Major Mistakes in the Bible - Matthew 19:9 - Latest Research

robert424 · Jul 4, 2021

Minister Monardo said:
Why will on line availability without a doubt uncover mistakes that would not have
come to light before the internet?
Could you mention other examples that may confirm or contradict our core beliefs.
It would seem to be an exaggeration to suggest such faith shaking discoveries.
"He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

Erasmus only had a very small number of manuscripts on hand to create his edition of the Greek New Testament - some say 5, others say, perhaps 7. I'm suggesting that with so many manuscripts now available at the click of a mouse, and more people doing research in this field, we should be able to find mistakes a lot faster. Of the two organizations currently trying to digitize all the manuscripts, they just getting started. They only have completed indexing about 20% of the images, and a far smaller percent has been transcribed. This is going to take years, but just think how easy it will be when we have them all in a computer readible format. I suggest that as the work progresses, we will see more and more mistakes in our Bibles, and, probably, a few big ones.

robert424 · Jul 4, 2021

hedrick said:
First, what would it mean without that word? The phrase would still say not. Second, what about 5:32? Third. Jesus is not a legalist. If a marriage has become harmful it should not continue. Marriage is made for man, not man for marriage.

the question was asked in the context of a debate within Judaism where one side claimed you could divorce your wife with no cause at all. Jesus was asked where he stood, and he rejected that view. There is no reason to think he would want someone to stay in a harmful marriage.

Regarding "What would it mean without that word?"
The Greek word 'EI', by itself, means 'if', and 'if' makes the clause 'conditional'. Now that the evidence shows that 'ei' is a mistake, we are left with 'not for fornication'.
With the translation 'except' now on shaky ground, now some of the old alternative interpretations that were rejected because they were trumped by the word 'except' now come back into play. One big one is 'the inclusive interpretation', which translates Matthew 19:9, 'not even in the case of unchastity'.
Dr. Leslie McFall suggests 'not [even] for fornication', explaining that it is legitimate to insert the word 'even' because there is no such word in Greek, so it is a 'possible interpretation'. For example, Russian does not have articles [a, the], so when someone translates from Russian to English, it is legitimate to add the articles to the English translation.
If such an interpretation were found to have legs, that would turn the whole doctrine on its head.
Also, there are other major problems with the doctrine of Divorce, such as the change in the dictionary definition of 'divorce' during the Protestant Reformation. Before the Protestants, 'divorce' meant 'separation' only.
Regarding Matthew 5:32, that word 'Parektos', is a very strange beast indeed. I suspect, with some research on that word, we might find we cannot be as confident as we are that it should be translated as 'except'. I don't know at the moment. It will require more research.
I have four more articles in the works.

Regarding 'Jesus is not a legalist'.
I suggest that such a statement is hard to pin down. 'Legalist' can mean many things. Jesus also said he didn't come to change the law but to fulfill it. So, perhaps he could be regarded as a 'legalist', but, of course, it depends on what you means by 'legalist'.

Regarding a 'harmful marriage'.
The Bible says for slaves to stay with their masters in the hope of converting them. Could that be comparable, seeing that remaining a slave could be very very harmful. Historically, simply being a Christian was very bad for one's health.
sincerely robert424

robert424 · Jul 4, 2021

Minister Monardo said:
I wonder if the issue would be more or less controversial with a better understanding
of the terminology used. There is much more involved with the idea of "putting away" a wife
than a common divorce, and has nothing to do with the bill of divorcement described in Deut. 24.
Dealing Treacherously With Your Covenant

I totally agree with you there. This issue is all about 'definitions' of words. And, by the way, many of these words have changed definitions in the past in a massive way. That is another ongoing area of research for me.

robert424 · Jul 4, 2021

BobRyan said:
1. Which textus recptus MSS? Textus Receptus Bibles
2. Erasmus compiled what resulted in "Textus Recptus" from other manuscripts. And then that was revised a few times -- over time.

True. Erasmus added the Greek Work 'EI' before the 'exception clause' in all four editions of his Greek New Testament. It was never corrected. Many subsequent editions by various editors, were made using the edition of Erasmus as a starting point, and for the next several hundred years, almost all of them retained the 'EI'. The King James Bible heavily relied on the Greek New Testament editions of Erasmus, and the word 'except' was based on 'EI MA' of Erasmus, taking the 'EI MA' together and considering it an idiom. Since the 'EI' is a mistake, then there is no idiom, and the word 'except' must be considered a mistake.
The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts website has a copy of the first edition of Erasmus' Greek New Testament. It is listed under 'digital collection' - 'printed books' - and Matthew 19:9 is on page 45 of that book. You can clearly see the 'EI' in the text.

robert424 · Jul 4, 2021

Ahermit said:
Truth, Faith, and Love is the core conviction (not belief). Nothing can contradict the Truth within us.

