Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 68441 | ||
Thank you, Steve, for your comments. I think that if you read Mark 10:4-5, you will see that Jesus clearly identified the fact that it was Moses who allowed for divorce, not the Lord Himself. God took no credit for allowing divorce. However, the Lord made no mention of his displeasure with a man having more than one wife. As for God's Law making governing provision for a man to have more than one wife, all you have to do is look up Ex. 21:10. Also, sir, I did not emphatically state that Adam had more than one wife. Please read my statements for what they say. I said that Adam MAY have had more than one wife. I CLEARLY stated that we cannot know for sure one way or the other. There is no integrity in twisting my words into what they clearly did not say. I do not have the reference before me of where the Lord declared Judah and Israel to be His wives in the midst of their being a split nation, but that is beside the point. God still utilized langauge that clearly portrayed a plurality of wives in reference to His own posession of these two distinct nations (tribes or whatever you want to call them). Whether they were physically split or not, the Hebrew language itself still carries great meaning in this regard. There is no less integrity in pointing this out than there is Adam's having been given one wife. We still see that the Lord had given king David several of his already plural wives. This clearly indicates that the Lord is not so set against a plurality of wives as many people would like to think. I would agree that a plruality of wives is certainly not for all men. I just wanted to make that clear before moving on. The argument of Adam having been given one wife as a sign of God's perfect will for ALL mankind to have only one wife is just as much a "red herring" as the power and the garden argument. You have simply caught on to the direction of my arguement. I was making that very point in reference to Adam's having been given only one wife. "So what?" is a general overview of what I was trying to say in all that. I only wish others would be as discerning as you have been. Read my other posting in reference to the Lexicons and "mia". As for singular or plural, the Hebrew and Greek languages are not always so specific as the English language in this regard. Many times the plurality or the singularity of a word is left to the mercy of the bias of the translators. Standing solely upon the English translation of "wife" versus "wives" is generally an exercise in futility where the original languages are concerned. My two Th.D. friends knew this, so they knew better than to rest their case upon this very weakness. Thanks Steve. Don |
||||||
2 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | srbaegon | 68483 | ||
Hello Don The appeal to Mark 10 is faulty. The Pharisees equated Moses with the totality of the Mosaic Law. The Lord was just using a shortcut method to ask what the Law stated. Exodus 21:10 is stating that if the slave girl is promised to a son, but the son chooses to marry another, the slave girl must not lose the maintenance amount she was receiving. In the Hebrew culture one betrothed was considered as good as married, so that marrying another would be "taking another wife." I know you were not emphatically stating Adam had multiple wives. However, your promotiion of uncertainty and doubt in raising the issue shows your intent is not to clarify the matter but muddy it until your position seems plausible. Let's work with the clear and plain testimony of Scripture. Steve |
||||||
3 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 68644 | ||
I do not recall trying to stand upon that section of scripture. I addressed it because someone else was standing upon it and adding what is not there. As for Ex. 21:10, more can be gleaned from this verse than merely the issue of the slave girl. Do you not suppose that if the Lord were opposed to a man having more than one wife that He would make no such provisions for the slave girl? Why make any provisions for ANYONE if He were opposed to a man taking a second wife at all? There would be no need to protect the slave girl's well-being if the danger of the sone taking a second wife were not allowed. As to Adam's possibly having more than one wife, my intent was not to muddy the issue, but rather to demonstrate that the attempt to draw absolutes from the lack of solid information within the text is credulous at best. When people point to Adam's having been given "only one wife" as "absolute proof" that God intended it to be this way for all mankind, we are left the idea that we can draw other equally credulous conclusions that have nothing to do with the text in question. The Lord made no mention of what Adam was given was to be a model for all mankind. Such a conclusion is being drawn out of thin air. So, one is left with following the rules of reasoning of these people in order to TRY and show them the severe lack in their reasoning. Most of the time the attempt is futile when you find yourself basically arguing with people who are arguing simply for the sake of argument. Thanks for your message, Steve. Don |
||||||
4 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Reformer Joe | 68651 | ||
'When people point to Adam's having been given "only one wife" as "absolute proof" that God intended it to be this way for all mankind, we are left the idea that we can draw other equally credulous conclusions that have nothing to do with the text in question. The Lord made no mention of what Adam was given was to be a model for all mankind. Such a conclusion is being drawn out of thin air.' How many times is Genesis 2:23 quoted elsewhere in the Bible? Who quotes it, and in what contexts? Is it given as an instructive example, a normative principle, in those instances or not? Thin air? That seems to be where my posts are disappearing before they reach your computer screen, because you haven't addressed a single one of my points yet. I would think that some might be starting to doubt whether it is I who suffers from a "severe lack in reasoning" here... I have one other major objection to your position, but I will wait for your responses to any of my others before "burdening" you any further. --Joe! |
||||||
5 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | One | 68706 | ||
Let me say this I don't know why God does all things, Job once started questioning God as to why He did things a Job was call into account. So please do not put me in a position to explain why God does things! I will offer a few observations. 1. If we use this verse (1 Kings 11:3) to condone polygamy then couldn’t we use it to condone having concubines? I don’t think any of us would argue that point. Do we? 2. The fact that God allowed things He didn’t approve of in the OT is plain, look at 1 Sam 8:5 and1 Sam 10:19. GOD never wanted a king, yet he gave them one. To say that God approved of it is to say God wanted them to reject Him and that makes no sense. Now you might say, God doesn’t change.” and I would say your correct. However did God allow a king because He had changed or His people had changed? So why would God do this, I don’t always know the answer to that. I do know He does give His people over to do wrong. Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 3. If God approved of everything in the OT then what is the purpose of Acts 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent…” 4. Yes I do believe Adams on wife was used as an example of monogamy look what Jesus said, Matt 19:5 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." Paul says the same thing. Note both say the two shall become one flesh not the 700. |
||||||