Deu 21;15,16-If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: you see,a man can have more then one wife is part of the Law, and there are 600 law in the Bible and not one is done away with
when Christ was talking about when a man lust after another woman, he commit adultery, Christ was talking about a man who is lusting after another man wife. Christ was quoting from the book of the Law of Moses, and he himself said this in Matt 5;17 that he did not come to do away with the Law, which mean the custom and Law still stand. God was not against it. woman was put on the earth for man, and there are more woman on the earth then man. God made it so for man pleasure and to multiply
first of all polygamy is not a sin, nor Did God Condone Polygamy, a man can either have one wife or multiple wife. if it was a man made Idea then God would have never said this to king David. 2 Samuel 12;8-And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master'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.
God allow polygamy, a man can choose how many woman he wants.
"Joash was seven years old when he became king, and he reigned forty years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Zibiah of Beersheba. 2 Joash did what was right in the sight of the LORD all the days of Jehoiada the priest. 3 And Jehoiada took two wives for him, and he had sons and daughters."~ 2 Chronicles 24:1-3 NKJV
Notice the part where it says that King Joash "did what was right in the sight of the Lord" ? Once again, we see a polygynist NOT being condemned by God.
For anyone who is interested in reading a balanced and neutral treatment on the topic of Biblical polygyny, I recommend "Divorce and Re-marriage: Recovering the Biblical view" by William F. Luck, Sr. (retired associate professor of Bible and Theology at Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Il.). There is a section in the book on polygyny.
In Matt. 1:17, Matthew lists 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the Exile, 14 from the Exile to Jesus. The promise to Abraham was fullfilled in David, the sons David fully betrayed the Covenant of David & went into exile. Jesus fully redeemed the line of Abe, & David. The numeracal value of David's Hebrew name is 14. Thus the 14x3 of Matthew's geneology shows Jesus is the only perfect fullfillment of the Covenants of Abe & David.
I am really quite astonished at this conversation though. It shows how we as a civilisation are on the precipice. People feel entitled to attack the very foundations of our civilisation. Young parents today must regard w/ trepidation the future into which they cast their children. The children of those who are being raised up today will live in very different & far more frightening world.
@fairlightdawn112 Okay Victor...I'll answer this one for you! Yes, murder is a sin......how do we know that? BECAUSE IT'S WRITTEN IN THE LAW! Are lying, stealing, fornication, homosexuality sins ??? Yes ! How do we know that? BECAUSE IT'S WRITTEN IN THE LAW ! In the OT, it was the Law that defined sin. Not ONE time did the Law define polygyny as sin. This is not an argument from silence, there is so much in the Bible that confirms this.
@fairlightdawn112: & what is murder precisely? Your annalysis is superficial. DIVIDING the word is about plunging into the word's depths. Is slavery condemned in the Bible, it most certainly is. As Lincoln said, "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." But sanction for slavery are given in scripture. No one place condemns it. Asking where it is is like asking where the yeast is in bread, or the wet in water. It is a pervading attribute, a systemic bias.
@fairlightdawn112: Certainly it is a sin. But sins arise from different circumstance. Not all murders are the same morally. Some are more disturbing & morally disordered in terms of social circumstance what they reveal about the nature of the actor (murderer). There are murders of sudden passion (usually called manslaugher in anglo-saxon jurispredence), there murders of cold evil calculation, murder conspiracies as per the Mafia. Etc.
@VictorLepanto This isn't about protecting a given civilization...it's about rightly dividing the Word Of God. You've claimed that polygyny is sinful but there is no Biblical text which states that.
@fairlightdawn112: I've given you the basic foundations for the nature of polygamy in the Bible & for proper Bible interpretation generally. You're simply psychologically unwilling to acknowledge the reality of what I've said to you. You're like the defenders of slavery who dismissed abolitionism b/c there was no one specific text condemning the concept of slavery. Like polygamy, slavery is an evil idea which is rejected synthetically across the whole face of salvation history.
@VictorLepanto I would not say that to our Lord, He descended through many polygamists and is the promised seed of two major OT polygamist men of God. How many polygamists in this passage? Mat 1:1-2 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham fathered Isaac, and Isaac fathered Jacob, and Jacob fathered Judah and his brothers.
As for slavery, it's a more complicated issue than that......(once again, not enough room)
@fairlightdawn112: All them are sinners & there numerous sins are recorded in scripture. Would have our Lord a sinner or an approver of sin b/c He allowed himself to enter the world through a line of sinners? These men did not merit the supreme glory of siring the line of our saviour. It was a super abundant gift of Christ to them. What kind of sectarian movement do you come from that you are such a committed apologist for polygamy?
@fairlightdawn112: Men want polygamy b/c of their sinful lusts. Men are violent (Cain) b/c of their passion of anger. Genesis is Moses account of how the human race degenerated to the point where it was necessary for God to give the Covenant to Israel. If you don't understand that central thesis, you'll understand nothing. Number symbols are central to interpretting the Bible. Go read the geneology of Matthew again. Mat. 1:17 Why the harping on 14 generations? Why harp on the 6 generations?
@VictorLepanto Victor....there are far easier ways for men to indulge "sinful lusts" than to marry another wife! If all they want is sex, that is easy enough for any man to obtain. Polygyny is marriage. The man marries the woman and is fully responsible for her and any children they have. It is a Covenant committment, not only with the woman but with God, as well.
BTW. I'm not sure what you mean by "number symbols"? Are you referring to numerology or that certain numbers tend to be repeated?
@fairlightdawn112: Men can & do spread their seed to the 4 winds. As Shakespeare said, "Cupidity rules us all." It is not the INDULGING of lusts which is be addressed here but the more profound wickedness of seeking to dignify & legitimize their indulgences. It is one thing to fall from grace, it is another to call sin virtue. One is mere lust, the other pride inspired blasphemy. That is the sin of Satan, a more profound b/c one of the spirit rather then merely one of flesh.
@fairlightdawn112: It is defined (or rather shown narratively to be more degenerate form of sin) as in the life of Lamech. Moses (writing under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost) makes a specific point of linking Lamech's geneology to Cain. Lamech underlines this point by himself speaking of how he has surpassed Cain. Lamech does this boasting to his bygamist wives. Do you need a ton of bricks to fall on your head. How much MORE pointed could it be? Read Gen. 4:17-26 again. please.
@VictorLepanto>" Do you need a ton of bricks to fall on your head. How much MORE pointed could it be?"
Okay, you don't need to be insulting...and it needs to be MUCH MORE pointed. Your Cain / Lamech hypothesis is very weak.
Moses wrote the Book in question, Victor. Moses had two wives, Zipporah and the unnamed Ethiopian woman. Moses' sister, Miriam, openly criticized Moses for marrying the 2nd wife and God struck her for with leprosy for doing so.
@fairlightdawn112: It is debatable as to whether or not Zipporah & "the Ethiopian" (actually Cushite) are the same person. The Midianites of Zipporah were noted for being dark complected also & were often called Cushite as well. Only Josephus claims that the Cushite was an Ethiopian Moses married b/f fleeing Egypt. For all we know, she was long dead b/f Moses returned to speak to Pharoah. He was around 80 at that point.
