The plain truth about OT polygamy

[RichardT]

http://www.giveshare.org/family/polygamy.html

by Herbert W. Armstrong (too bad his theology was way off, this is the only thing I would post of his)

[TwinCrier]

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. ^_^
It's sad that Christians would use examples of polygamy in the bible to justify the act, when the examples clearly show it's never a good situation. I see the same false logic applied to slavery. Atheist on another part of this board repeatedly parrot that the bible condones slavery. :sigh:

[Sword-In-Hand]

OT polygamy is one of my studies. Don't read into that too much. If not for anything else, polygamy is stupid because no man can handle two wives. I squeak by trying to please one. I want no part of Solomon's "wisdom".;) Any man who thinks having a 1000 women is wise, well that should just speak for itself that is isn't.:P

However, what this person posted about the house of David is entirely false. I think the only thing he got right was David and Bathsheba's name.

[RichardT]

However, what this person posted about the house of David is entirely false. I think the only thing he got right was David and Bathsheba's name.

So God condoned polygomy?

[Sword-In-Hand]

My answer is, I don't know if He did. If you read the whole story in 2nd Samuel, David wasn't punished for polygamy. He was punished for murder and adultery. Read for yourself in 2nd Samuel 12:8, "And I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more."

And after David was punished, does it ever say he divorced his wives and forsook his concubines? I haven't found it if does. He did repent from adultery and murder, and remember in OT times, adultery was where a man took a woman who was already married, if she were single or not betrothed to someone, it was not against the Law. And as long as a man didn't take wives in abundance (Deut 17:17), then it didn't break laws either. It was wrong for David to take Bathsheba because she was married, and David made right by marrying her.

We have to remember that OT times were very different than they are now. It was encouraged for households to flourish and for people to have as many offspring as possible. And we can't say, well there's no way God would permit this. God told the Children of Israel to go into countries and slay men, women and children, down to the last one. To me, in my human mind, that's more atrocious than permitting a man's name to carry on through time by different wives. It is hard to compare a world under the Law, to our world which is under Grace. Polygamy is not needed in these times at all, which I think the NT clears up very nicely.

We surely can't say that Abraham was punished for polygamy, or even adultery. He was punished for disobedience and lack of faith. He didn't want to wait on God to give him a son, so he took it upon himself to make a son.

What about Gideon? He had 75 wives. Realy, all the instances this article sights are wrong.

The fact is, that article you posted, isn't "plain truth", it's erratic opinion about a subject the man finds appaling. What this article goes to show is that anyone can take a few verses and reword them in such a way that breathing is a sin to God.

[KarrieTex]

My answer is, I don't know if He did. If you read the whole story in 2nd Samuel, David wasn't punished for polygamy. He was punished for murder and adultery. Read for yourself in 2nd Samuel 12:8, "And I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more."

And after David was punished, does it ever say he divorced his wives and forsook his concubines? I haven't found it if does. He did repent from adultery and murder, and remember in OT times, adultery was where a man took a woman who was already married, if she were single or not betrothed to someone, it was not against the Law. And as long as a man didn't take wives in abundance (Deut 17:17), then it didn't break laws either. It was wrong for David to take Bathsheba because she was married, and David made right by marrying her.

We have to remember that OT times were very different than they are now. It was encouraged for households to flourish and for people to have as many offspring as possible. And we can't say, well there's no way God would permit this. God told the Children of Israel to go into countries and slay men, women and children, down to the last one. To me, in my human mind, that's more atrocious than permitting a man's name to carry on through time by different wives. It is hard to compare a world under the Law, to our world which is under Grace. Polygamy is not needed in these times at all, which I think the NT clears up very nicely.

We surely can't say that Abraham was punished for polygamy, or even adultery. He was punished for disobedience and lack of faith. He didn't want to wait on God to give him a son, so he took it upon himself to make a son.

What about Gideon? He had 75 wives. Realy, all the instances this article sights are wrong.

The fact is, that article you posted, isn't "plain truth", it's erratic opinion about a subject the man finds appaling. What this article goes to show is that anyone can take a few verses and reword them in such a way that breathing is a sin to God.
You are missing one huge point. Solomon and David, as examples, took many wives as political treaties as well. In fact most marriages of that sort were simply a sealing of an alliance between 2 countries.

[Sword-In-Hand]

You are missing one huge point. Solomon and David, as examples, took many wives as political treaties as well. In fact most marriages of that sort were simply a sealing of an alliance between 2 countries.



I'm sure that's true, but there's no way to prove or disprove that David or Solomon just put these women aside and didn't engage in sex with them. Remember they had concubines as well.

Solomon probably forgot all the wives he had. 365 days a year----1000 women. Can't be seeing them all.;)

[KarrieTex]

I'm sure that's true, but there's no way to prove or disprove that David or Solomon just put these women aside and didn't engage in sex with them. Remember they had concubines as well.

Solomon probably forgot all the wives he had. 365 days a year----1000 women. Can't be seeing them all.;)
SIGH...there is huge proof they had sex with their wives and concubines, which were considered almost equal to a wife.

They had children.

I am sure they had harems just like the sultans of old. I am sure there were some women who never got visited and some who were visited weekly if not daily.

We may never know why God allowed this to happen. I do see though that even though God didn't particulary "vote for it", He didn't punish them. David was a man after His own heart. His punishement was for adultary not for multiple wives. Solomon until he decided to follow idols was as Godly and blessed with many wives.

It is probably a question to ask God when you are finally able to talk to Him one on one.

[Sword-In-Hand]

SIGH...there is huge proof they had sex with their wives and concubines, which were considered almost equal to a wife.

They had children.

I am sure they had harems just like the sultans of old. I am sure there were some women who never got visited and some who were visited weekly if not daily.

We may never know why God allowed this to happen. I do see though that even though God didn't particulary "vote for it", He didn't punish them. David was a man after His own heart. His punishement was for adultary not for multiple wives. Solomon until he decided to follow idols was as Godly and blessed with many wives.

It is probably a question to ask God when you are finally able to talk to Him one on one.

I'm confused. Are we arguing or agreeing? Maybe I misunderstood your first post, but I thought you were trying to imply that David and Solomon had multiple wives only for political power. But after this last post, you echoed what I first said. God didn't punish polygamy.

[KarrieTex]

I'm confused. Are we arguing or agreeing? Maybe I misunderstood your first post, but I thought you were trying to imply that David and Solomon had multiple wives only for political power. But after this last post, you echoed what I first said. God didn't punish polygamy.
SIGH...no you misunderstood. I was saying you forgot one reason why they did.

[Sword-In-Hand]

SIGH...no you misunderstood. I was saying you forgot one reason why they did.

Roger. Understand now....SIGH:P

[Pepperoni]

Roger. Understand now....SIGH:P
Does anyone find it odd that there are no examples in either the OT or NT where a woman had multiple husbands? I wonder why that would be . . . ? :scratch:

[KarrieTex]

Does anyone find it odd that there are no examples in either the OT or NT where a woman had multiple husbands? I wonder why that would be . . . ? :scratch:
Because we are smarter and didn't want to increase our work load?

[Sword-In-Hand]

Does anyone find it odd that there are no examples in either the OT or NT where a woman had multiple husbands? I wonder why that would be . . . ? :scratch:

They would have been stoned if they tried that lol. Pretty much it was a male dominated society, although as we can see in the Bible, women played too many pivotal roles to mention.

[KarrieTex]

They would have been stoned if they tried that lol. Pretty much it was a male dominated society, although as we can see in the Bible, women played too many pivotal roles to mention.
I still say it's because we are a lot smarter. Bad enough handling one man much less 2 or more.

[TwistTim]

wow, that article was a load of bunk... just looking at the Jacob part, because I just read though Genesis and in the middle of Exodus..... Jacob's other lesser wives were still alive after his "conversion" where he called on the Name of the Lord but was still married to Leah, Rachel, and the two others.... Yes Rachel died, in childbirth, but that was not uncommon, are you saying God smote the more lovely and stronger love of Jacob so he'd be a one woman man? that's what that article claims.... fine but what about the two slaves turned wives?

[Sword-In-Hand]

wow, that article was a load of bunk... just looking at the Jacob part, because I just read though Genesis and in the middle of Exodus..... Jacob's other lesser wives were still alive after his "conversion" where he called on the Name of the Lord but was still married to Leah, Rachel, and the two others.... Yes Rachel died, in childbirth, but that was not uncommon, are you saying God smote the more lovely and stronger love of Jacob so he'd be a one woman man? that's what that article claims.... fine but what about the two slaves turned wives?

The article's target audience was toward people who don't read the Bible. I read the first sentence concerning Abraham, and I was like, "ok, that's not right." It's just an agenda to feign Biblical knowledge so the band wagonneers can grow in number. It's people trying to make the OT sound like the NT.

[Jenniewren]

Does anyone find it odd that there are no examples in either the OT or NT where a woman had multiple husbands? I wonder why that would be . . . ? :scratch:


I am reading this thread with interest and I hope no one minds if I add something.

It is really very simple. Israel was a patriarchal society. The eldest son inherited the family wealth and position. All children inherited the family name. If a man had two or more wives the important thing was that he was the father If a woman had two or more husbands the paternity would be in doubt. (It is usually obvious who the mother is). So no poligamy for women.

My question just out of interest is was poligamy acceptable to the Jews in Jesus' day? Did converts have to put aside thier extra wives?

[Lionroot]

My question just out of interest is was poligamy acceptable to the Jews in Jesus' day? Did converts have to put aside thier extra wives?

Jews continued the practice for another 1000 years until oppression from Rome forced a ban on it.

No, divorce was forbidden quite explicitly in the early church.

