Richard_yaash

Since Utah was not a state until 1896, your argument is somewhat fallacious. While I do understand your point, one could argue that the US should return to being a British territory/colony. Crime of some sort exists everywhere in the world. It exists in every state of the union, should we revoke the statehood of every state because crime exists within it? No. We could make the same argument with regard to crime everywhere. Yet, the founding 'fathers' also broke faith and covenant with Britian. Just because "crime" exists, or because a "crime" is committed does not mean we should revoke statehood. Just imagine if our loving Father revoked the citizenship of the "Church" in heaven if we sinned. We are all members of the "Church", should the "Church's" citizenship in heaven be revoked because of the sin of some? Should we hold the whole of the "Church" which was been around for nearly 2 millennia responsible for this "sin"? Is not the "Church" even more responsible than the "State"? Or: Do we want the "State" to police and patrol the "Church"? Is that not in part why the "colonists/founding 'fathers'" broke away from Britian? Since such may indeed be the case, should the US return to being under British rule? And we could make the same arguments with regard to any 'branch/offshoot' of any denomination with regard to "crime/sin". With and upon those individuals who break the law. Or have we not heard: "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him." OTOH: Ezekiel 3:18 When I say to a wicked man,

Good question, one that I can not fully answer. IMO: I would say yes based upon such as Hebrews 5. OTOH: I could also possibly build a case for just after creation. However, I will stick with the former at this time. We do however know when it comes to an end: 1 Corinthians 15:24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he

Well said and concurred.

Well said.

Now you tell me However, even if that is the sole point, it begs an answer to the former. Overall, I have to agree with Marnie's reply.

FresnoJoe, leave it to you to come up with that one I guess side-saddle it is

Regrettably, that is how I read it as well.

It all depends upon the place in question. It is our duty to investigate the local customs.

Well said Adelphos. And welcome to Worthy.

Have you ever read Maimonides? Perhaps the Mishna or of the Targum? While I shall concede this thread here, I do not concede my position.

In considering this: Shiloh, I leave you to make a final reply. If you would care to address this upon a deeper level, I will continue discussion. If your reply is upon the same level it has been, I shall cease response, for I foresee this going nowhere constructive if we continue on the current path... In earnesty, Richard

Continuation: I am not interfering at all with the simply meaning of the text. You have made this claim: Now please support it from the Hebrew text, show me the proper way to handle the conjugation of this verb so that it supports your claim. God is giving his Torah to a group of people most of whom are probably married, in some cases, there are men already married to multiple wives. Instead of breaking up these families, God regulates their behavior. It would have been more troublesome for God to force the men to divorce all of his wives but one, so God takes a group of people, as they are, and He is able to regulate their behavior in their present condition. God's regulation of polygamy was not, "Okay men, if you want to marry lot's of women, here's how you do it." God did not encourage polygamy. He simply set up rules that would apply to their current situation if they were already in a polygamous arrangement. Do we need to bring forth and examine every reference in this regard? It appears that we do. For that which you are presenting here will not hold up in examination of the text. Wouldn't it have been much easier in the scenario you are presenting for one verse to simply say: "Alright men, you got two or more wives, but no more of that ya hear!" Give me a break... honestly, I am simply following basic rules of hermeneutics, one of which tells us that word usage cannot be divorced from intent of the author. The difference is that I am viewing the passage in Deut. 17 through the lense of God's perfect will for marriage. The commandment not to multiply wives stems from what a proper marriage is from God's standpoint. The King was commanded not to multiply wives unto himself in excess of what God's will for marriage is. That is why it is ludicrous to assume that we would have to then say if the King can only have one wife means he can only have one gold coin or one horse. I am simply applying a little common sense. I am all for examing the grammar and syntax as part of the interpretive method, but it is only PART of the method. It is not the beginning and end of interpretation. Shiloh my brother, you are indeed treading dangerous ground IMO. I am giving you not a break, but rather a warning. It is very serious in my opinion to make a statement that we should ignore the text and the construct thereof as you did with the above statement. Oh please... stop being such a drama queen. I am not throwing anything out. I am simply keeping the syntatical analysis in its place with respect to the rest of the hermeneutic process. So please, show me how to break down the Hebrew while maintaining proper construct in regard to the conjugation.

Alright: Let's cut to the chase shall we? You are again obviously making reference to Genesis 2:24. Yet, you did not answer with regard to "one flesh" previously and wisely so. You have not shown one clear case within the Scriptures of polygamy being condemned. You have not shown one clear case of monogamy as the only approved. The statements being made herein are not conclusive nor can they be fully supported by the text. Yet we can not condemn one in favor of the other when both are clear practices within the TaNaKh. You are using problems/troubles to condemn one in support of the other. When in fact both have their own sets of troubles/problems. How many monogamous relationships are you aware of in which jealousy, bitterness, hatred and strife are a part of it? You can not say that such is not a problem within monogamous relationships, for it is clearly a problem within both. It can be used allegorically, but it is better understood as homiletic. Yet even homiletic can not go against that which is written and maintain aletheia. sigh... no, it isn't. It may contradictory to what YOU think it is saying, but that is a different matter. Then please break down the Hebrew sentence structure so that it may be clearly seen by all. Not at all. I have already made my case for why that is not so. Please, demonstrate for it for me from the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 17:16-17. To be continued: