Scripturally, what's wrong with polygamy?

swordman · Oct 5, 2003

Debi said:
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.

This is getting very strange. How did a pair of panties get into all this? :scratch:

Don

water_ripple · Oct 6, 2003

I am not a greek scholar in the least but from the translations of mia presented in this thread it seems that it means one or by inferal "first". One means one. It only means first if a person is counting or keeping record. The number one represents singular. Not an infinite state of being. To infer means to imply or possibly suggest. What follows implication...the burden of proof. An exacting task indeed like weaving a spider web. Difficult it is to not become ensnared by one's own weave. It is a sticky job, but what is the goal of the spider? To capture insects who are obliviously passing through. The spider does not do this out of evil goals, but rather obliviously to the plight of the insect.

Debi · Oct 6, 2003

swordman said:
This is getting very strange. How did a pair of panties get into all this?
Don

lighten up Don,

It is just an expression for loosen up.

Debi

Apollo Rhetor · Oct 6, 2003

I don't think he's wound up tight, Debi

Debi · Oct 6, 2003

water_ripple said:
I am not a greek scholar in the least but from the translations of mia presented in this thread it seems that it means one or by inferal "first". One means one. It only means first if a person is counting or keeping record. The number one represents singular. Not an infinite state of being. To infer means to imply or possibly suggest. What follows implication...the burden of proof. An exacting task indeed like weaving a spider web. Difficult it is to not become ensnared by one's own weave. It is a sticky job, but what is the goal of the spider? To capture insects who are obliviously passing through. The spider does not do this out of evil goals, but rather obliviously to the plight of the insect.

I agree that "one" means "one" and not "first". Paul was not counting wives he was making a statement as to how many wives.

Apollo Rhetor · Oct 6, 2003

Going back to my question earlier Debi, when I asked why you thought the statement "husband of one wife" was put there.

Do you think that was put there specifically to stop polygyny? That that's why Paul wrote it, as a prohibition of polygyny?

Or do you think it was put there for another reason - perhaps more pointing out that a man should be married, or saying that he shouldn't be divorced?

When you read that, is the only thing you think "no polygynous husbands", or do you think that was put there for other/another reason(s)?

Debi · Oct 6, 2003

tyreth said:
Going back to my question earlier Debi, when I asked why you thought the statement "husband of one wife" was put there.

Do you think that was put there specifically to stop polygyny? That that's why Paul wrote it, as a prohibition of polygyny?

Or do you think it was put there for another reason - perhaps more pointing out that a man should be married, or saying that he shouldn't be divorced?

When you read that, is the only thing you think "no polygynous husbands", or do you think that was put there for other/another reason(s)?

Don,

I am mixed up in my quotes?!!1

You stated " you cannot disregard one of our arguments saying it is man's logic and continue to use logic to explain......that is contridictory and irrational" Yes, I can disregard it because I don't apply logic to the written word because I am not in the habit of question what God has set before me.

Have I made myself clearer?

Yet, you continue to use logic to validate your arguement. Logic is being used anytime you do not accept the statements as they are written? Is that not correct.

Can you explain this?

My point is this, Paul states " husband of one wife" using logic is the questions you pose to me......ie, why do you think Paul used the statement?

Does this sound like logic to you?

What I think? I think Paul was just continuing what God ordained in the beginning, one man one woman.

He did not state "first" wife, it says one wife. If I apply first to the statement, I change the content of the message.

I have notice this, Don, That you do not answer my questions and instead send more question to me. Why is that? And when I ask you to comment on my questions, you want me to give you the questions again. Is it asking to much for you to re-read what was written and answer my question?

You also use a lot of sarcasim in responding, Why is that?

Apollo Rhetor · Oct 6, 2003

Debi said:
Don,

I am mixed up in my quotes?!!1

Yep. You'd quote one post and the reply belonged to a different one.

But not just that, but this is the second time I recall that you have called me Don, when in fact I am Tyreth

Unimportant details, just a mixup of names and messages.

Debi said:
You stated " you cannot disregard one of our arguments saying it is man's logic and continue to use logic to explain......that is contridictory and irrational" Yes, I can disregard it because I don't apply logic to the written word because I am not in the habit of question what God has set before me.

You're missing the point. You say "Yes, I can disregard it because I don't apply logic to the written word because..." - yet this is a logical statement. You are using logic to discard logic! That's...illogical, paradoxical, and nonsensical.