The Word (Truth) goes deeper than anybody could imagine or have knowledge of, for both of these are conditional. Truth is an unconditional 'knowing', a conviction of the obvious. The bible is a portal of infinite depth of Truth; only the humble-self can journey it. It is the way and the truth and the life.

The only mistake is what the conditional self grasps onto out of fear of what may lay beyond it. Only the conditional, fear the Truth, for their conditional self would be exposed and become dismantled, leaving them nothing to grasp on to. It's the lifelong fear of invalidity ["I am losing my mind"]. Forget about the mind, it's the heart that God discerns.

The heart moves blood through the body. The Spirit of Truth, when we Love being Faithful to the Truth, moves Living Water through the body _ expressing God's will, the living Light in this dark world we walk through.

Thankyou for your post. Your words are poetry. XD

robert424 · Jul 4, 2021

public hermit said:
My intuition is that the copyist is simply filling in what is already assumed. As @hedrick pointed out, "me" alone is sufficient for context. Nonetheless, "ei me" is a better reading. It's like reading a friend's text, if you read "typo" you still know what they mean.

You could very well be correct. Some people recognize that the phrase should be 'not for fornication', yet they translate the word 'not' as 'except'. Does 'not' mean 'except'? In my mind, 'maybe it does' and 'maybe it doesn't' - the word 'not' all by itself just does not tell us whether something else is permissible. We just don't know if the word 'not' is 'inclusive' or 'exclusive'. And it doesn't help that we are dealing with a translation of a translation. I think the whole point here, is that we can't be so sure of ourselves when it comes to Bible translation or interpretation.
For five hundred years, they have been telling us that 'if not' was an idiom, and it should be translated as 'except. Now some are telling us that 'not' by itself should be translated as 'except'.
There are only three examples of the idiom 'if not' in the Bible, and two of them are translated as 'except. So, I went through a second century book, 'Philostratus Apollonius of Tyana' edited and translated by Christopher P. Jones, Harvard U. Press, London, 2005. It has Greek on the left pages and the English translation on the right. I found 63 examples of the two word pair 'ei me' and only one was translated as 'except', so that means, in the wild, the idiom 'ei me' is only translated as 'except' about 2% of the time. So, it has always been a very weak argument to say 'ei me' should be translated as 'except.
Then I went through the same book looking for examples of the word 'me' all by itself, and I found 305 examples, and only 3 were translated as 'except'. That is 1% of the time. Doesn't that imply that translating 'not' as 'except', puts one on very shakey ground? Yes, I know that these facts are not proof, but some facts are better than no facts.
robert424

robert424 · Jul 4, 2021

HARK! said:
It would seem that you are familiar with Textual Criticism.

If so, then you should understand that just because there are more copies of one rendering; does not mean that the Majority Text is the correct rendering.

If you already understand this; I'll explain it for those who don't.

We don't have the Autograph Manuscripts (original manuscripts) of any of the books of the Bible. What we have are copies of copies; but let's pretend that we did have an Autograph Manuscript; and someone copied it. However, when he hand copied it; he made a mistake. He then went down to the copy shop, and had them run off 1000 more copies of his flawed copy. Now we have 1001 flawed copies of the Autograph Manuscript.

Should we then dismiss the Autograph Manuscript, by the Author himself, as being in error?

This is just one of many factors that scholars of Textual Criticism weigh, in discerning which of the thousands and thousands of variants that we find in the many manuscripts available to us today, to most accurately restore the Autograph Manuscripts.

The debates over these many factors probably won't be fully settled until Messiah comes back to set us all straight.

