Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

2 Wives? Since When

* * * * * 1 votes

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
113 replies to this topic

#101
Fez

Fez

    Royal Member

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,509 posts






Well you are wrong about the pants thing as well, so... :cool2:

Show me the scripture that says it is ok for women to wear pants? :cool2:

BTW Fez, is it ok for a man to wear a bikini or a sun dress? :noidea:

To church? :whistling:

Why not? Most churches today say "Come as you are." :whistling:

Well. You might know men who wear dresses and bikini's on a Sunday, but I would have to say you would be in the minority. I don't know any....Well there was uncle Fred but we don't talk about him in polite company... (Oh, I just know there is a story begging to be told brewing here, fiction, but a story none the less..)

That is not the point. The question is whether it would be wrong for them to do so? If it is ok for women to wear anything they wish, pants, overalls, anything, why the double standard? Why not men in dresses or bikinis? If it is ok for women to have long or short hair, and society is fine with that, why the stigma with men with long hair? I was thinking about the old Bob Seger song, "Turn The Page," where he has one line about hearing the same old comments, "Is it a woman or a man?" He had long hair at the time. I don't know of any church I have ever attended that would be ok with a man coming in wearing a dress and having long hair, but some might be ok with a woman in overalls with very short hair. There is a clear double standard, and it is all the result of feminist influences creeping into the church. It is an abomination.

No it is more of a cultural thing. A man coming into my church in a kilt would be accepted and loved, if he were not of Scots decent some might think it strange or eccentric. It's more cultural than scriptural, unless one still labors under the crushing weight of the law.

And yes, we have been around this mountain a good many times, and all we do is wear the track a little deeper, it would seem.

#102
Sevenseas

Sevenseas

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,057 posts
Butero:

First of all, I do want to again go with the one area of agreement I have with you and that is that one man for one woman is best. All I am trying to show is that polygamy is not called a sin in scripture, so I could accept a Christian polygamist if I were to ever encounter one. As I said earlier, there was one at WB awhile back that all but admitted to being a polygamist.

I am not surprised the commentaries all say polygamy is wrong. What else could they do? If anyone dared write a commentary condoning polygamy or slavery, it would be immediately rejected and there would be no money to be made. There are certain things people do to survive, and there are certain topics one knows they can't condone and be successful. If I wanted to, of course I could make arguments against polygamy, as I could anything. I can bend and shape the Bible to make it say anything I desire, as activist judges do on the Supreme Court. I try to avoid that, and just accept the Bible as written, without the biases created by commentaries and books on Bible history.



Hey ~ if Solomon, declared the most intelligent man who ever lived could loose his kingdom because of polygamy, then why not someone who floats
around Worthy hinting that he has two women in his bed? I have known homosexuals who declared themselves Christians and even prophesied.
Does that prove something other than you had better have some good old fashioned discernment going on?

There are certain things people do to survive



Hmmmm...what is more important...spreading your genes or following Christ? What a strange thing to say IMO

I am not surprised the commentaries all say polygamy is wrong. What else could they do?



Well, if they didn't like what the Bible teaches, they could always have a visit from the angel Moroni and write the book of Mormon...

I could accept a Christian polygamist if I were to ever encounter one.




Sorry, but that sounds warning bells to me....just being honest here

I can bend and shape the Bible to make it say anything I desire



Really? Because I CAN'T! I find that scripture corrects, admonishes and teaches. I find I cannot wriggle out of anything with a good conscience



as activist judges do on the Supreme Court. I try to avoid that, and just accept the Bible as written, without the biases created by commentaries and books on Bible history



Ummm......the blind leading the blind re the judges. I think you might find some resources helpful in regards to your study. Are you an expert
in the languages the Bible was originally written in? I could go on, but just more of the same

#103
Butero

Butero

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,712 posts

Butero do you agree with this?

God has clearly called us to image Him- now what that entails
is God's boundless knowing and our pleasure in the finding of it out.... I call to mind God's allowance
yet ever demanding through His Word this truth in everything that we do
Mt 7:2
2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged;
and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.
NKJV
so even in the allowance there is reason outside of ourselves
utilizing that which is in us as standard for our living~ simply put
here
Lk 6:38
38 Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down,
shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For
with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you."
NKJV
surely one only need to reverse the situation to understand the loss of specialty by being
just one among many to choose from.... the question then lies why would you wish to do

this to the woman? Love, Steven

That is an interesting question. There are some polygamist marriages where the women are all ok with it. Personally, I don't think any man should ever consider polygamy if his wife is opposed to it. On that point, we are in agreement.

Back to the bigger picture. The question is whether or not polygamy is a sin? I don't believe it is, and that is the only point I have been making. I am not saying it is a good thing. I am not saying it is better than one man and one woman. I just don't believe it is a sin. Sin is the transgression of God's laws, and polygamy is regulated in the law, not forbidden. You can make a case all day for problems with polygamy, but the only thing I am debating is whether or not it is a sin?

#104
Butero

Butero

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,712 posts

Butero:

First of all, I do want to again go with the one area of agreement I have with you and that is that one man for one woman is best. All I am trying to show is that polygamy is not called a sin in scripture, so I could accept a Christian polygamist if I were to ever encounter one. As I said earlier, there was one at WB awhile back that all but admitted to being a polygamist.

I am not surprised the commentaries all say polygamy is wrong. What else could they do? If anyone dared write a commentary condoning polygamy or slavery, it would be immediately rejected and there would be no money to be made. There are certain things people do to survive, and there are certain topics one knows they can't condone and be successful. If I wanted to, of course I could make arguments against polygamy, as I could anything. I can bend and shape the Bible to make it say anything I desire, as activist judges do on the Supreme Court. I try to avoid that, and just accept the Bible as written, without the biases created by commentaries and books on Bible history.



