Lionroot

Your do realize your making stuff up now. Right?

I do not have any issue with the idea of "God's perfect plan for marriage". However you do not base the plan you present on scripture. Why is that? See what I mean? There is not one quote, example, or one reference from scripture. Am I supposed to take your word for it? Is this a personal revelation? From what source does this plan come exactly? You cannot discover scriptural truth, on a sandy non-Biblical foundation. To be fair Adam took all the wives available. While we agree he did not have opportunity. His marital status in and of itself is irrelevant. Does the Lord ever say, "This is it"? So is your point that there were no evil non-polygamous people? Should I list the evil monogamists of the Bible? What would that prove about monogamy? Monogamy is first mentioned in connection with Adam the man who brought sin and death into the world, but I digress.

Hey Botz, I did not mean to slight you at all. Your points are valid, but they did not specifically address the issue of Davids wives, or the limitation of the King of Israel. Since the issue has been somewhat widened, your statements have become more relevant. Otherwise I did not have much to disagree with., but perhaps I can expand on your threads. We agree. We agree, but as Christians we do not seek to please men, and there cultural practices. Jesus spent not a little time refuting the traditions of his day, and we should be equally vigilant against traditions that have no foundation in the word. As for 1Tim3:2&12 As you pointed out, a casual reading suggest that there were members that could not be in leadership positions because they were polygamous. Not that they did anything wrong, but they might be a little busy. If your interested though there is another possibility that suggests they cannot be divorced. It lies in the Greek word translated "one". What is the word? and what other words is it translated as? I cannot do all the work for you now. Let me just close with a couple of notes of interest. I have read at least two articles that said some early Christians practiced polygamy through the first 100 years. About 5 years ago or so, the 1000 year old Jewish ban on polygamy was lifted. This ban was put in place to appease the Roman Christians that were persecuting them. If your interested I will look for sources for these fact. I hope that meets your needs. God Bless, Robert

Nebula, Thanks for responding so fully. I will do what I can to answer you completely. Clearly you sought to discredit my opinion with an emotional tactic. As I said you avoided the issues, and as I have pointed out elsewhere, you painted me with a broad brush. I am sure it was unintentional. I certainly forgive the trespass, even if it was only perceived by me and unintended. Let us move on... It was a response to a posting, where Budman said David screwed up. I was hoping that he might expound on his answer. Of course I am not afraid to discuss scripture with anyone. Initially you had the more relevant, interesting, and scriptural posts. I did not want to rehash what I had already gone over with you. I see now that Botz wants his own response. I will be happy to reply. The answers in order 1) dunno 2) its public domain 3) Worthyboards search engine A man having multiple wives is God's standard? This was a statement about what our attitudes toward God's standard in general. For example we should love our neighbor, because that is God's standard. You have applied it here specifically. I am certainly not saying that all men should be, anymore than all men should be celebant, as Paul wanted. Let me ask you something, how many of God's Patriarchs were polygamous? What percentage? Matthew 19:8-9 I am curious are you equally against the practice of serial marriage? Do you condemn it with same veracity that you apply to the patriarchs? Well, I sincerely apologize if I have made you feel uncomfortable in anyway. That was never my intention. Here is the reality, if I am wrong about any issue that I keep to myself, I will never see if it holds up under challenge. The Psalmist said Iron sharpens Iron. God Bless, Robert

