Marriage

Betrothed wife. Not later down the road in the marriage.
Neither passage forces this to be a betrothed wife.In Deut 22:13-21 the man could have brought the accusation at ANY point in the marriage after hometaking/consummation.In Deut 24:1-4 is it exactly the same. It could be talking bout the man casting her out ANY time after hometaking.
It is not an amendment.
No, its not. It is a regulation meant to extirpate this hardhearted frivolous casting away of an innocent wife.
There have been Rabbi's who have interpreted Devarim KD:A-D in the strickest sense as being for adultery. Just as there have been Rabbi's who have interpreted it in the widest possible manner such as if she burnt his food.
Even the Rabbis cant pin it down...I wonder why ? It is because NOTHING is actually defined there."IF a man is going to put his wife away for some ambiguous 'uncleaness' then heres what he has to do and she can never be his wife again once remarried."There will never be a firm meaning drawn from 'ervah dabar' because none was meant to be given.
It remains possible for a man to truely love his wife yet have found/thought her to have committed "sexual" sin and because of his great love for her to quietly divorce her rather than to subject her to shame and death.
I agree. But as Joseph was doing Id guess it would have to be quite privately or he would have made her subject to public disgrace or possibly worse.MY guess is someone is going to have a field day with your words there...

E-version or hardcopy?
That particular item is software.I own books but rarely ever break them out...they dont have a search feature
The alleged irrelevance which you snipped was allowing you the opportunity to demonstrate that you possessed the ability to knowledgably determine `ervat davar correctly.
My lack of ability doesnt negate the knowledge of other biblical and Hebrew scholars my article was based on.
Yet, if you do not understand these things, are you truely qualified to be attempting to correctly determine their proper usage?
Thats pretty lame, Rich.If that is the case no person who isnt fluent in hebrew and Greek should even own a bible My article is based on the work and thoughts of men who DO know those words and their meanings.
Don't forget the BDB. Strong's is a good tool, but it is a very elementary tool.
I agree.Ive read that 'a little knowledge of greek is dangerous' and I agree.That is why I spend more time studying for context and harmony and only use the definitions where they agree for the most part.Context and harmony overall shows that 'ervah dabar' is a phrase that includes all sorts of 'uncleaness'.
As of yet, I have not seen anything that demonstrates any real level of ability in the matter. That is what I am looking for. I have watched and seen many 'cult' leaders use Strong's in like manner.
I dont need to you to watch me.I need you to prove that what Ive presented is in error.
Again: How can you claim to understand the intent of a phrase without understanding the grammar and spelling of the word(s) in question? One can not make a noun into verb and claim to understand the word. Let alone a phrase.Please, elaborate upon 'oruth and how it differs from `ervah.
Again, not relevant to the POINT of the article.We've already established that I am not a 3rd year Hebrew student, so lets quit playing this game of if I cannot provide what you ask for that the argument I HAVE provided is erroneous.I will ignore you posts entirely if you cant quit pulling this.I have made assertions in the articles themselves...feel free to refute those points if you will...but do not ask me again to do something I am not qualified to do.That I base my work on men who DO know these things does not negate the validity of the argument itself

(Jackie D;52079)
I believe if you looked at the post a little more closely you would understand that Tim's post is laced heavily with sarcasm.And where you came up with the rest of your post is beyond me....blessings
Tim directed that post to sealed who is the one person here who would have agreed with tims post there.I dont think this was the first time that Tim has made comments about marriage like this, so honestly Jackie, there was no reason for me to think it was sarcasm.TimfromPA, could you share whether you meant that post as written or if it was sarcasm ?Id like to know because I need to know for sure if Im missing the sarcasm or not.But frankly, its hard to tell if a person is being sarcastic or not when its words on pages with no 'tone' or body language to go by.As far as I can tell, the post wasnt sarcasm but was in complete agreement with the views that I think tim posted earlier.sorry if you were being sarcastic, Tim, and I missed it.If that was the case, tho I cant figure out how, maybe do what they do on other forums and end the post with something like "/sarcasm"That way I dont misunderstand...again, IF this was actually the case

