quote:

ORIGINAL: SealedEternal

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

All of the dictionaries say that "when" indicates the specific timing of whatever it is used in conjunction with.

That's funny because none of the dictionaries I have looked make such a statement about "when", and many are the same source you claim support this "rule of grammar"

While they do provide examples that align with your definition, they also provide examples that contradict your definition. And absolutely none them support the supposed grammar rule you want us to believe exists that requires only your definition.

Then show me one that says that "when" used in conjunction with a specific event actually denotes a period of time and not a point of time. No dictionary on earth that I'm aware of defines "when" to denote a period of time when used in conjunction with a specific event, nor vise versa. All of the examples I've seen use "when" in conjunction with events to denote specific points in time and "when" in conjunction with periods of time to denote specific time periods. As I explained several times now, just because "when" can indicate both points in time and periods of time, doesn't mean that the two are interchangable. Both are specific to the context they are used and are understood to denote one or the other depending on whether they are in conjunction with a period of time or a specific event.

quote:

Question for Sealed:

If I provide for you a reference from the NASB translators of Duet. that contradicts your understanding of "when" in this verse, will you concede that your understanding is wrong?

If you have quotes from the 50+ translators of the NASB as to what they believe Deuteronomy 24:1 says, I would certainly be interested in reading them and would give serious consideration to their conclusions, but we already know that their consensus was that Deuteronomy 24 referred to a man divorcing a woman who was found indecent/unclean when the husband took her and married her. If that wasn't what they thought was the best English rendition of the verse, they would have translated it differently.

quote:

Those that translated this verse should know how they intended "when" in this verse to be understood, right?

It is likely that they would know the proper translation of the verse from Hebrew, but I would always be sceptical of anyones opinions concerning the exegesis of the verse. The Scribes and Pharisees for example probably understood the Hebrew Language better than anyone alive today, but they still often managed to completely miss the whole intent of the passages they were reading, and to completely twist the text around to say the opposite of what God actually conveyed to Moses in the text. Translating the text and interpreting the meaning behind it are two completely different things, and I don't blindly trust anyones opinions on the latter.

quote:

My guess is that no evidence is going to change your mind correct?

It depends on what the evidence is. If it is the opinion of some man who claims to be an expert but doesn't have any substinative evidence to back their claim, then no it's not likely to change my mind. If on the other hand you have objective evidence that harmonizes with all of scripture, then I would definitely be open to changing my view.

As far as Deuteronomy 24 is concerned, it does not appear to be a new Law that stands alone as written, but is a regulation added to Deuteronomy 22:13-21, which explains why it is written in a way that assumes the Law is already known:

Deuteronomy 24:1 "When a man takes (lâqach) a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house"

Deuteronomy 22:13-19 "If any man takes (lâqach) a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, 'I took (lâqach) this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,' then the girl's father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl's virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. "The girl's father shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, "I did not find your daughter a virgin." But this is the evidence of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. "So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl's father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.

These are obviously describing the same scenario, but Deuteronomy 22 established the parameters of the Law and how it should be regulated, but offered death as the penalty originally. You'll notice however that if she was innocent it says that "she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days" so clearly this was regarded as a form of divorce, and also shows that there is no other cause by which he could divorce her other than betrothal fornication. Deuteronomy 24 then starts out describing a man who finds himself in the Deuteronomy 22:13-21 scenario and goes on to say he gave her a certificate of divorce rather than stoning her to death, but adds that if he does so he cannot take her back later. This of course was what Joseph planned to do with Mary:

Matthew 1:18-19, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.

So Joseph is described as a righteous man for putting his wife away for betrothal fornication. That means that betrothal fornication is what the Law allowed divorce for, and Deuteronomy 24:1 is the only verse in the Law giving a provision for putting a wife away, so this is what it must be describing. Also Jesus reiterated that the Law of Moses permitted divorce for the cause of fornication only:

Matthew 5:31-32 "It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE'; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:3-9 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." They *said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" He *said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another woman commits adultery."

It seems to me that scripture harmonizes together perfectly when it is understood that Old Covenant men were permitted to put their wives away for the cause of premarital fornication, and nothing else. If these experts have another view that harmonizes all of scripture together to another conclusion, I would honestly have to give consideration to which is correct, but as I have seen so far, most of them isolate individual passages and give one "interpretation" and then isolate another verse and give a totally contradictory one to it, and never attempt to explain how it all supposedly fits together, and common sense tells me they cannot. Therfore I hold scripture as authoratative, and any opinion that cannot harmonize with all of it, must be disregarded no matter what the supposed credentials of the one holding the opinion.

SealedEternal

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

Let's keep this on the topic of the grammatical question of "when"; the other stuff belongs in the divorce and remarriage thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SealedEternal

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

Let's keep this on the topic of the grammatical question of "when"; the other stuff belongs in the divorce and remarriage thread.