I agree with everything you wrote. Yes, counting words and calculating percentages does not offer a definitive proof. But some facts are better than no facts, and even a few facts can guide us in our analysis.
Take the facts regarding 'ei' in Matthew 19:9.
Fact 1: There are zero examples of the presence of that word in any Uncial Greek New Testament Manuscripts.
Fact 2: The first example appeared in the 12th century Majuscule MSS.
Fact 3: In the wild, the idiom 'ei me' is only translated as 'except' 1% of the time.
In your example above, a person makes one copy with a mistake and makes thousands of copies of the error. Well, in the case of 'ei' there are no examples before the 12th century, so that means, until someone comes up with one example, we must conclude that 'ei' is a mistake.
Now, in the other posts, it is suggested that we don't need 'ei'; that 'me' can be translated as 'except' all by itself. Ok, where is the proof of this. Where are the facts? The UBS5 and NA28 give us lists about what the various manuscripts say. Where are the examples of 'me' being translated as 'except'? How can I know that this is the best translation? In other works, such as Jones (2005)[cited in another post above] it is only translated that way 1% of the time? Such a low percentage does not inspire confidence that that is the right and true translation.
And what about the other competing views: that 'me' can be 'inclusive' as well as 'exclusive'? What if 'not [even] for fornication' is a legitimate interpretation? - seeing that 'even' is not in the Greek language, therefore it is 'possible'.
How about the facts concerning the last phrase of Matthew 19:9:
Fact A: that phrase is present in 93% of all manuscripts
Fact B: that phrase is present in 89% of the uncials
Fact C: that phrase is in the Complutensin Polyglot and the Textus Receptus
Fact D: that phrase is absent in the NA28, and has never been included even from the first edition.
Fact E: that phrase is present in 2/3 of 4th century uncials
Fact F: that phrase is present in 2/3 of 5th century uncials
Fact G: that phrase is present in 95% of post-5th century uncials
With these facts, it is a weaker case to argue than the case with 'ei', because of the two examples: one 4th century and one 5th century MSS that did not contain that phrase.
At least, facts help to expose the problem, and it appears from the facts, that the NA28 has some explaining to do as to why they left out the last phrase and it appears like we need more facts to help us puzzle out these ongoing problems.

HARK! · Jul 4, 2021

robert424 said:
I agree with everything you wrote. Yes, counting words and calculating percentages does not offer a definitive proof. But some facts are better than no facts, and even a few facts can guide us in our analysis.
Take the facts regarding 'ei' in Matthew 19:9.
Fact 1: There are zero examples of the presence of that word in any Greek New Testament Manuscript.
Fact 2: The first example appeared in the 12th century.
Fact 3: In the wild, the idiom 'ei me' is only translated as 'except' 1% of the time.
In your example above, a person makes one copy with a mistake and makes thousands of copies of the error. Well, in the case of 'ei' there are no examples before the 12th century, so that means, until someone comes up with one example, we must conclude that 'ei' is a mistake.
Now, in the other posts, it is suggested that we don't need 'ei'; that 'me' can be translated as 'except' all by itself. Ok, where is the proof of this. Where are the facts? The OBS and NA28 give us lists about what the various manuscripts say. Where are the examples of 'me' being translated as 'except'? How can I know that this is the best translation? In other works, such as Jones (2005)[cited in another post above] it is only translated that way 1% of the time? Such a low percentage does not inspire confidence that that is the right and true translation.
And what about the other competing views: that 'me' can be 'inclusive' as well as 'exclusive'? What if 'not [even] for fornication' is a legitimate interpretation? - seeing that 'even' is not in the Greek language, therefore it is 'possible'.
How about the facts concerning the last phrase of Matthew 19:9:
Fact A: that phrase is present in 93% of all manuscripts
Fact B: that phrase is present in 89% of the uncials
Fact C: that phrase is in the Complutensin Polyglot and the Textus Receptus
Fact D: that phrase is absent in the NA28, and has never been included even from the first edition.
Fact E: that phrase is present in 2/3 of 4th century uncials
Fact F: that phrase is present in 2/3 of 5th century uncials
Fact G: that phrase is present in 95% of post-5th century uncials
With these facts, it is a weaker case to argue than the case with 'ei', because of the two examples: one 4th century and one 5th century MSS that did not contain that phrase.
At least, facts help to expose the problem, and it appears from the facts, that the NA28 has some explaining to do as to why they left out the last phrase and it appears like we need more facts to help us puzzle out these ongoing problems.

You presented some arguments that shouldn't be ignored.

Before I invest the time to go digging deep into examining your research, and doing some of my own, if necessary; I'll ask this question:

Based on your research, how would you render the verse in question, in English, to the best of your knowledge?

robert424 · Jul 4, 2021

HARK! said:
English translations from the Textus Receptus

Tyndale New Testament 1526–1530

Coverdale Bible 1535

Matthew Bible 1537

Great Bible 1539

Geneva Bible 1560-1644

Bishops' Bible 1568

Douay-Rheims Bible 1582, 1610, 1752. Base translation from the Vulgate but contains major borrowings from the Tyndale, Geneva and King James versions.[30][31][32]

King James Version 1611, 1613, 1629, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, 1850

English Dort Version 1657, English translation of the Statenvertaling by Theodore Haak

Quaker Bible 1764

Webster's Revision 1833

Young's Literal Translation (YLT) 1862, 1887, 1898

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (EBR) 1872 edition.

Julia E. Smith Parker Translation 1876

New King James Version (NKJV) 1982 (New Testament 1979). With an anglicized version originally known as the "Revised Authorized Version".

Green's Literal Translation 1985. Included in The Interlinear Translation 1986.

Third Millennium Bible 1998

Modern English Version 2014[33]

Textus Receptus - Wikipedia

Yes, I admit, that it is unusual to say that the Textus Receptus is a "Protestant Greek New Testament". It is somewhat arbitrary, but Erasmus is claimed by many as one of the Fathers of Protestantism, even though he was a Catholic all his life. At that time, there was really no such thing as 'Protestant' and 'Catholic'; those concepts were is the beginning stages of being formed. Perhaps I should of said that the Textus Receptus was "Protestant" for the purposes of discussion.
I am trying to draw a line to illustrate the fact that Erasmus put the 'ei' into Matthew 19:9 in his Greek New Testament, and the Protestant Doctrine of Divorce has used that word as its 'keystone' and has magnified that word all out of natural proportion. For five hundred years, it was the source of the word 'except' in all our Protestant Bibles. Many of the alternate interpretations of Matthew 19:9 - such as the 'inclusive view' were dismissed because it was trumped by the word 'except'.
Well, now, the latest research shows that the 'ei' is a mistake, so that means that the Protestant Doctrine is now in trouble. And, yes, we are only in the beginning rounds on this one - this is only the first nail in the coffin. XD
So, I am calling it 'Protestant' because of the importance 'Protestants' put on the word 'except' to prop up the Doctrine of Divorce, and because Erasmus added it, and because Erasmus is considered to one of the 'Fathers of Protestantism' by many Protestants. So, it is only for the purposes of discussion.
robert424

robert424 · Jul 4, 2021

HARK! said:
You presented some arguments that shouldn't be ignored.

Before I invest the time to go digging deep into examining your research, and doing some of my own, if necessary; I'll ask this question:

Based on your research, how would you render the verse in question, in English, to the best of your knowledge?

My favourate so far, is that proposed by the late Dr. Leslie McFall, "not [even] for fornication", [the 'inclusive view'] but to tell you the truth, I have not investigated his claim that the word 'even is not present in Greek, so, therefore, it is a legitimate, possibile, interpretation'.
My research was started because of the incredible claim by the late Dr. McFall that 'ei' was not in the Greek Manuscripts, and that Erasmus added it. He didn't have access to all the manuscripts, so his evidence was rather thin, so I wanted to know if his claim was true or not. I found two organizations that were working to preserve and digitize the manuscripts - they are still in the beginning stages of that process. It took me 18 months to do my research, because these organizations just have, for example, one file for each MSS number, containing 800 unindexed images, and how are you supposed to find out which image has Matthew 19:9?
My research found 19 [update: 20] manuscripts that had the 'ei', whereas it seemed like Dr. McFall implied there were none - he really didn't specify which group of MSS he was talking about - but if he was talking about the Uncials, he was 100% right.
I have 4 more articles in the works. I've discovered that all the earliest English Dictionaries define 'divorce' as 'separation' only. That is amazing. Now I'm tracing through all those old dictionaries and trying to trace where the big change to the 'new' 'modern' definition occurred, and I think I've found it - under the control of one of the other 'Fathers of Protestantism'.
Our Protestant Doctrine of Divorce, I am discovering, has a lot of dirt under the carpet and it is going to take a lot of research to sift through it all.

HARK! · Jul 5, 2021

robert424 said:
My favourate so far, is that proposed by the late Dr. Leslie McFall, "not [even] for fornication", [the 'inclusive view'] but to tell you the truth, I have not investigated his claim that the word 'even is not present in Greek, so, therefore, it is a legitimate, possibile, interpretation'.
My research was started because of the incredible claim by the late Dr. McFall that 'ei' was not in the Greek Manuscripts, and that Erasmus added it. He didn't have access to all the manuscripts, so his evidence was rather thin, so I wanted to know if his claim was true or not. I found two organizations that were working to preserve and digitize the manuscripts - they are still in the beginning stages of that process. It took me 18 months to do my research, because these organizations just have, for example, one file for each MSS number, containing 800 unindexed images, and how are you supposed to find out which image has Matthew 19:9?
My research found 19 [update: 20] manuscripts that had the 'ei', whereas it seemed like Dr. McFall implied there were none - he really didn't specify which group of MSS he was talking about - but if he was talking about the Uncials, he was 100% right.
I have 4 more articles in the works. I've discovered that all the earliest English Dictionaries define 'divorce' as 'separation' only. That is amazing. Now I'm tracing through all those old dictionaries and trying to trace where the big change to the 'new' 'modern' definition occurred, and I think I've found it - under the control of one of the other 'Fathers of Protestantism'.
Our Protestant Doctrine of Divorce, I am discovering, has a lot of dirt under the carpet and it is going to take a lot of research to sift through it all.