(Jackie D;52076)
It appears to me that irrelevance is a matter of opinion in this case and simply a means of avoiding addressing those things you have "deemed" irrelevant....boring
There are many points being made that arent relevant TO the issue I am talking about at that particular point in time.One poster specifically in this thread has continually presented items that are of no direct relevance to my point and Id like to streamline this a bit as far as *I* am concerned.These discussions are taxing enough for one person to try to keep up with 3 or 4 others without having to run down every rabbit hole someone offers up.I would hope that wanting to keep the discussion streamlined is my own prerogative and that you arent requiring me to respond to every irrelevant point made here on this forum...I simply dont have the energy or even the desire for trying to keep up with folks who run off on some tangent that isnt DIRECTLY related to the points I am trying to keep myself confined to.
Tell me, when did we (mere human beings) get to determine what part of God's word is or is not AUTHORITY? And if you do not hold Numbers 30 on authority, tell me which verses have you chosen to replace God's Word for BeMidbar L?
Im not disputing Gods authority.I am disputing the idea that while God WILL forgive a wife who is kept from keeping her vow by her husband...supposedly this same God is entirely merciless when it comes to a man who made the SAME vow and is imprisoned for the rest of his life thus being made unable to keep that vow.There are many precepts in scripture that show us who God is and show us His heart and forgiveness.If we ONLY apply these precepts to the EXACT case they are presented in, Im afraid ALL of what Christ said is pretty much meaningless to the gentiles since His words were given to Jews.Paul spoke to specific situations as well...can we assume that NONE of those apply elsewhere ?Why even have a bible then ?
What religion would that be FoC?
Any that says Gods precepts can ONLY apply solely to/in the scenario they were given to/in.

FoC said:
Im not disputing Gods authority.I am disputing the idea that while God WILL forgive a wife who is kept from keeping her vow by her husband...supposedly this same God is entirely merciless when it comes to a man who made the SAME vow and is imprisoned for the rest of his life thus being made unable to keep that vow.
This comment is to anyone in general. FoC I am aware that you have not brought this up but I really needed to speak up here.I find it strange that the very men who are in the church today are so deadset against women having any responsibilities regarding spreading the word of God, having any kind of authority and an over all fear that woman might "usurp" them, suddenly find themselves thinking God might be unfair if He requires the "head" to live up to the laws that will remain until we no longer live on the earth. God sacrificed His own son. His Son who was to pay the penalty for all of mankind and their sinfulness. Why would He not be willing to and find righteousness in allowing men to be the head all the way around, including taking responsibility as being the head? It reminds me of Israel when they insisted on a king. And when God told the prophet to let them know exactly what the king would demand of them, they still chose an earthly king over the Almighty King to rule them with righteousness. A King who would have insisted that all are treated fair and just. But now, we are seeing that men who wish to be the head in a family don't want to take complete responsibility unless there is reward instead of consequence. We wonder why the teachers are held more accountable than the student. We wonder why those who know and do wrong will receive more stripes than those who don't though stripes ARE deserved.Any and all who want to take responsibility within the family and within the church, regrading any number of things including being a spouse, please take the time to consider that God is going to return all things to us, ten fold. And if we aren't putting out the good stuff and the truth and being responsible we will pay ten fold the penalty. Count on it. It is quite humorous that we somehow get it in our heads if we are forgiven for something by the Father, that there is still not a price to pay tied directly to obeying the Law and the laws of the land. blessings

