its basic meaning is “to put away, send away, repudiate, etc.” Unfortunately, people who do not understand nor respect the word of God have used this word to mean divorce. Tragically, this misuse of the word has found its way into many of the new versions or translations of the New Testament. Fortunately, at least 18 reliable versions still get it right. …

Since many scholars SAY “apoluo” means divorce, or that it was “used of divorce,” on what basis do we take exception to their statement? Actually, there are several reasons why “apoluo” should not be translated as divorce.

First, the definition of divorce, as given to us from God through Moses, is different from the definition of the word "apoluo." Divorce, as defined and understood in virtually every language today, is “the legal dissolution of a marriage by a court or other competent body.” A key component of the definition of divorce, as found in Deuteronomy 24:1, 2, includes a bill of divorce. Thus, to merely put a wife out of the house is something LESS than divorce, which is said to free the woman so that she “may go and be another man’s wife.” On the other hand, separation, which LACKS the key component, does not end marriage because it does not meet the requirements of the definition of divorce. "Apoluo" equals separation. A person who is sent away or put away is merely separated. To the Romans of Jesus' day (a people who had no concern for the word of God), being separated was synonymous with divorce. But Jesus was obligated and determined to teach the Law of Moses rather than seek to appease the Romans or to turn a blind eye to the practice of the Jews (putting away but not divorcing) that was contrary to their Law.

A second reason “apoluo” should not be translated as divorce is the fact that if Jesus had used the word that way he would have taught contrary to the word of God, which would have given the Jews reason to kill him. While Jesus took issue with the false notions of the Jews, the idea that he took issue with Moses, who was inspired of God to write, is untenable.

Third, before Jesus said anything at all condemning the sin of putting away, he made sure his hearers understood that what he was about to say was not to be taken as contradicting the Law (Matt. 5:17-19). To contradict the Law would have been sin on his part.

Fourth, the notion that "apoluo" should be translated as divorce has Jesus teaching that if one is divorced, he may not marry UNLESS he is the one doing the divorcing. This means that one who is divorced against his or her will, even when no wrong was done, is to be punished with celibacy. This is contrary to the justice of God (Prov. 17:26). Also, such an interpretation sometimes results in divorces that might otherwise not have happened. It actually encourages a “race to the court house” to be the one that does the divorcing so as to be able to marry again.

Fifth, "apoluo" should not be translated as divorce because this error is the foundation for a doctrine that ignores the grace of God. People make mistakes, and most LEARN from their mistakes. Marrying the wrong person is one of the biggest mistakes one can make in life. But if being divorced means one must live celibate the rest of his life—that he cannot have sex and therefore no family of his own—then the mistake becomes monumental. It causes one to think that God does not care, or that he is not “full of grace.” Thus, many turn from the church and the Lord when given the ultimatum.

Translators of the New Testament often get it wrong because they misunderstand the teaching of Jesus. The misunderstanding began with the Roman Catholic Church, which does not allow divorce. According to the Law of God divorce ends marriage, but the “church” says it does not. When one is divorced he has no marriage. Thus, to say there is no such thing as divorce or that Jesus said you cannot marry if you are divorced is tantamount to “forbidding to marry,” which Paul put into the category of “doctrines of devils” (1 Tim. 4:1-3). Many of the Bible scholars are either Catholic or were greatly influenced by Catholic scholars. Thus, the view that the divorced may not marry is a tradition that goes way back. Because it has been taught and practiced for so long, and by so many, its defenders often look upon it as the standard. In other words, any thinking that contradicts this doctrine cannot be correct. Thus, solid arguments for a different way of thinking have no effect.

Difficulties arise in translating the Bible. But with careful study and open hearts that seek truth, we can come to a right understanding regarding the issue of divorce.

LJ RW Jesus did not preach the Sermon on the Mount with the instructions that his words should be put through a filter of "checking with commentators" in order to understand it.

This is another offence committed by RW that would have the debate police to issue another citation. When a debater appeals to majority or popular opinion as an argument, then that debater has committed one of the logical fallacies on the list of what is not allowed in a debate.

RW LC It works FINE grammatically if you translate apoluo correctly.

LJ RW If it worked fine then a simple parallel sentence would be very easy to make. You cannot make that parallel sentence because it does NOT work fine as you claim. Your position is seen to be forced to make false claims. The claim that it works fine is proven to be an outright lie.

