The question I'm asking now is that if there were any way that the betrothal model does not work grammatically, then please let that be known. The grammar fits perfectly in Matt 5;32 and 19;9 when the betrothal model is applied.
I don't recall this being the issue. Matt has agreed that the wording of the passage could fit with the betrothal model. I don't think anyone has denied that. I certainly wouldn't. The question is whether the wording fits equally, or better, with alternative models to the betrothal model. I have seen both Matt and Homer repeatedly point out the obvious fact to you that porneia, in the passages, can as easily carry a broader meaning—but you do not seem to get it. I think they may have gotten the message that you are not listening, or thinking clearly about what they have said. After enough of this, people find better things to do with their time.
It is not that it could
fit, it does fit grammatically, and perfectly.
I don't think you perceived the motive for my asking for evidence showing that the betrothal model does not work grammatically.
Since the adultery model has grammatical problems and the betrothal model does not, that would indicate that the betrothal model was the authors intention. By asking for grammatical faults with the betrothal model, and finding none, this emphasizes its validity.
The word fornication can and often does mean the premarital sin exclusively.
Like the NT words "thieves" "extortioners" and "defraud", they are all forms of theft, yet when speaking of the covert kind of a person taking what is not rightly theirs, "theft", the same word that describes them all also has a specific covert usage.
When words have more than one definition, in this case "fornication" can possess its specific premarital definition, a context can try that definition to see if the context accomodates it. Since 'fornication" can be used to pertain to sexual sin generally, the same context can also be tried with that definition to see if the context accommodates it.
When fornication is assumed to be the post marital sexual sin, the contexts of 5:32 and 19:9 are not consistent: the last clause requires added words read between the lines.
When fornication is understood to mean the premarital sexual sin and hence pointing to the betrothal divorce for fornication, not adultery, the last clause means exactly as it appears to mean, in accordance with the last clauses of the other references in Mark and Luke. The need to insert, whether mentally or in writing, "not so divorced" or the equivalent, is not necessary. That necessary addition under the adultery model is messy with regards to the reference in Luke, especially. The same last clause in Luke would be expected to take on a meaning hinging on the existence of the exception clause and yet the verse does not have the exception clause.
The plain difference in meaning between the verses in Matt when compared to Luke and Mark is messy. This messiness does not occur under the betrothal model.
Doubtful questions emerge from the leaven. Mark and Luke both left out an essential phrase that establishes that divorce is absolutely allowed, but which by lacking that phrase divorce is absolutely not allowed? Were they ignorant or were their texts corrupted? Such questions only belong to the adultery model.
The adultery model is grammatically incompetent within the actual texts of Matt 5:32 and 19:9.
Failure to produce a grammatical parallel demonstrating the function and construction as claimed by the adultery model is the same as conceding that the adultery model always has been a private interpretation.
The mechanics of the sentence are radically changed when viewed under the betrothal model. The complications and messiness does not exist. There is no connection between the exception clause and the last clause.
So I ask again, what incompetence or convolution of meaning exists in the texts of Matthew when the exception is understood by the betrothal model? None. It enjoys grammatical perfection. Words do not need to be inserted within the last clause to reflect its meaning
The adultery model must claim that its grammatical failure is correct, while the perfect grammar which occurs under the betrothal model is wrong.