Author Topic: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4  (Read 899 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9476
  • Manna: 415
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
« Reply #35 on: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 09:46:26 »
Here's how the rule of linguistics work when context leaves this ambiguous: when context does not imply a certain definition down a list with certainty, the listener is expected to assume the primary definition. And the primary definition of "porneia" Is, absolutely, "prostitution," as the root word "pornao" literally means "to sell off" and "porneia" is a feminine noun implying that it is committed exclusively by a woman.
"Rule of linguistics versus the rules of bible hermeneutics" may clash and we must stay with the scriptures and allow them to give to us the correct meaning of the word being used. You desire to only use a single sense/definition of the word fornication when the scriptures forbid that we do so.
Quote from: Cally on: Today at 08:53:04
Here's how the rule of linguistics work when context leaves this ambiguous: when the context does not imply a certain definition down a list with certainty, the listener is expected to assume the primary definition.
Cally, such scriptures as Matthew 19:9 is ambiguous, yet we do not have the right to take off closed our eyes to others scriptures and assume a primary definition is the only sense in which we should accept the meaning of such scriptures as Matthew 19:9 and others where the word fornication is used~which you have done~but doing so we are doing violence to God's word and leave with an understanding that cannot be supported with scriptures overall consider, which is the only way to be correct in our doctrine comparing scriptures with scriptures, here a little, there a little, line upon line, percept upon percepts. (Isaiah 28:10)

I have a meeting, be back later. RB

Offline Cally

  • I am Christian. The rest is details.
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4646
  • Manna: 152
  • Gender: Male
Re: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
« Reply #36 on: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 09:51:54 »
RB:

I'm really only hearing someone who doesn't want to be corrected.

I said, once again, I actually took your same interpretation for granted. With the completely matter-of-fact and irrational statements that you're making, you're only justifying a way to look at something to make it say whatever you want it to say. Both doctrine and linguistics point unmistakably to absolutely one meaning of the word. I wrote a long post that is going to be a bombshell to modern Christians but at the same time, irrefutable, as you are proving by answering it only with matter-of-fact, irrational statements.

Quote
such scriptures as Matthew 19:9 is ambiguous, yet we do not have the right to take off closed our eyes to others scriptures and assume a primary definition

A fancy way of saying, you want to hear what you want to hear. Both doctrine and linguistics point to the primary definitions of the word.

What you want to do (i.e. that same theology I used to assume) is take an extremely obscure definition of the word and explode it into a completely different doctrine than anything that's taught in Scripture.

Offline Cally

  • I am Christian. The rest is details.
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4646
  • Manna: 152
  • Gender: Male
Re: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
« Reply #37 on: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 10:01:23 »
RB:

Here's the whole tl;dr:

No matter what kind of high-handed retort one might want to make, the bottom line is this: there is no way -- NO way -- a Greek-speaking listener to Jesus' statement in Matthew 19:9 at the time would have heard him say "any kind of sexual deviance" and assume that it applies equally to men and women. Again, no matter what kind of statement declared as gospel anyone would like to make, the issue is that simple. They simply would not have heard Jesus say that without a TON of explaining and additional teachings from Jesus that modern audiences take for granted.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
« Reply #37 on: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 10:01:23 »

Offline Cally

  • I am Christian. The rest is details.
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4646
  • Manna: 152
  • Gender: Male
Re: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
« Reply #38 on: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 11:03:41 »
RB:

Put yourself in an Old-Testament-believing Greek-speaker at the time.

1. You've never heard of the concept of a man's sexual sin offending a man's wife. Ever.
2. You've never heard that a woman should ever, ever divorce her husband. Ever.
3. 90%+ of the time when you hear the term "porneia," it means "prostitution" or "promiscuous woman" in your experience.
4. You're seeing the Old Testament use the exact same figure of speech of likening a prostitute to a promiscuous woman in both the original Hebrew and the Septuagint, to say nothing that the OT establishes that using a promiscuous woman is a sin.

All that considered, how could you possibly imagine hearing Jesus say, "whatever sexual deviance allows one spouse to divorce the other and then marry someone else, man or woman", especially when the emphasis of his teaching is why a man should not divorce his wife? The disciples had questions about the divorce side of it, not then getting pages and pages worth of teaching about those totally new concepts to them which would have been necessary to help them understand the interpretation that you are asserting. Your interpretation (the modern one) involves SO many foreign concepts to them that they'd have to be taught so much more to "get it."

You're taking a modern view (albeit a deep-seated one) for granted and not imagining yourself in their perspective. Greek translators are supposed to translate writing in such a way that helps the modern reader understand what THEY would have heard AT THE TIME, because that's just how language works.

