God Didn't Say That

Bible Translations and Mistranslations

Q&A: How Mistranslation Created Divorce in the Bible

From the About page comes this response to something I wrote in And God Said:

On p. 155 of And God Said you claim that “there is no divorce in the Bible.”


Two great questions follow. I’ll take them in reverse order:

The Case of Two Husbands

Also, you speculate that perhaps the Bible would call both an ex-wife and a current wife, “his wife” but this is not true, in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 we see “former wife.”

I presume you mean “former husband,” and here we find a true translation gaff.

The KJV, ESV, NAB, NLT, and others translate “former husband” for ba’al rishon. But “former” in English usually implies “no longer,” whereas the Hebrew rishon just means “first.” For example, when Esau is born before Jacob, he is called the rishon. Genesis 26:1 mentions a famine, and then clarifies, “not the first [rishon] famine,” but rather a new famine. This doesn’t mean or imply that the first famine is no longer or famine. Similarly, ba’ala harishon doesn’t “her husband who is no longer her husband,” but rather, “her first husband.”

(There’s a related use of “former” in English that’s the opposite of “latter” and that just means “first.” For example: “Consider two people, the former a senator and the latter a judge….”)

By comparision, we might look at “ex-wife” in English. A man in his third marriage can have two ex-wives. Even if we call them “the former ex-wife” and “the latter ex-wife,” both remain his ex-wives, and the clearer way to refer to them in English is “his first ex-wife” and “his second ex-wife.”

The NIV gets rishon right with “first,” but then errs and translates shilach as “divorced” instead of the more accurate “sent away.”

The NJB’s combination of “first husband” and “repudiated her” isn’t bad, except for the fact that the Hebrew shilach is a common verb while the English “repudiate” is not.

The NRSV’s translation is pretty accurate here: “…her first husband, who sent her away…”

So here we see Hebrew that just talks about two husbands, while the English, with the word “former,” wrongly suggests that one of them is no longer a husband.

The alleged divorce only takes place in translation.

Abstract Divorce

Based mainly on David Instone-Brewer’s works and my studies I have found 5 divorces between named individuals.

Abraham d. Hagar — Genesis 21:9-14
Shaharaim d. Hushim and Baara — 1 Chr 8:8
God d. Israel — Hosea 2:2a, Jeremiah 3:8a
Xerxes d. Vashti — Esther 1:19a

My discussion in my book there — ultimately about how language and social roles only partially overlap — focuses on the word for “divorcee”: g’rusha. That word appears is legal codes, such as Leviticus 21, where priests are forbidden from marrying a divorcee. My point is that no one in the Bible is actually called a “divorcee.”

In Genesis 21:9-14, we see the related verb, geireish, applied to Hagar, but Abraham geireished his son, too. So the verb seems not to mean “divorce” but rather — as most translations have it — “send away.” Abraham sent his (second) wife and son away, but it’s not divorce.

In 1 Chronicles we see (a nominal form of) the verb shalach, which is a near synonym for geireish. But in that case there’s even less reason to think that the verb means “divorce” as opposed to “send away.”

Hosea 2:2 (also numbered 2:4) is particularly interesting for lots of reasons — and I address it in detail in And God Said — but again we don’t see any notion of divorce, just marital stire.

Jeremiah 3:8 is perhaps the most interesting of your examples. It’s one of four places — the others are Deuteronomy 24:1, Deuteronomy 24:3, and Isaiah 50:1 — that we find the phrase seifer k’ritut, “writ of k’ritut.” Perhaps this is a “divorce decree,” or perhaps just “legal separation” of some sort. Either way, Deuteronomy 24 is part of a legal code, not a description of an actual divorce. Isaiah 50:1 is a rhetorical question — “where is the divorce decree?” — to make the point that, in fact, God and Israel are still (metaphorically) married.

In Jeremiah 3:8, the point is that both Israel and Judah — God’s two metaphorical wives there — have strayed, but Israel, at least, has a sefer k’ritut. So Judah is worse than Israel, because Israel merely abandoned her husband, while Judah is an adulteress. But God invites them both back. So it looks like the sefer k’ritut allows a woman to find a new husband, but (1) it’s not clear that the old husband isn’t still her husband; and (2) even without the sefer k’ritut, the husband is free to marry a new wife. And at any rate, this is metaphorical.

