Marriage

[SealedEternal]

(FoC;52039)
Are you asking why they use that passage to argue marriage?If so, I agree with the question.Romans there isnt about marriage itself and if it is, since Paul is speaking to those who 'know the law' it would seem that he's forgotten that in the law there WAS means to leave the marriage given without the death of the husband.Paul isnt that forgetful, I dont believe, he had to have known full well about Deut 24:!-4 and this writ of divorce, being a 'pharisee, son of a pharisee'.It is clear in the context of Romans that marriage is not the topic.

What Bible are you guys reading. Paul is using what he considered to be an indisputable fact that marriage can only be dissolved by death to make an analogy about Christ's death being sufficient to free us from the letter of the Law and walk in newness of the Spirit of it by having it written on our hearts and minds by His Spirit.For an analogy to be effective, the pretext must be fully true and widely understood, in order to teach a similar concept on another issue. Therefore Paul's statement that the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living, that only death can break that covenant, and subsequent marriages while her husband lives are actually adulterous affairs, must be fully true statements that everyone agreed upon as a given, or the analogy failed and didn't make any sense.If Paul's pretexts were in error and marriage isn't for life and remarriage while a spouse lives wasn't adultery, then there is no reason to assume that Christ's death sufficiently freed us from the letter of the Law to walk in newness of the Spirit, or in other words perhaps he died needlessly. The only other possibility if Paul's pretexts were false, is that He wasn't inspired by God, scripture is not reliable, and he didn't understand how to make a proper analogy. I believe it is far more likely that he meant exactly what he said, and marriage is in fact indissolvible except by death as he said.SealedEternal

 

[FoC]

