Observation Post wrote: Thanks for that latest post, John. Perhaps your clear demonstration that the storyline from the Garden to the flood completely escapes you will convince some of my brethren that trying to reason with your lot is an exercise in futility.
I'm appalled at your response! You completely ignored every point, in your pride. May God judge you, you whitewashed tomb!
Your response is typical of those of your ilk. When you cannot refute the reason of your opponent, then you stoop to nasty remarks. May God purge from you such pride and foolishness!
When you are ready to discuss things rationally, I'll be happy to speak to you. Until then, I'll leave you with your self-deceit.
Neil wrote: John Gill's remarks on 2 Sam 12:8 - www.freegrace.net/gill/2_Samuel/2_Samuel_12.htm
In John Gill's notes on verse 12:8, Gill notes that if David's wives were too few or his kingdom too small, then God would have given him more. This has been the traditional rendering of this passage by the Israelites since it was written.
Observation Post wrote: Listen, John. The Lamech who had two wives Adah and Zillah was of the cursed seed of Cain... not the Lamech of the blessed seed of Seth of which in Noah it was said he was perfect in his generations. Therefore your treatment of the Lamech passage is exactly backwards.
I'm aware of which Lamech he was. That is immaterial to whether he sinned or not in this case.
I also believe you are making a mistaken assumption. Cain's line was not cursed. There's no Scriptural basis for that claim, to my knowledge. Only Cain was cursed.
As far as we know, Lamech was perfectly righteous. The discussion is whether he was righteous in this instance, and I believe the record shows he was.
Observation Post wrote: But you continue to kick against this truth as well. No doubt you will ignore this correction which you could use to your good and make the same false assertion again in another discussion. Sad.
There's not much I can say to this. It appears to me that you are full of yourself and "puffed up with (what you think is) knowledge". I'd like to believe differently, but you are constantly hostile, not as a person that is interested in an honest discussion.
Mike wrote: And he gave Cain and Seth sisters as wives. By your reckoning, is this for today?
The question then is whether or not polygamy is for today, when it was for Israel under the Law?
If we are not under the Law, then we are FREE. Now, the Law tells us what is sin. We are freed from the Law. The Law gave us a minimum for how to love our neighbor.
Jesus went beyond the Law in love. But, He remained under the Law during His time on Earth. He didn't change the Law.
The apostles, especially Paul, understood that after Jesus' resurrection, believers were not under the Law of Moses, but under the perfect Law of God in Christ. That "law" is the law of perfect love: Love God with your all, and love your neighbor as yourself.
Under freedom, some previously forbidden things are allowed: We can eat meat sacrificed to idols, can eat non-kosher, can live in houses that have "leprosy", no longer offer sacrifices for sin, don't need to tithe, etc. But polygamy was previously ALLOWED, not forbidden.
Now the question is, is polygamy to be allowed under freedom, or restricted? It seems to me that we need to find SOMETHING, anything in the NT to justify restriction. I find nothing. Therefore, I believe we are free to pursue polygamy...
This debate has been going on a while with lots of name-calling (primarily on the anti-polygamist side) and rudeness (on both sides). While a certain amount of sarcasm might be necessary to make a point upon occasion, it seems to me that the Word of God doesn't support this type of behavior.
We should respect others when we discuss these things. We should all treat others with respect and humility.
It seems to me that the issue of polygamy is one within the "pale of orthodoxy". The one nigh-universal creed--the Nicene Creed--says nothing about polygamy one way or another.
*IF* a Christian practices polygamy, then AT WORST he is sinning (according to the view of the anti-polygamists). This does not make him NOT a Christian, nor unsaved. He is YOUR BROTHER for whom Christ died!
*IF* a Christian believes in polygamy without practicing it, then AT WORST he is guilty of promoting something WHICH HAS BEEN DEBATED THROUGHOUT THE LAST SEVERAL CENTURIES. It has NOT become the creed of the Church universal that polygamy is unacceptable. (Nor would that really affect its truth, if the word of God says differently.) I believe that polygamy is as good and righteous as monogamy.
Let's try to get along and discuss this rationally, not with evil in our hearts.
(1) The creation of one woman doesn't prove or indicate an intention on God's part. That's the minimum necessary to reproduce. The same minimum He used on Noah's ark for animals which are polygamous. It doesn't LOGICALLY prove God's intent at all. He didn't make ANYONE else directly, so does that mean He doesn't approve of other humans???
(2) God's plan as opposed to the sinner's plan??? God made no stated plans for how many wives a man should have. Later, He apparently PLANNED for Moses and David--to name just two--to have multiple wives. And He apparently PLANNED for men who's brothers died without heirs to become polygamists too. So, pro-monogamists DENY GOD'S WORD!
(3) Grammar as read by real Christians??? Grammar works the same for everyone. So does logic. Gen 2:24 doesn't support monogamy, which I and others have proven overwhelmingly in this forum.
(4) God GAVE David his wives, 2Sa 12:7-8.
(5) Do you have any PROOF of this? People on here that support polygamy--decent, God-fearing pastors, family men, monogamists--have provided TONS of proof that God accepts and blesses polygamy.
