A view of a Carnal & Miserable kind of Polygyny

[wavy]

27 " 'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

[Does this still apply?]

Yes. I believe it does.

5 Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh water in a clay pot. 6 He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together with the cedar wood, the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. 7 Seven times he shall sprinkle the one to be cleansed of the infectious disease and pronounce him clean. Then he is to release the live bird in the open fields.
8 "The person to be cleansed must wash his clothes, shave off all his hair and bathe with water; then he will be ceremonially clean.

[Does this still apply for skin disorders?]

Impossible. There is no temple and no working Levitical priesthood.

Joel 3:8 (New International Version)

8 I will sell your sons and daughters to the people of Judah, and they will sell them to the Sabeans, a nation far away." The LORD has spoken.

[Is this still Biblical?]

Taken completely out of context. This is the mouth of Yahweh. Are you telling him he was "wrong" here, or that he changes with culture? (please see Malachi 3:6).

Solomon's Wives

1 King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh's daughterâ€â€Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites.

[Got an orgy? It seems the Church nowadays would SCORN a rich man that had many, many beautiful wives....... In fact they waould call it SATANIC....

But you do not Hugh?

[/quote]

He was wrong because by law a king can only have one wife. Secondly, what the "church" believes is irelevant. What is written in the word is what's relevant.

About slavery, people exaggerate the meaning of this word. This never connoted literal ball and chain labor. A butler or maid can be classified as a "slave". If they are in submittance to you and depend on you for a living and call you "master" or "sir", they are your "slave".

 

[Prakk]

Slight disagreement.

"He was wrong because by law a king can only have one wife."

Only if you also say that a King was to have only one horse. The passage in Deuteronomy 17:17 should be read in conjunction with verse 16 which applies the same sort of language to the number of horses a king was to have, as it does in verse 17 to the number of wives a King was to have. Further scriptural research reveals that what was considered many may have been a number roughtly in the mid teens to perhaps as many as 80 or so.

"Secondly, what the 'church' believes is irelevant. What is written in the word is what's relevant."

Amen. I couldn't agree more.

Hugh McBryde

 

[BenJasher]

From what I have read here, this whole thread can be boiled down to one question: "How many wives does the Bible say a man can have?"

And this thread also shows how deeply the traditions of men have become embedded into our thinking, and in many places, color our understanding of the scripture.

For one thing, the Bible never condemns what we call polygamy.
Abraham practiced a form of polygamy. Jacob had two wives. And this was alright in the eyes of God. King David was cursed with a sword following his bloodline for killing Bathsheba's husband. But for cavorting with Bathsheba, the only rebuke he got from the Lord was "If you wanted another sheep for your pastures, all you had to do was ask Me."

For another thing, adultery is the sin of a married woman engaging in a sexual relationship with a man who is not her husband. It wasn't necessarily a sin for the man. This is why there was no man brought before Jesus with the woman who was caught in adultery.

Like I said, the traditions of men are obfuscating our understanding of the scriptures.

 

[Prakk]

Pretty Much

Amen to almost all of your post.

"For another thing, adultery is the sin of a married woman engaging in a sexual relationship with a man who is not her husband. It wasn't necessarily a sin for the man. This is why there was no man brought before Jesus with the woman who was caught in adultery."

I disagree, since the law says that he is an adulteror as well, and that both should have been put to death. One of the problems with the woman caught in adultery was that the man was not brought as well for stoning. Agreed that it requires a woman be either married or betrothed for adultery to occur, a man cannot commit adultery against his wife, as a woman can against her husband. The sin of adultery is against the man to whom the woman is married, and God. The sinners are the adulterer and adulteress.

Hugh McBryde

P.S. I keep in mind the exception Christ mentioned, where a man is said to commit adultery against his ex wife, for unjustly divorcing her, and replacing her with another woman.

 

[BenJasher]

Not meaning to be rude here, Mr. Hugh, but you can disagree till your nose falls off. But what I said was the truth. Look it up. And what you said about a man divorcing his wife unjustly needs to be corrected. It says that it causes the woman to be guilty of adultery if she marries again.

 

[Prakk]

That's a shame.

"Not meaning to be rude here, Mr. Hugh, but you can disagree till your nose falls off. But what I said was the truth. Look it up."

Actually, in that I agree with you on most points, I would love to be wrong on this issue, but here are the scriptures that pertain to our discussion. Leviticus 20:10,

"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

And in Matthew 19 it says the following:

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

The highlighted area is the critical one. It goes like this, paraphrased; If you divorce your wife for any reason other than her adultery, and then marry another woman, you commit adultery against your (former) wife".

Some say this could be better translated as "making your former wife an adulteress" which some would then say fixes the blame on the person who made her commit the sin, the theory being that because she is under his authority as his wife, she must obey, and has been cast out per her former husband's order. I don't know about that, all the translations I use for study say a version of what the King James says above, which says that the man divorcing his wife for unjust cause, all those reasons that are not her adultery, commits adultery against his former wife by marrying again.

