The MATTHEW 19:9 DISASTER - Erasmus's "Little Contribution"

Sdílet
Vložit
  • čas přidán 10. 02. 2023
  • Erasmus inserted a word into Matthew 19:9. Without it, the meaning of the verse is arguably unclear.

Komentáře • 19

  • @warneachothereverydayheb.3406
    @warneachothereverydayheb.3406 Před 5 měsíci +1

    Please people, make comments so this man's good work can get up higher into the algorithms. ... and thumbs up!

  • @philipbuckley759
    @philipbuckley759 Před 15 hodinami

    the bigger shame, than this mistranslation, of the text is that one needs to figure it out, in spite or, not because of.....leaders, in the Church....

  • @Mari-hu7vm
    @Mari-hu7vm Před 4 měsíci

    God bless you!

  • @bobthrasher8226
    @bobthrasher8226 Před 5 měsíci +3

    Didn't Luther get caught trying to insert the word "alone" following faith? At least in the his translation?

    • @thomasalbinholmes2538
      @thomasalbinholmes2538  Před 5 měsíci +4

      Yes to my knowledge... Just one of several "false teacher" signs that many seem to be unaware of or unconcerned about. God help us...

  • @betawithbrett7068
    @betawithbrett7068 Před rokem +3

    Matthew 19:9 If any man puts his wife away...
    ALL of the ancient Greek manuscripts say:
    μή ἐπὶ πορνείας not upon (for) sexual immorality
    but Erasmus ADDED!!!!... the word εἰ (if)... BEHOLD:
    εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείας if not (except) upon (for) sexual immorality

  • @kevingeorge1095
    @kevingeorge1095 Před 4 měsíci

    There are two different words used in these texts, both of which are translated as “divorce”, but they are not the same. One word is “apolysē” (Strong’s 630) and means to send away, or to dismiss, as when Jesus dismissed “apolysē” the crowds in Mat. 14:22. The other word is “apostasiou” (Strong’s 647) and more specifically means divorce in the full legal sense. The first, “apolysē” (Strong’s 630) does not necessarily include the second, “apostasiou” (Strong’s 647), and that is part of what Jesus is pointing to. Many were apparently simply sending their wives away, throwing her to the street, and not taking the step to formally divorce. In these cases, the wife was still legally married but had been thrown out and her only recourse in that society was to shack up with someone for personal survival or live in prostitution, as it was not normal for a woman to live alone. This is why Jesus blames the man for causing her to commit adultery - he shares fault with her for not having taken the proper step of granting full divorce.
    My understanding:
    7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command to give a roll of divorce (with divorce papers) [St. 647] and send her away [St. 630]?
    8 He said to them, “Moses, in view of the hardness of your heart, allowed you to send away [St. 630] your women. However, from the beginning it was not this way. 9 Now I tell you that whoever shall send away (with no divorce papers) [St. 630] his woman except for porneia [which grants divorce] and marries another commits adultery and he who sends away (with no divorce papers) [St. 630] commits adultery.
    Matthew 5:31 Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever sends away (with no divorce papers) [St. 630] his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce (with papers) [St. 647].’ 32 But I say to you that whoever sends away [St. 630] (no divorce papers) his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is sent away (no divorce papers) [St. 630] commits adultery.

  • @warneachothereverydayheb.3406

    I read Dr Leslie McFall's 583 page (almost all of it, lol) "article" on Divorce and Remarriage, and I was shocked about the fact that there is no word for except in any of the accepted manuscripts for the Minority text (codex Sinaiticus) and Majority text (Byzantine) for Matt 19:9.... only the Cesarean text type such as Codex Vaticanus, and the Leistrensis have the supposed error, as said by most scholarly critics, of the importation of the "parektos" fornication clause of Matt 5:32. I don't trust the translators of the Bible nor the translators of the early church writers as far as the supposed "except for fornication" clauses of Matt 5 and 19. I want to see the manuscripts of the early church writers/Fathers.

    • @donovanreed3236
      @donovanreed3236 Před 22 dny

      If we can't trust that God can preserve his word then we have a major problem. What else has been changed?

  • @philipbuckley759
    @philipbuckley759 Před 16 hodinami

    google translate took μὴ to non.....

  • @rockkstah2550
    @rockkstah2550 Před 4 měsíci +1

    I really cannot blame atheist for not believing in so called God’s word due to so many mistakes.

    • @philipbuckley759
      @philipbuckley759 Před 4 měsíci +3

      not a mistake, it is a deliberate effort to invalidate the message....

  • @kenw772
    @kenw772 Před 3 měsíci

    How can you explain this if you don’t know the Greek.

    • @thomasalbinholmes2538
      @thomasalbinholmes2538  Před 3 měsíci

      I can't go deep with the Greek, but all I am trying to do here is give people some big ideas. I did speak with a Greek teacher about it, though, and they confirmed.
      What is it specifically you feel needs to be explained by someone who knows Greek?

    • @donovanreed3236
      @donovanreed3236 Před 22 dny

      ​@@thomasalbinholmes2538Why would fornication be the only exclusion?

  • @donovanreed3236
    @donovanreed3236 Před 22 dny

    Who's to say the other greek writers wasn't wrong and Erasmus is correct? Not even for fornication doesn't even seem to fit the text in my humble opinion.