An obvious contradiction?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

JohnR7

Active member
Dec 30, 2019
820
175
43
#61
Ok. I can’t get one person to be honest about the clear contradiction in the ESV which is kind of unsettling to be honest. Against my better judgement I’ll explain the situation a little.
You should have gone with your better judgement. Jesus address this issue when He says: "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning". (Matthew 19:8) Clearly divorce was never God's plan or intention. 20% of the people are responsible divorce, 80% stay married. Most people would say that God allows divorce to protect the innocent person from harm and injury. Most people their love for each other grows over time. It does not diminish. They talk about how cute it is the love that old people have for each other.
 

JohnR7

Active member
Dec 30, 2019
820
175
43
#62
We are busy "discussing" :ROFL: the crucifixion of Christ and if it was on the Wednesday or the Friday.
Passover begins on the Nisan 15 which would have been on a Sunday on the Modern calendar in the year 29 AD. In the year 2029 passover begins on friday. In the year 2036 passover begins on Sunday.
 

Attachments

NOV25

Active member
Nov 23, 2019
192
112
43
#63
You should have gone with your better judgement. Jesus address this issue when He says: "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning". (Matthew 19:8) Clearly divorce was never God's plan or intention. 20% of the people are responsible divorce, 80% stay married. Most people would say that God allows divorce to protect the innocent person from harm and injury. Most people their love for each other grows over time. It does not diminish. They talk about how cute it is the love that old people have for each other.
You’re probably right.
Most people here probably don’t comprehend half of what’s been said, and forget about a prayerful study searching all scripture on the matter. They’re happy just lashing out at anything different than the regurgitate they’ve been spoon fed. 🤢
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
10,634
4,093
113
#64
If you talk to the Mormons they believe in the Melchizedek Priesthood that is even higher (stricter) then the Leviticus priesthood.
The Mormon *Melchizedek Priesthood* is a Mormon invention based upon *revelations* to Joseph Smith. However it has no basis in the Bible. Only the Lord Jesus Christ is the High Priest in Heaven after the order of Melchizedek. See Hebrews 7 and 8.
 

JohnR7

Active member
Dec 30, 2019
820
175
43
#65
The Mormon *Melchizedek Priesthood* is a Mormon invention based upon *revelations* to Joseph Smith. However it has no basis in the Bible. Only the Lord Jesus Christ is the High Priest in Heaven after the order of Melchizedek. See Hebrews 7 and 8.
At least they take their priesthood serious. You almost never hear christians even talk about their priesthood.
 

JohnR7

Active member
Dec 30, 2019
820
175
43
#66
You’re probably right.
Most people here probably don’t comprehend half of what’s been said, and forget about a prayerful study searching all scripture on the matter. They’re happy just lashing out at anything different than the regurgitate they’ve been spoon fed. 🤢
Your presentation leaves a lot to be desired because you do not organize your results. Look at Nehemiah6 in post 52 and he sums up what he is saying and so his post is quick and easy to read. We have to think these things though to make it short and sweet.
 

NOV25

Active member
Nov 23, 2019
192
112
43
#67
Your presentation leaves a lot to be desired because you do not organize your results. Look at Nehemiah6 in post 52 and he sums up what he is saying and so his post is quick and easy to read. We have to think these things though to make it short and sweet.
Sorry I didn’t use colors and numbers and stufff.

He does not make a clear argument. He makes a false statement about the term apoluo and then goes on to regurgitate his view on divorce completely ignoring the OP, in which I anticipate such behavior.

Not one person has addressed this text honestly without trying defending their current doctrinal beliefs on the matter.

"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. - Luke 16:18

If divorce and remarriage is allowed according to Duet 24 and this translation is true then the law is void.

Since we know Jesus does not void the law (Luke 16:17) there must be a problem with the translation.

Further study shows apoluo is not equal to apostasion.

Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

Spend a few hours prayerfully studying the topic, searching all scriptures, download a concordance they’re free.
 

