Scripturally, what's wrong with polygamy?

Status
Not open for further replies.

water_ripple

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2003
1,254
18
45
Visit site
✟1,561.00
Faith
Christian
TLGitom said:
Matthew 23:29-32
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

P44 you explained your position very well and these "scribes" "Pharisees" are the one with issues if they can not endure sound doctrine. They have their place as the above scripture shows them to their doom.
Thank you very much for your insights P44.
swordman said:
This is true as a possibility, but it is not the rule. Most men are not capable of loving two or more wives equally, so it is true that for most men it would be a disaster. I can agree with that.
I cannot speak for the OP, but the following can be ascertained...
I never made the judgement that most men are not capable of having numerous wives. I said we ALL fall short of perfection.



quot-top-left.gif
Quote:
quot-top-right.gif
quot-top-right-10.gif
A house that is divided cannot stand, and since we all fall short of perfection....human nature gets in the way.
quot-bot-left.gif
quot-bot-right.gif




swordman said:
I agree that dor most men to take another wife would be an exercise in dividing his house, but a subsaequent wife in the life of a man who has the moral and mental character to handle such a family is not creating a divided house. I know this not from personal experience, but from the word of God and from those who DO have experience in this area.
No where did I say most men are not capable of having multiple wives.
 
Upvote 0

swordman

Seasoned Warrior
Jul 20, 2003
69
0
Wichita
Visit site
✟179.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Palatka44 sent me a private message informing me that I am of Satan since I refuse to go along with our socially engineered monogamy-only theology. Well, I am certainly thankful that we have the means to declare openly that which is spoken in the dark. I have nothing to hide. I speak openly of my concerns about many "traditional" interpretations that simply are not consistent with the rules of exegesis and other disciplines of determining intent, meaning, historical context, lingual and grammatical context, etc. I sometimes run across individuals who simply cannot and will not remain civil in these exchanges, therefore taking offense at the drop of a hat simply because they are not able to defend their weak position. Knee jerk reactionism is simply not an acceptable apologetic for any position.

However, in conformity to the spirit of the Terms of Use for this site, I publically apologize to palatak44 if I ever offended him, for it was never my intent to do so. However, I refuse to budge on an issue I have researched quite extensively unless I am shown a stable foundation of appologetics to the contrary, or that better clarifies what I have found. Palatka44 did not convince me of anything but his gift for angry flare-ups. If he considers me to be an instrument of Satan because I believe the word of God for what it says, then so be it. I take that in stride, considering the source.

Generally speaking, I have been called worse, and being accused falsely is nothing new. I have run across many unbelievers on the InterNET posing as Christians, but who are really themselves instruments of Satan. We have all suffered various injustices in our lives, and such things only reflect the fact that we live in a fallen world, surrounded by wolves in sheep's clothing.

May the Lord bless you one and all, who, of course, are truly of Christ.

Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

Dr. Don Dean
 
Upvote 0

water_ripple

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2003
1,254
18
45
Visit site
✟1,561.00
Faith
Christian
Just b/c one is a polygamist does not mean they are from Satan. If this were the case David himself would be of Satan. Flaming is not allowed here even if it is in private. Accusing others of not being Christian is not allowed either. I can understand the anger over this issuse, but we are not to sin in our anger. And passing judgement on others is not what God wants. Please we need to unify not to divide ourselves with anger and accusations. A house that is divided cannot stand. Who were Christ's disciples? a zealot, a tax collector, a doubter, etc. All were different, but for the sake of Christ they did not go around accusing each other of monstrosities. The transgresson of Judas; however, was clearly open to all even himself. Who were the friends of Christ? Publicans and sinners. God says that all of us fall short. Monogamy and polygmy both have their problems. I have issues with polygmy b/c since we all are not even close to the Holiness and perfection of God that polygmy (while it is possible to work) is almost impossible b/c someone ends up getting ignored or hurt. Happens in monogamus relationships as well, but with more people in the fray the more complicated it gets. The wants of the flesh are so strong that lusting after another is almost impossible, and if a married man is seeking another his attention is divided between his wife and the other woman. Of course some monogamus men (and women) lust just the same. Perhaps if we lived in a perfect world everyone would practice polygmy, but infact we do not and the real desires of those who are seeking another always come from attraction first. Happens even when monogamus people decide to date one another. The intrest is based on attraction, and not on pity. I bet if a wife knew that her husband married her out of pity that she would resent that or worse.
 