I have a minute understanding of Ancient Greek. If this was written in Hebrew; it would be a lot easier to get started on taking a good look at this. I have many other subjects that I'm working on; and studying out this one requires getting past a steep learning curve.

This is why I asked for an English rendering, to the best of your ability. I would like to understand, based on your understanding of this verse, whether or not it is worth the investment of my time to go digging deep into this subject.

Bible Highlighter · Jul 5, 2021

robert424 said:
Major Mistakes in the Bible - Matthew 19:9 - Latest Research

12 June, 2021

by Robert Crawford

Now that Images of Greek New Testament Manuscripts are beginning to be available online, research into these ultimate source materials will - without a doubt - uncover mistakes in our Bibles. As Christians, we need to be prepared for what we find, whether it confirms our core beliefs or contradicts them.

Over the past three years, I have been conducting this type of research on Matthew 19:9, which is a keystone text used to support the Protestant Doctrine allowing Divorce and Remarriage after a Divorce. This verse has always been controversial - from the very beginnings of Protestantism.

My results show that there continues to be two major errors in Matthew 19:9 - the Protestant Greek New Testament (commonly referred to as the Textus Receptus) contains one error, and the Catholic Greek New Testament (The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament) contains a different error. These errors need to be corrected, especially since they represent the words of Jesus.

I have written a Theological Article presenting my study and results, but there was no room for it in the few Academic Theological Journals that deal with this branch of study, so I published it myself and placed it in the Public Domain. If you are interested in the details, you can read/download it for free from Archive.org. You can search for it by title or ISBN.

Title: A Word-Frequency Study of Matthew 19:9 using all Available Greek New Testament Manuscripts

ISBN: 978-1-5136-8273-0

Synopsis:
The Greek New Testament of Erasmus (1516) ‒ the Textus Receptus ‒ copies the second and last phrases, respectively, of Matthew 19:9, thus: "ει μη επι πορνεια . . . και ο απολελυμενην γαμησασ μοιχαται". The following variances exist: First, neither the Complutensian Polyglot Bible (1514), nor the Nestle‒Aland Greek New Testament (2016) (NA28) contain the Greek word ει. Second, the NA28 does not contain the last phrase, while the other two include it. This research is based on 1623 Greek New Testament Manuscripts, which represents about 90% of all manuscripts known to contain Matthew 19:9. The major results were: 1. the Greek word ει was present in only 19 (1.2%) manuscripts, and 2. the last phrase was present in 1510 (93%) manuscripts. The conclusion is that, based on word-frequency percentages, the inclusion of the Greek word ει in modern versions of the Greek New Testament, should be considered to be an error, and, likewise, the exclusion of the last phrase should also be considered an error. The natural consequence of ‘the Greek word ει is an error’ is that the translation of the two-word idiom, ει μη (in Matthew 19:9) as "except" is illegitimate and therefore, Matthew 19:9 does not contain an explicitly stated exception.

Keywords: Christian; Bible; textual criticism; Matthew 19:9; Strong's 1508; ει μη

I welcome discussion/debate about the results of this study. Robert Crawford

First, there are no errors in God's Word (i.e. the KJB), unless somebody wants to correct God.

“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”
(Psalms 12:6-7).

There is a symbiotic relationship between the Lord and His Word.

Check out this thread here:

The Living Word & the Communicated Word.

So when we attack God's Word, we are attacking the Lord (without even realizing it).

However...

“There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.” (Proverbs 21:30).

Second, Matthew 19:9 is an allowance for divorce and remarriage ONLY if one's wife was unfaithful.

It's not a mistake. The moment we start correcting God's Word, the moment we put ourselves in the seat of God. We should let God's Word correct us and not the other way around.

