Scripturally, what's wrong with polygamy?

[Debi]

Amen And Amen.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

What are the governing provisions? How can we ignore Jesus stating "in the beginning he made them male and female and for this cause they become one flesh" Not one flesh with each woman he wants to marry?

This is not the only imagery of marriage in the Bible. In fact there are other stories that indicate that one man can become one flesh with more than one woman. The most obvious example being that every one of us is a part of the bride of Christ. And this we know He likens to a polygamous marriage, because of the parable in Matthew 25:1-13.

This is not the only time that God likens His relationship to His people to be like polygamy. He does also in Ezekiel 23, having two wives.

For these reasons it seems clear to me that more than one woman can become one flesh with the same husband, as we all are able to become the bride of Christ. So I don't think these verses condemn polygamy at all.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

"But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! " 2 Timothy 3:1-5

Polygamy shows a lack of self-control. It turns marriage into an amusement, a way to gain sexual pleasure, and not a mechanism for pair-bonding the way God intended it to be.

He didn't create them man and woman and woman, or man and man and woman. He didn't make Adam two wives, just one. God set marriage up to be one man with one woman. If it wasn't so, he would have said so. But he only made ONE woman for the man.

Self-control is the ability to be satisfied with whatever is enough, and not selfishly take for yourself more. One wife is all that is needed to make a family. Two wives are not needed. Pick a good wife the first time and your won't have to lust after a second one.

This is a very unfair accusation. First of all, I agree with Augustine that polygamy should not be practiced to satisfy carnal lusts. One wife is sufficient for a man in this regard. So immediately your claim of lack of self control falls on the wrong ears. If a man is marrying more than one wife for that reason, then I would be by your side advising him against it.

Secondly, polygamy is a lot more prone to jealousy from what I have been able to learn. The husband who is able to hold his family together to make it into a great thing shows a degree of self control lacking in other men. So in these cases your accusation is false again.

I get the feeling that you just made an assumption about polygamy, then found the first verse to condemn that assumption you made. We're talking about polygamy here. My question still remains true - if polygamy is unacceptable by God, then where is it condemned?
I gave a couple of verses above where God even applies polygamy to Himself. We read of no condemnations of Moses, Abraham, Jacob, David, Saul (excepting his taking of foreign wives), and others.

I'm trying to find out why polygamy is condemned, on what Scriptural grounds. Making accusations about self-control does not help, because just like every relationship there are some men that show self control, and some that don't. It is not peculiar to polygamy only, nor does polygamy exclude self control.

 

[Debi]

This is not the only imagery of marriage in the Bible. In fact there are other stories that indicate that one man can become one flesh with more than one woman. The most obvious example being that every one of us is a part of the bride of Christ. And this we know He likens to a polygamous marriage, because of the parable in Matthew 25:1-13.

This is not the only time that God likens His relationship to His people to be like polygamy. He does also in Ezekiel 23, having two wives.

For these reasons it seems clear to me that more than one woman can become one flesh with the same husband, as we all are able to become the bride of Christ. So I don't think these verses condemn polygamy at all.

You do kid by using such a strength of the imagination. God's ways and wisdom is much higher than ours, He see us as one people. Imagery does not equate to standards set by God. Polygamy is lust of man. God gave us a standard that man corrupted out of the evil of their own heart. To look at the corruption of man and say that God set the standard because he "allow" it or because of "imagery" is not biblical. Do we adhere to God written word or the "imagines" that our corrupt minds can see from His word. I am sure if we do that we will only lead ourselves deeper into the snares of Satan and sin. Man is sinful... That parable is about being prepared at all times for the second coming of Christ, not that he will "wed" 10 virgins. The parable was hidden to men of that time, Jesus did revealed the parable to the disciples. God's relationship to "His People" has nothing to do with polygamy.