Firstly, Im not one to say a woman is never the right person to teach.In the church each gender has a role to play, for sure, but there are times when, lets face it, a woman is the only person with the ability to do the job.Since you quoted my post, I will respond as best I can since Im not entire sure of your intent in your post I dont understand the issue with that passage.Numbers 30 shows that a WOMAN can be forgiven if she has made a vow to God and her husband or father (ie her authority) refuses to let her keep that vow.It also shows that the man himself who keeps her from it will be held responsible for his refusing to allow her to keep it.Im not entirely sure how your post applies to MY application of the verse that is simply meant to show that God is able to forgive ANYONE, not just some Hebrew wife or daughter, who has made a vow to Him and has been made unable to fulfill that vow by another party.I agree that we ARE to take responsibility, especially as men whom God has given these responsibilities to, and I personally do my best to uphold them.I cant tell if this is about marriage or what, so Ill toss this out and if its not relevant then disregard.Taking responsibility as a man in marriage does not include overlooking a wifes adultery.Taking responsibility in the church does not include overlooking embezzlement by an elder or even by a pastor (yes, Ive seen it before).One is not shirking their responsibility in marriage, for instance, if they decide to divorce a wife who is bent on perpetually breaking the marriage covenant.One is also not doing so if they are an elder in the church and they catch a the pastor embezzling money from the church who then tosses the man out of that church when he shows complete contempt and no remorse or repentance whatsoever for his sins, but even threatens them with physical violence if they 'dont keep their mouths shut'.You said this
But now, we are seeing that men who wish to be the head in a family don't want to take complete responsibility unless there is reward instead of consequence.
Again, I not sure exactly what youre intent is, but assuming it is marriage related (the topic), Ill respond as tho it is and you can disregard if it isnt When a person marries it isnt suppose to be a 'consequence'.No one marries with the intent that marriage is harmful to their existence...marriage is, by definition laid out in the garden, supposed to be BENEFICIAL, not detremental.God made Eve as a helper, not as adulteress/gossip/busybody/troublemaker/assassin.EVERY marriage SHOULD be beneficial to BOTH parties...THAT is the intent of marriage when GOD called everything 'good'.Now, I dont believe a man should divorce until he has concluded that there simply is no way get his wife to stop breaking the covenant (A.A.A.), but there absolutely can come a time when man or woman simply has no choice but to divorce to protect themselves and/or their children and again, there is no shirking of duty or responsibility in doing so.I dont expect reward from my marriage.I do expect my wife to uphold HER Vows and obligations OF marriage to me that she vowed that she would when we married.And I demand the same of myself towards her and go out of my way each day to make sure I AM upholding those thing and to go well beyond any base requirements and to love her as Christ loves His church.I gave the EXACT same love to 2 former wives and in both of those cases they refused to uphold their end of the deal and instead decided that having sex with friends and neighbors in my bed on a continual basis was a good idea.In those marriages I did not shirk my responsibility in finally divorcing.I gave each of them years literally of forgiveness and understanding until I had taken all I could take.That isnt about reward versus consequence....its about the BOTH persons have duties, responsibilities and obligations in the marriage and at least one of those persons completely rejecting the vows they made to uphold those things.Sorry if this isnt in tune with your post and please disgregard anything that isnt relevant (dont want you chasing rabbits either )God bless

(FoC;52114)
Firstly, Im not one to say a woman is never the right person to teach.In the church each gender has a role to play, for sure, but there are times when, lets face it, a woman is the only person with the ability to do the job.Since you quoted my post, I will respond as best I can since Im not entire sure of your intent in your post I dont understand the issue with that passage.Numbers 30 shows that a WOMAN can be forgiven if she has made a vow to God and her husband or father (ie her authority) refuses to let her keep that vow.It also shows that the man himself who keeps her from it will be held responsible for his refusing to allow her to keep it.
The passage specifically shows that the husband/father were the only ones capable of releasing a wife/daughter from a vow she may have made. But if we take careful note, it is the man's responsibility to do it and in a timely manner. If God is giving this ordinance and says there will be consequence for not doing it then there is consequence. And YES God does forgive, but we must always pay the conseequence when He states there will be one. He cannot go back on His word as He is the maker and keeper of the Word.Again as I stated in the beginning (I entered it in through an edit and you may not have seen it as you were already replying when I finally got it posted satisfactorily) that post was not directed at you but everyone in general. (FoC;52114)
Numbers 30 shows that a WOMAN can be forgiven if she has made a vow to God and her husband or father (ie her authority) refuses to let her keep that vow.It also shows that the man himself who keeps her from it will be held responsible for his refusing to allow her to keep it.Im not entirely sure how your post applies to MY application of the verse that is simply meant to show that God is able to forgive ANYONE, not just some Hebrew wife or daughter, who has made a vow to Him and has been made unable to fulfill that vow by another party.
You brought it up and keep bringing it up. I am merely looking at the appearance of drive you seem to have to justify what cannot be justified. (FoC;52114)
You said this
what did I say?...(FoC;52114)
I gave the EXACT same love to 2 former wives and in both of those cases they refused to uphold their end of the deal and instead decided that having sex with friends and neighbors in my bed on a continual basis was a good idea.In those marriages I did not shirk my responsibility in finally divorcing.I gave each of them years literally of forgiveness and understanding until I had taken all I could take.That isnt about reward versus consequence....its about the BOTH persons have duties, responsibilities and obligations in the marriage and at least one of those persons completely rejecting the vows they made to uphold those things.
In the very beginning of this thread you told me about being repeatedly told not to marry one of these women. So right there I would assume you have an even greater consequence to pay because of your blatant disregard of His commandment to you. And MANY years later you are still searching through your "extensive study" to find a way that you might be justified. I see you holding onto the fact that they did you wrong, try changing what they did to you into what you were responsible for in your failing marriages, including your disobedience. I see a man stuck in unforgiveness for himself yet trying to claim the forgiveness of the Lord. How can the Lord set you free of it if you are not willing to stand up and take your lumps?
Again, I not sure exactly what youre intent is, but assuming it is marriage related (the topic), Ill respond as tho it is and you can disregard if it isnt

