Put Away vs. Divorce Discussion 10

WR Ok, I've been reading the debate between LJ and RW on making a parallel sentence about put away vs divorce.

From what I understand, although the writer used different words for "put away" and "divorce", I think it is not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that the words refer to different outcomes even though they may be synonyms.

For example, let's say I sign a contract to lease an apartment unit. Let's say also for the sake of my scenario that I use two terms:

1.) "move out" - which simply means I no longer take up residence in the unit, and 2.) "vacate" - the term I will use to indicate a legal, non-contracting breaching departure that is not abandonment of the unit

If I decide to "move out" of the unit, I need to provide a 30-day notice to vacate. If I don't, I am still obligated to all terms agreed upon in the contract (the conditions are artificial for this specific scenario), whatever they may entail.

Although the terms "move out" and "vacate" go hand-in-hand with a legally recognized departure, you can talking about "moving out" without it equating "vacating," according to this scenario's definition. That is, I can no longer take up residence in the unit while still contractually obligated to keep all terms of the lease. I would have to go through the proper process of "vacating" the premises if I wish to be free from the rent, the upkeep, etc. of the unit.

So it makes sense for me that a person can "put away" their spouse but not "divorce" him/her and the two terms be not interchangeable.

LJ WR, Well, we have seen this exact scenario presented before in order to try to support the "different meanings" theory. In order for it to be successful, lay out the background story, as you have done above, then provide a parallel sentence to Matt 5:31,32 that can show the different meanings can be accommodated by the actual sentence format while simultaneously making sense. I expect the natural flow of the sentence is going to be disrupted to the point of absurdity; but prove me wrong. Looking forward to your parallel. Is the story depicted in your post part of RW's book?

LC Put away is their version of separate. To leave. To divorce is to separate to leave. GOD DIVORCED Israel but never left them waiting for their return.

TB Here are 2 verses from Lev.

(Lev 21:7 KJV+) They shall notH3808 takeH3947 a wifeH802 that is a whore,H2181 or profane;H2491 neitherH3808 shall they takeH3947 a womanH802 put awayH1644 from her husband:H4480 H376 forH3588 heH1931 is holyH6918 unto his God.H430

(Lev 21:14 KJV+) A widow,H490 or a divorced woman,H1644 or profane,H2491 or an harlot,H2181 (H853) theseH428 shall he notH3808 take:H3947 butH3588 H518 he shall takeH3947 a virginH1330 of his own peopleH4480 H5971 to wife.H802

If you will notice "put away" is used in one verse, and "divorced" is used in the other verse. Also note that the exact same Strong's # H1644 is assigned to both terms. That means that the exact same definition applies to both terms. How can any rational person try to argue that the terms don't mean the same thing.

Here is the definition for Strong's # H1644
H1644
גּרשׁ
gârash
BDB Definition:
1) to drive out, expel, cast out, drive away, divorce, put away, thrust away, trouble, cast up
1a) (Qal) to thrust out, cast out
1b) (Niphal) to be driven away, be tossed
1c) (Piel) to drive out, drive away
1d) (Pual) to be thrust out
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 388

RW There never was an agreement between me and LJ to debate. When the debate becomes FORMAL I double down and do the best I can do. I have done several debates and most are on my website.

LJ RW You are in denial.

CD So you wouldn't "double down" here? Why not? Are not the souls of the readership on this forum as important as the souls listening to your formal debate?

RW I have not found discussion with LJ to be profitable.

CD But, it was profitable enough for a formal debate, no? I think you can't provide that parallel sentence that proves your put away vs. divorce theory and you are trying back out. It does not matter if it is a formal or Facebook debate if you have have truth. If you really are trying to save people from a "doctrine of demons" as claim then this forum is just as important as a formal forum, no? Then you should all the more "double down" against LJ as you would in a formal debate unless you cannot. I think the lack of the parallel sentence shows that.

RW The parallel sentence "argument" us not something any serious debater would use in debate.

LJ RW Now you slander us by calling us not serious.

WR Here is the parallel.

A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall move out, let him give a notice to vacate: B) But I say unto you, 1) That whosoever shall move out, 2) saving for the cause of an emergency, 3) causeth the landlord to keep the rental deposit 4) and whosoever shall move out that is has a notice to vacate gets the rental deposit back.

