Jordan Kurecki

Sorry, I interpreted your question as somewhat of a rhetorical question. 

The Bible does not support Calvinism, no matter how much linguistic or contextual gymnastics Calvinists like to do, the fact of the matter is passages like John 3:16 and 1st John 2:2, do in fact refute the false doctrines of Calvinism.  You can try and reinterpret "world" as much as you want but that doesn't make your interpretation true. The Calvinists viewpoint eliminates the simple, plain, and straightforward readings of many passages of scripture. It doesn't matter what the bible says, Calvinists are excellent at twisting the scriptures to teach their false doctrine. Glad that we have the intellectual smart Calvinists out there to tell all of us poor Arminian folks that God doesn't actually love the world and that Jesus is not the savior of all men, and that God does not will for all men to come to the knowledge of the truth. Calvinism is very reminiscent of the RCC, in that the priesthood tells you what to believe and that you are too stupid to actually understand the Bible, Catholics have their priests and Calvinists have their internet theologians. 

I basically have agreed with almost everything you have said up to this point, but I just want to offer some light, pushback on this. 

Even in the bible itself, especially in the Gospels for example, you will often see words that are different from each other used to in those inspired parallel accounts, but words which are closely synonymous. Even in the KJO preface (Which I know is not inspired) they defend their practice of NOT translating Hebrew or Greek words consistently by appealing to their perception that God used a "diversity" of words to express the same sense in his word. Couple that with the Hebrew practice of parallelism which often contrast, expands, and sometimes even states one singular idea with two different phrases, I think we should be careful of making a sharp distinction simply due to different words choices. Yes different word choices do sometimes denote different meanings, but not always. 

Another caution about doing words studies as well is in order, words have what we call "Semantic Range", meaning that a word can have more than one meaning, depending on the context in which it used. For example, the word  "good" in English can mean a variety of things, it can mean "morally excellent" as in "The law is good" or it can mean "pleasant" as in the "the food tastes good" or it can mean "of a high quality" as in "he does good work" etc etc etc. All of those meanings are slightly different in nuance and highly contextualized. Some words can have pretty significant difference depending on context, for example the English word run. You can "run" to the store, meaning you "went", you can "run" a business, meaning you're in charge and responsible for it, you can also "run" for your life, meaning you fled, a car automobile can "run" meaning it operates properly. 

That being said, a word study, whereby one looks at all the occurrences of word in the Bible will be good for illuminating the semantic range of word, but some people make the mistake of forcing the sense of a word in one context, onto another context and vice verse, or of trying to apply ALL the different senses and uses of a word into each place the word is found in linguistics this is called the "illegitimate total fallacy". Just because a word has one sense in 324 places for example, it may still yet have another distinct sense in 1 other single place based on context.

That being said, I essentially agree with the conclusions you are presenting here, but I just wanted to point out something that I see people say. People often say things that are different are not the same, but usually when people say they, they are only looking at the form of words and not the sense, and what many people do not realize is sometimes different forms can express similar or identical "senses" 

That being said, let me make some observations. 
1. כְּלִי and שִׂמְלָה both appear to be set in parallel to each-other, with the second clause clearly being about a man wearing a woman's garment. 
2. כְלִי appears to be a word that has a rough meaning of "articles, possessions, objects" etc, and the type of objects it can refer to seems largely dependent on context, in some contexts it appears to refer to items of warfare, in some places just general objects, in some contexts used of a yoke of oxen, and we could go on and on and on. 
3. In Hebrew, a rigidly literal translation of the phrase in question would be "There should not be upon women, כְּלִי  of a man. 

From my point of view, based on context and what seems to be a basic sense of כְּלִי that the word is in fact referring to clothing. One way of understanding the passage would be something like "There should not be the general things of men, UPON women", the Hebrew preposition "עַל" literal means "upon" and that tells us that the כְּלִי  in mind are things that can be "on" someone. The Hebrew preposition and the parallelism found in the passage, seems to strongly imply to me that the כְּלִי is in fact referring to the clothing of men. After all, what are the "things of men" that can be physically "upon" someone but clothing? I think the fact that the KJV translators translated it as a woman shall not "wear" seems to indicate that the KJV translators picked up on these clues as well, especially since there is no actual explicit Hebrew verb in the first half of the verse that actually means "wear".