yes it is about marriage. be blessed

In the very beginning of this thread you told me about being repeatedly told not to marry one of these women. So right there I would assume you have an even greater consequence to pay because of your blatant disregard of His commandment to you. And MANY years later you are still searching through your "extensive study" to find a way that you might be justified. I see you holding onto the fact that they did you wrong, try changing what they did to you into what you were responsible for in your failing marriages, including your disobedience.
The ongoing consequence is MY payment.That does not mean that the ex's committing adultery was MY sin or MY consequence.They made their vows, they signed on the dotted line...THEY had obligations in the marriage regardless of MY error.
I see a man stuck in unforgiveness for himself yet trying to claim the forgiveness of the Lord.
Ok, on this point there is some truth.I still hold, and probably always will, some unforgiveness against myself for making decisions against what I knew to do.But honesty, who wouldnt?I mean, the decision to marry when I was told not to not only affected me, but has affected my daughter from that first marriage.Its a bit hard to just put it in the past when its staring me in the face each and every day....kwim ?
How can the Lord set you free of it if you are not willing to stand up and take your lumps?
Not even sure what you are talking about.Ive taken more 'lumps' over the last 2 decades than I even want to remember or ever talk about.Are you stating that God has not dealt with me or something ?I assure you He has.Im not justifying anything. I KNOW where my error was. And I understand the repurcussions of those poor decisions.And again, that does not absolve the adulteress of HER own actions.
The passage specifically shows that the husband/father were the only ones capable of releasing a wife/daughter from a vow she may have made. But if we take careful note, it is the man's responsibility to do it and in a timely manner. If God is giving this ordinance and says there will be consequence for not doing it then there is consequence. And YES God does forgive, but we must always pay the conseequence when He states there will be one. He cannot go back on His word as He is the maker and keeper of the Word.
This is all fine and well, but doesnt deal with MY specific point that God CAN forgive a vow where ANYONE is made unable to fulfill it and that the guilty party is the one who will pay any consequence.That is my ONLY point, Jackie
You brought it up and keep bringing it up. I am merely looking at the appearance of drive you seem to have to justify what cannot be justified.
Actually, had it not been brought BACK up by another poster, it would have died after the first post about it.I made a point with the verse that someone had to dispute...thats just about all thats happened here.