Hugh McBryde

 

[BenJasher]

Well, for what it is worth, my sources were various Bible dictionaries which define adultery the way I stated it. Smith's is the first one to come to recollection. But Smith's isn't the only one.

And we can, without question, grab a verse here, or a verse there and make a case for whatever stand we want to take. And we can twist them to agree with our own carnal reasoning if we want. And if we are charismatic enough, or have the right kind of personality, we can create a whole movement around our twisted carnal understanding of the scriptures. There are whole denominations in existence today that are proof of that. I have even been guilty of it myself a time or two.

But a careful overall examination of the subject of adultery as a whole, not just a single verse or two, will reveal a pattern. Comparing that pattern with the customs of the Israelite peoples will only confirm that pattern. Adultery is committed by a married woman with a man who is not her husband, first and foremost. Beyond the first and foremost, though, there are instances where the man is guiltless in the matter, and instances where the man is not held guiltless in the matter.

An instance in mind is David with Bathsheba. There was never an indictment of wrongdoing brought against David for his actions with Urriah's wife. His only rebuke was on that matter was: "If you wanted another sheep for your pasture, you could have asked Me." But a generational curse was placed upon his descendants for killing Bathsheba's husband.

The scripture you quoted in Matthew 19, if translated as "causes her to commit adultery" would agree with what Paul has to say on the subject. And I am of the opinion that this would be a more accurate translation. But I will double check to be sure. I am going to look into the Flagstaff Version (not yet formally released to the public) to see how it translates these verses.

 

[Prakk]

Flagstaff?

I don't think the Flagstaff version will mitigate the language of Leviticus. The penalty for a man participating as partner in an adulteress' actions, is death. Just as it was for her.

We can discuss all day whether or not the man in Matthew 19 commits adultery, and even then, this is the exception that proves the rule, I whole heartedly agree that a man with several concurrent sex partners is not by definition an adulteror. Or necessarily a sinner for that matter.

Hugh McBryde

 

[BenJasher]

You are probably correct in that the Flagstaff Version probably isn't the definitive answer to Leviticus. After all, it is a translation of the New Testament. :wink: And I was going to Matthew 19.

I whole heartedly agree that a man with several concurrent sex partners is not by definition an adulteror. Or necessarily a sinner for that matter.

I get the notion that you and I may agree more than we disagree on some of these matters. And if you are really interested in stirring up a controversy, let's switch the topic of this discussion from adultery to fornication. :smt064 :onfire:
I would be willing to bet that I could provoke some to anger with that one.

 

[Soma-Sight]

Hey Prakk,

Do you have more than one wife?

Are you a Mormon?

Thx.

 

[BenJasher]

Good Evening Soma-Sight;

For the sake of my own curiosity, let me ask: Who says you have to be Mormon to have more than one wife?

I am of the mind that if I wanted more than one wife, I wouldn't be in sin if I did. And further, my wife is also of the same mind. But she is the only wife I have. We have a monogamous marriage. (20 years this anniversary)But it isn't because of some misconception that it would be wrong for us to live any other manner.

 

[Prakk]

Not LDS, no I'm not.

"let's switch the topic of this discussion from adultery to fornication. :smt064 :onfire:
I would be willing to bet that I could provoke some to anger with that one."

The topic is a great one, the motivation to stir up anger, a poor one. There is another thread in this forum already in which I have better outlined my position on Polygyny.

"Do you have more than one wife?"

No.

"Are you a Mormon?"

They prefer to be called "LDS" and, no. A more accurate assumption would be anabaptist, but I'm not that either. Anabaptists practiced polygyny in Muenster Germany during the reformation. The word "Mormon" or the false religion of "Latter Day Saints" had not yet been invented.

Hugh McBryde

 

[Perry Reid]

BenJasher,

Hi, I'm new here. Been reading your posts. I see you've done your homework. I would agree with most of what you have said so far and also McBryde in that polygamy is no different in God's eyes than monogamy.

Perry

 

[gingercat]

Wavy, are you a Christian?

Thanks :D

 

[sehad]

I was dead set to a man having one wife and a woman having one husband, but most of my readings it was the deacons, or priests, or kings I read that someone stated that were commanded to have one wife. What about Solomon? He had over 700 wives and 300 girlfriends. Was he wrong? From reading about him, it wasn't all the wives he had that displeased GOD, but who they were. Marrying these women caused him to worship idols. Are there any scriptures that support having more than one wife? I'm not sure the scripture in the bible but isn't there a scripture that commands us to keep the law of man if it does not interfere with the law of GOD? During the time of the old testimate it was not unlawful to have more than one wife but it is now. Does this mean that we can ignore man's law? I know that GOD's law supersedes that of man, but having more than one wife was man's choice not GOD's and putting forth a law of not having more than one wife was put forth by man. In my thinking, GOD had really nothing to do with either one. Am I off base with this? I'm to be married within a year and I would hate to see what I would look like after I brought up the idea of marrying her then marrying another woman. Not pretty!

