PDA

View Full Version : can you have more than one wife as a christian?



w_zez
Feb 23rd 2006, 08:04 PM
does the bible say you can only have one wife?
or does it say you can have as many as you like or see fit?

:hug: :hug: :hug:

slightlypuzzled
Feb 23rd 2006, 08:07 PM
Why would you want more than one wife? The NT does not adress this issue, directly. But I still have to ask, why would you want more than one? :rolleyes: ;)

pnewton
Feb 23rd 2006, 08:23 PM
Why would you want more than one wife? Maybe if you were facing criminal charges and needed a rock solid insanity plea? I would acquit such a lost soul.

w_zez
Feb 23rd 2006, 08:25 PM
hello slightlypuzzled
well it may not be something you plan out, but if you are already married and you come across another woman whom you would like to marry as well as stay married to your first wife, and your current first wife wants you to marry her to, then would this be sinful according to the bible?
:hmm:

Fubajuba
Feb 23rd 2006, 08:27 PM
Isn't polygamy against the law, at least here in the U.S? If it is against the law, then no, you can't have more than one wife..

w_zez
Feb 23rd 2006, 08:28 PM
Maybe if you were facing criminal charges and needed a rock solid insanity plea? I would acquit such a lost soul.

why would your soul be lost if you had let's say two wives?

slightlypuzzled
Feb 23rd 2006, 08:29 PM
why would your soul be lost if you had let's say two wives?

I bet you aren't even married are you......... :lol: :lol:

w_zez
Feb 23rd 2006, 08:30 PM
Isn't polygamy against the law, at least here in the U.S? If it is against the law, then no, you can't have more than one wife..

so what you are saying is that if it's legal in another country,
then it's alright?

slightlypuzzled
Feb 23rd 2006, 08:31 PM
Maybe if you were facing criminal charges and needed a rock solid insanity plea? I would acquit such a lost soul.

If I were the DA, and someone like that came across my desk, I would not even prosecute such a man.... the 'evidence' speaks for itself............... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

w_zez
Feb 23rd 2006, 08:33 PM
I bet you aren't even married are you......... :lol: :lol:

sounds like a question from someone who actaully isn't themself, maybe has no chance of being so? heh?...heh?

:agree:

slightlypuzzled
Feb 23rd 2006, 08:36 PM
Oh yes, I have been......she died in May of last year. I cherish my married life, but I would not have wanted to have been married to two of my DW...I could just barely keep up with the one......;)

lbeaty1981
Feb 23rd 2006, 08:36 PM
so what you are saying is that if it's legal in another country,
then it's alright?

Personally, I'd say it's okay. Quite a few people in the OT had multiple wives and still received God's blessing. It's mainly a cultural thing that makes people not do it anymore. That being said, I know quite a few married guys that have said you couldn't pay them enough to take on another wife! :lol:

w_zez
Feb 23rd 2006, 08:42 PM
Personally, I'd say it's okay. Quite a few people in the OT had multiple wives and still received God's blessing. It's mainly a cultural thing that makes people not do it anymore. That being said, I know quite a few married guys that have said you couldn't pay them enough to take on another wife! :lol:

well, it depends on the women. not all of them are a pain. some are very good women to be involved with.

pnewton
Feb 23rd 2006, 10:41 PM
why would your soul be lost if you had let's say two wives?It's a secret inside joke for married people.

Let me use an analogy. Let us say a high school student attended class for 35 hours a week, did all his homework and several extra activities for another ten. This student got a lot of solid education for the future. This is a good thing. Now double all the time along with headaches, heartaches etc. because if one was good, then two are better. Now if such a teen voluntarily took on that load, I would think he had gone around the bend.

Big T
Feb 23rd 2006, 11:47 PM
We are told that a man will leave his mother and cling to his wife. That's singular.

Also the bible says a man can not serve two masters. Not that a wife is your master, but how can you love both of them?

theconselor
Feb 24th 2006, 02:05 AM
Why would you want 2 women??? Not only is it immoraly wrong but imagine how much nagging you would have to put up with:lol: :lol: :lol:

No but seriously though, there is no need for 2 wives.

EarlyCall
Feb 24th 2006, 02:22 AM
why would your soul be lost if you had let's say two wives?

I'm betting you'd lose your mind before you would your soul.

EarlyCall
Feb 24th 2006, 02:26 AM
hello slightlypuzzled
well it may not be something you plan out, but if you are already married and you come across another woman whom you would like to marry as well as stay married to your first wife, and your current first wife wants you to marry her to, then would this be sinful according to the bible?
:hmm:

It would be a plot for a TV show me thinks. Then the first wife runs off with the second wife after killing her husband. CSI - you got this?

EarlyCall
Feb 24th 2006, 02:27 AM
Personally, I'd say it's okay. Quite a few people in the OT had multiple wives and still received God's blessing. It's mainly a cultural thing that makes people not do it anymore. That being said, I know quite a few married guys that have said you couldn't pay them enough to take on another wife! :lol:

Yes, and it was probably God's blessing that kept them sane.:D

Fubajuba
Feb 24th 2006, 03:02 AM
so what you are saying is that if it's legal in another country,
then it's alright?

No... I'm saying despite what the Bible says, (unless the Bible specifically told us to do it), you couldn't because it's agaisnt the law. I really couldn't care less if it's wrong or not, because I'm not going to do it.

Bingo
Feb 24th 2006, 05:59 PM
Why would you want 2 women??? Not only is it immoraly wrong but imagine how much nagging you would have to put up with:lol: :lol: :lol:

No but seriously though, there is no need for 2 wives.


With respect...it is not immorally wrong. It is never said to be "immoral" in any part of Scripture. This speaks to the original posters question, it is not wrong in God's eyes and you are allowed to pursue this if you desire. However, as Fubajuba has pointed out, in this country it is considered illegal.

Bingo

Bingo
Feb 24th 2006, 06:02 PM
It would be a plot for a TV show me thinks. Then the first wife runs off with the second wife after killing her husband. CSI - you got this?

You're on target Early Call, HBO is already doing a series that will air later this year (I think) called "Big Love" about a polyamous family (less the killing).

Bingo

Steve M
Feb 24th 2006, 06:41 PM
You're on target Early Call, HBO is already doing a series that will air later this year (I think) called "Big Love" about a polyamous family (less the killing).

Bingo
It's an HBO show, so I'm still not positive about the 'less the killing' aspect... especially with all those mothers-in-law!! :lol:

FJ hit the nail on the head. Polygamy is against the law of more than a few western nations right now. Romans 13 and various other passages tell us to be subject to the rulers, which means--no multiple wives.

Of course, the legality aspect may soon be challenged by Muslims, who are growing in number are decidedly not monogamous. It's religious persecution, isn't it, to prevent them from having their 4 wives?

One thing to consider is whether or not polygamy would be good for society. One man, with one woman, can have more kids than he can support. One man with four or five wives could easily have enough children that there's no way he could support them, which would leave it to society--the rest of us--to step in and support them. Is that moral, to be a drain on society?

abidingone
Feb 24th 2006, 07:16 PM
does the bible say you can only have one wife?
or does it say you can have as many as you like or see fit?

:hug: :hug: :hug:

My personal advise

As someone who has been married for 33 years, I wouldn't advise anyone to have more than one wife. It's difficult enough taking care of one wife.

On their 50th wedding anniversary and during the banquet celebrating it, Tom was asked to give his friends a brief account of the benefits of a marriage of such long duration.
"Tell us Tom, just what is it you have learned from all those wonderful years with your wife?"
Tom responds, "Well, I've learned that marriage is the best teacher of all. It teaches you loyalty, meekness, forbearance, self-restraint, forgiveness -- and a great many other qualities you wouldn't have needed if you'd stayed single."

A woman worries about the future until she gets a husband. A man never worries about the future until he gets a wife.

EarlyCall
Feb 24th 2006, 07:30 PM
You're on target Early Call, HBO is already doing a series that will air later this year (I think) called "Big Love" about a polyamous family (less the killing).

Bingo

:lol: I had no idea. Figures though.

Of course, I hope everyone realizes I say these things in this thread in jest. It's jsut such a terrific opportunity for humor, and I...

What's that dear? Why yes dear, right away dear. Coming.

I gotta run.

Bingo
Feb 24th 2006, 07:37 PM
One thing to consider is whether or not polygamy would be good for society. One man, with one woman, can have more kids than he can support. One man with four or five wives could easily have enough children that there's no way he could support them, which would leave it to society--the rest of us--to step in and support them. Is that moral, to be a drain on society?

Although overt polygamy is rare in our own society, it is a very common mode of family organization around the world. Of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas, polygyny (some men having more than one wife) is prevalent in 850 (Hartung 1982). Moreover, our own society is far from completley monogamous. About 1/4 of all children born in the United States in 1990 were born to unmarried mothers who were ot cohabitating with the fathers. Even though simultaneous marriages to multiple partners are not officially recognized, divorce and remarriage leads to a common pattern of "serial polygamy', in which males remarry more frequently than females and are more likely than females to have children by more than one spouse.

You can ask the same morality question about a number of things we allow in our own society. A man that has more wives than he can provide for is just as guilty as a man that has more children than he can provide for. Is it immoral for society to provide for him. In most cases we say something like, "God has blessed you with all of these children" and we know that God will find a way for the man to care for them. Why would this be any different?

Bingo

Armistead14
Feb 24th 2006, 08:03 PM
I don't see anything wrong with it. Many other cultures do it without any problem.

Cananda may introduce polygamy back into law. They are still fighting over it, who knows.

Don't think it would work in America over all. However, it is still strong amoung certain religeous groups, that still practice it, regardless of it being illegal.

One wife is enough for me. However, if it were legal, I wouldn't mind having another maid, er, I mean wife.

w_zez
Feb 24th 2006, 11:36 PM
My personal advise

As someone who has been married for 33 years, I wouldn't advise anyone to have more than one wife. It's difficult enough taking care of one wife.

On their 50th wedding anniversary and during the banquet celebrating it, Tom was asked to give his friends a brief account of the benefits of a marriage of such long duration.
"Tell us Tom, just what is it you have learned from all those wonderful years with your wife?"
Tom responds, "Well, I've learned that marriage is the best teacher of all. It teaches you loyalty, meekness, forbearance, self-restraint, forgiveness -- and a great many other qualities you wouldn't have needed if you'd stayed single."

A woman worries about the future until she gets a husband. A man never worries about the future until he gets a wife.

well that's a matter of personal opinion and situation. alot of guys have never been with the right woman so they don't see it possible
for anybody to find one, they may think women like this do not exsist. but it does, and if you find another one who becomes friends with your current wife, then why not make a bigger stronger family?
three sticks are harder to break than two...or one.

simonmaal
Feb 24th 2006, 11:51 PM
does the bible say you can only have one wife?
or does it say you can have as many as you like or see fit?

:hug: :hug: :hug:

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife [singular, not plural]: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and
shall be joined unto his wife [again, singular], and they two shall be one flesh." (Ephesians 5:31)

If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having
faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. (Titus 1:6)

"A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach" (1 Timothy 3:2)

Bingo
Feb 25th 2006, 12:56 AM
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife [singular, not plural]: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and
shall be joined unto his wife [again, singular], and they two shall be one flesh." (Ephesians 5:31)

The Genesis accounts are the "creation story" they are the perpetuation of the species. It is biological in nature, not sociological. If God was against polygamy, He never stated it anywhere in His word.


If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having
faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. (Titus 1:6)

"A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach" (1 Timothy 3:2)



These prohibitions are for elder/deacons only. "One wife" --- "mia" is the Greek word from which the word, one, was translated in those passages. Yet, it can also be translated as first, just as it is, for example, so translated in the phrases, "first day of the week" in Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-2, and Acts 20:7.

Furthermore, in 1_Timothy 5:9, a widow's "one man" is not mia but the Greek word "heis", meaning the numeral-one, and not meaning the adjective of "first".

Being that Paul is instructing Timothy about a person that has the ability to rule and show leadership, it is most likely that the word "first" be used as in the "first" wife, not being given over to divorce.

Bingo

w_zez
Feb 25th 2006, 12:59 AM
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife [singular, not plural]: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and
shall be joined unto his wife [again, singular], and they two shall be one flesh." (Ephesians 5:31)

If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having
faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. (Titus 1:6)

"A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach" (1 Timothy 3:2)





and thanks for that...i guess. i was hoping this couldn't be found in the bible by someone.
:cry:

DeadManWalking
Feb 25th 2006, 10:30 PM
Edited ... biblical references already quoted by simonmaal. Sorry...

simonmaal
Feb 26th 2006, 05:17 PM
The Genesis accounts are the "creation story" they are the perpetuation of the species. It is biological in nature, not sociological. If God was against polygamy, He never stated it anywhere in His word.
:confused I just gave you the verse: this is God laying down his rules right from the start! The primacy and priority of the marriage bond between one husband and one wife; this is why "forsaking all others" is an important part of the wedding vows.


These prohibitions are for elder/deacons only. "One wife" --- "mia" is the Greek word from which the word, one, was translated in those passages. Yet, it can also be translated as first, just as it is, for example, so translated in the phrases, "first day of the week" in Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-2, and Acts 20:7.

This is interesting, but it is all conjecture. In any case, Ephesians 5:31 and Titus 1:6 are not about deacons or creation. Furthermore, if polygamy is allowed, then why is lust frowned upon so often? It would not be possible to be in a loving marriage and then desire another, would it?

Give honor to marriage, and remain faithful to one another in marriage. God will surely judge people who are immoral and those who commit adultery. (Hebrews 13:4)

27 "You have heard that the law of Moses says, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28)


Being that Paul is instructing Timothy about a person that has the ability to rule and show leadership, it is most likely that the word "first" be used as in the "first" wife, not being given over to divorce.

Bingo

Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but your reasoning does nothing at all to refute my argument. The only way to do so is to show me a verse that explitly sanctions being married to more than one wife.

Armistead14
Feb 26th 2006, 05:57 PM
:confused I just gave you the verse: this is God laying down his rules right from the start! The primacy and priority of the marriage bond between one husband and one wife; this is why "forsaking all others" is an important part of the wedding vows.



This is interesting, but it is all conjecture. In any case, Ephesians 5:31 and Titus 1:6 are not about deacons or creation. Furthermore, if polygamy is allowed, then why is lust frowned upon so often? It would not be possible to be in a loving marriage and then desire another, would it?

Give honor to marriage, and remain faithful to one another in marriage. God will surely judge people who are immoral and those who commit adultery. (Hebrews 13:4)

27 "You have heard that the law of Moses says, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28)



Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but your reasoning does nothing at all to refute my argument. The only way to do so is to show me a verse that explitly sanctions being married to more than one wife.


If any man that looks at a women has commited adultry, then don't all of these divorced couples that divorced without physical adultry do so biblically.
If people are allowed divorce based on "lust" being adultry, then everyone that divorced, can actually say there partner commited adultry, without
doing the act. that would make most divorces biblically legal or at least OK.
The bible says we can divorce if our partner commits adultry. If this verse is true, then 99% of divorced couples did so biblically if lust is realy adultry, because they commited adultry, giving there partner biblical right to divorce.

Duane Morse
Feb 26th 2006, 06:03 PM
The pattern we were shown is one woman for one man, and that they two are to be considered as one.

There is no mention of it being any other way, even if certain people in the Bible took it upon themselves to modify that.

simonmaal
Feb 27th 2006, 10:33 AM
If any man that looks at a women has commited adultry, then don't all of these divorced couples that divorced without physical adultry do so biblically.

You raise an interesting point, but the verse does not say "any man that looks at a woman", it says "any man that looks at a woman with lust in his eye." This is a highly important distinction. Only the person observing the woman is aware of the existence or absence of lust. The rest of us cannot see into the mind of the man, we remain unaware of his thoughts. Therefore, the problem with using "adultery of the heart but not the body" as grounds for divorce is the issue of proof.


If people are allowed divorce based on "lust" being adultry, then everyone that divorced, can actually say there partner commited adultry, without doing the act. that would make most divorces biblically legal or at least OK. The bible says we can divorce if our partner commits adultry. If this verse is true, then 99% of divorced couples did so biblically if lust is realy adultry, because they commited adultry, giving there partner biblical right to divorce.

One area in which we can be aware of the man's intentions is in the area of illict magazines and websites; there can be no reason other than lust for owning such literature or browsing such sites. Indeed, many marriages do break up due to this kind of activity, and I would argue that such divorce is grounded in Biblical teaching. However, as I said, in everyday situations, such as the office, then do we not know whether a man is committing adultery in his heart or not. Only the man himself and God can know that.

Much of the book of Matthew emphasises the relationship of the individual person with God, which by default means the relationship between God's creations. Thus, there is a move away from external actions such as ritual (which had become meaningless by the time Christ walked the earth) and towards internal actions such as discipline and compassion (both of which result in virtuous external actions).

Matthew 5:27-28 is an example of this.

Bingo
Feb 27th 2006, 11:09 PM
:confused I just gave you the verse: this is God laying down his rules right from the start! The primacy and priority of the marriage bond between one husband and one wife; this is why "forsaking all others" is an important part of the wedding vows.

This is not God laying down the rules. Where do you see that God says that it can only be one man and one woman. Where does He say that it is prohibited for a man to take another wife? Especially in light of the fact that His law required it in the case of the Levirate marriage law, Duet. 25:5.

Can you show me where in Scripture that we are commanded in our wedding vows to "forsake all others???"


This is interesting, but it is all conjecture. In any case, Ephesians 5:31 and Titus 1:6 are not about deacons or creation. Furthermore, if polygamy is allowed, then why is lust frowned upon so often? It would not be possible to be in a loving marriage and then desire another, would it?

Of course it's possible.

The Ephesians passage is talking about unity. Read the very next line, This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. Whether we say that Christ is married to the Church (singular) or that the Church is made up of every believer, the result is the same.

Your definition of lust is not a Biblical one, that's why you have a problem with the passages. Lust (Biblically) is not what tradition says it is and not of what we moderns think of when we say "lust."




Give honor to marriage, and remain faithful to one another in marriage. God will surely judge people who are immoral and those who commit adultery. (Hebrews 13:4)

I don't know what version this is. Every version I have read says, " Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge. Those that are unfaithful are those that have broken their vows of marriage. Obviously the OT patriarchs knew of no such s*xual exclusive vow. To think of such a thing in the setting of OT culture is laughable.


27 "You have heard that the law of Moses says, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28)

So are you saying that when Jacob, Abraham, David, Solomon, Gideon, Ezra, Hosea, Lamech etc..looked at another wife with undoubtedly s*xual thoughts, to make her their own...they sinned??? Where can I find this condemnation...Biblically. Show me where in the entire canon of Scripture that demonstrates that when one of these patriarchs took another wife, they sinned.


Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but your reasoning does nothing at all to refute my argument. The only way to do so is to show me a verse that explitly sanctions being married to more than one wife.


I'll give you a additional one...

I already gave you the Levirate marriage law that required the wife of a deceased man to be married to the brother of the deceased. (Lev. 25:5)

In 2 Sam we have God telling David that He was responsible for His many wives and if he wanted more, He would have given them to him...I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more." (2 Sam. 12:8) If God stated that He gave David his wives, then it is not sinful. If we consider it sin, then this passage clearly makes God the author of David's sin which is absurd.

Furthermore, we do not need a specific text to give us permission to do a certain thing. If that is the case you would not be typing on the very computer you are using to reply to this. We only need to find out what God prohibits and all else is allowed as long as it follows the NT prescription for the Law of Love (Matt. 22:37-41).

Bingo

Bingo
Feb 27th 2006, 11:17 PM
However, as I said, in everyday situations, such as the office, then do we not know whether a man is committing adultery in his heart or not. Only the man himself and God can know that.

Let's look at this scenario. Does the single man working at the office commit "adultery in his heart" when he looks at another single woman and entertains s*xual thoughts of her??? Is that lust??

Bingo

patrick g
Feb 28th 2006, 05:27 AM
to address the post above me...yes it is adultery. anyway you slice it mate.

to address the topic of this post, having more than one wife is not the correct way to do things. you cannot, as a man, fully love both of the women. you cannot fully give yourself to two women. as one of the wives i would feel cheated. cheated that i did not get a man to fully be mine and me to fully be his. "i have more love than one woman can handle". i've heard men say this and it's completely mental. it tells me you're not fully up to it. that YOU want to be in control and make the rules. that isn't the proper perspective, is it? one wife, one husband. two entities make a marriage. please give up on the idea of multiple wives. it is not the best for you. it is not the best for the women involved. certainly not the best for any children either. i would suggest prayer for god's discernment. pray that your heart's desires are true. i shall pray for you as well. cheers mate . . ..

simonmaal
Feb 28th 2006, 11:44 AM
Let's look at this scenario. Does the single man working at the office commit "adultery in his heart" when he looks at another single woman and entertains s*xual thoughts of her??? Is that lust??

Yes, I would argue that he does.

simonmaal
Feb 28th 2006, 12:05 PM
You are contradicting yourself. First, you say:


Can you show me where in Scripture that we are commanded in our wedding vows to "forsake all others???"
So by that logic, internet p*rnography is OK, because it isn't explicitly outlawed in the Bible (it wasn't invented yet). By the way, I notice that you conveniently overlooked my point about p*rnography. Why? I already gave you what Jesus said about looking at another woman in lust.