 I don't honestly see any sharp distinction contextually to try and draw out a significant distinction between כְּלִי and שִׂמְלָה in this particular context.

So, does nature itself teach us that robes are man's wear or woman's wear?  Is a robe actually a form of dress (as some of my Fundamental Baptist pastor-friends sometimes indicate)?
So, does nature itself teach us that the color pink is a masculine color or a feminine color?  (Note: The distinction of pink as a feminine color did not actually become established in America until approximately the 1940s.)
So, do we get to decide on our own whim what nature itself teaches us?  If so, who gets to be the authoritative voice when a disagreement arises over what nature itself teaches us?
(Thus I will state again -- The problem that I am having here is that things are being stated that do not line up with what is actually found throughout Scripture, which is ACTUALLY our only and final authority for belief and behavior.)

I second this. This is an excellent study bible. 

I second this. This is an excellent study bible. 

Yesterday I posted this verse without any further comment.  Now I wish to provide some further commentary.  
The idea that we should "disregard," "disrespect," or "depart from" the teaching of our youth simply because such a practice is a necessary part of "growing up" unto "real maturity" is NOT a Biblical idea.  In fact, under inspiration of God the Holy Spirit the apostle Paul honored the instruction of Timothy's youth and directly instructed Timothy, not to "cast it away," but to CONTINUE in it.  However, that instruction from the Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul to Timothy WAS founded upon some qualifications.  Those qualifications were as follows:
1.  The teaching of Timothy's youth was by the right teachers - "knowing of whom thou hast learned them."  (By godly teachers who possessed unfeigned faith in and love for the Lord God and His Holy Word (see 2 Timothy 1:5 & Deuteronomy 6:4-6).)
2.  The teaching of Timothy's youth was from the right source - "and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures."  (From the truth and wisdom of God's Holy Scriptures themselves, not man's doctrine, but God's Word.)
3.  The teaching of Timothy's youth was of the right quality - "and hast been assured of . . . which are able to make thee wise."  (Diligently grounded in the holy scriptures so as to develop Biblical conviction and godly wisdom in the heart (see Deuteronomy 6:7-9).)
4.  The teaching of Timothy's youth was for the right purpose - "which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."  (For the purpose of developing a faith-filled relationship in and with the Lord Jesus Christ, not just as an eternal escape from hell, but as a daily walk of fellowship.)
In truth, this is just the type of teaching that the Lord our God has assigned for every parent to fulfill in the upbringing of their children. (See Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Proverbs 22:6; Ephesians 6:4; etc.)  Indeed, this will be the objective of every godly parent throughout the upbringing of their children.  Even so, to the extent that godly parents do fulfill this type of upbringing in the lives of their children, the Book of the Proverbs instructs young adults time and again NOT to forget or depart from that very teaching.
Now, am I ignoring the reality that many parents and/or past authorities (even so-called "good" Christian parents or authorities) are not fulfilling this God-given responsibility according to the Biblical definition and qualification thereof?  God forbid!  I am quite well aware of this failure on the part of many.  And it will be necessary at some point for adults to depart from the ungodly, unbiblical teaching of parents and past authorities (see Proverbs 19:27; 1 Timothy 6:3-5; etc.) and to develop convictions and behavior that conforms unto the actual truth and wisdom of God's Holy Word.  However, this is NOT a "departure" simply to establish one's own "adult-independence."  Rather, this is a departure specifically to move away from falsehood unto actual Biblical truth.  Indeed, casting aside the teachings of our youth simply to demonstrate some form of "adult-independence" is NOT a sign of spiritual maturity, but actually a sign of spiritual immaturity.  According to the Book of the Proverbs, it is NOT a sign of godly wisdom, but of ungodly foolishness.
Furthermore, I am not ignoring the necessity for adults to study the truth and wisdom of God's Holy Word with diligence for themselves, so as to develop personally rooted convictions in God's Word, rather than simply to possess "authorities" rooted convictions from what others have taught.  However, the Biblical teachings of parents and past authorities should not be "cast aside" in relation to this pursuit, but should serve as the foundation upon which to build this pursuit.  Indeed, this pursuit of diligent study in the truth and wisdom of God's Holy Word should be a characteristic of our daily lives as the children of God continually unto the end the of our lives. (See Joshua 1:8; Psalm 1:1-2; 2 Timothy 2:15; etc.)

