Thoughts about the NT, PR, & PC: English Terminology Matters – Generality vs. Specificity

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Thoughts about the New Testament, Personal Relationship, and Private Contract:
English Terminology Matters – Generality vs. Specificity

 
As I discussed previously, my personal relationship does not operate under the ancient Israelite national system or under the ancient Israelite ‘scecs’ system.

Instead, my personal relationship operates under the laws of the United States and within the SCECS that are associated with the United States.

Therefore, under the legal system of the United States and under the SCECS of the United States, how the male refers to his female has ramifications.

 
Consider that in the United States, a male could refer to his female as a girlfriend.

With that reference, there are personal, familial, relational, and societal ramifications, but there are no legal ramifications in making such reference.

Why?

Because there are no laws that are utilized to officially recognize a man and his girlfriend as a legal entity.

 
Consider that in the United States, a male could to refer to a female as his fiancée.

With that reference there are personal, familial, relational, and societal ramifications, but there are no legal ramifications in making such reference.

Why?

Because there are no laws that officially recognize a man and his fiancée as a legal entity.

In some circumstances a man and his fiancée might write a prenuptial. Generally, the prenuptial governs certain aspects of their SCECS Accepted Marriage, becoming specifically applicable if/when there is a divorce, separation, or death.

However, if a man and his fiancée choose not to become a legal entity through the SCECS Accepted Marriage, depending on how they wrote their prenuptial, when they terminate their fiancé/fiancée relationship that termination might require them to settle even though they never became a legal entity being identified through the SCECS Accepted Marriage.

 
Under the legal system of the United States, the only time the Private Contract of a personal relationship is governed directly by the State and governed passively by the SCECS is when the certificate/license for the SCECS Accepted Marriage is filed where he refers to her as his “wife” and she refers to him as her “husband”.

That is a major distinction between the Israelite system and the system in the United States, and is a distinction that are many are not aware of when reading the Bible.

In the United States, terminology matters in a way that it did not matter in Biblical world, or the ancient Western world, or in the archaic English.

As discussed, in the Biblical Hebrew and the Biblical Greek there is not a separate term for “man” and another term for “husband”.

Additionally, in the Biblical Hebrew and the Biblical Greek there is not a separate term for “woman” and another term for “wife”.

Furthermore, in archaic English, the term “husband” and the term “wife” were used differently.

Comparatively, modernity has detached the term “husband” and the term “wife” from their archaic English usage, and in doing that modernity has made those terms predominately relate to the term “marriage”.

Consequently, as I stated previously, when the English translates the Hebrew and Greek with the English term “husband” and the English term “wife” the English Bible translation does not assist the English reader to fully grasp that the Bible contains unique ‘scecs’, and does not assist the English reader to fully grasp that the Bible references personal relationships that are not fully relatable to the SCECS Accepted Marriage.

As such, the entity with the SCECS of the United States that will probably have the biggest issue with this discussion about the personal relationship and Private Contract is the Church.

That is because the Church seems to have not recognized that the archaic English term “husband” and the archaic English term “wife” communicated ideas substantially different than the modern ideas of those terms.

Therefore, when discussing the personal relationship and the Private Contract there is tremendous tension.

I have presented that the modern use of the English term “husband” and the modern use of the English term “wife” and that terms associated with the SCECS Accepted Marriage should not be taken into the archaic English, or taken into the ancient Western culture, or taken into the Biblical world.

However and conclusively, in the United States, here in modernity, the manner in which the term “husband”, the term “wife”, the term “marriage”, and the term “divorce” are used matters to the families and entities within SCECS.

Why?

Because the term “husband”, the term “wife”, the term “marriage”, and the term “divorce” have inherent legal ramifications.

I have presented that the ancient Western world, the Biblical world, and the archaic English did not use the SCECS Accepted Marriage for formalizing and governing the personal relationship.

However, in the United States, currently the primary means of formalizing and governing a personal relationship is the SCECS Accepted Marriage.

That primary means of formalizing and governing is influenced by the manner in which the families and entities within SCECS define, develop, and understand term “husband”, the term “wife”, the term “marriage”, and the term “divorce”.

Additionally, that primary means of formalizing and governing is influenced by the manner in which the families and entities within SCECS assign accountabilities and responsibilities to the “husband” and to the “wife” within their “marriage”.

Therefore the SCECS Accepted Marriage, by its very nature, is governed by how SCECS utilizes the State to regulate the “husband”, the “wife”, their “marriage” and their “divorce”.

That is why when the English translates the Hebrew and Greek with the English term “husband” and the English term “wife”, the English makes the Biblical text feel modern, when the Biblical text is anything but modern.

Yet, one thing is certain, it matters, legally, the way in which the term “husband”, the term “wife”, the term “marriage”, and the term “divorce” are used.

For instance, a man who is divorced from his former-wife would seem not to want it claimed of her that she is his “wife”.

Why?

Because when his former-wife is called “wife” it conveys that he is still her “husband” and that they are in a “marriage” when they are, in fact, divorced and therefore no longer legally together in a “marriage”.

The same can be stated for a woman.

If divorced, she would not want her former-husband called “husband” because that would convey that she is still his “wife”, when they are, in fact, divorced and no longer legally together in a “marriage”.

Conclusively then, it matters not only socially but also legally how a person identifies and defines their personal relationship.

Share