Upvote 0

Apollo Rhetor

Senior Member
Apr 19, 2003
704
19
✟15,952.00
Faith
Protestant
water_ripple, many/most of those who who think polygyny is Scriptural do not believe that most should practice it. I personally believe it should only ever be practiced by a minority.

As you say, we are all imperfect, but I don't believe that precludes everyone from practicing polygyny. As swordman said, he knows of people who practice it, and it is working very well for them. So it's not a matter of conjecture whether it can work, but fact.

Of course, at the same time, there are many examples of polygyny out there that are filled with abuse and sadness, and those are precisely the marriages that one would not want to imitate - they show the baser parts of our nature.
 
Upvote 0

Debi

Active Member
Jul 16, 2003
76
1
Visit site
✟201.00
Did Paul not judge the Corinthian church because they were christians accept sin as the normal. I see that David is used often as God's consent to polygamy. The purpose for David was higher than his marriage arrangements. Are you not missing the entire context of the story and using what is convince for your cause instead of looking at the purpose for David. We should learn from his mistakes not adhere to what he did against God. Whatever the purpose God allowed it for that time is over, the new testatment states one wife and in the beginning God ordained one wife one husband. Why is that over looked?

Debi
 
Upvote 0

swordman

Seasoned Warrior
Jul 20, 2003
69
0
Wichita
Visit site
✟179.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Hello, Debi.

Debi said:
Did Paul not judge the Corinthian church because they were christians accept sin as the normal.
Yes, he did. However, unless one can show that a plurality of wives is now a sin when it was not sin from the beginning, then this example simply is not relevant to this discussion, so far as I can see.

I see that David is used often as God's consent to polygamy. The purpose for David was higher than his marriage arrangements. Are you not missing the entire context of the story and using what is convince for your cause instead of looking at the purpose for David. We should learn from his mistakes not adhere to what he did against God.
Well, Debi, in most respects I would agree with you. However, there is more to this small portion of David's life that most people seem to almost always conveniently overlook, and that is the fact that it is God who gave to David at least two of his already plural wives long before he set eyes upon Bathsheba. That is not the action of a Lord who considers a plurality of wives to be sin, or even remotely against His will.

Whatever the purpose God allowed it for that time is over, the new testatment states one wife and in the beginning God ordained one wife one husband. Why is that over looked?

Oh, we have not overlooked it. You can believe me when I say that I have researched this from cover to cover. What is also interesting is your own point that you made here. God never "allowed," winked at, provided for, turned His head away from, or even remotely sanctioned sexual/marital sin of any kind in anyone's life. To say that He did is to believe in a god of one's own making rather than the One portrayed within the pages of God's word, which I am sure you are not trying to do. I am simply trying to caution against even dancing around the edges of this departure from Biblical integrity.

Now, if you have a verse in the New Testament in mind as to all men now allegedly being limited to one wife, then please provide a reference. That way we can better understand what section of scripture to which you are referring.

Thanks, Debi, for your thoughtful input.

Dr. Don Dean
 
Upvote 0

Debi

Active Member
Jul 16, 2003
76
1
Visit site
✟201.00
Don the scriptures have been given before......many times. Polygamist choose to twist the scriptures and say that "man" decided to use "mia" in the verse as one instead of first. I believe "mia" is also used when Jesus was praying and the transfiguration of Moses and Elisa appeared and Peter stated " let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias...... Why do you not use first in this verse? Then the argument of course is that in Tim when "one" wife is stated it can mean "first" wife OR that pastors or deacons are limited to "one" wife. The argument has no foundational ground. God made them man and woman and joined the two. Even the argument that the translators wanted society to have monogamist marriages and monagomist marriages give control to women and God made man the head of the household has no validity because "MAN" translated the bible and what man would limited themselves to one wife if given the choose to put it in scripture that ALL men could have plural wives.

The entire polygamy doctrine is lust of the flesh and eyes and putting man on some type of pedestal along with their ego.

You can believe whatever doctrine you choose, you will have to answer to God for teaching error to others.
 