As I posted, the words can be synonymous but the outcomes can be different. In one case the landlord keeps the rent and the other the renter gets his deposit back.

TB Just quit it.

CD Walter....Also....on this point, Marriage is not a contract like a rental agreement. It is two people becoming one. Even with this parallel it shows that even with the notice to vacate...the renter is still "moving out" (verb). I will quote from DJ here... " The relationship between the verb, apoluo, and the noun, apostasion. 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)."

The truth of the matter is that Jesus nowhere, no place mentions that it is the “certificate of divorce” that will make a “putting away” acceptable to Him. Putting away—with or without a certificate has to do with HARD HEARTS. (He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.)

LJ WR, I am genuinely thankful that you have brought this up even though the same or very similar scenario using a rental situation has been presented before, some months back. Truth is always open to opposition. A characteristic of truth is that it is always stronger than a lie or a non truth. A truth always prevails against that which is a non-truth. First the sentence broken down for convenient access:
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.

LJ WR, perhaps you are more familiar with the "change of meanings" explanation. 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.

Assuming that you believe that fornication in Matt 5:31,32 is referring to adultery, then I have a question: If line 1 is changing to refer to the unacceptable putting away, the kind without proper documentation, wouldn't the next line, 2, be saying that unacceptable putting away, the kind without documentation, is allowable if the wife commits adultery?

LJ A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall move out, let him give a notice to vacate:
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall move out,
2) saving for the cause of an emergency,
3) causeth the landlord to keep the rental deposit
4) and whosoever shall move out that is has a notice to vacate gets the rental deposit back.

Under the betrothal divorce explanation of the exception clause, the fact that there existed in their culture 2 kinds of divorces, the premarital and post marital, is key to making that explanation work. Under that explanation, line 2, the exception clause identifies what kind of divorce is being allowed, a different kind of divorce than what line A started off talking about. So perceiving your parallel in the same way, your parallel works the same way as parallels I have made to demonstrate certain aspects of the betrothal divorce explanation. I do not see in your parallel a change of topic in line 1 as I understand RW says must occur. Your line 4 does not bring in a 3rd party like it is supposed to, but that can be ignored to focus on the change of the kind of action in the exception, the same thing that occurs under the betrothal divorce explanation. The exception clause identifies another different kind of divorce as your exception clause identifies a different and acceptable kind of moving out.

LJ Line 1 cannot switch to a different topic and flow with what the simplicity of the sentence is saying from line A to line 1. The flow in line 1 has to be referring to the same thing line A is referring to or the sentence convolutes. To make it transparent, change the words to represent what the challenge calls for: that the words are different, having different meanings.
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall vacate, let him give a notice to vacate:
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall not vacate, but only move out, .....

There we have a clear change of topic and the sentence is convoluted Notice under the model that claims divorce means the same as put away, there is no change of topic even when using the same terms in line A:

A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall divorce his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall divorce his wife, ...

There is no convolution. The sentence format calls for a flow of meaning by way of there NOT being a change of topic at line 1.

LJ DS suggested that RW' "change of meanings" explanation does the same thing as the betrothal divorce explanation by way of having a change in the middle of the sentence. The difference between the two explanations is that the change-over AT the exception clause is a natural changeover that makes perfect literal sense, as able to be demonstrated by other sentences that perform that same function. When speaking about an action that has a similarly related action, then when referring to the one, (like how Matthew starts off talking about the post marital divorce), an exception clause can identify the other similar but different action as allowable; (like how the exception allows the premarital divorce). The understood switch-over at the exception is natural and is based on the hearers being aware of that other different kind of divorce, which fits perfectly with what the sentence is doing. So in the case of the forbidden divorce, which is the post marital, the wife IS caused to commit adultery afterward as the result of the divorce. But under the allowable premarital divorce, the "wife" is NOT caused to afterward commit adultery. The mechanics of the sentence, regardless of how the exception is interpreted, requires that the wife divorced after the disallowed manner IS caused to afterward commit adultery, while the "wife" who is divorced after the allowable manner is NOT caused to commit adultery. So under Mr. Waters' explanation, how is it that in the one case she IS caused, and in the other she is NOT caused

LJ WR, as far as I can tell, your parallel does not represent what I understand Mr. Waters' position is.