Where in the Old Testament was Abraham COMMANDED by God to tithe? You seem to confuse descriptive history with it being “instituted by God”. Just because Abraham tithed, does not mean he did it because God “instituted” a tithe on him. The Old Testament is full of people giving things to God that he did not require, but simply because they CHOSE to in order to worship and honor God. 

Where in the Old Testament was Abraham COMMANDED by God to tithe? You seem to confuse descriptive history with it being “instituted by God”. Just because Abraham tithed, does not mean he did it because God “instituted” a tithe on him. The Old Testament is full of people giving things to God that he did not require, but simply because they CHOSE to in order to worship and honor God. 

We get upset about Replacement Theology; however, many of today's churches practice a form of Replacement Theology (without even realizing it). Today's church has replaced Israel in tithing...
1.    They have replaced who is to tithe.
2.    They have replaced what is to be tithed.
3.    They have replaced where to tithe.
4.    They have replaced why they tithe.
5.    They have replaced when they tithe.
So, without even realizing what they're doing, they are practicing Replacement Theology by replacing Israel with the church in this regard.
 

First, I find no need to "account" for these things.  These things are based upon the so-called "doctrine of numerology," to which I grant very little credibility because it lacks Scriptural support.
Second, if for the sake of the argument we grant that the 1611 King James translation is the final basis for our Biblical study as English readers, then your numbering system concerning the books of the Bible is incorrect.  In the 1611 King James translation the 40th book was NOT Matthew.  Rather, the 40th book was 1 Esdras; for the 1611 King James translation included 14 books of the Apocrypha between Malachi and Matthew.  This would also mean that the 1611 King James translation included 80 books altogether, not 66.
Third, the fact that the 1611 King James translation included 14 books of the Apocrypha actually raises a question in relation to your belief system.  You believe that the 1611 King James translation provided "advance revelations," since you believe that the King James translators were somehow specially guided by God the Holy Spirit in the translational process.  So then, since they included 14 books of the Apocrypha, do you believe that we should be viewing these additional books as Holy Scripture as well?  If not, then how do you account for the inclusion of the Apocrypha by those who were supposedly so specially guided by God the Holy Spirit?  Was the inclusion of the Apocrypha by the will of man, by the will of God, or by the will of the devil?
Fourth, if, on the other hand, you deny the credibility of the Apocrypha books (although they were included in the 1611 edition of the King James translation) because those books are no longer included in the 1769 edition of the King James translation (which is the one that we use today), then that raises a different question.  Which of the five editions of the King James translation (1611 edition, 1629 edition, 1638 edition, 1762 edition, 1769 edition) is the single one that you have chosen to be your final authority?  Furthermore, if you choose any one of the four editions after the 1611, to what extent did the King James translators really possess the "special" guidance of the Holy Spirit, since what they did needed further editing changes?  In addition, what "special" guidance of the Holy Spirit was required for the various editors of these additional editions, in order to rightly make editing changes to that which had been originally given in 1611?  Finally, if the various editors were so granted "special" guidance of God the Holy Spirit to make editing changes to that which had come before them, then why is it no longer possible for God the Holy Spirit to provide "special" guidance again in our day to make more editing changes in our day (not that I myself have any desire that any such thing should occur)?  According to your belief system, how can you doctrinally verify from Holy Scripture that the edition of the King James translation that you have chosen for yourself is the FINAL authority which allows no further editing changes?
  