@VictorLepanto Moses had two wives. 1) Zipporah: Exodus 2:15-16,21 and Exodus 18:1-6
2) Ethiopian woman: Numbers 12:1(-15) Zipporah was not the "Ethiopian woman" herself. Zipporah was of the tribe of Midian. Genesis 25:1-3 shows that Midian was one of the six sons born unto Abraham by his third wife, Keturah. Thus, Zipporah was "Abrahamic", who was "Shemitic" (i.e., descended of Noah's son Shem, per Genesis 10:1; 11:11-27). But the "Ethiopian woman" was a descended of Cush, who was "Hamitic".
@VictorLepanto Also, the timing of Moses' marriage to the Ethiopian woman can be determined by Numbers 33:1-49,17 and 11:35 with 12:16 which "surrounds" the story about Moses marrying the Ethiopian woman in Numbers 12:1-15. This is clearly much later than the time when Moses married Zipporah in Exodus 2:15,22. Therefore, the Shemitic/Abrahamic Midianitess Zipporah could not possibly be the Hamitic/non-Abrahamic "Ethiopian woman".
@VictorLepanto Sorry, one more point.....the comparison between Cain and Lamech does not necessarily show the process of social degeneration. Cain murdered out of jealousy and spite. Lamech's account of his crime is not very detailed in Genesis, but it sounds like it could of been a case of self-defense. One could easily argue that Cain's crime was far more heinous than Lamech's.
@fairlightdawn112: What do you mean by not detailed? It is far more detailed then most of the pre-deluvian accounts. Lamech says he murdered for a mere insult. It is Lamech who makes the comparison & says he is revenged (not a matter of self defense) "77 times" greater then was Cain. It is LAMECH who says that his crime was the greater. typology is the proper way to interpret the Bible. I don't know who is giving you these ideas, but they haven't the foggiest.
@VictorLepanto "Then Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah. 20 And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother’s name was Jubal. He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute. And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron. And the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah." Cont.
@VictorLepanto " Then Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech! For I have killed a man for wounding me, Even a young man for hurting me.
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”
This is it, Victor ! These are all the details we have on this account and it isn't much. Whether Lamech was right or wrong to kill the young man, it is obvious that the attack was provoked. It could have been self defense.
@fairlightdawn112: I am astonished that you have such trouble understanding what is written in front of you. It's Lamech who says that he killed the man for an "insult." An insult is not an assault. It is Lamech who compares his actions to Cain. Thus it is demonstrated that Lamech regarded it as murder. You need to learn to read the Bible synthetically, according to the principles of TYPOLOGY. The numerical symbolism is part of a Jewish idea called GEMATRIA. It is an important part of typology.
@VictorLepanto My Bible (NKJV) used the terms "wounding" and "hurting", as opposed to "insult"...but this isn't really the point. Let's say Lamech was a bad guy...so what? It doesn't make polygyny wrong because some polygynist did something bad. Adam, a monogynist (as far as we know), did evil, too....should we then outlaw monogyny? Your argument is nothing more than "guilt by association", which makes for a very week argument. Yes, I thought you were referring to Gematria.
@fairlightdawn112: I've just reviewed the wording in the KJV: " I have slain a man TO MY WOUNDING, & an young man TO MY HURT." Again, you need to read closely & try to follow the grammar of what is being said. The young didn't wound Lamech, Lamech hurt Lamech. He is talking about a moral hurt, he has wounded his own soul by his wicked deed.
@VictorLepanto For anyone who would attempt to assert that "Zipporah was dead" by the time that Moses married the Ethiopian woman, they are the ones who have the "burden of proof" to demonstrate and validate their assertion. After all, the principle of "assumed status quo" logic mandates that, unless otherwise specifically reported otherwise, one must believe that the status quo remains. For example, as long as a man's wife is still alive, he doesn't walk around reporting that she has died.
@fairlightdawn112: I told you that Josephus is the only source I've found information on where it is asserted that there was a seperate woman from Zipporah. Historically, traditionally, Ethiopian woman has been regarded as being the same person as Zipporah. The issue has been much disputed. It is modern (read liberal) "higher critical" scholars who are convinced she is another woman. A noted Biblical theologian named Scott Hahn says Zipporah is the Cushite. Midianites were noted for being dark.
@VictorLepanto I am very familiar with Josephus :-) I'm sure that both the Cushites and Midianites were both dark, that doesn't mean anything. Cush and Midian were not the same regions. There are many noted Biblical theologians that believe they were different women.
@fairlightdawn112: Men want polygamy b/c of their sinful lusts. Men are violent (Cain) b/c of their passion of anger. Genesis is Moses account of how the human race degenerated to the point where it was necessary for God to give the Covenant to Israel. If you don't understand that central thesis, you'll understand nothing. Number symbols are central to interpretting the Bible. Go read the geneology of Matthew again. Mat. 1:17 Why the harping on 14 generations? Why harp on the 6 generations?
@VictorLepanto God was not ashamed to be called the God of polygamists, see Hebs.11:16. Including Abe, Sarah, Jacob, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, David and how mighty these polygamists were used by God see Hebs.11:33-34.
@fairlightdawn112: God was not ashamed to be the God Satan either. He was & is the God Judas Iscariot, called him to be a disciple. He create Cain & Lamech & all those who died in the flood & all the 1st borns of Egypt. "Jacob have I loved, but Edom I have hated." Mal 1:2-3 Yet Jacob & Esau are both His creatures. Each, saint & sinner, are clay in the potter's hands. He uses them as He sees fit.
In Ezekiel 23, in an allegorical story...God describes Himself as having two wives (who were then unfaithful to Him). God HATES sin and He would never use an allegory using polygyny to describe Himself if polygyny was in fact, sinful.
@fairlightdawn112: Why not? It is a metaphor to make a point. Are we to reject Jesus as an unrighteous judge merely b/c he told parables about unrighteous judges?
Re: Leviticus: The Levites are established as a priestly people over Israel only after the Golden Calf incident. They have laws for themselves to make them become exemplars to the people note the laws of marriage for Levites: "& [the Levite] shall take A wife in her virginity." Not wives, but A wife. Lev. 21:13. The grudging sanction for divorce only occurs in Deuteronomy & doesn't apply to the Levites, they are not to divorce. They aren't to be polygamists either.
A general word to all: Jesus said; "'For this reason a man shall leave his father & mother & be joined to his wife, & the TWO shall become 1 flesh? So they are no longer TWO but 1 flesh. What therefore God has joined together let not man put asunder. 1 man & 1 woman make 1 flesh. If he joins himself to another flesh, he breaches his relationship w/ his wife. A clear contradiction of the original purpose marriage. Go to 1st principles.
@fairlightdawn112: Jesus pronounces a principle for interpretting much of the Bible which is a universal principle. This principle, as such, has nothing to do w/ divorce. Jesus states that many laws in the Torah of Moses were introduced b/c of man's "hard heartedness." Merely b/c it is permitted doesn't make it good. If the allowance for divorce was mere concession. Other laws must also be such GRUDGING concession. There is not even a verse which sanction polygamy, thus it is worse.