 

[swordman]

I am of the opinion that God's standpoint on polygamy has changed because social circumstances have changed. My point wasn't about blessings in relation to populating. There are many scriptures in the bible where God tells someone that their offspring will be uncountable, like the dust, or stars, etc. This says to me that God wanted the earth vastly populated. So even if a wife were barren, it was acceptable that the man would have a child with another woman. It was a common social trend back then. People were more concerned about the size of their family and providing for it, as compared to today where many people's priorities lay on money above family. Our population today is also enormous. An infertile wife wouldn't consider having her husband bear a child with another woman, especially when the option of fertility drugs and adoption is available.

I would certainly agree with you if population building were at all the central focus of a man having a plurality of wives, or furtility issues were involved. However, one will search in vain to find where world population was an issue in the practice of polygyny. That really is a non-issue where the scriptures are concerned. I understand what you are saying, but it simply does not apply to the historical aspect presented to us within the text of the scriptures.

Dr. Don Dean

 

[Debi]

This is not the only imagery of marriage in the Bible. In fact there are other stories that indicate that one man can become one flesh with more than one woman. The most obvious example being that every one of us is a part of the bride of Christ . And this we know He likens to a polygamous marriage, because of the parable in Matthew 25:1-13.IS A PART OF "ONE " BODY", not two or three etc, etc. ONE BODY. just as the hands is part of the body. To equate that with the lust of mens hearts is riduculous. God does not lust after the body of Christ.

This is not the only time that God likens His relationship to His people to be like polygamy. He does also in Ezekiel 23, having two wives.

For these reasons it seems clear to me that more than one woman can become one flesh with the same husband, as we all are able to become the bride of Christ. So I don't think these verses condemn polygamy at all.

Man's heart is full of evil, God's is not

 

[swordman]

Don, this was always God's plan.

I would appreciate your providing a reference as to where the Lord declared a man having only one wife to be His plan for all mankind. Thanks.

What are the governing provisions?

Deut. 21:15

How can we ignore Jesus stating "in the beginning he made them male and female and for this cause they become one flesh" Not one flesh with each woman he wants to marry?

If we rightfully maintain the context of what Jesus was talking about, rather than add to it what was not at all a part of the discussion, we see that He was addressing the issue of divorce, not how many wives to which a man is limited. I think we can both agree that we say many things in our daily speech that is not always consistent with numerical specifics. If I say that you ate food today (singular rather than the plural "foods"), that does not specify how many hamburgers you actually ate througout the entire day, and it does not specify how many "food groups" you ate. Simply using the singular term "food" is imprecise, and it does not make hamburgers the issue of what you specifically ate.

The same is shown in God's example of the animal put onto the Ark before the flood, two animals one female one male.

This is a serious stretch of the context to say that God was showing us some hidden meaning in how many wives a man may have in relation to the number of each animal on the ark. There were actually seven of each of the clean animals on the ark. However, mankind is not an animal, contrary to pseudo science.

I would agree, having more than one wife to populate the earth. I would also ask, if it is man's desire to "extend" his family, is that not self serving and selfish?

A man can also desire just one wife for selfish and self-serving reasons. So, again, that is not at all a blanket issue. God gave to David more than one wife, whether we may like it or not. It makes no sense to think that God is opposed to a man having a plurality of wives, and yet turn right around and not only GIVE to David at least two of his 15+ wives, but also identifying Himself with the imagry of polygyny when addressing Israel and Judah as His "wives." Have you ever known the Lord to involve Himself in the imagry of sin, much less to cause a man to sin by giving to him what is sin?

It was my understanding that you were going to present specific verses, with a contextual breakdown of each verse and how it backs your thinking on this issue. I also would like to hear what you have to say about your earlier statement of Abraham allagedly being a man with lust in his heart for having several wives.

Thanks for your typing time.

Dr. Don Dean

 

[Debi]

This is a very unfair accusation. First of all, I agree with Augustine that polygamy should not be practiced to satisfy carnal lusts. One wife is sufficient for a man in this regard. So immediately your claim of lack of self control falls on the wrong ears. If a man is marrying more than one wife for that reason, then I would be by your side advising him against it.

