Please also note that Nathan tells David that God gave him his wives and if they had not been enough would have given him more, this is a prophet in the Old Testament explicitly saying God approves of polygamy. (just for the record.)2 Sam. 12 twice references the most common word for women in the OT (translated both as "women" and as "wives") -- and even is applied to a "concubine" who was raped and murdered in the book of Judges.
Reference #1:: 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.
All this verse says is that Saul was a polygamist "thy MASTER's wives". Why were they given to David? (They came with the kingdom...the whole kit & kaboodle...thy master's house, thy master's wives, etc.)
What's funny in watching Mormons react to this verse is that they'll almost swear up one side & down the other that Joseph Smith didn't consummate most of his unions but David, who simply inherited these concubines -- these slave girls -- did. (Boy, how do you Mormons know all these intimate details, DU? 'Personal revelation?')
Thankfully, the other verse DU included so that this whole passage can be taken in proper context is v. 11: Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
Nathan is giving a prophesy here. Now when did this prophesy come true? (This is where you get typical Mormon duplicity and outright deception...they'll wrestle verses out of context as a prooftext, and then they'll not only feel no shame in doing so, but try to justify their actions).
Notice, TN, DU didn't bother to reference 2 Sam. 16:21-22 as the answer to this fulfilled prophesy -- Absalom, son of David: And Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Go in unto thy father's concubines, which he hath left to keep the house; and all Israel shall hear that thou art abhorred of thy father: then shall the hands of all that are with thee be strong. So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel.
What does 2 Sam. 16:21-22 make clear?
First of all, v. 21 clearly shows that David's only role for these slave girls was to "keep the house" (hope that doesn't burst any lurid harem ideas you were attaching to your "biblical polygamy," DU).
#2, it makes it quite clear who the ID of these women were -- slave girls, servant girls, concubines. Even if Saul may have used them sexually (even that we don't know) -- we don't have proof David did.
So tell us, DU, is having concubines your idea of "biblical polygamy?" Really?
So Joseph Smith starting to sleep with Fanny Alger in 1831 while she was his servant girl is your idea of "biblical polygamy?"
And you think any man who had an ancient slave girl could just sleep with her and call it good? ("marriage?")
Tell us, DU, do you think any concubine had the right to say "no" either to a "marriage" proposal or slave-rape or slave-seduction?
And yet you seriously introduce concubinage as automatically included within the holy institution of marriage? Really?
(Well if your answers to these questions are "yes" is that the Mormon male patriarchical heritage coming out of your lips?)
2 Sam. 12 twice references the most common word for women in the OT (translated both as "women" and as "wives") -- and even is applied to a "concubine" who was raped and murdered in the book of Judges.
OK, David had many wives true or false... True.
Nathan said God had Given David Women, which was translated as wives which makes sense to everyone else in the world, but you.
So is it your assertion here that Nathan is saying that God gave David many one night stands, Rapings or just women friends? What exactly are you saying this quote means then?
This should be good, chuckle.
Oh wait, it gets better, Saul was polygamous (actually it should by Polygynous, but I digress) Saul had many wives. These wives were sometimes, maybe even Often the daughters of foreign nations, the marriages part of a peace deal with the Israelite nation. When David became king, he had to take them to wife in order to keep the peace treaties. Not very nice by today's thinking, but that was how it was. So when David became king, he inherited many wives as part of the office, Nathan said God gave him many women, I'd still like to know exactly what you interpret that to mean.
What's funny in watching Mormons react to this verse is that they'll almost swear up one side & down the other that Joseph Smith didn't consummate most of his unions but David, who simply inherited these concubines -- these slave girls -- did. (Boy, how do you Mormons know all these intimate details, DU? 'Personal revelation?') What we are going on is Genetic studies of all who claimed to be Joseph's descendants, and that none of the women ever said he did. We know he was fertile, we know these women were fertile in that many who remarried after his death had children, but there are no genetic descendants that can be found. ergo, since there was no pill back then, and no evidence of sex we can conclude that there wasn't any sex.