Personally, I prefer honest discussion and respect rather than name-calling as anti-polygamists have been doing.
Observation Post wrote: Will these unsubstantiated assertions ever end?
I don't know. When are you anti-polygamists going to end your unsubstantiated assertions???
Observation Post wrote: The same exact Hebrew word is also used here.... Deu 10:20 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.
Yep. The word "cleave" means "to impinge, to cling or adhere". In context of Deu 10:20 it means to get very close to God.
The context of Gen 2:24 is different--the two become one FLESH, not one spirit or one soul. One FLESH. Thus, the meaning of "cleave" is to have sexual intercourse, and the meaning of the passage is that men and women are sexually attracted because God took Eve out of Adam. Nothing more spectacular than that...
Observation Post wrote: This one is too good to pass up... Gen 4:19 And Lamech....Do you people even bother to read your bibles so you know what you are talking about?
Do you? Lamech called upon God's justice for his self-defense against the young man that attacked him. There's ZERO evidence that Lamech sinned here.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I KNOW that polygamy is the truth, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Besides being consistent with the entirety of Scripture, the Holy Spirit has opened my heart and eyes to it over the years. I accept it as a Godly practice.
Saying that polygamy was PRACTICED for over 5000 years is HISTORY. Saying that it was approved of God is both HISTORICAL and BIBLICAL, in that it was an integral part of the Israelite culture without condemnation, AND the Bible backs up this idea and the idea that God approves of it.
2000 years is about how long the LAW OF GOD *REQUIRED* men to be polygamists (Deut. 25:5-10). Although we're not under the Law, under freedom we certainly have more latitude, not less.
Lamech was the first polygamist and our first example of righteous self-defense. God neither punished him for his self-defense or for polygamy. That is proof enough that he was not sinning in either one.
Moses, who is the source for the CORE of our Bible, was a polygamist. HE didn't see anything wrong with it.
David was given multiple wives by God, and God said He would give him even MORE if he wanted them!
God is a polygamist in both Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
I will stand on the WORD OF GOD, not on your false doctrines and cultural bias!!!
The anti-polygamists on this forum are attacking a God-given institution of marriage.
For over 5000 years polygamy has been in existence among Israel and their ancestors--with God's approval. Not until around 1100 A.D. was it forbidden among the Israelites. This means that their priests, prophets, and men of God UNDERSTOOD the Bible to support the practice of polygamy.
Contrary to the beliefs of the anti-polygamists, there are no Scriptures that show monogamy to be God's ideal for marriage. The same passages they take to mean "monogamy", men of God in ancient times read differently--and they were much closer to the source and full understanding of Scripture than we are.
A pro-polygamist is not necessarily a polygamist. A pro-monogamist doesn't have to be married. We simply stand for the TRUTH according to Scripture, according to GOD.
We support our Christian brethren that are polygamists, because we can see that adultery is not gender-balanced, but is aimed at women that have sex with a man that is not their husband. We can see that Scripture blesses some men with one wife and some men with two and some with more.
This is because we are willing to read what it says and not put our bias into it. This is because we are not biased by our corrupt American culture.
Walt wrote: HP, you wrote: "The Hebrew Wife states, "If he is connected with any other women, he ceases to cleave to his wife, and makes himself one flesh with a stranger. HP, please don't forget the verse before 8 & 9 which I'm sure Mike in context was saying which is absolutely consistent with The Hebrew Wife quote above...
"The Hebrew Wife" is not Scripture, nor does it even sound like a good reference.
Polygamy was acceptable to the Israelites BASED UPON SCRIPTURE for more than two thousand years. It wasn't until around 1100 A.D. that polygamy was banned in Judaism.
Walt wrote: You cannot cleave to your wife while going sexually after multiple wives. It is obvious there is really nothing you Polygamists will hear on the subject to change your mind, using Scripture as the final authority, as your heart and mind are blinded by the lust of your flesh.
You are blind to the truth that has been consistently taught for more than 5000 years: Polygamy is good and righteous and blessed by God.
"Cleave" in Gen. 2:24 means sexual intercourse, and only that.
Hardcore Polygamist wrote: Being one flesh with a harlot is sin. Being made one flesh with a women is having your flesh joined in with hers during sexual intercourse. 1Co 6:16 "What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh."
Which is absolutely true. I agree completely.
1 Cor. 6:16 is about combining the sinful union of harlotry with the blessed union of marriage. It is sinful to have intercourse with a harlot. That has been established elsewhere in Scripture.
Those that object to the man in 1 Cor. 6:16 being married should realize that a harlot has many "lovers". If she is "one" with that man, she is presumably "one" with all the others as well. So, whether the man were married or not, the idea of oneness being sexual intercourse is still valid.
1 Cor. 6:16 backs up polygamy, in that it indicates that a man can be "one" with multiple women at the same time.
Observation Post wrote: John, Will you admit that it cannot be established conclusively that the man in Paul's hypothetical discourse is married to two WOMEN?...
But it HAS been established conclusively that the man in question MUST be married--otherwise the analogy is lopsided and makes no sense.
