Why not create a word for matrimony blessed by GOD (Christian Marriage)

[DesertBerean]

As a point of interest and clarification, what's the support for monogamous only? Certainly the patriarchs were not limited in that manner, though I know of nothing that says if it was sanctioned by God or not.

While there was no direct condemnation of polygamy in OT times that I know of, it wasn't exactly recommended either. The first mention of polygamy was in Genesis 4 where Lamech, a descendent of Cain, took two wives. He wasn't a shining example of morality - he bragged about killing a young man. There are a number of other polygamous unions mentioned that pointed out the strains of such unions. Rachael and Leah is probably the most well known example. In NT times, Jesus didn't address polygamy directly but by that time the practice was discouraged, as Outis pointed out, especially among Christians.

[Cerebrum123]

He used some of the OT. He didn't use all of it.

Which has no bearing on my point. When ever there was any dispute it was Scripture that He pointed to as the authority. That He didn't quote every passage of the OT is completely irrelevant, it's a red herring.

You're clearly ignoring the point I brought up that ἡ γραφή has at least three distinct possible meanings, and that set aside/broken is a metaphor that needs interpretation.

And I already answered. The referent is Scripture as a whole, which Jesus referred to as the "word of God", which is a phrase you apparently don't like.

I, unlike yourself, am attempting reasoned exegesis of the passage. Try reading what I said again.

Oh, I read it, it made no sense. Jesus never referred to His own words as Scripture. Your attempt to deflect the meaning of the passage is pretty clear.

Here we have it: the fundamentalist dichotomy. Either it is inerrant or it is completely unreliable. While being absurd, this principle is also an epistemological train-wreck when applied to non-Scriptural sources of knowledge.

Not what I said at all. I said if God is incapable of giving His message to people accurately, then He is pretty weak. Nothing about the reliability of the passages at all.

When people start to misrepresent what I say, I generally leave. I'll be doing that now.

[Paprika]

Which has no bearing on my point. When ever there was any dispute it was Scripture that He pointed to as the authority. That He didn't quote every passage of the OT is completely irrelevant, it's a red herring.

So you're saying that

1) For all recorded disputes Jesus used some extract of the Scripture as the authority
2) Therefore it gives all of Scripture property X

That is not a valid argument. It does not necessarily follow that if some members of a group have property X that all members do.

And I already answered. The referent is Scripture as a whole, which Jesus referred to as the "word of God", which is a phrase you apparently don't like.

And you're ignoring the interpretational problem presented by the Greek.

Oh, I read it, it made no sense. Jesus never referred to His own words as Scripture. Your attempt to deflect the meaning of the passage is pretty clear.

I'm not trying to say that. If you don't understand, try asking for an elaboration instead of dismissing it as nonsense.

Not what I said at all. I said if God is incapable of giving His message to people accurately, then He is pretty weak. Nothing about the reliability of the passages at all.

When people start to misrepresent what I say, I generally leave. I'll be doing that now.

You're the one bringing in the red herring. The dispute is not about God's capability; it's about whether the Scriptures self-attest as inerrant.

You make a fair point about my misrepresentation though. My apologies.