Greetings Dr. Thanks for your thoughtful response. I hope that you will continue to be so scripturally centered. I am sure that you realise this is a scripture about divorce, not polygamy. It is interesting to note that it is Jesus' rebuttal of contemporary tradition that said a man could divorce for any reason. He in fact restored adultery only divorces. Do you mean to say that single, and monogamous men never ended up in trouble? Should I spend time listing and recounting men that got in trouble who were never polygamous? Adam to Judas to Ananias. Would that really prove anything about their marital status? I agree with that. Again, divorce is another issue entirely. As God has always been faithful to his brides, but they have not always been faithful to him have they? Ezekiel 23 Two Adulterous Sisters 1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Son of man, there were two women, daughters of the same mother. 3 They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. In that land their breasts were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed. 4 The older was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. They were mine and gave birth to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalem. Read this chapter it is excellent. Anyway, God claims two brides for himself. While I agree this is highly metaphorical, do you really think that God would illustrate something by modeling a sin? It is clear that Biblically that polygamy is not a sin, and it is not the problem. In every case another "charged" sin is involved. Am I recommending that all you guys run out and get yourselves into such relationship? No way. I am saying that it is important to read the scriptures in the light of the truth, not in the light of modern culture. I myself am in a 17 year strong monogamous marriage, and I highly recommend it. Amen. God Bless, Robert P.S. I will address the other responses that came in last night after church. Hey do you guys sleep?

Hello Arthur, On this thread we have been speaking specifically about David's wives before Bathsheba. Considering you said: Now Jehovah God says that he gave David his wives, and that if they had been to little he would have given him more.(2Samuel 12:8) So did David sin when he took the wives that God gave him? Perhaps you could reconcile that for me. Thanks and God Bless, Robert

Hey Shiloh, That was quick, if markedly unresponsive. I know that you were not a participant in the earlier discussion, so I'll be happy to cut and paste them back here. This question was also about David's self-control. I was really hoping you would respond to the paragraph I wrote in my last posting about "serial monogamy. Its shocking to find that much polygamy in the Church is it not? I found this quote on the same page I referenced before. I do hope your read it.

Hey Shiloh, Welcome to the discussion. Thanks for your question. The simple answer is no. Polygamy is far too broad a term for me to support. Did David sin when he took his second wife? The scriptures indicate that he did not. Does that make me an advocate? Maybe for David. The polygamy called, "serial monogamy" is a sin. The Bible speaks about it (Matt 19:10), and yet many Christians live and practice this lifestyle. (The Barna Group) Including some preachers. How they turn and criticize the patriarchs without blushing is a wonder. (John 8:7) Name calling is the last volley of a weak argument. If I am wrong will you and nebula be courteous enough to answer my questions, and show me the error of my ways. God Bless, Robert

Nebula, You have side stepped all issues in both of your replies. It is clear that you are not ready to give an answer. If you have a position that amounts to something more than schoolyard name calling I would love to hear it. God Bless, Robert Where is the Nebula who wrote:

Nebula, I am actually making the point because it illustrates the confusion people have reconciling what they read in the word with their own culture. We naturally apply our own cultural standards when reading, which causes missunderstandings, and no other topic illustrates this more clearly. When what we should be doing is throwing off the cultural standards of this world and adopting God's standard. Is that not what God instructed the Israelites as he took them out of Egypt? You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God Here again are we talking about David's self-control, or did David accepts God's control when he received the wives that God says He gave to David?(2 Sam 12:8) If the LORD gives something and we reject it, to meet our cultural standards, are we showing self control? Now when we talk about Solomon, now there was a man with self control, but not God control. He did exactly what he wanted to do, when he wanted to do it, without regard for God's commands. When we do not submit to God, we end up in a bad place. ( No pun intended) I never said he was, only that he got a strong Biblical endorsement, from the Yahweh himself. As far as the sins of his children, this is simply not an absolute result of polygamy. Even the best parents can have wayward children. Adam and Eve did not even have parents (as such) yet they sinned. Cain had monogamous parents and still killed his brother. We live in a "monogamous" nation but the generations rebel, and increase in violence. The numbers of Evangelical Christians is dropping with each generation at an alarming rate. We can learn alot about Godly homes from the scriptures, but not if we wrongly debase our examples. God Bless, Robert