Hey ~ if Solomon, declared the most intelligent man who ever lived could loose his kingdom because of polygamy, then why not someone who floats
around Worthy hinting that he has two women in his bed? I have known homosexuals who declared themselves Christians and even prophesied.
Does that prove something other than you had better have some good old fashioned discernment going on?

There are certain things people do to survive



Hmmmm...what is more important...spreading your genes or following Christ? What a strange thing to say IMO

I am not surprised the commentaries all say polygamy is wrong. What else could they do?



Well, if they didn't like what the Bible teaches, they could always have a visit from the angel Moroni and write the book of Mormon...

I could accept a Christian polygamist if I were to ever encounter one.




Sorry, but that sounds warning bells to me....just being honest here

I can bend and shape the Bible to make it say anything I desire



Really? Because I CAN'T! I find that scripture corrects, admonishes and teaches. I find I cannot wriggle out of anything with a good conscience



as activist judges do on the Supreme Court. I try to avoid that, and just accept the Bible as written, without the biases created by commentaries and books on Bible history



Ummm......the blind leading the blind re the judges. I think you might find some resources helpful in regards to your study. Are you an expert
in the languages the Bible was originally written in? I could go on, but just more of the same

Solomon didn't lose the kingdom because of polygamy. He lost the kingdom because of idolatry. Had he continued serving God, even though he had 700 wives and 300 concumbines, the kingdom would have remained in tact. Solomon's example shows what God meant by a king multiplying wives. He didn't mean it was a sin for the king to have more than one wife. He was warning against someone doing as Solomon did. He married many heathen wives to form alliances.

When someone says they are ok with women dressing in apparel like a man, it sounds warning bells to me. It says to me they have had a feminist influence in their life, and are in rebellion. Sorry, but that is how I see that. When someone says they are ok with new Bible translations, it sounds warning bells to me. I believe they want wiggle room to bend and shape scripture to mean something it was never intended to mean. See, we can all play that game. We all have those warning bells that go off, based on our beliefs.

As for being an expert in the original Greek and Hebrew, I don't have to be. I have my KJV Bible, based on the TR. I have my Greek and Hebrew Dictionary. I believe that makes me more of an expert on Biblical truth than anyone that uses modern translations that come from the latest manuscripts dug up in caves. Yes, you can know your Greek and Hebrew backwards and forwards, and you can turn to the manuscripts that exist today, but I put no faith in those manuscripts. Even when someone posts scripture from new translations, I don't accept anything they say until I go back and read it in the KJV Bible. I believe I know as much, if not more, about the Bible, than most of those men who write the commentaries. I believe I have more understanding than most of them. Sound arrogant to you? So what? Those people are just men. They make mistakes all the time, which is evident by the fact the commentaries don't agree with each other. If you ask those men if they are confident in what they say, I guarantee you they will say in full assurance they are. I don't put anymore credence in anything they say than what I have learned from personal study, and the Holy Spirit as my guide. I would also suggest you can learn more from simply studying the Bible and seeking God for the correct interpretation, than from seeking a commentary for answers. Those people aren't God. They don't know it all. People assume that because you can get a book in print you are some kind of expert. That is not always the case. Believe what you will, but you haven't convinced me you are right, and you sure aren't going to win me over by asking if I am an expert in Greek and Hebrew?

#105
Sevenseas

Sevenseas

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,057 posts

Solomon didn't lose the kingdom because of polygamy. He lost the kingdom because of idolatry. Had he continued serving God, even though he had 700 wives and 300 concumbines, the kingdom would have remained in tact. Solomon's example shows what God meant by a king multiplying wives. He didn't mean it was a sin for the king to have more than one wife. He was warning against someone doing as Solomon did. He married many heathen wives to form alliances.


Hellooooo? You are ignoring the scripture where God tells kings of Israel not to multiply wives. Solomon multiplied...direct disobedience = SIN. He lost his kingdom because of disobedience, polygamy being one of the reasons. I know why he married many heathen wives...his only alliance should have been with God...what Solomon did actually emphasizes the problems with polygamy....most men would prob like 2 or 3 (of those who agree with polygamy...or defend it) because they simply cannot afford more. I think that there is probably a spirit of harlotry in such actions....on the man's part.

When someone says they are ok with women dressing in apparel like a man, it sounds warning bells to me. It says to me they have had a feminist influence in their life, and are in rebellion. Sorry, but that is how I see that. When someone says they are ok with new Bible translations, it sounds warning bells to me. I believe they want wiggle room to bend and shape scripture to mean something it was never intended to mean. See, we can all play that game. We all have those warning bells that go off, based on our beliefs



Why are you bringing up women's clothing? How about men's heart attitudes to women? One man...one woman...God's plan right from the beginning.

I am a woman. I do not wear men's apparel. If I am cold and my husband offers me his jacket, that's a sin? That is how you sound at this point.
Yes, well, what you are calling sin regarding women wearing jeans or whatever, is exactly what you express regarding bending scripture...only in
reverse but it has the same effect.

It sounds like you judge by outward appearances. God looks on the heart. That, was why David could be called a man after God's heart....not
because he did not sin, but because of the heart he had for God. You see, it is not about outward things....normal outward things....I am not
discussing cothing deliberately designed to tempt....in either gender.

This is neither here nor there, but I mentioned nothing about new Bible translations..why do you? What bearing does that have on anything being
discussed? At any rate, it does not matter the translation, none of them will say what you are trying to say regarding polygamy or women. Women
are not second class citizens and frankly, with the attitude some men have, I can understand why there has been such a backlash. I am too young
to have been a part of all of that, I have always been able to vote and drive and express an opinion. I think some men would like to change that
back to the way it was. Seriously.

As for being an expert in the original Greek and Hebrew, I don't have to be. I have my KJV Bible, based on the TR. I have my Greek and Hebrew Dictionary. I believe that makes me more of an expert on Biblical truth than anyone that uses modern translations that come from the latest manuscripts dug up in caves. Yes, you can know your Greek and Hebrew backwards and forwards, and you can turn to the manuscripts that exist today, but I put no faith in those manuscripts.



