Results 1 - 16 of 16
|
|
|||||
Results from: Notes On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Hugh McBryde Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Hugh McBryde | 175574 | ||
Steve, I was very clear. The man cannot commit adultery against his wife. This allows for the possibility that a man CAN commit adultery, but it's against God, and against the man to whom the woman is married. Matthew 19 suggests that he can commit it against a woman, but only if he has first divorced her. Adultery is always described as needing a married woman or a woman who was married. No situation that merely involves a female human being is described as adultery per se. There has to be a qualifier. She was married to a man still living, she is married to a man still living, or she is betrothed to a man still living. I hope I didn't leave anything out. Your quote for instance in Nubmers says "If any man's WIFE goes astray, and BREAKS FAITH WITH HIM." |
||||||
2 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Hugh McBryde | 175573 | ||
It doesn't say that, this is the quote. Ruth 4:6: "The closest relative said, "I cannot redeem it for myself, because I would jeopardize my own inheritance. Redeem it for yourself; you may have my right of redemption, for I cannot redeem it." Targum is an Aramaic explanatory translation or paraphrasing of the Hebrew Scriptures, namely it's commentary. I honestly don't care what Targum says as far as determining doctrine. Sola Scriptura. The man speaks of jeopardizing his inheritance. He was concerned for the possession of his children, or perhaps his own. We don't know what convoluted inheritance situation that Elimelech's seed would have produced, but the man clearly wanted to cut off that possibility. Boaz steps up. Now, do you want to tell me that Boaz reached mid life single and stayed that way or became single and didn't remedy the situation? He could have BOUGHT consorts, God clearly regulates that practice in Exodus 21. Before you speak, tell me where is "young men" of Boaz came from and his maidens? Hugh |
||||||
3 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Hugh McBryde | 175572 | ||
I dunno Mark, perhaps you should show me where it is that the had a concept of male marital fidelity being exclusive sexual fidelity to one wife, you can't. | ||||||
4 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Hugh McBryde | 175571 | ||
Yes, I do, it's clear that if you gain a large number of votes for a position being clear, it's clear. Jesus does not say that the Genesis account specifies one man and one woman for the purpose of upholding monogamy as the prefered form of marriage, Jesus makes the point in Matthew 19, that the thing that was NOT SO in the beginning, was marriages breaking up. He's making the point that Adam and Eve's bond was life long, not monogamous. |
||||||
5 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Hugh McBryde | 175570 | ||
Mark, Without words like ONLY, the uses of the singular is unremarkable. Many times for instance, one of David's wives is refered to in the singular as "his wife", it hardly means he doesn't have others. Similar statements are made about sons. God goes so far as to use "only" with reference to Jesus. Another such reference is made to a Judge's daughter, designating her his only child, and Uriah's wife is mentioned as his ONLY wife by Nathan the Prophet. Furthermore, I think I have pointed out that the Hebrew word for "wife" ('ishshah) is also the Hebrew word for wives. It is also translated elsewhere to mean "Marry" or even as the word for joining MULTLIPLE temple curtains together or describing the multiple loops for the temple curtains. I mentioned Lot because following your logic, of not adding on this narrow a level, where the whole thrust of the passage seems to go in one direction, yet you go another, that sex with your own children had not been prohibitted at the time of Lot. Lot is said to be righteous. Lot fathers sons through his own daughters, these nations go on to become neighbors to Israel right along with Edom (Esau). Since scripture does not mention this as wrong at that time, since Genesis 2:24 does NOT describe a monogamy of necessity, and since Adam COULD have taken a daughter of his own, just as Lot did, why do we suppose that he didn't? All I'm asking for his is a little honesty. I don't think Adam bedded one of his daughters, but I also don't think that Joash was given wives sequentially, because it doesn't say that. Joash would have procured, based on scriptural precident, his own wives after the first one (or in this case two) that were given to him. Hugh |
||||||
6 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Hugh McBryde | 175568 | ||