God Bless,

Robert

[JuJube]

I am reading this thread with interest and I hope no one minds if I add something.

It is really very simple. Israel was a patriarchal society. The eldest son inherited the family wealth and position. All children inherited the family name. If a man had two or more wives the important thing was that he was the father If a woman had two or more husbands the paternity would be in doubt. (It is usually obvious who the mother is). So no poligamy for women.

My question just out of interest is was poligamy acceptable to the Jews in Jesus' day? Did converts have to put aside thier extra wives?
I Ti. 3: 12 says that a deacon must be a husband of one wife. I know people use this verse for no divorce, but could it mean no poligamy?

[mont974x4]

I don't remember the verse or rationale behind it but I was told years ago that the kings were not to have more than one wife. They were to lead by example.

Regardless in Genesis it says a man a woman become one flesh...not a man and however many wives he thinks he's brave enough to try and keep happy.

hmmm

YLT
Gen 29:28 And Jacob doth so, and fulfilleth the week of this one, and he giveth to him Rachel his daughter, to him for a wife;
Gen 29:29 and Laban giveth to Rachel his daughter Bilhah his maid-servant, for a maid-servant to her.
Gen 29:30 And he goeth in also unto Rachel, and he also loveth Rachel more than Leah; and he serveth with him yet seven other years.
Gen 29:31 And Jehovah seeth that Leah is the hated one, and He openeth her womb, and Rachel is barren;

[Jenniewren]

Ti. 3: 12 says that a deacon must be a husband of one wife. I know people use this verse for no divorce, but could it mean no poligamy?

I assume it means no poligamy because otherwise a single person would not be able to serve as an elder or deacon.

[Lionroot]

I don't remember the verse or rationale behind it but I was told years ago that the kings were not to have more than one wife. They were to lead by example.

Dueteronomy 17:17 KJV
Please let me know if you think we should follow this example.


Regardless in Genesis it says a man a woman become one flesh.

...and they do.

The Hebrew word for woman, women, wife, and wives are all the same word. Like the word "you" in English it is both plural and singular.

David was one flesh with Michal, and David was one flesh with Abigail, and so on...


..not a man and however many wives he thinks he's brave enough to try and keep happy.

What do you mean "brave enough"? Do you fear your wife? I dont understand?

God Bless,

Robert

[Lionroot]

I assume it means no poligamy because otherwise a single person would not be able to serve as an elder or deacon.

Single people cannot serve in that capacity. Consider 1 Tim 3:4
He (the overseer, or bishop(depending on what version your reading)) must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)

[mont974x4]

Ahh yes, that would be a good verse on the subject. Seems pretty clear to not have multiple wives. Which I was never for (sorry if I gave that impression) I was simply trying to add to the discussion.



Nope, I do not fear my wife. It was a joke. LOL I have enough chores with one "honey-do list" as it is.


Years ago I shared a house with my wife, my sister, and a friend of the family (also a woman). We were young and just starting out so we split expenses. Anyways, that was not an entirely pleasant situation...living with 3 pregnant women. :eek:


God bless
Jay

[Lionroot]

Greetings Jay,

Ahh yes, that would be a good verse on the subject. Seems pretty clear to not have multiple wives. [/q]



[quote]Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. -Deuteronomy 17:17

Your assuming as most modern readers do that the words "multiply wives" limits the King to only one. Then what do you make out of the verse just before it?

But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

Certainly this is not a limit of the King of Israel to only one horse. That would be silly.

No, the word "multiply" is the Hebrew word "rahab" which means "be or become great, be or become many, be or become much, be or become numerous" (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07235&Version=kjv)

Other modern translations put the verse this way"

NLT (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Deu&chapter=17&version=nlt) - Deu 17:17 -The king must not take many wives for himself, because they will lead him away from the Lord. And he must not accumulate vast amounts of wealth in silver and gold for himself. New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust (http://www.blueletterbible.org/versions.html#nlt)
NIV (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Deu&chapter=17&version=niv) - Deu 17:17 -He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society (http://www.blueletterbible.org/versions.html#niv)
ESV (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Deu&chapter=17&version=esv) - Deu 17:17 -“And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles (http://www.blueletterbible.org/versions.html#esv)


Ok, so the King was only limited from taking many wives.
So what was the part about following thier example?

God Bless,

Robert

[mont974x4]

Looks to me that God was telling them the king was not to add any of those things.

Deu 17:14 "When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, 'I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,'
Deu 17:15 you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.
Deu 17:16 "Moreover, he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor shall he cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never again return that way.'
Deu 17:17 "He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.
Deu 17:18 "Now it shall come about when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests.
Deu 17:19 "It shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes,
Deu 17:20 that his heart may not be lifted up above his countrymen and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, to the right or the left, so that he and his sons may continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel.



Of course, this is also a prophesy about things to come. Later the people did demand a king to be over them like the nations around them and God warned them that the king would disobey this passage in Deut. and they still demanded a king and the kings did do those things.

[Lionroot]

So you believe that the King of Israel was limited to one horse?

Is that what your trying to say?

[Jenniewren]

Lionroot,
Getting back to elders, 1 Timothy 3:4 Gives clear instructions to married elder's concerning their family life. It does not say a single person can not be an elder. If you think about it this would put doubt on Paul's own qualifications to be a church leader. I do not agree with those who believe he must have been married because it was important to him that people did the right thing by those dependant on them and he would not have wanted to be a terrible example as a husband and father to the church.
To say this verse disqualifies hardworking, sincere devout Christians from becoming leaders in the Church just because they have been called to be single is new to me.

[RichardT]

I re-read genesis-exodus and still didn't see any condonation of polygamy by God.

[Lionroot]

Lionroot,
Getting back to elders, 1 Timothy 3:4 Gives clear instructions to married elder's concerning their family life. It does not say a single person can not be an elder.

Is that what it says?


KJV - A bishop then must be ... the husband...
NLT - For an elder must be ... faithful to his wife.


In all version the scriptures say he "must" fulfill these requirements to be an elder (bishop, overseer), one of them is to be a husband. It does not say, as you seem to suggest, say, If he is married then...

Further he Paul goes on to say:He must manage his own family well, with children who respect and obey him. For if a man cannot manage his own household, how can he take care of God's church?
(Certainly he is not talking about "hardworking, sincere devout Christian" single fathers. That would be a bit of a stretch.







If you think about it this would put doubt on Paul's own qualifications to be a church leader.


Not at all. Paul was not an Elder in the church.


I do not agree with those who believe he must have been married ...

We agree that Paul was not married.


To say this verse disqualifies hardworking, sincere devout Christians from becoming leaders in the Church just because they have been called to be single is new to me.

There are only two offices with such qualifications, and God can make whatever standard He wants. There are many other leadership opportunities in which a single person can participate...Paul is an excellent example of one.


God Bless,

Robert

[RED that's ME]

God has a *permissible will* and a *perfect will.* I don't think it's his perfect will for either a male or female to have more than one spouse at a time even though several people in the OT had more than one spouse at a time.
I certainly wouldn't want to be *one* of several wives to a husband neither would I want more than one husband at a time. :P

[Countrygirl1976]

The definition of deacon in my bible is the following and it give the following verses. The definition first: A servant or mininster,an officer of a local church who assists the minister or thr priest.
Philippians 1:1 "To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.
1 Timothy 3:8 "Likewise deacons must be reverentm not double-tounged, not given to much winem not greedy for money.

[Lionroot]

I don't think ...

Its great that you have an opinion, but remember:

There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.


So lets get away from what you think and live by every word out of the mouth of God. What does God say about the topic?

[Lionroot]

Remember that the Bible is inspired. Things like the maps, charts, and dictionaries are not part of the canon.

[forSaviour]

So lets get away from what you think and live by every word out of the mouth of God. What does God say about the topic? />
OK! Book of Matthew19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 19:5 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? 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 19:8 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. 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.

[VT_Boy]

Remember that the Bible is inspired. Things like the maps, charts, and dictionaries are not part of the canon.

Do you have more than one wife? Would you, if you don't?
Also you might want to check the rules about nonBaptist members debating in the Baptist forum in the sticky threads.

[Lionroot]

OK! Book of Matthew19:3

Polygyny is not about divorce, and has absolutely nothing to do with the practice of polygyny. Surely you can find something specifically about polygyny without muddying the water with this other issue.

God Bless,

Robert

[Lionroot]

VT_boy,

One of the best sites about this topic is run by a Baptist Preacher.

http://www.christianmarriage.com/

His name is Pastor Don Milton. Check it out.

God Bless,

Robert

[forSaviour]

So "baptists" are different!There are 3 forms of baptism just in my land.Here I have see even more forms!The first baptist was John baptist who baptised Jesus.He was true baptist.The polygamy is in islam.(But now not anywhere)What you have common with islam even if you are not baptist?

[RichardT]

So "baptists" are different!There are 3 forms of baptism just in my land.Here I have see even more forms!The first baptist was John baptist who baptised Jesus.He was true baptist.The polygamy is in islam.(But now not anywhere)What you have common with islam even if you are not baptist?

huh?

[forSaviour]

Book of Deuteronomy17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. .

[Lionroot]

Book of Deuteronomy17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. .
Do you think the word "multiply" limits the King of Israel to one?

[RichardT]

Do you think the word "multiply" limits the King of Israel to one?

Yes.

[Middlemoor]

Oooh, the "King of Israel." Sounds like we're not on level footing here. Either king or slave, we are all equal. Just because on of us is a king and one of us is a slave, doesn't mean we should have different standards.

[Lionroot]

Do you think the word "multiply" limits the King of Israel to one?
Yes.Actually, the underlying Hebrew word limits the King of Israel from having a "great many" wives. I could do a bit to prove it but your not likely to believe me, but if you will do the research I promise this is no limitation to one wife here.