To all,
At present I am encountering a difficulty with handling the discussion to the extent that I desire.  For the past few days, I have been unable to access my OnlineBaptist account from any computer at my own house.  On the other hand, I AM able to access my account from other people's houses, which is what I am doing at present (at my in-law's).  This has happened before and lasted approximately a week.  I believe that it is a problem either with my router or with my internet provider.  Therefore, having to access my account at other's houses limits my response-ability, because I do not have regular daily access.
___________________________________
To Brother West,
You posted the following on my personal profile:
Until the concluding two paragraphs, this presentation seems to be a response to the opening quote -- "Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles."  To this quote you then stated to me -- "I really do not know where you are going with this."  The problem is that I myself did not present the original quotation.  That original quotation was made above in this thread discussion by Brother Tony, not by me, as follows:
Therefore, I cannot tell you where Brother Tony intended to be "going with this" statement.  In order to know that, you have to talk to Brother Tony about it, not to me.
__________________________________________________
Now, concerning your closing paragraph of that posting on my personal profile, as follows:
First, let us recognize that chapter and verse divisions for the entire Old and New Testament Scriptures did NOT first begin with the King James translation.  Although they were not included in the 1526 Tyndale translation or the 1537 Matthews translation, they were included in the 1560 Geneva translation.  Even so, if for the sake of the argument we grant that these chapter and verse divisions were "advance revelation" (which I emphatically deny as true doctrine), then the King James translators did NOT themselves receive that "advance revelation."  Then the King James translators were only continuing the "advance revelation" that had originally been granted to the Geneva translators.  In addition, if we grant that such "advance revelation" can occur and be added through a sequence of English translations (which I emphatically deny), then there would be no grounds for claiming that a more modern English translation has not possibly also provided us with even further (and/or corrective) "advance revelation."  What doctrinal grounds would we then have to claim that such "advance revelations" that occurred in the Tyndale translation, then in the Geneva translation, then in the 1611 King James translation, then in the four further editions of the King James translation, has ended with the 1769 edition of the King James translation?  What doctrinal grounds would we then have to claim that God has not provided additional "advance revelations" in one or more of the English translations from the 1800s, 1900s, and 2000s?    
Second, since I would definitely deny that these chapter and verse divisions are "advance revelation," and since there is no direct Scriptural support for them, you ask whether I would reject them altogether.  In answer I would say - No, there is no need to reject them altogether.  These chapter and verse divisions serve as very useful TOOLS in locating specific statements of Holy Scripture for both Bible study and Bible memorization.  Even so, there is good reason to retain them, and not to reject them.  However, since these chapter and verse divisions were man made and were not a part of the original inspiration or divine preservation of the Holy Scriptures, they should NOT be viewed as carrying the "jot and tittle" authority of the very Holy Scriptures.  Thus if a preacher or teacher indicates that a particular chapter division or verse division is "unfortunate," he is only expressing disagreement with a man-made tool, not with the Holy Spirit inspired and preserved Scriptures themselves.
 