Honestly I'm fine with this learning experience though. It's good practice for me. This was a HARD thing for me to realize, taking too much doctrine for granted. Most people are simply not going to second-guess tradition.
« Last Edit: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 11:08:23 by Cally »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
« Reply #38 on: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 11:03:41 »

Offline Texas Conservative

  • Ethical Dissenter "All 8 Symptoms" Chief Justice! "Radical Political Conservative" Certified Resident Board Genius, it is...Directly. Observable.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11934
  • Manna: 396
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
Re: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
« Reply #39 on: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 11:22:36 »
Cally,

I think if you look at the entire Sermon on the Mount, the thrust of what God expects is even higher than the Law and what it allowed.

Marriage is meant to be for life.  Sexual union is to only be in marriage between one man and one woman as it was at creation.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
« Reply #39 on: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 11:22:36 »



Offline Cally

  • I am Christian. The rest is details.
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4646
  • Manna: 152
  • Gender: Male
Re: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
« Reply #40 on: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 12:49:58 »
TC,

For the reasons that I was showing, again, there is absolutely no way an Old Testament-believing Greek-speaker would have heard the modern take on Matthew 19:9. It's as simple as that.

PS: you're right to think that the NT audience was being corrected on some things, but the modern take on Matt. 19:9 would take PAGES more teaching to set them straight whereas all you can see Jesus enlightening the disciples about not divorcing -- which was a huge shocker for them on its own, even though God already rebuked Israel for divorces in Malachi!!!! ;-)

The modern take is based on a ton of assumptions that Jesus' audience would absolutely not have in mind.
« Last Edit: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 13:34:54 by Cally »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
« Reply #40 on: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 12:49:58 »

Offline Texas Conservative

  • Ethical Dissenter "All 8 Symptoms" Chief Justice! "Radical Political Conservative" Certified Resident Board Genius, it is...Directly. Observable.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11934
  • Manna: 396
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
Re: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
« Reply #41 on: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 13:36:41 »
TC,

For the reasons that I was showing, again, there is absolutely no way an Old Testament-believing Greek-speaker would have heard the modern take on Matthew 19:9. It's as simple as that.

Lack of understanding of Jesus's teachings isn't a good argument.  And I am assuming that most of these folks spoke Aramaic for day to day life, and Hebrew in religious life.

Offline Cally

  • I am Christian. The rest is details.
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4646
  • Manna: 152
  • Gender: Male
Re: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
« Reply #42 on: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 13:48:12 »
Quote
Lack of understanding of Jesus's teachings isn't a good argument.  And I am assuming that most of these folks spoke Aramaic for day to day life, and Hebrew in religious life.

Look at the context of Matthew 19 about divorce. The disciples were shocked JUST by the mention of a man not divorcing his wife.

I'll repeat my PS:

PS: you're right to think that the NT audience was being corrected on some things, but the modern take on Matt. 19:9 would take PAGES more teaching to set them straight whereas all you can see Jesus enlightening the disciples about not divorcing -- which was a huge shocker for them on its own, even though God already rebuked Israel for divorces in Malachi!!!! ;-)

The modern take is based on a ton of assumptions that Jesus' audience would absolutely not have in mind.

Offline Cally

  • I am Christian. The rest is details.
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4646
  • Manna: 152
  • Gender: Male
Re: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
« Reply #43 on: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 14:01:44 »
TC,

Let me ask you a question for clarification as I'm curious what your response will be -- of course given that most of what I'm saying is being ignored.

by Jesus' teaching, do you mean because of what he just said? "The two will become one flesh?"

He proceeds to explain why it's wrong for a man to divorce his wife, and then his disciples are shocked JUST by the teaching not to divorce.
But what you're saying is, on top of that, Jesus threw a boatload of other teachings totally new to them without telling them so?

IOW:
"Oh, by the way, you were never taught this before but a man's sexual immorality is offensive to his wife, women should be allowed to divorce their husbands if they are sexually immoral, and by 'porneia' I meant any form of sexual immorality and not what 'porneia' means the overwhelming majority of the time."

No? You don't think Jesus needed to tell them all that, after the disciples were strictly hung up on the issue of divorce?

Again, I'm just fascinated to see how rigid a traditional view is going to be against all reason and seeing if it's truly hopeless in some cases. Like I said, the thought was a mind-blower to me also to let go of the traditional view to make the Scriptures agree with themselves.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
« Reply #43 on: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 14:01:44 »

Offline Texas Conservative

  • Ethical Dissenter "All 8 Symptoms" Chief Justice! "Radical Political Conservative" Certified Resident Board Genius, it is...Directly. Observable.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11934
  • Manna: 396
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
Re: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
« Reply #44 on: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 14:06:24 »
Agreed that the modern take wouldn't fit in Matthew 19:9.

