Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes.Did you? The lead paragraph. "This article updates and vastly expands the research from my last post titled: Major Mistakes in the Bible - Matthew 19:9 - Latest Research (from July 4, 2021). I am, here, exploring whether, or not, the Greek word ει in the exception clause of Matthew 19:9 changes over time and whether or not, it has any doctrinal ramifications. Conclusions are still tentative at this point."
One scholar's opinion does not prove a mistake.All I know that the ει [if] of Matthew 19:9 has been proven to be a mistake, so it is highly probable that the translation of parektos is also a mistake. We can't set one up against the other to create an unnecessary contradiction. This issue must be addressed, researched and solved.
But wait, there is more: a second example of the weakness of translating parektos as 'except'.
In Matthew 5:32, the 'so-called exception clause' is: 'παρεκτος λογου πορνειας' (except for fornication). So, why do they ignore the word λογου? Why don't they translate it? There is definitely something fishy going here.
Allow me to make some, wild, and probably ignorant, and maybe dead wrong speculation here. Could λογου be translated as 'say', (as we use it in English, to introduce an example), and the phrase be translated as, 'besides, say [for example] for fornication'. If this is a possible and valid interpretation, then it would be consistent with Matthew 19:9, which is no exception at all, but merely a more specific example of 'something that is adultery'.
Thank you for your comments.One scholar's opinion does not prove a mistake.
Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church since Christ founded His church. Here is how they translate.EOB Matt 19:9 I tell you that whoever divorces his wife (except for reason of sexual immorality and marries another commits adultery;' and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.Matt 5:32.31It was also said, “Whoever shall divorce’ his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce,’ 32 but I tell you that whoever divorces his wife (except for the cause of sexual immorality), makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a woman put away in this manner commits adultery.Also see.Acts 26:29(29) And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except [parektos] these bonds.2 Corinthians 11:28(28) Beside [parektos] those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.Link to EOB online.The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
The New Testament (The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible)archive.org
Yes, I agree. And these things sometimes happen too. It is important to keep your family and yourself safe. I don't think my arguments deny these problems. I am merely questioning the idea that these bad issues terminate the legitimacy of the relationship. If my father beats me for some bad thing I did; he is still my father. My wrong deed does not terminate our relationship.There's a lot of other factors too.
like he's doubled down on the affair rather than repent of it.
and I worry about him doing things like being convinced to kill her for life insurance money (his small business is failing), her losing the house in the divorce, the kid's custody situation being a mess for them, or something like this girl convinces him to kidnap the kids and flee the country.
There's just a point where the adultery is dangerous and not something you can just forgive and forget. Not when he doubles down on his sinful choice.
How does the source you quoted translate μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην, μοιχᾶται· καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχᾶται?Thank you for your comments.
True, but you are quoting an English translation of their Greek New Testament. Here is their Greek Version:
λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην, μοιχᾶται· καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχᾶται.
[emphasis added]
Notice that there is no ει in their Greek New Testament Version, therefore the English translation of 'except for fornication', is a mistake - it is not a valid English translation - and even the Greek Orthodox Church, just like everybody else, is translating this greek phrase as 'except - whether the ει is there or not!
As far as the Greek Orthodox Church's translation of παρεκτος (parektos); BlueletterBible.org (G3924) tell us that this word only occurs in the Bible three times, translating it as: 1. savings (1x), except (1x), be without (1x). A little further down on that same page, under the title, 'Outline of biblical usage', it says that one usage, is translating it as "besides". So, as an alternative to translating the Matthew 5:32, 'exception phrase' as 'except for fornication', would a legitimate english translation of 'parektos logou porneias', be 'beside say [for example] for fornication'. Personally, I don't know if such a suggestion would be possible - it is merely my speculation. Maybe an expert could weigh in on the issue, as this is beyond my skill set. I am not a trained Theologian - an expert in Greek. I am merely a word counter and Bible enthusiast.