In my case it is not simply "overtones;" rather, it is a very direct accusation.  (And I am not shy to acknowledge it as such.)
Except that I have not asked for an "example" of a place wherein you think that the King James translation has provided "advanced revelation" upon the original Hebrew and Greek.  Rather, I have asked for you to provide actual doctrinal truth FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE that the Lord our God intended to provide "advance revelation" through the King James translation.  Indeed, above I provided the following challenge:
_______________________________________
However, let us consider your presented "example." --
1.  The King James translators did NOT "carry on" any "advance revelation" in their translational choice to use the English word "churches" in Acts 19:37.  In fact, if the word "churches" in this verse actually is "advance revelation" (which I emphatically deny), then the King James translators only continued the "advance revelation" that had already been revealed through the 1526 Tyndale translation (as you yourself admited above).
2.  No, as an advocate of the "original languages," I do NOT "cry error" to the translational choice of the King James translators for their usage of the English word "churches" in Acts 19:37.
3.  Yes, the King James translators certainly were "learned in the original languages," just as they were quite learned in the English language as well.  So, let us consider the English word "church."  In its etymology the English Word "church" comes from the Middle English "chirche, kirke," back through the Old English and the German ultimately to the Greek word "kuriakon."  Now, the meaning of the Greek word "kuriakon" is "a temple or religious building dedicated unto a god."  Even so, the most basic meaning for the English word "church" is "a building set apart or consecrated for public worship."  The particular deity for whom this building is consecrated is NOT specified in the word, only that the building is consecrated for the religious worship of some deity.  As such, the English word "church" is an English synonym for the English word "temple."  So then, why does the English word "churches" find its place in the translation of Acts 19:37?  In the King James translation the whole English phrase "robbers of churches" translates the single Greek word "ierosulos."  Now, the Greek word "ierosulos" was formed by the joining of the Greek noun "ieron" (translated by the English word "temple" throughout the King James translation) and the Greek verb "sulao" (meaning "to rob").  Even so, the basic meaning for the Greek noun "ierosulos" is "robbers of religious buildings."  Considering then the basic meaning of the Greek word in Acts 19:37 and the basic meaning of the English word "church," the King James translators were quite accurate in their translational choice, as per their superior understanding in both the Greek language and the English language.  We have no need to view them as being in some form of error.  Nor do we have any need to view them as presenting "advance revelation."  They simply translated the Greek that already existed with an accurate English phrase.

Yet, although the Gospel of John may have been written later than that of Matthew, Mark, or Luke, every message of the Lord Jesus Christ that it presents was communicated by the Lord Jesus Christ to Israelite individuals DURING the Lord Jesus' earthly ministry (a bit BEFORE God's inspired revelation unto Paul).  Even so, if you acknowledge that the Gospel of John as a whole presents the gospel for all the Gentile world throughout the age of the church, then it would be consistent to acknowledge that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself preached and taught that very gospel to Israelites DURING His ministry on the earth.

Totally agree with your philosophy. It certainly would cost both local churches and missionaries less money in the long run, and also would make furloughs easier. Also makes it easier for your church to actually mentally keep up with your supported missionaries. a lot easier to keep up with 5 missionaries at say 300 a month than 20 missionaries at 75 a month. 

Well, I have already presented earlier in this thread discussion my position concerning the continuance of "inspirational AUTHORITY" upon preserved copies and accurate translations of the Holy Scriptures (which I can accept as "derived inspiration," depending upon the definition of this phrase).
However, when handling the opening line of 2 Timothy 3:16, let us be sure to handle it with grammatical precision -- "All scripture IS GIVEN by inspiration of God."  Yes, this statement DOES speak in the present tense.  However, this statement ONLY speaks concerning the GIVING of Holy Scripture.  The statement is NOT that all Scripture is COPIED BY (by means of) inspiration of God.  The statement is NOT that all Scripture is TRANSLATED BY (by means of) inspiration of God.  The statement is ONLY that all Scripture is GIVEN BY (by means of) inspiration of God.  The Lord our God GAVE His Holy Word by means of inspiration, wherein holy men of God spoke/communicated it specifically as they were moved by the Holy Spirit of God (See 2 Peter 1:21).  As such, I am not aware of any passage which teaches that the copying or translating of Holy Scripture would be done BY (by means of) inspiration of God.  
On the other hand, there DOES remain the doctrine of PRESERVATION to be considered.

Two significant New Testament passages concerning inspiration are the following:
2 Timothy 3:16 - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God."
2 Peter 1:21 - "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
Concerning the application of these passages in relation to the King James translation, we might consider whether the following is Biblically legitimate to claim:
1.  All the King James translation is translated (given) by inspiration of God.
2.  The King James translation came not in 1611 by the will of man, but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Concerning other English translations, we might consider whether the following is Biblically legitimate to claim:
1.  All the Geneva translation is translated (given) by inspiration of God.
2.  The Geneva translation came not in past time by the will of man, but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Or,
1.  All the New International translation is translated (given) by inspiration of God.
2.  The New International translation came not in past time by the will of man, but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
(Note: In this posting I am NOT revealing my own position concerning these considerations; rather, I am presenting these considerations in order to challenge precise understanding within doctrinal positioning.)