Oooh, the "King of Israel." Sounds like we're not on level footing here. This scripture addressed the then future Kings of Israel, not the masses. We all have our roles to play...


Either king or slave, we are all equal.
...but then some of us end up in hell. How "equal" is that?


Just because on of us is a king and one of us is a slave, doesn't mean we should have different standards.

That is a humanistic arguement, did you want to make a Biblical one?

[RED that's ME]

Anyone can twist scripture to say what they want to say. Like I said earlier, God has a *perfect will* and a *permissible will.* Just because certain Biblical characters had more than one spouse doesn't mean that it was *God approved* or right.

He didn't make an *extra spouse* for Adam & Eve, nor did he did with several others in scripture.

Mainstream Baptists don't agree with polygamy and if there are groups who advocated polygamy, they would be considered an off type cult and not mainstream Baptists. Fred Phelps comes to mind of a situation like that. Even though he uses the name *Baptist* he is not considered by mainstream Baptists, one of theirs.
http://www.letusreason.org/LDS25.htm
http://www.bibletruths.net/archives/BTAR324.htm
http://bibletruths.150m.com/Polygamy.htm
I guess it's not probably a subject addressed in the church today either, cause scripture telling us to obey the laws of the land and the laws say, one husband & one wife.

Polygamy may have been used in the Bible, but it is never shown in a favorable way…

Some examples:

Abraham, Sarah and Hagar – Sarah took things into her own hands to provide her husband with a child, what resulted was jealousy, and now hatred that has separated to bloodlines for thousands of years (Ishmael and Isaac). Genesis 16

Esau – married multiple wives…. Coining the phrase, “Jacob have I loved, Esau I have hated” – there isn’t much detail about these relationships, but Esau was not favored by God. Genesis 26 and 28

Jacob – Jacob was tricked into marrying two women. He was in a constant tug-of war between them as they competed for favor and number of children. While this did create the 12 tribes of Israel – every instance where family life was shown demonstrated family strife and not harmony. Genesis 29

Ashur – no spotlight other than distinguishing the pedigree – no blessing of polygamy by any means. 1 Chronicles 4

Gideon – while used by God as a military commander, he made mistakes afterwards that promoted idolatry and showed foolishness… yes, he had many wives, but no paragon of wisdom here either. Judges 8

Elkanah, Hannah and Penninah – Elkanah had 2 wives (Hannah was barren). His household was filled with strife, jealousy and meanness. Although one could argue the necessity of the 2nd wife, one cannot deny that it made all parties suffer because of it. 1 Samuel 1

David – Man after God’s own heart, yes. Suffered as a result of multiple wives – family was riddled with strife and war between competing siblings….

Solomon – his wives led his heart astray. As many times as he lamented about wives throughout proverbs… his is not a glowing endorsement of polygamy either.

[forSaviour]

Book of Song of Songs6:3 I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine: he feedeth among the lilies. 7:10 I am my beloved's, and his desire is toward me .

[DeaconDean]

Ok sweethearts, here is the deal...

A matter has been brought to my attention, and as a result, this thread is closed for a time to give Staff time to review and discuss the topic at hand. Hopefully this will be resolved soon. Please be patient as we work to resolve this.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[DeaconDean]

Ok Louie, this is it...


After further discussion, this thread will be re-opened and discussion will be allowed to continue.

Lets keep it civil friends.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Lionroot]

Anyone can twist scripture to say what they want to say.

Yes, they sure can, and you have made several good examples of this in your post Red. Whenever one raises private interpretation over the explicit word of God, I would call that "twisting"


Like I said earlier, God has a *perfect will* and a *permissible will.*


Yes, you have, but this is not a biblical doctrine, and your repeating it does not make it more valid. These are man's (in this case yours, but other men too) observation, and categorization. While you are free to observe and categorize whatever you would like, this is not a Biblical teaching either explicitly, or instructively. That is to say it is a subjective observation that many MEN agree with, but that does not make it a valid Biblical doctrine.

Let me be clear:
1) When I say explicitly Biblical, I mean quite literally that the terms "perfect will" and "permissible will" do not appear in scripture as nomenclature for broader concepts. Though I am sure you can show the concept, by some method of construction.

2) When I say that it’s not instructively Biblical. I mean that these concepts are not taught as doctrine in the Bible. (example: Paul doesn’t preach a sermon on it.)It has to be constructed from many unrelated sources. Unlike true Biblical doctrines which are explicitly taught through command, letter, or preaching.

God's will (all of it) is good, pleasing, and perfect, but it is never stated as permissive. That is after all why we need a savior.


Just because certain Biblical characters had more than one spouse doesn't mean that it was *God approved* or right.
I hope your not misstating my position on purpose. What you have created here is called a "straw man" in debate. You create an argument that is easily knocked down and then claim to defeat your opponent. Your big problem is that is simply not my position.



He didn't make an *extra spouse* for Adam & Eve, nor did he did with several others in scripture.
So what? He did not provide a computer for Adam, but I know you have one. (or access to one) I have no doubt you have a lot of things Adam never had. Unless the scripture says somewhere you can only have what Adam had, the point is moot.




Mainstream Baptists don't agree with polygamy and if there are groups who advocated polygamy, they would be considered an off type cult and not mainstream Baptists. Are Southern Baptist mainstream? I have it on pretty good authority that there are polygynists in their churches in Africa.


I guess it's not probably a subject addressed in the church today either, cause scripture telling us to obey the laws of the land and the laws say, one husband & one wife.
Meanwhile they play a huge part in smuggling Bibles into China illegally.

The truth is that polygamy (in all its forms) is not illegal in the US. Biblical marriage does not require state authorization, and most states have rescinded cohabitation laws. So a man can be married in the eyes of God without obtaining multiple marriage licenses, which would be a crime.



Polygamy may have been used in the Bible, but it is never shown in a favorable way…
Here we have another "straw man". These people had sin in their life; show me a monogamous couple that didn’t. I can do the same thing with monogamy.

Let me show you...

Adam and Eve brought sin and death into the world.
Cain married only one woman, and murdered his brother.
Ham, looked at his father’s nakedness, and cursed his entire line.
Abram was monogamous when he made his wife deceive the pharaoh.

I can go on and on. No I am not against monogamy. It’s just a fallacy to say that sin is caused by a certain Biblical marital status, in the same way that my examples are no reflection on monogamy.



Some examples:

Abraham, Sarah and Hagar – Sarah took things into her own hands to provide her husband with a child, what resulted was jealousy, and now hatred that has separated to bloodlines for thousands of years (Ishmael and Isaac). Genesis 16
So what? Jealousy and hatred are a result of the fall. Are you saying that in monogamous families they do not deal with the issues of jealousy and hate? But God never blames it on his marriages does He? You don’t have the right to add that in through your subjective interpretation.


Esau – married multiple wives…. Coining the phrase, “Jacob have I loved, Esau I have hated” – there isn’t much detail about these relationships, but Esau was not favored by God. Genesis 26 and 28
Did God hate Esau for his marriages? No, but for other specific and explicit things right? You mention, "…there isn’t much detail about these relationships". Could it be because they were irrelevant to the very real issues the Bible does deal with regarding Esau?

Are you trying to be deceptive? Even by your own telling there is no link at all between Esau's problems and his wives.



Jacob – Jacob was tricked into marrying two women. He was in a constant tug-of war between them as they competed for favor and number of children.
Women do this with other women. It happens in churches, it happens in families among sisters, cousins, and neighbors, and even in the work place. So what is your point? More importantly show me the scripture that blames the marriage.


While this did create the 12 tribes of Israel –

This is not a little point. God used Jacob and his wives to build the nation of Israel, His chosen people. It is through them that God blessed the entire world. Through them we get the Law, a great witness of God's dealings with man, which BTW, is written by another polygynist you did not mention, Moses. Eventually it is Jacob’s family that produces the Messiah, and Savior.


every instance where family life was shown demonstrated family strife and not harmony. Genesis 29

Please show me where this is a sign from God. Do you know of a monogamy that doesn’t have strife from time to time? If not then what is your point? These were after all living breathing fallen human beings.

BTW, This is simply is a fallacious statement, your next example shows absolutely no sign of strife.




Ashur – no spotlight other than distinguishing the pedigree – no blessing of polygamy by any means. 1 Chronicles 4

That's an interesting twist since the Bible says, "He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD."(Proverbs 18:22) It is interesting that he is in fact only distinguished this way, perhaps that is why they are mentioned to show favor from the Lord.


Gideon – while used by God as a military commander, he made mistakes afterwards that promoted idolatry and showed foolishness… yes, he had many wives, but no paragon of wisdom here either. Judges 8

Is there a link between monogamy and wisdom anywhere in scripture? If not, what is your point?

Here is something the Bible does say about wisdom, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding.” –penned BTW by a polygynist.

Despite what you write Gideon gets pretty good marks in scripture. So much so that to this day you find a Gideon Bible in almost every hotel room in the country.

I already quoted what the Bible says about wives, but here is what it says about son’s. "Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. " and at his death what does the Bible say: “He (Gideon) had seventy sons of his own, for he had many wives." So Biblically speaking he found favor with God and was blessed with many sons. I am not sure how you turn that into a bad thing.

Elkanah, Hannah and Penninah – Elkanah had 2 wives (Hannah was barren). His household was filled with strife, jealousy and meanness. Although one could argue the necessity of the 2nd wife, one cannot deny that it made all parties suffer because of it. 1 Samuel 1

I absolutely deny it. Strife, jealousy, and meanness, are sins. Sin is in the world because of Adam a monogamous man. What I can say is that this family brought forth Samuel a prophet of God. God chose to do it this way through this family. He certainly could have picked a monogamous one, but He did not.


