Jump to content

Yes Another Polygamy Question


roman

Recommended Posts

roman;

"This is kinda of topic-------but God had a plan for marriage in OT times and idealy it was not plural marriage."

CFR

Okay, here is my take on the matter you asked for:

1: Genesis 2: 18-24

2. Psalms 128: 1-6

3. proverbs 31: 10-23-----------notice it says her husband-------singular

Unlawful marriage in Ot

1. Leviticus 18------- the whole chapter

2.Deut. 7: 1-11

3. Joshua 23:11-16

4. Ezra 9 and 10 the whole chapters

5.Nehemiaha 13: 23-31

If God had unlawful marriages--then he had ones he sanctioned IMHO

Well I think it is a mistake to do so.

Thank you so do I

This reference in the Bible should be read as "only married once", meaning he has never been divorced and remarried. Some of the ECF commented on these verses in this context. These verses are not referring to polygamy.

T-Shirt

Why should it be read as you say, as only married ONCE

Link to comment

From what I understand, your logic is this:

God gave laws in the Old Testament. These laws were superceded by new laws in the New Testament. Therefore, we cannot cite references in the Old Testament because the laws were changed. We must look at the New Testament.

You are assuming that change cannot come after the New Testament.

If God can change the law from the OT to the NT, then God can change the law after the NT

If God cannot change the law after the NT, then God cannot change the law from the OT to the NT (we know this contrapositive cannot be true).

We also know that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. This doesn't mean that the laws God GIVES is the same yesterday, today, and forever, but rather his method of dealing with his children. His method then, is to command what will be in His children's best interest and that is what can change as many times as He wishes.

I see and understand your point. But I think its a big assumption on your part. As we look to scripture we can see that God did indeed change some things from the OT to the NEW. But as it says in Hebrews the OLD was done away with because a NEW and BETTER covanant was given. When you understand the word ccovanant, you will see that once given it has not changed, because it was sealed by the blood of Christ.

Can God still add to the NC inspite of that-----sure as long as it doen't contridict anything he has already given in that NC---------JS plural marriage was just that---a violation of the NC

Link to comment

roman:

Listing a few verse numbers is not what I had in mind.

Please show where in these verses it is specifically geared towards the exclusion of polygamy. Please demonstrate from the Bible that polygamy is censored by God.

Which part of the OT did God specifically do away with?

From the time I listed the verse, till you posted, you did not have time to read and study them to get my point. Actually it would take you a couple of hours to study my verses

Link to comment

You mean like this? (2 Samuel 12:7-8 )

Nice try and at first glance your interpertation would seem right. But I disagree

please show me how that passage means that they were to take these women in to their bedrooms and concecrate a marriage

Link to comment

I see and understand your point. But I think its a big assumption on your part. As we look to scripture we can see that God did indeed change some things from the OT to the NEW. But as it says in Hebrews the OLD was done away with because a NEW and BETTER covanant was given. When you understand the word ccovanant, you will see that once given it has not changed, because it was sealed by the blood of Christ.

Can God still add to the NC inspite of that-----sure as long as it doen't contridict anything he has already given in that NC---------JS plural marriage was just that---a violation of the NC

I understand your point. I think where we differ is of your belief that the New Covenant was new and better.

God loves all of His children. He leads and guides His children while we are here. The Old Covenant was what was needed for his children at the time. This doesn't make it better or less, it makes it the best law to govern his children at the time.

I'm sure you can see where I am going with this. Polygamy was a needed practice for the Saints at the time. Again, I must emphasize that Polygamy doesn't always equal marriage as we practice it. Yes, there were some instances where it was, but you must look at the time period and what exactly was involved.

A covenant, as LDS see it, is a two way promise. I would agree that it is sealed by the blood of Christ; however, the author of the covenant (Christ) has the right to make changes.

Link to comment

Every time I see a polygamy thread the lds faithful try to give it ligitimatcy by siting the OT. I would really like someone to teach me how the LDS explain JS and BY mulitple marriages according to the New Covanant that Jesus ushered in

With all the references to --ONE WIFE in the NC and Jesus NEVER teaching more that one wife---------How do lds give their approval to polygamy.

I'm looking for civil debate----------though I might have more questions and will certainly challenge any scripture references if I feel promted to.

Other than that have a good one

I am sure that someone smarter than me will point this out...but even my Baptist mother pointed out that that comment for a "man" having one wife...was the qulification for a Bishop. Polygamy was practiced in NT times.