(FoC;52121)
The ongoing consequence is MY payment.
I think that you spend way to much time studying this subject and looking for a way to feel better about something that cannot be changed. My suggestion, leave this study behind and live life without it for a while. God will straighten out any curves that are in the path. you keep saying that it doesn't excuse them for what they did and you are absolutely correct. Still and all your concern should not be whether or not they are being held accountable, but whether or not you are doing what He would have you be doing. As Jesus told Peter "if I choose that one should not see death, what is it to you. Follow me."Anyhow, I pray for nothing but the best for you in your walk and know that it will be given for the Lord desires nothing more than to provide His children with good things. I pray that you walk in the Lord more and less in what you "think" you might know. be blessed

(FoC;52062)
Wrong.Apparently you dont spend much time in the greek.
Interesting comment.(FoC)
The word is 'man' and I just dealt with this particular point.
In 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 it is andros, andri, andra respectively.Andros: nom. sg. m. n. A male person of full age and stature; a husband; a man, human being, individual. [Analytical Greek Lexicon]Yet, it is rendered as 'husband' in the majority of translations within this chapter.

(FoC;52074)
As presented in the article, we have clear examples to compare to.The unmarried widower (having NO spouse)The unmarried virgin man (who has no wife)And the unmarried virgin woman (who has no husband)
An "unmarried widower"? Are you referring to 1 Corinthians 7:8?The Greek there is agamois kai tais cherais.The Greek language is gender specific. Is not agamois masculine? With cherais being the dat. pl. f. n.?Further, is kai irrelevant here?There are only four occurrences of agamos in the NT, all of them occur in the context of one chapter of Corinthians. However, I will return to that later in another post.

(FoC;52084)
Im sorry but YOU are the one who cannot accept the CLEAR meaning of 'UNmarried' and EVERY single use of it in the chapter.
There are only four occurrences of agamos in the NT, all of them occur in 1 Corinthians 7.agamois; agamos; agamos; agamos7:8 agamois; dat. pl. m. n.7:11 agamos he; nom. sg. f. n.7:32 o agamos; nom. sg. m. n.7:34 he agamos; nom. sg. f. n.(FoC)
No, she is commanded to remain UNmarried..without a spouse.
Context indicates that she is separated and should remain that way. Agamos indicating that she is to remain as unmarried as opposed to taking another spouse. Again, though, the whole context is regarding marriages in which one or the other spouse becomes pistos while their spouse remains apistos. Paul is writing in response to a given set of circumstances here.(FoC)
Well firstly it means UNmarried....NOT married...without a spouse.Secondly I look to see whom Jesus is talking to...which in these two verses is two believers as proven by 'but to THE REST' in verse 12 to those believers who are UNequally yoked to whom God has given no commandment.
The speaker here is Paul.

(FoC;52089)
(Richard_oti)
(FoC)
(Richard_oti)
Not according to BeMidbar L [Numbers 30]. BeMidbar L allows for a father/husband to negate the vow of his daughter/wife. Beyond that, one is held too and must keep their vow.
And do you think I hold this BeMidbar L as an authority ?So you reject Numbers 30 as being authoritive?Hardly.I reject your notion that God is ONLY able to forgive someone a vow made if they are a wife or daughter in one specific scenario.There are a great many PRECEPTS in scripture that show Gods heart...scripture does not have to list out ten thousand examples for us to understand where those may be applicable elsewhere.BeMidbar L is specific.(FoC)
And it happens each and every time they perform that 'act'. When a divorce occurs, there is no ongoing issue of 'one flesh' otherwise Moses would have been in direct defiance of God for allowing a divorced woman to remarry, wouldnt he (not phrased as a question).
So why was the first husband not allowed to take her again as his wife?(FoC)
Im sorry, where again does the second instance say 'the wife is bound by law until the death of her husband'?
Devarim 12:1

(FoC;52091)
Neither passage forces this to be a betrothed wife. In Deut 22:13-21 the man could have brought the accusation at ANY point in the marriage after hometaking/consummation.
You are contradicting yourself, and I quoteFoC)
Deut 22 lays out a very clear law about what is to happen to a betrothed wife who is found to not be a virgin when she is firstly with her husband. The punishment is clear.