Upvote 0

water_ripple

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2003
1,254
18
45
Visit site
✟1,561.00
Faith
Christian
tyreth said:
water_ripple, many/most of those who who think polygyny is Scriptural do not believe that most should practice it. I personally believe it should only ever be practiced by a minority.
Y not? Is not every person the child of God. And Y should the minority that practices such be given special privelages (sp?). God is not a respector of persons ya know. Who would be deemed good enough for the job of having many wives? How could a person measure themselves to their level of possible fufillment as opposed to God? How could one person who is only human and limited fufill all of those women's needs? How could he not divide his attention from one wife to another? How could he give equal attention to all of his children without dividing his attention? How is a married man who is seeking another avoiding lust? Intrest always stems from attraction at some level.
tyreth said:
As you say, we are all imperfect, but I don't believe that precludes everyone from practicing polygyny. As swordman said, he knows of people who practice it, and it is working very well for them. So it's not a matter of conjecture whether it can work, but fact.
The line between fact and fiction is always blurry. Some fictional tales sound so real that the can be presented as fact. Taking into account human nature, the desire of the flesh, and the fact that we all fall short of perfection polygmy could end up being played out as russian roulette (in the spiritual sense) b/c of the intergration of so many different people. Please do not take offense at my words. My point is that everybody's heart is different.
tyreth said:
Of course, at the same time, there are many examples of polygyny out there that are filled with abuse and sadness, and those are precisely the marriages that one would not want to imitate - they show the baser parts of our nature.
Yeah I know just as monogamus relationships can when sin rears it's ugly head, but with more people involved it can end up even nastier. More adults...more children...more family...like shock waves.
 
Upvote 0

swordman

Seasoned Warrior
Jul 20, 2003
69
0
Wichita
Visit site
✟179.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Debi said:
Don the scriptures have been given before......many times. Polygamist choose to twist the scriptures and say that "man" decided to use "mia" in the verse as one instead of first.

Debi, I am not sure why you brought this up because I do not recall making mention of this. I am not a polygamist. I simply know some men who have a plurality of wives, and none of them twist anything in the scriptures so far as I am aware.

I believe "mia" is also used when Jesus was praying and the transfiguration of Moses and Elisa appeared and Peter stated " let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias...... Why do you not use first in this verse? Then the argument of course is that in Tim when "one" wife is stated it can mean "first" wife OR that pastors or deacons are limited to "one" wife. The argument has no foundational ground.

Well, since you do seem to want to go there, I will say that the Greek word "mia" can and is translated as either "one" or "first" in different places throughout the New Testament. The passages in 1 Timothy and in Titus that speak specifically of elders, overseers and deacons can be translated either way. To place "first wife" in those verses rather than "one wife" does not create any grammatical difficulties, because those verses where "mia" is translated as "first" have the exact same grammatical construct within the Greek as the passages in 1 Timothy and Titus. Now, if we are dogmatic and choose to stick strictly to the "one" rendering of "mia" in 1 Timothy and Titus, we then create another problem. If elders, overseers and deacons must be the husband of one wife, then Paul in those passages disqualifies himself, and all other single men, from leadership since he was no longer married so far as we know. You better then go and tell all those roman catholic priests that they are in violation of God's word for not having a wife.

As much as you may try to squirm out from under this, you will never escape the implications. There are "church" organizations that have taken this seriously and will not allow any single man to be their "pastor" because of those three verses. I realize that commentators have applied some really slick sounding reasons as to why one cannot take Paul's words in that way, but then they are only being slick rather than accepting the clarity of Paul's words for what they say.

God made them man and woman and joined the two. Even the argument that the translators wanted society to have monogamist marriages and monagomist marriages give control to women and God made man the head of the household has no validity because "MAN" translated the bible and what man would limited themselves to one wife if given the choose to put it in scripture that ALL men could have plural wives.

Please excuse my saying this, but the grammar in the above paragraph is so jumbled that it is not easy to undertand. :confused: I will however, take a stab at it: I for one have never tried to make a case that the translators had any underlying conspiracy to elevate women above men or to force monogamy-only thinking onto any society. I would say that those who use such reasoning have a weak case indeed. Conspiracies are short-lived and almost impossible to detect, so how anyone could assume that they have discovered a conspiracy of this magnitude, and that it was successful, stretches the limits of credibility.

Also, I have never believed that all men can have plural wives. The population ratios throughout history have never made such a phenomenon a possibility. The average ratio of men to women around the world, to the best of our knowledge, has remained fairly stable at 1.1/1, women to men. What that means is that only one out of every ten men could possibly have two wives if all other men were married. So you see, just in practical terms alone, it would be impossible for all ment to have more than one wife at any time in the known history of this world. Did God intend for all men to have more than one wife? Obviously not. The few who did/do are the exceptioon, not the rule.

