Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
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 | 69003 | ||
I have already addressed my quote from the commentary in another posting, so I will not repeat it here. I made no alterations to the text of the commentary except to leave out portions that were not relevant to the issue at hand. What is relevant to the ongoing discussion is that trying to utilize the "husband of one wife" comment as being anti-polygamy clearly is inconsistent with the Greek texts. Perhaps you have a corrupt copy of that commentary, or you did not read what those men had to say that I DID include in the quote. As to a woman having more than one husband, that is called polyandry, and yes, it is sin as defined by God's word. Anyone who is knowledgable of the Biblical definition of adultery knows that polyandry is is a direct violation of this definition. Going by today's relativistic redefinition of key words such as "adultery" does noting but introduce confusion. The Biblical definition of adultery strictly defines it as a man desiring and/or having sexual relations with another man's wife. If this were not the case, then we may as well expect to see Abraham, Jacod, Gideon, Moses, and numerous of the other patriarchs burning in the flames of Hell for having died as non-repentent polygamists. In Christ Jesus Don Dean |
||||||
2 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | retxar | 69030 | ||
You said: “Perhaps you have a corrupt copy of that commentary, or you did not read what those men had to say that I DID include in the quote.” No, I do not have a corrupt copy, I DID read ALL they had to say, without leaving parts out! I checked the post you referred me to concerning your address of the commentary mis-quotation I questioned. One thing you said was: “There are MANY more portions of that commentary that I could have quoted, but we are all limited to only 5000 characters in this forum.” I am re-posting exactly what you posted the 1st time, PLUS I added the part you conveniently left out. For the sake of putting to rest the debate over Titus and 2 Timothy's "husband of one wife" argument, I offer a commentary from three well respected scholars of the Hebrew and Greek languages. The threads of this question have begun to run far too deep to keep up with it all, so I will begin by addressing the "husband of one wife" issue in Titus. (The "all caps" is my emphasis rather than that of the authors.) This quote comes from a well respected commentary, Jamieson, Faussett, Brown Commentary: "husband of one wife -- confuting the celibacy of Rome's priesthood. Though the Jews practiced polygamy, yet as he is writing as to a Gentile Church, and as polygamy was never allowed among even laymen in the Church, (this is the part you conveniently left out) THE ANCIENT INTERPRETATION THAT THE PROHIBITION HERE IS AGAINST POLYGAMY IN A CANDIDATE BISHOP IS NOT CORRECT. It must, therefore, mean that, though LAYMEN MIGHT LAWFULLY MARRY AGAIN, candidates for the episcopate or presbytery were better to have been married only once. As in 1Ti 5:9, "wife of one man," IMPLIES A WOMAN MARRIED BUT ONCE; so "husband of one wife" here MUST MEAN THE SAME. The feeling which prevailed among the Gentiles, as well as the Jews (compare as to Anna, Lu 2:36,37), against a second marriage would, on the ground of expediency and conciliation in matters indifferent and not involving compromise of principle, account for Paul's prohibition here in the case of one in so prominent a sphere as a bishop or a deacon. Hence the STRESS THAT IS LAID IN THE CONTEXT on the repute in which the candidate for orders is held among those over whom he is to preside (Tit 1:16). The Council of Laodicea and the apostolic canons discountenanced second marriages, especially in the case of candidates for ordination. Of course second marriage being lawful, the undesirableness of it holds good only under special circumstances. It is implied here also, that he who has a wife and virtuous family, is to be PREFERRED TO A BACHELOR; for he who is himself bound to discharge the domestic duties mentioned here, is likely to be MORE ATTRACTIVE to those who have similar ties, for he teaches them not only by precept, but also BY EXAMPLE (1Ti 3:4,5). The Jews teach, a priest should be neither unmarried nor childless, lest he be unmerciful [BENGEL]. So in the synagogue, "no one shall offer up prayer in public, unless he be married" [in Colbo, ch. 65; VITRINGA, Synagogue and Temple]." [Emphasis mine] Guess what? Even with adding the part you left out and all I have said here, we are STILL under the 5000 word limit! Imagine that! retxar |
||||||
3 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Swordman007 | 69085 | ||
Nobody can refute you when you choose to engage in inuendo, assumption, and simply ignore ALL that I have said on this issue. What the commentators did NOT metion in the article is that "mia" is also the word for "first". 1520 heis (hice); (including the neuter (etc.) hen); a primary numeral; one: As you can see, Paul did not choose the Greek word "heis", which means STRICTLY "one" in a singular sense, which would THEN have made this an irrefutable disallownace for church leadership to have more than one wife! However, he did NOT use that Greek word in these two passages. KJV-- a (-n, -ny, certain), (plus) abundantly, man, one (another), only, other, some. See also 1527, 3367, 3391, 3762. His use of the Greek word "mia" in these two instances instances creates difficulty for the translators when trying to refrain from social bias. 3391 mia (mee'-ah); irregular feminine of 1520; one or FIRST: (Yes, the emphasis is mine.) KJV-- a (certain), (plus) agree, FIRST, one, X other. There is therefore GOOD reason to question the ABSOLUTE translation of "mia" (in these instances in question) as being ONLY "one" rather than POSSIBLY being "first". I have no problem with EITHER translation. The commentary I quoted from CLEARLY said "THE ANCIENT INTERPRETATION THAT THE PROHIBITION HERE IS AGAINST POLYGAMY IN A CANDIDATE BISHOP IS NOT CORRECT." This was only to point out that polygamy was not the issue in relation to church leadership. Now, you can conjure up all the idiotic snideness you want, but then you are only demonstrating your own lack of consideration for what others have said and for common courtesy. I already said that the threads are quite numerous here, so it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep up with it all, but that does not give you the right to conduct yourself in such a childish manner. If you want to talk to me like a man, then do so. If you feel the need to continue talking to me like some snot-nosed punk with no decent sensibilities toward others, then I have nothing more to say to you. Don |
||||||
4 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | retxar | 69115 | ||
Don First off, let me say I did not say or imply you were a “snot-nosed punk with no decent sensibilities toward others”. I spoke of what you did (deceptively mis-quoted JFB), not your character. I presented the reason for my accusation, not generalities or name calling. If you can refute that what you did was not dishonest with the intent to deceive and mislead, and that what you left out was not intentional because it was detrimental to the agenda you are attempting to push, we would all like to hear about it. If you chose to ignore what you did and consider deception OK, fine, but don’t expect anyone around here to really take what you have to say seriously, regardless of how many big name professors you have shut down with your vast array of knowledge. Forgive me if I have a major problem with this, but I’m not used to fellow Christians trying to deceive me and then have them brush it off as if nothing happened. Please deal with this in a responsible manner. You’re kidding no one but yourself. You said ‘The commentary I quoted from CLEARLY said "THE ANCIENT INTERPRETATION THAT THE PROHIBITION HERE IS AGAINST POLYGAMY IN A CANDIDATE BISHOP IS NOT CORRECT." And why did the commentary say that the “one wife” thing Paul was talking about was not talking about polygamy?? Because of the part you left out!! It is the statement just before the one you like to quote here. Let’s read it again: “and as polygamy was never allowed among even laymen in the Church”. The commentary said that Polygamy was not what Paul was talking about here because POLYGAMY WAS PROHIBITED FOR ALL, NOT JUST BISHOPS! If you won’t listen to anyone else, just listen to yourself, and take a serious look at how weak and dishonest your attempts are at trying to prove you point. What is your motivation for this? retxar |
||||||