David – Man after God’s own heart, yes. Suffered as a result of multiple wives – family was riddled with strife and war between competing siblings….

I am assume you are ignorant of what the scripture says about this.

Have you not read:
"Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.' "This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.' " " (2 Samuel 12:9-12)

According to explicit scripture it was adultery and murder that caused the problems in his house not polygyny. You cannot add to the scripture your thoughts.


"For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD's commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite." -1
Kings 15:5


So when he married Abigail, his second wife that falls under the category of having "not failed to keep any of the LORD's commands"


Solomon – his wives led his heart astray. As many times as he lamented about wives throughout proverbs… his is not a glowing endorsement of polygamy either.

Solomon married a great many strange women, and yes they turned his heart from the Lord. Exactly as the God said they would. He is certainly a great example of what not to do. Even the NT says not to be unevenly yoked, and these women were specifically identified in scripture as being off limits. This is certainly a warning to others who might seek a "great many" wives, but it is not in and of itself an indictment of the practice.

So after all that you failed to prove that polygyny is a sin. The truth is it is never called a sin, and what does the scripture tell us about such cases? “…sin is not taken into account when there is no law.”

You are not allowed to create sin, where God never said there was sin. It is not from silence though, God spent a great deal of time on the subject as your post shows, and you skipped commandments, parables, and many other examples.

God simply does not delineate between a first marriage and a second marriage. He calls them wives, not harlots, or adulteresses. In that God recognizes the validity of these marriages even if others do not.

God Bless,

Robert

[forSaviour]

I Know English not very good so i don't want to read that Mega post.As I understood you want to have many wives.OK you can do it.Book of Philippians 3:15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. 3:16 Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. But remember:22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. .

[forSaviour]

That was Book of RevelationBook of Ecclesiastes 11:9 Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment. .

[Lionroot]

I Know English not very good so i don't want to read that Mega post.

English is my first language and I don't like mega posts either. However in this case RedthatsMe put a lot of work into her post. She deserved a point for point response.

Most of the time I just focus on the important and fundamental issues raised.


As I understood you want to have many wives.
No, like most things, it is not about me.

In the Bible marriage is a picture of our relationship with God. When we redefine it to mean something entirely different than what scripture says, the picture becomes distorted.

Further, God defines sin, marriage, and divorce. We have no right to redefine these things through tradition.

The extreme side the MOP (Monogamy Only Position) has the unintentional consequence of destroying Jesus' claim to the throne of David, and as a result his claim to be the Messiah.

So this is a very important issue.

God Bless,

Robert

[FreeinChrist]

Folks, I need to post this reminder:
4 Congregational Areas

You may post in any of the Congregational Forums if you agree with the contents of the Nicene Creed and the Trinitarian nature of God, but you may not argue or debate with members of particular denominations and groups in their congregational areas unless you are a member of that particular denomination or group.


If you are not a Baptist, don't be debating here,

[mlqurgw]

Normally I leave this kind of discussion alone as I think they are frivolous. But you said:
The extreme side the MOP (Monogamy Only Position) has the unintentional consequence of destroying Jesus' claim to the throne of David, and as a result his claim to be the Messiah. This intrigued me. Would you care to elaborate? I am aware that Christ came through the line of David's sin with Bathsheba, Judah and Tamer etc. But I understand that God uses even the sin of men to bring about His purpose. Psalm 76:10 What I see is the hand of God in providence working to bring Christ into the world not by a natural idea of how He should come but by the purpose of God. For you to use this as a proof of God's approval of polygamy is stretching it a bit. I simply don't believe that is the purpose nor teaching of God allowing polygamy. Perhaps you could enlighten me? The marriage relationship is a type and picture of Christ and His Church. I don't see where Christ has more than one Bride.

[Lionroot]

I will honor the rules of this forum, and refrain from debate here.This thread is in violation of some of the rules of this forum and should never have begun here.

I am no Baptist, so apparently I have to be a yes man in here. Well, you know that is not going to work.

All of this on the heals of your crushing defeat...(j/k)

If you want to continue debating me, start an appropriate thread in an appropriate forum and IM me the link, and I will be glad to continue.

I will be watching this thread. If you post a rebuttal to me here without establishing a thread in an appropriate forum, or for that matter make an outrageous claim, I will establish a new thread and invite you all to it, to reply.
The only post you will see from me here will link you to followup threads.



God Bless,

Robert

[mlqurgw]

I will honor the rules of this forum, and refrain from debate here.This thread is in violation of some of the rules of this forum and should never have begun here.

I am no Baptist, so apparently I have to be a yes man in here. Well, you know that is not going to work.

All of this on the heals of your crushing defeat...(j/k)

If you want to continue debating me, start an appropriate thread in an appropriate forum and IM me the link, and I will be glad to continue.

I will be watching this thread. If you post a rebuttal to me here without establishing a thread in an appropriate forum, or for that matter make an outrageous claim, I will establish a new thread and invite you all to it, to reply.
The only post you will see from me here will link you to followup threads.



God Bless,

RobertTake off now that I have entered the fray.;)

That was a joke. Though I do wish you would at least give an explanation of your comment.

[FallingWaters]

Single people cannot serve in that capacity. Consider 1 Tim 3:4That's interesting, isn't it, especially since Paul preferred that people who wanted to serve the Lord should remain single.

[mlqurgw]

That's interesting, isn't it, especially since Paul preferred that people who wanted to serve the Lord should remain single. Actually that is reading more into the text of 1Tim. 3:4 than is there. There is no implicit denial of a single person serving as an elder or bishop implied at all.

[FallingWaters]

Actually that is reading more into the text of 1Tim. 3:4 than is there. There is no implicit denial of a single person serving as an elder or bishop implied at all.I never saw the qualifications as a ban to single people.

Adam Clarke says:
"...He should be a married man, but he should be no polygamist"
"The apostle’s meaning appears to be this: that he should not be a man who has divorced his wife and married another; nor one that has two wives at a time. It does not appear to have been any part of the apostle’s design to prohibit second marriages..."

John Gill says:
"though this rule does not make it necessary that he should have a wife; or that he should not marry, or not have married a second wife, after the death of the first; only if he marries or is married, that he should have but one wife at a time; so that this rule excludes all such persons from being elders, or pastors, or overseers of churches, that were "polygamists"; who had more wives than one at a time, or had divorced their wives, and not for adultery, and had married others..."
He continues to say:
"So the high priest among the Jews, even when polygamy was in use, might not marry, or have two wives, at once..."

Albert Barnes says:
"(1) It is the most obvious meaning of the language, and it would doubtless be thus understood by those to whom it was addressed. At a time when polygamy was not uncommon, to say that a man should “have but one wife” would be naturally understood as prohibiting polygamy."
This is what I have always thought it to mean.

[Lionroot]

http://www.christianforums.com/t5601484-single-bishops.html#post36060610

That's interesting, isn't it, especially since Paul preferred that people who wanted to serve the Lord should remain single.

Actually that is reading more into the text of 1Tim. 3:4 than is there. There is no implicit denial of a single person serving as an elder or bishop implied at all.

[Jenniewren]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlqurgw http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=36058655#post36058655)
Actually that is reading more into the text of 1Tim. 3:4 than is there. There is no implicit denial of a single person serving as an elder or bishop implied at all.

I never saw the qualifications as a ban to single people.

Adam Clarke says:
"...He should be a married man, but he should be no polygamist"
"The apostle’s meaning appears to be this: that he should not be a man who has divorced his wife and married another; nor one that has two wives at a time. It does not appear to have been any part of the apostle’s design to prohibit second marriages..."

John Gill says:
"though this rule does not make it necessary that he should have a wife; or that he should not marry, or not have married a second wife, after the death of the first; only if he marries or is married, that he should have but one wife at a time; so that this rule excludes all such persons from being elders, or pastors, or overseers of churches, that were "polygamists"; who had more wives than one at a time, or had divorced their wives, and not for adultery, and had married others..."
He continues to say:
"So the high priest among the Jews, even when polygamy was in use, might not marry, or have two wives, at once..."

Albert Barnes says:
"(1) It is the most obvious meaning of the language, and it would doubtless be thus understood by those to whom it was addressed. At a time when polygamy was not uncommon, to say that a man should “have but one wife” would be naturally understood as prohibiting polygamy."
This is what I have always thought it to mean.

This makes sense to me as well.[/FONT]

]

I have to also add that I am very very glad we do not practice poligamy. I would hate to have to share my DH with another woman or maybe even more than that. So hurray for monagomy!!

[BeforeThereWas]

Adam Clarke says:
"...He should be a married man, but he should be no polygamist"
"The apostle’s meaning appears to be this: that he should not be a man who has divorced his wife and married another; nor one that has two wives at a time. It does not appear to have been any part of the apostle’s design to prohibit second marriages..."

John Gill says:
"though this rule does not make it necessary that he should have a wife; or that he should not marry, or not have married a second wife, after the death of the first; only if he marries or is married, that he should have but one wife at a time; so that this rule excludes all such persons from being elders, or pastors, or overseers of churches, that were "polygamists"; who had more wives than one at a time, or had divorced their wives, and not for adultery, and had married others..."

You should be more careful about what you quote. This tends to dismantle the case made by anti-polygynists.:)

He continues to say:
"So the high priest among the Jews, even when polygamy was in use, might not marry, or have two wives, at once..."

And high priests were known to give men plural wives, as recorded in OT scripture. (2 Chr. 24) The boy-king Joash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, even with two wives given to him by the high priest Jehoiada.

There are fools who think that the high priests were ignorant of God's moral absolutes anf intents. Perhaps some of them were, but not all.