@VictorLepanto No it is not "worse". God has never been shy or silent regarding things that displease him. One passage in the Bible refers to homosexuality as an "abomination"....other sexual sins are also specifically mentioned....but not polygyny. So, You're trying to tell me that because it wasn't mentioned that it was worse? What's worse than something defined as an "abomination" ? I'm sorry, Sir, but you're argument doesn't hold up.
@fairlightdawn112: It is mentioned, as FOLLOWING the original act of murder. It shows the process of social degeneration. Lamech is 6 generations removed from Adam's original sin. As Goliath was 6 cubits tall. I Kings 10:14 Solomon falls from God AFTER receiving 666 talents of gold. 6 is a sign of sin in the Bible. As 6 cubit Goliath blasphemed God, so Lamech blasphemed by boasting of his crimes. The connection of the sin of polygamy to all this is very pointed.
@VictorLepanto Once again, you have failed to make your case. You're making some big and unfounded assumptions here with the number 6...but I will run this by a few pastors I know (some poly friendly and some not) and see what they say.
@fairlightdawn112: I am not making any kind of assumptions. I'm trying to explain to you the proper principles of Biblical interpretation. The Bible, while being at its most basic essense the word of God, is centrally the a reflection of the culture of the Hebrew nation. Forms, idioms, symbols, basic assumption are placed in the text. They are often unthinking, subconscious b/c they are taken for granted by the people of that time. We aren't part of that culture, so we misunderstand.
@orlovna2: For all you know, I am in my 80s. You posted a request for chap. & vs., I gave them to you. Make a study of them. It is the Bible itself which harps on the connection b/t polygamy & murder. Given the Bible interpretive principle of TYPOLOGY, this 1st citation of the subject is some-what definative on how to interpret all subsequent references to polygamy. Polygamy is repeatedly linked to violence & conflict. When a man has multiple families, they'll naturally fight for his attention.
@orlovna2 It is quite interesting that there is NO Biblical prohibition against polygyny anywhere in the Bible; Furthermore, Lev. 18 lists every type of sexual sin that can be imagined and not once is polygyny mentioned in the clearest and strongest passage that denounces sexual sin.
It is funny how some people miss the obvious fact that every time Polygamy apears in the OT it is a a disaster. It is always a source of later trouble for Israel. For instance, Arab (or Ismaelites) are slave traders who take Joseph into slavery. Jacob's return to the promised land is delayed for years by being deceived into bygamy. The 1st polygamist recorded in the Bible is a conscienceless murderer who brags about his murders. Rather like Brigham Young.
@orlovna2 Gen. 4:17 "& Lamech took 2 wives; the name of the 1 was Adah, & the name of the other Zillah...Lamech said to his wives: 'Adah & Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, hearken to what I say: I HAVE SLAIN A MAN FOR WOUNDING ME, a young man for striking me. If Cain is avenged 7fold, truly Lamech 77fold.'"
Hope that helps, the 1st mention of polygamy in the Bible the 2nd of murder. The bygamist connects his crime to Cain, is not bygamy here clearly linked w/ murder as well?
@VictorLepanto No, polygyny (the proper term) should not be linked w/ murder anymore than Adam and Eve disobeying God (and thus bringing sin into the entire human race) should be considered the result of monogyny.
@fairlightdawn112: I don't know why your quibbling w/ me on this point. Did you read the passage I reference below? (Gen. 4: 7) In it, LAMECH himself links his actions to Cain. Moses (the author of Genesis) quotes him & links Lamechs pedigree to Cain in the directly preceeding verses. Also, the elders of Isreal preserved this history orally in the generations preceeding Moses. That is a multitude of formidable authorities. I will defer to THEM.
@VictorLepanto I would be far more inclined to agree with your so-called "Formidable Authorities" if they weren't so heavily influenced by our western cultural bias against polygyny. The most formidable authority of all, God and His Holy Word, have never condemned polygyny. The practice was even regulated in Exodus 21:10. What you are doing the the account of Lamech is often referred to as "selective citation". Many of God's choicest servants were polygynous and God never condemned them.
@fairlightdawn112: I mentioned Moses & the pre-biblical fathers of Israel who handed this story on to Moses orally. How are these Semitic sources influenced by an as yet nonexistant Western culture? Genesis is about the beginnings of things. This is where polygamy begins, thus it is definitive. Read all subsquent referenced in light of it. Your ref. is an argument from silence. & God chose His servants, they weren't "choice" but chosen. We can't be worthy of a sovereign act of God.
@VictorLepanto There is no Biblical prohibition against polygyny and nowhere in the Bible does it list polygyny as a sin. Many of the Patriarchs were polygynous. God never condemned them for it. We have inherited a cultural bias against polygyny from the Catholic Church (who prohibited it hundreds of years ago to appease the Romans who were monogynous). in the OT, the practice was regulated. I've heard ALL your arguments before and they can be easily dismantled, but there's not enough room.
@fairlightdawn112: Once again, you need to learn the basic principle that an argument from silence proves NOTHING. Divorce also is permitted in Deuteronomy, Jesus makes it clear that divorce is still contrary to the will of God. It was ALLOWED for man's hard heartedness. As polygamy is not even sanctioned in this degree, this implies it is even more obnoxious then divorce. & quit being pretentious, the word is POLYGAMY.
@VictorLepanto "Polygamy" is a general term that means multiple spouses and includes polyandry, polygyny and sometimes polyamory. The Patriarchs of the Bible practised "polygyny" (one husband / multiple wives); therefore the correct word is "polygyny". I'm not trying to be pretentious. I'm simply employing accurate terminology. As for divorce, God is on record as saying he "hates divorce", he never said he "hated polygyny".
@fairlightdawn112: He is on record as saying, "The TWO shall become ONE. It is not three or for or any other number. This is the original ideal which defines how we analyze all other discussions. God is on record as hating divorce & yet it was permitted under some circumstance. The reality of polygamy except by noting the 1st bigamist was a proud boastful murderer & the heir of Cain. Thus showing the decline of sin. Actually, polygamy is here shown as worse then murder.
@VictorLepanto "One Flesh" refers to the act of marital intimacy. A man can be "one flesh" with more than one wife. Being "one flesh" with a wife did not exclude the possibility of subsequent wives.
The 1st polygynist was a murderer ?...so what! The 1st monogynist brought sin into the world! Should we then view Monogyny as evil ???
Your statement claiming polygyny was shown as being "worse than murder" is completely without merit.
@fairlightdawn112: "One flesh" is an expression of the covenantal bond between the man & woman. Covenant is about family & family is about children. God ratifies & blesses (or does not ratify & bless) the bond b/t the man & woman by giving them children. The one flesh is the common flesh they share in their children. When a man has more then one family, he is necessarily divided in his loyalties & attentions. Thus circle of protection around the children is compromised.