Anyway, by your claim (quoted above) you are by default arguing that we are allowed to do what we will unless scripture forbids it. However, you then go on to say:


Your definition of lust is not a Biblical one, that's why you have a problem with the passages. Lust (Biblically) is not what tradition says it is and not of what we moderns think of when we say "lust."
You are therefore implying that the term "lust" is open to interpretation! What about the "explicit interpretations only", that you mentioned earlier??? :confused

By the way, do not presume to tell me that I have "a problem with the passages". If we disagree, that is fine, I respect our differences in opinion, but please don't talk down to me. Remember that we agreed to treat other posters with respect when we signed up for this board. Please can we continue this discussion without getting personal?

I request that we hash this point out before I address the rest of your post. The only other comment I have to make is in response to the following:


I already gave you the Levirate marriage law that required the wife of a deceased man to be married to the brother of the deceased. (Lev. 25:5)
:OFFT: What has death got to do with polygamy? Please stay on topic.

Bingo
Feb 28th 2006, 05:24 PM
to address the post above me...yes it is adultery. anyway you slice it mate.

If it is adultery, then I would kindly ask you to prove it Biblically. I mean for a single man to commit "adultery in the mind" by entertaining s*xual thought in his mind must have a Biblical precident right? Can you show it to me? Can you show me one time a single man commits adultery in the entire canon of Scripture??? By the definition of adultery it is impossible.


to address the topic of this post, having more than one wife is not the correct way to do things. you cannot, as a man, fully love both of the women. you cannot fully give yourself to two women. as one of the wives i would feel cheated. cheated that i did not get a man to fully be mine and me to fully be his. "i have more love than one woman can handle". i've heard men say this and it's completely mental. it tells me you're not fully up to it. that YOU want to be in control and make the rules. that isn't the proper perspective, is it? one wife, one husband. two entities make a marriage. please give up on the idea of multiple wives. it is not the best for you. it is not the best for the women involved. certainly not the best for any children either. i would suggest prayer for god's discernment. pray that your heart's desires are true. i shall pray for you as well. cheers mate . . ..

Then tell me Patrick G, was God wrong to give David his multiple wives(2 Sam. 12:8)? Was He wrong to tell him that if he wanted more He would have given them to him? Maybe the error is in our human understanding.

-Bingo

Bingo
Feb 28th 2006, 05:56 PM
So by that logic, internet p*rnography is OK, because it isn't explicitly outlawed in the Bible (it wasn't invented yet). By the way, I notice that you conveniently overlooked my point about p*rnography. Why?

I want to keep the thread on topic, if you would like me to address internet porn*graphy within a thread about polygamy I will.


I already gave you what Jesus said about looking at another woman in lust.

Yes and then you gave us a traditional view of "lust" which isn't very Biblical. Yes "lust" is a internal matter of the heart which the Matt. passage demonstrates, but it ismuch more than just entertaining a s*xual thought about a girl.

Do we think that Jesus was trying to teach us that we are not to be s*xually attracted to the one that we might marry and eventually have s*x with? That makes no sense at all. Every male (and I suppose most females) have a natural desire for those of the opposite s*x (most of the time). We don't have to work up to it..it's just there.

The word used as lust "epithumeo" (Strongs #1937) is the exact same word used in Rom. 7:7, 13:9, "...for the Law said, thou shall not covet." That is what Christ was trying to teach us. It is wrong to put your "fixation" on a object, person or whatever and "desire" to have that "thing" for our own, when it belongs to someone else. It is "to strongly desire to have what belongs to someone else..." (pg. 291. 25.20, The Greek-English Lexicon of the NT based on Semantic Domains).

Just as the OT commandment tells us that we are not to covet our neighbor's house, wife, property etc...Jesus tells us the same thing. We can admire those things, even appreciate their beauty (s*xually or otherwise), but we are not to place upon them that "fixation" to the point that we long for that "thing" that the other person has. To even "desire" to have my neighbor's wife as my own constitutes adultery in the Matt. passage.

The most important element in Jesus' statement is His emphasis on "adultery." A man could not commit adultery except with a married woman (Demonstrated hundreds of times in the OT). Jesus says this "Looking" equals "adultery in his heart," so Jesus is talking about only about a man who looks at a married woman with the desire and intention to take her away from her husband. If that intention is not there, then adultery is not involved and he is not condemned, even if he looks with s*xual desire.(Divine S*x, Philo Thelos)

We must try to understand this text the same way the original recipients would have understood it. The only point of reference they had was the OT culture. Jesus spoke to them with a references they could understand and then how to properly understand those references. He not only held up the existing law but started to develop his "law of love" principle which would fulfill the law (vs. 17).

As if the words that Christ used here were not enough, He gives us a word picture.....

"If your right eyes causes you to sin, gouge it out..." (describes the lusting, the desire for something that is not yours to posses). "If you right hand causes you to sin, cut it off..." (describes the possessing what is not yours). If lust is the simple looking at s*xually, then the cutting off your hand makes no sense at all.



Anyway, by your claim (quoted above) you are by default arguing that we are allowed to do what we will unless scripture forbids it. However, you then go on to say:


You are therefore implying that the term "lust" is open to interpretation! What about the "explicit interpretations only", that you mentioned earlier???

Sorry, I'm not following you here. I posted the Biblical definiton of lust above so maybe that might help.


By the way, do not presume to tell me that I have "a problem with the passages". If we disagree, that is fine, I respect our differences in opinion, but please don't talk down to me. Remember that we agreed to treat other posters with respect when we signed up for this board. Please can we continue this discussion without getting personal?

To point out a fact is not personal. Yes, I would say that you have a problem with a term or particular passage if you state your opinion but it makes no sense Biblically or worse yet, cannot be proven Biblically. That is a problem. False theology is built upon false assumptions and I'll try to show you where you are in error.



What has death got to do with polygamy? Please stay on topic.

It is exactly on topic. The law of “Levirate marriage” requires that if one’s brother dies with no son, his widow is to marry the living brother, to give an heir to his brother, (Deut. 25:5-6). This is true even if the living brother is already married. This is God’s law! If he refuses to marry her, he is cursed publicly by her, (vs. 7-10). Thus we have God’s mandate for polygamy in this situation. It is useless to argue “special circumstances” here. If polygamy is truly a moral offense, no special circumstance can make it morally right. If God is offended by a person having s*x with more than one other person how can we make any sense out of this law? Sin is sin! Immoral acts cannot be permissible simply because of circumstances. On the one hand, God decrees the death penalty for “adultery.” On the other hand, God decrees multiple marriage in this text. So – aren’t we missing something?


Bingo

simonmaal
Feb 28th 2006, 06:53 PM
You are way off, and you have no desire to engage with me respectfully. Therefore, I'm shaking the dust off my feet and leaving this conversation with dignity.

Bingo
Feb 28th 2006, 07:35 PM
You are way off, and you have no desire to engage with me respectfully. Therefore, I'm shaking the dust off my feet and leaving this conversation with dignity.

I said nothing with disrespect. Look at your above quote..."You are way off." How can anything I said be disrespectful if I ask you to prove your position? If you would like to stick around and learn, then I will teach you.

The truth is that many of the things we hold as deep convictions are nothing more than the tradition of men. Many of these traditions we suppose have rock solid Biblical support, but when we examine these supposed truths under close Biblical scrutiny, the foundation for these supposed truths are built upon sand and they fall apart. This is one of those areas.

May God bless you in all of your endeavors.

Bingo

simonmaal
Feb 28th 2006, 10:17 PM
Hi Bingo

We will have to agree to disagree on this issue. We have both put our points forward, and like I said, I respect your views, even though I disagree.

Let's leave it at that, and may you remain strong in faith. :hug:

Duane Morse
Feb 28th 2006, 10:47 PM
You make an interesting case Bingo. What I posted before was referring more to the male-female nature of our soul - which is strictly one female aspect to each corrosponding male aspect of each particular soul.

The case you bring up however, of a man having more than one wife, you have shown me to be a different topic entirely.

I have found it somewhat interesting, the wording Jesus uses - that if the man or woman should put away their wife or husband and marry another, they would be committing adultery. Putting away would be to leave them, indicating that once married always married to that individual. But I do not see reference that adding to the number of husbands or wives, per say, would be committing adultery.

Bingo
Mar 1st 2006, 01:05 AM
You make an interesting case Bingo. What I posted before was referring more to the male-female nature of our soul - which is strictly one female aspect to each corrosponding male aspect of each particular soul.

You must be referring to a different thread we were in. I can't find anything from you that refers to this within this particular thread.


The case you bring up however, of a man having more than one wife, you have shown me to be a different topic entirely.

I have found it somewhat interesting, the wording Jesus uses - that if the man or woman should put away their wife or husband and marry another, they would be committing adultery. Putting away would be to leave them, indicating that once married always married to that individual. But I do not see reference that adding to the number of husbands or wives, per say, would be committing adultery.

I'm assuming you're talking about the Matt. 19:3 passage. If that is the case, then Jesus is answering a question about divorce posed to Him by the Pharisees. Thus, His answer pertains to divorce and does not answer the tangentile topic of polygamy. Obviously Jesus was very familiar with the lifestyle, but never made specific reference to it and certainly never prohibited it. Your observations about adding in number are correct.

Bingo

patrick g
Mar 1st 2006, 10:00 AM
If it is adultery, then I would kindly ask you to prove it Biblically. I mean for a single man to commit "adultery in the mind" by entertaining s*xual thought in his mind must have a Biblical precident right? Can you show it to me? Can you show me one time a single man commits adultery in the entire canon of Scripture??? By the definition of adultery it is impossible.



Then tell me Patrick G, was God wrong to give David his multiple wives(2 Sam. 12:8)? Was He wrong to tell him that if he wanted more He would have given them to him? Maybe the error is in our human understanding.

-Bingo


perhaps it may not be adultery bingo, i'm no expert. but i do feel to look upon a girl with lust, anyway you slice it, is sinful. we are called to love our brothers and sisters, not to lust over them.

the way you've posed the question about david's wives makes it hard for any answer to not be in disagreeance with you. wouldn't everyone agree that god wasn't/isn't wrong?

i think it's hard to validate the position of having multiple wives by showing david as your only example. i know david was quite different than i am. he had "a heart for god", he lived during a very different time in a very different place, and he was a king. there are just too many differences. it's not apples to apples.

i believe god intended for man to be with one woman. god gave adam eve, not a heram of women. he gave adam a helper...helper is not plural. adam and eve, that is the model. bingo, i believe if this is on your heart to have more than one wife, seek guidance in your church, and pray over it. or if you are just unsure of what the appropriate christian approach to this is, seek guidance in your church, and pray over it. cheers . . ..

ollie
Mar 1st 2006, 02:19 PM
does the bible say you can only have one wife?Yes. For the male one wife and one husband for the female. Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5-6

It is a qualification for an elder desiring the office of bishop. Then would it not be an infered/implied qualification for all Christians. It is from these ranks of elder Christians in a congregation that a bishop will be chosen and ordained, therefore all males should have such a qualification. 1 Timothy 3:1-2, Titus 1:5-7 All males should aspire to achieve to an elderly age in Christ that which would qualify to oversee the local flock

On the other hand it could infer/imply multiple wives were had, but such elders with multiple wives would not meet the qualifications to be a bishop. 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 has an answer for this. See below.


or does it say you can have as many as you like or see fit?

:hug: :hug: :hug:No.

Do these verses shed any light?

1 Corinthians 7:1. "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

Verse 2 would connotate singular, one.

Thanks for considering my thoughts on it,
ollie

Bingo
Mar 1st 2006, 06:54 PM
perhaps it may not be adultery bingo, i'm no expert. but i do feel to look upon a girl with lust, anyway you slice it, is sinful. we are called to love our brothers and sisters, not to lust over them.

No one says we are called to "lust" over our brothers and sisters. God has placed within each one of us a natural attraction to the opposite s*x. This would certainly include entertaining s*xual thoughts about a potential mate. To say that one sins when he/she thinks like this about a potential mate is absurd.


the way you've posed the question about david's wives makes it hard for any answer to not be in disagreeance with you. wouldn't everyone agree that god wasn't/isn't wrong?

That was the whole point of the excersize. God is the legislator of all morality. if we say that polygamy is wrong, immoral, sinful etc... then we do so incorrectly, for God Himself declares that He has participated in this on David's behalf.


i think it's hard to validate the position of having multiple wives by showing david as your only example. i know david was quite different than i am. he had "a heart for god", he lived during a very different time in a very different place, and he was a king. there are just too many differences. it's not apples to apples.

The issue isn't David or anybody else. We have God stating that He gave David his many wives and He would have given him more. God stated His case clearly here. God required polygamy in the case of the Levirate marriage law (Deut. 25:5). God's Mosiac law sought for the proper treatment of the women involved if the man were to take more than one wife (Deut. 21:15). God participated in, required and legislated the issue of polygamy.


i believe god intended for man to be with one woman. god gave adam eve, not a heram of women. he gave adam a helper...helper is not plural. adam and eve, that is the model. bingo, i believe if this is on your heart to have more than one wife, seek guidance in your church, and pray over it. or if you are just unsure of what the appropriate christian approach to this is, seek guidance in your church, and pray over it. cheers . . ..

That is certainly your opinion. God's creation account was just that..the creation of each s*x. Remember although He did make a man and a woman, He also allows for celibacy which goes well outside of His pattern. I'm am no longer unsure about the approach to this subject. i believe the church (for the most part) is in error on the subject. Here are some plain truths when we look at this subject...

• God allowed polygamy to enter human experience without a word of correction.
• The Bible refers directly to at least 23 men who had more than one wife.
• This list of polygamous husbands contains the names of the most illustrious examples of faith and holiness in all the Bible.
• God makes polygamy mandatory in the case of the “Levirate marriage law.”
• Israel’s elders use examples of polygamy, to bless the marriage of Boaz and Ruth.
• God gives Israelite men permission to keep women and children for themselves after a successful battle. Even married men had this privilege.
• God commends the worship of a polygamous man.
• God’s prophet says David’s multiple marriages are blessings from God, and assures David that God would have given him more if he desired them.
• God uses the polygamous inclinations of a pagan king to bring Esther to power, and thus to save Israel from a holocaust. (Divine S*x, Philo Thelos)

Not one time, with even one word, in all the OT record, did God even so much as hint to His people, that he preferred that they not practice polygamy. Not once did God refer to Adam and Eve as His ideal for marriage. If God was displeased with polygamy, no one in the entire scope of OT history knew it! God never told even His most trusted servants. God simply gave us no record of His disapproval of polygamy! It is not possible to believe that God granted polygamy as a blessing to His people until Jesus came, but now sees it as a sin worthy of eternal Hell. It is not possible that God blessed David with many wives and would have given him more, but that He will send us to Hell forever for the same thing. God did not, and still does not disapprove of polygamy.

Bingo

Armistead
Mar 2nd 2006, 05:00 AM
perhaps it may not be adultery bingo, i'm no expert. but i do feel to look upon a girl with lust, anyway you slice it, is sinful. we are called to love our brothers and sisters, not to lust over them.

the way you've posed the question about david's wives makes it hard for any answer to not be in disagreeance with you. wouldn't everyone agree that god wasn't/isn't wrong?

i think it's hard to validate the position of having multiple wives by showing david as your only example. i know david was quite different than i am. he had "a heart for god", he lived during a very different time in a very different place, and he was a king. there are just too many differences. it's not apples to apples.

i believe god intended for man to be with one woman. god gave adam eve, not a heram of women. he gave adam a helper...helper is not plural. adam and eve, that is the model. bingo, i believe if this is on your heart to have more than one wife, seek guidance in your church, and pray over it. or if you are just unsure of what the appropriate christian approach to this is, seek guidance in your church, and pray over it. cheers . . ..

I think many misunderstand lust. Lust is not just a s#xual word. Lust implies to covet, overwhelming desire. There are over 25 different definitions of lust in the bible, only a few are used over s#xual concerns.
Sure, you can sin by lusting s#xually. The verse in matthew does not
in anyway mean that a man that have a s#xual thuoght about a women has commited adultry. The verse is showing or giving a definition of lust.
That lust is equal to adultry, the taking of anothers property.

It is highly possilbe that Adam had relations with other women, as it was
the common act of that time.

All men have natural thoughts. If we didn't, we wouldn't desire women.
S#xuality is the force that brings women and men together. If you use s#xuality to take, steal or harm, then you've lusted. If you use s#xuality selfishly, that would be a problem. All men become s#xual creatures after puberty. You don't choose it, your body, as designed by God made you that way. The thoughts just start naturally happening, not of choice, but out of design of your body. This is the process that will cause you to want a women and lead to marriage. S#xuality is taught to be evil, it is not. However, responsible teaching, biblical rules and common sense must be used. Most people act if God made a mistake in creating women.

These thoughts should not master you, nor be abused. But to think you sinned because you had a s#xual thought is silly.

I agree with Bingo, polygamy is not, nor ever was it a sin. God doesn't sin.
If polygamy is or was a sin, then God allowed, condoned, prolaimed it and used it. Almost every OT Saint had many wives and concubines. It is stated in the bible many times that this was a blessing from God.

Polygamy is still in many cultures today and working fine. However, these cultures haven't been corrupted by the many modern myths and traditions. Certainly, it wouldn't work in our culture overall.

Fubajuba
Mar 2nd 2006, 02:05 PM
I can't believe this crap has a.) Gone on so long, and b.) now gotten down to the argument of "natural S*xuality"....

Oh, and I'd still appreciate a response to the PM's I sent armistead. I'd like to have a debate in a grown-up manner, one on one, rather than you having a gang of cronies with you.

Bingo
Mar 2nd 2006, 06:15 PM
I can't believe this crap has a.) Gone on so long, and b.) now gotten down to the argument of "natural S*xuality"....

Let's keep our language clean. The reason why it has gone on so long is there are so many misconceptions about thsi very topic. We have been told for so long by our Pastors, Priest and Clergy that polygamy is against God or that it is evil and sinful. They only tell us that because it is what they have been told and the error continues to perpetuate itself without any real Biblical scrutiny.

When we look into it, there is not a syllable about polygamy that shows God's disfavor. Those that take the study of God seriously have to ask these types of questions...


Why is the OT filled with examples of men practicing polygamy and having s*x with concubines and slaves? Why don’t we ever read even one line of correction from God about this practice? If this practice is so bad how could God bless such men as Abraham, Jacob, David and others and use them mightily for His purposes, and develop special relationships with them? These men loved God and would have done anything He told them. Why didn’t God tell them He didn’t like their multiple s*xual relationships? If David could have s*x with a hundred wives, concubines and slaves and still go to Heaven, why do you and I go to Hell if we have sex with even one other woman than our wife? How could God simply turn His head and appear to not know that some of His servants, like Jacob and Samson, consorted with prostitutes?

These and many other questions need to be answered if we are to understand God and His perspective on s*xuality. Only then can we know what God is for and what he is against.

Bingo

flybaby
Mar 2nd 2006, 06:30 PM
I really don't want to get in the middle of this debate, however, I do want to adress one misconception. Bingo, you say that the Leverite law commands polygamy b/c a woman is to marry her deceased husband's brother, however, that would not be polygamy b/c the deceased husband is indeed deceased and not still living. Therefore, that marriage would be over, not in exsistence and the new marriage would begin. HTH

edit: I'm so sorry, I didn't realize this was in the guy's forum, I need to start looking over there before just posting, I just get so interested from the new posts thing that I forget to check...mods, please feel free to delete this unwelcome girl post, I really apologize....

Armistead
Mar 2nd 2006, 06:50 PM
I can't believe this crap has a.) Gone on so long, and b.) now gotten down to the argument of "natural S*xuality"....

Oh, and I'd still appreciate a response to the PM's I sent armistead. I'd like to have a debate in a grown-up manner, one on one, rather than you having a gang of cronies with you.

Fuba, I choose to ignore your PM's for one reason. You call me and others
hateful names, you referred to those that agree with me as " my cronies"
not to mention other hateful words. We gave you ample scripture, time and time again in our last few debates, which you would never reply. You would never answer or debate with scripture, just get emotional and always say you had enough and leave the thread, only to keep returning, just to call people names.

Sorry, that is not grown up debate, so that is why I chose to ignore your PM's. I would rather debate with those that do so in a mature manner. Most are capable of that, even if they disagree. Your beliefs are what you decide and each of us must do that. It is not your beliefs that are the problem, but rather the way you choose to argue them.

There is nothing wrong with attacking or debating against someones views or beliefs, but you should stop attacking the person.

So, I just ask you to respect that.

Bingo
Mar 2nd 2006, 07:16 PM
I really don't want to get in the middle of this debate, however, I do want to adress one misconception. Bingo, you say that the Leverite law commands polygamy b/c a woman is to marry her deceased husband's brother, however, that would not be polygamy b/c the deceased husband is indeed deceased and not still living. Therefore, that marriage would be over, not in exsistence and the new marriage would begin. HTH

The issue isn't with the deceased husband, it is the woman (who's husband is deceased) is now being married to his surviving brother (by Mosiac Law). This brother, most likely is already married as was the custom to marry early. It does not matter if the new husband is married or not, by law he must marry his deceased brothers wife which would in turn make him polygamous.


edit: I'm so sorry, I didn't realize this was in the guy's forum, I need to start looking over there before just posting, I just get so interested from the new posts thing that I forget to check...mods, please feel free to delete this unwelcome girl post, I really apologize....

No problem at all.


Bingo

Carlson042305
Mar 3rd 2006, 03:34 AM
I found some exerts (sp), that I found at several different sites, and will put them all her for you.