Reading the above, with all those "I's", it seems to me that you place your own opinion over anyone else. Yet, the Bible states 'until WE ALL come into the fullness of Christ, so I am not sure what point you are making since depending on yourself and no one else is not a Christian concept.

Even when someone posts scripture from new translations, I don't accept anything they say until I go back and read it in the KJV Bible. I believe I know as much, if not more, about the Bible, than most of those men who write the commentaries. I believe I have more understanding than most of them. Sound arrogant to you? So what? Those people are just men. They make mistakes all the time, which is evident by the fact the commentaries don't agree with each other. If you ask those men if they are confident in what they say, I guarantee you they will say in full assurance they are


Arrogant? No...a little cultish actually. You are just a man too. Really. You trip yourself up with what you state about men who probably would not even make the type of statement that you say I might find arrogant. You really are saying quite a mouthful here by the way.

I don't put anymore credence in anything they say than what I have learned from personal study, and the Holy Spirit as my guide. I would also suggest you can learn more from simply studying the Bible and seeking God for the correct interpretation, than from seeking a commentary for answers. Those people aren't God. They don't know it all. People assume that because you can get a book in print you are some kind of expert. That is not always the case. Believe what you will, but you haven't convinced me you are right, and you sure aren't going to win me over by asking if I am an expert in Greek and Hebrew?


Actually, you seem to be making the wild assumptions here. Perhaps the people in your circles assume only experts write books, but I certainly do not and frankly you seem to elevate yourself above most people.

I do not believe as I will. My faith is tested and most likely will be more so. It is not willy nilly and I do know where of I speak...which is why I say
a whole lot less than you would know.

You have expressed yourself quite well and thank you.

You are right on one thing though, the Bible is correct.....


#106
Butero

Butero

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,712 posts

Solomon didn't lose the kingdom because of polygamy. He lost the kingdom because of idolatry. Had he continued serving God, even though he had 700 wives and 300 concumbines, the kingdom would have remained in tact. Solomon's example shows what God meant by a king multiplying wives. He didn't mean it was a sin for the king to have more than one wife. He was warning against someone doing as Solomon did. He married many heathen wives to form alliances.


Hellooooo? You are ignoring the scripture where God tells kings of Israel not to multiply wives. Solomon multiplied...direct disobedience = SIN. He lost his kingdom because of disobedience, polygamy being one of the reasons. I know why he married many heathen wives...his only alliance should have been with God...what Solomon did actually emphasizes the problems with polygamy....most men would prob like 2 or 3 (of those who agree with polygamy...or defend it) because they simply cannot afford more. I think that there is probably a spirit of harlotry in such actions....on the man's part.

When someone says they are ok with women dressing in apparel like a man, it sounds warning bells to me. It says to me they have had a feminist influence in their life, and are in rebellion. Sorry, but that is how I see that. When someone says they are ok with new Bible translations, it sounds warning bells to me. I believe they want wiggle room to bend and shape scripture to mean something it was never intended to mean. See, we can all play that game. We all have those warning bells that go off, based on our beliefs



Why are you bringing up women's clothing? How about men's heart attitudes to women? One man...one woman...God's plan right from the beginning.

I am a woman. I do not wear men's apparel. If I am cold and my husband offers me his jacket, that's a sin? That is how you sound at this point.
Yes, well, what you are calling sin regarding women wearing jeans or whatever, is exactly what you express regarding bending scripture...only in
reverse but it has the same effect.

It sounds like you judge by outward appearances. God looks on the heart. That, was why David could be called a man after God's heart....not
because he did not sin, but because of the heart he had for God. You see, it is not about outward things....normal outward things....I am not
discussing cothing deliberately designed to tempt....in either gender.

This is neither here nor there, but I mentioned nothing about new Bible translations..why do you? What bearing does that have on anything being
discussed? At any rate, it does not matter the translation, none of them will say what you are trying to say regarding polygamy or women. Women
are not second class citizens and frankly, with the attitude some men have, I can understand why there has been such a backlash. I am too young
to have been a part of all of that, I have always been able to vote and drive and express an opinion. I think some men would like to change that
back to the way it was. Seriously.

As for being an expert in the original Greek and Hebrew, I don't have to be. I have my KJV Bible, based on the TR. I have my Greek and Hebrew Dictionary. I believe that makes me more of an expert on Biblical truth than anyone that uses modern translations that come from the latest manuscripts dug up in caves. Yes, you can know your Greek and Hebrew backwards and forwards, and you can turn to the manuscripts that exist today, but I put no faith in those manuscripts.



Reading the above, with all those "I's", it seems to me that you place your own opinion over anyone else. Yet, the Bible states 'until WE ALL come into the fullness of Christ, so I am not sure what point you are making since depending on yourself and no one else is not a Christian concept.

Even when someone posts scripture from new translations, I don't accept anything they say until I go back and read it in the KJV Bible. I believe I know as much, if not more, about the Bible, than most of those men who write the commentaries. I believe I have more understanding than most of them. Sound arrogant to you? So what? Those people are just men. They make mistakes all the time, which is evident by the fact the commentaries don't agree with each other. If you ask those men if they are confident in what they say, I guarantee you they will say in full assurance they are


Arrogant? No...a little cultish actually. You are just a man too. Really. You trip yourself up with what you state about men who probably would not even make the type of statement that you say I might find arrogant. You really are saying quite a mouthful here by the way.

I don't put anymore credence in anything they say than what I have learned from personal study, and the Holy Spirit as my guide. I would also suggest you can learn more from simply studying the Bible and seeking God for the correct interpretation, than from seeking a commentary for answers. Those people aren't God. They don't know it all. People assume that because you can get a book in print you are some kind of expert. That is not always the case. Believe what you will, but you haven't convinced me you are right, and you sure aren't going to win me over by asking if I am an expert in Greek and Hebrew?