The entire polygamy doctrine is lust of the flesh and eyes and putting man on some type of pedestal along with their ego.

Now you are dabbling in a viewpoint that "rabbid, foaming at the mouth" feminism espouses, which is not at all a balanced viewpoint. This ignores the fact that God gave David two of his already plural wives. Is God now guilty of being a player in the alleged sin of lust for having given David more than one wife? You are stepping over the line and standing as an accuser of the Lord of Glory.

You can believe whatever doctrine you choose, you will have to answer to God for teaching error to others.

Well, at least be more specific as to what verses you are talking about if you have anything of substance to back your accusations. Otherwise, they are nothing but a reflection of an angry, mean-spirited, vindictive woman with an agenda of tearing others down on the grounds of heresay. Your attitude does not foster a desire for an atmosphere of understanding. If feministic theology is all that you are going to stand upon rather than to recognize the clear language of the scriptures, then we will get nowhere. If I am in error, then at least be a woman of integrity rather than demonstrating yourself to be just another malcontent who knows no better than to spew venom and flame at those who happen to disagree with her.

Dr. Don Dean
 
Upvote 0

sojeru

just a Jew
Mar 22, 2003
870
21
41
USA
Visit site
✟1,145.00
Faith
Judaism
Hi ALL, we do see the original pattern in scripture as that a man had only one wife.

Truth is, i'd rather stay like this- with one wife- YET SCRIPTURE ITSELF does not speak for or against Polygamy.

However, The Talmud (commentary of Rabbis from before the 1st century to medieval days comprising of mishna and gemara) Does say that a man is to only have one wife- so talmud speaks against polygamy.

But again, nothing of scripture states that it is for or against it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Debi

Active Member
Jul 16, 2003
76
1
Visit site
✟201.00
swordman said:
Debi, I am not sure why you brought this up because I do not recall making mention of this. I am not a polygamist. I simply know some men who have a plurality of wives, and none of them twist anything in the scriptures so far as I am aware.



Well, since you do seem to want to go there, I will say that the Greek word "mia" can and is translated as either "one" or "first" in different places throughout the New Testament. The passages in 1 Timothy and in Titus that speak specifically of elders, overseers and deacons can be translated either way. To place "first wife" in those verses rather than "one wife" does not create any grammatical difficulties, because those verses where "mia" is translated as "first" have the exact same grammatical construct within the Greek as the passages in 1 Timothy and Titus. Now, if we are dogmatic and choose to stick strictly to the "one" rendering of "mia" in 1 Timothy and Titus, we then create another problem. If elders, overseers and deacons must be the husband of one wife, then Paul in those passages disqualifies himself, and all other single men, from leadership since he was no longer married so far as we know. You better then go and tell all those roman catholic priests that they are in violation of God's word for not having a wife.

As much as you may try to squirm out from under this, you will never escape the implications. There are "church" organizations that have taken this seriously and will not allow any single man to be their "pastor" because of those three verses. I realize that commentators have applied some really slick sounding reasons as to why one cannot take Paul's words in that way, but then they are only being slick rather than accepting the clarity of Paul's words for what they say.



Please excuse my saying this, but the grammar in the above paragraph is so jumbled that it is not easy to undertand. :confused: I will however, take a stab at it: I for one have never tried to make a case that the translators had any underlying conspiracy to elevate women above men or to force monogamy-only thinking onto any society. I would say that those who use such reasoning have a weak case indeed. Conspiracies are short-lived and almost impossible to detect, so how anyone could assume that they have discovered a conspiracy of this magnitude, and that it was successful, stretches the limits of credibility.

Also, I have never believed that all men can have plural wives. The population ratios throughout history have never made such a phenomenon a possibility. The average ratio of men to women around the world, to the best of our knowledge, has remained fairly stable at 1.1/1, women to men. What that means is that only one out of every ten men could possibly have two wives if all other men were married. So you see, just in practical terms alone, it would be impossible for all ment to have more than one wife at any time in the known history of this world. Did God intend for all men to have more than one wife? Obviously not. The few who did/do are the exceptioon, not the rule.



Now you are dabbling in a viewpoint that "rabbid, foaming at the mouth" feminism espouses, which is not at all a balanced viewpoint. This ignores the fact that God gave David two of his already plural wives. Is God now guilty of being a player in the alleged sin of lust for having given David more than one wife? You are stepping over the line and standing as an accuser of the Lord of Glory.