LJ CD in asking for a parallel, I am not looking for an analogy. These are two different things. The objective of the simple parallel is to simply demonstrate how a sentence cannot switch topic in the equivalent of line 1 and be sensible with the rest of the sentence. The parallel that WR submitted is acceptable as far as any attempt to demonstrate basic sentence function is welcomed. In describing the background story, it appears that he felt he had devised a sentence that could do what we were saying is nonsensical; you cannot change the whole topic of the sentence at line 1, after line A has established what the real topic is. So even though WR said he found a way using the rental scenario, once he actually presented his parallel, the topic at line 1 did not change, but rather there was a different synonymous term for the action. That is how Matt 5:31,32 works. That is how our parallels work. So his parallel did not do what it was supposed to do to demonstrate how we understood what RW' position calls for.

LJ Any topic imaginable that can demonstrate basic sentence function in a parallel is welcome in the challenge. A background story, in order to make the actual reading sensible , is very welcome. With such liberal parameters also encouraged in the challenge to see if the sentence is sensible when fornication is changed to adultery; even then no one could meet what the challenge calls for.

LJ The parallel WR provided worked similarly (from lines A to 3) to how the betrothal explanation works. The words are synonymous and the exception clause, line 2 identifies that other different but acceptable kind of moving out. That is not what RW's position does. It is understood that Jesus is referring to Dt 24:1 in Matt 5:31, (line A) so RW must change line 1 to another different kind of putting away. When line 2, the exception, identifies a different kind of action, then yes, the outcomes are different: she who was divorced post maritally is caused to commit adultery, while she who was divorced premaritally is NOT caused to commit adultery. WR's parallel did the same thing; it identified an acceptable kind of moving out in line 2, not line 1. It is understood that RW's position must change at line 1.
So let us examione what we understand RW's explanation must look like within the actual text.
A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: [Jesus is obviously referring to the acceptable divorce Moses allowed in Dt 24:1],
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife, [changing to a completely different kind of unacceptable divorce, where documentation was not provided]
2) saving for the cause of fornication, [adultery]
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced [she who was not divorced properly by having proper documentation] committeth adultery.

changeover takes place at line 1 to a different unacceptable divorce. That is very different than WR's parallel, where the exception, line 2, identifies an acceptable kind of moving out, which does NOT cause the result. (It being a negative result for the renter, that is, the landlord keeps the deposit). While WR's parallel makes sense BECAUSE it is at line 2 where attention is directed to what does NOT cause that negative result: RW's explanation, on the other hand, has the entire topic change at line 1. The result is a chaotic mess. Look for example at lines 1-3. That is literally saying that putting away without documentation is OK if she committed adultery! But line 4 says anyone marrying the same woman after being put away for adultery commits adultery! So it is OK to divorce without documentation if it is because she committed adultery, but anyone who marries her commits adultery? That is directly self contradictory.

Then RW says that Jesus in line A is NOT referring to Dt 24:1, but rather to the unacceptable divorce without documentation!! How can this be when Jesus used the reference to documentation in the same line? But let's give RW a chance to see if his "change of meanings" explanation will work with the text when we assume that line A was a reference to an unacceptable divorce without documentation:

A) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: [Jesus is not referring to the acceptable divorce Moses allowed in Dt 24:1, but rather to a corrupted way where proper certification after the proper Dt 24:1 scenario was not provided,]
B) But I say unto you,
1) That whosoever shall put away his wife, [after that corrupted manner, where documentation was not provided]
2) saving for the cause of fornication, [adultery]
3) causeth her to commit adultery:
4) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced [she who was not divorced properly by having proper documentation] committeth adultery.

Granted, above, the topic does not switch over to an entirely different topic at line 1 like before. But the convolution created is still unavoidable: from lines 1-3 it is saying that the WRONG kind of divorce is OK if she committed adultery, while simultaneously, whoever marries that same allowably divorced woman commits adultery! So it was OK to employ the wrong kind of divorce if done so because of her adultery, but whoever marries her commits adultery? That is chaos.

There is a complete disconnect from the natural flow of the sentence after "But I say unto you". RW's explanation fails either way.