The wife is bound by law until the husband is dead(Romans 7:2-3, 1 Cor. 7:39)By WmTiptonAssertions/Conclusions of this articleIn this article we will show that the two passages in question speak of the ‘law of the husband’ and that even though these verses say that this law is until death, that is is not an unconditional law that cannot be ended before the death of the spouse. The law of the husband is intended to be until the death of one of the spouses, as God created it from the very first marriage, Adam and Eve, but it has never been without condition. Supporting EvidenceIn Romans Paul was speaking to "those who know the law" (Romans 7:1)The law reigned over a man all his days. Paul uses this analogy of marriage, the wife being bound to her husband all his days, to represent that it was the same.What Paul didn’t state, and those knowing the law would know this, is that there was provision in the law for a husband to put away his wife while he was alive . (Deut 24:1-4 )This shows conclusively that Paul was not laying out the whole scope of rules on marriage in Romans 7 but was using one aspect of it to explain our relationship to the law and to the new covenant.This idea is presented again in 1 Corinthians 7:39. The wife is bound to the husband until his death.We must ask ourselves one question here. ‘What law’ bound this woman to her husband for life?Was it the Mosaic law? How then could any wife have been bound at all to her husband from Eve until the Law ?It is cemented that it is not the Mosiac law when we find no actual law making this commandment.So, is Paul lying when he says she is ‘bound by law’ to him until he is dead? By no means.We are left with one conclusion. That this ‘law’ is an unwritten law of marriage and had to be put into place in the garden with Adam and Eve. It was set into place as a parameter to be accepted in all marriages from thence forth. Now, we ask ourselves, why, if this law is for life, did Moses ever permit it to end while the former spouse lived?We ask ourselves about the wife in Exodus 21:7-11 who was permitted to walk out on her marriage if her husband denied her the basics of marriage, food, clothing and conjugal duty.Why, if this law that existed from the beginning, was Moses so determined to undermine its supposed finality by ever allowing men or women to end it this side of death? Was Moses a rogue prophet who defied Gods will in the matter and even added divorce proceedings to His law? Not at all.Moses understood Gods intent, that marriage is for life, but Moses also knew Gods heart and that God wanted mercy over sacrifice and he knew the hearts of evil, hardhearted men who would treat their wives horribly as they wished.And so Moses understood that this ‘law’ was not unconditional. If it were unconditional, then it was that way in the beginning and Moses would make himself a heretic by ever going against it.So we see that when Paul gives his words in 1 Corinthians 7:39, that this is not the whole picture. This ‘law’ that Jesus presents as being ‘from the beginning’ was never meant to be unconditional. Jesus’ very words ‘except for’ in Matthew 19 show conclusively that even He does not see it as being without condition. Paul was asked some questions by the Corinthians as is made apparent in the beginning of chapter 7;
1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote”
These believers had asked him some weighty questions about marriage, fornication, virgins, etc, to which he responded with what is written in this chapter.They clearly had pondered the right of the believer to put away an unbeliever, to which Paul said “no, if the unbeliever is pleased along with the believer, the do not put them away, you might be the catalyst in their salvation”.Paul is showing these believers who think they can just walk away from marriage that no, they cannot because it is for life.But Pauls words also show condition. What if this unbeliever isn’t ‘pleased’ along with the believer, but is abusive, hateful, adulterating...then what does Pauls condition show?Please see this page for more on that issueAslo see THIS PAGE that shows conclusively that man CAN indeed 'put asunder' a marriage, thus the 'law of the husband" ("bound by law") is quite conditional.When you’ve finished there, I believe you will see that there is condition in Pauls words. A condition that is perfectly harmonized with the heart of other scriptures such as Exodus 21 where the wife can leave over nonsupport, Jeremiah 3:8 where even God the Father issued a bill of divorce for harlotry, and Matthew 19 where Jesus shows that the same harlotry is just cause for ending this marriage.Another point with Romans 7:1-4 or so is that at no time does this passage show that there was ever any divorce as permitted by Mosaic law. If we take it 'as written' it shows that this woman has only left her husband and gone to join with another. Without a divorce as presented by the law Paul speaks of, without the breaking of that marriage covenant, then of course she would be called an adulteress by joining herself to some man not her husband.Pauls words in Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7 are true. They are just harmonized with the whole of Gods word. If we fail to harmonize correctly, then we end up with absurd teachings such as ones that say that we “cannot sin” because the literal reading of 1 John 3:9 would seem to show as much when taken alone and not properly harmonized with the whole.Without ALL of the facts we can end up drawing very wrong conclusions from very CLEAR scripures, such as presented here:[url="http://studies.assembly-ministries.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=150]The REST of the story...[/url]We hope that this has been helpful in showing you the truth, dear reader, and how to harmonize the whole of Gods word so that you understand the whole truth.(SealedEternal;52040)
What Bible are you guys reading. Paul is using what he considered to be an indisputable fact that marriage can only be dissolved by death to make an analogy about Christ's death being sufficient to free us from the letter of the Law and walk in newness of the Spirit of it by having it written on our hearts and minds by His Spirit.For an analogy to be effective, the pretext must be fully true and widely understood, in order to teach a similar concept on another issue. Therefore Paul's statement that the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living, that only death can break that covenant, and subsequent marriages while her husband lives are actually adulterous affairs, must be fully true statements that everyone agreed upon as a given, or the analogy failed and didn't make any sense.If Paul's pretexts were in error and marriage isn't for life and remarriage while a spouse lives wasn't adultery, then there is no reason to assume that Christ's death sufficiently freed us from the letter of the Law to walk in newness of the Spirit, or in other words perhaps he died needlessly. The only other possibility if Paul's pretexts were false, is that He wasn't inspired by God, scripture is not reliable, and he didn't understand how to make a proper analogy. I believe it is far more likely that he meant exactly what he said, and marriage is in fact indissolvible except by death as he said.SealedEternal

 

[FoC]

Paul is using what he considered to be an indisputable fact that marriage can only be dissolved by death to make an analogy about Christ's death being sufficient to free us from the letter of the Law and walk in newness of the Spirit of it by having it written on our hearts and minds by His Spirit.
Interesting viewpoint seeing that Paul even calls this believing woman 'unmarried' in one of your own pet passages.And the word only has ONE intent, Chap