Nebula, Thanks for your warm welcome and response. I took time to consider your statements and questions, and I think I have found some interesting answers. Actually none of Biblical polygamist are ever "charged against", perhaps thats because it is never declared a sin within the pages of the Bible. Regarding Deuteronomy 17:17,If one reads the term "do not multiply" something to mean that a person can only have one. Then it follows that Israelite King can only have one horse. I'm sure you will agree that, it is not the intent of the LORD here to limit him to one horse as well. The NIV translation reads thus: "Deuteronomy 17:17a He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray." So what is the limit on "many"? It is most certainly not one. This is what the Bible says about Davids Example. 1 Kings 15:5 For David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD and had not failed to keep any of the LORD's commands all the days of his life - except in the case of Uriah the Hittite. Wow, I can only hope as a father to leave such a witness for my children. We see here that whatever the limits of "many", Davids heart was not lead astray. The Lord encourages Solomon to follow Davids example: 1 Kings 9:4 As for you, if you walk before me in integrity of heart and uprightness, as David your father did, and do all I command and observe my commands and observes my decrees and laws, Now by even the most generous standards I think its fair to say that Solomon had "many wives". We learn in 1 Kings chapter 11 that some of them worshipped other god's, and they turned his heart from the LORD. Even now we are not to marry unbelievers. It is important to note what is said about David. 1 Kings 11:6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done. Well, I hope that is worthy reply, and sheds light on the topic of David and his wives. God Bless, Robert Although polygamy is never charged against David, there is one passage in the Torah to consider: Deuteronomy 17:14-20 14 "When you come to the land which the Lord your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, 'I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,' 15 you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the Lord has said to you, 'You shall not return that way again.' 17 Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself. 18 "Also it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book, from the one before the priests, the Levites. 19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes, 20 that his heart may not be lifted above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, and that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel. What example did David set for Solomon? (And we all know what Solomon's downfall was. )

Greetings, Its safe to say that those who claim to know him, yet walk in darkness are in a bad place whether you accept OSAS, Or "Conditional Security". Wether some one fell from grace or was never saved becomes immaterial, and they need to get right with God. Amen? While I disagree with the OSAS doctrine, I do not think anyone will be barred from Heaven for believing it. However I think, and I know that it has made some complacent to live worldly lives, walking in darkness. I have had people look me right in the face and tell me that, I was saved sometime ago, since then I've lived a life that embraces some type(s) of sin, but it does not matter because OSAS. This is a very dangerous stance to take, and after many circular arguments with OSAS adherents, I recognize that it is not a proper application of the doctrine. I think however it becomes incumbent upon those who teach and promote OSAS to reach out to those walking in darkness, and get them "truly saved". Short of that it becomes a tool for the enemy to lead many to their eternal destruction. God Bless, Robert

Hmmmm, well I think like with any other person on earth, David, Solomon, Gideon, etc., had the same choice whether to obey God's Word or not. And just like any other person, they screwed up. Well, the Bible is conspicuously silent in condemning polygamy, but in regard to David when did he screw up exactly? Was it when he took another wife? The Lord says he gave David his wives, and if they had been too few He would have given him more. We know that all God's gifts are good, and he who finds a wife finds what is good. So before Bathsheba, which the Bible condemned resoundly, where did he screw up? Just some food for thought, God Bless, Robert

What an incredible thread...I just finished reading the whole thing. Like threads all over the net this one has meandered far from where it started, but if you do not mind I would like to return to one of the original quotations: This was quickly labelled a parable, and dismissed prematurely. However, unlike other parables Christ speaks here of a specific person. If it were a parable, one would expect to see something vague along the lines of "a beggar" as in all other parables, but we see a specific individual named. Why? If this is only a parable why not leave the beggar unnamed? How is the "story" strengthened by this figure having a name? I believe that it reveals that this is a real person and these were real events. Additionally this "story" is completely compatible with what the scriptures say happened to Abraham, "he was gathered to his people"(some translations say ancestors). Which is exactly what the LORD said would happen to him. As opposed to any teaching that suggests he went somewhere else, slept, or was annihilated. Just my two cents, God Bless, Robert