Mark, This is now becoming too circular. You rely on what you suppose was the meaning contained in Genesis to help define what Jesus is saying in Matthew, and they you look back to Genesis with the support of Jesus remarks, which you essentially created a meaning for by importing Genesis into Matthew. The proof is simple. FIRST God has Genesis written, and in it, he says that a man and woman become one flesh. You assume that "One Flesh" is monogamy, yet later God says in his law, using precisely the same word for wife that he does in Genesis, that a man can have two. Since you are "one flesh" with your wife, and since you can have two, YOU MUST BE ONE FLESH WITH BOTH. This completely and finally explodes any notion WHATSOEVER that the condition known as "One Flesh" contains any information about monogamy, other than the fact that people who are in a monogamy are "One Flesh". It also says clearly that people who are in a Polygyny are "One Flesh". Thus nothing about the condition which is said to exist between married persons necessarily implies monogamy. Next, the Bible does not tell us that Joseph DIDN'T have other wives, just as it doesn't tell us that one of Joash's wives DIED. Yet you wrangle it out of the passage so as to avoid the most obvious of meanings. Joash got his two wives nearly or exactly at the same time. Scriptural precident here. Arranged marriages were first marriages for men. We have the example of David deciding to take his other wives, though Michal was arranged for him. Abigail he merely acquired. NORMALLY, Joash would have taken his first wife by arrangement of others, the "wife of his youth", his second, had they not been arranged for him by others, on his own, yet it said that Joash arranged for both. This suggests not thinly, but strongly that they were given to him at the same time. You say that I am making assumptions where scripture says nothing in a context that nearly all would agree with me on, namely that the less likely meaning you suggest is the actual meaning, yet when I point out that no mention exists of Joseph NOT having other wives, that's obviously because he did not. I'm willing to look at it that way, but you reverse field on me in your treatment of Joash's situation, saying that concurrent language is not necessarily concurrent, therefore not concurrent, and that though no mention is made of a young man's first wife dying, and being replace, that must have been what happened. Hugh |
||||||
7 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Hugh McBryde | 175563 | ||
Steve, no, scripture defines adultery, not VINES. The use of a greek word that would be unisex in their culture to make a doctrine is a bit of a stretch. You suggest that all potential meanings or applications or a word were intended when the author used it. This defies imagination. For instance, the english word "Cleave" can mean to "stick to", or to "cut apart". It would take a philology expert on C.S. Lewis's level to explain why that is, and perhaps he could not. When scripture says Cleave do you think it meant to "take your war axe and split the helm of your enemy"? All the definitions of adultery are contained in the Old Testament. The use of a greek word that COULD mean the "sexual infidelity of a man with regard to his wife", a concept that DIDN'T EXIST in the Hebrew Language or culture does not a doctrine make. Hugh |
||||||
8 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Hugh McBryde | 175561 | ||
Of Course. | ||||||
9 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Hugh McBryde | 175560 | ||
Mark, It's rather strong proof, since you rely on the entirely unsupported notion that ANY person in Israel or Judah looked upon Polygyny with anything that amounted to a jaundiced eye. There is in fact no support for that notion. It was a normal practice. You suppose an entity that we do not know exists, a person that was an advocate for a practice that there wasn't even a word for in the Hebrew tongue. You further suppose that a wife died, when no mention is made of this, and that instead of phrasing it "Jehoiada gave a wife to Joash, and she died, so he gave her another" the writer uses language normally supposed to be concurrent and says he gave her two wives, but instead we have to torture the passage to see it that way. This sort of lawyering is what the Gays do to wrangle a permission for homosexual behavior and "marriage". A thin slice of ambiguity here, another there, and it all amounts to a mandate in your eyes. You have yet to answer how it is that Genesis 2:24 amounted to a monogamy mandate in the first place, in light of my analysis. I'd like you to do that, since it is where you gain your predisposition in examining all other scripture. Believe me, I understand that if Genesis 2:24 does contain a monogamy mandate, you are better founded in your position about Joash. If it does not, you're ratinoalizing. I get it. If only monogamy is righteous and Genesis declares that, then it is logical to presume that Jehoiada gave two wives to Joash in sequence, but since there is no such mandate in Genesis, I would see your treatment of the passage as wrangling. Hugh |
||||||
10 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Hugh McBryde | 175555 | ||
No, adultery is not defined as someone other than your spouse. No I cannot produce references for this, since I cannot prove the negative. Please provide YOUR source for such an assertion. As far as your other question goes, it's somewhat off topic. Neither of us want to get into a war over what the other does that isn't prohibited by scripture, that we do. I don't think you know exactly where that line is drawn, nor do I. Polygyny is a bit different, there are numerous examples of it's continuing and rather "in your face" practice, and this is accompanied by ZERO condemnation. This is entirely unlike the LORD not saying anything about meth use, or flying on an airplane. The best reply I can give along those lines is that Intoxication is frowned on, and taking man made transportation never is. Hugh |
||||||
11 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Hugh McBryde | 175553 | ||