Albert Barnes says:
"(1) It is the most obvious meaning of the language, and it would doubtless be thus understood by those to whom it was addressed. At a time when polygamy was not uncommon, to say that a man should “have but one wife” would be naturally understood as prohibiting polygamy."

This is what I have always thought it to mean.

It's much too convenient to think that one can so easily divorce himself from personal bias in order to fully comprehend the "...meaning of the language..."

If God were so opposed to polygyny, then why did He actively give men plrual wives? Feministic theology is a powerful force in the minds of modern and historic scholars.

...nothing new under the sun...

BTW&DM

[IisJustMe]

http://www.giveshare.org/family/polygamy.html

by Herbert W. Armstrong (too bad his theology was way off, this is the only thing I would post of his)Jacob does not mean "supplanter" it means "deceiver" and if you look the two words up in English, you will see that there is a vast difference. To supplant means to replace, which is a very narrow sin if practiced in self-will. On the other hand, deception is a broad and vast sin, and Jacob touched on a variety of deceptions throughout his life prior to his repentance.

Also, "Israel" does not mean "Prevailer with God" but rather "He who fights with God." The first means only a positive. The second, the actual literal meaning, can mean a positive or a negative, which is more accurate for Jacob, who still struggled with honesty even after the River Jabbok experience, just as we all continue to struggle with our favorite sin even after our salvation experience.

[mont974x4]

If I recall correctly in the OT polygamy was allowed for all but the King. I'll try to find the passage...although it doesn't matter much as:
1. It's against the laws of the land
2. Two wives would drive me insane LOL

[mont974x4]

Deu 17:14 "When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, 'I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,'
Deu 17:15 you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.
Deu 17:16 "Moreover, he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor shall he cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never again return that way.'
Deu 17:17 "He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.

[BeforeThereWas]

If I recall correctly in the OT polygamy was allowed for all but the King.

No. This is incorrect. If what you're saying were true, then Johoiada, the high priest, would never have given Joash two wives (2 Chron. 24). The kings were commanded not to MULTIPLY wives to themselves. There's a difference.

1. It's against the laws of the land

No. It's only against the law to acquire legal recognition for more than one wife at a time. There is no law against a man having plural wives outside our legal system.

2. Two wives would drive me insane LOL

Then don't add another one to your family. Most men could never love two wives equally. And, if your present wife is that bad, then why are you still with her?

BTW&DM

[mont974x4]

1. What is the difference?
2. Symantics, we know the intent of the laws of the land
3. My bride is true gift from God, I was making a joke.


God bless
Jay

[BeforeThereWas]

1. What is the difference?

Actually, this makes a great difference. It brings out into the glaring light of scrutiny the torrid, troubled waters of our many socially engineered theologies here in the West that are held to with such tenacity, and yet are damaging faleshoods.

Indiscriminate denial of the Patriarchal model, a model that God Himself actively participated within and supported, does little else but to cater to feministic theology; which is evil and wicked to the core.

2. Symantics, we know the intent of the laws of the land

Liberal theologians, mormons and jehovah's witnesses make use of this same tact, and I doubt you would accept such a clandestine assesment in relation to your beliefs and understanding, so why attempt to use it in your favor against someone else?

3. My bride is true gift from God, I was making a joke.

Then I hope you can appreciate the fact that such statements don't come across to me as humorous. Perhaps you should confess this to her, and then maybe feel better about it. My wife is a great blessing, and I will never joke about how I feel about her, nor what a blessing she is in my life. If the Lord brought a second wife into my family, then they would both be a blessing. That doesn't make me better than you or anyone else. It does, however, speak loud volumes to the seriousness of the love I attach to she who is a part of my flesh.

BTW&DM

[VT_Boy]

Having more than one wife is not a mainstream Baptist belief or a Biblical one. If God approved of it he would have started it off with Adam having more than one wife. I wonder how many families like that are really self-sufficent in taking care of their finances or do they rely on government taxes to support their lifestyle. I bet there's a lot of free loaders on our tax money to support their lifestyle. The man should learn to control himself.

[BeforeThereWas]

Having more than one wife is not a mainstream Baptist belief

True. Mainstream baptist belief is somewhat defined and governed by social sway. Most baptists deny this, but only as a detriment to their honesty.

or a Biblical one.

Then I'd say you don't know your Bible. Is the extent of what you know about the Bible limited to what you've heard from the pulpit, Sunday school classes, and/or Bible studies? God gave men plural wives. Didn't you know that? Granted, the Bible doesn't teach that men should seek plural wives, but it does portray the Lord not only giving men plural wives, but also making governing provision for it.

If God approved of it he would have started it off with Adam having more than one wife.

I hope you don't mind my saying so, but the Lord didn't make any of us an authority as to how He had to show His approval of something?

He actively gave men plural wives, and He even identified Himself with polygyny when He spoke through the prophet about Israel and Judah being His wives (plural).

I wonder how many families like that are really self-sufficent in taking care of their finances or do they rely on government taxes to support their lifestyle.

Well, let's see: I once lived down the street from a baptist family living off welfare. So, according to the standard of your indifference to facts to which you may not be aware, I can then assume that all us baptists are mooching off the government for our sustenance rather than going out and getting real jobs, thus being productive citizens as opposed to being a waste of humanity...

I hope you can now see the falacy behind assuming a blanket assesment against a people simply on the basis of one or two reports.

I bet there's a lot of free loaders on our tax money to support their lifestyle.

There's a lot of free-loading baptists our tax dollars are supporting too. I also know baptists who are Masons, and who drink hard liquor. I guess we baptists have no problem drinking hard liquor, so we must be a bunch of alcoholics. We even use the front door of liquor stores, rather than the back doors like the Mennonites.

The man should learn to control himself.

I wonder how many baptists are REALLY saved? We need to learn to control our tendency toward pharasaical hypocrisy and legalism...

If this offends, then it only serves to demonstrate what blanket judgements can do to the image of people you've never met.

Abraham had plural wives. In your estimation, he was a moocher too? Right?

If you want productive dialogue with people in order to make some genuine discoveries, then at least speak in civil terms with them.

However, I get the impression from the tone of your words that you didn't recognize your error in judgement. Men whom the Lord revealed as having lived lives pleasing to Him, and who had plural wives, are recorded throughout the OT of your own Bible. Do you believe the Bible, or don't you?

If you're going to criticize the very Patriarchs of the Christian faith, then you're left with little more than to follow after a purely pragmatic belief system of your own making that mostly conforms to the strong influences of post-modernism. Post-modernism redefines history, and thus redefines modern realities into a framework of preconceived notions for humanistic morals.

In other words, a man is left with nothing more than to either allow the Bible to shape his understanding about God, or he fabricates a god to his own making. It really is that simple a choice, with nothing complex about it, because apart from the Bible, we're left with nothing but to fassion gods after our own desires and ideals.

BTW&DM

[Vambram]

Well, according to what BeforeThereWas seems to be saying, then many, if not all, of the cultural and religious practices of the Old Testament patriarchs are still applicable for Christians today living under the terms of the New Covenant. However, I choose to believe what the New Testament teaches about marriage, and the examples given and shown to us in the New Testament. It is important to remember what the social and cultural and old testament legal reasons were back during the years of the Old Testament patriarchs. Does BeforeThereWas honestly believe we are living under those same Old Testament social, cultural and Law conditions?
:hug: :)

[IisJustMe]

He actively gave men plural wives, and He even identified Himself with polygyny when He spoke through the prophet about Israel and Judah being His wives (plural).God never approved of polygamy. In every single case, man took it upon himself to add one or more wives too many. Not once do you see God giving a man such a circumstance.

Also, your statement about "Israel and Judah ... His wives ..." fails to take into account the Hebrew singular in the phrase. God did not split Israel and Judah either. Again, that was the doing of man, against the will of the Father. God still regarded them as one nation, even though the people did not. The plural is used in English because it doesn't make sense grammatically to use a singular in regards to two entities, but in the Hebrew, the word is "wife" not "wives."

[BeforeThereWas]

Well, according to what BeforeThereWas seems to be saying, then many, if not all, of the cultural and religious practices of the Old Testament patriarchs are still applicable for Christians today living under the terms of the New Covenant.

Actually, no. I was initially speaking strictly in terms of marriage, and the fact that the Lord is said to have given plural wives.

However, I choose to believe what the New Testament teaches about marriage, and the examples given and shown to us in the New Testament.

Marriage hasn't changed. Marriage was defined by the Lord once and for all in Genesis 2. He never relinquished over to mankind His sole authority over its governance and definition.

It is important to remember what the social and cultural and old testament legal reasons were back during the years of the Old Testament patriarchs.

God's Law was not based upon cultural and social dogmas. Also, the moral foundation underlying the Law didn't change with the coming of Christ. God's moral absolutes have always withstood time, culture, and national boundaries.

However, this is strictly an aside to the topic at hand.

Does BeforeThereWas honestly believe we are living under those same Old Testament social, cultural and Law conditions?

Nope. I never went that direction, so I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you would even ask.

BTW&DM

[BeforeThereWas]

God never approved of polygamy. In every single case, man took it upon himself to add one or more wives too many. Not once do you see God giving a man such a circumstance.

You may think that, but you're wrong. Perhaps your god has never given any man plural wives, but the God described within the pages of the Bible certainly did.

Also, your statement about "Israel and Judah ... His wives ..." fails to take into account the Hebrew singular in the phrase.

Given the grammatical construct of those passages, you're right. I can do the same thing when talking about my four sons. I can talk about each one individually, and yet I still have a plurality of sons. Nothing all that remarkable about that at all.

God did not split Israel and Judah either.

Perhaps.