RW Do acknowledge that Apoluo is translated wrong by the KJV? If not, no need to continue on this parallel sentence request

LJ RW There again, the debate police would issue you yet another citation. You are breaking all the rules of proper debate. You have now pulled the "circular reasoning" logical fallacy.

LJ LC Gal 3: 19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Heb 9: 9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Jesus bringing the NT was the time of reformation. Dt 24:1-4 is now an obsolete "carnal ordinance"). Heb 7: 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 2 Cor 3: 11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. 12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 13 And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: John 1: 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

LC The exception clause was for BETRTHAL. DEUT 24 was to prevent wife swapping.

TB RW No, but even IF it should have been translated "put away", I have shown you that the definition of "put away" means divorced. There are 2 verses in Lev that refer to divorce and put away, and each term has the exact same Strong's #. That would mean that both terms have the exact same meaning.

LJ Synonyms are different words, but are still synonyms. The reasoning that the two words are separate words and therefore cannot be synonyms is an argument that even a child can see is absurd.

LJ LC Yes, Dt 24 starts off allowing what is sin by the NT standard. Once that was started, then verse 4 had to prohibit the wife going back to her first real husband for the sake of order and eliminate confusion in society. That is another point that is in direct contradiction of the NT standard. The wife is obligated to return to her first real husband if at all possible. As long as they are both alive, they are as much 'one flesh' by God's decree as were Adam and Eve.

TB LC The Jewish betrothal ceremony made them legally husband and wife. If you believe the exception clause was to allow a divorce from betrothal, please explain how someone can go into a court of law and obtain a legal divorce from the non legal relationship of betrothal.

LC Who uses the word put away, these days? It has been sterilized to possibly mean separation. But I feel it means divorce.

TB LC It does mean divorce, to rational people.

LC That is legally referred to as breach of promise.no one enforced that legal law just as no one enforced the adultery laws that are still on the books.

LC The court of man stopped enforcing those laws because they claimed, they "can't legislate morality."

LJ Very interesting, this tactic taken by the "change of meanings" position. It is basically saying that if a person will not accept that the KJV translation is wrong, then the discussion is not worth continuing. The KJV translators saw it as absolutely correct to reveal that the words were used as synonyms. They were right. RW's position is wrong, as can be proven by the fact that not even one parallel sentence can be produced that can demonstrate the function he says the sentence performs.

LC In ecclesiasticus, it even refers to a woman who has another child by another man "a who're". But not many go by the Catholic bible...not even a lot of Catholics.

CD This quote from DJ sums it up.... " Nice observation about the relationship between the verb, apoluo (put away), and the noun, apostasion (bill of divorce). The apostasion is simply a legal document certifying that one spouse has apoluo'ed the other. If a man apoluo's his wife, then him giving her an apostasion will not change the fact that he is apoluo'ing his wife; and by apoluo'ing his wife, a man "causes her to commit adultery" (Mat 5:32).

LJ LC Even if she was a whore and left her husband and had a child by another man, she is still obligated to return to her real husband and he should accept her back if at all possible.

CD You can’t use legal cover to mask a moral failure.

LC But a judge can give them the false idea that he has power to end a one flesh union.

LJ CD Right, even when the words are made into two different things as RW does, then the sentence is a nonsensical mess. So, along with the change of meanings, we are then asked to accept that poor Matthew was a really bad writer. He made an extremely sloppy sentence that we are then obligated to decipher the best we can, bringing in what Moses allowed, assuming that Moses initiated the permanent and absolute moral standard.

LC So judges don't legislate morality, the contribute to the opposite. That is why I think they should they can't end the covenant marriage, just the legal responsibilities to the other spouse.

LJ LC Yes, what was necessary to deal with the failures of the unregenerate under OT law, is still available in secular law. But Christs' "Kingdom" subjects, (Matt 5:19), are not of this world and therefore follow a higher law. Someone please inform the "difference of meanings" advocates of this basic Christian tenet.

TB LC Breach of promise is not a divorce to dissolve an existing legal union, it is a legal suit brought for damages because the other person would not enter into a promised legal union. There is no legal relationship from which to get a legal divorce.

LC Breach of promise is what think matthew was referring to in.their language and idea from a Jewish standpoint. As nothing is more a breach of promise than being with another person.

TB LC LC So with you it is "I think" or "I believe" and not what you can show with documentation?