Clare73 · Jul 5, 2021

robert424 said:
Regarding "What would it mean without that word?"
The Greek word 'EI', by itself, means 'if', and 'if' makes the clause 'conditional'. Now that the evidence shows that 'ei' is a mistake, we are left with 'not for fornication'.
With the translation 'except' now on shaky ground, now some of the old alternative interpretations that were rejected because they were trumped by the word 'except' now come back into play. One big one is 'the inclusive interpretation', which translates Matthew 19:9, 'not even in the case of unchastity'.
Dr. Leslie McFall suggests 'not [even] for fornication', explaining that it is legitimate to insert the word 'even' because there is no such word in Greek, so it is a 'possible interpretation'. For example, Russian does not have articles [a, the], so when someone translates from Russian to English, it is legitimate to add the articles to the English translation.
If such an interpretation were found to have legs, that would turn the whole doctrine on its head.
Also, there are other major problems with the doctrine of Divorce, such as the change in the dictionary definition of 'divorce' during the Protestant Reformation. Before the Protestants, 'divorce' meant 'separation' only.
Regarding Matthew 5:32, that word 'Parektos', is a very strange beast indeed. I suspect, with some research on that word, we might find we cannot be as confident as we are that it should be translated as 'except'. I don't know at the moment. It will require more research.
I have four more articles in the works.

Regarding 'Jesus is not a legalist'.
I suggest that such a statement is hard to pin down. 'Legalist' can mean many things. Jesus also said he didn't come to change the law but to fulfill it. So, perhaps he could be regarded as a 'legalist', but, of course, it depends on what you means by 'legalist'.

Regarding a 'harmful marriage'.
The Bible says for slaves to stay with their masters in the hope of converting them. Could that be comparable, seeing that remaining a slave could be very very harmful. Historically, simply being a Christian was very bad for one's health.
sincerely robert424

No Greek scholar here. . .but the problem for me has always been
moichia (adultery) vs. inappropriate contenteia (fornication), where
they are distinuished in Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21, and 1 Corinthians 6:9, but
inappropriate contenteia is translated "adultery" instead of "fornication" in Matthew 19:9.

In the light of Leviticus 18:6-18; Deuteronomy 23:2, Deuteronomy 27:10-23; and
in 1 Corinthians 5:1--where incestuous marriage is inappropriate contenteia and divorce is required (5:13),
I have always interpreted Matthew 19:9 (inappropriate contenteia) as "incestuous marriage" which requires divorce,
(as divorce was required in Ezra 10:1-3, 11--see 2 Corinthians 6:14), and
which reconciles Mark 10:5-9; 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 39; Romans 7:3 with Matthew 19:9.

So the news of this "mistake" in Matthew 19:9 is not unwelcome to me.

Saint Steven · Jul 5, 2021

@robert424 My understanding of this verse is that it has to do the charge of a bride being provided that is not a virgin. In their culture the father owned the women in his family. (his property) Therefore a daughter given in marriage was like a product being sold with the guarantee of virginity. If the buyer (new husband) found that she was not a virgin, he could divorce her on the charge of fornication. Which happened prior to the marriage. This is not about what happens after the marriage except if the charge of fornication (a lack of virginity) is false. Then marrying another woman would be adultery for him. (the husband)

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.

Compare:

Deuteronomy 22:13-18 NIV
If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him.

robert424 · Jul 6, 2021

HARK! said:
I have a minute understanding of Ancient Greek. If this was written in Hebrew; it would be a lot easier to get started on taking a good look at this. I have many other subjects that I'm working on; and studying out this one requires getting past a steep learning curve.

This is why I asked for an English rendering, to the best of your ability. I would like to understand, based on your understanding of this verse, whether or not it is worth the investment of my time to go digging deep into this subject.

My knowledge of Greek is also rather limited. I am, primarily, doing the grunt-work of collecting and collating and transcribing the single verse (Matthew 19:9) from all the Greek New Testament Manuscripts - the work what the late Doctor McFall was not able to do. I am just completing and fleshing out the proof of his claims.

My knowledge of Greek is not good enough to get into detailed grammar and usage. I think we will need someone with extensive experience to do an adequate job of that. At this point, I can only gather the data and facts and do stuff like word-frequency studies and try to spread the word, hoping some experts will carry the torch in the next leg.

robert424 · Jul 6, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
First, there are no errors in God's Word (i.e. the KJB), unless somebody wants to correct God.

In my view, I am not 'correcting God's Word'; I am correcting Erasmus' version of God's Word - trying to figure out what God really said.

Humans copied out the Bible, and Humans make errors, and in this case, a rather large error. The 'ei' in Matthew 19:9, suddenly appeared, out of nowhere, for the first time, in manuscript number 989, in the 12th century. Before that time, not a single manuscript contained that errorant word 'EI'. If the 'ei' is not an 'error', then why is it not in any of the earlier manuscripts?

If one manuscript has that word, and another does not have that word; they can't both be right. One must be an error? no? Are my misunderstanding your comment?

