I will let scripture speak for itself (I read mostly from the old 1611 KJV. It's the most accurate for purchase, but we'll use mostly non-Apocrypha KJV for ease of reading):
Genesis 2:24-25 - "24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
Ephesians 5:23-33 - "23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband."
Matthew 19:4-6 - "4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
Ecclesiasticus Chapter 26 - "1 Blessed is the man that hath a virtuous wife, for the number of his days shall be double.
2 A virtuous woman rejoiceth her husband, and he shall fulfil the years of his life in peace.
3 A good wife is a good portion, which shall be given in the portion of them that fear the Lord.
4 Whether a man be rich or poor, if he have a good heart toward the Lord, he shall at all times rejoice with a cheerful countenance.
5 There be three things that mine heart feareth; and for the fourth I was sore afraid: the slander of a city, the gathering together of an unruly multitude, and a false accusation: all these are worse than death.
6 But a grief of heart and sorrow is a woman that is jealous over another woman, and a scourge of the tongue which communicateth with all.
7 An evil wife is a yoke shaken to and fro: he that hath hold of her is as though he held a scorpion.
8 A drunken woman and a gadder abroad causeth great anger, and she will not cover her own shame.
9 The whoredom of a woman may be known in her haughty looks and eyelids.
10 If thy daughter be shameless, keep her in straitly, lest she abuse herself through overmuch liberty.
11 Watch over an impudent eye: and marvel not if she trespass against thee.
12 She will open her mouth, as a thirsty traveller when he hath found a fountain, and drink of every water near her: by every hedge will she sit down, and open her quiver against every arrow.
13 The grace of a wife delighteth her husband, and her discretion will fatten his bones.
14 A silent and loving woman is a gift of the Lord; and there is nothing so much worth as a mind well instructed.
15 A shamefaced and faithful woman is a double grace, and her continent mind cannot be valued.
16 As the sun when it ariseth in the high heaven; so is the beauty of a good wife in the ordering of her house."
Any time a man had more than one wife, God let him go through the consequences of his actions.
Yes, the Bible approves of polygamy (from the skeptics annotated bible)
There are many polygamists in the Bible. Some of them were God's favorite people (including Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, Solomon, and David). God didn't seem to mind.
And Lamech took unto him two wives. Genesis 4:19
Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai ... gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived. Genesis 16:1-4
But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had.... Genesis 25:6
Esau ... took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite. Genesis 26:34
Esau .. took ... Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael ... to be his wife. Genesis 28:9
Then Jacob rose up, and set ... his wives upon camels. Genesis 31:17
He [Jacob] ... took his two wives, and his two womenservants. Genesis 32:22
And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives. Judges 8:30
Elkanah ... had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah. 1 Samuel 1:1-2
Solomon ... had seven hundred wives ... and three hundred concubines. 1 Kings 11:2-3
And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah. 1 Chronicles 4:5
Rehoboam ... took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines. 2 Chrornicles 11:21
But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives.... 2 Chronicles 13:21
Jehoiada took for him two wives.... 2 Chronicles 24:3
God even gave David Saul's wives. (He wouldn't do that if polygamy.he didn't approve of polygamy.)
Thus saith the LORD God of Israel ... I gave thee [David] ... thy master's [Saul's] wives.... 2 Samuel 12:7-8
He set up rules for men who wanted to take another wife.
If he take him another wife.... Exodus 21:10
And he provided instructions for men that had two wives, "one beloved, and another hated."
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated.... Deuteronomy 21:15
Even Jesus (sometimes) seemed OK with polygamy. The parable of the ten virgins, for example involved a man and his ten brides.
Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. Matthew 25:1
No, the Bible disapproves of polygamy
God created only one woman to be Adam's help meet. This seems to imply that God intended marriage to involve one man and one woman.
The LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Genesis 2:21-24
Jesus seems to agree with this passage, saying that a man and a woman become "one flesh" in marrige, as it was in "the begining."
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. Matthew 19:4-5
And although it's OK for a king to have more than one wife, he shouldn't have too many. (Although how many is too many is not specified.)
Neither shall he [the king] multiply wives to himself. Deuteronomy 17:17
Paul seemed to think that a marriage should only be between one man and one woman.
Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 1 Corinthians 7:2
As did the author of Ephesians.
Let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. Ephesians 5:33
I will let scripture speak for itself (I read mostly from the old 1611 KJV. It's the most accurate for purchase...
The Hebrew and Greek Bibles would like a word. Hell, the King James Bible isn't even the most faithful among English translations. I love it for the beauty of its language, but as an authoritative source on what the Bible originally said, it just doesn't rate. It's like reading Alexander Pope's Iliad.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't care what the bible says about marriage, I don't even think marriage is important or should be part of the legal system. If people want to go through a long and expensive ceremony to have religious binding to their relationship, then that's their decision, but it shouldn't be related to own's legal rights and obligations because not everyone approves of marriage.
Anyway, if people are so determined on using the bible as a reference for important societal decisions, perhaps we should consider starting a few more genocides (it's not like that has happened already).
Judaism is actually pretty open to a man having multiple wives. So I guess in a very technical way I have to disagree with the OP and say that marriage according to the OT is more like marriage is defined between a man and one or more women.
In solidscheme's post we have scripture talking about the role of marriage, with no mention of # of participants.
In Verbal's post we literally have the LORD Himself giving men multiple wives.
So, I'm not sure to what extent you would have to distort and twist scriptures to fit your doctrine of "one-man&one-wife," but I think it's safe to say: "Quite a bit."
Yes, the Bible approves of polygamy (from the skeptics annotated bible)
There are many polygamists in the Bible. Some of them were God's favorite people (including Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, Solomon, and David). God didn't seem to mind.
And Lamech took unto him two wives. Genesis 4:19
Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai ... gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived. Genesis 16:1-4
But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had.... Genesis 25:6
Esau ... took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite. Genesis 26:34
Esau .. took ... Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael ... to be his wife. Genesis 28:9
Then Jacob rose up, and set ... his wives upon camels. Genesis 31:17
He [Jacob] ... took his two wives, and his two womenservants. Genesis 32:22
And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives. Judges 8:30
Elkanah ... had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah. 1 Samuel 1:1-2
Solomon ... had seven hundred wives ... and three hundred concubines. 1 Kings 11:2-3
And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah. 1 Chronicles 4:5
Rehoboam ... took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines. 2 Chrornicles 11:21
But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives.... 2 Chronicles 13:21
Jehoiada took for him two wives.... 2 Chronicles 24:3
God even gave David Saul's wives. (He wouldn't do that if polygamy.he didn't approve of polygamy.)
Thus saith the LORD God of Israel ... I gave thee [David] ... thy master's [Saul's] wives.... 2 Samuel 12:7-8
He set up rules for men who wanted to take another wife.
If he take him another wife.... Exodus 21:10
And he provided instructions for men that had two wives, "one beloved, and another hated."
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated.... Deuteronomy 21:15
Even Jesus (sometimes) seemed OK with polygamy. The parable of the ten virgins, for example involved a man and his ten brides.
Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. Matthew 25:1
No, the Bible disapproves of polygamy
God created only one woman to be Adam's help meet. This seems to imply that God intended marriage to involve one man and one woman.
The LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Genesis 2:21-24
Jesus seems to agree with this passage, saying that a man and a woman become "one flesh" in marrige, as it was in "the begining."
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. Matthew 19:4-5
And although it's OK for a king to have more than one wife, he shouldn't have too many. (Although how many is too many is not specified.)
Neither shall he [the king] multiply wives to himself. Deuteronomy 17:17
Paul seemed to think that a marriage should only be between one man and one woman.
Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 1 Corinthians 7:2
As did the author of Ephesians.
Let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. Ephesians 5:33
Dude, I repeat: "Any time a man had more than one wife, God let him go through the consequences of his actions." Did you NOT see this? Read the scriptures on what happened to those guys that had multiple wives and any concubines. Like for instance, God did NOT give Abram more than one wife. HIS wife was barren and didn't wait on God and gave him her handmaid to bare a child (Ishmael). What Happened in the story with Abram and Ishmael? You need to read in full context and not fill in the area with what you think happened.
@solidscheme: Which one of those quotes is defining marriage as one man and one women?
They just seem to be defining the roles of husbands and wives, not defining the number of either.