 

[Prakk]

We are the world? What the...?

"I was dead set to a man having one wife and a woman having one husband, but most of my readings it was the deacons, or priests, or kings I read that someone stated that were commanded to have one wife. What about Solomon? He had over 700 wives and 300 girlfriends. Was he wrong? From reading about him, it wasn't all the wives he had that displeased GOD, but who they were. Marrying these women caused him to worship idols. Are there any scriptures that support having more than one wife?"

Yes, the directive to take a dead brother's wife would have compelled Polygyny in more cases than it wouldn't have. You would have to have God forcing men to engage in a sinful activity, to fulfill a righteous requirement of law otherwise, so God must have thought it was OK.

"I'm not sure the scripture in the bible but isn't there a scripture that commands us to keep the law of man if it does not interfere with the law of GOD? During the time of the old testimate it was not unlawful to have more than one wife but it is now."

The United States and Western europe are not the world, this is a universal question, and one of the reasons I consider it urgent is that I am fully convinced it will not be against the law, even here, much longer.

Hugh McBryde

 

[Perry Reid]

Yes, the directive to take a dead brother's wife would have compelled Polygyny in more cases than it wouldn't have. You would have to have God forcing men to engage in a sinful activity, to fulfill a righteous requirement of law otherwise, so God must have thought it was OK.

Very good insight, McBryde. Everytime I read your work I see something new.

 

[sehad]

Re: We are the world? What the...?

The United States and Western europe are not the world, this is a universal question, and one of the reasons I consider it urgent is that I am fully convinced it will not be against the law, even here, much longer.

Hugh McBryde

This has raised several questions in me now. Even though I am dead set against polygamy, I cannot(as of yet) prove that scripture is against them. Even though it does say that these TWO will become one, it doesn't say that you can't do this more than once. I would never have more than one wife in that it's a moral wrong(to me) and I'm thinking that keeping up with one will be enough for me. One question about marrying the dead brother's wife. Isn't it to keep the name of the family going? I'm thinking that it was if the older dead brother had no SONS(not children). Does it mention anything about if the younger has a wife or not? Or if the younger already has sons to keep the family name going? This was the only purpose of marrying the older brother's wife.

 

[Prakk]

Statistics

"Even though I am dead set against polygamy, I cannot(as of yet) prove that scripture is against them. Even though it does say that these TWO will become one, it doesn't say that you can't do this more than once."

The fact that God himself says in one his laws given to Israel, several times, that you CAN have more than two wives (adivisable or otherwise), God does indeed say that you can do it more than once, so that issue is actually settled. The only question remaining after that is should you.

"I would never have more than one wife in that it's a moral wrong(to me) and I'm thinking that keeping up with one will be enough for me. One question about marrying the dead brother's wife. Isn't it to keep the name of the family going? I'm thinking that it was if the older dead brother had no SONS(not children)."

It was for the continuance of any brothers line should he die without heir. The law was mandatory, it was a command, it carried a penalty if it was not followed and it was from God.

"Does it mention anything about if the younger has a wife or not? Or if the younger already has sons to keep the family name going?"

The condition of the law was simple, the nearest relative who was usually a brother as evidenced by the Saducees questions to Jesus, was obligated to take his childless brother's wife. You have to be famililar with the rest of the law to know how unlikely it was that the available brother was NOT married. Even in our society marriage is likely for adults. In Hebrew Society where the laws of God mandated that land be passed down due to heredity, the preservation of the family allotment depended on having children, and having those children have children, and that led to near universal marriage. There are very few men known to be "single" in Old Testament and the ones that we suspect to be single were usually eunichs. Over the hundreds of years that Israel existed as a nation after the giving of the law, it's a statistical impossibility that every time the law came into play that there was an available single man to take the wife to himself. This is in fact an "arranged marriage" law and the person making the arrangement was God himself. Arranged marriage was commonplace to nearly universal in Israel. You were usually betrothed long before you consumated the relationship, and legally and by God's law, betrothal made people husband and wife.

Hugh McBryde

 

[Perry Reid]

I don't know if this has already been brought up yet but God
in allegory portrays Himself as being married to two women.

Ezekiel 23:4
And the names of them [were] Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus [were] their names; Samaria [is] Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.

Now the KJV is plain enough for me. But there may be those out there that have been weaned on the weaker versions so here is how the NLT reads:
4 The older girl was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. I married them, and they bore me sons and daughters. I am speaking of Samaria and Jerusalem, for Oholah is Samaria and Oholibah is Jerusalem.

Now God would not in any way trick man into doing something wrong. We know this because God cannot tempt man. James 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God:

So we know that God okays polygamy. It is a valid and equal form of marriage as a man having only one wife.