Again, that was the doing of man, against the will of the Father.

I haven't looked into that particular, so I can't say I agree or disagree.

God still regarded them as one nation, even though the people did not. The plural is used in English because it doesn't make sense grammatically to use a singular in regards to two entities, but in the Hebrew, the word is "wife" not "wives."

Yes, because He's speaking to the prophet about each of the two individually. Again, there's nothing all that remarkable about this observation.

BTW&DM

[IisJustMe]

[/color][/color]You may think that, but you're wrong. ... I know that, and you're the one who is wrong. Stating otherwise, even ten thousand times, won't make you right.the God described within the pages of the Bible certainly did.Please post Scripture supporting that statement. Thank you.

[Armistead]

I'm a SB, but have been visiting a ND. Im at a crossroads with much doctrine, but I love my SBC and the members there.

A few summers ago, we went with our mission team to Africa. The tribe we visited was polygamous. It was an amazing experience.

We must understand why God allowed, even ordained polygamy. In the beginning, God even allowed incest. God later did away with incest, but never polygamy.

Polygamy was needed for many reasons. Mainly for the provision of women and children. Women highly outnumbered men, due mostly to war. Polygamy provided the care for women and children.

Polygamy continued for many years after Christ. Obvious, I don't agree with the RC church, but in the early years, RC was a catch all term for Christianity. Rome turned it into a form of religeous government. However most priest and some Popes were polygamous, until it was put aside. The jewish nation up until then was basically polygamous.

IMO, polygamy is not needed in America. However, many cultures still practice it in a biblical way with proper effect. Like the tribe we visited in Africa. They have no government system of care. It works well for them. There is no jealousy. It had been a part of their culture from the beginning. It was as normal just in the sense they ran around naked. They did not have the western view of sexuality, evil in the body, ect.

The following post is something I posted elsewhere in the past on polygamy.

[Armistead]

Many Christians say that Polygamy was not sanctioned by God. Some say it was a sin, or that God frowned on it, just winked at it and put up with it. I will try and stick to the main points that people continue to bring up here. Whether or not a believer wants to be a polygamist, or whether or not polygamy should be a valid marital choice for believers today, are not the focus of this post. I myself would never have more than one wife.

Is it sanctioned by God or not. "I gave thee…thy master’s wives into thy bosom…and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things” (2 Samuel 12:8)."

The Bible is clear that God tells David: “…When God said “I gave thee,” He was saying that it was explicitly by His will that David received his master’s wives, not that he physically handed David his wives. Therefore, polygamy could not have been contrary to God’s will in that particular instance.

It appears God clearly did sanction polygamy in this instance, especially if he claimed he gave David his wives. If it really “was contrary to his will,” and he really “knew the happiness of man would be destroyed by it,” why did God give David such a curse, and then describe it as a blessing? Even David perceived that the wives and concubines he took were a blessing from the Lord.

“And David perceived that the LORD had established him king over Israel, and that he had exalted his kingdom for his people Israel’s sake. And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David” (2 Samuel 5:12-13).
It is absolutely irrefutable, based upon God’s Word, that God did sanction polygamy.

Next, Is polygamy is a violation of God’s law. Some say that Adam and Eve were
God’s proper order of marriage, one husband for one wife, and polygamy strayed
from God’s proper order, but is that biblical.
Here is a common quote I found on this.
“In the beginning, God gave to Adam one wife, thus showing his order. He never
designed that man should have a plurality of wives” (3SG 99-100). Because plural
marriage departs from this supposed order, the implication is that polygamy is a sin.”

The questions then become, was it truly “God’s order” that he was establishing his rule by giving Adam one wife? And if he was not establishing an order, or setting an example by his decision, then how can polygamy be contrary to God’s law?
Incidentally, but not insignificantly, by creating only one man and one woman, and commanding them to be fruitful and multiply, God created an order that necessitated brothers and sisters marrying each other.
The earliest inhabitants of earth had no other choice than to marry their brothers and sisters in order to fulfill the divine command, “Be fruitful and multiply” (see Acts 17:26). That the custom long remained in vogue is seen in Abraham’s marriage to his half sister Sarah. Such marriages were later prohibited (see Lev. 18:6-17

On this point, I submit that if God later prohibited such incestuous marriages, even though they were part of his original order like one woman and one man, he could have also prohibited, in the same explicit terms, the practice of polygamy, but he did not.

In any case, if polygamy were a violation of God’s order as and thereby a sin, then it certainly could not have been considered legal marriage by God. Subsequently, any children born outside of a legal marriage would have been considered b%stards (b@stards). Therefore, if polygamy is a sin, then all of the children of Israel were b%stards (b@stards).

Since a b%stard could not enter the congregation of the Lord to his tenth generation (Deuteronomy 23:2), and since we know that the race of Jacob did indeed enter that congregation, it is safe to say that the children of Israel were not b%stards, and that they were born of a legal marriage even though they were born of a plural marriage.

So if polygamy is legal marriage, how can legal marriage be considered sin?
“Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4).

The early church obviously had members that had multiple wives, otherwise why would Paul have to specify that bishops and deacons be “the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6)? If all the members had only one wife, and polygamy had been recognized as a sin, Paul would not have had to specify that they be “the husband of one wife.”


If polygamy is somehow a sin , then why does God tell the Israelites “If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish” (Exodus 21:10), instead of telling them simply: thou shalt not take another wife? And where else in the Bible does God give instructions on how to commit a sin?

Lastly, Did God punish David for polygamy. No
The problem was David’s actual sins of covetousness, murder, and adultery in regard to Uriah the Hittite that God showed his displeasure, not for his having a plurality of wives.
“Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.” (2 Samuel 12:9-12)

God cannot possibly be showing his “displeasure at David’s having a plurality of wives” in the scripture passage above. It would create a contradiction. In the preceding verse God stated clearly that he gave David his wives and would have given him more.
“And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things” (2 Samuel 12:8).
If polygamy was the issue, it is interesting to note that God did not invalidate David’s marriage to Bathsheba, but rather brought the seed of Christ
through it. Additionally, David continued to be a polygamist.

In King David’s eulogy there is no mention of the supposed crime of polygamy.
“Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite” (1 Kings 15:5).



In contrast, and as a point of interest, Solomon violated the commandment: “Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away” (Deuteronomy 17:17). His crime was that his heart turned away from the Lord when he committed idol worship, not that he was a polygamist.
“But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love” (1 Kings 11:1,2)
“Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin” (Nehemiah 13:26).

Significantly, in King Solomon’s eulogy there is no mention of the supposed crime of polygamy either.
“And Solomon loved the LORD, walking in the statutes of David his father: only he sacrificed and burnt incense in high places” (1 Kings 3:3).
Clearly it was not Solomon’s sin that he had more than one wife. His sin was that in his desire to have many, many wives, he naturally acquired some idolatrous women from foreign lands, and succumbing to their wiles, he participated in idol worship.

[BeforeThereWas]

I'm a SB,

Me too.

Im at a crossroads with much doctrine, but I love my SBC and the members there.

Well, I can certainly understand that. I too have come to question most, if not all, of our many socially engineered theologies.

We must understand why God allowed, even ordained polygamy. In the beginning, God even allowed incest. God later did away with incest, but never polygamy.

It served as a model that was never at odds with a man having only one wife. Abraham had several wives, much to the dislike of scholars. Augustine himself once declared that he saw nothing wrong with a man having more than one wife. However, cultural pressure forced him to reword his take on polygyny (by the way folks, its called polygyny when man has more than one wife; polygamy is an inclusive term of other marital forms as well, such as polyandry, which is indeed a sin).

Polygamy was needed for many reasons. Mainly for the provision of women and children. Women highly outnumbered men, due mostly to war. Polygamy provided the care for women and children.

And yet we had two major world wars that greatly reduced the number of available men in both Europe and America, and both feminized cultures were still deeply rejecting of the concept. Today, feminist groups publicize the idea that polygyny is the ultimate spousal abuse against women. Feminism is an ancient evil that in modern times has been crafted and shaped into a tool to gain a perceived equality for women. It's granted that many injustices have and do exist against women, but then the same is somewhat true about men. I was recently a victim of such a phenomenon, but I didn't cop a martyr syndrome and make it a cause. Life goes on.

IMO, polygamy is not needed in America.

Actually, my dad was a great defender of the model, and had several families with which he'd gained inroads in order to study them, and find answers to many questions.

There are a number of polygynous families around here we know, and they're financially better off than most monogamous families in the whole area. None of them pawn off their children onto daycare operations or public schools.

With multiple incomes, they're FAR better off than their average monogamous counterpart, and they're among some of the most loving families I've ever seen. They aren't hit with the marriage penalty tax that hits monogamous families every year.

They do keep a low profile, meaning that they don't put a sign out in the front yard, publicizing their family model, and they don't go around bragging about it. They don't go out to eat much, but do so on occasion, without the man flaunting his plural wives by kissing on each one in public, etc.

They're hated and shunned by most within our local, self-rightoues, institutional churches because of an assumption that they're all living in the sin of adultery and/or fornicaiton, and therefore bound for Hell.

Oh, and they're not mormons. Not one of them. They're Southern Baptists, Mennonites, Lutherans, and others I can't recall right now.

However, many cultures still practice it in a biblical way with proper effect.

Western culture tends to be very arrogant with the assumption that we're superior because of our technology. Western religious thought is also fraught with a false pride in its assumed moral superiority to other cultures and their religious beliefs.

I used to take pleasure in bringing to intellectual ruin the average church-goer by showing him just how little he knows about the Bible, and the teachings therein, but have found that endeavor to be mostly unfruitful. Most people will stick to their socially and religiously engineered theologies without any desire to question their beliefs, much less to take proper responsibility for what they believe by their even attempting to "Prove all things..."