Genesis 2:24-25 - "24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife(SINGULAR): and they shall be one flesh. You can't any more clearer than that.
I know you want this to be true, but it isn't true.
I have read the bible in full context cover to cover 3 times. So you need to do more than simply point out read the bible.
2 counter examples: King David and King Solomon.
They were not punished for having more than one wife. David was punished for orchestrating Bathsheba's husbands death, Uriah, but not because the act of having another wife was heinous in the eyes of the lord. That's not what the bible says.
Similar Solomon was punished because his wives led him astray and he worshipped other idols. But once again, the mere act of polygamy is not the reason things went south for him.
I will let scripture speak for itself (I read mostly from the old 1611 KJV. It's the most accurate for purchase...
The Hebrew and Greek Bibles would like a word. Hell, the King James Bible isn't even the most faithful among English translations. I love it for the beauty of its language, but as an authoritative source on what the Bible originally said, it just doesn't rate. It's like reading Alexander Pope's Iliad.
No one is able to get their hands on ancient Hebrew scripture. The Catholic church has that locked up in the vaults. Yiddish is not Hebrew.
King James was the 1st king of England and 6th king of Scotland (at the end of the Dark Ages). The Roman Church at the time was trying to suppress the word, but King James decreed for the scriptures to be translated into Jacobean (Isaiah 28:11 ). He was from the tribe of Judah. England means "angel's land. He was a part of the original Anglo-Saxons: The Angelic Sons of Isaac.
I know you want this to be true, but it isn't true.
I have read the bible in full context cover to cover 3 times. So you need to do more than simply point out read the bible.
2 counter examples: King David and King Solomon.
They were not punished for having more than one wife. David was punished for orchestrating Bathsheba's husbands death, Uriah, but not because the act of having another wife was heinous in the eyes of the lord. That's not what the bible says.
Similar Solomon was punished because his wives led him astray and he worshipped other idols. But once again, the mere act of polygamy is not the reason things went south for him.
He WAS punished. What happened between his children?
Judaism is actually pretty open to a man having multiple wives. So I guess in a very technical way I have to disagree with the OP and say that marriage according to the OT is more like marriage is defined between a man and one or more women.
Judaism or any religion have nothing to do with the word of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Man created religion (emperor Constantine). God's word is a way of life for mankind (no such thing as human or race) to live in His righteous order.
I don't care what the bible says about marriage, I don't even think marriage is important or should be part of the legal system. If people want to go through a long and expensive ceremony to have religious binding to their relationship, then that's their decision, but it shouldn't be related to own's legal rights and obligations because not everyone approves of marriage.
Anyway, if people are so determined on using the bible as a reference for important societal decisions, perhaps we should consider starting a few more genocides (it's not like that has happened already).
You obviously HEARD of something, but never actually sat down and read in context. Can you prove me wrong on that?
I will let scripture speak for itself (I read mostly from the old 1611 KJV. It's the most accurate for purchase...
The Hebrew and Greek Bibles would like a word. Hell, the King James Bible isn't even the most faithful among English translations. I love it for the beauty of its language, but as an authoritative source on what the Bible originally said, it just doesn't rate. It's like reading Alexander Pope's Iliad.
No one is able to get their hands on ancient Hebrew scripture. The Catholic church has that locked up in the vaults. Yiddish is not Hebrew.
King James was the 1st king of England and 6th king of Scotland (at the end of the Dark Ages). The Roman Church at the time was trying to suppress the word, but King James decreed for the scriptures to be translated into Jacobean (Isaiah 28:11 ). He was from the tribe of Judah. England means "angel's land. He was a part of the original Anglo-Saxons: The Angelic Sons of Isaac.
...uhhhh...
First off, england does not mean "Angel's land". It means "Angl's Land" that is the land of the Anglos, who were people from the Angeln area of germany. (Hint: That doesn't mean angel either. It derives from the german word for "Narrow")
Sooo...the anglo's as the sons of Isaac. It's pretty unlikely. Because I think you'll find that the sons of Isaac are the *counts on fingers* yep, the jews.
