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:

According to Jesus' parable of Lazarus, Hades contains a place called "Abraham's bosom." That part of Hades is separated from what we term "hell" (a place of unquenchable fire) by a great chasm. Paradise is Abraham's bosom, not "heaven" as traditional Christianity has taught. I agree with you Ovedya. OTOH: We could always enter the never ending comma debate

Thank you for sharing that Eric. Very timely IMO.

The problem is that we don't know is isaiah 26:19 is a direct prophecy regarding the matthew passage Agreed EricH. However it also remains that there is a possibility of a 'dual'-fulfillment. There again, we run into different aspect with a whole new set of inherant problems once we allow a 'dual'-fulfillment in the equation. Once we allow such as this, we open the door for all sorts of teachings. So on the basis of a lone verse, I do not advocate such. Besides, I have already seen one cult leader use this verse to promote that the resurrection had already occurred and that 1 Thessalonians 5 and 2 Thessalonians 2 were as naught. IMO: It is dangerous ground.

As it is a lone verse with no 'second witness', it is hard to place a lot of authority upon it. However it can not also be ignored IMO. Beyond this, I agree with EricH. That's not quite true... Isaiah 26:19 Your dead will come back to life; your corpses will rise up. Wake up and shout joyfully, you who live in the ground! For you will grow like plants drenched with the morning dew, and the earth will bring forth its dead spirits. I do understand your point Biblicist. My apologies, for I should have been clearer. There is no 'second witness' of that occurence within the NT. We could also introduce a few more verses from the prophets such as in Ezekiel 37. The inherant problem I see, is that if we heavily emphasize this lone verse, we may have an apparent direct conflict with such as 1 Thessalonians 5 and 2 Thessalonians 2.

As it is a lone verse with no 'second witness', it is hard to place a lot of authority upon it. However it can not also be ignored IMO. Beyond this, I agree with EricH.

It was also to build up the population. I was waiting for someone to suggest that argument. I don't disagree, but that places you closer to the argument, it was wrong but utilitarian to allow it to exist. I lean toward progressive revelation being the solution to this argument. Like to idiosyncrasies you allow in children merely because of their age and experience. Translation there were more pressing issues for their maturity level and grasp of the ethic of faith. Glad to have been of accommodation to you. I also believe that polygamy was granted/given/allowed for that very purpose. It would have served well from Eden. Again from the flood and from any place in which the male population was decimated/devastated. Such as in Moses time, the males wer destroyed, in times of war, etc.. I do understand your point Ddavid. As I have said, I do not support polygamy, but I can not deny that it was allowed simply due to the regulation of it.

Continuation: Yes. Then according to your "more accurate pshat", you have deemed every king, who spoke, read and wrote the language, who wrote a copy of the scroll for themselves, as having sinned against YHVH. He is out of step with God's will for marriage. Shiloh my brother, I would sincerely caution you in this. I do understand where you are coming from, however we can not allow our own perceptions to interfere with the plain simple reading of the text. Wrong. There is one glaring problem here. God had already established His plan for marriage. From the beginning it was very simple: One man marries one woman, and they stay married until they die. That is God's ideal plan. So, since God is the ultimate, overarching author, then it only follows that implicit in the commandment not multiply wives is that the King is to follow God's plan for marriage. That supercedes the verb construction. The intent of the author is what we want to glean, and that requires MORE than just looking at the Hebrew. Hebrew is important, but it is not the most important part of the interpretative process. If we did not know what God's plan for marriage was, then you might have a point. His commandment against multiplying wives needs to be understood within the context of what God created marriage to look like. You are obviously referring to Bere'shyt [Genesis] 2:24. He also said, be fruitful and multiply in Genesis 9. Yet in Genesis 4, we already clearly have polygamy in practice. All we need to do is look a little further in Deuteronomy... Deuteronomy 21:15 If a man has two wives... Did the author change his mind/intent just 4 short chapters later suddenly allowing for two wives? Remetz upholds the intent of the pshat within Devarim YZ. Further, remetz disallows the drash you desire to use here. I am alarmed though, very alarmed by the statement, and I quote: "That supercedes the verb construction". That is a very dangerous statement IMO. Are we now to decide that our own doctrine(s) supercedes the text and the construct thereof? Please come to your senses my brother, for that statement is as alarming as nothing I have heard in a long time. A statement such as that verges upon those of heretical cult leaders. I have seen many many cult leaders throw out the construct of the Hebrew and the binyanim [conjugations] of Hebrew verbs in order to uphold their doctrines over that which is sound. I am indeed very alarmed by this statement my brother... If we allow such as that, we may as well throw out the texts, for there is nothing left by which we may verify and approve sound doctrine... I am indeed very saddened... Wrong. Then please, demonstrate this to me from the text, from the plain pshat reading of the text within context. I am not implying it at all. I am stating it outright. You have taken a dangerous stand my brother... Please, consider carefully this issue... In His love, Richard

