Divorce verse by verse

[Nikud]

The context of Zanah here is "I didn’t find her virginity.".

The context of Zanah here is that it happening in her fathers house. What happens in a Fathers house is extremly important ask Yeshua. Look at what is happening to marriage and children in our day and age and you'll see the wisdom in God's law.

Nice try by no. The context of Zanah here is "I didn’t find her virginity.". I realize that in our day and age of few Christians marrying as virgins the idea that God would punish a woman who was not a virgin at marriage is objectionable.

Your letting your feelings about modern women, the modern age/world/church, other Christians who feel aren't as righteous as you dictate how you look at scripture. You keep trying to filter scripture through your feelings. It's what you turn to in any and all threads when presented with beleifs you done agree with. You have strong convictions and that's good show me your beleifs in scripture, and not using others practices to justify your beleifs. This isn't about the modern age/world/church Christians and what they practice despite what scripture says.

You are making statements using your beleifs to justify your dogma without addressing the statements that directly challange your beliefs. Please use scripture to back your dogma.

If losing your virginity outside of marriage is a capital offense please show using scriptural examples other than shaming her father and being an unruly child?

Give the verse where is shows that nonvirgins are forbidden to marry.

Explain using scripture why, if losing your virginity outside of marriage is a capital offense, did God forbade the Leveites from marring nonvirgins specifically instead of a law specifically not to marry virgins?

So it's clear to everyone. I do not think premarital sex is good. I do beleive comming into a marriage a virgin/pure/unviolated is what pleases God. I beleive that premarital sex when it happens creates an obligation to marry and when that obligation is not met, that is a sin. This applies to if she is a virgin or not we've already disagreed about this on another thread. No need to revisit. There is no nonvirgins shall not marry verse. So its permissible. There are many things that are permissible under Torah that do not edify or are not beneficial (Paul's message) but are not sins.


Deuteronomy 22:28-29

28 “Suppose a man finds a young virgin who is not engaged, grabs her and lies with her, and they are discovered. 29 Then the man who lay with her is to give to the young woman’s father 50 pieces of silver, and she is to be his wife, since he has humiliated her—he may not send her away all his days.

We can disscus this verse about the why's and who's or we can simply agree that it can not be made to argue for divorce.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Give the verse where is shows that nonvirgins are forbidden to marry.

This is sort of a flyby from 30,000ft, so, sorry if I’m missing something in what you said.

Wouldn’t a verse stating that nonvirgins are forbidden to marry be kind of redundant if there is already one that says they are to be stoned?

 

[Nikud]

This is sort of a flyby from 30,000ft, so, sorry if I’m missing something in what you said.

Wouldn’t a verse stating that nonvirgins are forbidden to marry be kind of redundant if there is already one that says they are to be stoned?

Only if there's no verse that show that woman who lose their virginity and get married don't always get stoned, which there is. Plus the case is being made is that losing your virginity out side of marriage is a capital offense. Losing your virginity, being known by a man, lying with a man shekobeths completely diffrent than whoring, Zanah.

Edit: For clarification. You would also have to assume that the verse in question is stating that nonvirgins are to be stoned if they marry when their is scripture evidence that its talking about her being an unruly child and doing something in her fathers house, which carries a death penalty.

 

[rockfox]

Does attributing my position to some perceieved bias help you mentally avoid dealing with what the text actually says? Unfortunately you got the causality backwards. I didn't let some bias dictate my understanding of this passage because I had no such bias: I did not care about virginity until I read this passage. It is passages like these that brought me to understand why feminism is wrong and how. Understanding why God cared so much is a whole other story.

"other Christians who feel aren't as righteous as you"

Where did I ever say that? This isn't about me. That's the usual slander trotted out in church whenever anyone brings up the need to do righteosness that others in the congregation are not (esp. the accusor). My desire to seek the truth, to help Christians understand the will of God so that we may walk in His light and to help us avoid the disastrous consequences that have come with such disobediance.

"addressing the statements that directly challange your beliefs."

That is absurd. I showed the context in scripture and can do so in even more detail. But there is no point because...

"Please use scripture to back your dogma."