So, in summary, my main point is that the Greek Orthodox English translation of of Matthew 19:9 from Greek to English is - for sure - mistaken, because the inclusion of ει is a mistake, (and even their GNT version excludes it), and in like manner their translation of the Matthew 5:32 'exception clause' from Greek to English, could also be mistaken, or, at least, it is merely one opinion among other equally valid interpretations. Just because the Greek Orthodox Church is 'Greek', doesn't mean they don't make mistakes. It would sure be nice to hear their analysis of this issue.
----------------
citation:
Greek New Testament of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
(GNT online) The Authirzed 1904 Greek New Testament
www.blueletterbible.org (accessed: 25 Feb. 2025) G3924 - parektos - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)
------------------
One opinion does NOT prove a mistake.Thank you for your comments.
True, but you are quoting an English translation of their Greek New Testament. Here is their Greek Version:
λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην, μοιχᾶται· καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχᾶται.
[emphasis added]
Notice that there is no ει in their Greek New Testament Version, therefore the English translation of 'except for fornication', is a mistake - it is not a valid English translation - and even the Greek Orthodox Church, just like everybody else, is translating this greek phrase as 'except - whether the ει is there or not!
As far as the Greek Orthodox Church's translation of παρεκτος (parektos); BlueletterBible.org (G3924) tell us that this word only occurs in the Bible three times, translating it as: 1. savings (1x), except (1x), be without (1x). A little further down on that same page, under the title, 'Outline of biblical usage', it says that one usage, is translating it as "besides". So, as an alternative to translating the Matthew 5:32, 'exception phrase' as 'except for fornication', would a legitimate english translation of 'parektos logou porneias', be 'beside say [for example] for fornication'. Personally, I don't know if such a suggestion would be possible - it is merely my speculation. Maybe an expert could weigh in on the issue, as this is beyond my skill set. I am not a trained Theologian - an expert in Greek. I am merely a word counter and Bible enthusiast.
So, in summary, my main point is that the Greek Orthodox English translation of of Matthew 19:9 from Greek to English is - for sure - mistaken, because the inclusion of ει is a mistake, (and even their GNT version excludes it), and in like manner their translation of the Matthew 5:32 'exception clause' from Greek to English, could also be mistaken, or, at least, it is merely one opinion among other equally valid interpretations. Just because the Greek Orthodox Church is 'Greek', doesn't mean they don't make mistakes. It would sure be nice to hear their analysis of this issue.
----------------
citation:
Greek New Testament of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
(GNT online) The Authirzed 1904 Greek New Testament
www.blueletterbible.org (accessed: 25 Feb. 2025) G3924 - parektos - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)
------------------
Your relationship to your father is not a covenant. A marriage is.Yes, I agree. And these things sometimes happen too. It is important to keep your family and yourself safe. I don't think my arguments deny these problems. I am merely questioning the idea that these bad issues terminate the legitimacy of the relationship. If my father beats me for some bad thing I did; he is still my father. My wrong deed does not terminate our relationship.
roberet424
I just checked about 10 or so occurrences of ei me and all I saw was "but" and "save" which seem to serve the same purpose as "except." See e.g.
Mark 6:8(8) AndG2532 commandedG3853 themG846 thatG2443 they should takeG142 nothingG3367 forG1519 their journey,G3598 saveG1508 [ei me] a staffG4464 only;G3440 noG3361 scrip,G4082 noG3361 bread,G740 noG3361 moneyG5475 inG1519 their purse:G2223Mark 9:29(29) AndG2532 he saidG2036 unto them,G846 ThisG5124 kindG1085 canG1410 come forthG1831 byG1722 nothing,G3762 butG1508 [ei me] byG1722 prayerG4335 andG2532 fasting.G3521And again Matt 5:32 says the same thing but uses parektos instead of ei me.
Mat 5:32 ’but I tell you that whoever divorces his wife except [παρεκτὸς/parektos] for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a woman put away in this manner commits adultery. Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible.
I just checked about 10 or so occurrences of ei me and all I saw was "but" and "save" which seem to serve the same purpose as "except."