Actually, you seem to be making the wild assumptions here. Perhaps the people in your circles assume only experts write books, but I certainly do not and frankly you seem to elevate yourself above most people.

I do not believe as I will. My faith is tested and most likely will be more so. It is not willy nilly and I do know where of I speak...which is why I say
a whole lot less than you would know.

You have expressed yourself quite well and thank you.

You are right on one thing though, the Bible is correct.....

I didn't mention clothing or Bible translations to argue those points Sevenseas. You missed my point. I was only saying that we all have those "warning bells." When we read the post of others, we make judgments about them, and their motives. You make judgements about me based on a comment I made about being able to accept a polygamist, and I was merely pointing out that I make judgments about others based on the things they say. I just don't normally take the time to tell them because I figure they are as concerned about my warning bells as I am about theirs, which isn't much.

I am totally convinced that had Solomon continued to stay away from idolatry, he never would have lost the Kingdom. This command to kings not to "multiply wives," had a reason. It was to prevent them from falling into the trap Solomon did. It is like in the New Testament where it says that we should keep our mind on things that are pure, lovely, just, of a good report, things with virtue and praise. This is good to do, but you can't live in the world and avoid things that don't fall into this category. Does that mean you are in sin everytime you look at the evil in the world? Of course not, but when you dwell on evil all the time, it makes you more likely to fall into sin, by being seduced by the evil. Solomon having all those heathen wives led to the sin that cost him the Kingdom, idolatry.

My point on clothing here wasn't to deal with that subject directly, but there is one thing I want to address, and that is the topic of legalism that comes up a lot. I would be accused of legalism for my view on clothing, but I see you as just as much of a legalist as I am, based on your willingness to twist scripture to try to find cause to see polygamy as a sin. I started a thread sometime back on legalism, showing many of the legalistic views all of us have. I mean views that aren't specifically spelled out in scripture as wrong, and the point was to show we are all legalistic to one point or another, and there is nothing wrong in that. I would look at the woman who comes to church in jeans as doing something that is an abomination, but would overlook the man with two wives, and you would likely be ok with the woman in jeans, but think the polygamist was in sin. I have as much scripture to back me up as you do, so we are both making a leap, based on how we personally see things.

You are missing one other point. I am not only elevating myself above the author of the commentaries you site, but I am saying you can know as much or more than they do through personal study with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. I am nothing special. I don't have anymore ability to learn more than most others do. I just happen to have spent a great deal of time in the Bible. It is something I have a great deal of interest in, so naturally I am going to know a lot about it. I used to know a guy who was such a sports fan, he could tell you every player on nearly every team in every sport. I couldn't do that, but it is not because I don't have the ability to learn the information. It is simply because I am just a casual sports fan, and don't care to spend the time knowing those things. I will gladly admit this guy is more of an expert on sports than I am. The same thing applies with scripture. The more time spent in the Bible, the more you will know about it. I don't trust commentaries.

Let me point something else out to you about commentaries. Lets suppose I start out to write a commentary? If I undertake that task, I have to plan on commenting as an expert on everything in the Bible. Naturally, I fully understand some things, but don't others, but I still have to complete the book. I can't write in the book that I don't know the meaning of anything, or you won't have confidence in the rest, so I come up with something to say on everything, right or wrong. Some of the things I say are my own guesses, and some come from the writings of others. As such, all you are getting is one man's opinion. The only thing commentaries are good for is an opinion. It is not much better than asking others at WB their opinion of something. You can't automatically assume that the information is right. That includes anything I may say.

#107
Sevenseas

Sevenseas

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,057 posts
Butero:

I didn't mention clothing or Bible translations to argue those points Sevenseas. You missed my point. I was only saying that we all have those "warning bells." When we read the post of others, we make judgments about them, and their motives. You make judgements about me based on a comment I made about being able to accept a polygamist, and I was merely pointing out that I make judgments about others based on the things they say. I just don't normally take the time to tell them because I figure they are as concerned about my warning bells as I am about theirs, which isn't much.


Well, but you have actually argued them quite ardently in other threads, so perhaps it is unfortunate that you chose to bring it up yet AGAIN in this one

The point I made was in referral to THIS thread. Here is your comment again:

I could accept a Christian polygamist if I were to ever encounter one.

to which I replied: Sorry, but that sounds warning bells to me....just being honest here


Please do not tell me that I am making judgements about you. Scripture does not teach that polygamy is an option but you seem to

think it may not be a bad idea under 'some circumstances' and you write that you could accept a 'Christian' polygamist if you met one
yet you do not have a leg to stand on regarding scripture. So, if you are using the Bible as your platform from which to deliver this
acceptance on your part, I suggest that perhaps you may conceive of the notion of a couple of more wives as attractive. I seriously do not understand any other reason to believe polygamy is acceptable. It is not the standard in the Bible...it does not matter if the Kings of Israel practiced it....God created but one woman for Adam. The NT teaches ONE woman per man and I guess you can also state one
man per woman.

It sounds argumentative when you try to make it sound like I am making judgements against you. Are you a polygamist? If not, then what am I judging you on?


I am only discussing the subject and not tight jeans or low blouses. I do not operate like you do...I am not making judgements on what you say...I keep reading and asking questions and I see how someone applies the Word and after a while I start to get a picture...I usually will pray about that picture and let God show me whether or not I am perceiving what is true or not. So, again, I don't listen to words so much as I want the entire picture. There are many ways to see that picture even in this forum. I also realize I do not know everything and so I still always leave open the option that I do not know everything and I am not a judge....however, we are definitely to DISCERN...which does not mean we even act on that discernment, but keep things in mind so we don't get a nasty surprise somewhere down the line. So, it seems we do not approach things the same way and I would appreciate it if you would understand that and do not form any judgements about me supposedly judging you because that is what YOU do. Thanks. That's right, I am a bit complicated but I'm fine with it.