Tell us David, is Paul so ignorant that he calls this woman in 1 cor 7:10-11 'UNmarried' who has left her marriage with that intent when she is 'married' ?You say that Paul is so precise in Romans...are you claiming any less here ?As always, you push a couple passages you believe support your views while ignoring anything that provides the rest of the picture============================“Unmarried”1 Corinthians 7Assertions/Conclusions of this ArticleHere we show conclusively that this unmarried woman in 1 Cor 7:10-11 is in the same exact marital state that the widower is in verse 7:8...Supporting Evidence1.0The word 'agamos' (agamos/agamois) appears 4 times in the NT and in each instance its in this chapter. We’re going to compare what Paul says about widows and unmarried virgins to this woman in 1 Cor 7:11 to see if she is deemed as ‘unmarried’ in the same manner.
I say therefore to the unmarried (agamois) and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.(1Co 7:8)But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried (agamos), or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.(1Co 7:11)But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried (agamos) careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord1Co 7:32)There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried (agamos) woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.(1Co 7:34)
I added the ACTUAL word after each occurance in parenthesis.Here is the word we are looking at;"unmarried" in the passages above is;
G22agamosThayer Definition:1) unmarried, unwedded, singleStrongs;G22agamosag'-am-osFrom G1 (as a negative particle) and G1062; unmarried: - unmarried.
The root word is the exact same in all four occurrences above. There is one character change that seems only to show some small difference in verse 7:8 for the male widower, but the intent that this person is ‘unmarried’ or not currently under the ‘law’ of marriage is precisely the same. That character difference does not alter the intent of the root word ‘unmarried’. Lets look at verses 32-33.
"But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried (agamos) careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he (aresE) may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he (aresE) may please his wife.(1Co 7:32-33)
“AresE” - "he should be pleasing"There we find the same “agamos” as in verse 11 where this woman as left her husband and is called UNmarried by Paul.Do you see how Paul uses the word agamos (not agamois) and then refers to this person as "HE" and shows that he is going to be pleasing to his "wife"Now *IF* agamos was restricted to the woman, how can a person who is agamos be pleasing to their "wife" ?The word agamos is used in verse 11 to speak about the woman. In verse 32 it is speaking about the man.What we see is that verse 8, while it may mean widowers, it doesnt keep this woman in verse 11 from literally being "unmarried" after putting asunder her husband by leaving him. She IS 'agamos' by Pauls own wordsIf you get the interlinear bible software in the links above, you can check this material out yourself.In verse :7:11 agamos is in the feminine form....but in verse 7:32, its exactly the same and yet it is shown as being in the masculine form.This definitely tends to show that the context plays a part in the gender of this word.There is pretty much no way around this matter. Paul absolutely chose a word that means ‘unmarried’ to describe this woman in 7:11 there. In comparing its usage in the other passages there we see conclusively that, like these others, she is ‘unmarried’ and not currently under the ‘law’ of her husband.In understanding this fact, we also understand that in 7:39, that Paul is simply laying out the general ‘law’ of marriage. That it is intended for life....and based on the facts from the whole, that it is not an unconditional law in the least. It CAN be put asunder by man even though that is not Gods will for marriage.2.0As we can see here in this passage, the believing wife who has departed (chorizo) her believing husband is considered 'agamos'.....'unmarried'.
(1Co 7:10 KJV) And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart(chorizo)from her husband1Co 7:11 KJV) But and if she depart(chorizo), let her remain unmarried(agamos), or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
Logically carrying this 'agamos' over to this passage where this unbeliever also has departed the marriage its quite easy to conclude that this person would also be deemed as 'agamos' (unmarried)
(1Co 7:15 KJV) But if the unbelieving depart(chorizo), , let him depart(chorizo), . A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
in the former case where both are believers there is commandment to remain UNmarried or reconcile.In the latter case tho, where one is unequally yoked, Paul clearly states that he is speaking, not the Lord, in this matter.To these Paul gives concession not given to those who are equally yoked with another believer."BUT to the REST"....to these who are unequally yoked, Paul says quite plainly that they are not in bondage to that union where it has been put asunder.

 

[FoC]

Since I know you dont read my articles, David, Ill post this in a short manner for you here.Your claim is that in Romans 7 Paul HAS to be meaning exactly what he is stating for the analogy to be true.Ok, fine.We shall apply your logic to your pet passage of 1 Cor 7:10-11.This woman who has left her marriage is deemed as 'agamos'...UNwedded/single.You say that Paul is so precise in Romans...are you claiming any less in 1 cor 7:10-11 where he shows that she is "UNmarried" ?Is Paul as precise as you claim ONLY in the passages YOU say he is ?Ive given FOUR examples of 'agamos' in the article above, so please dont waste your time giving a response that only covers the two you had on your website.When I do a study I bring in EVERY occurrence of the word in question, not half of them.Also please dont try this dance of the rendered word 'husband' there as the word there is 'man' in the greek. A womans man is her "husband".The passage literally means "to the man let her be being conciliated".So, if Paul is as absolutely precise in his wording as you argue, then we MUST conclude that he MEANS that this woman is UNmarried, just as the widower and the virgin are..