If I asked you why you are not in the habit of questioning what God has set before you, you would then proceed to give me a number of (in your eyes) logical arguments to explain that position.

Anyway, I shouldn't have brought this up, it's a finicky detail, and not at all profitable to our discussion.

My point is this, Paul states " husband of one wife" using logic is the questions you pose to me......ie, why do you think Paul used the statement?

Does this sound like logic to you?

I am completely confused by what you just said here, so I can't answer your question.

What I think? I think Paul was just continuing what God ordained in the beginning, one man one woman.

He did not state "first" wife, it says one wife. If I apply first to the statement, I change the content of the message.

This is the question I'm trying to have you answer. Did Paul write "husband of one wife" to stop polygyny? If so, why didn't he mention that "Elders shall not be sodomists" or "Elders shall not be homosexual", or any number of other sins? Why did he mention that they should not be polygynists among the many other sins he condemned? Why is this the only verse in the whole of the New Testament that condemns polygyny?
I'll tell you what I think - I don't think Paul wrote that about polygyny at all. I believe he wrote that verse to say that a man should be married - not that it was required, but a good thing. Because a married man is older, often wiser and more mature. I think it was also prohibiting divorced men from these leadership positions. I think that Paul's verse had nothing to do with polygyny because it makes no sense. It doesn't fit with the history of the church, with the rest of the Bible, with anything. It's just one lonely reference, and it's not even certain it's against polygyny. If I was to declare tomorrow that polygyny was a vile sin, I would still say that this verse "husband of one wife" was not written about polygyny. And I believe that's saying something. I have corrected others using bad arguments for polygyny, I don't need to grasp at straws.

I have notice this, Don, That you do not answer my questions and instead send more question to me. Why is that? And when I ask you to comment on my questions, you want me to give you the questions again. Is it asking to much for you to re-read what was written and answer my question?

Just a reminder that I am not Don. To answer your question, asking more questions is an excellent method of debate, because it forces a person to give reason for their position, and help them to understand. Sometimes asking a question in response to a question can give a much more profound answer in a way that the person can understand.

You also use a lot of sarcasim in responding, Why is that?

Who does, me or Don?

Debi · Oct 6, 2003

tyreth said:
Yep. You'd quote one post and the reply belonged to a different one.

But not just that, but this is the second time I recall that you have called me Don, when in fact I am Tyreth Unimportant details, just a mixup of names and messages.

You're missing the point. You say "Yes, I can disregard it because I don't apply logic to the written word because..." - yet this is a logical statement. You are using logic to discard logic! That's...illogical, paradoxical, and nonsensical.

If I asked you why you are not in the habit of questioning what God has set before you, you would then proceed to give me a number of (in your eyes) logical arguments to explain that position.

Anyway, I shouldn't have brought this up, it's a finicky detail, and not at all profitable to our discussion.

I am completely confused by what you just said here, so I can't answer your question.

This is the question I'm trying to have you answer. Did Paul write "husband of one wife" to stop polygyny? If so, why didn't he mention that "Elders shall not be sodomists" or "Elders shall not be homosexual", or any number of other sins? Why did he mention that they should not be polygynists among the many other sins he condemned? Why is this the only verse in the whole of the New Testament that condemns polygyny?
I'll tell you what I think - I don't think Paul wrote that about polygyny at all. I believe he wrote that verse to say that a man should be married - not that it was required, but a good thing. Because a married man is older, often wiser and more mature. I think it was also prohibiting divorced men from these leadership positions. I think that Paul's verse had nothing to do with polygyny because it makes no sense. It doesn't fit with the history of the church, with the rest of the Bible, with anything. It's just one lonely reference, and it's not even certain it's against polygyny. If I was to declare tomorrow that polygyny was a vile sin, I would still say that this verse "husband of one wife" was not written about polygyny. And I believe that's saying something. I have corrected others using bad arguments for polygyny, I don't need to grasp at straws.

Just a reminder that I am not Don. To answer your question, asking more questions is an excellent method of debate, because it forces a person to give reason for their position, and help them to understand. Sometimes asking a question in response to a question can give a much more profound answer in a way that the person can understand.

Who does, me or Don?

I think you and Don both are trying to confuse me.

