Posted on 12/13/2006 10:36:35 AM PST by Bushwacker777
"CALLER: Hello. Mr. Blackmore, do any of your wives work?
BLACKMORE: Just about all of them do.
KING: They all do?
BLACKMORE: Yes.
KING: And while they're working, who's watching the kids?
BLACKMORE: Well, they take -- they take turns. I mean, there's nurses; there's schoolteachers. There's some going to school to become, you know...
KING: Do you ever gather with all of them?
BLACKMORE: As often as we can.
KING: With all the wives?
BLACKMORE: Yes.
"
(Excerpt) Read more at transcripts.cnn.com ...
Stop right there. I'll put my knowledge of the Koine up against yours anyday, so quit the grandstanding.
The parable contains no implication or hint of polygamy in any way, shape or form.
has studied the marriage customs of the 1st Century Jewish traditions
Where and under whom have you studied Jewish marriage customs of the Second Temple period?
Give me a quick explanation of the legal implications of the dziqa if you have.
Otherwise, give it up.
Ask yourself this. What would happen if the brother did not marry?
His sister-in-law would publicly denounce him, remove his footwear and spit at him.
Not exactly the most fearsome punishment in the law.
Study the texts for yourself, read the original Greek. Translate each word and explore the alternative meanings.
Yawn. Way ahead of you.
But thanks for the condescension.
BTW - the proper spelling of the word is "milquetoast."
>>Abraham and Sarah didn't have any children.
Cue Jeopardy Music,
Answer: The mother of Isaac, First wife of Abraham Matriarch of all the tribes of Israel.
.
.
.
Question: Who is Sara in the bible?
>>Then Abraham marries Keturah-AFTER Sarah is dead.
Yep, and then had Concubines…
Gen 25:1 THEN again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
Gen 1:5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.
Gen 1:6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.
>>Saying polygamy is biblical is true, doesn't mean it was sanctioned by God. Using that method of thinking slavery and stonings, etc. is biblical too.
God never said Slavers were good. Stonings, you mean in the Law of Moses?
Gods said these specific polygamists were good while they were married to more than one wife. For me that ends the discussion of whether or not it is a sin.
Legal? That’s a secular Issue, but nope.
Smart? (Not in my book)
Easy? (Not on your life)
You guys just don’t get it, polygamy is Biblical, not condemned in either the old or new testament, and is approved of (by God calling some of the most important patriarchs righteous while they were married to more than one woman). So it is not a sin.
Nice try.
Polygamous relationships only work if all of the women involved are bisexual. One man with 20 straight, frigid, brainwashed "wives" is just an abusive personality cult.
LOL! yet you adduce no evidence to prove it.
Jews were practicing polygamy well into the middle ages.
Some Jews who lived under Islamic rule readopted polygamy in the 800s - it was not a practice continued through the ages.
You need to go back and study the allowable reasons for divorce were under Jewish law.
LOL! The reasons for divorce in the Torah are completely vague. In practice the Jews could and did divorce their wives for any reason under the sun.
David's wives were given as a BLESSING FROM GOD.
No, they weren't.
Was Bathsheba truly a blessing from God? Was God pleased with that whole scenario?
No, in point of fact, 2 Sam 12:8 read truthfully in its context refutes your entire argument.
Nathan the prophet is berating David because God has allowed David - despite his sins - to enjoy so many privileges and amenities including his multiple wives.
This passage in no way endorses or blesses polygamy - do you really think that Nathan came to bless David and his deeds in the name of the Lord?
Or did he rather rebuke him and curse him?
I'll pray for you.
I'll pray for you, too. Be blessed.
>>Those men sinned too; hence the sacrifices.
Man O man, so Abraham is now a “Sinner” to you? (If you mean that in the “all have sinned” context, point taken, if you mean he was committing a sin (being married to two wives) while God was blessing him, we disagree.)
>>To claim God sanctioned polygamy is crazy.
No, it’s correct. Abraham was married to two women while being blessed,
Second Samuel Chapter 12
7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
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.