 

[SealedEternal]

(FoC;52043)
Interesting viewpoint seeing that Paul even calls this believing woman 'unmarried' in one of your own pet passages.And the word only has ONE intent, Chap

Tell us David, is Paul so ignorant that he calls this woman in 1 cor 7:10-11 'UNmarried' who has left her marriage with that intent when she is 'married' ?
That verse says she must abstain from further marriage or return to her husband. 1 Corinthians 7: 10-13 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. So while she may not be living as a married couple, she still has a husband and is therefore forbidden from seeking another, but may return to Him at any time. Therefore although the text says she is in a negative state of marriage (divorced), it is clear that she is still bound by covenant to the man she left. That is the consistent message we find all through scripture, and explains why remarriage after a divorce is regarded by God as adultery, which means the person still has a spouse and is having relations with someone who is not his or her spouse.It's interesting how you take the simplest commandments of God in scripture, and isolate them and twist them around with thousands of your own words, and end up with a conclusion that is the opposite of the Spirit of His Words.SealedEternal

 

[FoC]

(SealedEternal;52058)
That verse says she must abstain from further marriage or return to her husband.
Wrong.Apparently you dont spend much time in the greek.The word is 'man' and I just dealt with this particular point.As usual tho, David isnt actually READING or paying attention.The passage literally means "to the man let her be being conciliated".
So while she may not be living as a married couple, she still has a husband
Nice perversion...I figured you couldnt let the text SAY what the text SAYS where it disagrees with youBut in Romans and a few others you insist otherwise

Therefore although the text says she is in a negative state of marriage (divorced),
It doesnt say 'divorced'...it says "UNmarried"but I do find your response somewhat funny given that you dont believe man CAN 'separate' "negative state of marriage" ?

Is that your new twist that you have to put on things to get your error to work?Give it up, Dave
it is clear that she is still bound by covenant to the man she left.
The text doesnt make any such indication. That is your addition.Paul does not say she is still 'bound' while she is gone and the word 'agamos' proves that she is not....simply that she return in this particular case(two believers)
It's interesting how you take the simplest commandments of God in scripture, and isolate them and twist them around with thousands of your own words, and end up with a conclusion that is the opposite of the Spirit of His Words.SealedEternal
What is interesting is to see your little acrobatics act with this laughable "negative state of marriage" nonsense

Ive included the interlinear as an attachment, but I dont know if its legible or not...this attachment feature really is terrible here.

 

[SealedEternal]

(FoC;52062)
Wrong.Apparently you dont spend much time in the greek.The word is 'man' and I just dealt with this particular point.As usual tho, David isnt actually READING or paying attention.The passage literally means "to the man let her be being conciliated".
Yes, it means to reconcile with her husband, or in other words to return to him.
It doesnt say 'divorced'...it says "UNmarried"but I do find your response somewhat funny given that you dont believe man CAN 'separate'
Obviously we can physically separate, but God says we can't legally break the marriage bond, which is why He calls subsequent remarriage "adultery".
"negative state of marriage" ?

Is that your new twist that you have to put on things to get your error to work?Give it up, Dave
It's what unmarried means in both English and the Greek counterpart. She is in a negative state of marriage but is still bound to a husband, so scripture says she has only two choices: remain alone or reconcile with her husband.
The text doesnt make any such indication. That is your addition.Paul does not say she is still 'bound' while she is gone and the word 'agamos' proves that she is not....simply that she return in this particular case(two believers)
1 Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 1 Corinthians 7: 10-13 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.Romans 7:2-3 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.
What is interesting is to see your little acrobatics act with this laughable "negative state of marriage" nonsense

It's what unmarried means in both languages. Obviously it refutes your assertion that a divorced person is free to marry again, when Paul says the unmarried person can only return to their spouse or remain alone. SealedEternal

 

[tim_from_pa]

Hey Sealedon't you know we have it all wrong? We are very strange in this world indeed staying with the same spouse. I say let them marry whom they will. As a matter of fact just let them keep the marry-go-round going and deluding themselves into believing God's Word allows it---- two, three, four husbands or wives, who cares? The kids don't even know their parents any longer.As for me, someone here doesn't even have to bother answering me. I've put him on my ignore list. I only did that to one other person that kept trumpeting her personal relationship problems (and of course to her it was everyone else's fault)and disrupted the forum--- no doubt birds of a feather I always say. This way I can jump to the threads without having to scroll thru multiple consecutive posts of just spouting.