God does not say is word is purified seven times. he says it is like silver purified seven times. The comparison is the to the end product of the purified silver, not the process of getting to the silver. 

God tells us that Holy Men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit and that the scriptures are given by inspiration of God. To claim that God's originally inspired word given in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek needed any kind of purifying is heretical nonsense. There are no impurities in what God gives by Inspiration and it needs no purifying. Also the purifying verse has nothing to do with translation. When David wrote that Psalm under Inspiration he was just talking about the pureness of God's word, not some need for it to be purified. End product is in mind, not the process of purification of silver. 

God does not say is word is purified seven times. he says it is like silver purified seven times. The comparison is the to the end product of the purified silver, not the process of getting to the silver. 

God tells us that Holy Men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit and that the scriptures are given by inspiration of God. To claim that God's originally inspired word given in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek needed any kind of purifying is heretical nonsense. There are no impurities in what God gives by Inspiration and it needs no purifying. Also the purifying verse has nothing to do with translation. When David wrote that Psalm under Inspiration he was just talking about the pureness of God's word, not some need for it to be purified. End product is in mind, not the process of purification of silver. 

God does not say is word is purified seven times. he says it is like silver purified seven times. The comparison is the to the end product of the purified silver, not the process of getting to the silver. 

God tells us that Holy Men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit and that the scriptures are given by inspiration of God. To claim that God's originally inspired word given in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek needed any kind of purifying is heretical nonsense. There are no impurities in what God gives by Inspiration and it needs no purifying. Also the purifying verse has nothing to do with translation. When David wrote that Psalm under Inspiration he was just talking about the pureness of God's word, not some need for it to be purified. End product is in mind, not the process of purification of silver. 

I use to say in the past that the NKJV was based on different manuscripts than the KJV. I said that based on what I had heard and read online and I have come to believe that it is NOT true that the NKJV only partly uses the same underlying manuscripts as the KJV.

While I agree that the NKJV is a new translation and not simply an updated KJV, I do not believe it's factual that it only "partly uses the same underlying manuscripts", the NKJV is based on the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the KJV. As part of my study for my Master of Theology in Biblical Languages, I have spent the last 7 months studying, comparing, noting differences and annotating several chapters in depth in the KJV, NKJV and MEV (Modern English Version) with the Hebrew Masoretic Text, In addition to my work in the OT, At this point I have looked at every verse in the NT of the NKJV except Revelation, and so far I have not found a single place where the NKJV departed from the Hebrew Masoretic Text or the Greek Textus Receptus. Every example I have seen cited in articles online where an accusation is made of the NKJV being based on a different text, I found after honesty study and and inquired of the specific cited examples that the issues were simply a differences of translation choices but differences which could somewhat reasonably be considered justifiable/allowable by the Hebrew/Greek. Many of the places I have looked at where people have accused the NKJV of following the Critical Text, the Critical Text has had the same Greek wording as the TR.

 Now, don't misunderstand me, one can certainly make a legitimate case for places in the NKJV where certain translational choices are unhelpful, subpar, or even erroneous; I have found myself disagreeing with translational choices that the NKJV has made in several places, however, claiming that the NKJV is based on different manuscripts than the KJV is an accusation that seems to be made without basis in truth. I have heard several people over the last few months claim that "Only the KJV is based on the right Hebrew and Greek texts and EVERY other translation is based on corrupt Hebrew and Greek texts", and as far as I can tell, this claim is NOT factually accurate. If any claim is not true, then it should stop being repeated.