Due to formatting limitations, I have broken this into two separate replies, my apologies for the inconvenience: But I am not making an argument from silence. God may not outright call polygamy a sin, but He gives us ample examples of problems that polygomy breeds. He does not need to trot out EVERY polygomous marriage before us to make that point. Before the Instruction [Torah] was given we have Jacob. Now Jacob took two wives, and yes, there were troubles there. Those troubles however brought about such as Leviticus 18:18. For the troubles we see prior to the Instruction, we see written within the Instruction precepts to intervene and help keep those troubles from occuring. And there it is, you are presenting an argument from silence. Because the Scriptures are silent with regard to "blessing such arrangements". If we look to Rehoboam though, we see plenty of troubles within his life [particularly with Jeroboam], we see he had 18 wives and took MANY wives for his sons. He is attributed as acting wisely in dispersing his sons. Yet, Rehoboam was chastised/disciplined for turning away, yet humbled himself and was not totally destroyed. We could look at the whole line of the Kings of Judah, of them how many are even recorded as having 'one' wife? Asa, Jehoshaphat, Azariah, Hezekiah, Josiah, Zedekiah just to name a few of whom I do not even recall a single not alone multiple wives of them having ever been mentioned. In the case of some of these, their mother is mentioned from which we can extrapolate that yes they were married. That of course is relatively obvious anyway as they had children. But we can not conclude as to whether or not they were mongamous or polygamous. Nor can we conclude their marriages whether monogamous or polygamous were with or without trouble. Jehoram OTOH is recorded as taking a wife and that act being evil: for he married a daughter of Ahab. He did evil in the eyes of the LORD [cf 2 Chr 21:4-6]. Because we do not see them as having even one wife listed should we build a case for celebacy? No. The fact of the matter is, we do not know how many wives they had. Like I said, we find with polygamist marriages NOTHING but trouble. We do not find monogamous marriages only being trotted out when there are problems. So let's take poll, a survey, let's review say the boards here and note how many instances of troubled monogamous relationships are recorded v. untroubled ones. Based upon that data, if troubled relationships are shown as having a greater frequency of occurrence, should we then build a case for celebacy? It matters not if we are to speak of pologamy, monogamy or even celebacy, each of them of fraught with it's own problems. Drash and sod do not amount to allegorizing or mysticizing. There may be some who use it that way, but Drash applies to pracitcal application in the sense of the lesson learned from the text, and sod applies to the deeper spiritual application, not mysticising. Yes, drash does, however it may not be used in a manner that is not in accord with the pshat reading. Drash is an abstraction from the text. Can such be good, yes, as I have already stated. However it may not be applied in a manner that is not in accord with the pshat. The pshat of Devarim YZ is clear, the remetz of Devarim YZ is clear and easily followed out. There is no need for drash nor sod with regard to Devarim YZ. The drash you are attempting to use upon Devarim YZ, is contradictory to the pshat and the remetz of the text. As for sod, I do not know how familiar you are with it, however in more cases than not it is a mysticizing of the text from which I have watched many use it in a manner that is nothing less the abominable. No, the problem starts with the fact that I don't agree with what you think the pshat is in the first place, and therefore, my application of drash is based on what I perceive to be a more accurate pshat. Yet, I have transliterated the text for you so that it may be plainly seen by all here. "A more accurate pshat": That is indeed an interesting statement. For remetz alone proves the viability of that statement as false. Devarim YZ:YV raq lo' yarbeh_lo susim Devarim YZ:YZ ve lo' yarbeh_lo nashim Deut 17:16 Only not have many horses Deut 17:17 And not have many wives So according to your "more accurate pshat", a king could only have one horse as well. The structure of the Ivrit here demands that both are handled in the same manner. To be continued.

It was also to build up the population.

Ohhhh, I ain't touching that a one! No sirreee I must say though, you do give as good as you get! Hey I resemble that remark Indubitably! I would say the semblance is rather uncanny! No need to apologize for that I hope you enjoyed the time talking to him so are you apologising to the whole state I know I would