@VictorLepanto show me the Biblical Text that states exactly what you wrote (especially the last 2 sentences) And yes you are making assumptions...you're "assuming" that 1.) that a polygynist husband has more than one family (WRONG! he has ONE family w/ more than one wife). 2.) that he is "divided" in his loyalties & attentions (most men are divided in their loyalties & attentions, if they have children...and how is that wrong?). 3.) That poly "compromises" the children's protection.
@fairlightdawn112: The singular bond of love b/t one wife & one husband is like an iron band w/o seem surrounding the children. The children are all theirs & they are totally focused as a unit on them. If there are (supposedly) two wives, the genes of one wife are NOT in the other wives children. She is not committed to the other set of children as she is to her own. It is children which make a family if all of a man's family are encircled in that one band of commitment, his focus is divided.
@VictorLepanto Are you speaking from experience here ? I know several polygynous (non-Mormom) families and the wives do love and care for all the children. The husbands focus is no more divided than any family man who has multiple children and family members (and a job !). Genes are a non-issue for them.
@fairlightdawn112: There commitment to some other woman's children will never be like their natural commitment to their own. It is only human nature. One hardly needs to be married to the same man for one woman to aid the care of someone else's children. Still, they're not her children. All women in such circumstance will look w/ envious eyes on any attention the man sheds on the other woman's children & family. My point is that both parents are totally focused on one set of children.
@VictorLepanto >"All women in such circumstance will look w/ envious eyes on any attention the man sheds on the other woman's children & family.".....Really ? ALL women?? How many polygynous families do you know personally? How many real polygynous wives have you personally spoken to or observed? You've made a very broad brush statement here. You're giving me your opinions based on your assumptions but you're doing so without any personal knowledge of real polygynous wives.
@fairlightdawn112: All have sinned fallen short of the glory of God. Sin & our wicked impulses enbodied in the 7 deadlies, is found everywhere. I am perfectly familiar w/ human nature. I have met men & women. I know how the act. I know how they act even thought deny their actions fillings even in the very act of practicing them. Often denying them (at least @ one level) to themselves. There is no one easier to lie to then ones self. The self delusions of your friends don't interest me.
@VictorLepanto I guess this means you haven't ever met or known any ? :-D
I'm not trying to make your life miserable and you have been more than patient with me, so I genuinely thank you for that :-) I used to share your opinions until I really started becoming a Berean and searching the Scriptures. I found that in addition to actual Truth, I had also been taught "the traditions of men" which includes the "anti-polygyny" teaching. Polygyny is not commanded but neither is it forbidden.
@fairlightdawn112: You are obviously entangled w/ some polygamy advocating group & are allowing them to influence you. All too many people read their own preferences into the Bible. I have no idea what your "traditions of men" were preceeding this current entanglement. If you allowed yourself to be influenced by "traditions of men" previously, how are you so certain that that isn't what is happening to you now?
@VictorLepanto Because I have studied the issue for myself instead of blindly accepting what "the party line" of the church has been. If I'm going to believe something then I want to study it for myself to see if the Bible is really saying what I've been "taught" it says. Most people study the Bible through a western cultural lens. I approach the Bible neutrally and allow God to speak to me through it.
@fairlightdawn112: You return to this bit of jargon, "Western cutural lens." Obviously this is some kind buzz term w/ the groups you've become involved w/. You can call it "studied the issue for myself" if you wish, but you're simply following what some sectarians have taught you as their doctrines. Belief is an act of the will & you're not neutrally exploring the Bible for what it teaches. You've bought into some system of thought. I've shown how polygamy is introduced as a Bible concept.
@VictorLepanto >"You return to this bit of jargon, "Western cutural lens." Obviously this is some kind buzz term w/ the groups you've become involved w/. "
Actually it's my term :-) But once again, you're making a lot of assumptions except this time they're about me. ;-)
@VictorLepanto .It's also not an argument from silence. I have studied this and the basic Greek and Hebrew words used in many of the passages. I've been studying this topic for years. I'm also not Mormon...I'm a Born Again Christian. You seem to have studied this topic from one angle, through the lens of our western culture which has a bias against the practice.
@VictorLepanto It is quite interesting that there is NO Biblical prohibition against polygyny anywhere in the Bible; Furthermore, Lev. 18 lists every type of sexual sin that can be imagined and not once is polygyny mentioned in the clearest and strongest passage that denounces sexual sin.
@fairlightdawn112: I don't know why your quibbling w/ me on this point. Did you read the passage I reference below? (Gen. 4: 7) In it, LAMECH himself links his actions to Cain. Moses (the author of Genesis) quotes him & links Lamechs pedigree to Cain in the directly preceeding verses. Also, the elders of Isreal preserved this history orally in the generations preceeding Moses. That is a multitude of formidable authorities. I will defer to THEM.
this video is interesting because it shows Shawn lieing for the Lord, so to speak, as he still condemns polygamy, uses Adam and Eve as the example, but then fails to recognize the revered Abraham who had multiple wives, and said it was Abraham's idea to do that.
He still accepts Abraham, but condemns Joseph Smith. The double standard PREVAILS.
..See this video on my favorites Christianity and polygamy...though addresed to muslims who prphet, mohammed also used old testament narrative to justify his polygamy it can give the christian perspective on polygamy quite interesting...
Where is the lie at? It is true that God never instituted any of the multiple wife marriages. God's reverence for Abraham was not out of Abraham's perfection....there was only one perfect. If we needed to be perfect for God's acceptance we would all be in trouble. Can we get a little more clarity as to where the lies are along with some references?
He quotes the bible but does not quote the BofM Jacob 2:24-29 which forbids polygamy and contradicts D&C 132 especially since they both use David and Solomon as examples of Polygamy. Joseph screwed up on using them as examples. D&C totally disagrees with BofM on David and Solomon's use of polygamy.
He also is not aware of D&C section 101 which forbade polygamy until 1857.
In fact Gordon Hinckley says polygamy is not doctrinal....LOL Now that is a good one.
Deu 21;15,16-If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: you see,a man can have more then one wife is part of the Law, and there are 600 law in the Bible and not one is done away with
22seafood 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
when Christ was talking about when a man lust after another woman, he commit adultery, Christ was talking about a man who is lusting after another man wife. Christ was quoting from the book of the Law of Moses, and he himself said this in Matt 5;17 that he did not come to do away with the Law, which mean the custom and Law still stand. God was not against it. woman was put on the earth for man, and there are more woman on the earth then man. God made it so for man pleasure and to multiply
22seafood 5 months ago
first of all polygamy is not a sin, nor Did God Condone Polygamy, a man can either have one wife or multiple wife. if it was a man made Idea then God would have never said this to king David. 2 Samuel 12;8-And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master'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.
God allow polygamy, a man can choose how many woman he wants.