Bible Highlighter · Jul 6, 2021

robert424 said:
In my view, I am not 'correcting God's Word'; I am correcting Erasmus' version of God's Word - trying to figure out what God really said.

Humans copied out the Bible, and Humans make errors, and in this case, a rather large error. The 'ei' in Matthew 19:9, suddenly appeared, out of nowhere, for the first time, in manuscript number 989, in the 12th century. Before that time, not a single manuscript contained that errorant word 'EI'. If the 'ei' is not an 'error', then why is it not in any of the earlier manuscripts?

If one manuscript has that word, and another does not have that word; they can't both be right. One must be an error? no? Are my misunderstanding your comment?

They used multiple manuscripts (i.e. the Textus Receptus) in the translation of God's Word into English (i.e. the KJB). Just because they may not appear in the manuscripts we have today does not mean they did not have it back then. My recommendation is to check out this thread here:

30 Reasons Why the KJB is the Divine and Pure Word of God for Today.

Also, there are KJB Proponents who believe Matthew 19:9 who do not believe we have an allowance to marry again. Granted, I lean towards the view now that a believer can divorce and remarry only if the other partner is unfaithful. For this is what Jesus says plainly.

robert424 · Jul 6, 2021

Saint Steven said:
@robert424 My understanding of this verse is that it has to do the charge of a bride being provided that is not a virgin. In their culture the father owned the women in his family. (his property) Therefore a daughter given in marriage was like a product being sold with the guarantee of virginity. If the buyer (new husband) found that she was not a virgin, he could divorce her on the charge of fornication. Which happened prior to the marriage. This is not about what happens after the marriage except if the charge of fornication (a lack of virginity) is false. Then marrying another woman would be adultery for him. (the husband)

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.

Compare:

Deuteronomy 22:13-18 NIV
If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him.

Yes. I believe your analysis resolves so many of the present-day problems with the issue of Divorce.

And with your permission, I'd like to add a few of my observations to your analysis - I don't mean to hijack your excellent analysis:

And Deut. goes on to say, that after the husband is found guilty of his crime against his wife by slandering her - when she was, indeed, a virgin - he is punished (v.19), yet, his crime against her does not dissolve his marriage to her, because verse 20 says, "and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days."

In my understanding, these verses also dovetail nicely with the teaching that Jesus is - figuratively speaking - the husband of all of us. But consider that even if we sin only once, we have - figuratively speaking - been fornicating with Satan, so Jesus is married to all us fornicators and we all deserve to die for it, yet, our 'marriage' with Jesus is not dissolved by our sins, and, in fact, Jesus, pays the punishment we deserve, so he can continue on with his 'marriage' to us fornicators. This flys in the face of those who claim that sin 'terminates a marriage'.

Also, 1Cor 7:13. "And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him."
In my understanding, those who say that a marriage can be terminated by the sin of one of the spouses, have not fully considered the implications of this verse. That 'unbelieving husband' - especially in Corinth - would have been a heathen - not an non-religious man. Almost all the residents of that city were worshipers of Aphrodite, and the history books tell us that the worship of Aphrodite involves large amounts of fornication. That 'unbelieving' husband mentioned in 1Cor 7:13, was, undoubtedly, going to the temple and fornicating with every woman in town, yet, the wife is told not to even leave him! Amazing! That kinds of contradicts the idea that fornication on the part of one of the spouses 'dissolves the marriage'.

In my current understanding, nothing dissolves a marriage - ever - not even death - in the same way that nothing can dissolve the 'parent-child' relationship. Now, if we can only stamp out all the polygamy.

But, my ruminations aside, I think your analysis would solve so many of our current problems over the Doctrine of Divorce and Remarriage after a divorce. Our Current Doctrine has so many problems and inconsistencies, and this issue over the added 'ei', is but a minor issue in the bigger scheme of things. Divorce has a lot more problems than the added 'ei'.

robert424 · Jul 6, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
The used multiple manuscripts (i.e. the Textus Receptus) in the translation of God's Word into English (i.e. the KJB). Just because they may not appear in the manuscripts we have today does not mean they did not have it back then. My recommendation is to check out this thread here:

30 Reasons Why the KJB is the Divine and Pure Word of God for Today.

Also, there are KJB Proponents who believe Matthew 19:9 (Such as myself) who do not believe we have an allowance to marry again. The text can be read in such a way that it does not suggest that we can remarry. It only says we can divorce if the other partner is unfaithful. Remarriage is out of the question unless the other partner dies (See: Romans 7:1-3).

Regarding: "Just because they may not appear in the manuscripts we have today does not mean they did not have it back then."