Pa Pa :P

Link to comment
Nice try and at first glance your interpertation would seem right.

That's because it is.

But I disagree.

As is your right. You would be wrong, but you have the right to be wrong.

please show me how that passage means that they were to take these women in to their bedrooms and concecrate a marriage

How about this for being discrete:

2 So David went up thither, and his two wives also, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail Nabal's wife the Carmelite.
(2 Samuel 2:2)
Link to comment

roman:

I don't think the editors, and compilers were into discussing such an indiscreet subject.

Okay you call for references, I gave them, you won't look at them <_< --but yet you just give them the back of your hand. Okay if thats what you want to do

Note to self-----if asked again by this individual for references---don't waste my time :P

Link to comment

That's because it is.

As is your right. You would be wrong, but you have the right to be wrong.

How about this for being discrete: (2 Samuel 2:2) (2 Samuel 3:2 - 5)

And that's just his first 6 sons and their 6 mothers.

And so? Do you really think that is was Gods plan for this to happen this way. ---wait of course you do. I just disagree but nice try.

I think it is this way--------- Pluarl marriage---cost David his family in the end. It has always had those kind of effects on all

Link to comment

I'm fine with practices coming and going. So polygamy is one of them.

Sorry, I don't see the comparison. There's a major difference of whether is a person is married or not, versus being married to multiple women. One is definitely without question endorsed by God. Polygamy being endorsed ever by God is questionable at best and IMO definitely not by Jesus's example and teachings to us in the NT.

Link to comment

2 Samuel 12:7 ... Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I aanointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy masterâ??s house, and thy masterâ??s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Link to comment

Sorry, I don't see the comparison. There's a major difference of whether is a person is married or not, versus being married to multiple women. One is definitely without question endorsed by God. Polygamy being endorsed ever by God is questionable at best and IMO definitely not by Jesus's example and teachings to us in the NT.

You find polygamy being endorsed by God as questionable? Do you not believe the bible? It has been pointed out various times by various people that the Lord gave David and Solomon their multiple wives. What more evidence do you need??

By the way, roman, I don't think it is fair that you disagree with our use of OT scriptures as justification for the practice, while you list only OT scriptures as your basis for disagreeing with it.

Sargon

Link to comment

You find polygamy being endorsed by God as questionable? Do you not believe the bible? It has been pointed out various times by various people that the Lord gave David and Solomon their multiple wives. What more evidence do you need??

By the way, roman, I don't think it is fair that you disagree with our use of OT scriptures as justification for the practice, while you list only OT scriptures as your basis for disagreeing with it.

Sargon

Once again my friend-----------get in CONTEXT. I was asked to provide OT scripture references----so I did

Link to comment

Once again my friend-----------get in CONTEXT. I was asked to provide OT scripture references----so I did

Yes, you cited scripture that you believe teaches the proper OT view of marriage, while insisting that that view is no longer valid.

Sargon

Link to comment

And so? Do you really think that is was Gods plan for this to happen this way. ---wait of course you do. I just disagree but nice try.

I think it is this way--------- Pluarl marriage---cost David his family in the end. It has always had those kind of effects on all

Could you please put out references which make this point?

Link to comment

Of course, adultery and murder had nothing to do with David's problems. I see.

Link to comment

... I see nowhere in the Bible that ploygamy was ever a good thing-------It hurt all that practiced it. ...

Possibly you have never read the Book of Ruth.

Boaz in marrying Ruth in polygamy (in compliance to the Law of Moses he was living under) perpetuated the lineage that eventually Christ came through. Saying polygamy was "never" a good thing is like saying Christ was not a good thing!

I don't believe for a second that it was Gods plan. Even in the Garden of Eden the idea is set out------one man ---one woman for ever, and that thought was carried out even until today.

Do you admit that whatever law Abraham (the "father" of the faithful) was living under, as also the Law of Moses allowed for Polygamy-- even requiring it in certain instances? If you explain that all away, then just stop reading here.

Read these: Gen. 16: 1-11; Gen. 25: 1; Gen. 29: 28; Gen. 30: 4, 9, 26; Ex. 21: 10; Deut. 17: 15-17; Deut. 21: 15; 2 Sam. 2: 2; 2 Sam. 5: 13; 2 Sam. 12: 7-9; 1 Kgs. 11: 1-4; 2 Chr. 13: 21; 2 Chr. 24: 3; Isa. 4: 1;

If God is righteous and perfect in His Gospel, why think He was not the same in the Law of Moses?