I am totally convinced that had Solomon continued to stay away from idolatry, he never would have lost the Kingdom. This command to kings not to "multiply wives," had a reason. It was to prevent them from falling into the trap Solomon did. It is like in the New Testament where it says that we should keep our mind on things that are pure, lovely, just, of a good report, things with virtue and praise. This is good to do, but you can't live in the world and avoid things that don't fall into this category. Does that mean you are in sin everytime you look at the evil in the world? Of course not, but when you dwell on evil all the time, it makes you more likely to fall into sin, by being seduced by the evil. Solomon having all those heathen wives led to the sin that cost him the Kingdom, idolatry.


Frankly, I think lust is evil and dreaming of having more and more wives is also evil. Even the OT tells a man to be satisfied with the wife of his youth and not go after another.


Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun--all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun. Ecc. 9:9 wife....not wives

You ask, "Why?" It is because the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. Mal 2:14

When I read that verse from Malachi, I do NOT get the opinon that God is very impressed with men who break covenant with their WIFE (one woman).. so if it is godly to procure more wives, why didn't these adulterers just marry the other woman? Marriage is a covenant...God was/is in covenant with Israel in the singular..that is, the entire nation as one that He is in covenant with, hence God's anger towards men who had put away the older wives to bring a new ones.

May your fountain be blessed,
and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
19A loving doe, a graceful deer—
may her breasts satisfy you always,
may you ever be captivated by her love.
20Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress?
Why embrace the bosom of another man’s wife?
21For a man’s ways are in full view of the Lord,
and he examines all his paths.
22The evil deeds of a wicked man ensnare him;
the cords of his sin hold him fast.
23He will die for lack of discipline,
led astray by his own great folly. Prov 5

Interestingly, since Solomon is the author, one wonders why he did not take his own advice. Seems he knew what was wise and right in the eyes
of the Lord.

My point on clothing here wasn't to deal with that subject directly, but there is one thing I want to address, and that is the topic of legalism that comes up a lot. I would be accused of legalism for my view on clothing, but I see you as just as much of a legalist as I am, based on your willingness to twist scripture to try to find cause to see polygamy as a sin. I started a thread sometime back on legalism, showing many of the legalistic views all of us have. I mean views that aren't specifically spelled out in scripture as wrong, and the point was to show we are all legalistic to one point or another, and there is nothing wrong in that. I would look at the woman who comes to church in jeans as doing something that is an abomination, but would overlook the man with two wives, and you would likely be ok with the woman in jeans, but think the polygamist was in sin. I have as much scripture to back me up as you do, so we are both making a leap, based on how we personally see things.


Wrong thread but I find it illogical just the same

You are missing one other point. I am not only elevating myself above the author of the commentaries you site, but I am saying you can know as much or more than they do through personal study with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. I am nothing special. I don't have anymore ability to learn more than most others do. I just happen to have spent a great deal of time in the Bible. It is something I have a great deal of interest in, so naturally I am going to know a lot about it. I used to know a guy who was such a sports fan, he could tell you every player on nearly every team in every sport. I couldn't do that, but it is not because I don't have the ability to learn the information. It is simply because I am just a casual sports fan, and don't care to spend the time knowing those things. I will gladly admit this guy is more of an expert on sports than I am. The same thing applies with scripture. The more time spent in the Bible, the more you will know about it. I don't trust commentaries.


I totally disagree with your statement. Polygamy is sin....God is One...a man and a woman become one...not several. The fact you do not acknowledge that but cling to your polygamist viewpoint, would suggest that you most certainly do not know what alot of other people actually do know. It is my absolute and proven experience that a person can spend all day in the Bible and still not have a changed heart. It is only as we surrender ourselves and ALL of our sinful desires that we come to understand this.


Many people push the Holy Spirit away when He gets to close to where they live in the deepest ​part of them and transfer His corrections on to someone else. I trust God...not commentaries, but I know that it is best to study from different sources as we are part of a body and not just one single person who always gets things right. I have been corrected many times in my life...both by the Holy Spirit and by other Christians. I would not ever put myself under the authority of an individual who believed that they alone got things right because quote unquote, they have the Holy Spirit.

On that subject, there are literally thousands of so called prophets, healers, evangelists, teachers, etc, speaking in tongues and running around.....most of them are not worth the suit they wear, yet every single one of them will tell you that they hear from God personally and are doing what they are doing because God told them to. No, telling me you only learn by the Holy Spirit and never mind any other source, sets off more warning bells I'm afraid.


That is not judging.....that is a fact, because scripture TELLS us that some are teachers and so we know we can be taught by more than what we
may believe may be the Holy Spirit telling us we don't need anyone else.

Here it is: As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him. I John 2:27

wrong interpretation: you do not need any man to teach you...you are good to go all by yourself, no worries, you cannot be wrong you are spirit filled

right interpretation: the Holy Spirit will guide each person and He is our teacher, but we do have and we do need spirit filled teachers to teach. We do come come together as a body to edify each other and even the prophets are subject to each other and the Bible is NOT for private interpretation

Here is another companion verse some people use to say they don't need to be taught : But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come John 16:13

Jesus was not speaking to one person...He was addressing ALL the disciples. The Bible was never meant for one person to claim all authority on and neither is the Holy Spirit. Some people believe they cannot be in error when they misinterpret such verses and it leads them into a world of trouble

You do not have to believe or accept that, but it is the truth and what scripture itself will define to the one who address such with the understanding that we are not the only saved person or spirit filled person on the block and that God can and does supply teachers that He has chosen and gifted


These teachers are not to be elevated above others...in fact they are warned that their's is the greater responsibility

Let me point something else out to you about commentaries. Lets suppose I start out to write a commentary? If I undertake that task, I have to plan on commenting as an expert on everything in the Bible. Naturally, I fully understand some things, but don't others, but I still have to complete the book. I can't write in the book that I don't know the meaning of anything, or you won't have confidence in the rest, so I come up with something to say on everything, right or wrong. Some of the things I say are my own guesses, and some come from the writings of others. As such, all you are getting is one man's opinion. The only thing commentaries are good for is an opinion. It is not much better than asking others at WB their opinion of something. You can't automatically assume that the information is right. That includes anything I may say.