Debi · Oct 6, 2003

tyreth said:
Yep. You'd quote one post and the reply belonged to a different one.

But not just that, but this is the second time I recall that you have called me Don, when in fact I am Tyreth Unimportant details, just a mixup of names and messages.

You're missing the point. You say "Yes, I can disregard it because I don't apply logic to the written word because..." - yet this is a logical statement. You are using logic to discard logic! That's...illogical, paradoxical, and nonsensical.

If I asked you why you are not in the habit of questioning what God has set before you, you would then proceed to give me a number of (in your eyes) logical arguments to explain that position.

Anyway, I shouldn't have brought this up, it's a finicky detail, and not at all profitable to our discussion.

I am completely confused by what you just said here, so I can't answer your question.

This is the question I'm trying to have you answer. Did Paul write "husband of one wife" to stop polygyny? If so, why didn't he mention that "Elders shall not be sodomists" or "Elders shall not be homosexual", or any number of other sins? Why did he mention that they should not be polygynists among the many other sins he condemned? Why is this the only verse in the whole of the New Testament that condemns polygyny?
I'll tell you what I think - I don't think Paul wrote that about polygyny at all. I believe he wrote that verse to say that a man should be married - not that it was required, but a good thing. Because a married man is older, often wiser and more mature. I think it was also prohibiting divorced men from these leadership positions. I think that Paul's verse had nothing to do with polygyny because it makes no sense. It doesn't fit with the history of the church, with the rest of the Bible, with anything. It's just one lonely reference, and it's not even certain it's against polygyny. If I was to declare tomorrow that polygyny was a vile sin, I would still say that this verse "husband of one wife" was not written about polygyny. And I believe that's saying something. I have corrected others using bad arguments for polygyny, I don't need to grasp at straws.

Just a reminder that I am not Don. To answer your question, asking more questions is an excellent method of debate, because it forces a person to give reason for their position, and help them to understand. Sometimes asking a question in response to a question can give a much more profound answer in a way that the person can understand.

Who does, me or Don?

Did Paul write "husband of one wife" to stop polygyny? If so, why didn't he mention that "Elders shall not be sodomists" or "Elders shall not be homosexual", or any number of other sins? Why did he mention that they should not be polygynists among the many other sins he condemned? Why is this the only verse in the whole of the New Testament that condemns polygyny?

Why should he have to repeat Sodomy or homosexuality when the issue was addressed before? Now, I must ask, are you stating that Sodomy and homosexuality is ok for deacons and pastors because Paul did not address it?

I would still say that this verse "husband of one wife" was not written about polygyny. And I believe that's saying something. I have corrected others using bad arguments for polygyny, I don't need to grasp at straws.

Just as I believe those that support polygamy are grasping at straws to say that is is not against God. They have no proof that Moses or Abraham had more than one wife a time. In scripture, when the men had more than one wife at a time, ie, Solomen and David.

You're missing the point. You say "Yes, I can disregard it because I don't apply logic to the written word because..." - yet this is a logical statement. You are using logic to discard logic! That's...illogical, paradoxical, and nonsensical.
And why is that, because I do not seek out the reasoning behind what Paul means by the statement......I take it at face value?

Should I also use logic (reason out) why God selected Paul to deliver the gospel to the gentile when the written word clearly states He was a chosen vessel, to bear my name before the Gentiles, Great things he will suffer for the name of Jesus?

Or, should I apply logic to why God choose to open salvation to the Gentiles when scripture clearly states the purpose God has done so?

God has made it clear, once again, His purpose is one man one woman.

I'll tell you what I think - I don't think Paul wrote that about polygyny at all. I believe he wrote that verse to say that a man should be married - not that it was required, but a good thing. Because a married man is older, often wiser and more mature. I think it was also prohibiting divorced men from these leadership positions. I think that Paul's verse had nothing to do with polygyny because it makes no sense.

I think Paul was just stating that man should have one wife. I know many people agree that divorced men should not hold the office of Pastor, I can't say that I totally agree with that. I really have not focused on that issue.

Apollo Rhetor · Oct 6, 2003

Why do you say Abraham didn't have two wives? Sarah his wife gave him her maid who he went in to, and had the child Ishmael by her. Genesis 16:3. My translation says, "...and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife"

As for Moses, it seems to me more likely than not that he had two wives at the same time, but the Scriptures are not 100% clear either way. There is mention of an Ethiopian (iirc) woman, but it is uncertain whether he married this woman after his existing wife died, or while she was still alive.