Notice that God's definition of marriage involves a man "leaving his father and mother" to be united to his wife. Once a man has left his father and mother's authority and household to marry, he cannot leave that household again! This means that when a man first marries a woman, he does so upon leaving his parent's authority. If he were to subsequently marry another woman, he would not be leaving his parent's authority again, and thus would not fulfill the definition of marriage as outlined in Matthew 19 and Genesis 2:24.
God gives us only two other circumstances where a man can marry another woman:
1) If his wife dies [see Romans 7:2-3]
2) If his wife commits adultery [see Matthew 19:8-9]








God made Adam, but said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make A helper suitable for him." [Genesis 2:18]








Examples in Scripture:

Adam and Eve:
God created Adam, and provided for him a single wife. He did not provide multiple wives for him, nor do we have any evidence that Adam ever had another wife. This original marriage relationship powerfully exposes God's intent for mankind's marriage relationships.


Noah:
Called a "preacher of righteousness" [2 Peter 2:5], Noah was the only family head who was spared during the destruction of the Great Flood. He had but one wife.


Job:
God called Job "My servant". Though Job was very rich and considered "the greatest man among all the people of the East", he had only one wife.


Isaac:
The child of the promise had but one wife, Rebekah.


Moses:
Of all the Old Testament saints, Moses was the closest to God. He spoke to God face to face as a man speaks with his friend [Exodus 33:11]. Moses is also regarded as the greatest of the Old Testament prophets. God Himself even singled out Moses as a special prophet since He spoke to him face to face rather than revealing Himself in visions [Numbers 12:6-8]
Moses had only one wife, Zipporah [Exodus 2:21]


Joseph and Mary:
The Lord's earthly parents are a prime example of a monogamous relationship.






What about the Old Testament practice of polygamy?
The practice of polygamy is clearly found in the Old Testament. Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon are prime examples of Old Testament saints who practiced polygamy. But it must be clearly stated that just because they had multiple wives, doesn't make it right! At no time does God condone or place His "seal of approval" upon the polygamous practices of these men. In fact, God warned Solomon well in advance to NOT practice polygamy:
Moses' instruction to Solomon generations in advance:
Deuteronomy 17:14-20 is God's warning against the polygamist practices of Solomon. After stating that the king [Solomon] is not to get riches from Egypt, nor to amass silver or gold, Moses says, "He must not take many wives" [Deut 17:17].

Polygamy brought problems!:
Abraham's household was fractured because of jealousy between Hagar and Sarah.
Jacob also endured spousal rivalry.
David's adulterous tendencies was his downfall, as he approached Bathsheba.
Solomon's many wives were a snare to him and drew him into idol worship.





Why didn't God providentially stop polygamy, or outright rebuke these men for practicing it?
This question has plagued many readers when considering the issue of polygamy. The fact is that many other sins of the patriarchs went unmentioned by God. Abraham's half-lies about his wife Sarah's relationship to him, Lot's selfishness in choosing the better land, Jacob's scheming, David's lies in the land of the Philistines, and many more sins went unmentioned in a specific manner by God.
God expects each man and woman to examine his or her own heart and life and to compare it with Scripture diligently to determine if his or her actions and motives are pure and right. We should not expect a word from the Lord on each and every thing we do. Sometimes, even chronic sins remain in a saint who has not become acutely aware of his sinful behavior.
In summary, the lack of a specific rebuke by God is in no way to be taken as an acceptance or condoning by Him of the behavior.







Scriptural monogamy:
"Each man should have his own wife (singular word), and each woman her own husband (singular word). [I Corinthians 7:2]



Because these are so much better at summing up how I feel about the subject of multiple wives, and since I am sure to mess something up in the way I say them, I thought it better to just copy and paste them as quotes.



Marriage is sacred and I fully believe that God intended for it to be between one man and one woman.

Bingo
Mar 3rd 2006, 10:43 PM
I found some exerts (sp), that I found at several different sites, and will put them all her for you.

Good find.



Notice that God's definition of marriage involves a man "leaving his father and mother" to be united to his wife. Once a man has left his father and mother's authority and household to marry, he cannot leave that household again! This means that when a man first marries a woman, he does so upon leaving his parent's authority. If he were to subsequently marry another woman, he would not be leaving his parent's authority again, and thus would not fulfill the definition of marriage as outlined in Matthew 19 and Genesis 2:24.

This is a "Faulty" or "Hasty Generalization." Using the Adam and Eve monogamy example assumes the story in all it's details, before the fall, to be an archetype for all marriage that we must follow without deviation. It is not possible to argue monogamy from their example unless you embrace all parts of the example. Unless you got married buck naked and married all available women, I urge you not to go there. There are other ways this supposed archetype get strained as well. You're probably not named Adam, or Eve, you aren't made from a rib or you're not missing one. The list goes on. Adam and Eve's marriage is an archetype ONLY in ways stated elsewhere in scripture to be an archetype or ideal.

God never mentions that this is the only way we are to be. For instance He allows celibacy which is outside of His perfect plan , but is clearly accepted in Scripture.

I just don't see monogamy as being the subject of this passage. It's the creation of each kind of s*x and the bringing together of those s*xes.There are no children in the creation account either, but He gave us the capacity to create children, so did He give us the capacity to love and provide for more than one. Both are counted as blessings. Some of the OT saints took some of the other options and none of them were censured, rebuked or punished for their choice. God never made mention that He was even slightly displeased with their choice. David for example; David "did all things right in the sight of the Lord and had not failed to keep any of the Lord's commandments except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite" (I Kings 5:15).

God made it very apparent to His servants what was acceptable practices and what were not. They didn't have to guess as to legal activity and illegal activity (sin). It seems if this lifestyle (polygamy/concubinism) were a sin, nobody in all of the OT knew about it. If we turn to nature for another example of God's creation, we see that only a very few animals/insects/plants
are not monogamous but have many mating partners or offspring choices.



God made Adam, but said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make A helper suitable for him." [Genesis 2:18]

This does nothing to make a case gainst polygamy. He made another human variation that complimented his masculinity. More "helpers" is not a bad thing, at least God never says so.


Adam and Eve:
God created Adam, and provided for him a single wife. He did not provide multiple wives for him, nor do we have any evidence that Adam ever had another wife. This original marriage relationship powerfully exposes God's intent for mankind's marriage relationships.

Let's not forget that the fall of the entire human race came through this monagamous relationship, eh? If God "intended" that we follow this only then we didn't he say so. Our Creator is not shy about the things that He wants us to stay away from. The fact remains, God has never stated that He desires for us to only have one wife. It is not stated anywhere in Scripture. When those that believed in Him and trusted Him took more than one wife, not one single word was ever said about it in any form. This is a fact and must be allowed its full weight in this conversation. To say that it is God's "intent" is no more than human speculation.



Noah:
Called a "preacher of righteousness" [2 Peter 2:5], Noah was the only family head who was spared during the destruction of the Great Flood. He had but one wife.

Certainly when God cleansed the earth of all of it's evil with the flood and Noah returned to the earth ,wouldn't we expect it to be on the list of things that Noah was to abstain from if it was part of the evil previous to the flood? It was in practice before the flood, but no mention of His displeasure at all after the flood. There's a list of things that God viewed as evil that Noah was to stay away from, but multiple wives is not mentioned. Maybe it slipped God's mind.



Job:
God called Job "My servant". Though Job was very rich and considered "the greatest man among all the people of the East", he had only one wife.

Yes Job had one wife.



Isaac:
The child of the promise had but one wife, Rebekah.

Yes Isaac had one wife. I find it funny that many hold Issac and Rebekah up as the premier couple for mongamy, yet Rebecca is the one who decieved her husband and took advantage of his blindness to give Isaac's blessing to Jacob.



Moses:
Of all the Old Testament saints, Moses was the closest to God. He spoke to God face to face as a man speaks with his friend [Exodus 33:11]. Moses is also regarded as the greatest of the Old Testament prophets. God Himself even singled out Moses as a special prophet since He spoke to him face to face rather than revealing Himself in visions [Numbers 12:6-8] Moses had only one wife, Zipporah [Exodus 2:21]

Ummmm.... Moses had two wives.

1) Zipporah: Exodus 2:15-16,21 and Exodus 18:1-6
2) Ethiopian woman: Numbers 12:1(-15)

Zipporah was not the "Ethiopian woman" herself. Zipporah was of the tribe of Midian. Genesis 25:1-3 shows that Midian was one of the six sons born unto Abraham by his third wife, Keturah. Thus, Zipporah was "Abrahamic", who was "Shemitic" (i.e., descended of Noah's son Shem, per Genesis 10:1; 11:11-27). But the "Ethiopian woman" ("Cu****e woman" in the Hebrew) descended of Cush, who was "Hamitic" (i.e., descended of Noah's son Ham, per Genesis 10:1,6). Indeed, Zipporah, being of Noah's son, Shem, could not be the "Ethiopian woman" who was of Ham (Shem's brother).

Also, the timing of Moses' marriage to the Ethiopian woman can be determined by Numbers 33:1-49,17 and 11:35 with 12:16 which "surrounds" the story about Mosesmarrying the Ethiopian woman in Numbers 12:1-15. This is clearly much later than the time when Moses married Zipporah in Exodus 2:15,22.

Therefore, the Shemitic/Abrahamic Midianitess Zipporah could not possibly be the Hamitic/non-Abrahamic "Ethiopian woman".

For anyone who would attempt to assert that "Zipporah was dead" by the time that Moses married the Ethiopian woman, they are the ones who have the "burden of proof" to demonstrate and validate their assertion.

After all, the principle of "assumed status quo" logic mandates that, unless otherwise specifically reported otherwise, one must believe that the status quo remains. For example, as long as a man's wife is still alive, he does not walk around reporting that she is still alive! People naturally accept the "status quo" remains (i.e., that she is still alive) until otherwise reported. It is only when there is a reported change to the status quo that one then accepts the change. But until such a change is reported, logic "assumes the status quo" remains.

As such, the "burden of proof" in the assertion about Zipporah is upon those who would assert that Moses supposedly married the Ethiopian woman after "Zipporah had (supposedly) died". Conversely, those who logically believe otherwise have no such "burden of proof" at all.

The absolutely undeniable fact is that there is not one single verse in the Bible to substantiate such an assertion that "Zipporah (supposedly) had died". As such, the argument wholly fails exegetically to prove itself.

As such, it is wholly logical to simply and reasonably "assume the status quo" remains, believing that Zipporah was, of course, alive too when Moses married the Ethiopian woman.




Joseph and Mary:
The Lord's earthly parents are a prime example of a monogamous relationship.

Yes Joseph was married to only one woman that we know of.

The above list of supposed single wived men, proves nothing except that some men of the OT were only married to one woman. God never exalts them above the other men that were married to multiple women. In fact the list of men that had multiple wives that Scripture speaks highly of dwarfs this one. In the end, it's not a numbers game. It's a question of finding out where God condems, rebukes or prohibits this activity. Again, within the entirity of Scripture, God only uses, requires and legislates the act. To say that He is against polygamy is contrary to what we see in Scripture.




What about the Old Testament practice of polygamy?
The practice of polygamy is clearly found in the Old Testament. Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon are prime examples of Old Testament saints who practiced polygamy. But it must be clearly stated that just because they had multiple wives, doesn't make it right! At no time does God condone or place His "seal of approval" upon the polygamous practices of these men. In fact, God warned Solomon well in advance to NOT practice polygamy:
Moses' instruction to Solomon generations in advance:
Deuteronomy 17:14-20 is God's warning against the polygamist practices of Solomon. After stating that the king [Solomon] is not to get riches from Egypt, nor to amass silver or gold, Moses says, "He must not take many wives" [Deut 17:17].

This is clearly incorrect. To "condone" is to overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure according to the dictionary. If we can find God speaking against the act instead of requiring the act (Deut. 25:5) then they might have a case. As it is, the "experts" get it exactly backwards.

Solomon was not warned of polygamy. Solomon was warned not to take "foreign" wives. He could have married all of the Isrealite wives he wanted to. Solomon marries Pharaoh’s daughter, (1 Kg. 9:24). He loved many foreign women, (11:1). He had 700 wives, 300 concubines, (11:3; enough women to s*x 3 different women every night for one year!). God had promised to bless Solomon if he walks in all God’s laws, (9:4ff,) threatening to curse him and his sons if they turn from God’s laws. But not a syllable of censure about this extreme polygamy and extreme concubinage. The only censure is his marrying pagan women against God’s commands, (11:2, 4, 5) and that they
turned his heart away from the Lord, (11:4, 9, 10, 11, 33; 9:4, 6). Butmany of his wives were Israelites. Since there is no word of such being a breach of law, it must not have been a breach of law! And what sense does it make to think that God was incensed about Solomon’s marriages to pagan wives and thus rebukes him for it, yet never rebukes him for marrying many Israelite wives, though He was equally incensed about that? Obviously, God was not concerned about how many wives Solomon had. His wrath was aroused by Solomon’s apostasy. Ultimately Solomon acquires a “harem,” (Ecc. 1:8, supposing that Solomon authored this book.).

The Deut. 17 passage is about "multiplying" wives, horses, silver. It is not about "adding" another wife. It is a cautionary statement about greed and the aquiring wealth solely on the basis of acquiring wealth.


Polygamy brought problems!:
Abraham's household was fractured because of jealousy between Hagar and Sarah.
Jacob also endured spousal rivalry. David's adulterous tendencies was his downfall, as he approached Bathsheba. Solomon's many wives were a snare to him and drew him into idol worship.

Shall we look at the "idealic" monagamous relationships??? The downfall of all humanity came through a monagamous relationship. If the downfall had come through a polygamous family, scholars would use that as proof that God was against polygamy, yet we simply overlook that fact that it came through a monagamous one.

There are too many examples of dysfunctional monagamous families to detail.




:
Why didn't God providentially stop polygamy, or outright rebuke these men for practicing it?
This question has plagued many readers when considering the issue of polygamy. The fact is that many other sins of the patriarchs went unmentioned by God. Abraham's half-lies about his wife Sarah's relationship to him, Lot's selfishness in choosing the better land, Jacob's scheming, David's lies in the land of the Philistines, and many more sins went unmentioned in a specific manner by God.
God expects each man and woman to examine his or her own heart and life and to compare it with Scripture diligently to determine if his or her actions and motives are pure and right. We should not expect a word from the Lord on each and every thing we do. Sometimes, even chronic sins remain in a saint who has not become acutely aware of his sinful behavior.

This is incorrect. A lie can be told to prevent someone from being murdered. Human need transcends Biblical Law. The principle is found in Jesus' statement,"“The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mk. 2:27)



In summary, the lack of a specific rebuke by God is in no way to be taken as an acceptance or condoning by Him of the behavior.

This is pure human speculation. God told His servants what was required of them. he told them what would keep them from Him. He told them what He was displeased with and what acts He prohibited. To say that God is against polygamy when God Himself uses and blesses with it is laughable. Human "experts" will reach to absurd levels to justify their beliefs, even in the face of Biblical fact.

I know these are not your statements Carlson, so I cannot ask you to justify their findings or their opinions. Hopefully if you investigate this for yourself, you will find the truth. Some of the above from the "experts" are just incorrect.




"Each man should have his own wife (singular word), and each woman her own husband (singular word). [I Corinthians 7:2]

First, the whole chapter is written in a context of crisis. He says his advice is given specifically "in view of the present distress..." (vs. 26). Problems already existing, and problems that will only worsen, motivate Paul to give advice that is out of the ordinary. He says his advice is "not by way of command," and "I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion," (vs. 6, 25). proving that his remarks are not to be taken as "law" for all Christians, but to be interpreted
according to the "crisis" conditions facing them. This being so, the first thing we must know about whatever is said here, is that it is not law for the church. It is temporary advice given to help those saints, in their own day, survive during a time of growing persecution and sacrifice.

Second, the "advice" nature of this chapter is seen in the way he presents his remarks. He says it is "good" for a man not to touch a woman (vs.1). He says that it is "good" for people to remain unmarried just as Paul did, (vs.8). He says it is "good" for a man to remain in whatever condition he is in whether married, unmarried, etc. (vs.26). Such phrases make it clear that Paul is not recommending what is to be accepted as "Christian marriage ethics," but is merely advising people to shape their s*x lives in such a way that trouble, persecution and persecution will not be made even more difficult because of personal relationships, (vs.28, 32). Yet through it all, Paul gives them freedom to make their individual choices. If they should choose to do other than what Paul advises, they "have not sinned," but they might have "trouble in this life,"(vs.28). All such considerations remove the sense of "command" from this chapter, and help us realize that Paul is not laying down marriage/s*x relation law. Since we do not live in the "crisis" referred to in these verses, we have no need to be concerned about trying to apply the specific advise given.

Thirdly, his remark that "each man have his own wife, and each wife have her own husband," (vs.2) has nothing to contribute on the subject of polygamy, singles and s*x, etc. In the context of the chapter, Paul means only to say that the s*xual urge is so strong that, rather than
run any risk of exercising it illegitimately, people ought to marry.

[qoute=Carlson]Because these are so much better at summing up how I feel about the subject of multiple wives, and since I am sure to mess something up in the way I say them, I thought it better to just copy and paste them as quotes.[/quotes]

No problem.


Marriage is sacred and I fully believe that God intended for it to be between one man and one woman.

There's certainly nothing wrong with a one man, one woman marriage.

Bingo

Carlson042305
Mar 3rd 2006, 11:29 PM
You say that it is merely speculation for us to say that God does not like polygamy, because he does not state it anywhere in the Bible.

Here are a few examples of things you would think people are smart enough not to do. And when they do you kind of shake your head at them without saying anything:

Touch a hot stove.

Fingers in a movng fan.

Sip McDonalds coffee before it cools.

Hairdryer in the bathtub,sink, and ect.

You know the warning labels are only put on after the fact. And only to protect the companies or whatever from getting sued.

Since you can't take God to court, what makes you think he is not just sitting up there shaking his head at this very conversation?

:P

This will never be resolved...

Bingo
Mar 4th 2006, 12:33 AM
You say that it is merely speculation for us to say that God does not like polygamy, because he does not state it anywhere in the Bible.

Yes I do say that. I also that because He used it in the case of David (2 Sam. 12:8), He required it in the case of the Levirate Marriage Law (Deut. 25:5), and He legislated against its misuse (Deut. 21:15). This more than enough to prove that He is not against it.


Here are a few examples of things you would think people are smart enough not to do. And when they do you kind of shake your head at them without saying anything:

Touch a hot stove.

Fingers in a movng fan.

Sip McDonalds coffee before it cools.

Hairdryer in the bathtub,sink, and ect.

You know the warning labels are only put on after the fact. And only to protect the companies or whatever from getting sued.

Okay, tell me how this relates to our conversation.


Since you can't take God to court, what makes you think he is not just sitting up there shaking his head at this very conversation?

Why would He when His children desire to know more about Him?


This will never be resolved...

Well it is in my mind unless someone can show me compelling evidence against it or show me my error.

-Bingo

Carlson042305
Mar 4th 2006, 12:47 AM
It relates in the sense that there are just somethings that aren't said, that are common sense.

It is like saying it is ok to speed, because God does not say not to in the Bible.

It is like saying you don't have to wear a seatbelt, because God says nothing about wearing one in the Bible.

Look at all the communities that are falling apart due to polygamy. That one guy from Utah is on the most wanted list. I have watched show after show where people who have lived in a lifestyle like this say that it is not a good way to be living.

I just don't see how you can say God smiles upon it just because he never says it is wrong outright.

w_zez
Mar 4th 2006, 12:59 AM
It relates in the sense that there are just somethings that aren't said, that are common sense.

It is like saying it is ok to speed, because God does not say not to in the Bible.

It is like saying you don't have to wear a seatbelt, because God says nothing about wearing one in the Bible.

Look at all the communities that are falling apart due to polygamy. That one guy from Utah is on the most wanted list. I have watched show after show where people who have lived in a lifestyle like this say that it is not a good way to be living.

I just don't see how you can say God smiles upon it just because he never says it is wrong outright.


that's a two way street. does it make it wrong just because GOD doesn't mention it the same. or is it wrong because society tells you it is or just because you yourself don't believe in it? that's when people start to think they are GOD. it's not about common sense. GOD doesn't say i should never go outside, so should i just hide in my house all day? because it could be more dangerous out there?
plus not every situation is like that guy from utah, not everyone is like him. are all black people criminals just because one is? or even most lets say? because some people do think like this, wich no offense, but it's narrow minded.

Carlson042305
Mar 4th 2006, 03:18 AM
I said that guy, not multiple guys.

And I mentioned that I have watched countless shows with people on them that have escaped a situation like that.

The things I mentioned before go with what we are saying because they are things that can potentialy hurt you if you do them.

And yes, it is about common sense. Like it or not there are certian things that can be chalked up to common sense.

I am just interested in what all is being said, so don't group me with someone that wants to, or thinks he is God.

When it is all said and done, I really don't care if someone wants to live a polygamous lifestyle, because it is not my place to judge.

And in Corinthians the definition of love, how can you say that it is followed in a polygamous family?