There is no jealousy.

This is a reality in the families I know here locally. As a matter of fact, the sister-wives provide a level of relationship with one another that most married women crave, and thus drives them to get together with other women. Women can give emotional support to one another that men simply can't give. That's why there are women study and support groups where women minister to women. These families have that built in. These families also do many activities together in parks, go on trips together, camp out together. Most of the people around them have no idea what they're seeing when these families walk by.

Feminists hate them, religious, church-going people hate them, but they're loved by those of us who know the word of God and truly love the Lord.

I visit them quite often when my cousin has the time to take me to these failies events. (Being in a wheelchair and unable to drive has its limitations.)

BTW&DM

[BeforeThereWas]

Please post Scripture supporting that statement. Thank you.

2 Samuel 12:8

And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

There are those who have attempted to put forth a feeble attempt at derailing this context by attempting to place it over against a different back-drop by stating that the successive king merely took care of the former king's wives.

Actually, this is worse than feeble, it's downright dishonest, because it ignores the deeply intimate language of that verse. "Into thy bosom," is intimate language, and language scholars know this. That's why it's mostly ignorant laymen who go around vomiting their ignorance by trumpeting their prowess at allegedly having disproved what this verse is actually saying in very clear language.

Also, it's very easy to find commentaries that state something similar, such as David merely being given the responsibility to care for those women. This clearly violates not only the language of that verse, but also simple logic: If David were merely given, by God, the responsibility to care for those women, then He would have been doing nothing more than to give to David what was already a custom. Sorry, but that's found very wanting, to say the least. It also demonstrates just how depraved opponents are by scrathing up whatever they can to win at all costs...even their own credibility.

Perhaps you have some new, slick twist that other's haven't yet invented in order to make this into something completely different from what it actually says.

I look forward to your response...if you have one.:cool:

BTW&DM

[Vambram]

Actually, no. I was initially speaking strictly in terms of marriage, and the fact that the Lord is said to have given plural wives.



Marriage hasn't changed. Marriage was defined by the Lord once and for all in Genesis 2. He never relinquished over to mankind His sole authority over its governance and definition.



God's Law was not based upon cultural and social dogmas. Also, the moral foundation underlying the Law didn't change with the coming of Christ. God's moral absolutes have always withstood time, culture, and national boundaries.

However, this is strictly an aside to the topic at hand.



Nope. I never went that direction, so I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you would even ask.

BTW&DM


Well, the reason why I asked you those questions is because your defense of marriages in the Old Testament, and polygamy in the Old Testament really does look like you are saying that since GOD not only approved of OT polygamy but also endorsed and blessed it, that then you are also suggesting that polygamy is equally acceptable by the Lord GOD for His people here under the terms and conditions of the New Covenant. Therefore, brother BTW, do you believe that is true, do you believe that GOD approves and endorses and blesses polygamy in marriages today, or at least at any time since the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

:wave: :) :groupray:

[Armistead]

Me too.



Well, I can certainly understand that. I too have come to question most, if not all, of our many socially engineered theologies.



It served as a model that was never at odds with a man having only one wife. Abraham had several wives, much to the dislike of scholars. Augustine himself once declared that he saw nothing wrong with a man having more than one wife. However, cultural pressure forced him to reword his take on polygyny (by the way folks, its called polygyny when man has more than one wife; polygamy is an inclusive term of other marital forms as well, such as polyandry, which is indeed a sin).



And yet we had two major world wars that greatly reduced the number of available men in both Europe and America, and both feminized cultures were still deeply rejecting of the concept. Today, feminist groups publicize the idea that polygyny is the ultimate spousal abuse against women. Feminism is an ancient evil that in modern times has been crafted and shaped into a tool to gain a perceived equality for women. It's granted that many injustices have and do exist against women, but then the same is somewhat true about men. I was recently a victim of such a phenomenon, but I didn't cop a martyr syndrome and make it a cause. Life goes on.



Actually, my dad was a great defender of the model, and had several families with which he'd gained inroads in order to study them, and find answers to many questions.

There are a number of polygynous families around here we know, and they're financially better off than most monogamous families in the whole area. None of them pawn off their children onto daycare operations or public schools.

With multiple incomes, they're FAR better off than their average monogamous counterpart, and they're among some of the most loving families I've ever seen. They aren't hit with the marriage penalty tax that hits monogamous families every year.

They do keep a low profile, meaning that they don't put a sign out in the front yard, publicizing their family model, and they don't go around bragging about it. They don't go out to eat much, but do so on occasion, without the man flaunting his plural wives by kissing on each one in public, etc.

They're hated and shunned by most within our local, self-rightoues, institutional churches because of an assumption that they're all living in the sin of adultery and/or fornicaiton, and therefore bound for Hell.

Oh, and they're not mormons. Not one of them. They're Southern Baptists, Mennonites, Lutherans, and others I can't recall right now.



Western culture tends to be very arrogant with the assumption that we're superior because of our technology. Western religious thought is also fraught with a false pride in its assumed moral superiority to other cultures and their religious beliefs.

I used to take pleasure in bringing to intellectual ruin the average church-goer by showing him just how little he knows about the Bible, and the teachings therein, but have found that endeavor to be mostly unfruitful. Most people will stick to their socially and religiously engineered theologies without any desire to question their beliefs, much less to take proper responsibility for what they believe by their even attempting to "Prove all things..."



This is a reality in the families I know here locally. As a matter of fact, the sister-wives provide a level of relationship with one another that most married women crave, and thus drives them to get together with other women. Women can give emotional support to one another that men simply can't give. That's why there are women study and support groups where women minister to women. These families have that built in. These families also do many activities together in parks, go on trips together, camp out together. Most of the people around them have no idea what they're seeing when these families walk by.

Feminists hate them, religious, church-going people hate them, but they're loved by those of us who know the word of God and truly love the Lord.

I visit them quite often when my cousin has the time to take me to these failies events. (Being in a wheelchair and unable to drive has its limitations.)

BTW&DM

You make some good points. As to it not being needed in America, more that government has taken the role of the caregiver. Women also work and provide for themselves, the laws have changed.

They are strongly debating the issue again in Canada.
Thinking they may get some women off welfare.

I guess my fear is our culture. I'm sure there are some people that practice it with effect. In the LDS or any format, no one has the right to pick or set up marriages.
This is control, not love. The problem I fear is religeous groups that teach this format as a must.
Certainly, a great number of women that have gotten out out polygamy, now say they were abused since puberty. I want the secular system to set the rules of marriage. Why, because it forces freewill and no one is trapped by religion or any other format to be forced.

Here is where gay marriage will also jump on board, you start allowing for many forms of marriage, everyone is going to jump on. You would also have to allow a women the right to marry as many men as she wanted. Our legal system sets up the laws of marriage. No doubt gay marriage is coming. When that happens, the consittution will have to allow many forms of marriage, including polygamy, unless we disregard the constitution. Regardless of implications, I never want to live in a theocracy.

I think it's a part of our culture that has past us, why other cultures that have continued in it, you can't condemn them based on the bible. Like the tribe I saw in Africa. However, I still don't judge those that choose this, if they really chose it. Sadly, that is why we need laws to protect children.


Polygamy in America certainly should not be a crime.

[Vambram]

Polygamy in America certainly should not be a crime.
I don't understand how that position can logically be defended when most of the examples in recent American history of American polygamy is forced marriages of young teenagers or young women often against the free will of the would be brides in the examples from recent American history.

[Andy Broadley]

Ok, so you want 7 wives huh?

Think on this

1) 7 Mother in Laws (did you know that Mother in law is an anagram of Woman Hitler?)

2) 7 wedding anniversarries to try and remember and be in deep water for forgetting.

[Andy Broadley]

Ok, so you want 7 wives huh?

Think on this

1) 7 Mother in Laws (did you know that Mother in law is an anagram of Woman Hitler?)

2) 7 wedding anniversarries to try and remember and be in deep water for forgetting.


:sorry: Only mucking about guys;)

Too tired to take stuff seriously tonihgt. I'll leave you to your serious debate:wave:

[BeforeThereWas]

do you believe that GOD approves and endorses and blesses polygamy in marriages today, or at least at any time since the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Allow me to base my answer on some verifiable facts:

1) Jesus' coming in the flesh made no alterations to God's moral absolutes

2) The lack of any changes to the fabric of God's moral absolutes (which is the very foundation upon which the Law was constructed) means that there also were no changes to marriage itself

Therefore, God's view about marriage has not changed. In other words, what was immoral in marriage back then is still immoral today, and vice versa.

I'm not closed-minded about the subject, so if anyone can show me otherwise, then I'd certainly entertain the possibility that there were some changes made, which would mean that the Christ Jesus would have made such a change very evident.

Some are in the habit of pointing at Jesus' words where He said, "...but from the beginning, it was not so." Jesus was addressing the very thing of which He was asked, which was divorce.

It escapes me as to why some people become so fixated on the idea that this had anything to do with polygyny. One must become greater than God Himself to inject into the very words of the Lord what He never said, but aparently some people think thesmelves qualified to engage such dishonest injections.

Please keep in mind that I'm not at all espousing the idea that men should therefore go out and seek plural wives. Most men are incapable of loving more than one wife equally. Many can't even love one wife as he should.

I'm simply stating that it is still acceptable for those whom the Lord has called to that marital model.

BTW&DM

[BeforeThereWas]

government has taken the role of the caregiver.

Which is most unfortunate.

Women also work and provide for themselves, the laws have changed.

I never did really see the polygynous marital model necessarily being based solely on economic and social conditions. It has within its makeup an entirely different, defining construct. I mentioned the economic benefits only as an aside to the usual assumptions about polygyny in modern America.