Regarding logic, I don't think it's worth continuing, not fruitful to our discussion.

And as for the "husband of one wife" Scripture, I'm afraid you miss a key point. All those sermons you hear preached at church, all those books you read, even the commentaries at the bottom of your Bible - they all understand most of the Scriptures based on history and context. The Scriptures need to be looked at also on the basis of the time they were written, and in light of each other. And as a result, there's just no way possible that the section "husband of one wife" was written as a condemnation of polygyny specificically. It must have been put there to say something else - and I've already explained what - that a husband should be married. Did you know that that verse can be translated from the greek as "husband of a wife" just as easily? And if we translate it that way, then it's not specifying number of wives, but rather that the man should be married. And this I do not see as a compulsory requirement (for that would exclude Paul), but rather a recommendation.

I'm open to correction, but unless you can prove to me that Paul had reason in the early church to restrict elders and other leaders from polygyny, but write not a single word on it elsewhere, then there's no way your understanding can be correct.

This link has more information:
http://home.sprynet.com/~jbwwhite/HEIS_MIA.html

water_ripple · Oct 6, 2003

tyreth said:
Why do you say Abraham didn't have two wives? Sarah his wife gave him her maid who he went in to, and had the child Ishmael by her. Genesis 16:3. My translation says, "...and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife"

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Sarah barren? And what did God say to His children? Go forth and multiply..If Sarah was barren and could not give birth then what is the alternative? People still do surragacy if they cannot have children...It is used for the purpose of procreation, not as a reward for the man. (A child is a blessing not a reward..We are not deserving of Christ, but God has blessed us with Him.) If Sarah was barren, and another had not borne Ishmael the bloodline of Christ would've been wiped out. This was a purpose of God, not a purpose of men. It was a purpose of God, and not a reward.

tyreth said:
As for Moses, it seems to me more likely than not that he had two wives at the same time, but the Scriptures are not 100% clear either way. There is mention of an Ethiopian (iirc) woman, but it is uncertain whether he married this woman after his existing wife died, or while she was still alive.

Well if the scripture is not clear on wether or not Moses practiced polygmy this should not be used in the discussion as a "for" or "against".

tyreth said:
And as for the "husband of one wife" Scripture, I'm afraid you miss a key point. All those sermons you hear preached at church, all those books you read, even the commentaries at the bottom of your Bible - they all understand most of the Scriptures based on history and context. The Scriptures need to be looked at also on the basis of the time they were written, and in light of each other. And as a result, there's just no way possible that the section "husband of one wife" was written as a condemnation of polygyny specificically.

The greek word mia means one or can be further interpereted into first. Husband of one wife would mean the same as husband of first wife. It does not go on to say husband of second wife, etc.

tyreth said:
Regarding logic, I don't think it's worth continuing, not fruitful to our discussion.

...

tyreth said:
It must have been put there to say something else - and I've already explained what - that a husband should be married.

tyreth said:
Did you know that that verse can be translated from the greek as "husband of a wife" just as easily? And if we translate it that way, then it's not specifying number of wives, but rather that the man should be married.

Is the greek word that is used mia? That would not mean husband of a wife. It doesn't make sense. If it was to mean a husband of a wife it would have just said husband..

tyreth said:
I'm open to correction, but unless you can prove to me that Paul had reason in the early church to restrict elders and other leaders from polygyny, but write not a single word on it elsewhere, then there's no way your understanding can be correct.

Like I said I am not a greek scholar but if the word mia is used husband of a wife does not make sense or fit the translation.

Apollo Rhetor · Oct 6, 2003

hmm, a few of your quote tags are messed up there.

I'm not sure what you are saying about Abraham - that because Sarah was barren he was allowed to take a second wife without sinning? Either polygyny is sinful or it isn't. Btw, the children of Israel came from Abraham's son Isaac, who was born to Sarah (later made fertile by God) after Ishmael was born.

I personally don't use Moses as an argument for the reasons I stated.

Like I said I am not a greek scholar but if the word mia is used husband of a wife does not make sense or fit the translation.