Nokay. I never ever get one man's opinion. And you have illustrated why that it is so.


#108
Butero

Butero

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,712 posts
But I didn't mention clothing or Bible translations to argue those points Sevenseas. You missed my point. I was only saying that we all have those "warning bells." When we read the post of others, we make judgments about them, and their motives. You make judgements about me based on a comment I made about being able to accept a polygamist, and I was merely pointing out that I make judgments about others based on the things they say. I just don't normally take the time to tell them because I figure they are as concerned about my warning bells as I am about theirs, which isn't much.

SEVENSEAS Well, but you have actually argued them quite ardently in other threads, so perhaps it is unfortunate that you chose to bring it up yet AGAIN in this one.


BUTERO Yes I have argued that point in other threads, and I stand by everything I said. That just wasn't my point in this thread. My point in this thread was to show that just as you have formed opinions of me, I have formed opinions of you. I just don't normally go around telling you everything I think about you on a personal level because it has no relevance to the thread, and why should you care? I know I don't care about your opinion of me, nor care about your "warning bells."

SEVENSEASThe point I made was in referral to THIS thread. Here is your comment again:

"I could accept a Christian polygamist if I were to ever encounter one." to which I replied: Sorry, but that sounds warning bells to me....just being honest here


BUTERO That is correct. Thanks for bringing us up to date.

SEVENSEASPlease do not tell me that I am making judgements about you. Scripture does not teach that polygamy is an option but you seem to

think it may not be a bad idea under 'some circumstances' and you write that you could accept a 'Christian' polygamist if you met one
yet you do not have a leg to stand on regarding scripture.

BUTERO And I would argue that it is you that doesn't have a leg to stand on. Sin is the transgression of the law, according to 1 John. There is nothing in God's law that says polygamy is a sin, and neither you nor anyone else has been able to show otherwise. That has been my point all along. You don't have a leg to stand on.

SEVENSEAS So, if you are using the Bible as your platform from which to deliver this acceptance on your part, I suggest that perhaps you may conceive of the notion of a couple of more wives as attractive. I seriously do not understand any other reason to believe polygamy is acceptable. It is not the standard in the Bible...it does not matter if the Kings of Israel practiced it....God created but one woman for Adam. The NT teaches ONE woman per man and I guess you can also state one
man per woman.It sounds argumentative when you try to make it sound like I am making judgements against you. Are you a polygamist? If not, then what am I judging you on?

BUTERO I am using the Bible, because the Bible backs up my position. The OT law of Moses shows that God allows polygamy, and that it is regulated. If you take the time to go through this thread, you will find people acknowledging that the only people prohibited from being polygamists in the New Testament are Bishops and Deacons. Some said church leaders, but by acknowledging that, it is an admission polygamy is allowed for average Christians. The New Testament doesn't prohibit polygamy. If you think it does, prove it with actual scripture. The only thing anyone has posted so far are scriptures on divorce and re-marriage, and those comments were given by Jesus while people were still under the entire law of Moses. That proves it cannot be a prohibition on polygamy, or Jesus was fighting against his own teachings in the law. If you want to say the practice is discouraged, fine. If you want to say it isn't God's best, fine. When it comes to saying it is a sin, I would suggest you prove it with scripture. And no, I am not a polygamist. I never have been one, and don't plan on becoming one. What you were making judgments on me about was when you made that "warning bells" comment. Saying I am cult-like is also a judgement. As I said, I have made plenty of judgments about you as well, but I am not planning on posting them, as they would be considered personal attacks in violation of the TOS. I prefer to try to stay on topic.

SEVENSEAS I am only discussing the subject and not tight jeans or low blouses. I do not operate like you do...I am not making judgements on what you say...I keep reading and asking questions and I see how someone applies the Word and after a while I start to get a picture...I usually will pray about that picture and let God show me whether or not I am perceiving what is true or not. So, again, I don't listen to words so much as I want the entire picture. There are many ways to see that picture even in this forum. I also realize I do not know everything and so I still always leave open the option that I do not know everything and I am not a judge....however, we are definitely to DISCERN...which does not mean we even act on that discernment, but keep things in mind so we don't get a nasty surprise somewhere down the line. So, it seems we do not approach things the same way and I would appreciate it if you would understand that and do not form any judgements about me supposedly judging you because that is what YOU do. Thanks. That's right, I am a bit complicated but I'm fine with it.

BUTERO Fair enough. You are using discernment. I do the same thing about others, including you. I will also acknowledge the fact that judgments we make can be wrong? That is another reason for not posting them. You stated that my one comment led you to have "warning bells" go off. Now you say, "I am not making judgements on what you say." You can't have it both ways. Yes, of course you look at the big picture. I do the same thing. I had an initial view of you, and then it has changed a bit. I would imagine over time, it will likely change some more? The more you read, the more you come to change how you view someone.

BUTERO QUOTE I am totally convinced that had Solomon continued to stay away from idolatry, he never would have lost the Kingdom. This command to kings not to "multiply wives," had a reason. It was to prevent them from falling into the trap Solomon did. It is like in the New Testament where it says that we should keep our mind on things that are pure, lovely, just, of a good report, things with virtue and praise. This is good to do, but you can't live in the world and avoid things that don't fall into this category. Does that mean you are in sin everytime you look at the evil in the world? Of course not, but when you dwell on evil all the time, it makes you more likely to fall into sin, by being seduced by the evil. Solomon having all those heathen wives led to the sin that cost him the Kingdom, idolatry.

SEVENSEAS Frankly, I think lust is evil and dreaming of having more and more wives is also evil. Even the OT tells a man to be satisfied with the wife of his youth and not go after another.


BUTERO That is the same OT that allows polygamy in the Law of Moses.