They are strongly debating the issue again in Canada. Thinking they may get some women off welfare.

Polygyny is one of those things that, if based upon the weak foundation of economic considerations, is doomed to fail within the arena of true, sacrificial, genuine love. The result will be, of course, more divorce, and even uglier fights over property, alimony, and child support payments.

In the LDS or any format, no one has the right to pick or set up marriages.

I absolutely agree. What Warren Jeffs did was evil.

The problem I fear is religeous groups that teach this format as a must.

Mormon theology has never let go of the requirement that a man must have plural wives to gain the top level of the false, mormon Heaven. Mormonisms false god made many demands that mormons would like to side-step when confronted with them, but the history bears out the gross inconsistencies. It's amazing as to how politically expedient the mormon god is when confronted with various demands from the federal government. Blacks were once denied the priesthoods because of their skin color, but that changed with the change in social tides. How convenient...;)

I want the secular system to set the rules of marriage. Why, because it forces freewill and no one is trapped by religion or any other format to be forced.

I disagree. Such laws, although intended to protect a few, ultimately create more governmental intrusions into marriages than it already has. Such laws simply remove that much more personal freedom. We already have laws that deal with people like Jeffs. More laws will only create more governmental intrusion rather than fix the problem many people have with self-restraint and self-control.

I did some e-mailing with Jeffs, and he attempted to defend his position, which I easily dispatched with the word of God. Of course, he had all those other cultic authorities upon which mormons rely, so he remained unconvinced.

Here is where gay marriage will also jump on board, you start allowing for many forms of marriage, everyone is going to jump on.

Protectionism is never an answer. However, I also would never suggest legal recognition of polygyny. It does far better outside the fallibilities of our legal system. The families I know are perfectly happy the way they are, and they're utilizing many legal avenues to protect their assets, tax shelters, inheritance, power of attorneys, etc., without having to wear the shackles of licensing.

You would also have to allow a women the right to marry as many men as she wanted.

Precisely. That's why I would agree with the polygynous families I know, who desire that governmental laws simply remain as they are, without including them. These people are intelligent folks, like anyone else. They understand the downside to such laws.

No doubt gay marriage is coming. When that happens, the consittution will have to allow many forms of marriage, including polygamy, unless we disregard the constitution.

Queer marriages are inevitable. It has gained far too much momentum to be defeated. Jesus told us that such things must come to pass, and therefore to look to each day and its responsibilities, and not worry about tomorrow. Evil is prophesied to become a much more powerful force in the end times. We must look to our own lives, staying strictly under the shadow of His wings.

Sadly, that is why we need laws to protect children.

We already have them. The problems arise when we are faced with an overworked group of people who enforce existing laws because funding is redirected to provide better streets and other perks for elected city and county, and state officials.

Polygamy in America certainly should not be a crime.

It isn't a crime. The only criminality involved with it is if the husband seeks to acquire a license for more than one wife at a time.

BTW&DM

[BeforeThereWas]

I don't understand how that position can logically be defended when most of the examples in recent American history of American polygamy is forced marriages of young teenagers or young women often against the free will of the would be brides in the examples from recent American history.

According to the logical conclusion of your own reasoning, we must also abandon any and ALL marriage due to the 50+% failure rate, levels of spousal and child abuse within monogamous marriages, and a plethora of other reasons.

In other words, pointing at the few abuses is no reason to completely condemn the entirety of any model. There are FAR more polygynous marriages in this country than what exist in Colorado City.

BTW&DM

[Vambram]

I am extremely shocked, almost beyond words, that an American Baptist is attempting to even defend modern day polygamy in America when polygamy has been legally declared by law and the courts to be illegal and unjust
So therefore, it just boggles my mind that BTW attempts to defend polygamy especially when there are not any New Testament examples in the Scriptures that promote polygamy acceptable for marriages. If there are New Testament examples and Scriptures supporting your belief about modern day polygamy, BTW, then I ask that you provide them. Otherwise, all of the verses that I have seen about this topic from the New Testament and examples provided in the New Testament do not support polygamy as being God's perfect model for marriages.

:groupray: :cool:

[BeforeThereWas]

I am extremely shocked, almost beyond words, that an American Baptist is attempting to even defend modern day polygamy in America when polygamy has been legally declared by law and the courts to be illegal and unjust


Declared illegal and unjust by what court? I already stated that existing laws only disallow the acquisition of a marriage license for more than one wife at a time. Did you not read that?

Here's something for you to think about: How many baptists are getting divoces for non-biblical reasons, and remarrying? Hmm? That is the sin of adultery, and it's going on all over America, right under the noses of baptist preacher's noses, and in your own midst.

And yet, you will fabricate laws out of thin air that don't even exist as a defense for your position against polygyny? What do you think that does to your credibility? Let's fight the REAL battles, shall we, rather than each other on the basis of laws that don't exist.

As for the argument that the NT shows no examples, well, that's really a non-argument. The Bible does in fact portray it, make governing provision for it, and even shows God giving plural wives, and the coming of Christ made no changes to the foundation of God's moral absolutes. Now, if you can show me otherwise, then I'm very willing to look at your evidence, and give it due consideration.

Nothing personal, but weak, nonsensical arguments that do nothing more than to discredit the OT portion of God's word are nothing but a demonstration of your ignorance. If you choose to be a product of mondern, feministic theology, then that's your choice, but you are not at all qualified to redefine God's moral absolutes that were well established before the foundations of this world were laid down.

So therefore, it just boggles my mind that BTW attempts to defend polygamy especially when there are not any New Testament examples in the Scriptures that promote polygamy acceptable for marriages.

The NT also doesn't provide examples of married couples flying in jetliners as being acceptable before God, but we do it anyway. You should give your words more thought before vomiting streams of words that reveal more problems in your own beliefs than they actually defend anything legitimate.

If there are New Testament examples and Scriptures supporting your belief about modern day polygamy, BTW, then I ask that you provide them.

If you can show me where ANY PART of God's word makes polygyny a moral no-no, then please do so.

What you're attempting to do is no different than to draw a line down the middle of a football field, tell the other team that their half of the field is of limits, and dare them to try and win the game. These manipulative tactics of trying to limit the field to your advantage is hardly an honest approach to any discussion. If you hate your OT that badly, then rip it out of your Bible, toss it into the trash, and then force what's left into compliance with what appears to be your feministically defined theology.

Otherwise, all of the verses that I have seen about this topic from the New Testament and examples provided in the New Testament do not support polygamy as being God's perfect model for marriages.

So far, all you've done is challenge me to show support for polygyny in the NTin the face of my having shown verses from that same Bible where there's not only support, but that also show God GIVING men plural wives.

you know what, God's word even commanded polygyny for some. Remember where the Lord stated that the surviving brother was to take his dead brother's wife as his own, and provide his dead brother with male offspring? Well, guess what, those verses made no stipulation that the surviving brother had to be single. Imagine that. Do you suppose that God was remiss in His ability to discern the implications of that command? No. He knew full well what He was doing. To say otherwise is to prove that you believe in a god of your own making rather than the God portrayed within the pages of the Bible. A fabricated God-In-The-Box can't save anyone.


So, I'll issue a rebuttal challenge: Show me where the NT disallows polygyny to all beliving men. I dare you.

:cool: BTW&DM

[Vambram]

Well, my brother BTW, until you stop doing spin control, and stop avoiding answering my questions with real answers instead of shifting the topic to other questions, I don't have anything more to discuss with you about this. Anyone with any knowledge of US Court decisions and legal laws in this country knows polygamy is illegal in America. Thats one of the reasons the majority of Mormons no longer practice polygamy. :doh:

Oh, and next time, please check your spelling of your posts, cause I had a slightly difficult time in interpreting your post with all of the spelling errors in it. :D ;)

:groupray: :)

[Vambram]

Nothing personal, but weak, nonsensical arguments that do nothing more than to discredit the OT portion of God's word are nothing but a demonstration of your ignorance. If you choose to be a product of mondern, feministic theology, then that's your choice,

To me, that is an insult and a personal attack against myself by brother BTW. "ignorance" ?? "modern feministic theology" ??? If those are not insulting words against me, then I don't know what an insult is.

You should give your words more thought before vomiting streams of words that reveal more problems in your own beliefs

Are vitriolic words like this really necessary? Or does that sentence show to be another personal attack against myself and my beliefs?

If you hate your OT that badly, then rip it out of your Bible, toss it into the trash, and then force what's left into compliance with what appears to be your feministically defined theology

To me, this is another personal insulting attack against myself and my belief by daring to suggest that I hate the Old Testament, and if I do I should toss the OT into the trash, and again he insults me by suggesting my theology is defined by feminism.
All one has to do is look at some of my posts concerning the doctrine of Inspiration and Inerrancy of Scripture in order to see that I know and believe that all of the original manuscripts of the Scriptures are divinely inspired and inerrant. Yet, apparently this matters not to brother BTW who instead wants to toss out personal insults against myself and my beliefs.
Please, my brother and fellow American Baptist, I am sure that you are a better Christian than this, lets refrain from personal attacks upon the character and beliefs of those whom disagree with you, shall we?

:groupray: :cool: :thumbsup:

[BeforeThereWas]

Well, my brother BTW, until you stop doing spin control, and stop avoiding answering my questions with real answers instead of shifting the topic to other questions, I don't have anything more to discuss with you about this.

I made no changes to the topic. I merely injected comparative examples of your tactics and logic. You assumed a conclusion that the NT must provide specific support for something in order for it to be acceptable today. I want to know by what authority you establish this rule. Is that asking too much? How can I answer a question that's rooted in a fundamental fallacy called Burden of Proof:

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.In many situations, one side h