Then I am crazy.
>>The ten commandments state clearly that adultery is a sin.
Polygamy - (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Polygamy)
Adultery - (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adultery)
Polygamy is not Adultery.
“Words mean things.” – Rush Limbaugh
>> So having concubines was o.k.?
IF ok means lawful, then Yes they had no law against it.
If you mean moral, then yes for some of the men who practiced this were highly blessed of the lord.
Try this on for size. God commanded Adam to multiply and replenish the earth. That command has never been repealed that I know of. Those who are more righteous keep the commandments to a higher standard, so they multiply more.
(Just for the record, I am not, nor have I ever been in favor of polygamy, but the statements here require that I state the truth that polygamy is biblical, and that “Logic” supports it, not the “polygamy is not Biblical” view.)
>> What is the purpose of the commandment against adultery if it was o.k. to have so many wives and concubines?
The purpose of the commandment against Adultery was to keep people from having sex outside of a marriage. (I mean really, you didn’t get that?)
Polygamy is a Marriage, just like the first marriage, only you have more than one wife.
Polyandry is a marriage, just like the first marriage only you have more than one husband.
Anti Adultery commandments are a prohibition against Sex outside of a legal union. What is a legal union has changed and now polygamy is illegal. There was no such provision in the Law of Moses, or before.
>>I'll pray for you, too. Be blessed.
I never turn down a sincere offer for someone to pray for me.
Please also Mention to the Lord that I have a son who needs his help (I have been praying for him for 10 years, and he is making great strides, he is autistic.)
May God watch over you.
God gave Abraham assurance that he would have many descendants.
Yet Abraham and Sarah did not have faith in this assurance and the taking of Hagar as a concubine was an act of doubt in God's providence.
The issue of the concubinage with Hagar was a curse to Abraham, Ishmael and his descendants were persecutors of his true heirs and are to this very day.
Scripture shows that Abraham's polygamy was an utter and enduring disaster.
You ought to. His words are part of the Scripture and his prophecy was the prophecy of God.
However, his words are far from an endorsement of polygamy.
Basically, Nathan says that God is saying: "Look David, I gave you all kinds of things - authority, kingship, victories, lands, wives, anything you could have wanted. But you killed loyal Uriah and took his wife for yourself. You've gone too far and I'm punishing you. I'm going to kill your son."
This is hardly a pro-polygamy peptalk. It does no reference plygamy in any positive way.
Thank you, and I will pray for you as well.
>>So Abraham was committing adultery whenever he slept with his concubines.
No, a Concubine had the status of a wife, just not the right to inherit.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Concubine)
The meaning of the word concubine has changed over the centuries, back then it had this meaning:
2. In certain societies, such as imperial China, a woman contracted to a man as a secondary wife, often having few legal rights and low social status.
See the word wife in there? I do.
>> A concubine is not a wife. That would be adultery.
See above, you are incorrectly applying the word from today’s use to scriptures written in another era. When the word meant something else. Abraham was not an adulterer.
>> Hagar was no blessing to Abraham.
I disagree.
>> The Arabs are the punishment for that sin.
Got Scripture?
No?
Got Speculation = Got Nothing.
>> And frankly I don't put much stock into what Nathan said.
2 Sam 12: 1 AND the LORD sent Nathan unto David….
Um he was a prophet… Why do you read the Bible? Do you realize that it was written by these guys who were prophets?
>> Anyone can say anything and claim it came from God.
Um, yes, there are even people who think they are God, those whose writings are accepted cannon of Christian churches more than 2000 years later, however are a much smaller group.
As for me, I’m gonna go with the bible on this one, wait! That’s what this whole discussion is about! You are saying the bible does not support Polygamy, by ignoring parts of the bible and saying “And frankly I don't put much stock into what” you might as well end with “the bible says” here.
>> Anyone can say anything and claim it came from God.
Get thee behind me Satan! There is just so many ways I could play with this statement, but most involve me claiming to have revelation from God and my pursuit of humor breaks off where I would have to gross the line of Blasphemy.