SEVENSEAS Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun--all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun. Ecc. 9:9 wife....not wives

You ask, "Why?" It is because the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. Mal 2:14

When I read that verse from Malachi, I do NOT get the opinon that God is very impressed with men who break covenant with their WIFE (one woman).. so if it is godly to procure more wives, why didn't these adulterers just marry the other woman? Marriage is a covenant...God was/is in covenant with Israel in the singular..that is, the entire nation as one that He is in covenant with, hence God's anger towards men who had put away the older wives to bring a new ones.

May your fountain be blessed,
and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
19A loving doe, a graceful deer—
may her breasts satisfy you always,
may you ever be captivated by her love.
20Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress?
Why embrace the bosom of another man’s wife?
21For a man’s ways are in full view of the Lord,
and he examines all his paths.
22The evil deeds of a wicked man ensnare him;
the cords of his sin hold him fast.
23He will die for lack of discipline,
led astray by his own great folly. Prov 5

Interestingly, since Solomon is the author, one wonders why he did not take his own advice. Seems he knew what was wise and right in the eyes
of the Lord.


BUTERO You have given us scripture Sevenseas that seems to indicate marriage is between one man and one woman, but at the same time, you can't explain how polygamy can be a sin when the law of Moses allows and regulates it, and that is the standard Solomon was living under. I do agree with you on one thing. I have often questioned Solomon? How could such a wise man multiply all those heathen wives unto himself? How could someone so wise become an idolater? I would suggest that he knew he was doing wrong and just did it because he wanted to. It was rebellion, plain and simple. It wasn't done in ignorace. It couldn't have been.

BUTEROMy point on clothing here wasn't to deal with that subject directly, but there is one thing I want to address, and that is the topic of legalism that comes up a lot. I would be accused of legalism for my view on clothing, but I see you as just as much of a legalist as I am, based on your willingness to twist scripture to try to find cause to see polygamy as a sin. I started a thread sometime back on legalism, showing many of the legalistic views all of us have. I mean views that aren't specifically spelled out in scripture as wrong, and the point was to show we are all legalistic to one point or another, and there is nothing wrong in that. I would look at the woman who comes to church in jeans as doing something that is an abomination, but would overlook the man with two wives, and you would likely be ok with the woman in jeans, but think the polygamist was in sin. I have as much scripture to back me up as you do, so we are both making a leap, based on how we personally see things.

SEVENSEAS Wrong thread but I find it illogical just the same


BUTERO Let me see if I can make it more plain. You are just as legalistic as you accuse me of being. You are just as legalistic as Bill Gothard is, the man everyone loves to demonize. You are twisting scripture to make something a sin that is not called a sin in scripture.

BUTERO QUOTE You are missing one other point. I am not only elevating myself above the author of the commentaries you site, but I am saying you can know as much or more than they do through personal study with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. I am nothing special. I don't have anymore ability to learn more than most others do. I just happen to have spent a great deal of time in the Bible. It is something I have a great deal of interest in, so naturally I am going to know a lot about it. I used to know a guy who was such a sports fan, he could tell you every player on nearly every team in every sport. I couldn't do that, but it is not because I don't have the ability to learn the information. It is simply because I am just a casual sports fan, and don't care to spend the time knowing those things. I will gladly admit this guy is more of an expert on sports than I am. The same thing applies with scripture. The more time spent in the Bible, the more you will know about it. I don't trust commentaries.

SEVENSEAS I totally disagree with your statement. Polygamy is sin....God is One...a man and a woman become one...not several. The fact you do not acknowledge that but cling to your polygamist viewpoint, would suggest that you most certainly do not know what alot of other people actually do know. It is my absolute and proven experience that a person can spend all day in the Bible and still not have a changed heart. It is only as we surrender ourselves and ALL of our sinful desires that we come to understand this.


BUTERO Yet more meaningless judgements on your part. As I said, I have come to conclusions about you as well, but won't bother to post them in the thread. I have proven through scripture polygamy is NOT a sin. 1 John 3:4 "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." I have already shown that there is not one place in the law of God that says polygamy is a sin. I have shown that it is regulated. You can keep claiming something is a sin all day, but in order to prove it, you have to show an actual violation of God's law. You have to explain how that God can regulate polygamy, and yet condemn it? You haven't done that, and I assure you that you can't. Even so, be my guest and try. Explain how you can make polygamy a sin when it doesn't transgress God's law, and the Bible says that violating God's law is the definition of sin?

SEVENSEAS Many people push the Holy Spirit away when He gets to close to where they live in the deepest ​part of them and transfer His corrections on to someone else. I trust God...not commentaries, but I know that it is best to study from different sources as we are part of a body and not just one single person who always gets things right. I have been corrected many times in my life...both by the Holy Spirit and by other Christians. I would not ever put myself under the authority of an individual who believed that they alone got things right because quote unquote, they have the Holy Spirit.

On that subject, there are literally thousands of so called prophets, healers, evangelists, teachers, etc, speaking in tongues and running around.....most of them are not worth the suit they wear, yet every single one of them will tell you that they hear from God personally and are doing what they are doing because God told them to. No, telling me you only learn by the Holy Spirit and never mind any other source, sets off more warning bells I'm afraid.


BUTERO OH NO! I set off more warning bells? I better be more careful. :glare:

SEVENSEAS That is not judging.....that is a fact, because scripture TELLS us that some are teachers and so we know we can be taught by more than what we may believe may be the Holy Spirit telling us we don't need anyone else.