Secondly, polygamy is a lot more prone to jealousy from what I have been able to learn. The husband who is able to hold his family together to make it into a great thing shows a degree of self control lacking in other men. So in these cases your accusation is false again.Surely, you do not suggest a man with more than one wife has more self control than the man that can not keep his family together, they both lack self control, in different areas.

I get the feeling that you just made an assumption about polygamy, then found the first verse to condemn that assumption you made. We're talking about polygamy here. My question still remains true - if polygamy is unacceptable by God, then where is it condemned?
I gave a couple of verses above where God even applies polygamy to Himself. We read of no condemnations of Moses, Abraham, Jacob, David, Saul (excepting his taking of foreign wives), and others.

I'm trying to find out why polygamy is condemned, on what Scriptural grounds. Making accusations about self-control does not help, because just like every relationship there are some men that show self control, and some that don't. It is not peculiar to polygamy only, nor does polygamy exclude self control.

Is not the one of the fruit of the Spirit-----------------------Self control?!!! Is that not biblical? Is that not a scripture?!!

And what is your reason again, biblically, that a man can/should have more than one wife that Gives Glory to God and not satisfy the desires of the flesh?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

You do kid by using such a strength of the imagination. God's ways and wisdom is much higher than ours, He see us as one people. Imagery does not equate to standards set by God. Polygamy is lust of man. God gave us a standard that man corrupted out of the evil of their own heart. To look at the corruption of man and say that God set the standard because he "allow" it or because of "imagery" is not biblical. Do we adhere to God written word or the "imagines" that our corrupt minds can see from His word. I am sure if we do that we will only lead ourselves deeper into the snares of Satan and sin. Man is sinful... That parable is about being prepared at all times for the second coming of Christ, not that he will "wed" 10 virgins. The parable was hidden to men of that time, Jesus did revealed the parable to the disciples. God's relationship to "His People" has nothing to do with polygamy.

The imagery of polygamy in those verses could not be much clearer. It's nothing to do with what our corrupt mines are thinking is being alluded to, it's what's there plain in the Scriptures.
You say the imagery is not important. Jesus told parables - ie, stories that could be true but are not necessarily. So first of all, this is not at all something that could never happen. Do you think that in imagery Jesus would ever use an adulterous analogy regarding Himself? Do you think Jesus would ever liken His actions to murder? If not, then why would He ever liken His actions to polygamy if it were morally deplorable?

You are right, the lesson of the parable is of being prepared - yet Jesus uses the analogy of polygamy to explain His relationship with us here. This is not a twisting, it is plain and obvious. As I said before, we would be horrified if Jesus likened His actions to adultery, murder, theft, idolatry or other sins, yet for some reason it's acceptable for polygamy?

Is not the one of the fruit of the Spirit-----------------------Self control?!!! Is that not biblical? Is that not a scripture?!!

I am saying that it is an unfair, and perhaps wicked, accusation to say that because a man practices polygamy that he lacks self control. I believe self control is one of the fruit of the Spirit, I just deny that a polygamist always lacks self control (some do, some don't).

And what is your reason again, biblically, that a man can/should have more than one wife that Gives Glory to God and not satisfy the desires of the flesh?

As I've said before, I'm not trying to persuade you that it is acceptable. I started this thread to ask other people why it isn't acceptable anymore. And that's important. Throughout the whole Old Testament time, there was never a question in the Bible raised regarding polygamy. It was never condemned, was practiced and accepted. Now when our Lord came, He revealed to us many mysteries. One was that divorce was permitted because of the stiffness of their necks. Yet some have said that polygamy was the same as divorce - tolerated for a time, but no longer. I am asking not whether polygamy is acceptable, but rather why it is no longer acceptable. Where is this new wisdom that revealed to us that polygamy was no longer to be practiced?
It is clear enough for me already that in the Old Testament era that there was no problem with polygamy. I'm not asking to have that proven, I'm already convinced. I'm here to find out if there's any reason why we should believe that ended with the gospel?

Thanks for your time, I hope I can find the answers.

