Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 1 Kings 11:3 He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 1 Kings 11:3 He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away [from God]. |
Subject: Does God endorse polygamy? |
Bible Note: You wrote: "Quite simply, your questions in this most resent post to me are not worthy of an answer when you conduct yourself in such an ungodly manner" Is this the example of godliness I should follow? Here is a selection from your own posts. "I can reasonably take to task any who add meaning into key verses that clearly is not there." [Still waiting for that task-taking...] "Having been well schooled in philosophy, and therefore knowing how to lay out the facts and rationally paint a picture by what is given, it is quite shocking at times to behold the irrational meanderings we see at times by those who defend a position purely from the basis of emotion rather than logic, reason and fact." [Are my meanderings irrational and based in emotion?] "So you see, it comes as no surprise to me that men and women will both consider the threat of peer pressure to be more than they are willing to handle if ALL of God's word is allowed to be the final authority in relation to their beliefs that they reflect outwardly." [My biblical points are nothing but caving in to peer pressure?] '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.' [So I am not discerning?] "You can overlook the obvious, but then that is all you would be doing. You appear to be the only one in this discussion who has called this into question. Everyone else appears to be aware of this fact and are avoiding it because of its implications." [Who's avoiding, here?] "I could provide a rebuttal by saying that you are anti-intellectual, as Dr. Charles Stanley once addressed in a very interesting sermon, but then that would be a return sucker punch." [Nice job of "not insulting someone"] "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." [So people's disagreement with you is based in a severe lack of reasoning?] "I think this is a legitimate question that is being ignored by those who engage in nothing better than knee jerk, emotional reactionism. [So I am just a knee-jerk, emotional reactionary?] This is not a matter of tit-for-tat one-upmanship, this is about what I consider to be a legitimate question." [Apparently not legitimate enough to address my respose, which I have posted no less than three times in the past couple of days.] If only I had the same upstanding ethical posture that you have adopted in your debate! --Joe! |