Well, at least be more specific as to what verses you are talking about if you have anything of substance to back your accusations. Otherwise, they are nothing but a reflection of an angry, mean-spirited, vindictive woman with an agenda of tearing others down on the grounds of heresay. Your attitude does not foster a desire for an atmosphere of understanding. If feministic theology is all that you are going to stand upon rather than to recognize the clear language of the scriptures, then we will get nowhere. If I am in error, then at least be a woman of integrity rather than demonstrating yourself to be just another malcontent who knows no better than to spew venom and flame at those who happen to disagree with her.

Dr. Don Dean
Don,

Did I step on your toes, yet once again!!! I just mentioned the arguments that I have been given by polygamist. To simply chose the definition to use is changing the scriptures. Or do you not see it that way? apparently not, because you should to use whichever term you decide in translating the scripture. No, I am not a feminist. I chose to accept the translation that is given and not change the words to validate my personal opinion. furthermore, you did not address the other scripture I gave.


And I have also heard the argument about Paul "disqualifing" himself. That is using man's logic because Paul was appointed by God to give the gospel.......Are you now stating that God made a mistake with Paul and ( being led by the Spirit of God) was in error?
 
Upvote 0

Apollo Rhetor

Senior Member
Apr 19, 2003
704
19
✟15,952.00
Faith
Protestant
What exactly is "man's" logic?

Logic is not a temporal or liquid thing. It just is. You cannot disregard one of our arguments saying it is "man's" logic, and then continue to use logic to explain why. That is contradictory and irrational.

Debi, why do you think the words "husband of one wife" were put in the Scriptures? Were they put in there specifically to prohibit polygynists from leadership? Why are they there at all?
 
Upvote 0

Fiat

Let It Be Done
Sep 5, 2003
216
7
Visit site
✟397.00
Faith
Catholic
I do not know if this has been brought up previously in this thread as I did not have time to read the entire thread.

The Bible does not clearly indicate whether this is wrong or right, but IMHO, if God wanted man to have more than one wife, why didn't he create 2 or more Eve's as Adam's helpmate? Why did he give Adam 1 helpmate?
 
Upvote 0

Apollo Rhetor

Senior Member
Apr 19, 2003
704
19
✟15,952.00
Faith
Protestant
Fiat said:
I do not know if this has been brought up previously in this thread as I did not have time to read the entire thread.

The Bible does not clearly indicate whether this is wrong or right, but IMHO, if God wanted man to have more than one wife, why didn't he create 2 or more Eve's as Adam's helpmate? Why did he give Adam 1 helpmate?
I'm not sure if this answer will satisfy you, but the question you are asking doesn't really help us to solve the question of whether it's Scripturally acceptable or not. It is a question that can be answered in two or more ways, depending on what your view is.

For example, if you believe polygyny is sinful, then you will say that God gave Adam one wife to give us a template for all marriages.
If you believe that polygyny is acceptable, then you may say that this was so that all people could have descended from the same parents. It just seems more natural that the first two created humans are two only to me, for reasons I can't put my finger on. After them, it seems unimportant.
 
Upvote 0

Debi

Active Member
Jul 16, 2003
76
1
Visit site
✟201.00
tyreth said:
What exactly is "man's" logic?

Logic is not a temporal or liquid thing. It just is. You cannot disregard one of our arguments saying it is "man's" logic, and then continue to use logic to explain why. That is contradictory and irrational.

Debi, why do you think the words "husband of one wife" were put in the Scriptures? Were they put in there specifically to prohibit polygynists from leadership? Why are they there at all?
Don,

It is not for me to Ask God Why? It is for me to obey God's Written Word. You want to make it subject regarding polygamy, when it is clear that man should have ONE wife. Now, if you me to guess, here is, man was practicing polygamy against God's ordain for man's plan for man and woman and Paul was making it clear that God wants man to have ONE wife at a time, not more than one. Jesus even stated that if any man put away a wife for other reasons than sexual immorality and SHE marries another that man has made her an adulterer. not if she has sex with the man. The orginal definition that polygamist use for adultrey is if a married person has sexual relationship with another married person. In Jesus statement it is clear he states " If she "MARRIES" another.

That does not validate the word "adultery" as used in the old testament.