Steve, no, a woman is not permitted to divorce her husband. The only legitimate cause that a divorce can be obtaind for is sexual sin. Since a man cannot commit adultery against his wife, because he may be married to several women at once, a woman is deprived of the only reason for divorce, thus she may not. Please read the above carefully, I have stated that a man cannot commit adultery against his wife. If he divorces her, she is not his wife, this addresses Matthew 19. I have also not said that a man cannot commit adultery. He can, it's just not against his wife. Hugh |
||||||
12 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Hugh McBryde | 175551 | ||
Again, I am giving the LOGICAL consequence of the belief that requiremens for the office of elder amount to a prohibition of Polygyny. The reasoning behind such an argument is that the things required of an elder are all ideals and an example for all of us. Thus to be an elder you must be monogamous, that is something that is best and ideal. To be an elder you must also be a man, that is also ideal then, and to be a woman is less than that? I think it is only safe to conclude that if an elder must be monogamous, then an elder must be monogamous. As compared to Joash, David is a bit different. The passage regarding Joash narrowly frames the activities and participants. It says in sequence that Jehoiada, who MUST be considered an expert and a courageous man for the faith, GAVE HIM TWO WIVES. It then goes on to say that during Jehoiada's lifetime, Joash did RIGHT. This is so narrow and so specific that it leaves no room. Joash has two wives by the action of JEHOIADA, and during that man's lifetime, Joash is said to do RIGHT, there is in fact no record of sin that Joash commits during that time other than those of the High Places, recorded here, 2nd Kings 12:3: "Only the high places were not taken away; the people still sacrificed and burned incense on the high places." Hugh |
||||||
13 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Hugh McBryde | 175550 | ||
Hank, Swordman007 has passed on. I guess since we were close friends you may consider me to be picking up his mantle so to speak. As far as agendas go you do not have one? Christians do not have agendas? If you discover and error in teaching should it not be your agenda to inveigh against that error? Why would God have brought it to your attention if it was to merely be silent about it? Words like "Hobby Horse" are condescending and personal in a way that this forums posting rules, which we are reminded of each time we post, discourage. In the study of God's word, do you suppose yourself to be my instructor? Have you learned all correct doctrine and we come here to have it Socraticly coaxed out of us so that we can see your wisdom and perfect understanding of the scriptures? My remarks about Jesus and Joseph are illustrations of the logical consequence of Mark's narrow legalistic interpretation of Joash being given two wives by Jehoiada. To be that legalistic means that we cannot conclude anything about virtually any man's marital state unless it contains phrases like "Joseph during his life married only one woman, who was Mary the mother of Jesus, he had her and no other, coming together with her only after Jesus was born." Do you require of Scripture such exacting and legalistic language? That is what Mark did and I illustrated it with a few natural consequences of such thinking. Please don't encourage me to see you in such a low way by making me think you believe I advocated for such views. They are the rediculous conclusions of someone elses position, not mine. Hugh |
||||||
14 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Hugh McBryde | 175546 | ||
Certainly a simple mention of an activity is not an endorsement of it Searcher. This is a bit different. Polygyny dates from at least the time of Lamech and continues to this very day even among Christians. Not one negative word is spoken despite it's widespread practice. All supposed negative mentions are in fact against excess, such as Kings gaining "many" wives as some translations say in Deuteronomy 17:17, or against obtaining foreign wives. Not one negative thing is said about merely a plural number of them. Ever. Even the restriction of an Elder to one wife is not a slap againts Polygyny, or if it is, you consequently have a negative view of women, merely for being women. Hugh |
||||||
15 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Hugh McBryde | 175530 | ||
... | ||||||
16 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Hugh McBryde | 175524 | ||
I think you're grasping. There is no reason to suppose that these two wives were given sequentially. But if you're going to argue this line of reasoning, then it's fair to say that none of the persons you may suppose to be monogamous in Scripture can be said to be monogamous, unless it is specificly stated that they were. The verbage would have to be "Adam took only Eve for a wife all his days and had no relations with any of his offspring such as righteous Lot did." One cannot now suppose that Joseph, husband of Mary was monogamous, all claims that Jesus was never married must be swept aside as baseless. Many of the Kings of Israel and Judah had marriages to wives that coincided with one another. It would be more likely that it would say, "Joash took two wives from Jehoiada the Priest, one died and to comfort him, Jehoiada found him another, and thus Joash was comforted." The whole structure of the passage nearly rules out any possibility that these were consecutive wives, they were simoultaneous. | ||||||