Finally, Esther 1:19 seems to have more to do with royal politics than with divorce.

I don’t see evidence of actual divorce between people here.


So I find two interesting observations.

1. “Divorce” only seems to occur in the abstract in the OT. (And that’s only if we’ve understood geireish and sefer k’ritut correctly.)

2. When people start new marriages, there’s nothing to indicate that their old spouses stop being their spouses.


April 9, 2010 - Posted by | Bible versions, Q&A, translation practice, translation theory | , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


  1. This is interesting stuff, but I’m of the persuasion that the reason that there is no divorce is because there is no marriage. “Marriage” is “leaving and cleaving” – at least originally. It was not accomplished by law or a priest. A man lurked in the bushes while women danced and pounced. The deal would be consummated by “bumping uglies.”

    So, to “send her away with a get out of jail free pass” would be all that was involved in undoing the deal. The NT refers to it as a “bill of divorcement”:


    Hebrew doesn’t really even have a distinct word for “wife” or “husband,” does it?

    Comment by WoundedEgo | April 9, 2010

  2. I suggest you read David Instone-Brewer’s works, he is a 2nd temple scholar. His books are free to read on his website but I find them worth getting.

    On Deu 24:1-4 the first/former husband is no longer a husband, as the latter husband has married her after the divorce. It was not possible for a wife to be married to 2 husbands at the same time in that culture, altho it was possible for a husband to have multiple wives.

    Shalach and garash in ANE context are the words for divorce. However, God adds some conditions to protect the weaker, the wife.

    Yes, Abraham is also disinheriting Ismael, but he is divorcing Hagar in ANE terms.

    Judah is not worse off, Israel is divorced, cut off from the covenant with God and we know from history it was scattered. God could have done the same with Judah but did not, out of mercy. Israel is a warning to Judah. (P.S. In the new covenant, Israel is again in covenant with God.) A divorce certificate needed to be written according to Deu 24:1-4 and in Hosea 2:2 it was written to Israel (not wife, not husband, this terminates the covenant) and confirmed in Jer 3:8 that is was written down.

    In other words, these terms need to be understood in the way they would have been understood to the original readers.

    Comment by Don | April 9, 2010

  3. For example, we can know Deu 24:1-4 was interpreted as being about divorce from the Mishnah, where Shammai and Hillel debated the meaning of some words in it, whether there was 1 reason for divorce there (Shammai and just indencency/immorality) or Hillel claiming there were 2 reasons, indecency and “thing” AKA “any thing” as in Hillel’s “Any Matter” divorce.

    Comment by Don | April 9, 2010

    • Don,

      I think it’s important to keep two things in mind.

      1. How the passage was interpreted in the 1st century onward may or may not reflect what the passage originally meant.

      2. I think we generally agree about the state of affairs described in Deut. 24. The woman has left her husband and taken a new one. In modern Western culture, we would call the first man the “ex-husband” or the “first husband.” My point is that I don’t see any evidence for the “ex-” notion in the Bible.

      My more general point is that — whatever’s going on in Deuteronomy 24 and the other legal codes — to my knowledge we don’t find any people described as “the divorcee So-and-so.” Nor do we see “So-and-so was a divorcee.”

      Again, thanks for weighing in here.


      Comment by Joel H. | April 9, 2010

      • Technically, if the idea of divorce arose among people reading the original language, then you can’t really call it a matter of mistranslation, only misinterpretation (or re-interpretation).

        Also, I think part of the problem is that the Bible never clearly provides a complete legal definition of marriage or an explanation of how individuals become married, other than to list certain prohibited unions. Beyond this it seems to assume the culturally accepted definitions of the time. On the other hand it seems to indicate that marriage has definitive legal implications that would have bearing in a judicial court. So to me, this raises questions about the implied authority of those cultural norms and the role of Israelite leadership in preserving or defining them in legal terms. Divorce as debated in the Mishnah or practiced in the first century may be a natural and justifiable outgrowth of those implications.