 

[christiangoth3000]

well the bible calls on a man to leave his family and to be joined to his wife (it does not says wives)

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

well the bible calls on a man to leave his family and to be joined to his wife (it does not says wives)

Does it need to? Most men will only ever have one wife. If it said "wives" then we would assume all men should have more than one wife. Seems more that this is a convenience of what is common rather than a specific law.

Especially considering all that's been said before in this thread, which I encourage you to read if you haven't yet. The Old Testament showed in many places polygamy was accepted, I'm looking for that condemnation.

 

[swordman]

even though the question was regarding divorce, Jesus ALSO pointed out that God made them male and female and that was a union ordained by God.

Agreed.

If you look at the verse in Genesis, it never implied pluralism. The union of marriage was always from God as one man and one woman.

I hope you do not mind my pointing out that this is one error I had hoped that you would avoid stepping into. The non-issue of singular versus plural is an error that many people allow themselves to fall into. When I teach my students systematic theology, I teach them a system of rules that dates back to the ancients of the Old Testament. The key rule you are violating is remaining consistent with even your own rules of interpretation. Please allow me to demonstrate:

Exo 10:2 And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son's son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how that I am the LORD.


According to your rules of interpretation, we are limited to having only one son, and one grandson, etc. Not only that, but we are also allowed to instruct only one of our sons in the great things God did in bringing the Jews out of Egypt. Either way, your rule of interpretation regarding singular versus plural creates more problems than it solves. Also, the Hebrew language from which the Old Testament was translated is not so specific concerning singular versus plural. Our translations are more specific in that respect because the Englkish language is that much more specific. The translators incorporated what they thought would be less confusing. All you have to do is find a literal, word for word translation in order to verify this.

I agree with you that our culture does not align itself with polygyny, but our culture is not the basis from which God established His Law. Western civilization is actually a minority in this big world because MOST cultures have and still do practice polygamy in the middle and far east, as well as in the southern hemisphere. It is too easy to sit in the middle of a technologically advanced country with a highly feminized mentality and become smug about how allegedly superior we are to the rest of the world. After all, we have surpassed ALL of them when it comes to infanticide by killing over 30 million of our unborn children. My, but are we not better than those "heathens"?

Also, I would like to see any backing for the idea that having a plurality of wives somehow indicates lust, a lack of self-control, and numerous other blanket accusations I have seen being made in this thread. Can any of you making these accusations back them with SOMETHING that carries more weight than mere opinion?

In Christ Jesus

Dr. Don Dean

 

[Debi]

The imagery of polygamy in those verses could not be much clearer. It's nothing to do with what our corrupt mines are thinking is being alluded to, it's what's there plain in the Scriptures.
You say the imagery is not important. Jesus told parables - ie, stories that could be true but are not necessarily. So first of all, this is not at all something that could never happen. Do you think that in imagery Jesus would ever use an adulterous analogy regarding Himself? You grasp at straws and totally take away from the very teaching of the scriptures to look at what scripture does not say......imagery. You missed it. Do you believe God wanted you focused on the "imagery" of the 5 virgins? I think not, Do you think Jesus would ever liken His actions to murder? If not, then why would He ever liken His actions to polygamy if it were morally deplorable?Both are morally wrong..............................as I stated before, you missed the context of the parable because your focus was elsewhere.

You are right, the lesson of the parable is of being prepared - yet Jesus uses the analogy of polygamy to explain His relationship with us here. This is not a twisting, it is plain and obvious. What was the idea of the parable, have multiple wives but be ready for the second coming of Christ? Parables were given to hid the true meaning of the story from the hypocrites and the legalitic leaders. As I said before, we would be horrified if Jesus likened His actions to adultery, murder, theft, idolatry or other sins, yet for some reason it's acceptable for polygamy? Actually, I have never in my life heard anyone give example this parable as Jesus being a polygamist.



I am saying that it is an unfair, and perhaps wicked, accusation to say that because a man practices polygamy that he lacks self control. I believe self control is one of the fruit of the Spirit, I just deny that a polygamist always lacks self control (some do, some don't).Now, this is really amusing, how do you separate the ones that do from the ones that don't? They all do. It is a work of the flesh and denial will not change what it is. You deny that it is man's lust that desires more than one wife.