Interesting. Thank you for posting it.Definition of parektos from Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich Greek lexicon
παρεκτός adv. left out of other considerations, apart from, except for (Dositheus 45, 3 παρεκτὸς ἐμοῦ, Lat. TQ 123, ’42, 189–206, ZNW 42, ’49, 202ff; KStaab [παρεκτός 2]; AAllgeier, Angelicum 20, ’43, 128–42. δὲ τούτων) χωρὶς τῶν παρεκτός 2 Cor 11:28 (s. παρεκτός 1).—DELG s.v. χώρα.
William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 774.
The law courts view every relationship as a contract/covenant - bag of rights and responsibilities - even with parents. Don't you think that the marriage relationship is partly covenant and partly physical. After all, two people exchanging DNA in places you can't wash off, sort of makes it partially physical - don't you think? If I donate blood or an organ, doesn't that make me one with them?Your relationship to your father is not a covenant. A marriage is.
I still say that divorce does not void a marriage, even if marriage is considered merely a contract or a covenant.The law courts view every relationship as a contract/covenant - bag of rights and responsibilities - even with parents. Don't you think that the marriage relationship is partly covenant and partly physical. After all, two people exchanging DNA in places you can't wash off, sort of makes it partially physical - don't you think? If I donate blood or an organ, doesn't that make me one with them?
The relationship between us and God, is partly covenant and partly physical. We can't get rid of him either. The only out is to go up in a puff of smoke after the judgement day.
The law courts view every relationship as a contract/covenant - bag of rights and responsibilities - even with parents. Don't you think that the marriage relationship is partly covenant and partly physical. After all, two people exchanging DNA in places you can't wash off, sort of makes it partially physical - don't you think? If I donate blood or an organ, doesn't that make me one with them?
The relationship between us and God, is partly covenant and partly physical. We can't get rid of him either. The only out is to go up in a puff of smoke after the judgement day.
No, it is entirely 100% a covenant it's a legal arrangement.
Thank you for the comment.No, it is entirely 100% a covenant it's a legal arrangement. A parent/child you can't make them unrelated short of modifying someone at the genetic level in every cell in their body.
A husband and wife, well unless it's incest, aren't closely related on a genetic level, they may exchange DNA, and that'd make their children genetically related to both of them, but that exchange doesn't alter each other's DNA to make them related.
Thank you for the comment.
I counter with:
1 Cor. 6:16-18 says that when a man uses a prostitute, he becomes one with her. Could it be that 'sex makes them one', irrespective to how much DNA gets exchanged? Therefore, I argue that 'Marriage' cannot be '100% covenant'. Relations with a prostitute is a business transaction - no 'covenant' involved.
================
Further Evidence that Marriage is not 100% covenant, but mostly - if not all - 'physical'.
Now for an approach based on the Universal Rules of Logic:
Evidence that You and Your Mother-in-law, are One, Based on the Universal Rules of Logic:
Consider three people: You, Your Son, and Your Mother-in-law.
What is the nature of the relationship between Your Mother-in-law, and your Son?
A: From a genetic point of view: these two are 'one'.
Science tells us that 100% of the Mitochrondria in your son's cells come from the Matriarchal line - from his mothers' mother. Your son could not be alive without the Mitochrondria he received from his Grandmother.
And how long will his Grandmother, be his Grandmother? A: forever.
And under what circumstances will his Grandmother be no longer his Grandmother? A: Under no circumstances. Even if his Grandmother committed a criminal injury on her grandson, she would still be his Grandmother. Even after she dies, she is still his Grandmother.
Now, what is the nature of the relationship between You and your Son?
From a genetic point of view: 100% of your son's Y-chromosomes come from his father. He cannot live and he would not be a boy if it were not for those Y-chromosomes given to him by you - his father.
And how long will his father, be his father? A: forever.
And under what circumstances will his father be no longer his father? A: Under no circunstances. Even if his father committed a criminal injury on his son, that father-son relation would survive. Even after you die, you are still the father of your son.
So, how can we summarize the relationship between your son and his grandmother (your mother-in-law)?