 

[FoC]

Yes, it means to reconcile with her husband, or in other words to return to him.
no... it means to be conciliated to the MAN.alsoREADERS SEE->Click->>> "Remain Unmarried or reconcile” vs "not in bondage"
Obviously we can physically separate, but God says we can't legally break the marriage bond, which is why He calls subsequent remarriage "adultery".
Sorry, but the word MEANS UNMARRIED and is the SAME word used for the UNmarried virgin and the UNmarried widower Its obvious you cant just let the word SAY what they clearly do.
It's what unmarried means in both English and the Greek counterpart. She is in a negative state of marriage
Id love to say 'you cant be serious' but I know factually that you are...which is unbelievable.There is NO SUCH thing as a "negative 'state of marriage".Youve hit a new height here with this one Dave...I have to add this one to the archives, quite frankly.A person is either MARRIED or they are UNmarried. This "negative 'state of marriage" is just some new concoction you have come up with to keep from accepting the facts...to keep her 'married' while 'Unmarried' as the virgin and the widower at the same time.Just a semantics game...nothing more.Did you actually expect this to work ?
It's what unmarried means in both languages. Obviously it refutes your assertion that a divorced person is free to marry again, when Paul says the unmarried person can only return to their spouse or remain alone.
Your reasoning skills are somewhat lacking if you draw that conclusion based on your new acrobatics display.UNmarried, as PROVEN by the other instances of 'agamos' mean the person is WITHOUT a spouse.This attempt is much worse than pathetic, David...

 

[FoC]

(tim_from_pa;52066)
Hey Sealedon't you know we have it all wrong? We are very strange in this world indeed staying with the same spouse. I say let them marry whom they will. As a matter of fact just let them keep the marry-go-round going and deluding themselves into believing God's Word allows it---- two, three, four husbands or wives, who cares? The kids don't even know their parents any longer.As for me, someone here doesn't even have to bother answering me. I've put him on my ignore list. I only did that to one other person that kept trumpeting her personal relationship problems (and of course to her it was everyone else's fault)and disrupted the forum--- no doubt birds of a feather I always say. This way I can jump to the threads without having to scroll thru multiple consecutive posts of just spouting.
All you prove, Tim, is that you are living in a fantasy world where everyone who divorces just got tired of their marriage and wanted to move on.Im sorry, but this isnt Disneyland.I get emails from women who have had HORRIBLE things done to them by their husbands.It sickening to me that you seem to believe and revel in the thought that an INNOCENT woman who is tortured by her husband who has no intention of changing is to be punished to a life of celibacy because of one mans cruelty....when SHE has done nothing wrong in her marriage

 

[FoC]

Heres David assertion, apparently
"negative 'state of marriage".It's what unmarried means in both languages. .
The greek means this...G22ἄγαμοςagamosag'-am-osFrom G1 (as a negative particle) and G1062; unmarried: - unmarried.Which comes from this..G1062γάμοςgamosgam'-osOf uncertain affinity; nuptials: - marriage, wedding.The 'negative' in the greek where I have seen it simply means something like our word 'no' or 'not'...ie 'married' versus 'NOT married'.Agamos means 'not married'....not some limbo type of 'negavtive STATE of marriage' as David is trying to assert...in which he is seemingly claiming some phantom 'marriage' exists even for the UNmarried."Agamos" is the opposite of "gamos". "UNmarried" vs "married"The word agamos says nothing about a 'negative STATE of marriage'...it is simply UNmarried (the "UN" would be representative of the negative particle (G1) there in english and exactly why the SCHOLARS have shown the word agamos as MEANING 'UNmarried')Call me naive...but I just dont see in english or greek anything about a 'negative STATE of marriage' there.NOT married is all I see.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)Semantics games can run amok, but the FACT is that Paul has for some reason used a word that literally shows that this woman is NOT currently under the law of marriage.*IF* the woman wasnt UNmarried, why on earth did Paul even use that word? Can we assume that he is simply trying to confuse us? Or maybe Paul doesnt know what the ONLY intent of 'agamos' is ?This is just one more case where sealedeternal insists that everyone adhere to HIS understanding of a passage like Romans 7, then will turn around and do everything imaginable to CHANGE the actual meaning of the GREEK where it suits his needs.