JohnR7

Active member
Dec 30, 2019
820
175
43
#68
If divorce and remarriage is allowed according to Duet 24 and this translation is true then the law is void.
I do not think that divorce is every allowed. Divorce never goes way, you continue to suffer for it for the rest of your life. I remember I was in a bar once and some drunk guy was complaining about his wife. Then he said that they had been divorced for over 21 years. I thought that somewhere along the way he should have gotten over it.

In the old Testament lots of people had more than one wife. David for example had 8 wives. Even God told him he could have had more but it was not lawful for him to take Bathsheba because she had a husband. Yet it was though Solomon that Jesus was born. They call this the scarlet thread.

I was engaged to another man's wife once. It was as if God told me if I married her then I would be on my own. If I had any problems He would not help me with them. I would have to resolve the issue as best I could on my own.

I have studied everything everyone has to say about divorce and remarriage. I still think it all comes down to what Paul says: "But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this." (1cor7:28) Is it fair to the virgin to marry a man who is divorced and have to deal with a marriage that has troubles? Most Christian women avoid divorced men for good reason. Why put themselves into a marriage that is going to have trouble to deal with.
 

GaryA

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2019
826
274
63
mywebsite.us
#69
Is it fair to the virgin to marry a man who is divorced and have to deal with a marriage that has troubles? Most Christian women avoid divorced men for good reason. Why put themselves into a marriage that is going to have trouble to deal with.
(And, it works both ways.)

Anyone who has never married is very highly not likely to want to inherit the problems of a past marriage.

Not only do I agree with the thinking behind this, I also "take it to the next level" --- I believe that - in general, at least - you cannot do better than to "pair like with like":

Singles should marry singles.
Divorced should marry divorced.
Widowed should marry widowed.

I believe that the best match is likely to be someone with a similar life experience.

For example -- I have never been married and have never gotten a woman pregnant.

(Needless to say, I don't have any children.)

Therefore, the best likely match is a woman who has never been married and never been pregnant.

(And, needless to say, she does not have any children.)

This way - we both have a common-ground experience whereby we learn and grow together.

If you have already "been there and done that", it is better to have for a mate someone who has at least a similar experience in life.

Is it possible for a "less-alike" pairing to work out well? Sure --- a lot of things are possible - especially if both man and woman are mature enough to handle the ramifications that can/may result from the difference in their life experiences.

However, I cannot help but think that the best results will likely be had when both man and woman have a similar life experience.

I believe that mixing together two life experiences that are too vastly different from each other is too likely to create significant "issues" that result from conflicts between experience-forming world-views.
 

CS1

Moderator
May 23, 2012
4,417
1,018
113
#70
(And, it works both ways.)

Anyone who has never married is very highly not likely to want to inherit the problems of a past marriage.

Not only do I agree with the thinking behind this, I also "take it to the next level" --- I believe that - in general, at least - you cannot do better than to "pair like with like":

Singles should marry singles.
Divorced should marry divorced.
Widowed should marry widowed.

I believe that the best match is likely to be someone with a similar life experience.

For example -- I have never been married and have never gotten a woman pregnant.

(Needless to say, I don't have any children.)

Therefore, the best likely match is a woman who has never been married and never been pregnant.

(And, needless to say, she does not have any children.)

This way - we both have a common-ground experience whereby we learn and grow together.

If you have already "been there and done that", it is better to have for a mate someone who has at least a similar experience in life.

Is it possible for a "less-alike" pairing to work out well? Sure --- a lot of things are possible - especially if both man and woman are mature enough to handle the ramifications that can/may result from the difference in their life experiences.

However, I cannot help but think that the best results will likely be had when both man and woman have a similar life experience.

I believe that mixing together two life experiences that are too vastly different from each other is too likely to create significant "issues" that result from conflicts between experience-forming world-views.
interesting I just would like to know how does the word of God line up with your thinking? I am not saying I disagree but what biblical support you have for this ?
 

JohnRH

Junior Member
Mar 5, 2018
280
115
43
#71
Ok. I can’t get one person to be honest about the clear contradiction in the ESV which is kind of unsettling to be honest. Against my better judgement I’ll explain the situation a little.