I went and looked up polygamy on an online Bible website and here is what it came up with:


Forbidden (Deuteronomy 17:17; Leviticus 18:18; Malachi 2:14,15; Matthew 19:4,5; Mark 10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2017:17;%20Leviticus%2018:18;% 20Malachi%202:14,15;%20Matthew%2019:4,5;%20Mark%20 10))
Authorized (2 Samuel 12:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2012:8))
Tolerated (Exodus 21:10; 1 Samuel 1:2; 2 Chronicles 24:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:10;%201%20Samuel%201:2;%202%20 Chronicles%2024:3))
Practiced by (Job 27:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2027:15))
Lamech (Genesis 4:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%204:19))
Abraham (Genesis 16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2016))
Esau (Genesis 26:34;28:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2026:34;28:9))
Jacob (Genesis 29:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2029:30))
Ashur (1 Chronicles 4:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles%204:5))
Gideon (Judges 8:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%208:30))
Elkanah (1 Samuel 1:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%201:2))
David (1 Samuel 25:39-44; 2 Samuel 3:2-5;5:13; 1 Chronicles 14:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2025:39-44;%202%20Samuel%203:2-5;5:13;%201%20Chronicles%2014:3))
Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%2011:1-8))
Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:18-23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%2011:18-23))
Abijah (2 Chronicles 13:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%2013:21))
Jehoram (2 Chronicles 21:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%2021:14))
Joash (2 Chronicles 24:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%2024:3))
Ahab (2 Kings 10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%2010))
Domestic unhappiness » In Abraham's family (Genesis 16;21:9-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2016;21:9-16))
Domestic unhappiness » In Jacob's family (Genesis 29:30-34;30:1-23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2029:30-34;30:1-23))
Domestic unhappiness » In Elkanah's family (1 Samuel 1:4-7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%201:4-7))
The evil effects of » Husband's favoritism in (Deuteronomy 21:15-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2021:15-17))
The evil effects of » Jacob's (Genesis 29:30;30:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2029:30;30:15))
The evil effects of » Elkanah's (1 Samuel 1:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%201:5))
The evil effects of » Rehoboam's (2 Chronicles 11:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%2011:21))I am going to go read through this now, and maybe you can post what you think about it as well.

Maybe I should just make this my sig:

Just because I debate something, doesn't mean I don't believe, like, or agree with what you are saying. I get accused all the time of being an arrogant-know-it-all at work, because everyone is threatened by my standing behind what I say/believe until proven otherwise. I not only will just speak my mind, but I will do my best to tell you why I believe what I do, "Just Because" doesn't cut it with me. There is a reason for everything, and I love the "whys" behind why people do/say/believe things.

That being said, I really do appreciate your willingness to debate this topic, Bingo. It not only gives me other points of view, but shows me things I was not aware of before. My views are still the same, but the next time I debate this with someone I will be much better equiped to defend my stance.

:D

Bingo
Mar 4th 2006, 05:54 AM
I am going to go read through this now, and maybe you can post what you think about it as well.

It will take me a while, I've got a busy schedule over the weekend, but there are some really good points in here that I would like to address. We'll talk soon.

-Bingo

Carlson042305
Mar 4th 2006, 01:04 PM
Same here... wife made a list of "Honey Do's" so we can just take it up on Monday... LOL

Eagle's Wings
Mar 5th 2006, 12:02 AM
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife [singular, not plural]: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and
shall be joined unto his wife [again, singular], and they two shall be one flesh." (Ephesians 5:31)

If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having
faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. (Titus 1:6)

"A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach" (1 Timothy 3:2)



I do not understand why some would try to justify marriage as anything more than one woman and one man. The Bible does not do this; and the fact that other cultures may see fit to condone polygamy, or any variation of same does nothing to "show" that it is right, or that they do so "with no problems." On the contrary; the Bible does speak of some who had lots of wives; but it also mentions the problems they had; which I will, thankfully, never have to worry about. God has blessed me with a happy marriage of 16 years.

Armistead
Mar 5th 2006, 04:41 AM
I do not understand why some would try to justify marriage as anything more than one woman and one man. The Bible does not do this; and the fact that other cultures may see fit to condone polygamy, or any variation of same does nothing to "show" that it is right, or that they do so "with no problems." On the contrary; the Bible does speak of some who had lots of wives; but it also mentions the problems they had; which I will, thankfully, never have to worry about. God has blessed me with a happy marriage of 16 years.

There are still many cultures that practice polygamy with no problems. Cultures that haven't been introduced to our traditions. Almost every tribe, that still live by the old ways, pratice polygamy. There is no jealously, hate, divorce, ect. However, they don't abide by American culture, the s#xual violence, jealously, and games that Americans play.

I don't think polygamy would work in America. However, In a culture that isn't corrupt as ours, it does and still works well.

To say that polygamy causes problems, sure, I guess it can. But monogamy doesn't escape these problems. Over 70% of Americans divorce, doesn't say much for monogamy being better. However, in cultures that truly practice polygamy, divorce is almost non-existant.

I don't think polygamy could be practiced in America correctly. Our women are very modern and don't accept such arrangements. Polygamy hasn't been a part of our culture. We are not mentally prepared for it, nor with our culture could we do it correctly. Too many would seek to take advantage of it. However, it is now a legal battle in Canada. They look to all the single women with children that may benefit from men willing to be polygamous and take more wives and children and care for them, taking the burden off the government.

People can say monogamy is better, because it best suits our culture, but that is not the case in many nations that practice polygamy. No one can prove it sinful or not allowed by God. If that is the case, then God condones sins. GOd doesn't. God gave rules and laws for all marriage behavior. If he saw polygamy as a sin, he would have said so. He did not.
He blessed many men with more wives. Almost every OT Saint had many wives and concubines, maid servents and slave women they had relations with. God used polygamy in many cases to serve his purposes, not to mention other s#xuality in the bible. Americans adopted s#xual and marriage traditions by the RCC, not the bible. WHy we accept those traditions, they don't stand above biblical facts. Most of our s#xual hang-ups and traditions, the teaching that natural s#xual thought is evil; that s#xuality or MB is sinful, do not come from the bible. They come from religeous traditions to control behavior and keep power within the church.

So why one may argue it's not best for American culture, they cannot say it is sinful or not allowed by God. It certainly is.

BTW, one wife is enough for me too. However, if Faith Hill ever becomes available and willing, I might be up for another one. ER. OW, wife just slapped me for that one..see it can't work in America.

Eagle's Wings
Mar 5th 2006, 09:29 AM
So why one may argue it's not best for American culture, they cannot say it is sinful or not allowed by God. It certainly is.I am not sure what criteria you are going by here. To me; it is simple. God doesn't come right out and say a lot of things as directly as we think He should; but, in this case we are considering of polygamy; this never makes Him out to say that it is "allowed;" or "not sinful."

The simple fact that God says: "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Proverbs 30:6) means that we cannot just add something in that is not there either.

You cannot possibly use most of the Biblically mandated models of communications with a spouse, if you have more than one wife. (such as Isa.50:4); and if some group of natives somewhere practices this lifestyle; why would we take example from them? it is actually the other way around. That's why the Cannibal does not eat us anymore when we visit them. And that's why we don't have more than one wife. We only have one Source for our example.

The Christian's example is from Jesus; and He has never spoken in support of anything but, one man, and one woman. "male and female created He them."

Armistead
Mar 6th 2006, 12:00 AM
I am not sure what criteria you are going by here. To me; it is simple. God doesn't come right out and say a lot of things as directly as we think He should; but, in this case we are considering of polygamy; this never makes Him out to say that it is "allowed;" or "not sinful."

The simple fact that God says: "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Proverbs 30:6) means that we cannot just add something in that is not there either.

You cannot possibly use most of the Biblically mandated models of communications with a spouse, if you have more than one wife. (such as Isa.50:4); and if some group of natives somewhere practices this lifestyle; why would we take example from them? it is actually the other way around. That's why the Cannibal does not eat us anymore when we visit them. And that's why we don't have more than one wife. We only have one Source for our example.

The Christian's example is from Jesus; and He has never spoken in support of anything but, one man, and one woman. "male and female created He them."

That's were I think you are wrong. I can list many verses of God blessing polygamy and commanding polygamy. Most people said this was to populate the earth. However, polygamy was blessed by God after the earth was populated. Polygamy came to an end, after the Romans hijacked christianity. Polygamy continued strongly for almost two hundred years after Christ died. The early churches were filled with polygamous couples and all historical records show preaching or problems with it. The NT doesn't speak of it. Polygamy was even the main thing during Christ, however he never spoke against it. The verse that one man and one wife was limited to elders only. That shows evidence enough that it was going on, because it limited it to just the elders. Is polygamy God's best. For me it's not. I don't see how it could work. I think in our culture jealouslywould be big time. I think it is special that I have one wife. I don't think I could love two women.
However, many cultures still work this way. You have to understand it is all they know. It's normal to them. There is no jealously, seldom a divorce, if allowed at all. Most African tribes that haven't been touched by modern man still follow polygamy. It stems from early culture, they never stopped.
It's hard for us to understand, but it works for them. It simply more of a way for each women to have the protection and care of a man.

Again, no one can say monogamy works better, the divorce rate proves that.

I would allow that God's best is one man, one woman. However, polygamy cannot be a sin. God doesn't change, nor sin. If polygamy was a sin, God wouldn't have blessed it, nor commanded it. It also was nto something God allowed for a time or something he just put up with. He blessed it and even used it several times to fulfull his plans. If polygamy is sin, then you are saying that God condomes and blesses sin. We both would say he does not.



The linage of Christ was from women in polygamous relationships.

Eagle's Wings
Mar 6th 2006, 01:48 AM
That's were I think you are wrong. I can list many verses of God blessing polygamy and commanding polygamy. Ok. Please list your "many" verses; and we will take it from there. :)

Armistead
Mar 6th 2006, 03:53 AM
Ok. Please list your "many" verses; and we will take it from there. :)

10-4,

This only makes about the 10 time I've been in this debate. I think I will
just try and find the last thread we did on this last year, with about 300 post. That explains most of it.

However, I will put a list of verses and sample stories in the bible. Also, takes getting into the hebrew and greek.

I haven't done a debate in awhile. You wanna try one on this.

Armistead
Mar 6th 2006, 04:01 AM
Ok. Please list your "many" verses; and we will take it from there. :)

I don't know if yuo read Bingo's last post. He doesn't list the verses, so I will get them. These are just the few of many cases in the bible. Actually, there are some better examples that I will get into.

Here is some of what Bingo posted. I read it and agree with it, so I will let it be a start. Also, I'm sure Bingo will reply to the many questions that the poster asked him, listing his many takes on polygamy. You will find the times that many think God spoke out against polygamy, he didn't. He was speaking out about another sin. God rebuked Solomon, but not for his wives, but for the fact they were breaking his rules on worship.

"That is certainly your opinion. God's creation account was just that..the creation of each s*x. Remember although He did make a man and a woman, He also allows for celibacy which goes well outside of His pattern. I'm am no longer unsure about the approach to this subject. i believe the church (for the most part) is in error on the subject. Here are some plain truths when we look at this subject...

• God allowed polygamy to enter human experience without a word of correction.
• The Bible refers directly to at least 23 men who had more than one wife.
• This list of polygamous husbands contains the names of the most illustrious examples of faith and holiness in all the Bible.
• God makes polygamy mandatory in the case of the “Levirate marriage law.”
• Israel’s elders use examples of polygamy, to bless the marriage of Boaz and Ruth.
• God gives Israelite men permission to keep women and children for themselves after a successful battle. Even married men had this privilege.
• God commends the worship of a polygamous man.
• God’s prophet says David’s multiple marriages are blessings from God, and assures David that God would have given him more if he desired them.
• God uses the polygamous inclinations of a pagan king to bring Esther to power, and thus to save Israel from a holocaust. (Divine S*x, Philo Thelos)

Not one time, with even one word, in all the OT record, did God even so much as hint to His people, that he preferred that they not practice polygamy. Not once did God refer to Adam and Eve as His ideal for marriage. If God was displeased with polygamy, no one in the entire scope of OT history knew it! God never told even His most trusted servants. God simply gave us no record of His disapproval of polygamy! It is not possible to believe that God granted polygamy as a blessing to His people until Jesus came, but now sees it as a sin worthy of eternal Hell. It is not possible that God blessed David with many wives and would have given him more, but that He will send us to Hell forever for the same thing. God did not, and still does not disapprove of polygamy."

Bingo
Mar 6th 2006, 07:27 PM
And yes, it is about common sense. Like it or not there are certian things that can be chalked up to common sense.

We're not talking about common sense here. We're talking about if polygamy is allowed within the life of a believer. Having said that, this lifestyle might not suit most people and for some it might be the perfect situation. We're all different and we all have different needs, both men and women. God allows for the differences.


And in Corinthians the definition of love, how can you say that it is followed in a polygamous family?

The only definition is that we love one another. Polygamy fits perfectly into this. A man that commits to loving, providing and protecting more than one wife, is no less loving than the man who commits to a single wife.


I went and looked up polygamy on an online Bible website and here is what it came up with:

Okay this is a long list and I'll try to take each one in order....


Forbidden (Deuteronomy 17:17; Leviticus 18:18; Malachi 2:14,15; Matthew 19:4,5; Mark 10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2017:17;%20Leviticus%2018:18;% 20Malachi%202:14,15;%20Matthew%2019:4,5;%20Mark%20 10))

Deuteronomy17:17, “Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.

This passage is about greed more than anything else, it's not a prohibition on polygamy anymore than it is a prohibition against a king for owning more than one horse (vs. 16), or having large quantities of gold and silver (vs. 17b). Kings are allowed to have those things, but not to "multiply" for the sake of multiplying. A king is allowed to "add" a wife or have multiple horses and gold and silver. To think that a king is allowed only one horse is absurd in our mind. To think that a king is allowed only one wife is just as absurd when we put our thinking in the framework of the OT time period. When a man took a additional wife it was never called "sinful." This is easy enough to verify if you can find a single verse that demonstrates a man taking another wife (that's not already married) for himself and God rebukes, corrects or demonstrates His disapporval of that action.

Leviticus18:18 "And you shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness."

This passage forbids the taking of a sister as another wife, not the taking of another wife. The passage that preceeds it puts it in context of familial relations.

Malachi 2:14,15 "Yet you say, ‘For what reason?’ Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.
“But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then, to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth."

This passage is about men divorcing their wives with reckless abandon. This is what the Pharisees were talking about when they asked Jesus the question in Matt. 19:2, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” A man is not to leave the first wife with disregard to her welfare. The marriage choice of polygamy does not leave the first wife like our modern divorce proceedings do. The polygamous man retains the first wife while caring for her needs and not abandoning her, while aquiring a second, third or fourth wife.

Matthew 19:4,5 And He answered and said, “Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS CAUSE A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND SHALL CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE; AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?

The "context" of this discussion is clearly divorce. The issue of polygamy is never mentioned. He is answering a question from the Pharisees who asked "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?" (Mt.19:3). Jesus said they should not separate what God has joined, (vs. 4-6) Their faulty thinking is betrayed by their protest that "Moses command(ed) to give her a certificate of divorcement and send her away," (vs. 7).
So Jesus is correcting a prevailing notion that men could divorce their wives for whatever reason, and just get another wife.

The disciples' response illustrates that they felt this is too restrictive on a man who had a wife he could not get along with. Essentially they were saying, "well, if a man can't get rid of a useless wife, then its better not to marry at all."

Jesus' response is that "if you don't like the idea that you can't just treat your wife like garbage, then don't get married. Be a eunuch. After all, there are such men who voluntarily forego marriage for the sake of God's kingdom."

So the issue of polygamy, which Jesus was well aware of, does not come into the picture. The point deals strictly with man's responsibility to not get rid of his wife if he decides, for whatever reason, that he no longer wants her.

Mark 10... Is the same Pharisees question about dovirce, but from Mark's gospel.




Authorized (2 Samuel 12:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2012:8))

2 Samuel 12:8"‘I also gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!

God says He gave David’s many wives to him, and if those were not enough, He would have given him “many more!” (2 Sam. 12:7,8). This statement is certain to give spiritual apoplexy to most of those who read it because it gives overt proof that God not only blessed David’s polygamy and
concubinage; God Himself was the author of David’s plural marriages and multiple s*x partners. David had so many wives and concubines because God gave them to him Far from
being something God merely tolerated, polygamy was a blessing from God. And God said He would have blessed David with even more women if what he had was not enough. In other words God
said “David, why did you have to steal another man’s wife? If you wanted more wives why didn’t you just ask Me? I would have given you more.” Still believe in the inspiration of Scripture? Still believe the word of God’s prophets (in this case Nathan) is true? Then accept these words of God’s blessing on David’s multiple s*xual relationships. And be brave enough to draw the next and inevitable conclusion: If God originated and blessed it for David, He will not send us to Hell for doing it.




Tolerated (Exodus 21:10; 1 Samuel 1:2; 2 Chronicles 24:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:10;%201%20Samuel%201:2;%202%20 Chronicles%2024:3))


Exodus 21:10 “If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights."

Legislation for the proper treatment of the first wife in the case of a man taking another wife. This passage does more than just "tolerate" polygamy, this passage demonstrates God legislating the use of this act to properly treat and care for those involved.

1 Samuel 1:2"And he had two wives: the name of one was Hannah and the name of the other Peninnah; and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children."

This passage only tells about Elkanah having more than one wife.

2 Chronicles 24:3"And Jehoiada took two wives for him, and he became the father of sons and daughters."

This passage only tells about Joash having more than one wife.





Practiced by (Job 27:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2027:15))
Lamech (Genesis 4:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%204:19))
Abraham (Genesis 16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2016))
Esau (Genesis 26:34;28:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2026:34;28:9))
Jacob (Genesis 29:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2029:30))
Ashur (1 Chronicles 4:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Chronicles%204:5))
Gideon (Judges 8:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%208:30))
Elkanah (1 Samuel 1:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%201:2))
David (1 Samuel 25:39-44; 2 Samuel 3:2-5;5:13; 1 Chronicles 14:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2025:39-44;%202%20Samuel%203:2-5;5:13;%201%20Chronicles%2014:3))
Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%2011:1-8))
Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:18-23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%2011:18-23))
Abijah (2 Chronicles 13:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%2013:21))
Jehoram (2 Chronicles 21:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%2021:14))
Joash (2 Chronicles 24:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%2024:3))
Ahab (2 Kings 10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%2010))

These passages only tell of those involved practicing polygamy. In each one of these passages try to find where God said that He was displeased with their marriage choice. Try to find a single rebuke or a single word of correction.


Domestic unhappiness » In Abraham's family (Genesis 16;21:9-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2016;21:9-16))
Domestic unhappiness » In Jacob's family (Genesis 29:30-34;30:1-23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2029:30-34;30:1-23))
Domestic unhappiness » In Elkanah's family (1 Samuel 1:4-7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%201:4-7))

This "domestic unhappiness" is no more prevelant than in monogamous marriages. The fall of mankind came through a monogamous marriage. In every instance of monogamous marriages there is going to be strife, this does not make the monogamous marriage incorrect, anymore than strife makes the polygamous marriage incorrect. People are people and we have our differences and those differences are tested the most in a marriage relationship. God bless the man that has the patience for polygamy.


The evil effects of » Husband's favoritism in (Deuteronomy 21:15-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2021:15-17))
The evil effects of » Jacob's (Genesis 29:30;30:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2029:30;30:15))
The evil effects of » Elkanah's (1 Samuel 1:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%201:5))
The evil effects of » Rehoboam's (2 Chronicles 11:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%2011:21))[/LIST]

The "evil effects" are again people being people, caught up with selfish motives and desires. The "evil" does not reside in the type of relationship, but in the heart of those involved in the relationship. Jesus teaches us that our hearts are the problem and the source for all evil thoughts.

While in debate with Jewish leaders over His disciple’s practice of eating without washing their hands, Jesus said, “What ProceedsOut Of The Mouth Defiles The Man.” (Matt. 15:11). The previous verse quotes Jesus as saying “Hear me and understand.” This phrase, similar to His statements “verily, verily I say to you,” and “he that has ears, let him hear,” is uniquely calculated to grab the attention of the hearers and focus their minds on what He is saying. In essence Jesus means, “Listen to me very carefully; I am about to say something absolutely fundamental and you must understand it. Don’t miss this!” Here it is: “It is not what goes into one’s mouth that defiles him, but what comes out of the mouth defiles him.” They were greatly concerned about external purity. So fastidious were they that they dared not even eat unless they had washed their hands. The issue was not being sure their hands were clean from physical dirt. This was for them a matter of spiritual/moral cleanness. It was a “holiness” issue. And to them holiness consisted in things one might do or not do. So Jesus explained: “things that…come from the heart…defile the man,” (Matt. 15:17-20 cf. Mark 7:21-22). Defilement is not a matter of what is external to us. Being “unholy” does not consist basically of actions. What defiles is what is in the heart. A mere act of whatever character, is neither holy nor unholy considered by itself. What gives any act a moral quality is not the nature of the act itself but what is in the heart of the “actor.”



Just because I debate something, doesn't mean I don't believe, like, or agree with what you are saying. I get accused all the time of being an arrogant-know-it-all at work, because everyone is threatened by my standing behind what I say/believe until proven otherwise. I not only will just speak my mind, but I will do my best to tell you why I believe what I do, "Just Because" doesn't cut it with me. There is a reason for everything, and I love the "whys" behind why people do/say/believe things.

I did the same things when I first investigated this subject. I want you to prove your point to me. I will give you every objection I can think of that makes since within a discussion about Bible matters and if your explanation makes more sense than what i have been taiught then Biblical integrity demands that I agree where it can be proven. In this case what I had been taught all those years about polygamy being sinful, evil etc, didn't make sense when I read that God blessed David with his wives and all he had to do was ask for more instead of stealing another man's. There were too many traditonal answers that made no sense at all.


That being said, I really do appreciate your willingness to debate this topic, Bingo. It not only gives me other points of view, but shows me things I was not aware of before. My views are still the same, but the next time I debate this with someone I will be much better equiped to defend my stance.

No problem. I enjoy talking about this subject because of the distortion that has taken place in the name of tradition. If you have any other questions or objections, I'd be more than happy to discuss them also. Good luck on your journey.