Why doesn't it make sense? "husband of a wife" is simply recommending that the leader be married - which to me makes infinitely more sense given the Scriptural and historical background. Not as a definite requirement, but something that is seen as a good thing.

Fiat · Oct 7, 2003

tyreth said:
I'm not sure what you are saying about Abraham - that because Sarah was barren he was allowed to take a second wife without sinning? Either polygyny is sinful or it isn't. Btw, the children of Israel came from Abraham's son Isaac, who was born to Sarah (later made fertile by God) after Ishmael was born.

[/size][/color][/font]

I thought you were looking for scripture in the NT?

As far as Sarah and Abraham, I don't believe it was a polygyny relationship, but a relationship that was consumated because of distrust in the Lord. Abraham did not love Sarah's maidservant, but used her as a way to fulfill God's word. Sad when we try on our own to make things happen that God has promised, eh?

Debi · Oct 7, 2003

tyreth said:
Why do you say Abraham didn't have two wives? Sarah his wife gave him her maid who he went in to, and had the child Ishmael by her. Genesis 16:3. My translation says, "...and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife"

As for Moses, it seems to me more likely than not that he had two wives at the same time, but the Scriptures are not 100% clear either way. There is mention of an Ethiopian (iirc) woman, but it is uncertain whether he married this woman after his existing wife died, or while she was still alive.

Regarding logic, I don't think it's worth continuing, not fruitful to our discussion.

And as for the "husband of one wife" Scripture, I'm afraid you miss a key point. All those sermons you hear preached at church, all those books you read, even the commentaries at the bottom of your Bible - they all understand most of the Scriptures based on history and context. The Scriptures need to be looked at also on the basis of the time they were written, and in light of each other. And as a result, there's just no way possible that the section "husband of one wife" was written as a condemnation of polygyny specificically. It must have been put there to say something else - and I've already explained what - that a husband should be married. Did you know that that verse can be translated from the greek as "husband of a wife" just as easily? And if we translate it that way, then it's not specifying number of wives, but rather that the man should be married. And this I do not see as a compulsory requirement (for that would exclude Paul), but rather a recommendation.

I'm open to correction, but unless you can prove to me that Paul had reason in the early church to restrict elders and other leaders from polygyny, but write not a single word on it elsewhere, then there's no way your understanding can be correct.

This link has more information:
http://home.sprynet.com/~jbwwhite/HEIS_MIA.html

Why do you say Abraham didn't have two wives? Sarah his wife gave him her maid who he went in to, and had the child Ishmael by her. Genesis 16:3. My translation says, "...and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife" I also understand this caused great bitterness and regrate in Sarah after she gave the maiden to Abraham and had her sent away. Is that a marriage that was ordained for the handmaiden? Yes, I am also aware that God told her that he would make Ishmal a nation, but that nation is in opposition of God today. This does not appear to be an ordiantion for polygamy, it is, however a direct indication of how polygamy is damaging to the marriage.

All those sermons you hear preached at church, all those books you read, even the commentaries at the bottom of your Bible - they all understand most of the Scriptures based on history and context. This is presumptionous that my idea of scriptural marriages comes from teaches of spiritual leaders. My understanding comes from scriptures only. Actually, I don't think I have ever heard a pastor or minister teach that marriage is for one man and one woman.

Did you know that that verse can be translated from the greek as "husband of a wife" just as easily?

Yes, I am aware of this also. But that is not the translation of the scripture.

Debi · Oct 7, 2003

Debi said:
Did Paul write "husband of one wife" to stop polygyny? If so, why didn't he mention that "Elders shall not be sodomists" or "Elders shall not be homosexual", or any number of other sins? Why did he mention that they should not be polygynists among the many other sins he condemned? Why is this the only verse in the whole of the New Testament that condemns polygyny?

Why should he have to repeat Sodomy or homosexuality when the issue was addressed before? Now, I must ask, are you stating that Sodomy and homosexuality is ok for deacons and pastors because Paul did not address it?

I would still say that this verse "husband of one wife" was not written about polygyny. And I believe that's saying something. I have corrected others using bad arguments for polygyny, I don't need to grasp at straws.

Just as I believe those that support polygamy are grasping at straws to say that is is not against God. They have no proof that Moses or Abraham had more than one wife a time. In scripture, when the men had more than one wife at a time, ie, Solomen and David.