Deut. 24 allows for divorce and remarriage. The woman is to be given a certificate of divorce, which she keeps and she is sent away to remarry if she chooses.

Deuteronomy 24:1-1 KJV When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

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

You see in these verses the put away and the divorce, the Shalach (put away) and the Keriythuth (divorce certificate). Two separate words to be used in conjunction but not interchangeable.

Isaiah 50:1 Thus saith the LORD, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.

You’ll notice here the Lord says where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement whom I have put away... The fact is there there was no bill of divorcement only the put away, the separation due to transgression.

“Though the sufferings of Judah were the necessary result of sin, no certificate of divorce or sale to creditors occurred... although there would be a time of separation”
MSB

You must understand the process of the marriage, separation and divorce at the time of Jesus’s ministry. If a woman was guilty of fornication she could be sent away without the divorce certificate. Not having a divorce certificate would keep her from claiming benefits of the katubah “prearranged alimony” and would also prohibit her from being remarried.

So when the Pharisees came to test Jesus on this matter, seeking to ensnare him they asked is it lawful to put away (apoluo) your wife for any reason.

Matthew 19:3 KJV The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

They’re asking is if it’s ok to send away (apoluo) the wife for any reason, notice the absence of divorce certificate (apostasion).

Matthew 19:9 KJV And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Jesus basically says if you send away (apoluo) your wife for any reason other than fornication you’re guilty of adultery and if you marry a woman who is put away you’re guilty of adultery. Notice the absence of the divorce certificate (apostasion) in Jesus’s response.

Why is it adultery if you send away your wife and marry another for a reason other than fornication? Because you separated under false pretenses and or without a divorce certificate.

What we’re witnessing here is Jesus addressing the manipulation of the Duet 24 law. The problem was the abandoning of the wife without a proper qualifications and or certificate. Why would men do this?

There’s many reasons but the main one is money. You see, the Jewish betrothal included what’s called a katubah, a “prenup”. The katubah was prearranged by the father of the bride, the bride and the groom. The katubah was only payable to a bride if she had a divorce certificate. If she committed fornication she wasn’t entitled to to the divorce certificate, the “alimony” or to remarry for that matter.

So you see, Jesus didn’t change the Duet 24 law he just elevates it as he does with the adulterous and murderous heart statements. He’s basically saying if you manipulate the law you’re guilty of adultery.

Other fun facts.
According to the lexicon the word apostasion: divorce, divorce certificate is only used 3 times in the NT, not once by Jesus.

The word apoluo: put away, dismiss... is used 89 times in the NT, not once as divorce. It’s used in places like when Jesus dismisses the crowds and sends out his disciples...

1 Corinthians 7:27-27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

Loosed in the Greek lusis: a loosing that is specifically divorced.

Are you divorced from a wife? Seek not a wife but if you do marry it’s not a sin.

When you mistranslate or misinterpret apoluo to mean apostasion you basically claim that Jesus voids the Duet 24 law that allows for divorce and remarriage and cause all sorts of whacky no remarriage doctrines and scripture twister.
I just want you to know that I appreciate what you're saying about the distinction between divorce and putting away; and how the NT never contradicts the OT on this subject.

It looks like the KJV made a poor translation in Matthew 5:32.
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away [630 apaluo] his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced [630 apaluo] committeth adultery. Matt 5:32 (KJV)
It looks like they got it right the first time and made it confusing the second time.

I wonder what "uncleanness" in Deut. 24:1 refers to. It's usually rendered "nakedness". It seems like a pretty broad term, and not necessarily a reference to adultery or even premarital lack of virginity. If it were one of those she should be stoned (Deut. 22:21,22), instead of being free to marry the second husband (24:2).
 

7seasrekeyed

Senior Member
Aug 27, 2017
9,858
4,336
113
#72
You’re probably right.
Most people here probably don’t comprehend half of what’s been said, and forget about a prayerful study searching all scripture on the matter. They’re happy just lashing out at anything different than the regurgitate they’ve been spoon fed. 🤢
you need to get out more

your broad brush strokes are dripping paint over everyone and not at all helpful
 

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
13,402
1,272
113
#73
Not only do I agree with the thinking behind this, I also "take it to the next level" --- I believe that - in general, at least - you cannot do better than to "pair like with like":

Singles should marry singles.
Divorced should marry divorced.
Widowed should marry widowed.