22seafood 5 months ago
"Joash was seven years old when he became king, and he reigned forty years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Zibiah of Beersheba. 2 Joash did what was right in the sight of the LORD all the days of Jehoiada the priest. 3 And Jehoiada took two wives for him, and he had sons and daughters."~ 2 Chronicles 24:1-3 NKJV
Notice the part where it says that King Joash "did what was right in the sight of the Lord" ? Once again, we see a polygynist NOT being condemned by God.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
For anyone who is interested in reading a balanced and neutral treatment on the topic of Biblical polygyny, I recommend "Divorce and Re-marriage: Recovering the Biblical view" by William F. Luck, Sr. (retired associate professor of Bible and Theology at Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Il.). There is a section in the book on polygyny.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
In Matt. 1:17, Matthew lists 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the Exile, 14 from the Exile to Jesus. The promise to Abraham was fullfilled in David, the sons David fully betrayed the Covenant of David & went into exile. Jesus fully redeemed the line of Abe, & David. The numeracal value of David's Hebrew name is 14. Thus the 14x3 of Matthew's geneology shows Jesus is the only perfect fullfillment of the Covenants of Abe & David.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
I am really quite astonished at this conversation though. It shows how we as a civilisation are on the precipice. People feel entitled to attack the very foundations of our civilisation. Young parents today must regard w/ trepidation the future into which they cast their children. The children of those who are being raised up today will live in very different & far more frightening world.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto I have a question for you, Victor. Is murder a sin ?
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112 Okay Victor...I'll answer this one for you! Yes, murder is a sin......how do we know that? BECAUSE IT'S WRITTEN IN THE LAW! Are lying, stealing, fornication, homosexuality sins ??? Yes ! How do we know that? BECAUSE IT'S WRITTEN IN THE LAW ! In the OT, it was the Law that defined sin. Not ONE time did the Law define polygyny as sin. This is not an argument from silence, there is so much in the Bible that confirms this.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: & what is murder precisely? Your annalysis is superficial. DIVIDING the word is about plunging into the word's depths. Is slavery condemned in the Bible, it most certainly is. As Lincoln said, "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." But sanction for slavery are given in scripture. No one place condemns it. Asking where it is is like asking where the yeast is in bread, or the wet in water. It is a pervading attribute, a systemic bias.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: Certainly it is a sin. But sins arise from different circumstance. Not all murders are the same morally. Some are more disturbing & morally disordered in terms of social circumstance what they reveal about the nature of the actor (murderer). There are murders of sudden passion (usually called manslaugher in anglo-saxon jurispredence), there murders of cold evil calculation, murder conspiracies as per the Mafia. Etc.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto This isn't about protecting a given civilization...it's about rightly dividing the Word Of God. You've claimed that polygyny is sinful but there is no Biblical text which states that.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: I've given you the basic foundations for the nature of polygamy in the Bible & for proper Bible interpretation generally. You're simply psychologically unwilling to acknowledge the reality of what I've said to you. You're like the defenders of slavery who dismissed abolitionism b/c there was no one specific text condemning the concept of slavery. Like polygamy, slavery is an evil idea which is rejected synthetically across the whole face of salvation history.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto I would not say that to our Lord, He descended through many polygamists and is the promised seed of two major OT polygamist men of God. How many polygamists in this passage? Mat 1:1-2 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham fathered Isaac, and Isaac fathered Jacob, and Jacob fathered Judah and his brothers.
As for slavery, it's a more complicated issue than that......(once again, not enough room)
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: All them are sinners & there numerous sins are recorded in scripture. Would have our Lord a sinner or an approver of sin b/c He allowed himself to enter the world through a line of sinners? These men did not merit the supreme glory of siring the line of our saviour. It was a super abundant gift of Christ to them. What kind of sectarian movement do you come from that you are such a committed apologist for polygamy?
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto >"What kind of sectarian movement do you come from that you are such a committed apologist for polygamy?"
I'm a Born Again Christian. I attended Christian schools my whole life. I have a background that includes Baptist and Foursquare.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: Men want polygamy b/c of their sinful lusts. Men are violent (Cain) b/c of their passion of anger. Genesis is Moses account of how the human race degenerated to the point where it was necessary for God to give the Covenant to Israel. If you don't understand that central thesis, you'll understand nothing. Number symbols are central to interpretting the Bible. Go read the geneology of Matthew again. Mat. 1:17 Why the harping on 14 generations? Why harp on the 6 generations?
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto Victor....there are far easier ways for men to indulge "sinful lusts" than to marry another wife! If all they want is sex, that is easy enough for any man to obtain. Polygyny is marriage. The man marries the woman and is fully responsible for her and any children they have. It is a Covenant committment, not only with the woman but with God, as well.
BTW. I'm not sure what you mean by "number symbols"? Are you referring to numerology or that certain numbers tend to be repeated?
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: Men can & do spread their seed to the 4 winds. As Shakespeare said, "Cupidity rules us all." It is not the INDULGING of lusts which is be addressed here but the more profound wickedness of seeking to dignify & legitimize their indulgences. It is one thing to fall from grace, it is another to call sin virtue. One is mere lust, the other pride inspired blasphemy. That is the sin of Satan, a more profound b/c one of the spirit rather then merely one of flesh.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto >"It is another to call sin virtue. "
And we're back at square one :-) Polygyny was never defined as sin.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: It is defined (or rather shown narratively to be more degenerate form of sin) as in the life of Lamech. Moses (writing under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost) makes a specific point of linking Lamech's geneology to Cain. Lamech underlines this point by himself speaking of how he has surpassed Cain. Lamech does this boasting to his bygamist wives. Do you need a ton of bricks to fall on your head. How much MORE pointed could it be? Read Gen. 4:17-26 again. please.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto>" Do you need a ton of bricks to fall on your head. How much MORE pointed could it be?"
Okay, you don't need to be insulting...and it needs to be MUCH MORE pointed. Your Cain / Lamech hypothesis is very weak.
Moses wrote the Book in question, Victor. Moses had two wives, Zipporah and the unnamed Ethiopian woman. Moses' sister, Miriam, openly criticized Moses for marrying the 2nd wife and God struck her for with leprosy for doing so.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: It is debatable as to whether or not Zipporah & "the Ethiopian" (actually Cushite) are the same person. The Midianites of Zipporah were noted for being dark complected also & were often called Cushite as well. Only Josephus claims that the Cushite was an Ethiopian Moses married b/f fleeing Egypt. For all we know, she was long dead b/f Moses returned to speak to Pharoah. He was around 80 at that point.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto Moses had two wives. 1) Zipporah: Exodus 2:15-16,21 and Exodus 18:1-6
2) Ethiopian woman: Numbers 12:1(-15) Zipporah was not the "Ethiopian woman" herself. Zipporah was of the tribe of Midian. Genesis 25:1-3 shows that Midian was one of the six sons born unto Abraham by his third wife, Keturah. Thus, Zipporah was "Abrahamic", who was "Shemitic" (i.e., descended of Noah's son Shem, per Genesis 10:1; 11:11-27). But the "Ethiopian woman" was a descended of Cush, who was "Hamitic".
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto Also, the timing of Moses' marriage to the Ethiopian woman can be determined by Numbers 33:1-49,17 and 11:35 with 12:16 which "surrounds" the story about Moses marrying the Ethiopian woman in Numbers 12:1-15. This is clearly much later than the time when Moses married Zipporah in Exodus 2:15,22. Therefore, the Shemitic/Abrahamic Midianitess Zipporah could not possibly be the Hamitic/non-Abrahamic "Ethiopian woman".