        Comment by Aaron | April 9, 2010

  4. Interesting post, Joel.

    Comment by Gary Simmons | April 9, 2010

  5. I agree with your claim that a word has meaning determined by how it is used. This is true for the Bible, which gets to define or refine meaning of any words it uses. But the Bible is also part of the texts in the larger culture, so it seems to me useful to be able to use that larger culture to help understand it. I need all the help I can get.

    Yes, I agree I do not see a named divorcee in the Bible. But they are discussed generically in Lev 21:14 (garash), Lev 22:13 (garash), Num 30:9 (garash). Such rules would not be needed if they did not exist. And in the NT there is a very strong assumption that the woman at the well was divorced many times, to have had 5 husbands in John 4:18.

    Comment by Don | April 9, 2010

  6. Joel, are you suggesting that because Biblical Hebrew had no discrete word for divorce it did not exist? It looks like we have the roots gāraš (to drive away), šillaḥ (to send away) and kārat (to cut), which apply both generally to these actions and specifically to the ending or dissolution of a marriage. As translators, we understand that a language may have a very specific word for something that another language covers with a more general one. Also, perhaps the niceties of the distinction between divorce and separation are of our modern making. I think we are seeing a development of Hebrew society from the casual right of a husband to send his wife/wives away as the operational equivalent to divorce, to a more legalised form requiring a written document, but at no point during the biblical period does this seem to attract a unique vocabulary.

    Comment by Gareth Hughes | April 10, 2010

    • I agree. Marriage implies the obligation of a man to provide food, clothing, and conjugal rights (Ex. 21), as well as the obligation of a woman to remain singularly devoted to her one husband. If “driving away,” “sending away,” or “cutting off” terminates these obligations, then it is functionally the same as divorce, whether or not the specific terminology exists.

      Comment by Aaron | April 11, 2010

    • I believe that grusha means “divorcee,” but my original point (in And God Said) was that there is no one in the Bible who is described as a grusha. The term only as an abstract description, such as in legal codes.

      I think we all agree that modern marriage and divorce (and separation, and, for that matter, annulment) differ from the ancient practices. I think a reasonable question then is how they differ, and I think that the text and language of the Bible will only provide part of the answer.

      You raise an interesting point in differentiating two cases: (1) a language has no (specific) word for something; and (2) a culture doesn’t have the concept. Modern Hebrew, for example, doesn’t have a word “unpack,” but Israelis still pack and unpack. So certainly we have to allow for the possibility that there was divorce in the Bible even though Biblical Hebrew didn’t have a specific word for it. But either way, Deuteronomy 24 in Hebrew doesn’t mention a “former” husband, so I don’t think English translations should, either.

      Comment by Joel H. | April 11, 2010

  7. Matthew 5:32

    But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. (NIV)

    But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (KJV)

    Comment by Gary | April 12, 2010

    • Thank you for posting these verse. I think that perhaps I would render it “whoever dismisses his woman, for any reason other than so he can go fornicating…” (Just kidding about that last part).

      In the time of “The Song of Solomon” (which, based on the language used, is some 400 years after the time Solomon would have lived and loved), there seems to be a formalized wedding ceremony happening. Apparently, Solomon has only got 60 wives, 80 concubines and “unlimited teen mistresses”:

      Song of Solomon 6:8 There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number.

      Then, an African slave girl, convinced that “once Solomon goes black, he’ll never go back!” asks her Jewish girlfriends for advice on how she can meet the “Stud King”. They suggest that she nonchalantly hang around his tent, when he is out in the field keeping watch over his flock by night:

      Song 1:
      2 ¶ Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love[making] is better than wine.
      3 Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee. [I need some of that cologne!!]
      4 Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers [bedroom]: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee [also, those on their backs].
      5 I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.
      6 Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother’s children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept. [She has been a slave]
      7 ¶ Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou makest thy flock to rest at noon: for why should I be as one that turneth aside by the flocks of thy companions?
      8 If thou know not, O thou fairest among women, go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock, and feed thy kids beside the shepherds’ tents. [Solomon has met “virgins without number” there – are you the only one who doesn’t know that?]

