Replies

Give me a break, P-M! (You're starting to sound like a Mormon who says the word "trinity" isn't in the text of the Bible).

Is it the same word, or isn't it?

So my question back to you, P, is doesn't Cherry raise a legit question here with her comment? If a slaveowner orders a slave to have sex with her husband, isn't it possible that this is "rape" and that a slaveowner has overstepped her stewardship of that slave?

The morality of it was dealt with in the Bible. It was wrong. Nevertheless, what Sarai did was to give her slave to Abram as a WIFE. Abram could have refused and should have refused. It is fairly clear that Hagar could have refused as well, since she apparently had the power to leave, which she later did after being mistreated by a jealous Sarai.

Regardless of the morality of the situation, the fact remains that the scripture quite plainly states that Sarai gave Hagar to Abram as a wife.

And is this same "abuse" by a person of authority the exact issue that jumpstarted this thread?

I would assume that it was not a nice thing to do. But I also have to note that during Abraham's time, it certainly wasn't illegal. I tend to doubt that Hagar was a 13 year old girl since she had been with Sarai for at least 10 years. For all we know she was the same age as Sarai.

I'm not trying in any way to justify the LDS practice of polygamy. I'm merely pointing out that the prohibition on the practice is modern and it was not prohibited in the Old Testament and (to get back to the original argument) there are polygamists in Jesus' Family Tree. What that means may be up to debate, but the fact of that family history is not deniable.

The morality of it was dealt with in the Bible. It was wrong. Nevertheless, what Sarai did was to give her slave to Abram as a WIFE.

Well, if Sarah was in any way godly, what would the Bible say? That she gave her slave as a whore? (No, because the purpose wasn't sexual pleasure). That she gave her slave as a surrogate? (Oh, sure, I'm sure the Hebrews had a word for "surrogate" back then).

As my last post to you shows, the fact that Moses used the same word 9 chapters earlier to mean (sexual) "mate"--I think that's a possible translation...She gave her to be his (sexual) mate for the purpose of long-term pro-creation--exactly like the reason a female animal "mate" was secured onboard the ark in Gen. 7:2 was for purposes of long-term pro-creation. There's really no difference according to the promises of the rainbow covenant (for Noah's family & the animals in Gen. 7) or the promises of the Abrahamic covenant in Gen. 12 & what follows...both involved the long-term propagation of the species covenanted with God.

Abram could have refused and should have refused. (No disagreement there)

It is fairly clear that Hagar could have refused as well, since she apparently had the power to leave, which she later did after being mistreated by a jealous Sarai.

Um. This "power to leave"--is that the same kind of "power to leave" a runaway slave had as he used the underground railroad passage North?

You are splitting hairs here. This passage in no way provides any support whatsoever that God ever condoned or permitted polygamy. Neither does any other passage for where-ever you find polygamy in the bible you also find a household mess. In every example you have 2 or more women fighting each other for the love of their husband seeking to be first because of jealousy. You also find clear examples (i.e., Solomon) where those who practiced this sin were led astray after other gods. In summary in the Bible where-ever you find polygamy you also find sin, a great deal of it. To suggest that because someone committed a sin and God blessed the sinner in SPITE of his sin somehow makes that sin acceptable to God is not only absurd its blasphemy. David committed adultery with Bathsheba, then had her husband killed to cover that sin. God did bless David because David repented, does that mean adultery and murder are now condoned by God becaused David did it???? That's the tactic you take when you seek to excuse polygamy as anything other than sin merely because some men practiced it in the Bible.

If polygamy were God's design He would have created more women for Adam than just Eve (and please don't bring up mythological Lillith as some LDS apologists seek to do)....and He would not have pronounced the one-flesh concept were a plurality of spouses the design. This command of one wife was also handed down in Deut. 17:17 as the Law was given -17Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

Any man hereafter who did so sinned against the Lord and God dealt with them accordingly...David's entire household was destroyed just as one example.

Christ taught in further detail when He stated that if you get a divorce and re-marry then you are committing adultery. How much more so if you were to marry again without getting divorced? Seems this passage is clear proof that God does not recognize plural marriages as anything other than adultery.

This is expanded even more in Ephesians 5: -
31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.....the word here is TWO SHALL BE ONE, not 3, or 4, or 34 or 44 but TWO. And the word wife is singular, again not plural wives. It does not say joined unto his wives. 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

The relationship between Christ and His Church (Singular, not plural) is the same as God's design for marriage. It doesn't say 'brides' of Christ does it???? (Rev. 21:9; Eph. 5:22-32)

And its further summarized in 1 Timothy 3:2 for the position of being a leader in the church - 2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, - God established one wife to hold a position of leadership, not plural wives. That's a pretty cut and dried case for monogamy in God's viewpoint.

Oh the depths that men will go to excuse sin out of the depravity of their own hearts..............