LJ LC I think WHAT the exception identified, was the point being made, not the actual reason for doing it. What it was; was the premarital divorce, which only ended engagement. Why it was commonly done, for fornication, served merely as the means to identify WHAT it was. When there is more than one way to do something, a convenient way of identifying the one, as opposed to the other, is by identifying WHY that one is done. For example, a college town where the police issue tickets for moving violations as well as for things like jaywalking, and disorderly conduct; the jaywalking tickets being the most notorious. If a person said, "I see you have tickets; are they for moving violations?" The person answering may choose to simply say WHY they were given, 'for jaywalking', rather than saying, 'they are not for moving violations'. The divorce for fornication served to identify the KIND of divorce it was that is allowable, which is the premarital kind. They having asked him for an acceptable grounds for divorce in Matt 19, this kind of answer proved to be very effective. They expected him to give them a reason to divorce a God-joined wife, but instead, he gave them the reason for why the premarital kind of divorce was commonly done. This served to in effect say, 'the only way to divorce your wife is if you do so premaritally. After becoming joined in marriage, it is too late.'

TB LC If you believe that the exception clause allowing for divorce is to allow a divorce from a betrothal (which some believe is an engagement), and that instead of filing for divorce it is now called breach of promise, you are simply wrong. In a breach of promise law suit, it would not be the person trying to end the relationship who would file the law suit. The law suit would be filed by the person who wanted to remain in the relationship, and was seeking damages from the person who was trying to end the relationship. What you are saying is false. Now that you have been shown the truth, if you continue to teach your false teaching, you are a liar. If you are a liar, then you are not a Christian.

LC So those that divorce and end engagement have hardness of heart. What is your point. Just like putting away...it is hardness of heart. All three basically are the same thing.

LC You haven't shown truth at all.

TB LC You are either lacking in spiritual understanding, willfully spiritually blind, a deliberate false teacher, brain washed, or mentally challenged, or something of the sort. After being shown that what you are teaching is false, if you continue to teach the false teaching, you are simply a liar.

LJ LC Divorcing to end engagement is not a violation of a marriage because they are both still single. They have not left and cleaved; therefore they are NOT one flesh in marriage. That premarital divorce was a sidepoint that has nothing to do with the hardness of hearts he was referring to. What Jesus identified as hardness of heart was the divorce that was AFTER the leaving the cleaving; which divorce by secular law puts asunder the God-joined husband and wife. Please look at Matt 5:31,32, broken down to more easily identify its parts: A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: B) But I say unto you, 1) That whosoever shall put away his wife, 2) saving for the cause of fornication, 3) causeth her to commit adultery: 4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Line A is referring to Dt 24:1 "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house."

When line 2 is mistakenly assumed to mean for adultery, then the exception provides a partial allowance to do what line A is talking about: post-marital divorce is allowed, but only for adultery. But under the 'no-sex betrothal-divorce explanation' of the exception clause, exemplified in the Joseph-Mary scenario, then the exception does NOT provide partial allowance to do the kind of divorce line A is referring to. The sentence works in two entirely different ways, depending on how the exception clause is interpreted. I thought you agreed that the exception pertains to ending engagement only. I thought we were in agreement on that.

RW It seems to me that anyone who actually wants to learn the truth on this important subject, so as to be sure to not be guilty of "forbidding to marry" would actually do some openminded reading and studying of opposing views. I have offered my 280 page book, "Put Away But Not Divorced" for FREE. If you have no interest in reading it, and express it here, then it becomes evident that your "truth" is your tradition. In that case, not my book nor anyone elses will help you. Nor will any discussion on Facebook be of any profit.

TB I have posted the 2 verses from Lev. which show that you are wrong. Quit trying to hype your e-book with your false teaching in this area.

RW TB, you have little understanding of this subject. I did not reply because you evidently do not even know that your "proof" is based on the accuracy of the translation.

LJ Your interpretation is a private interpretation. If it was legitimate, it would be able to vindicate itself by a parallel sentence that demonstrates the function you say the sentence performs. That is a very simple and very to-the-point and powerful means of determining the truth. So the sentence being a grammatically absurd mess is what Matthew is responsible for, in order for you to come along and tell us what he really meant? Making the words not synonymous creates that chaos and literal convolution. The correct explanation makes the sentence of Matt 5:31,32 very competent and self explanatory.

So do you have a vast documented background in ancient Semitic languages which you used to do your own translation of the bible?