      To prevent everyone from getting all bothered, all skip the details of the story, and only point out that the slave girl does find that Solomon is like a stag that can’t turn down a doe in heat, he’s hung like an apple tree and everything is moaning after that. But then, Solomon makes an honest woman of her. She is alone and abused in the streets, a wretched slave girl, who dares to approach to the king, but the guards won’t hear of it:

      3:1 ¶ By night on my bed I sought him whom my soul loveth: I sought him, but I found him not.
      2 I will rise now, and go about the city in the streets, and in the broad ways I will seek him whom my soul loveth: I sought him, but I found him not.
      3 The watchmen that go about the city found me: to whom I said, Saw ye him whom my soul loveth?
      4 It was but a little that I passed from them, but I found him whom my soul loveth: I held him, and would not let him go, until I had brought him into my mother’s house, and into the chamber of her that conceived me.

      But she finally gets passed the guards, and brings the King back to her house and she **throws** him onto her momma’s water bed, and then **leaps** onto him, tearing off his tie…:

      3:4 It was but a little that I passed from them, but I found him whom my soul loveth: I held him, and would not let him go, until I had brought him into my mother’s house, and into the chamber of her that conceived me.

      After all of this passionate courtship, Solomon, in huge fanfare, takes her for wife 61.

      3:6 ¶ Who is this that cometh out of the wilderness like pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all powders of the merchant?
      7 ¶ Behold his [portable] bed, which is Solomon’s; threescore valiant men are about it, of the valiant of Israel.
      8 They all hold swords, being expert in war: every man hath his sword upon his thigh because of fear in the night.
      9 King Solomon made himself a chariot of the wood of Lebanon.
      10 He made the pillars thereof of silver, the bottom thereof of gold, the covering of it of purple, the midst thereof being paved with [pictures of] love[making], for the [horny] daughters of Jerusalem.
      11 Go forth, O ye daughters of Zion, and behold king Solomon with the crown wherewith his mother crowned him in the day of his espousals, and in the day of the gladness of his heart.

      One passage that is off topic, but I can’t help but bring up is the following, which **clearly** indicates that they did boob jobs back then:

      Song 7:
      8 ¶ We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts: what shall we do for our sister in the day when she shall be spoken for?
      9 If she be a wall, we will build upon her a palace of silver: and if she be a door, we will inclose her with boards of cedar.
      10 I am a wall, and my breasts like towers: then was I in his eyes as one that found favour.

      Verse 9 should be hung on the wall of every plastic surgeon in the world!

      There are so many great images in this story of passion, which is written from the viewpoint of a sexually free and even powerful woman. This would still be considered feminist literature today, if only Solomon were another woman, instead of an “Ewww!” man… 🙂

      Comment by WoundedEgo | April 18, 2010

  8. Folks … please be very cautious when someone says “Let me reinterpret the bible for you.” I can’t believe that God would allow his faithful to be mislead with whats written in the bible. All versions of the bible say basically the same thing … just worded differently. Do you really think that all these translations are wrong? I challenge you to compare verses in different translations and see for yourself that the bible is accurate. Beware, wolves disguised as lambs will come claiming to be prophets.

    Comment by Gary | April 12, 2010

    • I think everyone can learn to better understand the Bible in context. It is certainly possible to misunderstand the Bible, after all, we are all humans with biases and sin.

      For example, kings tried to claim that God was on their side based on their understanding of the Bible, but most living in democracies do not think they are rebels outside of God’s will.

      Comment by Don | April 12, 2010

  9. >>>…I can’t believe that God would allow his faithful to be mislead with whats written in the bible…

    Unfortunately, “the bible” is constantly misleading people. That is a fact of life that cannot be denied. And every word of the scriptures are points of disagreement.

    Comment by WoundedEgo | April 18, 2010

  10. The word “divorce”, in English usage, conjures up images of a man and a woman sitting in front of a lawyer, and she’s saying, “There is NO WAY IN HELL that you are going to get that Grecian Urn!!!!”

    If I’m not mistaken, under Moses, a woman needed a pass, or “permission slip” from her man/owner before she could leave (unless he died before her) while a man had no other obligation than to release the woman, yes? There was no adjudication process. The stuff was all his, and she had to flee to her brother in laws, or to the refuge of her original people.

