Multiple Wives

[apothanein kerdos]

I guess my true quesiton is where in the Bible was polygamy caused by or contributed to good thigns? Jacob was tricked into it and it brought about negative results (the tribes constantly fought...look at the divisions). It led to David taking that which wasn't his own. It forced Solomon to abaondon God, the very God he spoke to in a dream.

So where was it positive?

[Lionroot]

The Hebrew phrase is exactly the same in all those verses. English translations provide different wording for the one phrase unlike the Hebrew original. The point is that the phrase does not carry the meaning you ascribe to it just because it is used in reference to women for if it did and according to your logic then your meaning should be imputed into the other verses as well which would be ridiculous.You are assinging a meaning to a particular Hebrew phrase which is obviously not warranted.

While the phrase may be the same, the respective contexts are not. Which is why the NIV translates the alternative texts the way they do. Clearly God didn't require the other possibilities that the other context might suggest. David is not required to physically put them in his cloak or carry the women like children like the burden Moses felt was placed on him. There is no confusion about what God meant.

Remember this verse in Samuel starts with the blessings God gave to David before his adultery. All of Gods gifts are good. The master's house, the house of Israel, and the house of Judah, and more (if that had been too little) are clearly good things for David. To suggest that He had burdened him in this list of Blessings goes against the context. These women are yet another blessing in a list of blessings.

I gave

your master's house to you, and your master's wives

into your arms

.

I gave

you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little,

I would have given

you even more.

"

I put

my servant

in your arms

" -NIV

"

I have given

my maid

into thy bosom

" -KJV

It was a valiant effort to muddy the waters, but the text is clear enough for the honest to see it. The question now is are you more dedicated to truth or your traditions?

God Bless,

Robert

[Lionroot]

1. David is not recorded as marrying Saul's wife or concubine.

2. David did not have any children by either woman.

3. These women were only part of Saul's house and are only mentioned in connection all of Saul's wealth that had been given to David.

Also worth noting is that Sarai gave Hagar to Abraham for the express purpose of creating offspring. It was an act of Sarah, not an act of God.

No mention is made that God gave David Saul's wife and concubine to bring forth offspring for him. They were simply part of the symbolic transferrence of power to David from Saul.

Shiloh your arguing from silence again.

1) "David is not recorded"...thats silence.

2) He didn't have children with these women? How do you know that in any absolute sense? Silence is not evidence. So does it say he didn't or do you say he didn't?

The scriptures say:After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him.

It means he had many more children, and no mother is recorded. I suppose you will argue that these were from the new wives and concubines, but the language doesn't exclude births from his previous wives.

3) I cannot help but notice that this opinion, like the two before it, are stated as fact, without any Biblical support.

Apparently only your opposition cannot argue from silence, but its just fine for you?

Try again with some Biblical evidence this time.

God Bless,

Robert

[Kabowd]

Forgive me if this has already been brought up but....what about diseases? To me, this seems an obvious indication here. God designed our bodies to fit together..one man with one woman. ANYTHING that deviates from this original design always brings disease (not to mention emotional harm). Whether it be one man with multiple women, one woman with multiple men, or the whole homosexual issue. The fact remains, God had an original design and to deviate from that is always short of His best. Why would anyone want to go to great lengths to justify something God didn't originally design to be that way or bless? Especially if what you are wanting to justify will most certainly lead to disease and/or harm?

[Kabowd]

And by the way, all the discussions about so and so having X number of wives throughout Scripture, is somewhat irrelevant. Humanity is flawed. Throughout our human history we have continued to do things that were outside of God's will and His original design, and yet He still uses us and blesses us by His own Sovereignty and grace. He doesn't bless us because of our sin or bless our sin, this would be absurd. But He has proven Himself to be gracious...abundantly so even when our sin abounds. To try to assert that God's blessings can be ascribed to our particular deviations from His design is a stretch, to say the least. He blessed Rahab though she was a prostitute and a liar. So are you going to assert that prostitution and lying is okay too?

[Arthur Durnan]

Ultra-polygamist & eccentric Joseph Smith, Jr. of Sharon, Vermont, founder of the 19th-century Mormon cult, is the very heart & soul of Mormonism. With him, Mormonism. Without him, no Mormonism. Why knock the founder's expressly stated beliefs & practices?

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh your arguing from silence again.

1) "David is not recorded"...thats silence.

2) He didn't have children with these women? How do you know that in any absolute sense? Silence is not evidence. So does it say he didn't or do you say he didn't?

The scriptures say:After he left Hebron, David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem, and more sons and daughters were born to him.

It means he had many more children, and no mother is recorded. I suppose you will argue that these were from the new wives and concubines, but the language doesn't exclude births from his previous wives.

3) I cannot help but notice that this opinion, like the two before it, are stated as fact, without any Biblical support.

Apparently only your opposition cannot argue from silence, but its just fine for you?

Try again with some Biblical evidence this time.

No it is not an arguing from silence. There was more to the facts I brought up in earlier exchanges with other people that you have selectively cut out of this portion of the debate. My original reasons for bringing up these facts several days ago, about David and Saul's wife and concubine, was to combat the assumption that they were wives of David.

The Bible takes great pains when it comes to genealogical records. The Bible gives the names of David's wives, and the children he had by them. The fact that neither Saul's wife or concubine is mentioned among them is a conspicuous omission IF you are going to argue that these women were given to David by God for the purpose of pro-creation and marriage. I was also using those facts to deal with the obvious lack of knowledge that people like you have concerning ancient customs and biblical history. The biblical text does mention Saul's concubine has having a child, but it also mentions that David was not the father. Saul had two sons by Rizpah, Mephibosheth (not to be confused with Jonathon's son to whom David showed mercy) and Armoni.

[redeemed098]

I guess its considered adultery to be unfaithful within the boundaries of marriage, so to get around this, man in his infinite wisdom figured if he married them ALL, then technically he wouldnt be committing adultery.

Just another one of mans attempts to find or produce a loophole that will allow him to have what he wants.

Regards,

Ben.

[LadyGunivere]

very very......sad

[firehill]

The fact remains, God had an original design and to deviate from that is always short of His best. Why would anyone want to go to great lengths to justify something God didn't originally design to be that way or bless? Especially if what you are wanting to justify will most certainly lead to disease and/or harm?

Excellent! It is true that God used His divine original design. Deviation from that design is of the fallen nature.