(Jackie D;52122)
I think that you spend way to much time studying this subject and looking for a way to feel better about something that cannot be changed.
I think you have mistaken my motivation My own situation helped to fire the boilers up. But it is the brutality against our brethren of some doctrines out there that has fueled this fire.When I get emails from folks who are depressed and even suicidal because of these demonic doctrines, how can I just turn them away and act like I dont care?
My suggestion, leave this study behind and live life without it for a while.
And should I honor that suggestion if God Himself has directed this path ?Ive tried many times just in the last year or so to leave this topic behind, but each time I do some dear sister or brother emails me telling me to keep going because the site and the studies are helping our brethren.Do you suggest that I take a coffee break while even ONE of the brethren are in need ?There are some here on your very forum here who have been the cause of distressed brothers and sisters contacting me/us at their wits end.One of them was just within the last 10 days or so.There is nothing more that Id like to do than forget this entire mess. But with the predators out there seeking to destroy His marriages, theres no way I can take even a day of reprieve.
you keep saying that it doesn't excuse them for what they did and you are absolutely correct.
I keep saying it only because it keeps coming up
Still and all your concern should not be whether or not they are being held accountable, but whether or not you are doing what He would have you be doing. As Jesus told Peter "if I choose that one should not see death, what is it to you. Follow me."
And He has shown me more than once that this is what I am to be doing at this stage.Having a passion for His children cannot be wrong.
Anyhow, I pray for nothing but the best for you in your walk and know that it will be given for the Lord desires nothing more than to provide His children with good things. I pray that you walk in the Lord more and less in what you "think" you might know. be blessed
Bless you as well, Jackie

(FoC;52093)
That particular item is software.I own books but rarely ever break them out...they dont have a search feature
Good answer. I already knew the answer to the question. It would require at least a basic knowledge of Ivrit to be able to use a hardcopy of the BDB with any ease.For myself, I use very little software, for I prefer hardcopy materials. There is a greater wealth within them.(FoC)
My lack of ability doesnt negate the knowledge of other biblical and Hebrew scholars my article was based on.
Perhaps, however it helps in establishing the validity of that which you are putting forth. It would appear that you are stronger in Greek than with Hebrew, yet even in Greek you truly seem to be missing the mark in several places as I have addressed just a few points in the last few posts.(FoC)
Thats pretty lame, Rich.If that is the case no person who isnt fluent in hebrew and Greek should even own a bible
Non sequitur. It has nothing to do with owning a bible. It has to do with the attempt to interpret words, phrases, passages. Further, it has to do with the attempt to built so called 'doctrines' upon/around these things.(FoC)
My article is based on the work and thoughts of men who DO know those words and their meanings.
No doubt they do know. However, as you are using E-versions which are limited to some degree and do not contain the full depth available in hardcopy, not too mention that you are using a verb for a noun, an adjective for a noun, do not seem to grasp gender in a gender specific langauge demonstates that there is much left to be desired within your articles.(FoC)
I agree.Ive read that 'a little knowledge of greek is dangerous' and I agree.That is why I spend more time studying for context and harmony and only use the definitions where they agree for the most part.
So do many 'cult' leaders with devastating results."Agree for the most part"? Now that is possibly a dangerous statement.(FoC)
Context and harmony overall shows that 'ervah dabar' is a phrase that includes all sorts of 'uncleaness'.
And yet it remains that it is 'ervat and not `ervah. It also remains that the variant `ervat is heavily used in the context of VaYikra [Leviticus] 18 and 20.(FoC)
I need you to prove that what Ive presented is in error.
No one can prove something to anyone who is not willing to listen or see.(FoC)
Again, not relevant to the POINT of the article.We've already established that I am not a 3rd year Hebrew student, so lets quit playing this game of if I cannot provide what you ask for that the argument I HAVE provided is erroneous.
Nor 3rd year Greek student. Again though: How can you claim to understand the intent of a phrase without understanding the grammar and spelling of the word(s) in question? One can not make a noun into verb and claim to understand the word. Let alone a phrase.So let's try this: Please, elaborate upon 'oruth and the manner in which it is used in VaYikra 18 and 20.(FoC)
I will ignore you posts entirely if you cant quit pulling this.
That is your prerogative.Regrettably, from my POV, you are treating the Hebrew in much the same manner as you have accused another of treating the Greek.(FoC)
I have made assertions in the articles themselves...feel free to refute those points if you will...but do not ask me again to do something I am not qualified to do.That I base my work on men who DO know these things does not negate the validity of the argument itself
Yet, your work is based upon elementary works and e-versions. Such are and have been misused and abused for years upon years by many in many various ways and methods and they all make the same claim you do here.I have spent time with and spoken with many such as well as many who possess some knowledge of the language(s) and use intermediate to advanced hardcopy materials. There is a vast gulf in between.