Divorce was not a route to be taken unless there was sexual immorality in this passage on the woman's part.  As can be seen from John 4, and John 8, the penalty of death was not always applied to adultery any longer for women so the line about Matthew 19:9 only applying to the betrothal period is a bunch of bunk.  That is something I have heard in my circles.

Offline Texas Conservative

  • Ethical Dissenter "All 8 Symptoms" Chief Justice! "Radical Political Conservative" Certified Resident Board Genius, it is...Directly. Observable.
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11934
  • Manna: 396
  • My church is 100% right, Your church is 100% wrong
Re: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
« Reply #45 on: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 14:08:35 »
Am I saying that Jesus threw a boatload of other teachings totally new to them without telling them?  No. 

I try not to read into verses. 

Offline Cally

  • I am Christian. The rest is details.
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4646
  • Manna: 152
  • Gender: Male
Re: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
« Reply #46 on: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 14:12:01 »
Quote
Divorce was not a route to be taken unless there was sexual immorality in this passage on the woman's part.  As can be seen from John 4, and John 8, the penalty of death was not always applied to adultery any longer for women so the line about Matthew 19:9 only applying to the betrothal period is a bunch of bunk.  That is something I have heard in my circles.

It sounds like I misunderstood you, so my mistake, but then I'm not sure what I'm saying that you're taking issue with (or maybe I'm wrong about that too).

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9476
  • Manna: 415
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
« Reply #47 on: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 14:35:27 »
RB: I'm really only hearing someone who doesn't want to be corrected.
Cally, you should be ashamed of yourself of judging me hastly~I JUST got started and just because you disagree with how I started out you think you know me and have the right to judge my heart, that's unbecoming a Christian. I'm not upset, but you need to slow down and give me an opportunity to post my understanding before you get all upset.
Quote from: Cally on: Today at 09:51:54
With the completely matter-of-fact and irrational statements that you're making, you're only justifying a way to look at something to make it say whatever you want it to say.
Irrational statement~unfounded attitudes, opinions, and values? So far, Cally, I gave scriptures to support anything that came out of my mouth/mind, etc. Refute the scriptures, or prove that I'm using them incorrectly do not just make statements like this one. I have no desire to make them say whatever I want them to say, for, before God, who is my witness, I have NO DOG in this fight, I'm here only to give my understanding, NOTHING MORE. God is my judge, and He will defend his truth and expose those whose heart is to corrupt his word~by saying that I'm NOT saying that you are doing so purposely, just stating a truth which you know to be true.
Quote from: Cally on: Today at 09:51:54
But it's exceptionally rare, and it's actually not anywhere in the New Testament in contexts not involving a promiscuous woman (even in the situation in which a man commits a "form" of porneia involving his father's wife, who is the promiscuous woman as a subject) and exceptionally rare in the Septuagint, whereas in both cases, it's almost always referring to a woman who "plays the whore."
Cally, you are wrong on this point, and if wrong your whole house of cards fall. I'm not trying to prove you wrong just to prove you wrong, you made the OP and just trying to be a friend and labor to give you my understanding and will if you allow me to finish.
Quote from: Cally on: Today at 09:51:54
Both doctrine and linguistics point unmistakably to absolutely one meaning of the word. .
You are very wrong on that point~under the word fornication you will find a few sexual sins, and will prove this to be so. God defines the use of the words he has chosen to be in His word, not Red Baker, or you, or any other person~we find out the use of those e words by comparing scriptures with scriptures, and it not that hard to do.
Quote from: Cally on: Today at 09:51:54
I wrote a long post that is going to be a bombshell to modern Christians but at the same time, irrefutable, as you are proving by answering it only with matter-of-fact, irrational statements
A word of advice to you:
Quote from: King Ahab
1st Kings 20:11"And the king of Israel answered and said, Tell him, Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off."
You would be wise to heed this.
Quote from: Cally on: Today at 09:51:54
What you want to do (i.e. that same theology I used to assume) is take an extremely obscure definition of the word and explode it into a completely different doctrine than anything that's taught in Scripture.
An extremely obscure definition? Really, it seems very clear to me so far that the word fornication is NOT limited to the degree that you believe that it is. You are just as guilty as those that limit the word fornication to premarital sex by limiting it to ONLY women by saying the primary definition of "porneia" Is, absolutely, "prostitution" by a woman~thus fornication does not involve a man.