You're missing the point. You say "Yes, I can disregard it because I don't apply logic to the written word because..." - yet this is a logical statement. You are using logic to discard logic! That's...illogical, paradoxical, and nonsensical.
And why is that, because I do not seek out the reasoning behind what Paul means by the statement......I take it at face value?

Should I also use logic (reason out) why God selected Paul to deliver the gospel to the gentile when the written word clearly states He was a chosen vessel, to bear my name before the Gentiles, Great things he will suffer for the name of Jesus?

Or, should I apply logic to why God choose to open salvation to the Gentiles when scripture clearly states the purpose God has done so?

God has made it clear, once again, His purpose is one man one woman.

I'll tell you what I think - I don't think Paul wrote that about polygyny at all. I believe he wrote that verse to say that a man should be married - not that it was required, but a good thing. Because a married man is older, often wiser and more mature. I think it was also prohibiting divorced men from these leadership positions. I think that Paul's verse had nothing to do with polygyny because it makes no sense.

I think Paul was just stating that man should have one wife. I know many people agree that divorced men should not hold the office of Pastor, I can't say that I totally agree with that. I really have not focused on that issue.

Tyreth,

Can you tell me why Paul did not address these issues since you possed the question to me? I did answer, didn't I?

Did Paul write "husband of one wife" to stop polygyny? If so, why didn't he mention that "Elders shall not be sodomists" or "Elders shall not be homosexual", or any number of other sins? Why did he mention that they should not be polygynists among the many other sins he condemned? Why is this the only verse in the whole of the New Testament that condemns polygyny?

Why should he have to repeat Sodomy or homosexuality when the issue was addressed before? Now, I must ask, are you stating that Sodomy and homosexuality is ok for deacons and pastors because Paul did not address it?

Apollo Rhetor · Oct 7, 2003

Debi said:
This does not appear to be an ordiantion for polygamy, it is, however a direct indication of how polygamy is damaging to the marriage.

Following this reasoning we should then declare monogamy as damaging to marriage, and the most destructive of institutions. After all, the very first recorded monogamous relationship in the Bible resulted in the curse of the entire human race. Abraham's polygyny resulted in only two nations warring, yet Adam's monogamous relationship resulted in the curse we all live under.

Or we could say that the problems that come from some polygynous relationships are not the result of polygyny, but rather fallen nature - and that polygyny can be both good and bad, just like anything else in this world.

Did you know that that verse can be translated from the greek as "husband of a wife" just as easily?

Yes, I am aware of this also. But that is not the translation of the scripture.

Heheh, that's not a reasonable statement. A translation is exactly what it says - a translation

ie, an interpretation and adaptation of the original into a new language. Now in this case, the phrase "husband of one wife" can be translated as "husband of a wife", because the original greek - the very words that Paul wrote - can mean the latter.
Now are you telling me that our translations are perfect and inspired? They all disagree with each other - so which one do you consider to be the perfect one?

In regard to your other question about sodomy, etc, it's simply not important. The question at hand is whether Paul thought to himself "Leaders of the church should not have more than one wife, so I will put that down as forbidden", or if he said something like "Leaders of the church need wisdom and discipline, so I'll recommend that they be married". The latter makes far more sense in so many ways. Think about it - the only argument against polygyny in the entire Bible is this statement "husband of one wife", and even that is subject to different translations. That's an incredibly shaky ground for any doctrine. Therefore, I think it far more prudent to consider Paul to have written it as "husband of a wife", since it makes greater sense in so many ways - and it actually fits in with the rest of scripture.

Debi · Oct 7, 2003

tyreth said:
Following this reasoning we should then declare monogamy as damaging to marriage, and the most destructive of institutions. After all, the very first recorded monogamous relationship in the Bible resulted in the curse of the entire human race. Abraham's polygyny resulted in only two nations warring, yet Adam's monogamous relationship resulted in the curse we all live under.

More speculation instead of seeing that polygamy was not the ordained relationship that God began. Now, you want to make an excuse as to why God accepts polygamy?...... Because Adam and Eve cursed the entire human race?

However, I have noticed that your statements are not what God has ordained or said......... but Polygamist or those that support polygamy [ polygamist ] use in their explaination, examples, validations the terms, "we should" If "we use" then "We should declare" etc............. Perfectly obvious that the entire subject and polygamy is a self absorbed practice to satisfy self and not God.

