nbcrusader said:
You need not go further than Malachi to understand God's feeling regarding divorce, but we do have an "exception clause" - one that existed in Scripture before the KJV. It didn’t suddenly appear in the 16th century. Contrary to your suggestion, modern translations are not based on the KJV, but on the earliest known manuscripts. It really is a stretch to say that divorce is permitted if you sleep with your sister, but not permitted if you sleep with your neighbor’s wife.
Quoting from the OT in regards to Christian divorce is meaningless. Jewish divorce customs were very liberal, and Jesus was preaching against them. Try to find a NT quote next time.
Many modern Biblical translations suffer from the burden of tradition. As such, archaic words of a dead language are often translated according to bias, rather than spending the time to study root words and similar applications of those roots in other parts of the Bible.
Marriage at an earlier age may be a statistical notion, but not a cultural requirement and certainly not an absolute. And if everyone was getting married at age 13, why 1 Corinthians 7:9? I doubt pre-teens were burning with passion and got married to avoid premarital sex.
An early Christian father, Clement of Alexandria, interpreted that verse as to mean that Paul had once been married, but no longer, in the second century A.D. Now, clearly, there is no evidence one way or another, but for such a comment to have been made, the idea of having never been married must have been foreign. But, as such, even widows and widowers can fornicate, I guess.
Regardless, what does this have to do with "porneia" and the divorce exception clause in Matthew? You're making a sweeping argument about sexual morality in the Bible, while I'm making an argument over a Greek word being misinterpreted to mean "sexual immorality" as a justification for divorce. There were other Greek words used to refer to other sexual practices that are more definitive in translation.
The Catholic Church's implementation of Scripture before the Reformation is hardly a scholarly basis for interpretation. I’m sure you could find plenty of faults with such pre-reformation applications (indulgences anyone?). As such, you are still promoting a minority view of the definition of porneia.
The Catholic Church has never claimed authority in Biblical fundamentalism. You cannot apply Protestant standards to Catholic theology, since the latter predates the former by 1500 years.
The granting of indulgences was never supported through scripture, but by the authority granted by the Vatican. They still unabashedly use this authority today. The Vatican has been quoted as far as to say that the Bible, indeed, cannot be used to condemn homosexuality. But that's never been the reason they've condemned it; it has to do with their sexual tradition, which condemns everything that cannot possibly result in pregnancy. So, yes, that condemns everything from birth control to masturbation to oral sex--even amongst married couples. Needless to say, I reject both Biblical fundamentalism and tradition, which can easily be abused and is highly subjective.
Secondly, I'd trust a Catholic Bible over a Protestant Bible anyday, because since the 1930s, the Vatican has held that Biblical scholarship to uncover the true meaning of the original texts will uncover the true word of God. As such, they do not care if they trample over certain "sacred cows" (particularly since they condemn Biblical fundamentalism, as well). Plus, since they have footnotes in all of their Bibles, ambiguous archaic words don't need definitive translations. They are then given an ambiguous word or phrase, such as with the translation of "porneia" being given "unlawful marriage" and then given extensive footnotes to discuss how they arrived at that translation. I may have my serious gripes with institutional Catholicism (particularly with their "tradition"), but the scholarship of their Bibles are excellent.
What you call "a minority view" is the majority view held by Catholic and secular Biblical scholars. I'll take the correct interpretation over the popular interpretation anyday. Your interpretation of "porneia" is only held by Protestants and only because of the KJV.
Melon