Actually, the Bathsheba/Uriah incident supports my position.
Nathan goes to David with a story about a rich man who chooses not to use one of his many own sheep for dinner, but instead takes the pet lamb of a poor man and cooks it up.
There is not a hint here that the rich man is doing wrong because he has many sheep, only that it is wrong for him to take away that of the poor man.
IOW, David's polygamy is accepted as perfectly normal and unexceptional, while his adultery (and resulting murder) is condemned.
I have no problem with the claim that God's original intent was one man/one woman. I have a beef only with those who therefore claim that the OT didn't allow for polygamy, when it obviously did. These were just facts of life in the Middle East of the time, and were accepted as such by the Bible writers.
I don’t know why you would need a hint in this particular story that polygamy is wrong, since it’s provided for you in the Scripture I mentioned in my earlier post, and in God’s original design for marriage.
In this incident, God’s anger is kindled against David because of a deliberately malicious, evil act that results in a man’s violent death so that David can steal the man’s wife. Why would you expect Nathan to go into an exhaustive list of every sin David has committed?
instead takes the pet lamb of a poor man and cooks it up.
________________________________________
No kid...
David took the only EWE lamb the man had...
Theres a distinction...
Nathan wasnt there to say that the polygamy/adultery David was engaged in with his other concubines was OK with God...
He merely pointed out that David already had several, unattacthed girlfriends to have sex with...
but now he had taken the wife and only woman of another man...
Next you’ll want to tell us the wives of the quite still alive 11 men that Joey Smith had adultery with were given to him by God......
(at least one was already pregnant so Smiths 10 virgins he was entitled to story is kaput right there)