As I've said before, I'm not trying to persuade you that it is acceptable. I started this thread to ask other people why it isn't acceptable anymore. And that's important. Throughout the whole Old Testament time, there was never a question in the Bible raised regarding polygamy. It was never condemned, was practiced and accepted. Now when our Lord came, He revealed to us many mysteries. One was that divorce was permitted because of the stiffness of their necks. Yet some have said that polygamy was the same as divorce - tolerated for a time, but no longer. I am asking not whether polygamy is acceptable, but rather why it is no longer acceptable. How can a "new Wisdom" be revealed if it was never acceptable? You seem to avoid this. You are taking a stance that since God did not strike them with lighting or tell them " did I not say male and female instead of two females" that he condoned it. That was never the case. Where is this new wisdom that revealed to us that polygamy was no longer to be practiced?

It is clear enough for me already that in the Old Testament era that there was no problem with polygamy. I'm not asking to have that proven, I'm already convinced. I'm here to find out if there's any reason why we should believe that ended with the gospel?

You are looking for justification for polygamy, there is none. Man is sinful, DEAD IN HIS SIN, Sinful men do not seek God. That is it in a nutshell. You are convinced that it is acceptable, then no one will be able to convince you that it is in error. If you truly wanted to know why God never ordained man to marry more than one woman, you would search the scriptures to affirm that, instead, you search the scripture that you believe says that multiple wives is "ok" with God. NO matter how you look at it or justify it, it is a work of the flesh. And please don't tell me I am getting emotional again about it, this has nothing to do with my emotions, yet it has everything to do with understanding sound doctrine and not manipulating scriptures.


I believe scriptures state, he that has ears, let him hear. The scripture will not change.........................Have you not hear, in the beginning he made them Male and Female and for this cause a man shall leave father and mother and cleave to his wife.......................not wives. and they shall become ONE flesh.....

 

[Debi]

Agreed.



I hope you do not mind my pointing out that this is one error I had hoped that you would avoid stepping into. The non-issue of singular versus plural is an error that many people allow themselves to fall into. When I teach my students systematic theology, I teach them a system of rules that dates back to the ancients of the Old Testament. The key rule you are violating is remaining consistent with even your own rules of interpretation. Please allow me to demonstrate:

Exo 10:2 And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son's son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how that I am the LORD.


According to your rules of interpretation, we are limited to having only one son, and one grandson, etc. Not only that, but we are also allowed to instruct only one of our sons in the great things God did in bringing the Jews out of Egypt. Either way, your rule of interpretation regarding singular versus plural creates more problems than it solves. Also, the Hebrew language from which the Old Testament was translated is not so specific concerning singular versus plural. Our translations are more specific in that respect because the Englkish language is that much more specific. The translators incorporated what they thought would be less confusing. All you have to do is find a literal, word for word translation in order to verify this.

I agree with you that our culture does not align itself with polygyny, but our culture is not the basis from which God established His Law. Western civilization is actually a minority in this big world because MOST cultures have and still do practice polygamy in the middle and far east, as well as in the southern hemisphere. It is too easy to sit in the middle of a technologically advanced country with a highly feminized mentality and become smug about how allegedly superior we are to the rest of the world. After all, we have surpassed ALL of them when it comes to infanticide by killing over 30 million of our unborn children. My, but are we not better than those "heathens"?

Also, I would like to see any backing for the idea that having a plurality of wives somehow indicates lust, a lack of self-control, and numerous other blanket accusations I have seen being made in this thread. Can any of you making these accusations back them with SOMETHING that carries more weight than mere opinion?

In Christ Jesus

Dr. Don Dean

Don,

I have not voliated my "rules of interpertation" It is just that I am not following "your" rules of interpertation. I think the Strongs and the Vines are much better sources then your rules of interpertation.