Here it is: As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him. I John 2:27

wrong interpretation: you do not need any man to teach you...you are good to go all by yourself, no worries, you cannot be wrong you are spirit filled

right interpretation: the Holy Spirit will guide each person and He is our teacher, but we do have and we do need spirit filled teachers to teach. We do come come together as a body to edify each other and even the prophets are subject to each other and the Bible is NOT for private interpretation

Here is another companion verse some people use to say they don't need to be taught : But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come John 16:13


Jesus was not speaking to one person...He was addressing ALL the disciples. The Bible was never meant for one person to claim all authority on and neither is the Holy Spirit. Some people believe they cannot be in error when they misinterpret such verses and it leads them into a world of trouble

BUTERO I don't believe I have all truth. I do put more confidence in what I am shown by the Holy Spirit when I study the Bible myself than what I find in commentaries. I do find it interesting that you post scriptures that would seem to work against you, and then try to turn them around and tell us what they supposedly don't mean?

SEVENSEAS You do not have to believe or accept that, but it is the truth and what scripture itself will define to the one who address such with the understanding that we are not the only saved person or spirit filled person on the block and that God can and does supply teachers that He has chosen and gifted


These teachers are not to be elevated above others...in fact they are warned that their's is the greater responsibility

BUTERO QUOTE Let me point something else out to you about commentaries. Lets suppose I start out to write a commentary? If I undertake that task, I have to plan on commenting as an expert on everything in the Bible. Naturally, I fully understand some things, but don't others, but I still have to complete the book. I can't write in the book that I don't know the meaning of anything, or you won't have confidence in the rest, so I come up with something to say on everything, right or wrong. Some of the things I say are my own guesses, and some come from the writings of others. As such, all you are getting is one man's opinion. The only thing commentaries are good for is an opinion. It is not much better than asking others at WB their opinion of something. You can't automatically assume that the information is right. That includes anything I may say.

SEVENSEAS Nokay. I never ever get one man's opinion. And you have illustrated why that it is so.


BUTERO And I never take the words of someone who posts at WB as being true, and you have illustrated why that is so.

#109
Butero

Butero

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,712 posts
This challenge is to Sevenseas or anyone else that wishes to continue to claim polygamy is a sin. Notice that I said, "sin." I didn't say something best avoided. I didn't say something that isn't God's best. I said "sin."

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 1 John 3:4

The law of Moses allows polygamy and regulates it. Where exactly is the prohibition on the practice? To those who claim Jesus said it was sinful based on scriptures about divorce and re-marriage, explain how it could be a sin when Jesus walked this earth, considering the fact this was before Calvary, while they were still under the entire law of Moses? I get accused of not having a leg to stand on. I am saying those on the other side are the ones without a leg to stand on, but I am giving you a chance to prove me wrong. Show specifically what part of the law is being violated, and if you wish to go to Malachi or Proverbs to show how it "appears" marriage is only between one man and one woman," explain apparent contradictions with the actual law? I am putting this in a separate post because the previous one had a lot of back and forth arguments in it, and that will only lead to confusion. I believe it will be easier to settle this matter by simply showing the exact violation in the law of Moses? Good luck.

#110
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,776 posts

Show specifically what part of the law is being violated,


The Laws Of Common Sense

A foolish son is the calamity of his father: and the contentions of a wife are a continual dropping. Proverbs 19:13

And Self Defense

House and riches are the inheritance of fathers and a prudent wife is from the LORD. Proverbs 19:14

You See

:)

Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.
Proverbs 5:18-19

#111
Butero

Butero

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,712 posts


Show specifically what part of the law is being violated,


The Laws Of Common Sense

A foolish son is the calamity of his father: and the contentions of a wife are a continual dropping. Proverbs 19:13

And Self Defense

House and riches are the inheritance of fathers and a prudent wife is from the LORD. Proverbs 19:14

You See

:)

It is not common sense to assume something is a transgression of God's law when the law doesn't forbid the practice. Common sense would indicate that if there is no law, there is no transgression. I could argue the issue of slavery just as easily as I can polygamy. Of course, if I did that, some might have warning bells going off thinking I secretly desire to have slaves?

#112
Sevenseas

Sevenseas

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,057 posts

This challenge is to Sevenseas or anyone else that wishes to continue to claim polygamy is a sin. Notice that I said, "sin." I didn't say something best avoided. I didn't say something that isn't God's best. I said "sin."


I'm shaking in my boots......seriously, do you hear yourself? what nonsense....challenge? ask your wife what she thinks......her reaction,
unless you have bullied her into not having any opinion, will tell you that a man who loves his wife would not even consider such a thing
as it is a sin to hurt a woman like that

If you don't 'get' that, picture your wife in bed with another man...that should hurt plenty if you actually love your wife

The entire Bible points to one woman not several.....you simply refuse to acknowledge that creation itself has set the example in that
God created but one woman for Adam. If ever God had the opportunity to evidence His preference for a man to have more than one
woman, that surely was it

YET, God in His infinite wisdom and love created simply one.

There yah go

#113
Sevenseas

Sevenseas

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,057 posts
BUTERO

And I would argue that it is you that doesn't have a leg to stand on. Sin is the transgression of the law, according to 1 John. There is nothing in God's law that says polygamy is a sin, and neither you nor anyone else has been able to show otherwise. That has been my point all along. You don't have a leg to stand on.



We are under grace Butero......not the law. Polygamy was addressed in Genesis.......by God creating but one woman for Adam..........in the NT, leader
in the church were permitted to have but one wife. Leaders lead........God in His grace, did not command all men who became Christians to divorce
all but one wife. What would the wife have done?

Rather than place women in such a precarious position, God showed a better way and as time has gone forward, we see that better way in marriage
as one man and one woman

It is not a coincidence that marriage is under attack with homosexuals claiming they can also marry and now one man in the courts claiming he has
the right to have 4 or is it 5 women as his wives....it is a disgrace, IMO, that a Christian would believe that polygamy is not a sin and that the
Mormons had it right all along


As far as sin being the trangression of the law; of course it is! THAT is the REASON Jesus had to die...He is the only one who ever
kept the law! You are taking what John says in his epistle to mean something that it does not mean...to try and have an arguement
to support your opinion that polygamy has God's blessing and is ok with Him

#114
Fez

Fez

    Royal Member

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,509 posts
This thread is getting a bit heated. Time for a break,




Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network