"dogma"? It is clear you do not have ears to hear on this subject. I'm done discussing this with you.

If anyone else would like a more thorough explanation of how my statements come from a literal, straightforward reading of the scriptures (using scripture even!) and how he is misinterpreting the language involved I will provide it in detail here or privately. But if not, I'll not waste the bits.

 

[Nikud]

Does attributing my position to some perceieved bias help you mentally avoid dealing with what the text actually says?

No it just points out what you do on just about every thread.

I did not care about virginity until I read this passage.

reRead post you've made about virginity. You may want to edit that statement.

Where did I ever say that? This isn't about me. That's the usual slander trotted out in church whenever anyone brings up the need to do righteosness that others in the congregation are not (esp. the accusor)

Maybe you should look at the broad statements you use to slander all in involve in the modern church, all women, and what you see about other Christians, whom you have judged as not true beleivers. You cast them all in a light lesser that yourself because they don't understand, but you do. That the are acting in ways that are unrightous.
righteous

1. 1.
   (of a person or conduct) morally right or justifiable; virtuous.

Then state you are able to see it correctly, therefore saying your righteous and their not without saying it. To steal one of your lines, Nice try.

Please use scripture to back your dogma."

"dogma"? It is clear you do not have ears to hear

Do you even know what dogma means.

dog·ma
/ˈdôɡmə/
noun

1. a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

I was speaking of your interpretation of what is the authoritive teaching, the principles you set by your interpretation.

One a side note you used your indignation to avoid answering the questions posed to you. You've talked about the victimhood of others and how it's used and how it's wrong. You don't see that's the same thing your doing here.

Once again another thread is made unprofitable by quibbling, hurt feelings, and I'm partly to blame, I won't lay it all at the feet of another because I'm not a victim. I want to apologize for my part.

 

[Nikud]

There are men here that I've disagreed with but respect because it was about searching scripture and finding the truth. Not about justfing personal beleif based off one verse when there were other verses that contridicted the interpretation. Some of these disagreements led me to realize I was doing the same thing as a few other people here and resting on my own understanding. Ive done my best to state where i was shown in scripture that my understanding was wrong. To name a few @ZecAustin, @FollowingHim, @andrew, @Verifyveritas76, and @Ancient Paths. That's not saying y'all are always right, sometimes we were both wrong, don't get a bighead. Also try not be as arguemenative as me. It doesn't sit well with those who have tied validation of their beleif with validation of who they are. This last disagreement has reinfocred that post by post impersonal discussion of scripture is not my strong point and that I lack the patients to deal with certain types of people in this setting. Im going to do my best to refrain from giving my unsolicited opinions or unsolicited scripture based interpretations from now on. I'm still going to fellowship with at retreats that I attend with any of you that attend. Any of you who want to but can't attend retreats and still fellowship drop me a PM we can converse. To those who have no intention of real life fellowship and stated so, and use this forum for the purpose of venting your frustrations with the state of the world and for self validation, I hope you find some peace and true validation.

 

[PeteR]

Not really sure where to put this, but as I am reading Martin Madan's Thelyphthora I came across some of his thoughts on Moses and divorce... just thought it a value addition from a strong defender of polygyny.

 

[Tesfalcon]

Don’t forget this one. This is actually the first.

Exodus 18:2,3. Then Jethro, Moses father in law, took Zipporah, Moses wife, after he had sent her back,
And her two sons;

7964 shilluwach or shilluach {shil-loo'-akh}; from 7971; (only in plural) a dismissal, i.e. (of a wife) divorce (especially the document); also (of a daughter) dower:--presents, have sent back.

Probably the divorce happened at this point. Exodus 4:24-26

I never associated this "sending her back" w divorce. They had some issues while he was en route to Egypt so they separated for a time so he could devote himself to his mission. Now that the mission was accomplished, this would have been a reuniting time. Thus the sending away was a convenience / logistical thing, not a divorce thing.

This is esp important in light of ...
Exodus 18:5
"Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife to Moses in the wilderness where he was encamped at the mountain of God."

Not his ex, not the former, or father of his former wife. Present tense FIL. Present tense wife.