Don't get your panties ruffle, I am asking question regarding your statements on polygamy and how you claim it is valid.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Debi

Active Member
Jul 16, 2003
76
1
Visit site
✟201.00
Debi said:
Don,

It is not for me to Ask God Why? It is for me to obey God's Written Word. You want to make it subject regarding polygamy, when it is clear that man should have ONE wife. Now, if you me to guess, here is, man was practicing polygamy against God's ordain for man's plan for man and woman and Paul was making it clear that God wants man to have ONE wife at a time, not more than one. Jesus even stated that if any man put away a wife for other reasons than sexual immorality and SHE marries another that man has made her an adulterer. not if she has sex with the man. The orginal definition that polygamist use for adultrey is if a married person has sexual relationship with another married person. In Jesus statement it is clear he states " If she "MARRIES" another.

That does not validate the word "adultery" as used in the old testament.

Don't get your panties ruffle, I am asking question regarding your statements on polygamy and how you claim it is valid.
Why can I not use logic, polygamist use logic to validate their position. Logic= Why did God Allow Moses, David, Abraham to have more than one wife? Why did God not reprimand them for having more than one wife? Why did God give David more than one wife? Is this not logic?

reasoning an inference as valid?
 
Upvote 0

Apollo Rhetor

Senior Member
Apr 19, 2003
704
19
✟15,952.00
Faith
Protestant
Debi said:
Why can I not use logic, polygamist use logic to validate their position. Logic= Why did God Allow Moses, David, Abraham to have more than one wife? Why did God not reprimand them for having more than one wife? Why did God give David more than one wife? Is this not logic?

reasoning an inference as valid?
Debi, looks like you've mixed up your quotes a bit :)

Besides all that, I don't understand your response here. I didn't say you couldn't use logic...I'm confused about what you are saying.
 
Upvote 0

swordman

Seasoned Warrior
Jul 20, 2003
69
0
Wichita
Visit site
✟179.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Debi said:
Did I step on your toes, yet once again!!!
:) Let's see, how does that old saying go? Oh, yes, "Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back." No, Debi. I was simply trying to figure out where you were coming from. I could not figure out as to if you thought I would use such arguments, or if they come from somewhere else. Ease up. Since you like having fun, I will say that your head will explode if it gets much bigger. You obviously take great pride in your attempts at wit.

I just mentioned the arguments that I have been given by polygamist. To simply chose the definition to use is changing the scriptures.
Ok. I think I can agree with this, as long as it truly applies to what is being done.

you should to use whichever term you decide in translating the scripture.
Well, Debi, since you too are aparently a Greek scholar, perhaps you can demonstrate to me where I misapplied a term or definition.

No, I am not a feminist. I chose to accept the translation that is given and not change the words to validate my personal opinion.
I was simply addressing your flares of anger and spite. Besides, which translation are you talking about. They all disagree with one another in various places, so I am wondering which one you are talking about.

furthermore, you did not address the other scripture I gave.
You will have to remind me which verse you are talking about, because there have been several.

And I have also heard the argument about Paul "disqualifing" himself. That is using man's logic because Paul was appointed by God to give the gospel.......Are you now stating that God made a mistake with Paul and ( being led by the Spirit of God) was in error?
No. I said nothing of God making a mistake. What I said was that if mankind is going to stick with the idea that "mia" can only be translated as "one" in those verses, when in fact it can also be translated "first", well, that does create a problem. The Lord would not appoint Paul to serve a function within the Church that directly violates His own rules. Now, if you can show me where the Lord did such a thing, then I would be very appreciative.

Thanks

Dr. Don Dean
 
Upvote 0

Fiat

Let It Be Done
Sep 5, 2003
216
7
Visit site
✟397.00
Faith
Catholic
tyreth said:
I'm not sure if this answer will satisfy you, but the question you are asking doesn't really help us to solve the question of whether it's Scripturally acceptable or not. It is a question that can be answered in two or more ways, depending on what your view is.

For example, if you believe polygyny is sinful, then you will say that God gave Adam one wife to give us a template for all marriages.
.
Thank you Tyreth, that was exactly the point I was trying to get across. Tyreth, my apology to you and the other participants of this thread, I misread your initial post in which you asked specifically that NT scripture be based for responses. I guess in my haste to respond, I did not take the moment to look at what specifically you requested. *butting out now*:)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
tyreth said:
Debi, looks like you've mixed up your quotes a bit :)

Besides all that, I don't understand your response here. I didn't say you couldn't use logic...I'm confused about what you are saying.
I was responding to Don. :) You know Don, He likes to take his whip out and lash the little woman :)


Debi

BTW, Don I take no offense to what you say, I find it all quite humorous.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.