The language it was translated into was english, on the grounds that Jacobean isn't a language, no matter how many irrelevant bible quotes you add after it. ("Jacobian english" means "English as spoken by people of the Jacobian era")
Also King James wasn't the first king of england. I mean, not even close. He was the first king of england called James.
So: fantasy about origins of KJV wrecked.
Also, we have plenty of ancient hebrew scripture and fragments thereof.
On the substance: You still haven't proven your case. The bible contains plenty of instances of people with multiple wives and the do not obviously get punished for the reason of having multiple wives.
And, indeed, in some cases god DIRECTLY GIVES THEM multiple wives. Given god cannot do something which is wrong, how could it be wrong?
I know you want this to be true, but it isn't true.
I have read the bible in full context cover to cover 3 times. So you need to do more than simply point out read the bible.
2 counter examples: King David and King Solomon.
They were not punished for having more than one wife. David was punished for orchestrating Bathsheba's husbands death, Uriah, but not because the act of having another wife was heinous in the eyes of the lord. That's not what the bible says.
Similar Solomon was punished because his wives led him astray and he worshipped other idols. But once again, the mere act of polygamy is not the reason things went south for him.
He WAS punished. What happened between his children?
You didn't answer anything here. Look my point was that he was not punished for having more multiple wives.
Why do you want it to be so that God punished people for polygamy? There is literally nothing else I can say to you but repeat exactly what I wrote earlier. So I will:
David was punished for orchestrating Bathsheba's husbands death, Uriah, but not because the act of having another wife was heinous in the eyes of the lord.
Similar Solomon was punished because his wives led him astray and he worshipped other idols. But once again, the mere act of polygamy is not the reason things went south for him.
I want you to look deeply at yourself and ask. Why is it so important to me that God punish polygamy? Is it because it makes it feel tidy? Is it because it answers some moral qualms you have pertaining to gay marriage and its definition?
I'm going to teach you a little about life here and how to be smarter person in society. If you want to make a case for something, you have to be reasonable about your support. Look if I wanted to make a case that Jesus liked cotton candy, I wouldnt go and say the Genesis 1:1 teaches that Jesus likes candy. That's just a badly supported case. Why? Because Genesis 1:1 literally states: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
See that? There's no support. So don't make yourself look stupid by insisting that it does. Instead go back and try to make your case from another vantage point.
You might say Cotton candy is sweet, and similar in taste to...I dunno figs. If you argue that jesus liked figs, that might actually be supportable! See already that's a better case than insisting on something that doesn't exist.
Look at this case. Don't just keep insisting that God punishes polygamy. You make yourself look stupid because God clearly doesn't in the bible. It may well be that God prefers marriage between one man and one woman. Fine. But don't keep insisting on what the bible says when the text doesn't support you. All the evidence shows that God has left at least SOME cases of polygamy unpunished. Look even if you said, God eventually punishes those who commit polygamy. That would be better than what you wrote.
If the bible says God punished david for orchestrating the death of Uriah, husband to Bathsheba, dont go around making things up and say.. Oh! David was punished for Polygamy. You're point isn't supported! I'm sorry, its just not. I don't know what God actually thinks. But I know when theres support and when there's not.
Don't base your arguments on facts that are so clearly refutable, you make yourself look like an idiot when you keep insisting its true. Go back, and try to build your case on more solid ground.
Here I'll even try to help you. If I were you, I wouldn't say God punishes everyone for polygamy. Very bad thesis statement.
You might say something more refined and nuanced like,
Although God does not overtly condemn polygamy we can view the calamity which befalls characters who marry multiple wives as a recurring theme, expressing God's tacit disapproval of polygamy.
No one is able to get their hands on ancient Hebrew scripture. The Catholic church has that locked up in the vaults. Yiddish is not Hebrew.
Hahahaha no. You can find it in about two seconds on Google. Here is a perfectly good interlinear edition to get you started. You would in fact have a harder time finding a Yiddish Bible, since the Jews traditionally preferred reading their scripture in the original Hebrew.
King James was the 1st king of England and 6th king of Scotland (at the end of the Dark Ages).
He wasn't the first king of England; he was about the fiftieth, depending on how you count. He wasn't the sixth king of Scotland; he was something like the twenty-fifth, again depending on how you count. And his reign wasn't at the end of the Dark Ages; those were from around AD 400 to 800, and James reigned from 1567 to 1625.