I believe that the best match is likely to be someone with a similar life experience.[/QUOTE

Christian should marry Christians. Anything else is to be unevenly yoked, without Christ.

The best match for who? The father of lies or our Father in heaven of His truth?

Familiarity sought to kill the Son of man, Jesus. His own family believed not (faithless). Familiarity can breed contempt and contempt death. A prophet in ones own town is easily rejected. If they rejected the Son of man, Jesus than anyone can stand in that place.

God is not a man as us and neither is there a fleshly infallible interpreter set between God and mankind . .God is not a man as us.

I think it one of the reasons that without parables Christ spoke not .Using metaphors like "manna" in parables . Mana is used in parables. . literally meaning as a query: What is it?

The bread of unfamiliarity. Or called the hidden manna in Revelation 2. . . the signified understanding as the tongue of God.

God made mankind as one creation. Unlike other beasts of the field. Male and female he made them . In that way he sets the thermostat deciding when it is too hot or cold rather than lukewarm familiarity . The promised eternal land is still over the horizon then we will receive the goal of our new faith, the incorruptible bodies.

We must be careful how we hear what the Spirit says to the churches or denominations .

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: Revelation3:15-17
 

NOV25

Active member
Nov 23, 2019
192
112
43
#74
I just want you to know that I appreciate what you're saying about the distinction between divorce and putting away; and how the NT never contradicts the OT on this subject.

It looks like the KJV made a poor translation in Matthew 5:32.
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away [630 apaluo] his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced [630 apaluo] committeth adultery. Matt 5:32 (KJV)
It looks like they got it right the first time and made it confusing the second time.

I wonder what "uncleanness" in Deut. 24:1 refers to. It's usually rendered "nakedness". It seems like a pretty broad term, and not necessarily a reference to adultery or even premarital lack of virginity. If it were one of those she should be stoned (Deut. 22:21,22), instead of being free to marry the second husband (24:2).
I appreciate that, it’s an interesting study.

The guidelines/qualifications for divorce, is also an interesting study. Most people just assume it means sex but if you read the 54 verses the word ervah: nudity, literally or figuratively, blemish or shame (H6172) occurs in one will not conclude that it strictly means sex/adultery.
To strictly limit the Duet 24 law to sex/adultery one has to ignore the “no favor” statement.

That’s the problem. The Jews were manipulating the law in order to Shalach: put away, dismiss their wives wrongly, for petty reasons.

Matthew 19:3 KJV The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

They would put away their wives wrongly, without giving her the divorce certificate. When she remarried she and the one she married would be guilty of adultery according to Jesus. And Jesus says I’ll hold one who does this guilty of adultery as well.

Jesus didn’t use the word “divorce certificate”, he used the word “dismiss”
because that’s the issue he was correcting, the manipulation of the law, the wrongful abandonment of a wife because she lost favor in the eye of the husband.
 

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
13,402
1,272
113
#75
I just want you to know that I appreciate what you're saying about the distinction between divorce and putting away; and how the NT never contradicts the OT on this subject.

It looks like the KJV made a poor translation in Matthew 5:32.
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away [630 apaluo] his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced [630 apaluo] committeth adultery. Matt 5:32 (KJV)
It looks like they got it right the first time and made it confusing the second time.

I wonder what "uncleanness" in Deut. 24:1 refers to. It's usually rendered "nakedness". It seems like a pretty broad term, and not necessarily a reference to adultery or even premarital lack of virginity. If it were one of those she should be stoned (Deut. 22:21,22), instead of being free to marry the second husband (24:2).
"Uncleanness" has to do with ceremonial shadows of the good things to come. The unclean represents death. To be clean represents the redeemed .

The cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery violating the law as the first commandment not to have any other gods before our living God, a form of blasphemy. Naked without God :