Re: Just because polygamy is not illegal does it make it mor
@ Discussing
Didn't you bring up divorce in your July 7th post devoted entirely to the topic? Alright, I'll ask Scarecrow about a moving our meta this post.
@ Scarecrow
You where the one that brought the Hebrew root into the conversation, if you where going to do that you could have at least done the courtesy of researching the word instead of just copy and pasting strongs definition. Yaw-tsaw entails being free from obligation to that which was left. Weather its leaving a house, a country, a job, a family, or a way of life Yaw-tsaw entails freedom from obligation from. If we are talking about Exodus then we don't see any expectation of her return either.
Now, are you saying you don't see this situation as sanctioning divorce, or you never see divorce sanctioned, because if its the later your statement is in opposition to the clearest passages of scripture and the very essence of the meaning sanction.
The synoptic Gospels are sometimes a wonderful thing for understating a situation more clearly, take Mark 10:3-5 "And he
(Jesus) answered and said unto them, What did
Moses command you? And they
(the Pharisees) said,
Moses allowed to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept."
If what you said was true Matthew would be giving the opposite story as Mark. You
really should cross check some theories before posting. Really your argument is semantic nonsense, the command is that men are allowed to divorce in certain circumstances. So when they talked of the Law, they said command, when they said what the law is, they said allow.
I don't know what to say about this but Check your Work.
Umm, Israel was destroyed, scattered, kaput. The Children of Israel who where divided from them at this point, the Jews and Benjimites and probably some Levites, continue and Islam is wrong in claiming the blessing went from Issac to Ishmael, but its pretty clear the 9 (10ish) tribes where destroyed and utterly lost. Those that came back and rebuilt where Jews, those that persevered the centuries where Jews, and those that are building modern Israel are Jews. Eschatology aside, there's not a lot of wiggle room here, there are none them left.
When mention is made of the woman remarrying, the statement is that if she does, not that she is allowed.
Where is such a statement made? If you seriously juggle the word order around you could eisegate it into Corinthians, but that isn't what Corinthians actually says.
Naturally I do not agree with your paralleling Corinthians and Exodus, but I do see that you are using a consistent hermeneutic to draw the parallels and I respect that. I maintain, as I said, that Exodus is talking about a proper separation while the Corinthians passage is dealing with an improper one, probably related to something specific the Corinthians wrote Paul about and if thats given then very likely about some kind of 'corinthisizing' and thus certainly improper.
This third part is most likely at an impass as its one application vs another, but the discussion centering around the Law and the Gospels is quite promising. Anyway, good conversation so far Scarecrow.
Do you have access to the Deeper discussion (and respectful debate) area of this forum? If so one of us could create a thread there to get out of Discussing's way. If you have access that is the best place for this, otherwise probably other biblical issues?