Everything that you and other that "support" polygamy have given is pure speculation. You have been given clear scripture from the new and the ot. But your focus is on " Why didn't God say or do something" "why did he permit it" " the imagery" that you can not see the forest for the tree. You can not see what you are unwilling to accept. As for me, I am done with this thread. I thought the question because some really wanted honest answers.

It has been fun, but I have no more time to spend with a subject that does not Glorify God. As 2 Tim 2:16. Avoid all empty, vain, useless, idle tak for it will lead people into MORE and MORE ungodliness.

Thanks anyway, but no thanks.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Everything that you and other that "support" polygamy have given is pure speculation. You have been given clear scripture from the new and the ot. But your focus is on " Why didn't God say or do something" "why did he permit it" " the imagery" that you can not see the forest for the tree. You can not see what you are unwilling to accept. As for me, I am done with this thread. I thought the question because some really wanted honest answers.

I feel like a person who has asked a friend, "how do we know that the earth is round?" and he responded "We just know!", and left it at that, as if it were enough to explain.

If you want to end it here, then I thank you for your time.
I feel that you have not understood the problems. It seems you have been convinced of the truth of monogamy only a priori, and from there try to prove it. I come from a monogamy only background, but I wanted to find out why our culture promoted that, without assuming either position is correct before I started.

I am not ignoring what you say, but I feel you are misunderstanding a lot of what we are saying, and like Don said, not applying your rules consistently.

I do honestly want the answers, but why do you seem so surprised that I disagree with you? It's not because I want to believe polygamy is acceptable, it's because I can't find any reason that it no longer is. I would be quite happy for someone to persuade me of the truth of monogamy only - but I am not just going to grasp on to any argument. It has to be convincing, able to stand up to attack.

But again, thanks for your time. I hope someone else is able to explain to me the reason why the western church rejects polygamy (Scripturally). You and I are probably too different to explain each other, so maybe there is someone else who thinks and can explain in a way I will understand.

 

[Debi]

I am not ignoring what you say, but I feel you are misunderstanding a lot of what we are saying, I haven't misunderstood at all. I just know if you are not ready to accept the word as it is written then we waste each others time.

like Don said, not applying your rules consistently.
I do honestly want the answers, but why do you seem so surprised that I disagree with you? It's not because I want to believe polygamy is acceptable, it's because I can't find any reason that it no longer is. I would be quite happy for someone to persuade me of the truth of monogamy only - but I am not just going to grasp on to any argument. It has to be convincing, able to stand up to attack.

And just what are "my rules of interpretation" that I am not following? Do you know what method of study I imploy? I don't recall even stating a method.................Is this the confusion that you and Don are experiencing or is it because I do not accept the "method" that you use to study.

It is not my practice to use "whichever" definition of a word that suits or conforms to my way of thinking, that will only keep satisfying my own sinful nature. But I will say this, I believe by faith and by the Written Word that God has chosen the words and the usage of those words carefully so that we, as His children, will comprehend the message. For me it is very clear that God never intended polygamy. It is not my job to "persuade" you, that is the job of the Holy Spirit and the word of God. You will have to put your own bias aside and let God show you. As long as you adhere to a particular doctrine or teaching, you will be blinded by the word. This I know from experience. It took me a very long time to adhere to God and the message He was giving me because my flesh chose to follow bad doctrine. It is not easy to admit you have been decieved.

I am neither angry nor upset, just saddens that you adhere to whatever method that has steered your belief to polygamy and I pray the truth will be revealed to you by the Spirit of God.

If you truly want to find the truth that God has laid before us, then pray and let God direct you in the method to study His word. The bible is very clear cut and literal, yes the parables were imagery and was closed to those that Jesus ( directly) spoke to, but for us, it was and is revealed in the word. To go beyond will leads us to error.

All scriptures can be valuable for our learning, yet if it is manipulated it leads us to error. Which is the intent of the emeny.


I feel like a person who has asked a friend, "how do we know that the earth is round?" and he responded "We just know!", and left it at that, as if it were enough to explain.

