And if you can’t see why rules around taking another wife would effect polygyny then I can’t help you. It’s literally about taking another wife. Why wouldn’t it apply?
It is not grasping at weak technicalities. It is answering a question from a skeptic. Someone who wants to turn Matthew 19:9 to discredit polygyny has to deal with the fact, FACT, that a married man could take another wife and not be in violation of the verse. How is that not a significant argument in that situation?
Yes, that is a very important point to make, I agree with you on that.
No, it does not. It says that men who have improperly divorced a previous wife cannot take a second. It gives one situation in which a man is forbidden from remarrying, but does not say that this is the only reason a man cannot take another - there might conceivably be other situations in which a man is forbidden to take another wife which are not the topic of discussion.
If you told them that you had given them the entirety of your law then yes.
That’s what I said…..
It's a really crappy translation.
Well I explained why. Ad nauseum.
Finally. I've been metaphorically biting my tongue through all this. The cause of the clause is in fact the exception. A man can indeed put away a wife unlawfully, without a bill of divorcement, causing her to commit adultery (be-CAUSE she is still his wife), and they twain still being one flesh are both guilty of the act; howbeit the cause of the clause is not adultery but fornication, and there is a difference between the two terms, fornication being far more general. Under the law the adulterer and the adulteress were required to be stoned to death. Clearly then, the Messiah, born under the law, was not referring to adultery as being the lawful cause, or exception. Putting away can be done without divorcement. I don't say that it is advisable, but it can be done. There is but one cause for lawful divorcement and I believe this to be the exception mentioned in the New Testament. This is also supported in the Old Testament.
Sorry, Samuel, but I have to disagree with you here. (a) By failing to determine the timing of the improper divorce, (b) by thus introducing marrying another without asserting that all Yeshua is talking about is a subsequent wife [in fact, indicating contemporaneity with the use of 'and'], and (c) by failing to condemn polygyny on Yeshua's part, it is ipso facto at the very least promotion by implication. So @The Revolting Man has made his case.
I suggested that arguing from a crappy translation is counterproductive, because the Truth is lost in the smoke. And the 'ignorant and proud of it,' will inevitably focus on the triviality and distraction. (Ad nauseum, even.)
I like the way Yahushua put it, too: There comes a time when the appropriate action is "wipe the dust off your feet," and move on...
Good catch, Mark. You read my mind! I made the correction.
Once again that lack of attention to scholarly research reveals the foolishnesses of another of those who oppose the truth. Thanks for the report @Daniel DeLuca.
Ooo! Good analogy, but I am always cautious of using analogies. It works good when you are trying to help someone who wants to understand what you are trying to say, but not so much in debate against someone who doesn't. The problem with analogies in debate, is we can always find an ananlogy to support any position that we want to take, but analogies don't always mirror reality.
Correction: it is a she. I have seen it happen all the time on YouTube, and I wish it was more clear the gender of the people whom we interact with.
Sometimes keeping track of the pronoun switching is akin to watching a tennis match.
More like liar's poker.