Unless u believe the wife in question refers to Jethro's wife and Jethro's sons rather than Moses' wife and Moses' sons?

 

[steve]

I never associated this "sending her back" w divorce. They had some issues while he was en route to Egypt so they separated for a time so he could devote himself to his mission. Now that the mission was accomplished, this would have been a reuniting time. Thus the sending away was a convenience / logistical thing, not a divorce thing.

This is esp important in light of ...
Exodus 18:5
"Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife to Moses in the wilderness where he was encamped at the mountain of God."

Not his ex, not the former, or father of his former wife. Present tense FIL. Present tense wife.

Unless u believe the wife in question refers to Jethro's wife and Jethro's sons rather than Moses' wife and Moses' sons?

Shilluwach, the word translated as “sent back” doesn’t seem to indicate a temporary home visit for her.


Outline of Biblical Usage:

1. 
   sending away, parting gift
   
   1. sending away
      
      
   2. parting gift
      

 

[steve]

Strong's Definitions: שִׁלּוּחַ shillûwach, shil-loo'-akh; or שִׁלֻּחַ shilluach; from H7971; (only in plural) a dismissal, i.e. (of a wife) divorce (especially the document); also (of a daughter) dower:—presents, have sent back.

 

[Tesfalcon]

Shilluwach, the word translated as “sent back” doesn’t seem to indicate a temporary home visit for her.


Outline of Biblical Usage:

1. 
   sending away, parting gift
   1. sending away
      
      
   2. parting gift

1) How long was Moses gone to Egypt?
2) As a military member, I was frequently "dismissed", even permanently dismissed from service on my last day, yet still subject to recall for another x years afterward.
3) Considering where he was going or what he was getting into, he might not have been able to guarantee his own safety. (God did just try to kill him. Ex 4:24-26) Saying good-bye then might've been like a departing before a soldier goes to war.

 

[steve]

You can shoehorn it any way that suits you, but that doesn’t sound like a correct interpretation to me.

 

[Keith Martin]

(God did just try to kill him. Ex 4:24-26)

Far be it for me to subdivide the splitting of hairs, but is it really within the realm of possibility that God could "just try" to kill someone. Did God try unsuccessfully to kill the questionable person in question? Or did God, being All-Powerful and All, do something else along the lines of purposefully putting the fear of God into him?

 

[Tesfalcon]

Far be it for me to subdivide the splitting of hairs, but is it really within the realm of possibility that God could "just try" to kill someone. Did God try unsuccessfully to kill the questionable person in question? Or did God, being All-Powerful and All, do something else along the lines of purposefully putting the fear of God into him?

The same as happened to Balaam in Num 22:31-34. While the "fear of God" was certainly set into him to speak what he was told, the angel did say, v33
"The donkey saw me and turned aside before me these three times. If she had not turned aside from me, surely just now I would have killed you and let her live.”

Did the donkey save his life, or did the angel lie about the certainty of Balaam's death?

Why would it say "seek to put him to death" (Ex 4:24) if the truth was "teach him to fear the Lord"? Did God actually seek his death or not?
Is the Bible lying?

 

[Tesfalcon]

You can shoehorn it any way that suits you, but that doesn’t sound like a correct interpretation to me.

Are you dismissing me and my argument?
We're not married.

Why does divorce sound more correct than a needs based separation even as Paul agreed was sometimes wise in 1 Cor 7:5? Because of my job, I have often been separated from my wife & children for up to a month. Soldiers can be gone years.

I think a more telling portion on this topic is in vs 3.
Exo 18:2,3
"Now Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, had taken Zipporah, Moses' wife, after he had sent her home, along with her two sons. ..."

If he divorced just her, why divorce the sons too? He was there 40 years. How old were the sons? You don't divorce children. Why not bring them w him and just send her back if he was divorcing her? Unless it wasn't a divorce and the sending wasn't intended to be permanent.

 

[Tesfalcon]

If we dispute a plain statement in Scripture as not meaning what it says, how can we ever agree on a more nuanced and less plain set of verses?

 

[Pacman]

Sent away or "put away" is not the same as divorce.

 

[steve]

Are you dismissing me and my argument?

I see how you “discuss”
One round was enough for me.