A: Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal - not even ended by death.
So, how can we summarize the relationship between your son and you - his father?
A: Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal - not even ended by death.
Lets say:
1. your mother-in-law - (your son's Grandmother) denoted by the Letter A.
2. . your son is denoted by the Letter B.
3. you are denoted by the letter C.
The relationship between A and B is Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal
The relationship between B and C is Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal
The two relationships are equal. B can't be alive without A and B can't be alive without C
You are in a 50/50 partnership with your mother-in-law in creating that boy: she contributed her Mitochrondria, and you contributed the Y-chromosomes.
It is a Universal Rule of Logic - underlying all of Logic and Mathematics - that:
If A is equivalent to B, and B is equivalent to C, then, it Logically Follows, that A is equivalent to C.
If A = B, and B = C, then it Logically Follows, that A = C
That is right: If the relationship between your mother-in-law and your son is Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal and
the relationship between your son and you is Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal, therefore, it logically follows that
the relationship between you and your mother-in-law, is also Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal. QED
Everything that can be said of the mother-in-law in this line of argument can also be said of your wife.
You can substitute 'mother-in-law for 'wife'.
This line of argument, therefore, is evidence that the relationship between a child and his mother and between that same child and his father is the same: Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal, therefore, it Logically Follows, that the relationship between the father and mother, is also Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal.
(The consequences of parenthood are eternal.)
=====================
So, in summary of both of these arguments:
1. 1 Cor. 6:16-18 says that when a man uses a prostitute, he becomes one with her - and no covenant is ever involved - therefore the 'oneness' of Marriage cannot be 100% covenant.
2. If the relationship between your wife and your son is Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal and the relationship between you and your son is Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal, therefore, it logically follows, that the relationship between you and your wife is also Indissoluable, Irrevokable and Eternal, therefore Marriage cannot be 100% covenant, but must be 'physical' - the sharing of the body. Sex makes the marriage. Relationships with 'in-laws' are established by two-couples, 'sharing of the body', through the grand-children - sharing second hand.
I argue that there is no 'covenant'. Marriage as 'covenant' is a modern invention. In the Old Testament, Marriage was a purchase: a cow for a woman - no 'covenant' involved.
Feel free to poke holes in my arguments - that is how we make progress.
sincerely
Robert424
Yes, I agree that everything you have written is the 'standard' position on this issue - generally accepted by almost all Protestants and I'm pretty sure, almost all Catholics too. But I have some reservations - enlighten me if I'm wrong. How do you know that a covenant exists? Where is this covenant in the Bible? I am very suspicious that it is all made-up cultural mumbo-jumbo.
For example:
Jacobus, melancthon Williams; Zenos, Andrew Constantinides; Nourse, Edward Everett; et al. A Standard Bible Dictionary. London and New York: Funk & Wignalls, 1909.
p.520 Section 1: The Legal Character of Marriage in the O.T. Betrothal
In the O.T. marriage belongs within the sphere of individual law, that is, it took place through a commercial contract which was concluded between the man who wished to marry and the man who had control over the woman who was sought in marriage. It concerned to a certain degree also the family or the local community, but the larger public, the people or the state, had no interest in the marriages of individual Israelites. The legal character of marriage is nowhere specifically described in the O.T., but presupposed as understood."
"... the married woman is spoken of as beʻūlath baʻal (Deut. 22:22; Gen. 20:3; cf. Deut. 24:1; Is 54:1; Prov. 30:23); i.e., as 'acquired by a husband,' 'taken into possession.' "
So, as I understand it, Old Testament Marriage was: 'Hey, mister, I'll give you a cow for your daughter." And the man with the daughter would say 'deal', and the sale would be concluded by a handshake and an exchange - end of the deal, because the deal was concluded. Where is the 'covenant' in that? There was no contract spelling out what the buyer could or could not do, nor any punishments for bad behaviour.
Jacobus et al. (1909) says that the legal character of marriage is nowhere spelled out in the Old Testament.