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
Respond to this video... I think we're at a point where we need to just agree to disagree on this.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
Comment removed
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto Sorry, one more point.....the comparison between Cain and Lamech does not necessarily show the process of social degeneration. Cain murdered out of jealousy and spite. Lamech's account of his crime is not very detailed in Genesis, but it sounds like it could of been a case of self-defense. One could easily argue that Cain's crime was far more heinous than Lamech's.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: What do you mean by not detailed? It is far more detailed then most of the pre-deluvian accounts. Lamech says he murdered for a mere insult. It is Lamech who makes the comparison & says he is revenged (not a matter of self defense) "77 times" greater then was Cain. It is LAMECH who says that his crime was the greater. typology is the proper way to interpret the Bible. I don't know who is giving you these ideas, but they haven't the foggiest.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto "Then Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah. 20 And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother’s name was Jubal. He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute. And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron. And the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah." Cont.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto " Then Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech! For I have killed a man for wounding me, Even a young man for hurting me.
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”
This is it, Victor ! These are all the details we have on this account and it isn't much. Whether Lamech was right or wrong to kill the young man, it is obvious that the attack was provoked. It could have been self defense.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: I am astonished that you have such trouble understanding what is written in front of you. It's Lamech who says that he killed the man for an "insult." An insult is not an assault. It is Lamech who compares his actions to Cain. Thus it is demonstrated that Lamech regarded it as murder. You need to learn to read the Bible synthetically, according to the principles of TYPOLOGY. The numerical symbolism is part of a Jewish idea called GEMATRIA. It is an important part of typology.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto My Bible (NKJV) used the terms "wounding" and "hurting", as opposed to "insult"...but this isn't really the point. Let's say Lamech was a bad guy...so what? It doesn't make polygyny wrong because some polygynist did something bad. Adam, a monogynist (as far as we know), did evil, too....should we then outlaw monogyny? Your argument is nothing more than "guilt by association", which makes for a very week argument. Yes, I thought you were referring to Gematria.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: I've just reviewed the wording in the KJV: " I have slain a man TO MY WOUNDING, & an young man TO MY HURT." Again, you need to read closely & try to follow the grammar of what is being said. The young didn't wound Lamech, Lamech hurt Lamech. He is talking about a moral hurt, he has wounded his own soul by his wicked deed.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto For anyone who would attempt to assert that "Zipporah was dead" by the time that Moses married the Ethiopian woman, they are the ones who have the "burden of proof" to demonstrate and validate their assertion. After all, the principle of "assumed status quo" logic mandates that, unless otherwise specifically reported otherwise, one must believe that the status quo remains. For example, as long as a man's wife is still alive, he doesn't walk around reporting that she has died.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: I told you that Josephus is the only source I've found information on where it is asserted that there was a seperate woman from Zipporah. Historically, traditionally, Ethiopian woman has been regarded as being the same person as Zipporah. The issue has been much disputed. It is modern (read liberal) "higher critical" scholars who are convinced she is another woman. A noted Biblical theologian named Scott Hahn says Zipporah is the Cushite. Midianites were noted for being dark.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto I am very familiar with Josephus :-) I'm sure that both the Cushites and Midianites were both dark, that doesn't mean anything. Cush and Midian were not the same regions. There are many noted Biblical theologians that believe they were different women.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: Men want polygamy b/c of their sinful lusts. Men are violent (Cain) b/c of their passion of anger. Genesis is Moses account of how the human race degenerated to the point where it was necessary for God to give the Covenant to Israel. If you don't understand that central thesis, you'll understand nothing. Number symbols are central to interpretting the Bible. Go read the geneology of Matthew again. Mat. 1:17 Why the harping on 14 generations? Why harp on the 6 generations?
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto God was not ashamed to be called the God of polygamists, see Hebs.11:16. Including Abe, Sarah, Jacob, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, David and how mighty these polygamists were used by God see Hebs.11:33-34.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: God was not ashamed to be the God Satan either. He was & is the God Judas Iscariot, called him to be a disciple. He create Cain & Lamech & all those who died in the flood & all the 1st borns of Egypt. "Jacob have I loved, but Edom I have hated." Mal 1:2-3 Yet Jacob & Esau are both His creatures. Each, saint & sinner, are clay in the potter's hands. He uses them as He sees fit.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
In Ezekiel 23, in an allegorical story...God describes Himself as having two wives (who were then unfaithful to Him). God HATES sin and He would never use an allegory using polygyny to describe Himself if polygyny was in fact, sinful.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: Why not? It is a metaphor to make a point. Are we to reject Jesus as an unrighteous judge merely b/c he told parables about unrighteous judges?
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
Re: Leviticus: The Levites are established as a priestly people over Israel only after the Golden Calf incident. They have laws for themselves to make them become exemplars to the people note the laws of marriage for Levites: "& [the Levite] shall take A wife in her virginity." Not wives, but A wife. Lev. 21:13. The grudging sanction for divorce only occurs in Deuteronomy & doesn't apply to the Levites, they are not to divorce. They aren't to be polygamists either.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
A general word to all: Jesus said; "'For this reason a man shall leave his father & mother & be joined to his wife, & the TWO shall become 1 flesh? So they are no longer TWO but 1 flesh. What therefore God has joined together let not man put asunder. 1 man & 1 woman make 1 flesh. If he joins himself to another flesh, he breaches his relationship w/ his wife. A clear contradiction of the original purpose marriage. Go to 1st principles.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto These verses refer to divorce, Victor. Even my "anti-polygyny" pastor told me this.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: Jesus pronounces a principle for interpretting much of the Bible which is a universal principle. This principle, as such, has nothing to do w/ divorce. Jesus states that many laws in the Torah of Moses were introduced b/c of man's "hard heartedness." Merely b/c it is permitted doesn't make it good. If the allowance for divorce was mere concession. Other laws must also be such GRUDGING concession. There is not even a verse which sanction polygamy, thus it is worse.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto No it is not "worse". God has never been shy or silent regarding things that displease him. One passage in the Bible refers to homosexuality as an "abomination"....other sexual sins are also specifically mentioned....but not polygyny. So, You're trying to tell me that because it wasn't mentioned that it was worse? What's worse than something defined as an "abomination" ? I'm sorry, Sir, but you're argument doesn't hold up.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: It is mentioned, as FOLLOWING the original act of murder. It shows the process of social degeneration. Lamech is 6 generations removed from Adam's original sin. As Goliath was 6 cubits tall. I Kings 10:14 Solomon falls from God AFTER receiving 666 talents of gold. 6 is a sign of sin in the Bible. As 6 cubit Goliath blasphemed God, so Lamech blasphemed by boasting of his crimes. The connection of the sin of polygamy to all this is very pointed.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto Once again, you have failed to make your case. You're making some big and unfounded assumptions here with the number 6...but I will run this by a few pastors I know (some poly friendly and some not) and see what they say.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: I am not making any kind of assumptions. I'm trying to explain to you the proper principles of Biblical interpretation. The Bible, while being at its most basic essense the word of God, is centrally the a reflection of the culture of the Hebrew nation. Forms, idioms, symbols, basic assumption are placed in the text. They are often unthinking, subconscious b/c they are taken for granted by the people of that time. We aren't part of that culture, so we misunderstand.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
It's not Adam and Steve or Madam and Eve or Adam,Eve,And Denise, it's ADAM AND EVE!!