I do understand there are different laws that govern men and women concerning sexual sins in the scriptures, concerning what is sin and what is not sin sexual speaking~ and on most of them you and I would agree~but on what falls under the sin of fornication there is a wide gap between us.

Offline Cally

  • I am Christian. The rest is details.
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4646
  • Manna: 152
  • Gender: Male
Re: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
« Reply #48 on: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 14:46:48 »
RB,

First of all, I regret using the wording that I did, although a matter-of-fact statement like "you're doing violence to God's word" sounds pretty much exactly like the same thing to me and leaves me wondering what else I can say to that. Still, I shouldn't have said that.

This is a question that I often face: what do I do when I face someone talking over what I'm saying and then capping it off with a matter-of-fact statement like that? In this case I should probably ignore it and proceed, so I stand corrected on that and ask forgiveness.

As for the rest . . .

Offline Cally

  • I am Christian. The rest is details.
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4646
  • Manna: 152
  • Gender: Male
Re: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
« Reply #49 on: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 14:55:51 »
RB,

As for the rest, I'm afraid we might just be going in circles.

I acknowledged that RARELY "porneia" is in fact used for a blanket sexual sin including committed by a man. The Scriptures that you quoted as evidence of it referring to that very well could have been replaced with the word "whoredom" because a promscuous woman was involved. 1 Corinthians 6:13-20 demonstrates that "porneia" can be something that a man does but almost always involves a promsicuous woman (a prostitute in that case, of course). That's true for the man who married his father's wife (NOT necessarily his mother, by the way, so one cannot assert that this is incest). I think you are not listening to this point.

I'm feeling like you're not hearing me say this. I think you might find an extremely small few examples of a wordform of porneia referring to a man's action unrelated to a promiscuous woman in the Septuagint and in other texts, but it's very rare compared to its main definition. The teaching that Jesus gave in the context that he did would simply never sound to the Greeks' ears in the way that you're suggesting as there are just too many concepts that have never been established to make them hear it; the context was about a man's wife possibly committing porneia, and a listener of the time simply wouldn't have heard a distant definition of the word.

As far as these other rebukes on MY character, all I can say is that the belief on my side is mutual so I'm not sure how that gets us anywhere -- again, that's probably what I should have said in the first place rather than the wording I used before, so again my apologies for the tone of that first response.

IOW, I would obviously not think that all of these rebukes of yours apply to me because I am convinced that I AM using Scripture correctly, and mutually think that you are not -- we're even on that front. So I don't see the use of statements like these in the first place.

So a thousand apologies from before, but should that be fair?
« Last Edit: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 14:59:35 by Cally »

Offline RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9476
  • Manna: 415
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
« Reply #50 on: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 15:07:45 »
Cally, I'm stopping for the day, generally, I do not post after 4:00 pm~ I rest for the rest of the afternoon. I think a lot of you and believe you are a man that fears and loves God, that has not change. In any discussion (especially so one like this one) words get heated but the godly cool off quickly and move on, knowing that in all things we offend others and that many times during our walk with the Lord.

The Lord be with thy spirit and grant both of us light in our path in walking to please him. RB

Offline Cally

  • I am Christian. The rest is details.
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4646
  • Manna: 152
  • Gender: Male
Re: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
« Reply #51 on: Wed Sep 22, 2021 - 15:10:25 »
Quote
Cally, I'm stopping for the day, generally, I do not post after 4:00 pm~ I rest for the rest of the afternoon. I think a lot of you and believe you are a man that fears and loves God, that has not change. In any discussion (especially so one like this one) words get heated but the godly cool off quickly and move on, knowing that in all things we offend others and that many times during our walk with the Lord.

The Lord be with thy spirit and grant both of us light in our path in walking to please him. RB

That's fine. I'm cooled off. I hope you'll consider my resolution for an overall tone down with the heated tone that each perceive.

Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13753
  • Manna: 367
  • Gender: Male
Re: The ridiculous fad interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
« Reply #52 on: Sat Sep 25, 2021 - 22:45:56 »
Yeeaahh.  I do not think he was the first antichristian rabbi.  There were certainly many Shammaian Pharisees and rabbis that opposed our Lord during his ministry.
You've buried the lead.

Certainly many rabbis prior to that time opposed Christ and His teachings.  However, they did not seek to exclude Christ or His followers from being essentially Jewish.  They viewed Christians as Jews of a different sect.

Rabbi Akiva, by contrast, is the originator of the movement to exclude Christians from being Jewish, altogether.  His was the idea to entirely ostracize Christians (and every sect other than Pharisees) from Judaism.

I think if you re-read my original post, you will find this is what it was referring to.

Jarrod

 

     
anything