The Roman Church at the time was trying to suppress the word, but King James decreed for the scriptures to be translated into Jacobean...
The Protestant Reformation had already been in full swing for over a century by the time James ascended the throne. And his wasn't the first English translation of the Bible. John Wycliffe's version is the most famous, but scholars and monks have been translating the Bible into English since before English was English.
In context, this verse is a condemnation of drunkenness, not a commentary about the language of the scripture. For that matter, even if we do take it to be a commentary about the language of the scripture, how is English not "another tongue"? Surely the tongue most preferable to Isaiah would be Hebrew, right?
He was from the tribe of Judah. England means "angel's land. He was a part of the original Anglo-Saxons: The Angelic Sons of Isaac.
Okay. Not one word of this is accurate. England does not mean "Angel's land". The sons of Isaac bore no particular relationship to angels. The Anglo-Saxons bore no particular relationship to the sons of Isaac. And finally, even if all the rest were true, it wouldn't matter, because King James was not an Anglo-Saxon. He was a Scot. A Celt. The ancient enemies of the Anglo-Saxons.
Nnnnope. There's some uncertainty over whether "religion" comes from lig- 'to bind' or leg- 'to read', but Cicero says it's the latter. (Incidentally, Cicero predates Constantine by about three centuries, so clearly Constantine didn't invent the concept whatever it ultimately means.) Even if it does come from lig-, that word can mean 'to bind' in the sense of an obligation - note how "obligation" actually has the lig- root in it. As for "denomination", the nat- root found in natalis is nowhere in it; the "-nation" part simply comes from a noun form of nominare, nominatio, meaning 'an act of naming'. Furthermore, Both the re- and de- suffixes were frequently used as intensifiers in Latin. So "religion" can be understood as something like 'a thorough reading' or 'a very important obligation', and "denomination" something like 'a definitive act of naming'.
Genesis 2:24-25 - "24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife(SINGULAR): and they shall be one flesh. You can't any more clearer than that.
Although God does not overtly condemn polygamy we can view the calamity which befalls characters who marry multiple wives as a recurring theme, expressing God's tacit disapproval of polygamy.
And, indeed, in some cases god DIRECTLY GIVES THEM multiple wives. Given god cannot do something which is wrong, how could it be wrong?
You really have to be twisting the scriptures backwards and forwards to fit your doctrine if you're taking some language tricks and narrative assumptions of consequences over the LORDliterally saying "Here, have this." Why should we assume God is against something He is GIVING people? Because they used the singular form of a word in Genesis?
If we're going to take grammatical choices above any other consideration, then we should be saying there is more than one God, since the plural form of "God" is used twice in Genesis.
But, you'll tell me that's silly. Why? Because when a nitpicking detail supports your doctrine, it's paramount. But, when it detracts from your doctrine, it must immediately be discounted.
Genesis 2:24-25 - "24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife(SINGULAR): and they shall be one flesh. You can't any more clearer than that.
Although God does not overtly condemn polygamy we can view the calamity which befalls characters who marry multiple wives as a recurring theme, expressing God's tacit disapproval of polygamy.
And, indeed, in some cases god DIRECTLY GIVES THEM multiple wives. Given god cannot do something which is wrong, how could it be wrong?
You really have to be twisting the scriptures backwards and forwards to fit your doctrine if you're taking some language tricks and narrative assumptions of consequences over the LORDliterally saying "Here, have this."
Not only that, it's complete garbage.
Jacob had multiple wives.
Jacob FOUNDED THE NATION OF ISRAEL. It's named after him.
By making up our own doctrine you mean directly quoting the king james bible, which you believe to be the inerrant word of God? Who now is trying to discredit God?
Also, pro tip: Yelling at your opponents that they are lazy is not a way to win friends and influence people.
FACT: God gave David Saul's wives. God is DIRECTLY causing polygamy.
So if Polygamy is against god's will, and going against god's will is sinning, god is sinning.
Whilst we might be lazy you have definitely proven yourself to be incredibly ignorant of some realy rather basic historical facts. I really suggest you go pick up any history book and educate yourself before you come back here and accuse others.
