Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
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 | Searcher56 | 175534 | ||
God's day to you, Hugh McBryde,and welcome to the SBF, Just because God doesn't say something against what someone does or doesn't do mean He endorses it. There is no one who ocmpletely right in the sight of the LORD, except Jesus. The kings were did what was right or sinned ... it was there general character. Searcher |
||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||
3 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | Searcher56 | 175547 | ||
Hugh, you presume incorrectly that I have have a negative view of women, merely for being women. I do not. That wasn't my point ... please reread what I said. David was a man after God's own heart (1 Sam 13:14), yet he sinned, as you know, including having more than one wife. David walked, in integrity of heart and uprightness (1 Kin 9:4). David's general character was good, tho he had faults. S |
||||||
4 | 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 |
||||||
5 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | mark d seyler | 175556 | ||
Hugh, Since the passage regarding Joash does not state that his wives were simultaneous, this passage cannot be used to prove that God condones polygamy. Jehoiada could have just as easily given Joash 1 wife first, then the next after she died. If you have to assume one or the other, it does not prove your point. Mark |
||||||
6 | 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 |
||||||
7 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | mark d seyler | 175564 | ||
Hugh, I am not basing my arguments on what people thought. People think all kinds of strange things. Many people were polygamists, and even today, there are many who want to define marraige in all sorts of ways. Its only important what the Bible specifically says. So then you agree that if Genesis 2:24 declares marraige to be between one man and one woman, then Joash could not have been polygamist and have been declared to be right. Jesus when quoting Genesis is clearly using singular word forms - man, woman, the two become one - this seems pretty clear to me. Throughout Scripture, it is this view that is supported, not polygamy. I am somewhat flabbergasted that you are comparing me to a homosexual trying to make Scripture support homosexuality. I hope this is not an example of what we can expect from you in the future! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||