Blessings,
Bingo

Duane Morse
Mar 6th 2006, 10:18 PM
Here is another passage you may have overlooked:

De 21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
De 21:16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
De 21:17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

Merely instruction, but no condemnation or endorsement in the case of multiple wives.

Armistead
Mar 6th 2006, 10:37 PM
Polygamist in the bible, a more complete list.


http://www.historycarper.com/patriarchy/polygamists.htm


In the Hebrew Scriptures, we find both monogamy and polygamy as accepted and even expected forms of marriage. Commentators, embarrassed by the polygamy in the Bible, try to mute the subject by insisting its practice was rare and abnormal. The record does not stand up to that assumption. Polygamy was a custom practiced extensively among God’s people.
An example of this fact is the near universal practice of polygamy by the Israelites during their captivity in Egypt and following the Exodus. Numbers 3:40-43 provides us with a census of the firstborn in Israel. The number given is 22,273 firstborn sons. We may safely conclude there were at least 22,273 families in Israel, since a family cannot have more than one firstborn son. There were, no doubt, families which had no sons.
That has no bearing upon this remarkable fact:
22,273 families are responsible for a total count of over 600,000 fighting men (Numbers 1:46). If you take 600,000 and divide it by 22,000, you get 27. The average Israelite household with sons had 28 of them!
The patriarch Jacob required four wives to get twelve sons. Is it too much to suppose that the typical Israelite needed twice as many wives to get 28 Sons? What about the daughters? If there was a daughter for every son, then there was 56 children per Israelite household, on the average scale. There is no way to know how many wives the average Israelite may have had, but it is impossible that the average woman could have had 56 children. Israelite society was a polygamous society and never condemned by God.

Armistead
Mar 6th 2006, 10:39 PM
Has anybody been keeping up with the polygamy battle going on in Canada. If your single, head for Canada.
The women outnumber the men 4 to 1.

Bingo
Mar 6th 2006, 11:13 PM
Polygamist in the bible, a more complete list.


http://www.historycarper.com/patriarchy/polygamists.htm


In the Hebrew Scriptures, we find both monogamy and polygamy as accepted and even expected forms of marriage. Commentators, embarrassed by the polygamy in the Bible, try to mute the subject by insisting its practice was rare and abnormal. The record does not stand up to that assumption. Polygamy was a custom practiced extensively among God’s people.
An example of this fact is the near universal practice of polygamy by the Israelites during their captivity in Egypt and following the Exodus. Numbers 3:40-43 provides us with a census of the firstborn in Israel. The number given is 22,273 firstborn sons. We may safely conclude there were at least 22,273 families in Israel, since a family cannot have more than one firstborn son. There were, no doubt, families which had no sons.
That has no bearing upon this remarkable fact:
22,273 families are responsible for a total count of over 600,000 fighting men (Numbers 1:46). If you take 600,000 and divide it by 22,000, you get 27. The average Israelite household with sons had 28 of them!
The patriarch Jacob required four wives to get twelve sons. Is it too much to suppose that the typical Israelite needed twice as many wives to get 28 Sons? What about the daughters? If there was a daughter for every son, then there was 56 children per Israelite household, on the average scale. There is no way to know how many wives the average Israelite may have had, but it is impossible that the average woman could have had 56 children. Israelite society was a polygamous society and never condemned by God.

Excellent points. Good job and it concurs with what we read in Scripture.

Bingo

Armistead
Mar 7th 2006, 12:01 AM
Ok. Please list your "many" verses; and we will take it from there. :)

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. However, for those who biblically practice polygamy, I cannot judge them to be sinful, nor does the bible.

Is it sanctioned by God or not. Bingo has clearly made this point, but I will add to it, using the same verse. "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. This is one case in many that God blessed Polygamy.

It appears God clearly did sanction polygamy, 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, 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 as 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, BUT, he could have also prohibited, in the same explicit terms, the practice of polygamy, but he did not. Incest, was part of God's order and he did away with it, but never did away with polygamy. Nor, is there evidence anywhere in the bible that he did so.

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 bastards. Therefore, if polygamy is a sin, then all of the children of Israel were bastards.

Since a bastard 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 bastards, 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).

I can find no where in the NT that polygamy was put away, although many try to claim so. 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. Again,

“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).

Clearly, this states David did what was right in the eyes of the Lord. His many wives, nor his many concubines were considered sinful in any way.

galbro
Mar 19th 2006, 05:38 AM
i have never seen anyone ever prove to me that polgamy is against scripture...

why would god allow it in the OT and then somehow get rid of it in the NT, that doesnt make sense...

To me the whole thing about the OT is that Christ is now the OT they are both the same things, so now we follow Christ rather than the Law, so when we follow Christ we supernaturally start follow the Law, mostly thru agape Love that God gives to us, when we follow him, so to me how does the Law become changed? except the punishments, sacrifices, temple worship?

i know some dietary restrictions appear to have changed and that would make sense because it was a unclean Law meaning that Christ sacrifice always make us clean so this is be fulfilled.

i believe that God created polygamy just in case of a war and alot of men die and so the women can have a husband.

galbro
Mar 19th 2006, 07:07 AM
I am not sure what criteria you are going by here. To me; it is simple. God doesn't come right out and say a lot of things as directly as we think He should; but, in this case we are considering of polygamy; this never makes Him out to say that it is "allowed;" or "not sinful."

The simple fact that God says: "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Proverbs 30:6) means that we cannot just add something in that is not there either.

You cannot possibly use most of the Biblically mandated models of communications with a spouse, if you have more than one wife. (such as Isa.50:4); and if some group of natives somewhere practices this lifestyle; why would we take example from them? it is actually the other way around. That's why the Cannibal does not eat us anymore when we visit them. And that's why we don't have more than one wife. We only have one Source for our example.

The Christian's example is from Jesus; and He has never spoken in support of anything but, one man, and one woman. "male and female created He them."


(MY REPLY)
in the OT it does state "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh" in Genesis, and it also says in the Torah that you can have wifes and concubines too, so either the bible has errors in it or genesis scripture is a general statement on marriage without elaborating. A man can be one flesh with his first wife, and one flesh with his second wife, and his third one too, the Genesis scripture can be interpreted this way too: God still looks at us as 1 flesh, because i believe that God see us with His eyes as one person only, because He is a spirit and we are physical, even if we see 4 wifes with our eyes when we are married or if we are single, God still see us as ONE person, and that why i believe that Genesis scripture is written that way as a general statement, and the Rest of the Torah elaborates further on the rules of mulitple wifes and concumbines as well such as dont take too many, etc...., why would Jesus make up "the parable of the 10 virgins?" of 1 man marrying 5 women at once if he didnt like polygamy? can u show me another scripture to prove your interpreatation of "no polygamy"?

Armistead15
Mar 21st 2006, 06:42 AM
i have never seen anyone ever prove to me that polgamy is against scripture...

why would god allow it in the OT and then somehow get rid of it in the NT, that doesnt make sense...

To me the whole thing about the OT is that Christ is now the OT they are both the same things, so now we follow Christ rather than the Law, so when we follow Christ we supernaturally start follow the Law, mostly thru agape Love that God gives to us, when we follow him, so to me how does the Law become changed? except the punishments, sacrifices, temple worship?

i know some dietary restrictions appear to have changed and that would make sense because it was a unclean Law meaning that Christ sacrifice always make us clean so this is be fulfilled.

i believe that God created polygamy just in case of a war and alot of men die and so the women can have a husband.

No doubt, I think I and others proved it, Polygamy was blessed and ordained by God. However, I think we must also look at how God used it to provide for a time in that culture. The people involed in polygamy were Godly men.
Why, I don't see it as a sin, I also don't see it as a norm for our culture. However, in other cultures that have continued doing it for generations, they have adapted to it and it works. In our culture, I think it would promote much jealously and motives of using women for selfish desires.

Many lawmakers are trying to make plygamy legal in Canada. The women outnumber the men 3-1. It's a legal battle going on right now.

Polygamy wasn't done away with in the NT. It still abounded. there was one law given, that elders should have only one wife. that in itself shows that most men had other wives. It took another few hundred years, before polygamy was looked down upon. Basically, it ws the work of the roman church, to protect property and power. Most in the early catholic church, many priest with polygamist. The Popes argued for years and finally ended it. eventually, they ended and divorced all priests. This had nothng to do with the bible, rahter to keep the property in the church. If you were married and died, you wife or children could inherit yuor property. This way, the church kept all money and property. The obvious relsut is all the s#x scandles you see in the RCC church today. It's sickening to know the inner works of the RCC and how they treat these issues. How can anyone turn ahead to all the child abuse. Most preist enter the preisthood with the s#xual mind of a 13 year old. The results are obvious. The RCC will have to change there views on this eventually or go broke from the many lawsuits of s#xual abuse.

I would also state that I think God's "best plan" is one man for one women.
I truly couldn't give myself to many women. I prefer the oneness I have with my wife. I think it is much more special. Not to mention our law is against it and we should obey the laws of the land.

WIth one person, one wife, it is much easier to live in love. If you truly have trust and love, you can live without jealously, each partner seeking to please the other.

galbro
Mar 22nd 2006, 04:36 AM
No doubt, I think I and others proved it, Polygamy was blessed and ordained by God. However, I think we must also look at how God used it to provide for a time in that culture. The people involed in polygamy were Godly men.
Why, I don't see it as a sin, I also don't see it as a norm for our culture. However, in other cultures that have continued doing it for generations, they have adapted to it and it works. In our culture, I think it would promote much jealously and motives of using women for selfish desires.

Many lawmakers are trying to make plygamy legal in Canada. The women outnumber the men 3-1. It's a legal battle going on right now.

Polygamy wasn't done away with in the NT. It still abounded. there was one law given, that elders should have only one wife. that in itself shows that most men had other wives. It took another few hundred years, before polygamy was looked down upon. Basically, it ws the work of the roman church, to protect property and power. Most in the early catholic church, many priest with polygamist. The Popes argued for years and finally ended it. eventually, they ended and divorced all priests. This had nothng to do with the bible, rahter to keep the property in the church. If you were married and died, you wife or children could inherit yuor property. This way, the church kept all money and property. The obvious relsut is all the s#x scandles you see in the RCC church today. It's sickening to know the inner works of the RCC and how they treat these issues. How can anyone turn ahead to all the child abuse. Most preist enter the preisthood with the s#xual mind of a 13 year old. The results are obvious. The RCC will have to change there views on this eventually or go broke from the many lawsuits of s#xual abuse.

I would also state that I think God's "best plan" is one man for one women.
I truly couldn't give myself to many women. I prefer the oneness I have with my wife. I think it is much more special. Not to mention our law is against it and we should obey the laws of the land.

WIth one person, one wife, it is much easier to live in love. If you truly have trust and love, you can live without jealously, each partner seeking to please the other.






(MY REPLY) why is it 3 to 1 women to men in canada? i never heard of that?? wierd, i actually live in detroit so i might go visit there, i know that in russia, alot of men die early of drunkness and there are alot of women over 35 yrs old and the ratio is high so alot of mail order brides in USA and bridal visa's can be often attained temporary til the man decides to marry or send her back to russia.


(MY REPLY) - right i agree, The law was for our benefit back then if we followed the rules, they had joy in our live, if we break them, then we have suffering in our minds and depression, When Christ came in, he followed the rules 100% so now, we follow Christ, meditate on the word, pray, and now Christ enpowers us more and more to follow the rules. NT states many time, Love cover all the OT rules, Polygamy can be a act of love, especally in Canada, there are alot of women that need a husband, is that not love, if any would like to refute, then express your view, but please show detailed scripture to show your point, on how it was changed.

(MY REPLY) - and the thing is, we are still indirectly following their rules they made back in the middle ages, Protestant broke away and indirectly carried their marriage beliefs with them, such as anti-polygamy, sex before marriage is a horrible sin (not according to the OT, OT states u took her as your wife, AKA - LAW OF LOVE, Exodus 22:16), sex for procreation only, etc....


(REPLY) - the Vatican is covering up alot of those thing above, if they were caught totally, they probably have a church split. and paul mentions in 1 cor 7:2 and 5 about sexual starvation and its effect on people if they dont have the gift of celebacy. and homosexuality is one of them...



(REPLY) - in usa, men to women ratio is about the same. so no real need to practice, but if we have a war? then mabye we should rethink? again God will direct us to follow the rules, and He will promp our heart if needed.

Bingo
Mar 27th 2006, 04:41 PM
Galbro...this is in response to the question you posted in the other thread. You asked about the Genesis statements of "one."

It is not illogical to say that two can become one but three cannot become one. The word one in Hebrew is Echad, it means "one" in regard to perfect unity. The Hebrew term "one" (echad, Strong's #259) means unity, same, alike, altogether. It is the word that is used in Gen. 2:24. It is fascinating to note that the word 'one' in the Great Shema is not*the Hebrew word used throughout the rest of the Old testament to denote absolute singularity.* The Hebrew word is echad, which is used to demonstrate compound unity of oneness.* For example, here are a few of the verses* in which the Hebrew*"echad" is used:
* For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one [echad] flesh. (Genesis 2:24)
* Now the whole earth used the same [echad] language and the same [echad] words. (Genesis 11:1)
* And the LORD said, "Behold, they are one [echad] people, and they all have the same [echad] language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. (Genesis 11:6)
* Then we will give you our daughters and take your daughters for ourselves. We'll settle among you and become one [echad] people with you. (Genesis 34:16)
* Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one [echad] voice, and said, "All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do!" (Exodus 24:3)
* Then they came to the valley of Eshcol and from there cut down a branch with a single [echad] cluster of grapes; and they carried it on a pole between two men, with some of the pomegranates and the figs. (Numbers 13:23)

It is the same "oneness" that the NT talks about. That we might be "one." That we may have perfect unity, that we may posses and all-togetherness. "... as we are one." (1 John 17:11). I do not become you and you do not become me, but we are together "one" In the body of Christ. The wife does not become the husband, nor the husband the wife, but they become "one." I am accountable for my own sin before God and so is my wife, "So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God (Rom 14:12). We posses our individual quality but at the same time we posses a unity a togetherness.

-Bingo

w_zez
Mar 28th 2006, 02:11 AM
this thread is still living?:hmm:

it looks like some people REALLY want to find ways for it to be made accpeptable, and to where some REALLY want to find it not.

i don't know...:kiss: :hug: :B

galbro
Mar 28th 2006, 05:03 AM
Galbro...this is in response to the question you posted in the other thread. You asked about the Genesis statements of "one."

It is not illogical to say that two can become one but three cannot become one. The word one in Hebrew is Echad, it means "one" in regard to perfect unity. The Hebrew term "one" (echad, Strong's #259) means unity, same, alike, altogether. It is the word that is used in Gen. 2:24. It is fascinating to note that the word 'one' in the Great Shema is not*the Hebrew word used throughout the rest of the Old testament to denote absolute singularity.* The Hebrew word is echad, which is used to demonstrate compound unity of oneness.* For example, here are a few of the verses* in which the Hebrew*"echad" is used:
* For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one [echad] flesh. (Genesis 2:24)
* Now the whole earth used the same [echad] language and the same [echad] words. (Genesis 11:1)
* And the LORD said, "Behold, they are one [echad] people, and they all have the same [echad] language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. (Genesis 11:6)
* Then we will give you our daughters and take your daughters for ourselves. We'll settle among you and become one [echad] people with you. (Genesis 34:16)
* Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one [echad] voice, and said, "All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do!" (Exodus 24:3)
* Then they came to the valley of Eshcol and from there cut down a branch with a single [echad] cluster of grapes; and they carried it on a pole between two men, with some of the pomegranates and the figs. (Numbers 13:23)

It is the same "oneness" that the NT talks about. That we might be "one." That we may have perfect unity, that we may posses and all-togetherness. "... as we are one." (1 John 17:11). I do not become you and you do not become me, but we are together "one" In the body of Christ. The wife does not become the husband, nor the husband the wife, but they become "one." I am accountable for my own sin before God and so is my wife, "So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God (Rom 14:12). We posses our individual quality but at the same time we posses a unity a togetherness.

-Bingo



the statement above is what God see with his eyes, i believe God sees our spirit in the case of Adam and Eve God saw their spirit when two become one flesh, but us with our physical eyes we see 2 different people, so i can understand the hebrew says the number 1 and 2. again i believe the bible is vague on certain things, such as Gen 2:24, and to me, it can go both ways on either 1 wife or more, and we need to ask to holy spirit to guide us into proper interpretation, other good example - such as the book of revelation one of the vaguest book of all.

Bingo
Mar 28th 2006, 08:26 PM
this thread is still living?:hmm:

it looks like some people REALLY want to find ways for it to be made accpeptable, and to where some REALLY want to find it not.

i don't know...:kiss: :hug: :B

I don't think it is WANTING it to be made acceptable. I think it's about DISCOVERING that it is acceptable. I think this topic hangs around so long because it is something that would be demounced and described as "sinful" in almost every American church. However, when we talk openly about it here and all the evidence is brought in plain view, the case for the practice of polygamy outweighs the case (if any) against it. However, even though there is next to no Biblical argument against it, most contibue to consider it to be sinful. It demonstrates how tradition has effected our beliefs.

-Bingo

Guy
Apr 1st 2006, 06:00 PM
The answer to the original question is YES...you can have more than one wife as a Christian...being a Christian is not guarantee of anyone raising their IQ.

Perry
May 20th 2006, 02:48 PM
Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but your reasoning does nothing at all to refute my argument. The only way to do so is to show me a verse that explitly sanctions being married to more than one wife.


You want a verse? You just gave a verse that explicitly sanctions being married to more than one wife. Hebrews 13:4 But your version seems a little off. Here is the tried and true KJV:
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

A man sleeping with a second or third or hundredth wife is not adultery. The husband does not have the same sexual regulation upon him as the wife.

Perry
May 21st 2006, 08:06 PM
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. However, for those who biblically practice polygamy, I cannot judge them to be sinful, nor does the bible.

Is it sanctioned by God or not. Bingo has clearly made this point, but I will add to it, using the same verse. "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. This is one case in many that God blessed Polygamy.

It appears God clearly did sanction polygamy, 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, 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 as 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, BUT, he could have also prohibited, in the same explicit terms, the practice of polygamy, but he did not. Incest, was part of God's order and he did away with it, but never did away with polygamy. Nor, is there evidence anywhere in the bible that he did so.

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 bastards. Therefore, if polygamy is a sin, then all of the children of Israel were bastards.

Since a bastard 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 bastards, 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).

I can find no where in the NT that polygamy was put away, although many try to claim so. 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. Again,

“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).

Clearly, this states David did what was right in the eyes of the Lord. His many wives, nor his many concubines were considered sinful in any way.




Indeed. The 2 Samuel passage you quoted should silence the MOP (Monogamy Only Position) pushers forever.

Kylism
May 22nd 2006, 09:57 PM
Originally Posted by simonmaal
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife [singular, not plural]: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and
shall be joined unto his wife [again, singular], and they two shall be one flesh." (Ephesians 5:31)

If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having
faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. (Titus 1:6)

"A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach" (1 Timothy 3:2)


w_zez said:

and thanks for that...i guess. i was hoping this couldn't be found in the bible by someone.:cry:

My Thoughts

I see your pain in finding your answer. I pray you will chat with God and receive God's love as a friend to help and guide you through this moment.

Kylism

linssue55
May 22nd 2006, 09:59 PM
does the bible say you can only have one wife?
or does it say you can have as many as you like or see fit?

:hug: :hug: :hug:No! It is Bigamy......against God.

sprky777
May 23rd 2006, 03:34 AM
The Bible does not contain the word 'bigamy'. It does contain the word 'adultery'. Use the Bible to define adultery, not websters. The words we use today do not have the same meaning now as they did when KJV was written. American English evolves on an almost daily basis.

What was considered marriage in the OT would be seen as 'shacking up' today. And todays marriages more often than not don't even get the prior approval from the brides father. There is no formal courting.

Divorce now isn't as God intended. That is why Christ went back to the beginning with Adam and Eve. Marriage was intended to last 'till death us do part'.

We must view Gods Word through eyes from their culture, not todays culture.

I'm not advocating 'forced marriage' or 'arranged marriage' or slave concubinage but we do need more structure. What we are doing now is contributing to a divorce rate among Christians that is obscene. How are we to be a light shining before the unsaved, we are poor examples.

Perry
May 23rd 2006, 01:53 PM
No! It is Bigamy......against God.

He says it is bigamy but God gave David multiple wives.
2 Sam 2:8
And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's 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.

And yet it was said of David:
1Ki 15:5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Ki/1Ki015.html#5) 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.

God is not against men having more than one wife.

Blademan
Feb 7th 2007, 07:39 PM
does the bible say you can only have one wife?
or does it say you can have as many as you like or see fit?

:hug: :hug: :hug:

Well, I don't know about everyone else, but I don't recall the Bible stating that a man can have only one wife. If my memory serves me rightly, the prophet Nathan declared that it was the Lord who gave to David some of his several wives he already had. That's not the actions of a Lord who thinks that all men should have only one wife.

JesusPhreak27
Feb 8th 2007, 03:58 AM
Sometimes the one that I have is too much...let alone having another one?????:eek: :B :giveup: :help:

newdaddy1223
Feb 8th 2007, 07:38 AM
please don't take this the wrong way.... i don't mean to be condescending or condemning in any way, but...... ain't you guys ever read Corinthians??? I Corinthians 7 to be exact!