True, today, we have the Wedding Vows, but that was mandated by Archbishop Cranmer's 'Book of Common Prayer' (1549), so that Vow is a modern invention. And even in that vow, no penalties are specified for bad behaviour, so it is hardly law. Before 1549, I read - somewhere - that the bride and groom merely stopped on the front platform of the Church, and she said to him, 'This day, all my worldly good, I thee endow', and it was a cultural understanding that he was in charge of managing all her financial affairs in her best interest, and he could take a management fee for his efforts. Then they went inside to celebrate Mass. And that was it! Where is the Marriage Vow/Covenant in that?
Throughout the middle ages the Church Courts made up rules, such as that 'when the bride accepted the man's proposal, she had to frame her response in the presence tense, and not in the future, for the acceptance of the 'Proposal' to be legally valid. For example, she couldn't say, 'I would marry you', or I 'might' marry your'. She had to say, 'I do marry you', and that is the form spelled out in the 'Book of Common Prayer', and the form the Pastor has to use today. These 'made-up' rules were created by Judges to solve legal problems - because there were - apparently - quite a few court cases where multiple young men all claimed that the girl agreed to marry them - she being rich, and they wanted to manage her fortune and collect large management fees. So, the Wedding Vow we have today, is made up by Judges, not by Parliament, nor by God.
The only thing that I can imagine where this idea of 'marriage as a covenant', comes from is the 'allegorical covenant between God and his Church', or worse, God's covenant with Abraham. If that is where it comes from, then all I have to say, is:
Deut. 31:8 "It is the Lord who goes before you. He will be with your; he will not leave your or forsake you."
And here is a webpage advertised as having 100 Bible Verses where God repeats this promise.
What Does the Bible Say About God Will Never Leave You Or Forsake You?
Bible verses about God Will Never Leave You Or Forsake Youwww.openbible.info
Imagine that. God said that 100 times in the Bible.
The overall theme of the Bible is forgiveness and reconciliation of God with his people, as outlined in the 'Plan of Salvation'. That is what the whole Bible is all about.
The Doctrine of Divorce is the opposite of the 'Plan of Salvation'. In fact, Divorce eviscerates, and guts, and destroys the Plan of Salvation. So, as I see it - according to my present understanding - Christians have to choose: we can either have Divorce, or we can have the 'Plan of Salvation', we can't have both.
So, in conclusion, if God says 100 times in the Bible, that he will never leave us, and those who advocate for Divorce claim - what - One or Two verses, at most, to support their cause? So where is their other 98 verses to support Divorce? And where, in the Bible, is this 'covenant' of Marriage, of which you speak? I am suspicious that this 'Marriage Covenant', is just made-up cultural norms and practices accumulated over thousands of years and not 'law' at all.
What say you?
sincerely
Robert424
No, it is entirely 100% a covenant it's a legal arrangement
as I pointed out prior.
a biological relationship does not end.
a legal relationship, such as marriage, will inevitably end.
When you get to heaven, and the new earth, your mother will still be your mother, your father will still be your father, your children will still be your children, your sisters and brothers will still be your siblings
But your wife won't be your wife. She won't be anyone's wife. Nor will you be anyone's husband.
and regarding salvation and forgiveness, first you have to repent to be forgiven.
God doesn't forgive an unrepentant sinner.
Sure, if someone sins against you 7 times in a day and each time they come to you and say "I repent" you're to forgive them
but a person who sins, and hardens their heart, doubles down and does not even see what they're doing as wrong? We may ask God to forgive them, but if they don't repent they have their part in the Lake of Fire.
a biological relationship does not end. a legal relationship, such as marriage, will inevitably end. ... your wife won't be your wife. She won't be anyone's wife. Nor will you be anyone's husband.
This explanation fails on 2 fronts:No Marriage After the Resurrection?
Thank your for your assertions.
I believe these assertions above are based on: Matthew 22:28-30; Mark 12:23-25 and Luke 20:33-35.
But first let us establish three facts about angels:
1.
Zec. 5:9 "Then lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and, behold, there came out two women, and the wind was in their wings; for they had wings like the wings of a stork; and they lifted up the ephah between the earth and the heaven."