 

[SealedEternal]

(FoC;52067)
no... it means to be conciliated to the MAN
What "man" would that be referring to? As usual you try to Greekify to come up with a semantic distinction to make your doctrine work, because you can't accept that the text says what it does.
Sorry, but the word MEANS UNMARRIED and is the SAME word used for the UNmarried virgin and the UNmarried widower
All three are in a negative state of marriage, but only one is bound by covenant and commanded to either remain as such, or else reconcile with her husband.
Its obvious you cant just let the word SAY what they clearly do.
It is a combination of "a" which means negative and "gamos" which means marriage. She is commanded therefore to either remain in a negative state of marriage, or else to reconcile with her husband. It is you that wants to add a third option that scripture doesn't offer, and is actually defined by Jesus Himself as adultery.
There is NO SUCH thing as a "negative 'state of marriage".Youve hit a new height here with this one Dave...I have to add this one to the archives, quite frankly.
What does it mean to you when someone says "you must remain unmarried"? To me it says you can't marry, but you expect us to believe it means you can.
A person is either MARRIED or they are UNmarried.
Yes, but here it says she is to either remain as such or else reconcile to her husband, so clearly being unmarried doesn't necessarily mean she is unbound to her marriage covenant. Just as Jesus says people can be divorced and are still committing adultery in remarriage, which means by definition that the divorce didn't eliminate the marriage bond, because if it did, then adultery couldn't be an issue. You're trying to convince us that remaining unmarried means we are free to remarry, so if any position is absurd it is yours. And you want to accuse others of mental acrobatics? Take a look in the mirror sometime Mr black pot.SealedEternal

 

[Jackie D]

(FoC;52032)
Ive ignored any irrelevance.please keep ON TOPIC.The TOPIC HERE is 'marriage'.Thanks for you cooperation
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(FoC;52032)
And do you think I hold this BeMidbar L as an authority ?
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?(FoC;52032)
There are a great MANY things taught in Gods word that are precepts that show Gods heart in a matter.
This may be so, however it does not ever replace the Word of the Almighty. For His Word remains forever......(FoC;52032)
Its pretty sad that if you were in the scenario I laid out that youd die in prison thinking all the while that God was holding you accountable to a vow you could not possibly then keep thru no fault of your own.
Anyone who has a faithful relationship with the Lord knows that He isn't so busy or even stupid enough not to be able to figure things out on His own. This example really does not drive any points home, at all.....(FoC;52032)
Frankly, I want no part of your religion.
What religion would that be FoC?(FoC;52032)
Hardly...and learn to understand what you read.It doesnt remain because it was nothing beyond sex to begin with, as Paul himself proves.It is a COVENANT that makes a marriage...not sex.
The consumation of a marriage is the binder of the convenant...no less than a signature on a contract. The contract is still a contract, regardless if it has been signed and agreed upon by both parties. It is the signatures between the contractor/contractee or in this case sexual relation husband/wife that seals the contract/covenant and makes it legal and binding.

 

[Jackie D]

(tim_from_pa;52066)
Hey Sealedon't you know we have it all wrong? We are very strange in this world indeed staying with the same spouse. I say let them marry whom they will. As a matter of fact just let them keep the marry-go-round going and deluding themselves into believing God's Word allows it---- two, three, four husbands or wives, who cares? The kids don't even know their parents any longer.
(FoC;52068)
All you prove, Tim, is that you are living in a fantasy world where everyone who divorces just got tired of their marriage and wanted to move on.Im sorry, but this isnt Disneyland.I get emails from women who have had HORRIBLE things done to them by their husbands.It sickening to me that you seem to believe and revel in the thought that an INNOCENT woman who is tortured by her husband who has no intention of changing is to be punished to a life of celibacy because of one mans cruelty....when SHE has done nothing wrong in her marriage
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

 

[Richard_oti]

(FoC;52032)
Ive ignored any irrelevance.please keep ON TOPIC.The TOPIC HERE is 'marriage'.Thanks for you cooperation
The toe-pic card? By one whom has all but hijacked the thread?Yes, the topic is marriage. My responses are in direct response to the things brought forth and introduced into this thread by yourself and others.(FoC)
And do you think I hold this BeMidbar L as an authority ?
So you reject Numbers 30 as being authoritive?(FoC)
There are a great MANY things taught in Gods word that are precepts that show Gods heart in a matter.Its pretty sad that if you were in the scenario I laid out that youd die in prison thinking all the while that God was holding you accountable to a vow you could not possibly then keep thru no fault of your own.
Did I directly state that? Seems to me I remember stating something to the effect of: If the event of extenuating circumstances I am confident that YHVH would make exception or understand... However, that exception is not found in BeMidbar L [Numbers 30].(FoC)
Frankly, I want no part of your religion.
As you wish.(FoC)
Hardly...and learn to understand what you read.
Argumentum ad hominem.(FoC)
It doesnt remain because it was nothing beyond sex to begin with, as Paul himself proves.It is a COVENANT that makes a marriage...not sex.
Yet, it remains that by the 'act' that the two become 'one flesh'.(FoC)
Then Im sure to find something in the rest of your posts here before I finish responding to you that is a clear law directed to the married couple that they are bound for life. Please dont give me something that isnt exactly that.
Romans 7:1 Do you not know, brothers - for I am speaking to men who know the law - that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage.Devarim [Deut] 12:1 These are the statutes and the ordinances which ye shall observe to do in the land which YHVH Elohey thy fathers, hath given thee to possess it, all the days that ye live upon the earth.(FoC)
Forgive me, I must have passed over the part that says: "wives are bound to their husbands until death"Can you pinpoint it for me?Chapter AND verse, please.
See above.(FoC)
you are mistaken if you think Im going to accept anything other than CLEAR scripture in the matter.And please, lay off the drama.
See above. As for the so called 'drama', my warning to take heed is sincere.