There are two parts to this analogy: A spiritual and a physical.
In the spiritual a Christian is married, but chooses to sin. The sin is represented by the harlot of verse 16.
In the physical a MARRIED man chooses to have intercourse with a harlot. This is shown by analogy from verse 15.
IF the man in verse 16 is NOT married, then the analogy doesn't hold, because the Christian of verse 15 must be "married" to Christ. Paul is talking about what Christians do, not unbelievers.
Therefore, verse 16 must be speaking of a married man. It is a requirement of the context of this passage.
Your problem is that you see a mystical connection in Genesis 2:24 that doesn't exist. When the two become one, it is a sexual attraction, not some "knitting of the souls" or some nonsense like that. Genesis 2:23 backs up this idea, and verse 24 refers to verse 23 for its meaning (i.e. "For this cause").
Observation Post wrote: Married to whom? Come out with it John... while married to Christ. Right? You know that is what the passage is teaching. Will you admit it?
The passage is analogy.
Part A: A married man should not become one with a harlot. (Implied by part B.)
Part B: A Christian cannot be currently "married" to Christ, and engaged in sin (i.e. "married to a harlot"--implied by part A).
If the two parts are not congruent, then the analogy doesn't hold.
Observation Post wrote: Matt 19:9 Whosoever shall put away his...
You are right. "wife" No hint of polygamy.
So you caught me in a flub. Big deal. You know that I meant that Jesus was not talking about whether marriage was polygamous or monogamous, but rather that He was speaking of marriage in relation to divorce.
I'd like to see you answer 2 Chron. 24:2-3. If Joash did what was right, but Jehoiada the priest had King Joash marry two wives, then it seems like God considers polygamy good, at least for Joash...
o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o If you are a Pro-Polygamist, please contact [email protected] o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o0o
Observation Post wrote: Only in your fertile imagination. Try again. Is the man married to two women at the same time?
The man is *implied* to be married, as verse 16 takes its meaning from both Gen. 2:24 and verse 15 above it.
If the man were single, then the contextual reference in verse 15 wouldn't make sense--the Christian is *already* assumed to be married to Christ. Therefore, the example is of a man (i.e. the Christian) becoming one with a harlot *while* currently married.
Simple logic. I'm surprised you can't see it...but then again...
Observation Post wrote: If you can establish that the hypothetical man in Paul's discourse (1 Cor 6:16) is still "one flesh" with the wife of his youth while also being "one flesh" with a harlot then you have a case.
See the verse 17, that implies that God is one with any number of Christians. Contextually, verse 16 is saying that it is wrong to be "members of a harlot" (i.e. sinful things) and "members of Christ". Thus, this passage is talking about Christians already "married" to Christ, implying that becoming "one" with a harlot (vs. 16) is in context of marriage.
Observation Post wrote: If not you are guilty of perverting the two passages which are crystal clear (Gen 2:24 & Matt 19:5-6)...
Crystal clear, but not in favor of monogamy.
The meaning of the passage in Gen. 2:24 comes from verse 23--referenced by "For this reason." The CLEAR meaning is that there is sexual attraction because Eve came from Adam. Nothing more.
Mat. 19 is about divorce, not polygamy. Jesus was speaking of the permanency of marriage. Polygamy isn't even hinted at.
enough already wrote: So polygamists agree it is okay for middle aged men to consummate a marriage with teenage girls, impregnating them and robbing them of any type of 'normal' teenage life; even when these girls do not consent?
This is unfair and a detestable lie! You cannot lump all polygamists together any more than I should be allowed to lump all monogamists together!
If I were to call all monogamists pedophiles because one monogamist was, wouldn't that be false? The same is true of your statement!
None of the polygamists I know are involved or approve of underage marriage.
enough already wrote: According to the recent news story out of Texas, these young girls have been beaten, brainwashed, and taken against their will. That is NOT biblical, no matter how you twist it.
I agree. It's wicked and sinful.
enough already wrote: You can argue from now until the end of the age, but you will never convince blood bought TRUE born again believers sexual immorality is condoned anywhere in scripture.
I agree. We TRUE born-again believers--polygamist, monogamist, and celibate--all should avoid sexual immorality. Polygamy is no more sexually immoral than monogamy.
Minnow wrote: No! This is not true. God's original design is recorded Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Jesus states Matthew 19:5... That is God's and Christ's word on the subject.
Do you actually READ the posts?
Three points here:
(1) If this WAS God's original design, it wasn't stated as a command, nor is there any evidence that it continued after Adam & Eve.
(2) There isn't any evidence that this is a "plan" at all. It's a simple statement that explains WHY something happens.
(3) Even if it WERE God's plan, the grammar of the passage allows a man to marry one wife, marry one wife, and keep on marrying one wife numerous times.
The fact that God gave David wives, made Law that required polygamy, and portrayed Himself as a polygamist tends to contradict your position. I provided Scripture for these in the last message.
Minnow wrote: Whose word do you accept on polygamy? God's or Sinners?
I accept God's. He says that polygamy is good and righteous, a legitimate form of marriage.