For an example take a look at Blinking_Spirit post where he demolishes your attempt at a history of my country line by line.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
I'm pretty sure his definition of "Lazy" is not doing this:
I.E. using Google to find blog posts that support your position, while simultaneously ignoring any and all results that disprove it. (Like BS post, for example... and now I feel like a Flame Warrior Sycophant sticking up for the mod over the new guy...)
Genesis 2:24-25 - "24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
Ephesians 5:23-33 - "23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband."
Matthew 19:4-6 - "4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
Ecclesiasticus Chapter 26 - "1 Blessed is the man that hath a virtuous wife, for the number of his days shall be double.
2 A virtuous woman rejoiceth her husband, and he shall fulfil the years of his life in peace.
3 A good wife is a good portion, which shall be given in the portion of them that fear the Lord.
4 Whether a man be rich or poor, if he have a good heart toward the Lord, he shall at all times rejoice with a cheerful countenance.
5 There be three things that mine heart feareth; and for the fourth I was sore afraid: the slander of a city, the gathering together of an unruly multitude, and a false accusation: all these are worse than death.
6 But a grief of heart and sorrow is a woman that is jealous over another woman, and a scourge of the tongue which communicateth with all.
7 An evil wife is a yoke shaken to and fro: he that hath hold of her is as though he held a scorpion.
8 A drunken woman and a gadder abroad causeth great anger, and she will not cover her own shame.
9 The whoredom of a woman may be known in her haughty looks and eyelids.
10 If thy daughter be shameless, keep her in straitly, lest she abuse herself through overmuch liberty.
11 Watch over an impudent eye: and marvel not if she trespass against thee.
12 She will open her mouth, as a thirsty traveller when he hath found a fountain, and drink of every water near her: by every hedge will she sit down, and open her quiver against every arrow.
13 The grace of a wife delighteth her husband, and her discretion will fatten his bones.
14 A silent and loving woman is a gift of the Lord; and there is nothing so much worth as a mind well instructed.
15 A shamefaced and faithful woman is a double grace, and her continent mind cannot be valued.
16 As the sun when it ariseth in the high heaven; so is the beauty of a good wife in the ordering of her house."
Any time a man had more than one wife, God let him go through the consequences of his actions.
There are many polygamists in the Bible. Some of them were God's favorite people (including Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, Solomon, and David). God didn't seem to mind.
And Lamech took unto him two wives. Genesis 4:19
Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai ... gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived. Genesis 16:1-4
But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had.... Genesis 25:6
Esau ... took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite. Genesis 26:34
Esau .. took ... Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael ... to be his wife. Genesis 28:9
Then Jacob rose up, and set ... his wives upon camels. Genesis 31:17
He [Jacob] ... took his two wives, and his two womenservants. Genesis 32:22
And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives. Judges 8:30
Elkanah ... had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah. 1 Samuel 1:1-2
Solomon ... had seven hundred wives ... and three hundred concubines. 1 Kings 11:2-3
And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah. 1 Chronicles 4:5
Rehoboam ... took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines. 2 Chrornicles 11:21
But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives.... 2 Chronicles 13:21
Jehoiada took for him two wives.... 2 Chronicles 24:3
God even gave David Saul's wives. (He wouldn't do that if polygamy.he didn't approve of polygamy.)
Thus saith the LORD God of Israel ... I gave thee [David] ... thy master's [Saul's] wives.... 2 Samuel 12:7-8
He set up rules for men who wanted to take another wife.
If he take him another wife.... Exodus 21:10
And he provided instructions for men that had two wives, "one beloved, and another hated."
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated.... Deuteronomy 21:15
Even Jesus (sometimes) seemed OK with polygamy. The parable of the ten virgins, for example involved a man and his ten brides.
Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. Matthew 25:1
No, the Bible disapproves of polygamy
God created only one woman to be Adam's help meet. This seems to imply that God intended marriage to involve one man and one woman.
The LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Genesis 2:21-24
Jesus seems to agree with this passage, saying that a man and a woman become "one flesh" in marrige, as it was in "the begining."
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. Matthew 19:4-5
And although it's OK for a king to have more than one wife, he shouldn't have too many. (Although how many is too many is not specified.)