Polygamy has become the God and the gospel instead of Jesus and salvation. Why is that?
Or we could say that the problems that come from some polygynous relationships are not the result of polygyny, but rather fallen nature - and that polygyny can be both good and bad, just like anything else in this world.

Heheh, that's not a reasonable statement. A translation is exactly what it says - a translation ie, an interpretation and adaptation of the original into a new language. Now in this case, the phrase "husband of one wife" can be translated as "husband of a wife", because the original greek - the very words that Paul wrote - can mean the latter.
Now are you telling me that our translations are perfect and inspired? They all disagree with each other - so which one do you consider to be the perfect one?

I see if is perfectly fine for you to ask me questions, yet when I address the question and ask you about the same question, then it is not valide to the vein of conversation, or important.

In regard to your other question about sodomy, etc, it's simply not important. The question at hand is whether Paul thought to himself "Leaders of the church should not have more than one wife, so I will put that down as forbidden", or if he said something like "Leaders of the church need wisdom and discipline, so I'll recommend that they be married". The latter makes far more sense in so many ways. Think about it - the only argument against polygyny in the entire Bible is this statement "husband of one wife", and even that is subject to different translations. That's an incredibly shaky ground for any doctrine. Therefore, I think it far more prudent to consider Paul to have written it as "husband of a wife", since it makes greater sense in so many ways - and it actually fits in with the rest of scripture.

What this all amounts to that Polygamist, in order to justify polygamy use a lot of "what if" situation....ie, what if this word was used instead of the other word.
You have practice so much as to what Paul "should" have stated that you leave much room to speculate "what" he was saying. Therefore, once again changing the entire content of the scriptures to validate what you want to adhere too. And I am sure you see nothing wrong with this.

You, as others that believe in Polygamy have been taught well.

And what is most absurd is that polygamist further try to validate their stance to say that God, Himself is a polygamist. Do you not understand that God's ways and thoughts are higher than yours, you only know in part?

Now, God has been reduced to the eqvialent of human...........

Apollo Rhetor · Oct 7, 2003

And you, Debi, have failed to tell me whether the translations are perfect or not. Either answer will condemn your stance - that because it's translated this way it's the way we must accept it.

Look at Psalm 8:5, "For You have made him a iittle lower than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and honor."
The word "angels" in our translations is incorrect. The original word was "Elohim" in hebrew, which was the name for God. Angels were known as the sons of God, or in Hebrew, bni elohim. Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

My Bible subnotes tell me that this is translated as 'angels' because of Jewish tradition, and that the word literally means 'God'. So the verse says that we were made a little lower than God, not a little lower than angels. Translations are not perfect, and here is a key: when making a translation, one must occasionally interpret as well. So those who make the translation decide what they think the original said - and being humans they make mistakes. So I can't understand why you imagine that the translation is above reproof.

I'm sorry if/when I've ignored your questions that you offer in response to our question.

You make a lot of effort to give the impression that the polygynyist position is "grasping for straws". The plain fact is that God's example, the example of the most pious men in history, and God's ancient laws allowed and encouraged polygyny. In the new testament there was not a single condemnation or change in that form of marriage. So we are not at all grasping for arguments. The weight of evidence is quite easily on our side - it is your duty to demonstrate that the new covenant caused polygyny to pass away in the same manner as divorce. And the only Scripture you can offer is the dubious one of "husband of one wife".

Don't you think that's an incredibly weak foundation for a teaching?

imasharp · Oct 7, 2003

I don't have any biblical verses to go for or against polygamy. I will however be very honest. I can tell you now that I am NOT a jealous person. My husband would tell you that. I will say that, I probably would get that way, if he had more than one wife. I can imagine having a terrific day or a horrible day and not sharing it with him. That would make me nuts. The bible does say Be angry and sin not. I tell you now that I don't think I could make that promise. My husband and I try to be one. We have discussed being one and really worked toward this. There is now room for anyone else. So, I am saying in all honesty that I could see it being a huge problem for me. I also think that most women would agree.
Christy

Scripturally, what's wrong with polygamy?

Seasoned Warrior

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Senior Member

Active Member

Senior Member

Active Member

Senior Member

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Let It Be Done

Active Member

Active Member

Senior Member

Active Member

Senior Member

I've got the POWER!!!

Similar threads