That's fine, but if someones grammatical interpretation of a verse contradicts with his or her grammatical interpretation of another verse, then either the Bible is in error or they are.

SealedEternal

quote:

ORIGINAL: gmc4Jesus

When I married my wife, and when I perform a wedding ceremony for anyone else, the words include: "forsaking all others, will you keep yourself to her and to her only for a long as you both shall live?"

I don't see what business any man has "dating" or giving personal attention to any other woman (including looking at girls in swimsuits or less in magazines, on the Internet, in movies, etc.) for as long as he is married.

I'm sure there is positive reason for this thread, but I find the OP alarming. What Christian would dare try to justify seeing another woman when he has a wife?

May God guide all of us to make a stronger stand for the institution of marriage and for keeping our marriages pure before God.

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: SealedEternal

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

Let's keep this on the topic of the grammatical question of "when"; the other stuff belongs in the divorce and remarriage thread.

That's fine, but if someones grammatical interpretation of a verse contradicts with his or her grammatical interpretation of another verse, then either the Bible is in error or they are.

SealedEternal

Or it could be that your interpretation is in error.

quote:

Second, there were only 39 translators who worked on the original NASB, of those who have published an opinion on Duet. 24:1-4 all that I have found disagree with your interpretation, here are a few who have published opinions.

Archer was a lead translator for both the NASB and the NIV, and he was part of the committee for the the expositors bible commentary. The NIV translation leaves no room for any other interpretation, and the Expositors bible commentary concludes that the indecency was discovered sometime after the marriage.

Harrison was a translator of the NASB, and the author of the commentary on Deut. in the New Revised commentary. He concludes that divorce was permitted after the marriage.

Lane was a translator of the NASB and his conclusions about Deut. 24:1-4 stand in contradiction to yours; his opinion is published the commentary The Gospel According to Mark, Lane is the author.

quote:

Can you find even one of the translators who has published an opinion in support of your conclusion i.e. that the "when" of Duet. 24:1 can only be referring to the wedding night?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SealedEternal

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

ORIGINAL: SealedEternal

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

Let's keep this on the topic of the grammatical question of "when"; the other stuff belongs in the divorce and remarriage thread.

That's fine, but if someones grammatical interpretation of a verse contradicts with his or her grammatical interpretation of another verse, then either the Bible is in error or they are.

SealedEternal

Or it could be that your interpretation is in error.

No, If mine is consistent with all of scripture and theirs contradicts it, then either mine is right or their is a third option, but theirs can't possibly be correct.

quote:

Second, there were only 39 translators who worked on the original NASB, of those who have published an opinion on Duet. 24:1-4 all that I have found disagree with your interpretation, here are a few who have published opinions.

Archer was a lead translator for both the NASB and the NIV, and he was part of the committee for the the expositors bible commentary. The NIV translation leaves no room for any other interpretation, and the Expositors bible commentary concludes that the indecency was discovered sometime after the marriage.

Harrison was a translator of the NASB, and the author of the commentary on Deut. in the New Revised commentary. He concludes that divorce was permitted after the marriage.

Lane was a translator of the NASB and his conclusions about Deut. 24:1-4 stand in contradiction to yours; his opinion is published the commentary The Gospel According to Mark, Lane is the author.

I said I would consider their opinions if they had some evidence to back them up, but you have not presented any, but simply listing names and claiming they disagree with me doesn't tell me anything. What did the other 50 translators of that version think, and why did they settle on "when a man takes a wife and marries her" if they all really thought it should have said "when a man is married to a wife"?

quote:

Can you find even one of the translators who has published an opinion in support of your conclusion i.e. that the "when" of Duet. 24:1 can only be referring to the wedding night?

The NASB, Amplified Version, King James, New King James, 21st Century King James, Literal translation of the Bible, English Standard, Young's, Darby's, and many others believe that the best translation of that verse is "when a man takes a wife and marries her" which is a reference to a specific point in time. How the hundreds of individuals involved in them specifically applied those words, I don't know because I've never read any of their commentaries on the verse if there are any, but seemingly the vast majority believe that this is the proper translation, because this is how it is normally worded.

SealedEternal

quote:

ORIGINAL: SealedEternal
The NASB, Amplified Version, King James, New King James, 21st Century King James, Literal translation of the Bible, English Standard, Young's, Darby's, and many others believe that the best translation of that verse is "when a man takes a wife and marries her" which is a reference to a specific point in time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LBolt

Concerning the OP, it sounds like it means what it says.

Do you realize that if you are engaged, you should not be dating someone else?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BibleL7

For just to say 'When a man is married...' could point to only the moment of marriage