    A slight digression, regarding what one might do if rejected…

    Ruth had people to go home to, but becomes a hero because she opts rather to cast her lot in with her mother in law; and she jumps in with both feet, choosing to adopt the whole package, including all religious, cultural and such implications. One could say that she acted in faith that she would be cared for by these foreign people. It also become romantic, because the one with first claim/duty passes, and it is the one she courted in the barn, the one who probably didn’t have to, welcomes her, loves her, and fully embraces her.

    And since not all of the Jews opened their arms, we are left with the impression that it was ultimately God who saw to it that she found a home among God’s covenant people.

    Comment by WoundedEgo | April 18, 2010

    • I should have said “abandoned” not “rejected.”

      Comment by WoundedEgo | April 18, 2010

  11. Well Hebrew scholar or not Joel, the English word divorce means to send or turn away… So divorce is a perfectly acceptable word for translation. Noah Webster defined it that way in 1828, and I see no reason to change it in translation. You are just playing word games here. Its like if I said I went to a restaurant and somebody said no you more accurately went to a place to eat food… this is a game. Use your brain.

    Comment by Jamie Black | May 22, 2010

    • Jamie,

      Thanks for stopping by.

      I don’t agree that “divorce means to send or turn away.” I think “he sent her away without divorcing her” makes sense in English, as does “he divorced her but wouldn’t let her leave.” It seems to me that “divorce” in English is a legal action, and my point was that we don’t seem to find instances of that legal action in the Bible (though we do find it in the abstract).

      I’ll also be grateful if in the future you try to address the content of the posts and comments rather than attack their authors.

      Comment by Joel H. | May 22, 2010

      • I divorced my self from that situation… I.E. I turned myself away from that situation. Your wrong man!! The word at its fundamental meaning is to turn away. You dont have to agree, these are the facts.
        And it sounds like a legal action. The man gives the woman a certificate and sends her away… Sounds legal to me. And you didnt address what I said at all. I showed you that it was a flawed argument.

        Comment by Jamie Black | May 23, 2010

    • Sooo…. “Today a homeless man came to my door to ask for food, but I divorced him….”??

      Comment by WoundedEgo | May 22, 2010

  12. I despair when I read people who claim to know the word of God, get it spectacularly wrong.

    Isaiah 50:1
    [ The Servant, Israel’s Hope ] Thus says the LORD:“ Where is the certificate of your mother’s divorce, Whom I have put away? Or which of My creditors is it to whom I have sold you? For your iniquities you have sold yourselves, And for your transgressions your mother has been put away.

    So yes GOd did divorce Israel

    and get this folks GOD TOOK HER BACK.
    # Jeremiah 3:1
    [ Israel Is Shameless ] “They say, ‘If a man divorces his wife,And she goes from him And becomes another man’s, May he return to her again?’ Would not that land be greatly polluted? But you have played the harlot with many lovers; Yet return to Me,” says the LORD.

    So please instead of trying to make scriptures fit your doctrine why don’t you just be honest to let scriptures speak for itself whether we like it or not.

    Also regarding Jesus teaching. He was responding to the pharisees NOT issuing a commandment. HE was NOT nulifying the Law and was giving his opinion and interpretation.

    Also the law gave provision for divorce for any reason and Jesus was not restricting it or making it tougher.

    “For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

    Comment by Steve | November 19, 2010

    • I’m not trying to be all up in your face here, Steve. Please don’t take what I’m saying offensively, but if you’ll read the whole passage, Jesus said that “Moses allowed them to give a certificate of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, but it was not that way from the beginning” I think His point was that Adam didn’t “put away” Eve for succumbing to the seducing of the serpent, although he might have been tempted to do so even though he was just as much as fault (he was standing near to her when it happened and should have told that serpent to shut up and leave) even so, if Adam could forgive the “woman God gave him” for wrecking everything (what he might have used for an excuse to send her away). Then they shouldn’t send their wives away for such tiny matters (marital unfaithfulness was the only good reason He gave).

      Also, I don’t take Jesus’ words as “Opinion”. He said that He only spoke/did what He heard/saw the Father speak/do. If you say that it was only His opinion, you are saying that He wasn’t hearing from God and that’s a dangerous statement.