 

[FoC]

[quote name='SealedEternal;52075]What "man" would that be referring to? As usual you try to Greekify to come up with a semantic distinction to make your doctrine work' date=' because you can't accept that the text says what it does. [/quote']The greek says "to the man let her be being conciliated".Im sorry but YOU are the one who cannot accept the CLEAR meaning of 'UNmarried' and EVERY single use of it in the chapter.And apparently you need to fall back on this 'man' thing that doesnt actually say what David claims that it does.

All three are in a negative state of marriage,

There is no such thing. This is a concoction of SEs false doctrine.Either a person is MARRIED or they are UNmarried...there is no in between or 'state' other than those two.

It is a combination of "a" which means negative and "gamos" which means marriage.

And 'a' there negates the marriage...meaning just what translators render the word as UNmarried..without a spouse.And yet again...

Heres David assertion, apparently

"negative 'state of marriage".It's what unmarried means in both languages. .

The greek means this...G22ἄγαμοςagamosag'-am-osFrom G1 (as a negative particle) and G1062; unmarried: - unmarried.Which comes from this..G1062γάμοςgamosgam'-osOf uncertain affinity; nuptials: - marriage, wedding.The 'negative' in the greek where I have seen it simply means something like our word 'no' or 'not'...ie 'married' versus 'NOT married'.Agamos means 'not married'....not some limbo type of 'negavtive STATE of marriage' as David is trying to assert...in which he is seemingly claiming some phantom 'marriage' exists even for the UNmarried."Agamos" is the opposite of "gamos". "UNmarried" vs "married"The word agamos says nothing about a 'negative STATE of marriage'...it is simply UNmarried (the "UN" would be representative of the negative particle (G1) there in english and exactly why the SCHOLARS have shown the word agamos as MEANING 'UNmarried')Call me naive...but I just dont see in english or greek anything about a 'negative STATE of marriage' there.NOT married is all I see.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)Semantics games can run amok, but the FACT is that Paul has for some reason used a word that literally shows that this woman is NOT currently under the law of marriage.*IF* the woman wasnt UNmarried, why on earth did Paul even use that word? Can we assume that he is simply trying to confuse us? Or maybe Paul doesnt know what the ONLY intent of 'agamos' is ?This is just one more case where sealedeternal insists that everyone adhere to HIS understanding of a passage like Romans 7, then will turn around and do everything imaginable to CHANGE the actual meaning of the GREEK where it suits his needs.​

gamos (married)agamos (UNmarried)gamos (married)agamos (UNmarried)The 'a' doesnt make it a 'negative STATE of marriage' David.It NEGATES the word itself...ie NOT married.

And again, all we have to do to PROVE this fact is look at the OTHER examples of the usage of the word, none of which include anyone who is currently under the law of marriage.

She is commanded therefore to either remain in a negative state of marriage,

No, she is commanded to remain UNmarried..without a spouse..UNwedded.And the fact is, again, that we have THREE other examples to compare this womans marital state to who are also UNmarried.

or else to reconcile with her husband. It is you that wants to add a third option that scripture doesn't offer, and is actually defined by Jesus Himself as adultery.

No, it is defined by David as adultery.Jesus only states that adultery is committed during the act.The greek does no indicate anything beyond that the act itself.

What does it mean to you when someone says "you must remain unmarried"? To me it says you can't marry, but you expect us to believe it means you can.

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.