>>DU, Abraham's polygamy is an extremely poor case study if you are arguing for divine approval of polygamy.
OK, then logically disprove it.
Also disprove Jacob’s
Also disprove David’s (before Bathsheba)
I’ve got more, just not as famous.
>>God gave Abraham assurance that he would have many descendants.
Yes he did, and it was because Abraham was very righteous, not because he was going to become an adulterer.
>>Yet Abraham and Sarah did not have faith in this assurance and the taking of
>>Hagar as a concubine was an act of doubt in God's providence.
Got Scripture?
No?
Got Speculation = Got Nothing.
>>The issue of the concubinage with Hagar was a curse to Abraham,
>>Ishmael and his descendants were persecutors of his true heirs and
>>are to this very day.
Persecution is not a curse, quite often it keeps the persecuted on the path God intends for them.
>>Scripture shows that Abraham's polygamy was an utter and enduring disaster.
We seem to have problem here with the confusion of Opinion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion) and Fact (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fact). Many on this forum continually state their opinion as fact. I understand this proclivity as the Media today does this all the time. However, it does not become us, and it does not make for polite and rational discussions (however it can be fun to attack with logic, and I am having fun on this thread!)
You have to prove your implied thesis: that everything God permits is what He desires most for His children.
That is disproven, since Jesus instructs us that His Father permitted divorce under the law of Moses because of man's weakness.
Is the capacity to divorce a blessing that God desires and encourages?
No.
It is a concession He had made to man's sin-flawed nature.
Abraham took a concubine because he was impatient with God's promise of descendants.
Jacob took concubines because he was immorally deceived into marrying his first wife and the rest because of infertility.
David took multiple wives ebcause Saul had multiple wives, and given the nature of Saul's ascendancy in Israel, repudiation of any of Saul's wives would be a repudiation of the alliances forged through those marriages that kept Israel a unified nation.
BTW, there is no Scriptural evidence that Bathsheba was a Hittite. She had a Hebrew name and so did her father. And of course, David's own great-grandmother was a non-Israelite Moabite married to an Israelite - and that Moabite-marrying Israelite was indeed blessed by being made the forefather of the King of Israel and of the Messiah.
Got Scripture?
It has been cited. Isaac the heir was born to Sarah as God promised. There was no need to look beyond Sarah for the son of the promise, but Abraham did anyway.
You say he did so because of some special blessing to be found in polygamy.
there is no Scriptural evidence for this.
What we do see here is what we see here continually throughout Scripture: God being exceedingly good, and ungrateful men not appreciating their blessings but reaching for more.
Persecution is not a curse
LOL! What a bizarre statement.
We seem to have problem here with the confusion of Opinion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion) and Fact (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fact). Many on this forum continually state their opinion as fact. I understand this proclivity as the Media today does this all the time. However, it does not become us, and it does not make for polite and rational discussions (however it can be fun to attack with logic, and I am having fun on this thread!)
Congratulations on the most condescendingly egomaniacal paragraph i've read on FR in some time.
Hell, I can't handle the ONE that I have. Why in the heck would anybody (in their right mind, of course) want 3 more?!!!
BTW, I'm pretty certain she feels the same about me. ;-)
As I said in my post, the practice of polygamy which had been abandoned for centuries was revived in the Islamic period as a way of fitting in.
No scripture ever states that having more than one wife is a sin.
It's clear that polygamy - like divorce - was a concession made to man's weakness in the preMessianic period, not a sin but not a laudable practice either.
Not only does Jesus describe marriage as being between a man and a woman, but he sets aside divorce as a no-longer-acceptable concession to man's weakness.
The New Testament, whenever it discusses marriage, assumes monogamy as the underlying standard.
Christians have never practiced polygamy and never accepted it as permissible.
For a Christian to permit it or engage in it would be a complete repudiation of the highest historical standards of Christian behavior as practiced from the apostolic age down to this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.