Thebraversword 1 year ago
@VictorLePanto--
Who the hell do you think you are? You're not my teacher, young man. I'm old enough to be your grandfather.
I don't need any young upstart teaching me.
I only asked you to not be lazy and to list "chapter and verse".
Nobody likes a know-it-all.
Try to quit pontificating: you sound worse than a catholic pope, that way.
(And, this is what Mormons do, as well: so, be careful. You are becoming like one of THEM!)
orlovna2 2 years ago
@VictorLePanto-
By the way, Victor, you really do rush to some strange conclusions, about things.
I know the Lamech account: anybody with half a brain can do a search. The problem is with YOU: not with what you spewing out.
Pontificating is what you do. Stop being so lazy. Nobody is interested in Victor LePanto, as the final "authority", on anything.
And, like I said, Mormons do exactly what you do: so you & they are similar, like that.
orlovna2 2 years ago
@orlovna2: For all you know, I am in my 80s. You posted a request for chap. & vs., I gave them to you. Make a study of them. It is the Bible itself which harps on the connection b/t polygamy & murder. Given the Bible interpretive principle of TYPOLOGY, this 1st citation of the subject is some-what definative on how to interpret all subsequent references to polygamy. Polygamy is repeatedly linked to violence & conflict. When a man has multiple families, they'll naturally fight for his attention.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
I agree with you, Shawn, that "the garden of Eden" is the place to look, for role models, in re: the institution of marriage.
And, not shying away from other, less palatable issues, I will also state that--in addition to not being "Adam & Eves" (plural)---
it was also not "Adam & Steve".
"Marriage is honorable...and the bed undefiled."---Hebrews 13:4
As a corollary, "To legitimize homosexual marriage would be to defy even God, Himself", IMO
Dat's my story & I'm sticking 2 it.
orlovna2 2 years ago
@orlovna2 It is quite interesting that there is NO Biblical prohibition against polygyny anywhere in the Bible; Furthermore, Lev. 18 lists every type of sexual sin that can be imagined and not once is polygyny mentioned in the clearest and strongest passage that denounces sexual sin.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
It is funny how some people miss the obvious fact that every time Polygamy apears in the OT it is a a disaster. It is always a source of later trouble for Israel. For instance, Arab (or Ismaelites) are slave traders who take Joseph into slavery. Jacob's return to the promised land is delayed for years by being deceived into bygamy. The 1st polygamist recorded in the Bible is a conscienceless murderer who brags about his murders. Rather like Brigham Young.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
@VictorLepanto--
I enjoy your posts. I will, however, ask you to quote "chapter and verse", when making a nebulous reference to "the first polygamist", in the Bible.
Are we reading the same Bible, here?
Chapter & verse, please.
orlovna2 2 years ago
@orlovna2 Gen. 4:17 "& Lamech took 2 wives; the name of the 1 was Adah, & the name of the other Zillah...Lamech said to his wives: 'Adah & Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, hearken to what I say: I HAVE SLAIN A MAN FOR WOUNDING ME, a young man for striking me. If Cain is avenged 7fold, truly Lamech 77fold.'"
Hope that helps, the 1st mention of polygamy in the Bible the 2nd of murder. The bygamist connects his crime to Cain, is not bygamy here clearly linked w/ murder as well?
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
@VictorLepanto No, polygyny (the proper term) should not be linked w/ murder anymore than Adam and Eve disobeying God (and thus bringing sin into the entire human race) should be considered the result of monogyny.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: I don't know why your quibbling w/ me on this point. Did you read the passage I reference below? (Gen. 4: 7) In it, LAMECH himself links his actions to Cain. Moses (the author of Genesis) quotes him & links Lamechs pedigree to Cain in the directly preceeding verses. Also, the elders of Isreal preserved this history orally in the generations preceeding Moses. That is a multitude of formidable authorities. I will defer to THEM.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto I would be far more inclined to agree with your so-called "Formidable Authorities" if they weren't so heavily influenced by our western cultural bias against polygyny. The most formidable authority of all, God and His Holy Word, have never condemned polygyny. The practice was even regulated in Exodus 21:10. What you are doing the the account of Lamech is often referred to as "selective citation". Many of God's choicest servants were polygynous and God never condemned them.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: I mentioned Moses & the pre-biblical fathers of Israel who handed this story on to Moses orally. How are these Semitic sources influenced by an as yet nonexistant Western culture? Genesis is about the beginnings of things. This is where polygamy begins, thus it is definitive. Read all subsquent referenced in light of it. Your ref. is an argument from silence. & God chose His servants, they weren't "choice" but chosen. We can't be worthy of a sovereign act of God.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto There is no Biblical prohibition against polygyny and nowhere in the Bible does it list polygyny as a sin. Many of the Patriarchs were polygynous. God never condemned them for it. We have inherited a cultural bias against polygyny from the Catholic Church (who prohibited it hundreds of years ago to appease the Romans who were monogynous). in the OT, the practice was regulated. I've heard ALL your arguments before and they can be easily dismantled, but there's not enough room.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: Once again, you need to learn the basic principle that an argument from silence proves NOTHING. Divorce also is permitted in Deuteronomy, Jesus makes it clear that divorce is still contrary to the will of God. It was ALLOWED for man's hard heartedness. As polygamy is not even sanctioned in this degree, this implies it is even more obnoxious then divorce. & quit being pretentious, the word is POLYGAMY.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto "Polygamy" is a general term that means multiple spouses and includes polyandry, polygyny and sometimes polyamory. The Patriarchs of the Bible practised "polygyny" (one husband / multiple wives); therefore the correct word is "polygyny". I'm not trying to be pretentious. I'm simply employing accurate terminology. As for divorce, God is on record as saying he "hates divorce", he never said he "hated polygyny".
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: He is on record as saying, "The TWO shall become ONE. It is not three or for or any other number. This is the original ideal which defines how we analyze all other discussions. God is on record as hating divorce & yet it was permitted under some circumstance. The reality of polygamy except by noting the 1st bigamist was a proud boastful murderer & the heir of Cain. Thus showing the decline of sin. Actually, polygamy is here shown as worse then murder.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto "One Flesh" refers to the act of marital intimacy. A man can be "one flesh" with more than one wife. Being "one flesh" with a wife did not exclude the possibility of subsequent wives.
The 1st polygynist was a murderer ?...so what! The 1st monogynist brought sin into the world! Should we then view Monogyny as evil ???