Yes, but here it says she is to either remain as such or else reconcile to her husband, so clearly being unmarried doesn't necessarily mean she is unbound to her marriage covenant.

It certainly does or Paul is using words that do not apply.UNmarried has a meaning and its easy enough to compare the intent to the other instances where it occurs

Just as Jesus says people can be divorced and are still committing adultery in remarriage,

No...that would be Davids doing.The Present Indicative form of the word does NOT indicate any ongoing issue in the new marriage.That is YOU addition, as usual.

which means by definition that the divorce didn't eliminate the marriage bond, because if it did, then adultery couldn't be an issue.

Sure it couldWhen they commit the act itself of frivolous divorce to remarry adultery is committed against that spouse.Jesus is showing that sin IS committed even tho they believed themselves guiltlessYour willingness to pervert the intent of anything that gets in your way, including meanings of words such as 'UNmarried' 'forncation' and 'divorce' is one of the reasons the actual intent blows right past you.

You're trying to convince us that remaining unmarried means we are free to remarry, so if any position is absurd it is yours. And you want to accuse others of mental acrobatics? Take a look in the mirror sometime Mr black pot.SealedEternal

I dont need to convince anyone of anything.Paul COULD have used any number of other words to describe this womans martial state yet chose to a word that has ONE intent...UNmarried/UNwedded/single.That the believer is told to get back together with the believing spouse does not negate that fact.

 

[FoC]

The consumation of a marriage is the binder of the convenant...no less than a signature on a contract. The contract is still a contract, regardless if it has been signed and agreed upon by both parties. It is the signatures between the contractor/contractee or in this case sexual relation husband/wife that seals the contract/covenant and makes it legal and binding.
And that contract has conditions that, if they are broken, cause the party to be in breach of that contract leaving the innocent party with the ability to end that contract.

 

[Richard_oti]

(FoC;52034)
No, I hadnt realized that.That would make either you incorrect or the law entirely contradictory.
Perhaps neither.(FoC)
The content of Deuteronomy was given in speeches by Moses over about 40 at the end of the wilderness years to this younger generation of Hebrews...many of those who had come out of Egypt were dead at this point.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.
Betrothed wife. Not later down the road in the marriage.(FoC)
Given the VERY short period that this was all given is is virtually impossible that God decided to AMEND Deut 22 13-21 or so by adding that the man could just divorce her instead.
It is not an amendment.(FoC)
Added to the fact that ERVAH DABAR clearly shows an intent that is more about some ambiguous 'uncleaness', it is beyond simply being questionable and pretty much fact that it isnt sexual sins being referred to in Deut 24:1-4.I personally cant think of a single real scholar who says that 'some uncleaness' in Deut 24 is about sexual sin because they also know that it was already covered just two chapters prior.
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.As for `ervah: Here's a little more for you; It is a fem. noun which comes from the verb `arah.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.

 

[Richard_oti]

(FoC;52035)
My bad, I use a few of those.It was the Brown-Driver-Briggs
E-version or hardcopy?(FoC)
irrelevance snipped.
The alleged irrelevance which you snipped was allowing you the opportunity to demonstrate that you possessed the ability to knowledgably determine `ervat davar correctly.(FoC)
And again this is off topic.How the words were spelled is irrelevant and you know it.
Yet, if you do not understand these things, are you truely qualified to be attempting to correctly determine their proper usage? As for it being off topic, it was merely a direct response to your statement of, and I quote: "someone is clearly wrong in how this is being spelled".The intent was to inform you a little regarding transliteration.(FoC)
Im not usually writing for students of Hebrew but people like myself who use a STRONGS or a THAYERS.
Don't forget the BDB. Strong's is a good tool, but it is a very elementary tool.(FoC)
I have to use the forms of the words THESE people have access to.If you have something a bit more detailed, good for you.Im not changing how I do things to suit the Hebrew student
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.(FoC)
Again, lets keep this on the topic of MARRIAGE or we need to simply ignore each other.
Again, my responses are directed toward the data introduced into this thread.(FoC)
irrelevance snipped.
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.

 

[FoC]

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.
Yet, it remains that by the 'act' that the two become 'one flesh'.
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).
Romans 7:1 Do you not know, brothers - for I am speaking to men who know the law - that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage.Devarim [Deut] 12:1 These are the statutes and the ordinances which ye shall observe to do in the land which YHVH Elohey thy fathers, hath given thee to possess it, all the days that ye live upon the earth.
Im sorry, where again does the second instance say 'the wife is bound by law until the death of her husband'?