Whenever false information is repeated, there are always people who eventually realize that the information was wrong, and eventually those people often throw the baby out with the bath water because of it. When they find something they were told about the KJV or other translations is false, then they will begin to question everything or to reject many if not all of the things they are told about the translation issue. I cannot tell you how many people I have met who were propelled into embracing a full on critical text position because of things they were taught about the Bible Translation issue that were false. There are many people who realize that popular KJV defenders like Gail Riplinger, and Sam Gipp tell false information, misleading information, and even outright lies, and sadly that often propels them to someone like James White who also gives false and misleading information.

You can't blindly trust everything people say just because they happen to agree with your position, you also can't blindly trust someone just because you respect them and they have godly character. We need to be discerning, and discernment does not mean you only use discernment with those OUTSIDE your church, circle, family, etc... True discernment means you are careful about EVERYTHING you hear and are taught. 

1 Th 5:21 says "prove all things, hold fast that which is good" 

Many point to this passage to teach divorce and marriage in the case of adultery:
 
Matthew 19:9  And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
similar wording is also found in Matthew 5
I believe the exception clause refers to

1. Incestuous marriages (See Leviticus 18) (I also believe all sodomite "marriages" and sad that I have to say in our time and age but beastiality "marriages" would also be invalid as well, though I realize our passage in question relates to husband putting away a wife)
2. Betrothal unfaithfulness

Matthew 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

Deuteronomoy 22:13-21

If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her,saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil

Some other things to consider:

1. The NT teaching for Husbands
Eph 5:25-28
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

If Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church, how can we justify someone putting his wife away for adultery? Does Jesus divorce us and end his relationship with us when we are unfaithful to him?

2. Suffering for righteousness

1 Peter 2:20-21 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

3. God hates divorce

2:14-16 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

Matthew 19:4-8 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

4. Other NT Passages

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Romans 7:2-3

For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

5. When you make a vow that "Till death do us part" I do not believe adultery gives you the right to break that covenant and promise you made to your spouse to love them and care for them "Till death do us part". 

6. If you were committing adultery, would you want your spouse to divorce you? or would you want her to love you and pray for you until you came to a place of repentance? We are to do to others as we would have done unto ourselves.

Just some final notes, I do not see how the verse in Corinthians that says "is not under bondage" can mean they are free to remarry, in my opinion that is something read into the passage. Also I realize that under the Law of Moses God allowed remarriage, however, it is said that was for the hardness of their hearts, I do not think God ever was happy with any kind of divorce, God clearly hates divorce, and New Testament Christians should go far beyond the letter of the law of the Moses because we have the Spirit of God indwelling us.

It's not my word, it's the words of God, and when you stand before God you won't be judged by the words of your Pastor or me, but the words of God. 

Where does it say that if someone violates the marriage covenant in Ephesians 5 that you are free to divorce?
 And if it did, does that mean your husband can divorce you for not submitting to him even once? (Ephesians 5:24 says wives are to be subject to their husbands in "everything")
Can you explain to me how many times those commands in Ephesians 5 have to be broken before you can divorce?
Where does Ephesians 5 say "if your spouse does not do this, they have broken the marriage covenant and you can now divorce them"?
According to the same reasoning can children can dissolve their relationship with their parents if their father provokes them to wrath based on Ephesians 6:3?
I gave clear possibilities in my original post of what the "except for fornication" clause means, and I then listed several passages that make it clear that God hates divorce and I showed passages that refute the idea of divorce and remarriage. it says GOD HATES IT!
Do you believe me God makes approves for someone to do something that he HATES? 
If fornication is grounds for divorce, can any woman leave her husband based on the fact that Jesus said if you look at a woman to lust after her you have committed adultery with her already in your heart? so basically any woman can divorce her husband then?
The bible says to allow an unbeliever to leave, but where does it clearly say the believer is free to remarry after the unbelieving leaves.
It says they are not under bondage to the spouse, how do you know that means "Free to remarry"
Don't we need to interpret passages in the bible that are not as clear with ones that are clear? where is the Bible clear that God allows for remarriage while the previous spouse is living? Isn't it based on reading one's own ideas into phrases like "except it be for fornication" or "is not under bondage"?