1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What about polygamy? Does God FORBID it?

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by rjprince, May 1, 2006.

  1. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    ... seem to be application to polyandry....

    ... seem to be forbidden...

    I repeat. THE NT DOES NOT ADDRESS THIS ISSUE!

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  2. Karen

    Karen Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2000
    Messages:
    2,610
    Likes Received:
    0
    We just disagree then. The NT does address this issue when church leaders are specifically prohibited. (Yes, "one-woman man" covers MORE than polygamy, but it covers polygamy.)

    They are not prohibited because of an arbitrary rule but because of God's creation order stated by Jesus in Matthew.

    When people are told to emulate their leaders in the various passages I cited, this is one of the things they are supposed to emulate.

    You are right that there is not a 3-word prooftext. But the concept is there.

    Karen
     
  3. paidagogos

    paidagogos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, neither divorce, nor polygamy are mentioned in Romans 7. Divorce breaks the marriage relationship so that the woman is no longer married to her former husband. To contend that divorce does not break a marriage is contrary to the clear statement of Deut 24 that “she may not return to her former husband”. The idea that a divorce does not break the marriage is never stated in Scripture, and the contrary is stated in several places.[snip]</font>[/QUOTE]The Hebrew word ראשׁון is correctly translated as former but your English semantics is wrong. Former, in this case, does not indicate a clear break as much as it refers to prior, previous or before. Its primary meaning is more related to time than relationship. The clear statement clearly says nothing about the marriage relationship except in order of sequence. So, there’s that argument down the drain. Next.
    ;)
     
  4. paidagogos

    paidagogos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, neither divorce, nor polygamy are mentioned in Romans 7. Divorce breaks the marriage relationship so that the woman is no longer married to her former husband. To contend that divorce does not break a marriage is contrary to the clear statement of Deut 24 that “she may not return to her former husband”. The idea that a divorce does not break the marriage is never stated in Scripture, and the contrary is stated in several places.[snip]</font>[/QUOTE]The Hebrew word ראשׁון is correctly translated as former but your English semantics is wrong. Former, in this case, does not indicate a clear break as much as it refers to prior, previous or before. Its primary meaning is more related to time than relationship. The clear statement clearly says nothing about the marriage relationship except in order of sequence. So, there’s that argument down the drain. Next.
    ;)
     
  5. paidagogos

    paidagogos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, neither divorce, nor polygamy are mentioned in Romans 7. Divorce breaks the marriage relationship so that the woman is no longer married to her former husband. To contend that divorce does not break a marriage is contrary to the clear statement of Deut 24 that “she may not return to her former husband”. The idea that a divorce does not break the marriage is never stated in Scripture, and the contrary is stated in several places.[snip]</font>[/QUOTE]The Hebrew word ראשׁון is correctly translated as former but your English semantics is wrong. Former, in this case, does not indicate a clear break as much as it refers to prior, previous or before. Its primary meaning is more related to time than relationship. The clear statement clearly says nothing about the marriage relationship except in order of sequence. So, there’s that argument down the drain. Next.
    ;)
     
  6. paidagogos

    paidagogos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, neither divorce, nor polygamy are mentioned in Romans 7. Divorce breaks the marriage relationship so that the woman is no longer married to her former husband. To contend that divorce does not break a marriage is contrary to the clear statement of Deut 24 that “she may not return to her former husband”. The idea that a divorce does not break the marriage is never stated in Scripture, and the contrary is stated in several places.[snip]</font>[/QUOTE]The Hebrew word ראשׁון is correctly translated as former but your English semantics is wrong. Former, in this case, does not indicate a clear break as much as it refers to prior, previous or before. Its primary meaning is more related to time than relationship. The clear statement clearly says nothing about the marriage relationship except in order of sequence. So, there’s that argument down the drain. Next.
    ;)
     
  7. paidagogos

    paidagogos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, neither divorce, nor polygamy are mentioned in Romans 7. Divorce breaks the marriage relationship so that the woman is no longer married to her former husband. To contend that divorce does not break a marriage is contrary to the clear statement of Deut 24 that “she may not return to her former husband”. The idea that a divorce does not break the marriage is never stated in Scripture, and the contrary is stated in several places.[snip]</font>[/QUOTE]The Hebrew word ראשׁון is correctly translated as former but your English semantics is wrong. Former, in this case, does not indicate a clear break as much as it refers to prior, previous or before. Its primary meaning is more related to time than relationship. The clear statement clearly says nothing about the marriage relationship except in order of sequence. So, there’s that argument down the drain. Next.
    ;)
     
  8. paidagogos

    paidagogos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, neither divorce, nor polygamy are mentioned in Romans 7. Divorce breaks the marriage relationship so that the woman is no longer married to her former husband. To contend that divorce does not break a marriage is contrary to the clear statement of Deut 24 that “she may not return to her former husband”. The idea that a divorce does not break the marriage is never stated in Scripture, and the contrary is stated in several places.[snip]</font>[/QUOTE]The Hebrew word ראשׁון is correctly translated as former but your English semantics is wrong. Former, in this case, does not indicate a clear break as much as it refers to prior, previous or before. Its primary meaning is more related to time than relationship. The clear statement clearly says nothing about the marriage relationship except in order of sequence. So, there’s that argument down the drain. Next.
    ;)
     
  9. paidagogos

    paidagogos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, neither divorce, nor polygamy are mentioned in Romans 7. Divorce breaks the marriage relationship so that the woman is no longer married to her former husband. To contend that divorce does not break a marriage is contrary to the clear statement of Deut 24 that “she may not return to her former husband”. The idea that a divorce does not break the marriage is never stated in Scripture, and the contrary is stated in several places.[snip]</font>[/QUOTE]The Hebrew word ראשׁון is correctly translated as former but your English semantics is wrong. Former, in this case, does not indicate a clear break as much as it refers to prior, previous or before. Its primary meaning is more related to time than relationship. The clear statement clearly says nothing about the marriage relationship except in order of sequence. So, there’s that argument down the drain. Next.
    ;)
     
  10. paidagogos

    paidagogos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, neither divorce, nor polygamy are mentioned in Romans 7. Divorce breaks the marriage relationship so that the woman is no longer married to her former husband. To contend that divorce does not break a marriage is contrary to the clear statement of Deut 24 that “she may not return to her former husband”. The idea that a divorce does not break the marriage is never stated in Scripture, and the contrary is stated in several places.[snip]</font>[/QUOTE]The Hebrew word ראשׁון is correctly translated as former but your English semantics is wrong. Former, in this case, does not indicate a clear break as much as it refers to prior, previous or before. Its primary meaning is more related to time than relationship. The clear statement clearly says nothing about the marriage relationship except in order of sequence. So, there’s that argument down the drain. Next.
    ;)
     
  11. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is non sequitur reasoning. There is ABSOLUTELY NO CONNECTION between the facts that you present!

    Jacob had two wives, but he was not a murderer. David had numerous wives and even concubines and he was a man after God’s own heart. Your attempt to use Genesis 4 to connect murder with polygamy and sincere love for God with monogamy fails to interact with the whole of Scripture.

    I am bothered by the whole concept of polygamy/polygyny and the goel practice. BUT I AM MORE BOTHERED WHEN GOOD PEOPLE, AND WITH GOOD INTENTIONS, MANIPULATE THE WORD OF GOD BECAUSE IT DOES NOT FIT THEIR OWN CULTURAL MORES!
    </font>[/QUOTE]You sure read a lot into the few words I personally wrote with this post! :eek:

    I merely posted this since it is the first mention of a man with 2 wives. I did not say it proved anything and I am not up in arms about my "cultural mores." This is also an ad hominem attack and does not prove your point.

    Nothing in the text I posted indicates that God told Lamech to take 2 wives and it does not say God approved or disapproved. But the fact that Lamech is not much of a role model might be something God wants us to see here?

    I noticed also that you left out the fact that David was a murderer by sending Bathsheba's husband to the front so he would get killed. Yes, he was a man after God's own heart, but it doesn't take away from him being a murderer. And you talk about manipulating God's word! :confused:

    You drew conclusions from what I posted that I did NOT state nor was I trying to imply. I said we could draw "principles" from this, and by that, I meant principles that shows God is perhaps not in favor of men taking more than one wife.
     
Loading...