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

this clearly states that marriage is meant for one man and one woman! rationalize all you want..... that is what it means. maybe i am sounding a bit harsh, but i am really surprised that this discussion has gone on this long and no one has mentioned this passage. I Corinthians 7 is the difinitive passage on God's plan for marriage. Yes there were many OT saints who were blessed by God and still had many wives and concubines. Let's remember that women back then were not treated like they are in this country. They were more like posessions or second class citizens. The NT lifts women up to where they should be. Ephesians 5 tells us to love our wives like Christ loves the church--- a self-sacrificing love.The marriage relationship is compared to our relationship with God, which is a one on one relationship--- excluding all others. Remember the first commandment.... "Thou Shalt have no other gods before Me." When He says "before Me", He means "in My presence". Not like He's just number 1, number 2 is "this god", number 3 is "that god"...... and so on. My wife is designed to be my only wife, not my first in line of many wives.

Fubajuba
Feb 8th 2007, 08:34 AM
God is not against men having more than one wife.

I do not know if I'd be so firm in stating what God is and isn't against unless 2 things were true: 1.) I am God, and I'm speaking for myself (Which is most definitely not true, though at times we do think of ourselves that highly), or 2.) God directly states it, either through Christ, or in things like the Ten Commandments, or other times where the Laws are clearly stated.

third hero
Feb 8th 2007, 09:22 AM
He says it is bigamy but God gave David multiple wives.
2 Sam 2:8
And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's 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.

And yet it was said of David:
1Ki 15:5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Ki/1Ki015.html#5) 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.

God is not against men having more than one wife.

You know, Jesus dealt with that sore subject. Just like the writ of divorce, it was allowed due to the hardness of your hearts, but it was not so from the beginning. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam, Eve, Carol, Ivy, and Stephany. Adam had one wife, and that wife is for whom a man shall forsake his mother and father, and cleave to and become one flesh with. One wife, not three. Hardness of heart is no longer acceptible, because Jesus's teachings deal with the sins of the heart, and not just the physical sins found in the Torah.

third hero
Feb 8th 2007, 09:31 AM
BTW- In the Torah, God warns men to not have many wives, because they will be led astray by their many religions, and look at Solomon. He had many wives, and because he was enticed, his kingdom gets split and his heirs would fight over the land until Babylon stopped all of that. Do you still think that having multiple wives is Godly? Look at every example of a man with more than one wife in the OT. David, Solomon, Moses, each case, each one does something boneheaded that cost them from fully fulfilling the desire of their hearts towards God.

Moses didn't give honor to God. He probably thought of the people of Israel like his two nagging wives, and screwed up, forgot to give God honor, and lost the ability to lead the people into the promised land.

David lusted after a gal, although he had wives already. Then he not only committed adultery with her, but had her husband executed. What did that earn him? A dead baby and the inability to build the Temple of the Lord, David's greatest dream.

Solomon has had many many wives. Because of his inability to take his own advice, his kingdom gets fragmented, and God had to give David's Kingdom to His own Son in order to fulfill His promise to David in the first place. Good job Solomon, really smart, and he had wisdom!

Still think that having multiple wives is Godly? I, as a repentent adulterer that thought I was suppose to have two wives, only to have God slap me figuratively in the face with the sobering truth, know better than to say something as utterly foolish as that.

Angel of God
Feb 8th 2007, 03:17 PM
No but seriously though, there is no need for 2 wives.

What if the first one doesn't cook?

newdaddy1223
Feb 8th 2007, 03:58 PM
What if the first one doesn't cook?

:lol: i read this right after i finished making pancakes, eggs and sausage for my wife and i for breakfast. in fact, i do most of the cooking in our home because i really enjoy it!

irlandes
Feb 18th 2007, 04:01 AM
You know, Jesus dealt with that sore subject. Just like the writ of divorce, it was allowed due to the hardness of your hearts, but it was not so from the beginning. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam, Eve, Carol, Ivy, and Stephany. Adam had one wife, and that wife is for whom a man shall forsake his mother and father, and cleave to and become one flesh with. One wife, not three. Hardness of heart is no longer acceptible, because Jesus's teachings deal with the sins of the heart, and not just the physical sins found in the Torah.

Right you are. Read through this. My wife is watching a National Geographic DVD on her much loved Penguins, so I can't look this up in Bibletime on my new Linux machine. But, I think it says something about not coming to change the law, but to fulfill the law, as third hero says, because without Jesus their hearts were hard.

It is preposterous to claim a man can be a bigamist, and not offend God's law, when he will instantly be tossed in jail in most places IF he is discovered as a bigamist and make all Christians look like wackoes. Really lead a lot of folks to Jesus, huh?

By the way, in a similar vein, can anyone tell me exactly where in the bible it says suicide is wrong?

Mast*rbation? (Spare me Onan's sin which was to not impregnate his brother's widow.)


How about wife-beating?


You guys who have dragged this thread on so long, I suggest you promptly do everything listed here if you can't find anywhere it says not to do it. :rofl:

Warrior4God
May 1st 2007, 01:14 AM
With respect...it is not immorally wrong. It is never said to be "immoral" in any part of Scripture. This speaks to the original posters question, it is not wrong in God's eyes and you are allowed to pursue this if you desire. However, as Fubajuba has pointed out, in this country it is considered illegal.

Bingo

Not many men could handle multiple wives. Realistically, there are too may issues to deal with (jealousy, favoritism, sexually transmitted diseases, etc.) for it to work on a permanent basis. God allowed polygamy among the Israelites for a time, probably to increase their population, but Jesus affirmed that "a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." (Matthew 19:5) Also, as Christians, we are to obey the laws of the land, and if polygamy is illegal that's one more nail in the coffin for the concept of multiple wives. ;)

DurbanDude
May 10th 2007, 02:52 PM
Shucks , here in Durban you have to be of african origin to have more than 1 wife. Maybe they will let me have a few if I marry Zulu girls??

This thread reminds me of a joke - please note that the whole joke or any parts thereof are not necessarily the opinion of the writer :


" Its impossible for heaven to have more than 10% women.

WHY?

Otherwise it would be hell ! " :rofl:

DurbanDude
May 10th 2007, 03:09 PM
Right you are. Read through this. My wife is watching a National Geographic DVD on her much loved Penguins, so I can't look this up in Bibletime on my new Linux machine. But, I think it says something about not coming to change the law, but to fulfill the law, as third hero says, because without Jesus their hearts were hard.

By the way, in a similar vein, can anyone tell me exactly where in the bible it says suicide is wrong?

Mast*rbation? (Spare me Onan's sin which was to not impregnate his brother's widow.)

How about wife-beating?



Well to be able to handle two wives you need to first be able to take charge of the DVD / Linux machine situation with 1 wife. Imagine both wives using all the best equipment in the house while husband is relegated to the internet ?? :lol:

Its progressive , when you able to handle 1 maybe you can have another one , and not many of us will ever get there. :lol:

Wife beating is assault which is sin. And the bible is full of verses about treating wives with gentleness and respect. The other issues including bigamy are subject to interpretation. Not necessarily wrong.

Braves27
May 12th 2007, 05:05 AM
Not many men could handle multiple wives.
That's the bottom line.

The Bible definitely shows that GOD allows more than one wife, especially in the scriptures where He lays down rules for the multiple wives, which means it can't be sin.


However, especially in the time and place we live, a HUGE majority of men (and women) couldn't handle it. Look around you! People can barely hande one wife!!! Look at all the divorce, all the shaky marriages, everything! Most men are not prepared emotionally (to still be able to focus on GOD-1 Cor 7:32-33), mentally (to deal with the needs and emotions of two women), financially (GOD says you have to provide and do everything for the second that you did for the first, and not do any less for the first to do so-Exodus 21:10), even physically (we won't get into that). Let men get it right with one, instead of worrying about how many they can have. That's pretty much why Paul said the things he said regarding marriage(1 Cor 7:2, etc...)...

Warrior4God
May 13th 2007, 08:39 PM
That's the bottom line.

The Bible definitely shows that GOD allows more than one wife, especially in the scriptures where He lays down rules for the multiple wives, which means it can't be sin.


However, especially in the time and place we live, a HUGE majority of men (and women) couldn't handle it. Look around you! People can barely hande one wife!!! Look at all the divorce, all the shaky marriages, everything! Most men are not prepared emotionally (to still be able to focus on GOD-1 Cor 7:32-33), mentally (to deal with the needs and emotions of two women), financially (GOD says you have to provide and do everything for the second that you did for the first, and not do any less for the first to do so-Exodus 21:10), even physically (we won't get into that). Let men get it right with one, instead of worrying about how many they can have. That's pretty much why Paul said the things he said regarding marriage(1 Cor 7:2, etc...)...

True to all of what you have posted, but, to be honest, polygamy was merely tolerated by God for awhile amongst the Israelites, as it served to increase the population. It wasn't "sin," however, it was never the ideal situation, since Jesus states in Matthew 19:4-6..."Haven't you read, he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Notice how Jesus didn't state a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wives? He also didn't say the three (or more) will become one flesh. He said the two (man and wife) will become one flesh. It's pretty apparent the ideal situation from God's perspective is one man with his one wife. Not to mention that as Christians we are to obey the laws of the land, and in many places polygamy is illegal. Therefore, in that case, a Christian may not have multiple wives. No "ifs", "ands," or "buts" about that. Anybody ever notice that in most cases, if not all, where polygamy is discussed in the Bible it always had problems? Jealousy, favoritism, husbands arguing with their multiple wives, etc. Be honest, guys. How many of YOU would want multiple wives if you could have them? I'll sit that one out, thank you very much! :lol:

DurbanDude
May 14th 2007, 04:27 PM
Me! I want one young hot one to keep me young and virile, one intellectual to keep the mind going , bonus if she plays chess , one good at business to keep the finances going (proverbs woman) , one good at surfing for when my surfing buddies are working , then I can spend my days when the surf is bad debating on the end-times forum without having to work.

:rofl: :rofl: See I have my life planned !

Warrior4God
May 15th 2007, 12:44 AM
Me! I want one young hot one to keep me young and virile, one intellectual to keep the mind going , bonus if she plays chess , one good at business to keep the finances going (proverbs woman) , one good at surfing for when my surfing buddies are working , then I can spend my days when the surf is bad debating on the end-times forum without having to work.

:rofl: :rofl: See I have my life planned !

I think you are a bit deluded. You do, however, have a good sense of humor! :lol:

Braves27
May 15th 2007, 05:52 AM
True to all of what you have posted, but, to be honest, polygamy was merely tolerated by God for awhile amongst the Israelites, as it served to increase the population. It wasn't "sin," however, it was never the ideal situation, since Jesus states in Matthew 19:4-6..."Haven't you read, he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Notice how Jesus didn't state a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wives? He also didn't say the three (or more) will become one flesh. He said the two (man and wife) will become one flesh. It's pretty apparent the ideal situation from God's perspective is one man with his one wife. Not to mention that as Christians we are to obey the laws of the land, and in many places polygamy is illegal. Therefore, in that case, a Christian may not have multiple wives. No "ifs", "ands," or "buts" about that. Anybody ever notice that in most cases, if not all, where polygamy is discussed in the Bible it always had problems? Jealousy, favoritism, husbands arguing with their multiple wives, etc. Be honest, guys. How many of YOU would want multiple wives if you could have them? I'll sit that one out, thank you very much! :lol:
Good point, the ideal situation is definitely every man having his (1) wife. Let me ask you though, where does it say in the Bible we must obey the laws of the land?

Warrior4God
May 15th 2007, 01:34 PM
Good point, the ideal situation is definitely every man having his (1) wife. Let me ask you though, where does it say in the Bible we must obey the laws of the land?

Matthew 22:17 says, "Then he (Jesus) said to them, 'Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." This situation involved paying taxes, which was required by the Roman government as it ruled over the Jews. Jesus was indicating it was necessary to obey the rulers of the land, but to obey God as well. Also, Romans 13:1-7 is pretty explicit as Paul states, "Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." Peter states in 1 Peter 2:13-17, "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king." Yes, we are to obey our governments, but we are to obey God more. If there is a conflict between God's laws and man's laws we are to obey God over man. Paul states this concept in Acts 5:29 when Peter and some other apostles were ordered by various religious leaders not to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ..."Peter and the other apostles replied: 'We must obey God rather than men!' "

sprky777
Aug 3rd 2008, 08:54 AM
Polygyny may be illegal in the United States but it is not illegal to petition for the laws to be changed.

It is not illegal to be a proponent of the practice or debate on forums that it is a form of marriage allowed by God.

Perhaps one day when it is not against the law, I would take a second wife.

AngelAuthor
Aug 9th 2008, 05:45 PM
It will EVER be against the law in this country. The Western Mind, both male and female is so far removed from the ancient Israelite mindset that they'd never come to a place where they're going to share their spouse.

sprky777
Aug 10th 2008, 05:53 AM
...and yet 50 years ago it was unthinkable that homosexual 'marriage' would be legalized.

Something that God calls an abomination has become acceptable in our society.

Polygyny, a form of marriage that includes at least 40 examples in scripture, none of which are condemned by God, a form of marriage that is acceptable in hundreds of cultures currently today is viewed somehow by Americans as deviant?

Soon, perhaps within 10 years polygyny will be decriminalized and even recognized as a legitimate form of marriage.

God commands us to abstain from fornication. Fornication is plainly acceptable to todays society and even expected.

God commands us to keep marriage permanent as it was in the beginning. God hates divorce, what God has put together let no man separate. Yet, divorce is rampant even among Christians.

God states that it is adultery for a man to marry a woman that has been divorced. A woman that marries a man while her husband yet lives is an adulteress. A man that divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. A man that wrongly divorces his wife forces her to be an adulteress. 'Thou shalt not commit adultery'. This is all taught in many passages throughout scripture but society today is more educated and more experienced, surely God didn't mean exactly what He said... we didn't get married with the intention of getting divorces, we just grew apart... we really love someone else now... God wouldn't want me to stay in an unhealthy marriage... this marriage was of my own will, not Gods will... my new spouse was sent by God...until the next one comes along...

And society will never accept polygyny.:confused

Buck shot
Aug 11th 2008, 01:22 PM
...and yet 50 years ago it was unthinkable that homosexual 'marriage' would be legalized.

Something that God calls an abomination has become acceptable in our society.

Polygyny, a form of marriage that includes at least 40 examples in scripture, none of which are condemned by God, a form of marriage that is acceptable in hundreds of cultures currently today is viewed somehow by Americans as deviant?

Soon, perhaps within 10 years polygyny will be decriminalized and even recognized as a legitimate form of marriage.

God commands us to abstain from fornication. Fornication is plainly acceptable to todays society and even expected.

God commands us to keep marriage permanent as it was in the beginning. God hates divorce, what God has put together let no man separate. Yet, divorce is rampant even among Christians.

God states that it is adultery for a man to marry a woman that has been divorced. A woman that marries a man while her husband yet lives is an adulteress. A man that divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. A man that wrongly divorces his wife forces her to be an adulteress. 'Thou shalt not commit adultery'. This is all taught in many passages throughout scripture but society today is more educated and more experienced, surely God didn't mean exactly what He said... we didn't get married with the intention of getting divorces, we just grew apart... we really love someone else now... God wouldn't want me to stay in an unhealthy marriage... this marriage was of my own will, not Gods will... my new spouse was sent by God...until the next one comes along...

And society will never accept polygyny.:confused

If our society did accept it, it would not make it right. Those of us who are seeking to follow Christ are part of the bride of Christ. My one wife and family take lots of my time that could be spent with my Lord in prayer and service. Can you image how much time you would have for the Lord if you had three wives and a bunch of kids? This is why Paul said if you could don't marry at all but be as he is.


1 COR 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

If you notice wife is not plural...

sprky777
Aug 12th 2008, 06:07 AM
If our society did accept it, it would not make it right. agree, even a unanimous decision can be wrong.

My one wife and family take lots of my time that could be spent with my Lord in prayer and service. Can you image how much time you would have for the Lord if you had three wives and a bunch of kids? This is why Paul said if you could don't marry at all but be as he is.Which is one reason I think Paul placed as a qualification of a deacon or bishop to be the husband of one wife. At least one to show ability, but more than one would not leave enough time to be devoted to the job.

Warrior4God
Aug 13th 2008, 01:15 PM
It would be a plot for a TV show me thinks. Then the first wife runs off with the second wife after killing her husband. CSI - you got this?

The pathetic thing is I'm sure this really does happen.

Revinius
Aug 14th 2008, 07:19 AM
1 Tim 3:2 - Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

1 Tim 3:12 - A deacon must be the husband of butone wife and must manage his children and his household well.

Titus 1:6 - An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

If you want to be a Godly leader of men, and without sin (for how can a man have the time to love two women properly and still work?) then two wives is a negative in most senses of the word.

Blademan
Aug 28th 2008, 03:35 PM
If you notice wife is not plural...

Plays like this, upon a weakness of language, in order to create a doctrine out of thin air that scripture nowhere stats in clear language is nothing more than a man-made doctrine (doctrines of men, such as was common among the pharasees).

God actively gave men plural wives, and even commanded the taking of plural wives in some instances. Are you thus implying that God is guilty of sin?

Revinius
Aug 28th 2008, 04:23 PM
Plays like this, upon a weakness of language, in order to create a doctrine out of thin air that scripture nowhere stats in clear language is nothing more than a man-made doctrine (doctrines of men, such as was common among the pharasees).

God actively gave men plural wives, and even commanded the taking of plural wives in some instances. Are you thus implying that God is guilty of sin?

By your logic: "Sin is in the world therefore God is sinful" is somewhat abhorent. Because man chose a plurality of wives and God allowed does not make God responsible for their sin.

Blademan
Aug 28th 2008, 08:29 PM
First of all, the conclusion you allegedly drew from my statement is inconsistent with not only logic itself, but also in relation to the point I was making. You completely ignored the part where I clearly stated that the Bible reveals God actively giving plural wives, and even commanding it in some instances. You missed the forest because of the trees.

baxpack7
Aug 28th 2008, 08:58 PM
Alright guys-It's starting to get a little out of hand here. Keep it civil or I'll be forced to close down this thread.

God bless!!

Blademan
Aug 29th 2008, 03:32 AM
Please don't be fooled by a computer screen by assume hostility in my tone, for there was none there. I was speaking matter-of-factly. I made no attacks against the person, only what that person thought he was seeing (but wasn't), illogic, misrepresentation, and thus having completely missed the point. I could understand being accosted if I had directly called another stupid, idiotic, foolish, etc.

So, for the record, let it be known that this is strictly conversational.;)

Athanasius
Aug 29th 2008, 05:08 AM
1 Tim 3:2 - Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

1 Tim 3:12 - A deacon must be the husband of butone wife and must manage his children and his household well.

Titus 1:6 - An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.


Since you already posted the scripture...


God actively gave men plural wives, and even commanded the taking of plural wives in some instances. Are you thus implying that God is guilty of sin?

You can have it two ways with the above scripture:

(1) One wife ever
(2) Married to one wife at a specific point in time

So let's not lose our heads here and say things like, "I made no attacks against the person, only what that person thought he was seeing (but wasn't), illogic, misrepresentation, and thus having completely missed the point" and instead first make a distinction between the 'overseer / deacon / elder' and 'laity'. Is there even a distinction? Then after that I'd ask you to post scripture where God commanded people to take more than one wife.

Blademan
Aug 29th 2008, 12:48 PM
Since you already posted the scripture...
You can have it two ways with the above scripture:

(1) One wife ever
(2) Married to one wife at a specific point in time

Rather than to belabor the point all over again, I will only say that the targets of the limitation were specifically named.


...first make a distinction between the 'overseer / deacon / elder' and 'laity'. Is there even a distinction?

What do you mean? Distinction in what area of life?


Then after that I'd ask you to post scripture were God commanded people to take more than one wife.

Please remember that I specifically stated that it was in certain instances where God commanded that men take plural wives.

Deut 25:7 And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.

The context of this command says nothing about the brother having to be a single man in order for him to take his dead brother's wife, that she may bear a son who can carry on her dead husband's family name and lineage through her. If there were only two brothers, both were married and the one died without a son, then it was the surviving brother's duty to take his dead brother's wife as his own in order that she may bear a son unto his dead brother.

The Lord at no time ever sanctioned a "stud" service, that's why the text makes it clear that the surviving brother took his dead brother's wife as his own if she had no son from her dead husband, and without regard for the surviving brother's marital situation.

Blademan
Aug 29th 2008, 12:58 PM
Oh, and just for the record, I'm not a member of any cultic group, such as mormonism. Mormons did not invent polygyny. It was a marital form lived out by the vast majority of the Patriarchs of the Christian faith, which includes Abraham, a man whose epitaph reads:

Gen 26:4-5
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

That's not a eulogic description the Lord would accord to a man who had plural wives against the laws, statutes, commandments and charge of the Most High. He may have had plural wives throughout most of his life. If anyone disagrees, then please read about him again in the Bible. It's right there in plain English. If one wishes to go into the Hebrew, then we can do that as well in order to ferret out the particulars.

Blademan
Aug 29th 2008, 02:42 PM
Now to address the "husband of one wife" argument. The mantra, "Elders are to be husbands of one wife" has been a key playing card used by many, applied as a blanket, doctrinal injunction against all professing believers having more than one wife. The use of that and the other two verses along that same line is the fallacy of "dicto simpliciter." Paul made it very clear that this is a condition of office, not an injunction against polygyny itself. The arguments that make use of this and a couple of other verses employ the notion that it is an ideal to be strived for. The fact that Paul made mention of this is virtual proof that there were polygynous couples in the early church among the Gentiles. Otherwise why say anything about it?

Creating a contrived nuance out of thin air about this instruction aimed specifically at the leaders, as applying to all the Church, creates difficulties by falling headlong into the inevitable abyss of consistent application. Do ALL the instructions addressed specifically to leaders apply to the laity? If so, then I would have to see all the cases in point. If not, then how does one truthfully guage what applies and what does not? By way of opinion? Intuition? What?