Here two angels are specifically identified as "women" - females.
2.
Gen. 6:2 "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."
The 'sons of God' are commonly believed to be 'angels', and in this case, 'fallen angels. So, we can conclude that this verse is talking about male angels who are capable of fathering children.
3. (speculative)
The two sisters Isis and Nephthys, (Egyptian Goddesses) are often depicted with wings - but only two, whereas Angels have six wings. It is reasonable to conclude that these sisters are half-breeds of a male fallen angel and a human mother, since the children of mixed species animals often have mixed characteristics of both parent species.
Section Conclusion
So, we can conclude then, that angels have gender: both male and female, and that they are capable of sexual reproduction, but they choose to remain single - unmarried - so they can better serve their God.
Main Arguments
Now, on to your three Bible texts: (All three are Christ's answer to the problem of a woman with seven husbands and whose wife will she be in heaven)
1. Matthew 22:30 "... in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
2. Mark 12:25 "For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels which are in heaven.
3. Luke 20:34, 35 "But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage, Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."
Historically speaking, the phrase 'given in marriage' only applies to women - females - and the term 'married' only applied to men. Only a man was 'married', and only a woman was 'given in marriage', but modern feminism demands the same labels of men to prove themselves equal to a man, but historically, the two phrases only applied to one gender. So this is a further piece of evidence that those who are resurrected from the dead retain their male and female qualities - just like the angels. So, both human and angels are male and female and are capable of reproduction in heaven.
In response to your quotes above, I argue the following:
1. In these three verses, the phrases 'married', and 'given in marriage' are verbal phrases. They are about the 'act' of marriage, or 'entering into marriage', not about the 'state of being married'. It is not saying that those who are married on earth before the second coming of Christ, are no longer married once they get to heaven. It is saying there will be no NEW marriages in heaven.
For the text that applies to males ('neither married'); that could apply to either 'the act of getting married' or the 'state of being married', but the text which apply to females, 'nor given in marriage', if this phrase were talking about the 'state of being married', we would expect the phrase to say ' ... nor any longer given in marriage', or something to that effect. The phrase 'nor given in marriage' is definitely not talking about the 'state of being married'. It means 'no future marriages for women'.
2. The jump from 'virgin' to 'fornicator' is a one way street. Once taken, it is impossible for a 'fornicator' to return to being a 'virgin'. If you accept that 'sex is marriage', then if a person loses their virginity on earth, they can't regain their virginity in the resurrection - once despoiled, always despoiled - there is no going back. If 'sex is marriage', then it is impossible to ever become 'unmarried' after they give up their virginity.
3. You admit that 'biological relationships do not end'. So, I argue, that marriage (i. e. sex) is biological. If you eat a carrot, the DNA in that carrot is broken down into short chains, and it is recycled by being incorporated into your DNA. In the same way, anything foreign injected into your veins (RNA based vaccines, for example) is attacked by white blood cells and recycled and incorporated into your body - including DNA.
I speculate (without proof) that after a husband's sperm in his wife's body dies, it is attacked by white blood cells, digested and the DNA, etc. incorporated into the wife's body. So the husband's DNA becomes incorporated into his wife's body. And this would explain the fact that a couple who have lived as husband and wife for five decades begin to look alike (like brother and sister, XD). And if you do not accept this third speculation, then I raise the issue of a oral sodomist wife who swallows (if you know what I mean. lol.) - same effect as eating a carrot. Therefore, marriage (i. e. sex) is biological in nature (exchanging DNA), and therefore, marriage is an indissoluble bond. When God says they "become one", He means it - literally.
Section Summary
So, in summary of the above three arguments, those previously married, will still be married in heaven and they will live together in celibate joy for an eternity. Marriage is indissoluble and eternal.
sincerely
robert424
By the way, I claim that a celibate marriage is still a marriage, in fact, for every couple, when they get old enough, they all eventually enter into a celibate marriage - blissful or otherwise - they all just lose interest eventually.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?