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.
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