Given the imagry of Paul addressing a crowd of believers, both laity and leaders, some of whom had plural wives, just how credible can the argument be that the laity, hearing that their leaders were to have only one wife (and for good reason), would suddenly feel guilt and get rid of their extras? I mean, come on. Some of the leaders may have had more than one, and then possibly disqualified from leadership, yes, but to assume that the laity were also thus bound stretches clearly into the realm of credulity.

Interestingly, the "Jesus-only" folks use the same tactics in their arguments, much to the dislike and hatred of evangelicals and fundamentalists alike. Interestingly, evangelicals and fundamentalists will use that same tactics when it suits their cause for doctrinal dogma. I'm an evangelical fundamentalist myself, although I may not agree with all the socially engineered theologies of some or most other evangelical fundamentalists.

Blademan
Aug 29th 2008, 02:55 PM
Oh, and here's another biggie:

Granted, Genesis 2:24 proves that a man is one flesh with his 'ishshah,' which is translated 'wife' or 'wives' in many places, therefore not being numerically specific. Deuteronomy 21:15 has God himself (this is not Moses Law, but God's law dictated to Moses, by God, and written down faithfully by Moses) declaring that a man can have wives. A man can be therefore one flesh with one woman and another woman at the same time. It may be a difficult concept for some to grasp, but there it is. So if it is proved that one flesh can exist simoultaneously between a man and a woman, and that same man and yet another woman at the same time, then one cannot argue that "one flesh" is a pro monogamy archetype.

Paul further proved this point when he demanded, by way of a question, that a man laying with a harlot has become one flesh with her. Again, there is no indication anywhere in the context that this refers only to single, unmarried men, as the one-flesh-one-woman defenders would be forced to try and prove in their favor.

Now, let it be known that I am not saying that the Lord condones any and all men running out to seek additional wives. That's not what this is about. Most men can't handle more than one, and many can't handle even one wife. The taking of a wife is a matter we all should take very seriously. The Lord gave some men plural wives, and most only one. I am content with that. I am simply defending the morality of polygyny because of God's having given some men more than one wife. What was sin then is sin now, and vice versa.

dljc
Aug 29th 2008, 05:56 PM
How many brides does Jesus have?

Rev 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

How many wives does Jesus have?

Blademan I'm sorry but your passages from Genesis and Deuteronomy need further study.

Deuteronomy 21:
15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:

17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

The passage you got your info from above is referring to the rights of the firstborn, not permission to have more than one wife. Context is the key my friend.

How many women did God create from Adam's rib? He only created Eve didn't He? If God had intended man to have more than one wife wouldn't He have created more than one woman in the Garden of Eden?

Buck shot
Aug 29th 2008, 07:23 PM
Plays like this, upon a weakness of language, in order to create a doctrine out of thin air that scripture nowhere stats in clear language is nothing more than a man-made doctrine (doctrines of men, such as was common among the pharasees).

God actively gave men plural wives, and even commanded the taking of plural wives in some instances. Are you thus implying that God is guilty of sin?


LOL, thanks for the laugh :lol:


BTW- God gave the first Adam his ONE wife from One of Adams ribs. This is how God set up marriage. So i did not start the doctrine you-know-who did...

Athanasius
Aug 29th 2008, 07:59 PM
If you don't mind, I'm going to quote two related things:


Rather than to belabor the point all over again, I will only say that the targets of the limitation were specifically named.


Now to address the "husband of one wife" argument. The mantra, "Elders are to be husbands of one wife" has been a key playing card used by many, applied as a blanket, doctrinal injunction against all professing believers having more than one wife. The use of that and the other two verses along that same line is the fallacy of "dicto simpliciter." Paul made it very clear that this is a condition of office, not an injunction against polygyny itself. The arguments that make use of this and a couple of other verses employ the notion that it is an ideal to be strived for. The fact that Paul made mention of this is virtual proof that there were polygynous couples in the early church among the Gentiles. Otherwise why say anything about it?

Creating a contrived nuance out of thin air about this instruction aimed specifically at the leaders, as applying to all the Church, creates difficulties by falling headlong into the inevitable abyss of consistent application. Do ALL the instructions addressed specifically to leaders apply to the laity? If so, then I would have to see all the cases in point. If not, then how does one truthfully guage what applies and what does not? By way of opinion? Intuition? What?

Given the imagry of Paul addressing a crowd of believers, both laity and leaders, some of whom had plural wives, just how credible can the argument be that the laity, hearing that their leaders were to have only one wife (and for good reason), would suddenly feel guilt and get rid of their extras? I mean, come on. Some of the leaders may have had more than one, and then possibly disqualified from leadership, yes, but to assume that the laity were also thus bound stretches clearly into the realm of credulity.

Interestingly, the "Jesus-only" folks use the same tactics in their arguments, much to the dislike and hatred of evangelicals and fundamentalists alike. Interestingly, evangelicals and fundamentalists will use that same tactics when it suits their cause for doctrinal dogma. I'm an evangelical fundamentalist myself, although I may not agree with all the socially engineered theologies of some or most other evangelical fundamentalists.

Okay, let's leave that for a minute and go back to what I asked:


first make a distinction between the 'overseer / deacon / elder' and 'laity'. Is there even a distinction?

You replied with:



What do you mean? Distinction in what area of life?

Regardless of the above quote, you've managed to answer my question, thanks. I'm going to try to be quick, because I've got a letter to write to a girl and I'd rather give her more of my personal time than you, no offense. I wonder how she would feel if I told her I was interested in multiple girls at the same time... Probably not to special, eh? Anyway, you threw around some big words, italicized some others then attacked 'Jesus-only' folk (What does that mean?). Guess I shouldn't say things like that, eh? I was going to reply with more, but the other two posters (Dljc especially) beat me to it.



Please remember that I specifically stated that it was in certain instances where God commanded that men take plural wives.

Oh, but you're arguing it's still universally true, are you not?



Deut 25:7 And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.

The context of this command says nothing about the brother having to be a single man in order for him to take his dead brother's wife, that she may bear a son who can carry on her dead husband's family name and lineage through her. If there were only two brothers, both were married and the one died without a son, then it was the surviving brother's duty to take his dead brother's wife as his own in order that she may bear a son unto his dead brother.

The Lord at no time ever sanctioned a "stud" service, that's why the text makes it clear that the surviving brother took his dead brother's wife as his own if she had no son from her dead husband, and without regard for the surviving brother's marital situation.

Psst... Different culture, different context.

Blademan
Aug 30th 2008, 02:28 AM
How many brides does Jesus have?

I'm not sure what that has to do with any of what we've been talking about. That bride of which you speak is still comprised of a plurality of individuals. Similarly, a man's plural wives are unified into one family through their common husband, just as we are joined together into one body through a common Lord.


How many wives does Jesus have?

Where did Jesus ever state that what He has is the limitation of what mankind is bound? If you want to model what Jesus has, then go for it. That's not for all men. Jesus also stands at the right hand of the Father, a position that none of us can mimmick. So what?


Deuteronomy 21:...
The passage you got your info from above is referring to the rights of the firstborn, not permission to have more than one wife. Context is the key my friend.

Are you implying that the Lord would ever point at something He considered as sin in order to establish first-born rights without pointing out, at least somewhere, His displeasure in the relationship itself...anywhere in scripture? You seem to be forgetting that the Lord actively gave men plural wives. If you read this thread, you'll see that I've already dealt with this argument, thus there being no need for me to repeat myself when you can simply read the posts for yourself if you want to continue along this line.


How many women did God create from Adam's rib? He only created Eve didn't He? If God had intended man to have more than one wife wouldn't He have created more than one woman in the Garden of Eden?

This too is yet another repeat of the same fallacy I've already dealt with in this thread.

Thanks :cool:

Blademan
Aug 30th 2008, 02:40 AM
Psst... Different culture, different context.

Psst...God is the same today, yesterday, and forever...which speaks of the same God who gave men plural wives.:D

I like this game of playing the discontinuity fallacy based upon cultural differences, especially when it deals with One who has never changed, either with time or with culture.;)

Blademan
Aug 30th 2008, 02:43 AM
LOL, thanks for the laugh :lol:


BTW- God gave the first Adam his ONE wife from One of Adams ribs. This is how God set up marriage. So i did not start the doctrine you-know-who did...

Yes, it is funny how God's actions continue to defy cultrually defined sensibilities within many people sense of theological truth.:lol:

Blademan
Aug 30th 2008, 03:18 AM
It seems to be a common weakness for people to use the Adam and Eve argument. "It's Adam & Eve, not Adam, Eve, and Jennifer." This is a "Faulty" or "Hasty Generalization."

The argument holds no water. Using the Adam and Eve monogamy example assumes the story in all it's details, before the fall, to be an archetype for all marriage that we must follow without deviation. It is not possible to argue monogamy from their example unless you embrace all parts of the example. Unless you got married buck naked, I would urge folks to stray from that argument.

There are other ways this supposed archetype gets strained as well. You're probably not named Adam, or Eve, you aren't made from a rib, or you're not missing one. The list goes on. Adam and Eve's marriage is an archetype ONLY in ways stated elsewhere in scripture to be an archetype or ideal.

If not specified elsewhere in the Bible, it becomes nothing more than a personally manufactured dogma many try to force upon others without any credible backing from scripture. I'm not saying that anoyone here is guilty of this eisegetical construct, but there are many who are.

Blademan
Aug 30th 2008, 03:53 AM
Interestingly, in the book of Numbers, we find that God commanded Moses to "take a census of all the congregation of the children of Israel", (Numbers 1:2 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Numbers+1%3A2)). First the Lord commanded Moses to number all the men who were able to go to war from 20 years old and above. That number came to 603,550 men. Later, Moses was commanded to number all the first born of Israel from a month old and above (Numbers 3:40 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Numbers+3%3A40)). That number came to 22,273.

Since there can only be one first born per family then the number of families will be very close to the same number as the first born. Ignoring any exceptions which will make our calculation conservative we can find out how many fighting men were born to each family in Israel.

Fighting Men divided by families is equal to men per family.

603,550 ÷ 22,273 = 27.0978314551250...

So you can now see that, on average, each family was responsible for slightly more than 27 fighting men. This, of course, doesn't count any of the women. We could assume that each family had 27 women, and if the ratio of men to women was like it is now, then that number is very low. This, then would lead us to the conclusion that each Israelite family would have had about 54 children. So if, as so many insist upon, each family only had one wife, then she was having children well into her 60's and beyond if she had one each year. This is very unlikely when we consider the relatively short, average lifespan of the people of that era.

A better answer to what was going on is that it was very normal in Israel for men to have more than one wife. This is during the time that the Lord gave the children of Israel His Law.

By the way, if we go by today's numbers for children per wife in a polygynous family, then each wife in Israel had around 4 children. We can then figure out an average number of wives per family.

Number of children per family divided by 4 equals the number of wives per family.

54 ÷ 4 = 13.5

For those who are mathematically challenged (most of whom purchase lottery tickets), modern statistical analysis shows us from these numbers that it's more likely that most men of OT times had more than one wife, contrary to popular belief that it was mostly very rare. Numbers don't lie. http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/images/smilies/readthis.gif

dljc
Aug 30th 2008, 04:19 AM
Blademan,

Explain this verse to me.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.


How can a man and more than one wife become one flesh? How can there be unity between them?

sprky777
Aug 30th 2008, 05:01 AM
A man and a woman join in marriage and become one flesh.
What God has joined together let not man put assunder.
What? Don't you know that by having a harlot you become one flesh with her?

As has been posted many times before, becoming one flesh refers to a permanence of union, it is not to be divided. When a man takes a wife he is not to leave her.

But I think what is the 'great mystery' is the form of the union.
Consider a flower. The flower is made of many parts but is called one. The center of the flower has a petal attached. The petal is one with the flower. Another petal is attached, it is one with the flower. But, one petal is not attached to the other petal. Many petals can be joined to the flower and the flower is still one.

Athanasius
Aug 30th 2008, 05:29 AM
Psst...God is the same today, yesterday, and forever...which speaks of the same God who gave men plural wives.:D

I like this game of playing the discontinuity fallacy based upon cultural differences, especially when it deals with One who has never changed, either with time or with culture.;)

What are you saying? Are you saying that a command stands because God is eternal, ergo, so is the command. Or are you saying the command stands as long as it has not been 'abrogated'? You know, are we still to not eat shellfish or wear clothes of mixed fabric? Or have those things passed away? I'll give you an example. God required animal sacrifices. Because of Christs atoning work those animal sacrifices are no longer necessary - did God change because He said "No more animal sacrifices"? Absolutely not.

You said:


...Using the Adam and Eve monogamy example assumes the story in all it's details, before the fall, to be an archetype for all marriage that we must follow without deviation. It is not possible to argue monogamy from their example unless you embrace all parts of the example. Unless you got married buck naked, I would urge folks to stray from that argument.

Jesus said [Matthew 19:4-6]: And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?" So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

Why do you and Jesus disagree?

ilovemetal
Aug 30th 2008, 08:41 AM
i don't think God or Jesus ever condoned incest. unless i missed that story. yes the subject is contained in the bible, but that doesn't make it alright...

i'm pretty sure...

sprky777
Aug 30th 2008, 09:27 AM
a man is prohibited from having his mother
a man is prohibited from having his sister
a man is prohibited from having his aunt
a man is prohibited from having his fathers wife
a man is prohibited from having his wifes sister
a man is prohibited from having his daughter
a man is prohibited from having a woman and her daughter

most of these relate to monogamy, not polygyny.

Blademan
Aug 30th 2008, 01:28 PM
How can a man and more than one wife become one flesh? How can there be unity between them?

First, I'm admittedly not the one who made the rules. I read it for what it says, sometimes at the expense of my social and religious sensibilities, and move on.

The Lord has numerously demonstrated in His written word that a man can indeed be one flesh with more than one woman. Unless one is prepared to emphatically state, and effectively defend the idea, that Abraham was not one flesh with all his wives, then the question is moot. Paul had no problem with this idea when he stated that when a man (and he made no distinction as to the man being single or already married) lays with a harlot, he has become one flesh with her. Therefore, questioing the obvious becomes nothing more than a repeated question, couched in unreasonable doubts, which leads nowhere.

Secondly, there are many examples of things in which one item is one with another, and still another, but those things with which it is one, are not part of each other. In a cell, the various parts are one with the cell, but the cell nucleus is not part of the mitochondria. In a wheel, the spokes are one with the hub, but not with each other. They are one with the rim, but the hub and rim are not part of each other. It's tempting to see the "becoming one" as one=mono=monogamy, but thoughtful examination forces us to admit that is not true, but merely a romantic, feministically motivated thought with no real substance for substantiation.

Additionally, Jesus quoted Moses, who used the word for wife, in Genesis 2:24, that has no singular or plural form. It's the same word used by Moses later in a law given to him BY GOD when he says "if a man has two "'ishshah" (wife or wives). This, then, becomes part of a proof that one flesh is not in any way an argument against polygyny because you are ONE FLESH with your 'ishshah, and you can clearly have more than one 'ishshah, therefore you MUST be one flesh with all the 'ishshah you have at any given moment. Therefore, if you have TWO 'ishshah, you are one flesh with both of them at the same time. It's not an exclusionary concept.

So, the only avenue left for those who refuse to accept what the Bible teaches in this regard, is for them to go on to prove that while it's possible, it's not right, and for that, one needs another passage describing Polygyny as wrong. There isn't one to my knowledge. Just as there is no word for "wives" as opposed to "wife" in the Hebrew, there is no word for monogamy or polygyny in the Hebrew language. There is just marriage, and arguably that word only applies to what happens when you take a wife, and that family is the result.

Does that help?

Blademan
Aug 30th 2008, 01:33 PM
A man and a woman join in marriage and become one flesh.
What God has joined together let not man put assunder.
What? Don't you know that by having a harlot you become one flesh with her?

As has been posted many times before, becoming one flesh refers to a permanence of union, it is not to be divided. When a man takes a wife he is not to leave her.

But I think what is the 'great mystery' is the form of the union.
Consider a flower. The flower is made of many parts but is called one. The center of the flower has a petal attached. The petal is one with the flower. Another petal is attached, it is one with the flower. But, one petal is not attached to the other petal. Many petals can be joined to the flower and the flower is still one.

Very good point, sprky. The petals are all one with the stem, and yet they are still petals that we can distinguish one from another, and from the stem, and yet the whole is called ONE flower.

Being one flesh with a woman doesn't mean that the man and woman are both married, as Paul made quite clear for us.

Blademan
Aug 30th 2008, 01:50 PM
Are you saying that a command stands because God is eternal, ergo, so is the command. Or are you saying the command stands as long as it has not been 'abrogated'?

In order to cast aside any attempts forthcoming to try and perform a slight-of-hand manipualtion of the facts presented, allow me to reiterate that we're talking about marriage, not just any command that may be thrown into the mix in an attpempt to try and derail my case. The Lord at no time ever redefined marriage, even with the coming of Christ Jesus to die on the cross.


Jesus said [Matthew 19:4-6]: And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?" So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

Why do you and Jesus disagree?

Again, in order to shed a glaring light on the slight-of hand tactics, the context of Jesus' comments were in relation to a man putting away his wife for any cause.

Please explain to me, if you don't mind, what putting away one's wife for any cause has to do with a man taking a second wife without putting away the first, therefore loving both passionately. From the beginning, it was not God's intent that a man put away his wife. So, I agree with what Jesus stated. What other choice would I have?

Athanasius
Aug 30th 2008, 02:45 PM
In order to cast aside any attempts forthcoming to try and perform a slight-of-hand manipualtion of the facts presented, allow me to reiterate that we're talking about marriage, not just any command that may be thrown into the mix in an attpempt to try and derail my case. The Lord at no time ever redefined marriage, even with the coming of Christ Jesus to die on the cross.

Come on bud, you're the only sophist here. I asked you a valid question, I'd like a valid answer. Your refusal to answer - and throw around big words - is needless. You don't sound any smarter [though I doubt this is a motivation for the word usage] nor have you answered anything. Now I'll be fair: you have provided answers... But not to my questions.

Can are you answer my question? Are you able to answer my question? Jesus went back to the Garden and said: Hey! This is what marriage is! (wonder why he didn't command buck nakedness like a certain sophist around here has seemed to imply is necessary...). It's valid to say, 'This is marriage in the Garden, it hasn't changed... Here's what Jesus said: one wife - monogamy.



Again, in order to shed a glaring light on the slight-of hand tactics, the context of Jesus' comments were in relation to a man putting away his wife for any cause.

Please explain to me, if you don't mind, what putting away one's wife for any cause has to do with a man taking a second wife without putting away the first, therefore loving both passionately. From the beginning, it was not God's intent that a man put away his wife. So, I agree with what Jesus stated. What other choice would I have?

Are you going to answer what I've said or simply to twist my post to represent something other than what I was obviously posting? Not asking anything hard, just a straight answer from a crooked shooter.

mcgyver
Aug 30th 2008, 02:56 PM
Hi Blademan

I've just read through this thread...and my eyes are blurry :lol:

If this has been asked previously...then my apologies...

What in your opinion, do you understand was God's original design for the family? :)

Blademan
Aug 30th 2008, 03:06 PM
Hi Blademan

Hi.:)


What in your opinion, do you understand was God's original design for the family? :)

God's original design, according to what Jesus stated, was that a man not put away his wife. This can lead to the family remaining together and strong. Divorce is a terrible thing. Unfortunately, the Lord divorced Israel (not Judah), but offered to take her back if only she would repent. We don't see much of this today at all.

Does that answer your question?

mcgyver
Aug 30th 2008, 03:18 PM
Hi.:)



God's original design, according to what Jesus stated, was that a man not put away his wife. This can lead to the family remaining together and strong. Divorce is a terrible thing. Unfortunately, the Lord divorced Israel (not Judah), but offered to take her back if only she would repent. We don't see much of this today at all.

Does that answer your question?

Yes and no (Got ta love that answer :lol:)

I agree with you 100% in what you said BTW, but my question was (probably badly worded) whether His original intent (as it were) was one man with one woman (wife); or one man with multiple women (wives).

What is your understanding/opinion of that as (once again) God's original intent? :)

dljc
Aug 30th 2008, 03:22 PM
Does that help?Not really. You see Blademan, the reason it is important to examine Genesis BEFORE THE FALL, is because that's how God intended things to be. So although you may think the Adam and Eve argument is weak. We have to consider the entire Bible don't we? Even before the fall. Sin entered the world when Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden tree, remember?

The flower reference is nice, but still doesn't answer the question. The pedals of a flower are a part of the flower, they didn't come from another flower and join up with the flower they are on now did they? How many dandelions have you seen with rose pedals?

Blademan
Aug 30th 2008, 03:24 PM
Come on bud, you're the only sophist here.

It's unfortunate that some people resort to ad hominem. Being a sophist has to do with the very character of a person who is intellectually dishonest.

Those who run this board may very well allow you to to get away with this attack against me, bet it mild or softly viscious, but I refuse to sink to the level of sticking you or anyone else personally with such unflattering lables.

You are free to claim a false victory if you like. That's fine with me. Go for it. But our conversation is finished. You are ignored henceforth.

Good day.

Blademan
Aug 30th 2008, 05:57 PM
Yes and no (Got ta love that answer :lol:)

Don't laugh. sometimes that's actually the only right answer to some questions.:cool:


I agree with you 100% in what you said BTW, but my question was (probably badly worded) whether His original intent (as it were) was one man with one woman (wife); or one man with multiple women (wives).