Your statement claiming polygyny was shown as being "worse than murder" is completely without merit.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: "One flesh" is an expression of the covenantal bond between the man & woman. Covenant is about family & family is about children. God ratifies & blesses (or does not ratify & bless) the bond b/t the man & woman by giving them children. The one flesh is the common flesh they share in their children. When a man has more then one family, he is necessarily divided in his loyalties & attentions. Thus circle of protection around the children is compromised.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto show me the Biblical Text that states exactly what you wrote (especially the last 2 sentences) And yes you are making assumptions...you're "assuming" that 1.) that a polygynist husband has more than one family (WRONG! he has ONE family w/ more than one wife). 2.) that he is "divided" in his loyalties & attentions (most men are divided in their loyalties & attentions, if they have children...and how is that wrong?). 3.) That poly "compromises" the children's protection.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: The singular bond of love b/t one wife & one husband is like an iron band w/o seem surrounding the children. The children are all theirs & they are totally focused as a unit on them. If there are (supposedly) two wives, the genes of one wife are NOT in the other wives children. She is not committed to the other set of children as she is to her own. It is children which make a family if all of a man's family are encircled in that one band of commitment, his focus is divided.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto Are you speaking from experience here ? I know several polygynous (non-Mormom) families and the wives do love and care for all the children. The husbands focus is no more divided than any family man who has multiple children and family members (and a job !). Genes are a non-issue for them.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: There commitment to some other woman's children will never be like their natural commitment to their own. It is only human nature. One hardly needs to be married to the same man for one woman to aid the care of someone else's children. Still, they're not her children. All women in such circumstance will look w/ envious eyes on any attention the man sheds on the other woman's children & family. My point is that both parents are totally focused on one set of children.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto >"All women in such circumstance will look w/ envious eyes on any attention the man sheds on the other woman's children & family.".....Really ? ALL women?? How many polygynous families do you know personally? How many real polygynous wives have you personally spoken to or observed? You've made a very broad brush statement here. You're giving me your opinions based on your assumptions but you're doing so without any personal knowledge of real polygynous wives.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: All have sinned fallen short of the glory of God. Sin & our wicked impulses enbodied in the 7 deadlies, is found everywhere. I am perfectly familiar w/ human nature. I have met men & women. I know how the act. I know how they act even thought deny their actions fillings even in the very act of practicing them. Often denying them (at least @ one level) to themselves. There is no one easier to lie to then ones self. The self delusions of your friends don't interest me.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto I guess this means you haven't ever met or known any ? :-D
I'm not trying to make your life miserable and you have been more than patient with me, so I genuinely thank you for that :-) I used to share your opinions until I really started becoming a Berean and searching the Scriptures. I found that in addition to actual Truth, I had also been taught "the traditions of men" which includes the "anti-polygyny" teaching. Polygyny is not commanded but neither is it forbidden.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: You are obviously entangled w/ some polygamy advocating group & are allowing them to influence you. All too many people read their own preferences into the Bible. I have no idea what your "traditions of men" were preceeding this current entanglement. If you allowed yourself to be influenced by "traditions of men" previously, how are you so certain that that isn't what is happening to you now?
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto Because I have studied the issue for myself instead of blindly accepting what "the party line" of the church has been. If I'm going to believe something then I want to study it for myself to see if the Bible is really saying what I've been "taught" it says. Most people study the Bible through a western cultural lens. I approach the Bible neutrally and allow God to speak to me through it.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: You return to this bit of jargon, "Western cutural lens." Obviously this is some kind buzz term w/ the groups you've become involved w/. You can call it "studied the issue for myself" if you wish, but you're simply following what some sectarians have taught you as their doctrines. Belief is an act of the will & you're not neutrally exploring the Bible for what it teaches. You've bought into some system of thought. I've shown how polygamy is introduced as a Bible concept.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto >"You return to this bit of jargon, "Western cutural lens." Obviously this is some kind buzz term w/ the groups you've become involved w/. "
Actually it's my term :-) But once again, you're making a lot of assumptions except this time they're about me. ;-)
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto .It's also not an argument from silence. I have studied this and the basic Greek and Hebrew words used in many of the passages. I've been studying this topic for years. I'm also not Mormon...I'm a Born Again Christian. You seem to have studied this topic from one angle, through the lens of our western culture which has a bias against the practice.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto It is quite interesting that there is NO Biblical prohibition against polygyny anywhere in the Bible; Furthermore, Lev. 18 lists every type of sexual sin that can be imagined and not once is polygyny mentioned in the clearest and strongest passage that denounces sexual sin.
fairlightdawn112 1 year ago
@fairlightdawn112: I don't know why your quibbling w/ me on this point. Did you read the passage I reference below? (Gen. 4: 7) In it, LAMECH himself links his actions to Cain. Moses (the author of Genesis) quotes him & links Lamechs pedigree to Cain in the directly preceeding verses. Also, the elders of Isreal preserved this history orally in the generations preceeding Moses. That is a multitude of formidable authorities. I will defer to THEM.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
this video is interesting because it shows Shawn lieing for the Lord, so to speak, as he still condemns polygamy, uses Adam and Eve as the example, but then fails to recognize the revered Abraham who had multiple wives, and said it was Abraham's idea to do that.
He still accepts Abraham, but condemns Joseph Smith. The double standard PREVAILS.
mormonanswerman 3 years ago
..See this video on my favorites Christianity and polygamy...though addresed to muslims who prphet, mohammed also used old testament narrative to justify his polygamy it can give the christian perspective on polygamy quite interesting...
dimtry19 3 years ago
I don't see a double standard here. Permissive will,
and commandment is totally two different things.
Did Joseph not say God commanded polygamy or else your soul would be damned?
Where does Abraham say that God had commanded him to do this?
justcary 3 years ago
Where is the lie at? It is true that God never instituted any of the multiple wife marriages. God's reverence for Abraham was not out of Abraham's perfection....there was only one perfect. If we needed to be perfect for God's acceptance we would all be in trouble. Can we get a little more clarity as to where the lies are along with some references?
merlin0152 3 years ago
mormonanswerman you need a better defense of your position because you have no evidence for your double standard accusation.
xxcrazypiratexx 3 years ago
Yeah. As he said. God lets us screw up. He let us screw up 150-200 years ago. Notice how we don't promote or practice polygamy anymore?
freaky1654 3 years ago
Joseph said it was an EVERLASTING COVENENT! So it is everlasting until utah wants to become a state.
smalltownamerican 3 years ago
Right Shaun,
He quotes the bible but does not quote the BofM Jacob 2:24-29 which forbids polygamy and contradicts D&C 132 especially since they both use David and Solomon as examples of Polygamy. Joseph screwed up on using them as examples. D&C totally disagrees with BofM on David and Solomon's use of polygamy.
He also is not aware of D&C section 101 which forbade polygamy until 1857.
In fact Gordon Hinckley says polygamy is not doctrinal....LOL Now that is a good one.
People Open your eyes!
walkonking 3 years ago
But doesn't all of this prove their are false prophets in Mormonism. If one statement was made by a man that
said thus saith the Lord was not true, the bible tells us not to follow this man..
So by biblical standards we are not to follow a prophet who has been wrong in their prophecies.
This would include Joseph Smith.
justcary 3 years ago
It would also include Brigham Young and many other LDS prophets.
But they will follow blindly because they are told to do so. What a vicious cycle for the LDS
walkonking 3 years ago