(Richard_oti;52131)
You are contradicting yourself, and I quote:
Thats not really a contradiction but an oversight on my part.I shouldnt have used 'betrothed' but Ive got 6 other discussions going on all at once here, so hopefully you wont make too big a deal out of the error For the record and to clarify... Deut 22:13-21 and Deut 24:1-4 do NOT mean that this action had to take place when she was first with her husband.In either case these men could have carried them out well into the marriage. It could have happened at hometaking/consummation, but the text does not force that issue in EITHER case.If I make an error like this in the future, point it out but do not assume that Ive contradicted myself.Im typically in anywhere from 5 to up to 15 or so simultaneous discussions and it gets a bit taxing.Precisely why I keep insisting that we not get into irrelevance...I dont have 8 arms

I will be ignoring anything, Rich, that is yet again demanding that I give you something I have already stated I cannot give.My work is founded on the work of SCHOLARS who DO understand the words in question.Based on your views I have to wonder if you believe that no one should have a bible unless they speak Hebrew and Greek.
Yet, your work is based upon elementary works and e-versions. Such are and have been misused and abused for years upon years by many in many various ways and methods and they all make the same claim you do here.
Interesting. So your claim is if its not a source YOU personally approve of, then its crap ?I use FAR more than what you think I use...I simply prefer software versions.Ill give you this, you are a smug fellow. I may have to put you on ignore, quite honestly, because I can see right now that we are going to clash here regardless, and Im betting I already know what the catalyst will end up being.
And yet it remains that it is 'ervat and not `ervah. It also remains that the variant `ervat is heavily used in the context of VaYikra [Leviticus] 18 and 20.
And yet the Strongs and Thayers both say its 'ervah' (the root is).Iuse 'ervah' AGAIN because THAT is the word that those READING my site will recognize since THEY ALSO use a Strongs or the Thayers.Im not explaining this to you again and Im not changing the way *I* choose to do things on MY website.... so we need to move on
No one can prove something to anyone who is not willing to listen or see.
All youve done is strain at a gnat.Why not try to refute the THEME of one of the articles rather than trying to correct my grammar
So do many 'cult' leaders with devastating results."Agree for the most part"? Now that is possibly a dangerous statement.
Yeah....I can see how this is going to go.Rich, its been great..youve been a wonderful audience, but I think its best that we ignore each other.you have nothing but an arrogant way about you that seems to think that all our scholars are morons or something.Ive been called arrogant as well, and Im very sure that since you cant keep on the actual TOPIC of my articles but instead are going to pick at points that dont end up being much of anything, that eventually youre going to get me bent out of shape over some remark that is a cleverly veiled personal assault.Have a great evening and a wonderful lifeGod blessover and outnow where is that ignore feature at ?

Ive been called arrogant as well, and Im very sure that since you cant keep on the actual TOPIC of my articles but instead are going to pick at points that dont end up being much of anything
In bold, you state that it is the topic of YOUR article that needs to be kept. Why not doing as we are told and test the spirit of every word that proceeds from the mouth of man?FYI: your ARTICLE is not the topic of this thread. You offered it up for our "edification", you can't blame people for doing as they are TOLD to do for themselves and those who may be easily led down a wrong path. Being the God fearing man that you are, I would assume that you would expect nothing less from your brothers and sisters. I would also expect that there would be more openness to suggestion and inquiry on your part. After all, I seriously doubt that you have stopped being willing to learn something new and deeper than what God has already gifted you with.
that eventually youre going to get me bent out of shape over some remark that is a cleverly veiled personal assault
not once have I seen anything in Richard's posts to indicate he has any motivation toward assaulting you. If nothing else, I have seen a desire to help you in areas that you clearly need help. Remember something, that is what we are to do for each other.be blessed FoC blessings

be blessed FoC
and you as well