I can only go on what we have today. I went through more than 1700 manuscripts in my research, and the 'ei' is only in 1%. That means 99% don't have that word. What I don't understand is, if your assertion is true, then 99% of todays manuscripts are corrupt. How can a person continue to be a Christian with a corruption rate so high? How can we support claims of 'truth', yet admit a 99% corruption rate of the documents upon which our Bibles are based. And how can the KJB be 'pure' if 99% of the manuscripts upon which they are based are hopelessly corrupt? The KJB can only be as 'pure' as its founding documents. no?

Regarding: "Also, there are KJB Proponents who believe Matthew 19:9 (Such as myself) who do not believe we have an allowance to marry again. The text can be read in such a way that it does not suggest that we can remarry. It only says we can divorce if the other partner is unfaithful. Remarriage is out of the question unless the other partner dies (See: Romans 7:1-3)."

What???? even with the 'ei' in there? Now this is very interesting. Now you've peaked my interest. I've never seen this argument before. Could you post a link so I can read a lot more about this? [That link '30 reasons...' has more than 30 pages - is it in there somewheres?]

Thank you very much for your post.
sincerely
robert424

Bible Highlighter · Jul 6, 2021

robert424 said:
Regarding: "Just because they may not appear in the manuscripts we have today does not mean they did not have it back then."

I can only go on what we have today. I went through more than 1700 manuscripts in my research, and the 'ei' is only in 1%. That means 99% don't have that word. What I don't understand is, if your assertion is true, then 99% of todays manuscripts are corrupt. How can a person continue to be a Christian with a corruption rate so high? How can we support claims of 'truth', yet admit a 99% corruption rate of the documents upon which our Bibles are based. And how can the KJB be 'pure' if 99% of the manuscripts upon which they are based are hopelessly corrupt? The KJB can only be as 'pure' as its founding documents. no?

James says God has chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith (See: James 2:5).
How do we get faith? Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (i.e. the words of Jesus which we get from the Holy Bible) (See: Romans 10:17) (Note: This would also include the words of Christ's followers because Jesus said if they receive you, it's as if they are receiving me).

In other words, the poor believer (on the streets or in a homeless shelter) is not going to have access to a sea of manuscripts and build his faith that way. The poor believer is simple and he will just read the Bible in his own language. He will just read his bible and believe it.

In addition: Psalms 12:6-7 says that God's words are pure words and that they would be preserved for all generations. Modern Translations based on a different set of Greek manuscripts changed this passage to say something else. To me: This is suspicious because it means if there was an attack by the devil on God's Word, this would be the one passage he would distort. Because if I cannot trust one word in my Bible as being correct, then what makes me trust the rest of it? It's either all true, or all false. I cannot pick and choose what parts of the Bible I want to believe in. I either believe it all or don't believe it all.

To put it to you another way, God's Word should change us, and we should not change God's Word.

You said:
What???? even with the 'ei' in there? Now this is very interesting. Now you've peaked my interest. I've never seen this argument before. Could you post a link so I can read a lot more about this? [That link '30 reasons...' has more than 30 pages - is it in there somewheres?]

Thank you very much for your post.
sincerely
robert424

No, divorce and remarriage is not in that thread. My point was more of a defense of the KJB being the perfect Word of God today. So Matthew 19:9 is not written in error. I actually was reading a few articles after my last post to you, and I am now leaning back again to the idea that a person can only divorce and remarry based on the grounds that the other partner was unfaithful. The other exception for remarriage is if the other partner dies (See: Romans 7:1-3). Before, I personally did not like the idea of remarriage. That was my personal preference but I should not let my thoughts dictate what God's Word says. I am not above God's Word anymore than you are.

But I want to thank you for bringing up this topic again. At certain times, I was being more conservative and I did not think you could remarry in Matthew 19:9 for any reason. Other times I just did not know what to make of Matthew 19:9. Now I am confident in what it says. Jesus makes it clear in Matthew 19:9 that we can divorce and remarry only if our spouse is physically unfaithful with another real person. Any other reason for divorce would not be accepted, and it would be regarded as adultery. Do I like the exception clause? Well, it does make me a little uneasy because it is based soley on one verse in the Bible. But I must trust every word of God. I believe the Trinity is only taught directly in only one verse (i.e. 1 John 5:7 KJB). So why can't the same be said for divorce and remarriage involving the exception clause mentioned in Matthew 19:9?

Major Mistakes in the Bible - Matthew 19:9 - Latest Research

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

שמע

Member

Member

שמע

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Blood-bought

You can call me Steve

Member

Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Member

Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Similar threads