      I’m not judging divorced people either! I’ve been there and done that, regretfully more than once, but it’s not the best plan. God would rather have us marry the right person the first time and not throw them away just because we got tired of their morning breath or some hot mama made them turn their heads (which is what, I believe, they had started to do). Having patience and waiting on God’s timing in marriage, not just to “get it on with some babe, so I think we’ll get married”

      Jesus’ yoke is easy when you obey Him in finding a spouse in the first place, there is no burden at all then. Also, He will make the burdens of married life light when both are trusting Him. In the same way, His “light and easy” statement should not be used as an excuse to do what you want. (IMHO)
      Also, in Malachi 2:16 it says “God hates divorce (putting away)”. He may allow it, but He hates it.
      Again, I’m not trying to rip on anyone, this is just my thoughts on it.

      Comment by LauraB | December 14, 2010

      • Rats, I meant to quote “So please instead of trying to make scriptures fit your doctrine why don’t you just be honest to let scriptures speak for itself whether we like it or not.” before I wrote “In the same way” in the last paragraph of my comment.

        Not so good at the HTML tags and all that.

        Comment by LauraB | December 14, 2010

      • I meant to quote “So please instead of trying to make scriptures fit your doctrine why don’t you just be honest to let scriptures speak for itself whether we like it or not.” before I wrote ‘In the same way”
        I’m not too good at the HTML stuff yet. Oops.

        Comment by LauraB | December 14, 2010

  13. I do have a question (or 2) about the usage of the word shâlach. I hope it’s not too off topic. In Malachi 2:16, it says that God hates shâlach, but two verses later (Malachi 3:1) it says “Behold, I send (shâlach) My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me; and the Lord, whom ye seek, will suddenly come to His temple, and the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in, behold, he cometh, saith the LORD of hosts.”
    In chapter 2, the passage is talking about marriage and not treating the wife of your youth treacherously, so we understand that He is speaking of divorce/putting away a wife but is it only context that tells what is being referred to, or is there something else as well. I mean, God just said “I hate sending away and see, I’m sending away my messenger.” (Which could get me on a rabbit trail about “messenger/angel” here, but I’ll save that for another question).

    Also, I found a very interesting thing in 2 Thes 2:3 “Do not let anyone deceive you in any way, because that Day will not come unless first comes the *falling away*, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,” According to Strong’s, the word “falling away” is G646 “apostasia, Feminine of the same as G647; defection from truth (properly the state), (“apostasy”): – falling away, forsake.” But G647 is “apostasion Neuter of a (presumed) adjective from a derivative of G868; properly something separative, that is, (specifically) divorce: – (writing of) divorcement.”
    Could this apostasy/falling away be a type of divorcement of the non believers? For instance, could the catching away (referred to as the rapture of the church) be considered a divorcement? I mean, God chose Israel to be his bride, but they chose idols. Then, He chose to redeem them by sending Jesus, but they rejected Him. So when He removes the Christians (I going on a pre trib rapture basis) could that be a divorcement of the Jew’s for another season, (He’ll hide the 144,000 remnant) until He comes for them after the 7 years? Could Paul be using this term as a way to tell the Thessalonian Church that they shouldn’t be afraid that the “Day of the Lord” (the final part of His second coming, after the 7 year trib) had come, because before that happened, there would need to be a divorcement and thus the catching away in order for the man of lawlessness to be revealed etc. (I believe that the One holding the man of lawlessness back is the Holy Spirit, Who will be removed when the Christians are taken off of the earth 2Thes 2:6-8)
    I’m not trying to get into a debate on pre-post, or mid trib and all that, I just want to see if I am completely off base in this apostasy/divorcement thought.

    Thanks in advance, everyone, for being kind in your replies. I already know that I don’t know it all and I don’t have it all figured out yet, and so I’d rather not hear how dumb I am from some people who really do know WAYYY more than me…=) I’m just hungry to search things out and that is why I’m even commenting on here in the first place. Thanks for mercy!

    Comment by LauraB | December 14, 2010

  14. […] Q&A: How Mistranslation Created Divorce in the Bible […]

    Pingback by The Year in Review « God Didn't Say That | December 31, 2010

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.