I am sorry you feel like that, You must exercise your faith in God and let God prove it to you and not man. Man seeks to only satisfy himself. No man (dead in his sins) seeks after God. Do you believe there is a God? Has He been proved to you yet? I believe by Faith there is a God!! I believe by faith that He will accomplish that which He has purposed. I beleive by faith that He has guarded over His word and has given us all that we need for this life time to be faithful to His call of Hope and Glory. [/COLOR]

It is not a blinded faith, it is a faith that is support by His Written Word.

 

[swordman]

well the bible calls on a man to leave his family and to be joined to his wife (it does not says wives)

Uh oh! If your rules of interpretation are truly authoritative, then the singular use of words carry so much weight of meaning that verses like Exo 10:2 limit us to having only one son and one grandson, etc., "And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son's son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how that I am the LORD."

Dr. Don Dean

 

[Debi]

Uh oh! If your rules of interpretation are truly authoritative, then the singular use of words carry so much weight of meaning that verses like Exo 10:2 limit us to having only one son and one grandson, etc., "And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son's son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how that I am the LORD."

Dr. Don Dean

 

[swordman]

I have not voliated my "rules of interpertation." It is just that I am not following "your" rules of interpertation. I think the Strongs and the Vines are much better sources then your rules of interpertation.

I was not upholding MY rules of interpretation. I said nothing about MY rules. I was addressing YOUR rules. YOU pointed at the singular use of words to validate your stance. I simply pointed out that YOU would be forced to alter YOUR OWN RULES of interpretation when they are consistently applied to OTHER similar areas of scripture. Please read what I said rather than create confusion with what I did NOT say.

Everything that you and other that "support" polygamy have given is pure speculation.

What did I say that was speculation? Quote it and I will be able to understand where you are coming from.

You have been given clear scripture from the new and the ot. But your focus is on " Why didn't God say or do something" "why did he permit it" " the imagery" that you can not see the forest for the tree. You can not see what you are unwilling to accept. As for me, I am done with this thread. I thought the question because some really wanted honest answers.

More general quotes without any context. I normally do not talk like this to people, but I really wish you would not run and hide. I prefer that you quote the verses you think back your case and then provide a short dissertation of what they say. Rathat than do that, you make general statements about a passage and then magnify one aspect of that passage that has nothgin to do with the context, all the time patting yourself on the back for having allegedly proven something when it really was nothing at all. Then, you completely avoid my holding you accountable for your saying that Abraham had lust in his heart simply because he had several wives. You have avoided this "like the plague." I suspect that you realize that you stuck your foot in your mouth on that one, and have chosen to avoid it rather than to admit your error. You issue forth a declaration, then you are not willing to follow through with anything of substance. Be a woman of your word and stay the course if you think you have a case. Running only demonstrates that you are unable to contend for what you claim to believe. Accusations do not prove any doctrine. I have asked questions that you have clearly avoided, or have twisted into something that I was not at all saying.

It has been fun, but I have no more time to spend with a subject that does not Glorify God. As 2 Tim 2:16. Avoid all empty, vain, useless, idle tak for it will lead people into MORE and MORE ungodliness.

If it was so fun, then why are you running? You acted like you had the world by the tail in your beliefs, then you run. I would be lying if I said that I understand that.

Dr. Don Dean

 

[Debi]

Uh oh! If your rules of interpretation are truly authoritative, then the singular use of words carry so much weight of meaning that verses like Exo 10:2 limit us to having only one son and one grandson, etc., "And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son's son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how that I am the LORD."

Dr. Don Dean

Don, You must like a good rumble. Do you want me to tell you what the verse says? 1st of all, the verse is not speaking to you or I, God was speaking to Moses. So God was not telling either of us that we can only have one male child. "son" in that scripture refers to members of a group, descendants, the builder of a family, not that he can only have one son. Now, do you want to know How or why I know the translation does not mean one child? When reading the the bible, you first should establish the context of the chapter and who is being spoken to. Surely you do not claim to be side by side with Moses and say the Lord God was talking to you too?

Now, what is your next attack, because you probably will not agree with the translation.....