Paul teaches that the Law of Moses was a SCHOOLMASTER to lead Israel to the Gospel. Now think. If you go to school to prepare for some later employment, what does that schooling have to do with the later employment? Nothing????

No, the schooling will have EVERYTHING to do with the later schooling! So, the plural marriage under the Law of Moses must have been a direct preparation for living under the Gospel.

The New Testament CLEARY perpetuates Patriarchy: the man is the head of the woman. Even though you may not understand, polygyny is a direct consequence of Patriarchy.

1 Col 11

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

This clearly perpetuates what was said in the beginning:

Gen 3

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Plural marriage can be abused, as can monogamy. But it is not NOT automatically in contradiction to God's laws when done correctly.

Richard

Link to comment

And so? Do you really think that is was Gods plan for this to happen this way. ---wait of course you do. I just disagree but nice try.

I think it is this way--------- Pluarl marriage---cost David his family in the end. It has always had those kind of effects on all

Do you think that if David had been unmarried at the time he set up Uriah to be killed that everything would have been peachy with the Lord?

It wasn't the polygamy that got David in trouble , it was the act of stealing away another man's wife and having his innocent blood shed to do it. Whether David had 1,000 wives or no wife at all , didn't make a difference.

Link to comment

Yes, you cited scripture that you believe teaches the proper OT view of marriage, while insisting that that view is no longer valid.

Sargon

Come on Sargon---get in context of why I posted those scriptures----------i never said that view was no longer valid--------it was the justification of Gods plan for marriage.

You are totally confused on the whole reason I sited the scriptures--go back and reread what was posted

Link to comment

Could you please put out references which make this point?

Lets see-------------son hating father,trying to steal the kingdom

son raping sister

God telling David and war would be with him always

God taking Bathshebas son

And those are just off the top of my head

Link to comment

Possibly you have never read the Book of Ruth.

Boaz in marrying Ruth in polygamy (in compliance to the Law of Moses he was living under) perpetuated the lineage that eventually Christ came through. Saying polygamy was "never" a good thing is like saying Christ was not a good thing!

Do you admit that whatever law Abraham (the "father" of the faithful) was living under, as also the Law of Moses allowed for Polygamy-- even requiring it in certain instances? If you explain that all away, then just stop reading here.

Read these: Gen. 16: 1-11; Gen. 25: 1; Gen. 29: 28; Gen. 30: 4, 9, 26; Ex. 21: 10; Deut. 17: 15-17; Deut. 21: 15; 2 Sam. 2: 2; 2 Sam. 5: 13; 2 Sam. 12: 7-9; 1 Kgs. 11: 1-4; 2 Chr. 13: 21; 2 Chr. 24: 3; Isa. 4: 1;

If God is righteous and perfect in His Gospel, why think He was not the same in the Law of Moses?

Paul teaches that the Law of Moses was a SCHOOLMASTER to lead Israel to the Gospel. Now think. If you go to school to prepare for some later employment, what does that schooling have to do with the later employment? Nothing????

No, the schooling will have EVERYTHING to do with the later schooling! So, the plural marriage under the Law of Moses must have been a direct preparation for living under the Gospel.

The New Testament CLEARY perpetuates Patriarchy: the man is the head of the woman. Even though you may not understand, polygyny is a direct consequence of Patriarchy.

This clearly perpetuates what was said in the beginning:

Gen 3

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Plural marriage can be abused, as can monogamy. But it is not NOT automatically in contradiction to God's laws when done correctly.

Richard

In Genesis 16: 1-11 It was Saria who gave Abram to wife--not God and the end of that so called marriage still troubles us to day---------not a good example

Geesis 25:1 Show no justification from God in this-please show Gods approval-----CFR

Genesis 29:28-----again show Gods approval

I need not go any farther in all your scriputres as the first 3 do not show God approval nore his justification

Do you think that if David had been unmarried at the time he set up Uriah to be killed that everything would have been peachy with the Lord?

It wasn't the polygamy that got David in trouble , it was the act of stealing away another man's wife and having his innocent blood shed to do it. Whether David had 1,000 wives or no wife at all , didn't make a difference.

Didn't make a difference to who-------------to God it did as judgement came Davids way

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...