Have you ever heard of, "the law of the second best"? It's a conceptual law within economics that basically says that what works perfectly well in one environmental setting doesn't necessarily work as well in all other settings.

No man is an authority to say that monogamy was God's long-term ideal for the Garden since that timeline was interrupted by sin, but for the sake of argument, let's just assume that it was God's ideal for Adam and all other men who would ever have been born in the garden. I would then have to say yes, that it would then have been God's ideal for all men. After all, the Lord would certainly have stated that to Adam from the beginning. In that ideal environment, there would have been an ideal, perfect, ratio of men to women born of all women.

Now, back to reality: We do not live in that ideal environment, do we? We live within an environment where the ratio is not perfect, where war, disease, divorce and death are ravaging families, creating imbalances. Additionally, within the Church, that ratio is still not perfect. Look within almost any church organization, and you will observe more women than men. Christianity Today Magazine has observed this quite a number of times throughout the years.

So, if we were to assume that monogamy was God's sole intent for all men, which is stated nowhere in the word of God, outside the garden, then there is a problem. God would then be grossly inconsistent with His own intent because His Law, as dictated to Moses, makes governing provision for men to have more than one wife, He said not one word to the Patriarchs for having plural wives, He actively gave men plural wives, and He even identified Himself with polygyny with Israel and Judah being his wives.

So, this understanding, as it is called, is an understanding lodged tightly into the psyche of men and women without any credible origin. It's a romanticized ideal better fitted for the precepts of feminism, given that it clearly doesn't fit with patriarchy.

Those who poo-poo patriarchy are generally those who refuse to accept God's mandate that the husband is the head of the woman as Christ is the Head of the Church.


What is your understanding/opinion of that as (once again) God's original intent? :)

Can you give me a reference from the Bible where the Lord stated that Adam's having one wife was His intent for all mankind after the fall?

Blademan
Aug 30th 2008, 06:09 PM
Not really. You see Blademan, the reason it is important to examine Genesis BEFORE THE FALL, is because that's how God intended things to be.

Can you quote the words of the Lord stating that as His intent?


So although you may think the Adam and Eve argument is weak. We have to consider the entire Bible don't we? Even before the fall.

Yes. I agree.

Now let me ask you:

How do you overcome the Patriarchs having plural wives without the Lord syaing one word to them about it?

How do you explain the Lord actively giving men plural wives, contrary to popular belief today?

How do you explain the Lord making governing provision for men to have plural wives in His Law, without one word of condemnation against it anywhere throughout?


Sin entered the world when Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden tree, remember?

Yes.


The flower reference is nice, but still doesn't answer the question.

Sorry.


The pedals of a flower are a part of the flower, they didn't come from another flower and join up with the flower they are on now did they? How many dandelions have you seen with rose pedals?

Well, at least you didn't pick apart the wheel and spokes...:D

sprky777
Aug 30th 2008, 06:23 PM
How many dandelions have you seen with rose pedals?
So... you're saying... the analogy would prohibit a...
white man from having wives of any other race?... or am I missing something. :)

dljc
Aug 30th 2008, 06:29 PM
Can you quote the words of the Lord stating that as His intent? Genesis 2:

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Looks pretty clear God had a plan that included Adam and Eve living in the Garden and taking care of it, just the two of them. God doesn't tempt us does He? He only gave Adam and Eve one command, not to eat from the tree they ate from. And the couldn't even obey that simple request.


Yes. I agree.

Now let me ask you:

How do you overcome the Patriarchs having plural wives without the Lord syaing one word to them about it?

How do you explain the Lord actively giving men plural wives, contrary to popular belief today?

How do you explain the Lord making governing provision for men to have plural wives in His Law, without one word of condemnation against it anywhere throughout?Can be summed up with Romans 3:23

Can you show me in scripture where our Lord says, specifically "take as many wives as you want"? Did Jesus condemn the woman at the well for having 5 husbands and the one she was with was not her husband? (John 4:18) You asked earlier about pointing to a sin. Divorce was a sin wasn't it? Adultery is still a sin isn't it?

mcgyver
Aug 30th 2008, 06:33 PM
@ Blademan ref post #152

Once again, there is a lot here that I can agree with, and your reasoning is certainly sound. :)

I would submit for consideration though, that perhaps we are using the wrong paradigm in our efforts to solve what is a touchy issue...that is to say that perhaps we should shift from "design" or "intent" to "concession" in trying to determine the truth (for lack of a better word).

If for example, we view polygamy as a concession made by God as a direct result of sin entering into the world (with all the consequences you mentioned); as a method to populate the world, establish the twelve tribes, etc...

Then obviously such would need to be regulated by laws and procedures established by God (given to His people of course).

If we use the paradigm of Concession, perhaps we can also consistently and logically apply such understanding to clear up some of the more difficult things we find in the bible. To Wit: Slavery (first example that comes to mind)...God's design or a concession made as a result of the fall which must therefore be regulated?

Just some food for thought...:)

Blademan
Aug 30th 2008, 11:26 PM
Genesis 2:

Looks pretty clear God had a plan that included Adam and Eve living in the Garden and taking care of it, just the two of them.

I don't see how this flows out into the actions of the Lord Himself when He gave plural wives to men AFTER the fall. You never did answer my question.:hmm:


God doesn't tempt us does He? He only gave Adam and Eve one command, not to eat from the tree they ate from. And the couldn't even obey that simple request.

What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?


Can be summed up with Romans 3:23

Please elaborate.


Can you show me in scripture where our Lord says, specifically "take as many wives as you want"?

I would have to say that this is non sequitur reasoning, without addressing anything at you personally, so please don't take it that way. I also can't show you in scripture where the Lord said that it was ok for us to fly in airplanes, but I can show you in scripture where the Lord gave men plural wives. You keep avoinding this, almost like the plague.


Did Jesus condemn the woman at the well for having 5 husbands and the one she was with was not her husband? (John 4:18) You asked earlier about pointing to a sin. Divorce was a sin wasn't it? Adultery is still a sin isn't it?

Wow. You went completely afield of the topic at hand. You're going to have to tie all this together for it to make any sense.

Please explain what divorce, adultery, and multiple husbands have to do with a man having plural wives. You threw in divorce, sexual sin, and polyandry into this completely out of the blue, so it's only natural that we're all left wondering what you're saying, and where you're going with this.

Blademan
Aug 30th 2008, 11:30 PM
@ Blademan ref post #152

Once again, there is a lot here that I can agree with, and your reasoning is certainly sound. :)

I would submit for consideration though, that perhaps we are using the wrong paradigm in our efforts to solve what is a touchy issue...that is to say that perhaps we should shift from "design" or "intent" to "concession" in trying to determine the truth (for lack of a better word).

This is certainly reasonable.:)

I will give it some thought, and get back to you...perhaps later tonight after I get back.:monkeyd:

dljc
Aug 31st 2008, 12:59 AM
I don't see how this flows out into the actions of the Lord Himself when He gave plural wives to men AFTER the fall. You never did answer my question.:hmm:



What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?



Please elaborate.



I would have to say that this is non sequitur reasoning, without addressing anything at you personally, so please don't take it that way. I also can't show you in scripture where the Lord said that it was ok for us to fly in airplanes, but I can show you in scripture where the Lord gave men plural wives. You keep avoinding this, almost like the plague.



Wow. You went completely afield of the topic at hand. You're going to have to tie all this together for it to make any sense.

Please explain what divorce, adultery, and multiple husbands have to do with a man having plural wives. You threw in divorce, sexual sin, and polyandry into this completely out of the blue, so it's only natural that we're all left wondering what you're saying, and where you're going with this.Blademan,

I'm not avoiding anything. I'm trying to point out to you that before the fall there was only Adam and Eve, how could there be plural wives? You see you are only looking at after the fall, and not considering the fact that there was only two people before it. Nothing was "out of the blue", and Romans 3:23 applies to everyone except Jesus. You have to look at everything in context, from chapter to chapter and from Genesis to Revelation. It all fits together. If Adam and Eve hadn't eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, where would we be? Would sin be in the world?

All I've seen from your previous posts is scripture taken out of context to support your claim. I'm sorry if you think I'm being rude, but I'm not. Show me scripture in context where our Lord "gave" men plural wives. Understanding that the word "gave" implies that it had His blessing. You've argued about people pulling doctrine out of thin air, well, that's what I've seen from you.

Blademan
Aug 31st 2008, 05:00 PM
I'm not avoiding anything. I'm trying to point out to you that before the fall there was only Adam and Eve, how could there be plural wives?

You're right. There were no plural wives in the garden.

Adam having one wife lends evidence to monogenism, not God's alleged intent for all other men, after the fall, to have only one wife. How did you arrive at such a conclcusion?

God gave Elijah the ability call fire down from Heaven. That doesn't mean that I can go outside and do the same. What the Lord gives to one man is no evidence that all other men are to have the same. How does chronology have anything to do with what the Lord gave one man versus another; at least, outside of what's expressly declared?


You see you are only looking at after the fall, and not considering the fact that there was only two people before it.

This isn't true. I have indeed taken both into account in this thread. Allow me to outline what I've covered in the order of historic reality:

- Adam was given one wife in order to establish monogenism (ideally)
- The fall that God knew was to come happened
- Men took plural wives
- God blessed men who had plural wives
- God made governing provision for plural wives in His Law
- God gave men plural wives

We're not living with Adam, nor are we living in the ideal environment of the pre-sin era. The blood of Christ was not needed before the fall, but it is now. In other words, what may have been ideal in the original environment isn't always so ideal in the other. The Lord saw fit to give some men plural wives, contrary to our modern sentiments and sensibilities about what's right and what's wrong. God gave Adam one wife, and He gave king David several. We tend not to like that, so we neatly wrap our sensibilities in the blanket of our westernized monogamy-only-ism, firmly lodged in the pre-sin era, in order to protect ourselves from having to face the harsh realities of what we don't like.


Nothing was "out of the blue", and Romans 3:23 applies to everyone except Jesus. You have to look at everything in context, from chapter to chapter and from Genesis to Revelation. It all fits together. If Adam and Eve hadn't eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, where would we be? Would sin be in the world?

Yes, and sin brought about the necessity for some men to have plural wives, which God blessed. We can't force reality to pretent that sin didn't enter the world. Marriage is marriage.


All I've seen from your previous posts is scripture taken out of context to support your claim.

Can you quote them, and elaborate upon them for me? Please be more specific. If we're going to have a legitimate discussion, then there needs to be substance to the counterclaims. If I've misapplied something, even out of context, then show me.


I'm sorry if you think I'm being rude, but I'm not.

Not at all.


Show me scripture in context where our Lord "gave" men plural wives. Understanding that the word "gave" implies that it had His blessing. You've argued about people pulling doctrine out of thin air, well, that's what I've seen from you.

2 Sam 12:7-8
7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
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.

I've heard and read about various men who have attempted to downplay the terminology "into thy bosom" as being nothing more than David merely taking care of Saul's wives after his death. Each of these feeble attempts have fallen flat in the face of legitimate scholarship from reputable, lingual scholars who have stated that such terminology is indeed far more intimate than mere care. What some people will foiste upon others in order to defend pet doctrines...:lol:

Blademan
Aug 31st 2008, 10:19 PM
I would submit for consideration though, that perhaps we are using the wrong paradigm in our efforts to solve what is a touchy issue

There's no doubt that this is a touchy issue. It's also a great tool that I have used numerous times to get people to realize just how many socially engineered theologies exist within westernized, Christian thought.


...that is to say that perhaps we should shift from "design" or "intent" to "concession" in trying to determine the truth (for lack of a better word).

If for example, we view polygamy as a concession made by God as a direct result of sin entering into the world (with all the consequences you mentioned); as a method to populate the world, establish the twelve tribes, etc...

Then obviously such would need to be regulated by laws and procedures established by God (given to His people of course).

Actually, I believe I have already incorporated that into my post #160 to dljc. In my outline, I went from the garden right over into the post-fall era we are now, commenting on the fact that what may have been ideal in the perfect environment isn't necessarily ideal for all men in the imperfect environment. When men who are living and/or believing that monogamy is ideal for them, then I fully accept that. However, for those same men to sit back and say that it is also ideal for all other men, men whose shoes they have never walked in, well, that rings rather hollow.

The replenishment argument is quite anemic, given that we're talking about something as important as marriage. Having plural wives in order to make more babies to repopulate the earth and build tribes completely misses the mark of equal importance the Lord places upon women. It's not so much what happened apart from God as it is what happened with God. I'm sure you're well aware of the implications of this.


If we use the paradigm of Concession, perhaps we can also consistently and logically apply such understanding to clear up some of the more difficult things we find in the bible. To Wit: Slavery (first example that comes to mind)...God's design or a concession made as a result of the fall which must therefore be regulated?

Just some food for thought...:)

Please be very careful when drawing a parellel between marriage and slavery. That combination is similar with apples to oranges.

dljc
Aug 31st 2008, 11:44 PM
You're right. There were no plural wives in the garden.

Adam having one wife lends evidence to monogenism, not God's alleged intent for all other men, after the fall, to have only one wife. How did you arrive at such a conclcusion?Blademan,

How do I come to this conclusion? I asked you earlier if God tempts us. The answer is no as you well know. You see, BM, your theology is based on a sinful nature. You can't accept that God intended things to be the way they were in the Garden of Eden, because after all, man fell and here we are today. What you are arguing is that God intended for man to fall and thus God is capable of tempting us because He did put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden. Are you sure you want to take this stance? Because the God I serve doesn't tempt us. He will test us, but He won't tempt us.

Everything starts at the beginning. The beginning in this case is Genesis chapters 1 and 2 before the fall. So is that what you are arguing? That God intended for man to fall. That sounds like a cruel joke doesn't it? Would a loving Father do that?

baxpack7
Sep 1st 2008, 12:08 AM
What was the original question? Oh yeah....

Can you have more than one wife as a christian?

In the USA? No-against the law.
However, it is legal in other parts of the world.
Biblically, I don't see anything that condemns the man who has more than one wife. On the other hand, it's not recommended that you do that because of all the problems that you would face. I.E. Solomen and his women.
Plus, can you have enough love(equal) for more than one wife? For example, if you had more than one wife, and they both/all wanted to be intimate, how could you oblige them both/all and not show favoritism.:B
As far as I can tell, we've pretty much answered the original question, but I'll let it go a little longer. Just keep it light, ok fellas?

God bless you all!!

Blademan
Sep 1st 2008, 02:42 AM
How do I come to this conclusion? I asked you earlier if God tempts us. The answer is no as you well know. You see, BM, your theology is based on a sinful nature.

So, if I may, are you saying that God was catering to the sinful nature to give men plural wives? I'm hammering this over and over because you appear to be repeatedly overlooking the very actions of the Creator Himself. Intent or no intent, His actions completely defy almost all socially engineered theologies our our modern and historic culture, even with respect to marriage.


You can't accept that God intended things to be the way they were in the Garden of Eden, because after all, man fell and here we are today. What you are arguing is that God intended for man to fall and thus God is capable of tempting us because He did put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden. Are you sure you want to take this stance? Because the God I serve doesn't tempt us. He will test us, but He won't tempt us.

Again, this is non sequitur reasoning. That God knew Adam was going to fall has nothing to do with concluding that He therefore tempts anyone to evil.


Everything starts at the beginning. The beginning in this case is Genesis chapters 1 and 2 before the fall. So is that what you are arguing? That God intended for man to fall. That sounds like a cruel joke doesn't it? Would a loving Father do that?

That's the same question atheistic philosophers ask...the same ones Ravi Zacherias has debated. God created ALL, knowing full well it was going to fall. Why? Well, it all obviously leads to something far more glorious than all of creation itself. The God described within the pages of the scriptures isn't some blundering-about god with no idea as to where things are headed.

Glory to the Most High...:pray:

Blademan
Sep 1st 2008, 03:02 AM
What was the original question? Oh yeah....

Can you have more than one wife as a christian?

In the USA? No-against the law.

Incorrect.

It's only against the law to try and acquire a state certificate for more than one at a time.

God's definition of marriage had nothing to do with certificates from the state or any other entity.

Also, there is no law on the books of any state demanding that a couple must acquire a certificate for their marriage. It's only necessary if a couple desires governmental recognition of their marriage. If this were not true, then they would be arresting every couple living together without the certificate.


Biblically, I don't see anything that condemns the man who has more than one wife.

Good point. :thumbsup:


On the other hand, it's not recommended that you do that because of all the problems that you would face. I.E. Solomen and his women.

Uhhh.....what? Please pardon my asking, but could you explain how you arrived at this conclusion? Every marriage is different because we are all different.


Plus, can you have enough love(equal) for more than one wife?

There are those who have...


For example, if you had more than one wife, and they both/all wanted to be intimate, how could you oblige them both/all and not show favoritism.:B

Well, if they were both nymphomaniacs, then the man may have a busy evening. But, you know what, people can always work things out. What you or I may preceive to be a problem may never be a reality at any point in most people's lives. :eek:

baxpack7
Sep 1st 2008, 03:07 AM
Dude-are you a lawyer or something?
Listen,
Isn't polygamy against the law here in the US? Isn't that what the Utahans have been arguing about for a while now?

baxpack7
Sep 1st 2008, 03:20 AM
I used the example of Solomon's women because of their differences of worship and culture and the problems that it presented with his rule over God's people. It eventually led to the demise of the kingdom. In that same way, because of our differences as people, the chances that you'll be able to find 2 women(let alone more than that) who could agree on everything without compromising the integrity of the household(or more importantly, the man's salvation) are miniscule at best. Raising children in that household(or more than one household) would be traumatic to the kids, which I believe was the biblical basis for having more than one wife,was it not?:hmm:

sprky777
Sep 1st 2008, 03:43 AM
Just as in monogamous marriages, there are problems that can occur in polygynous marriages. There are few people that can live peacefully with more than one wife and few women that can get along with other wives in the same household.

I have met quite a few polygynous women. Sadly, I have also met a few that did not get along with their 'sister wives' and ended up leaving. Just as with monogamous marriages, it is good to get to know as much about a person as practical before committing to marriage.

From what I have learned from these poly families, children thrive in such an environment.

Your previous point about dividing the love? In a poly marriage, the love is multiplied, not divided. When a mother has a child, she loves it completely yet still also loves her husband. When this mother has a second child, her love is not half for each but compounded again. The same applies to adding a wife, just more love for everyone! :)

dljc
Sep 1st 2008, 04:26 AM
So, if I may, are you saying that God was catering to the sinful nature to give men plural wives? I'm hammering this over and over because you appear to be repeatedly overlooking the very actions of the Creator Himself. Intent or no intent, His actions completely defy almost all socially engineered theologies our our modern and historic culture, even with respect to marriage.



Again, this is non sequitur reasoning. That God knew Adam was going to fall has nothing to do with concluding that He therefore tempts anyone to evil.



That's the same question atheistic philosophers ask...the same ones Ravi Zacherias has debated. God created ALL, knowing full well it was going to fall. Why? Well, it all obviously leads to something far more glorious than all of creation itself. The God described within the pages of the scriptures isn't some blundering-about god with no idea as to where things are headed.

Glory to the Most High...:pray:BM,


Explain to me why God would go back on His Word here:

Deut: 17:
15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

16 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.

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

David was a king right? And so was Solomon.

1 Kings 11:

1 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites:

2 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.

3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.

Revinius
Sep 1st 2008, 01:55 PM
Polygamy is a sin if only because it is taking women your single mates could marry...

Blademan
Sep 1st 2008, 01:56 PM
Dude-are you a lawyer or something?

No, but I know many who are. Many of them thought the same thing you did, until they went and searched state and federal statues, and not one of them could find such a law. Please don't be upset about being wrong. I've been wrong about a great man things in my life as well. We all have. For eample, you're also wrong about my name...it isn't "Dude". :D

Now, what I WILL say is that we can BOTH agree that LEGAL RECOGNITION of polygyny is not permitted in each state based upon their laws, meaning that a man is not allowed to legally acquire a certificate for more wife than one wife at a time.

Additionally, SERIALIZED polygyny and polyandry are both allowed in each state with people divorcing and remarrying. The implications of this are atwo-fold:

1) There are many people who have a certificate for marriage, but are not truly married in the eyes of God in accordance with His definition in Genesis 2

2) There are many people who have been granted a bill of divorcement, have legally remarried, and are still married to their first spouse in the eyes of God. That's seems to be the natual outflow from scripture that is easily demonstrated.

Given that our nation is slowly headed toward legal recognition of homosexual unions (partnerships, or whatever), it would seem that true Christians should now begin to give less credence to our legalized system of law that has for far to long allowed women to legally kill their unborn children.


Listen, Isn't polygamy against the law here in the US?

No. For example, if you listen to the news carefully, they got people like Warren Jeffs on counts of child rape, not for having plural wives. Can you think of one man who has ever been arrested for having more than one wife...one who didn't try to get a certificate for more than one at a time?


Isn't that what the Utahans have been arguing about for a while now?

The debate there is about the rights of the girls when taken as a wife then they were under the age of 16. I agree that there was, and is, some really dirty stuff going on in those cults over there. Little girls being given to their dirty old uncles, etc., that's wrong. That's an example of extremes.

baxpack7
Sep 1st 2008, 01:59 PM
Gentleman

I believe that this horse has been dead for a while now from all the beatings. Therefore I am closing this thread down. This is nothing personal to any of the posters. In fact it was quite a lively discussion, but the question was asked-and answered(many times) a while back and this thread has run its course.

Feel free to start another thread on pertinent subjects. Maybe in another area perhaps?

I pray that you all have a God-blessed day!!!