Thankfully, the other verse DU included so that this whole passage can be taken in proper context
Thanks, nice of you to notice. if only it was not followed closely by this:
(This is where you get typical Mormon duplicity and outright deception...they'll wrestle verses out of context as a prooftext, and then they'll not only feel no shame in doing so, but try to justify their actions)
LOL! I give the whole thing in context, you even admit it, then rip me for interpreting it as I believe it should be "shamelessly" LOL!
So are you saying you never interpret scriptures in a way that others disagree with? "This is for posterity, so be honest..." -- Princess Bride
Notice, TN, DU didn't bother to reference 2 Sam. 16:21-22 as the answer to this fulfilled prophesy
Because... I wasn't going there with the scripture. I guess I have to use the scriptures only for approved points now?
First of all, v. 21 clearly shows that David's only role for these slave girls was to "keep the house" (hope that doesn't burst any lurid harem ideas you were attaching to your "biblical polygamy," DU).
I don't think they were just house slaves, you are perfectly entitled to your (incorrect) opinions.
So tell us, DU, is having concubines your idea of "biblical polygamy?" Really?
Actually yes, and no, it proves the concept if done with God's approval, but I believe full wives prove it better, which these women who were treaty wives had to be, or the treaty would have been broken.
So Joseph Smith starting to sleep with Fanny Alger in 1831 while she was his servant girl is your idea of "biblical polygamy?"
So you have proof of Joseph having extra marital sex? Trot it on out there, if you have nothing more than a rumor, then can it, you have nothing but slander against a man long dead.
And you think any man who had an ancient slave girl could just sleep with her and call it good? ("marriage?")
You really need to red
Deuteronomy 22:13-30, which contains the rules of marriage in the old testament, Verses 28-29 follow:
28 ¶ If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Now, I think this is a minimum, we men can do a lot better, IT's not a guideline for gentlemanly behavior, but it's in the Bible, so it is Biblical.
Tell us, DU, do you think any concubine had the right to say "no" either to a "marriage" proposal or slave-rape or slave-seduction?
Slaves had no right to say no, concubines were basically second class wives whose children had no inheritance rights, but they had to agree to enter into the marriage, and could have said no. Why do I get the feeling you are not being logical about this?
And yet you seriously introduce concubinage as automatically included within the holy institution of marriage? Really?
It's Biblical. I didn't say I had any desire to practice it. I love my wife, she is all I desire.
(Well if your answers to these questions are "yes" is that the Mormon male patriarchical heritage coming out of your lips?)
My answers to your questions have nothing to do wit "Mormonism's beliefs, I am answering as a Biblical scholar, It's in there.
I find it interesting that antis often will get on this emotional trip and try to bend the scripture to their will, not their will to the scripture. The bible records both plural marriages and Concubinage by men that God calls righteous. The Bible and specifically Jesus condemns Divorce (save for the cause of fornication) yet in our culture, divorce and remarriage is common and accepted. To me this form of serial polygamy is more offensive to God than parallel marriages in that with Biblical polygamy, Families stay intact, children have the same father and mother they always did. With serial polygamy you have kids taking the brunt of the emotional damage, and I cannot but imagine that God is not pleased by it.
Now before you go and try to make holy war on Mormons for my logic, remember that I am an autistic person. I tend to be logical and impersonal, my statements on this are my own, I am not aware of the church having an official stance on "serial Polygamy" as I made the term up myself. I ask you logically, which is better, to keep fathers and children together, to keep women living in the house they are accustomed to, being supported by the same means they always have been in their marriage, and adding to the family, or completely ripping a family apart, having children spend six months with each parent and differing sets of friends, schools, rules. Having children as both the buffer, and the innocent party to be victimized by both sides of a war that will last until the scarred child is 18 and possibly beyond? I say no, God would rather that polygamy was legal and that those who wished to practice it were allowed to do so in peace. At the same time, I have no patience for a man who would abuse his wife either physically (for he is a coward) or for women who treat men with the contempt of feminism.
Before any of you ask, I am a Male chauvinist pig, I worship the ground my wife walks upon and supply her every need upon the pedestal she has chosen. She likes the view from the pedestal and loves me in spite of my faults. To those who would try to change me and my wife's relationship, I am a male chauvinist pig and my wife likes me that way, and I care far more about her opinion than any number of yours, so give up before you start and save your self the headache of trying to argue a point in a case you have no standing in.