I
isin2
Guest
I read the article on this site “NO DIVORCE “EXCEPT FOR FORNICATION?”” by HUBERT J. RICHARDS and I was somewhat satisfied with the explanation. My question is wouldn’t that explanation be a some sort of “mental gymnastics” like how the Protestants interpret some verses to suit a doctrine such as John chapter 6 on the Eucharist?
I mean why has not been the verses changed to the “correct” interpretation of “If anyone divorces his wife, he may not marry again, except when his marriage was not a real one at all, but had only the appearance of one,” as Mr. Richards had suggested?
Thank you for your time!
God bless you and your work!
I mean why has not been the verses changed to the “correct” interpretation of “If anyone divorces his wife, he may not marry again, except when his marriage was not a real one at all, but had only the appearance of one,” as Mr. Richards had suggested?
Thank you for your time!
God bless you and your work!