Neither shall he [the king] multiply wives to himself. Deuteronomy 17:17
Paul seemed to think that a marriage should only be between one man and one woman.
Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 1 Corinthians 7:2
As did the author of Ephesians.
Let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. Ephesians 5:33
They just seem to be defining the roles of husbands and wives, not defining the number of either.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Anyway, if people are so determined on using the bible as a reference for important societal decisions, perhaps we should consider starting a few more genocides (it's not like that has happened already).
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
In Verbal's post we literally have the LORD Himself giving men multiple wives.
So, I'm not sure to what extent you would have to distort and twist scriptures to fit your doctrine of "one-man&one-wife," but I think it's safe to say: "Quite a bit."
Dude, I repeat: "Any time a man had more than one wife, God let him go through the consequences of his actions." Did you NOT see this? Read the scriptures on what happened to those guys that had multiple wives and any concubines. Like for instance, God did NOT give Abram more than one wife. HIS wife was barren and didn't wait on God and gave him her handmaid to bare a child (Ishmael). What Happened in the story with Abram and Ishmael? You need to read in full context and not fill in the area with what you think happened.
Genesis 2:24-25 - "24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife(SINGULAR): and they shall be one flesh. You can't any more clearer than that.
I have read the bible in full context cover to cover 3 times. So you need to do more than simply point out read the bible.
2 counter examples: King David and King Solomon.
They were not punished for having more than one wife. David was punished for orchestrating Bathsheba's husbands death, Uriah, but not because the act of having another wife was heinous in the eyes of the lord. That's not what the bible says.
Similar Solomon was punished because his wives led him astray and he worshipped other idols. But once again, the mere act of polygamy is not the reason things went south for him.
No one is able to get their hands on ancient Hebrew scripture. The Catholic church has that locked up in the vaults. Yiddish is not Hebrew.
King James was the 1st king of England and 6th king of Scotland (at the end of the Dark Ages). The Roman Church at the time was trying to suppress the word, but King James decreed for the scriptures to be translated into Jacobean (Isaiah 28:11 ). He was from the tribe of Judah. England means "angel's land. He was a part of the original Anglo-Saxons: The Angelic Sons of Isaac.
He WAS punished. What happened between his children?
Judaism or any religion have nothing to do with the word of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Man created religion (emperor Constantine). God's word is a way of life for mankind (no such thing as human or race) to live in His righteous order.
Religion
Re = redo
Ligio = bind
Denomination
De = Separate
Nomi = Nominare = Name
Nation = Natalis = Birth
You obviously HEARD of something, but never actually sat down and read in context. Can you prove me wrong on that?
What?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
...uhhhh...
First off, england does not mean "Angel's land". It means "Angl's Land" that is the land of the Anglos, who were people from the Angeln area of germany. (Hint: That doesn't mean angel either. It derives from the german word for "Narrow")
Sooo...the anglo's as the sons of Isaac. It's pretty unlikely. Because I think you'll find that the sons of Isaac are the *counts on fingers* yep, the jews.
The language it was translated into was english, on the grounds that Jacobean isn't a language, no matter how many irrelevant bible quotes you add after it. ("Jacobian english" means "English as spoken by people of the Jacobian era")
Also King James wasn't the first king of england. I mean, not even close. He was the first king of england called James.
So: fantasy about origins of KJV wrecked.
Also, we have plenty of ancient hebrew scripture and fragments thereof.
On the substance: You still haven't proven your case. The bible contains plenty of instances of people with multiple wives and the do not obviously get punished for the reason of having multiple wives.
And, indeed, in some cases god DIRECTLY GIVES THEM multiple wives. Given god cannot do something which is wrong, how could it be wrong?
You didn't answer anything here. Look my point was that he was not punished for having more multiple wives.
Why do you want it to be so that God punished people for polygamy? There is literally nothing else I can say to you but repeat exactly what I wrote earlier. So I will:
David was punished for orchestrating Bathsheba's husbands death, Uriah, but not because the act of having another wife was heinous in the eyes of the lord.
Similar Solomon was punished because his wives led him astray and he worshipped other idols. But once again, the mere act of polygamy is not the reason things went south for him.
I want you to look deeply at yourself and ask. Why is it so important to me that God punish polygamy? Is it because it makes it feel tidy? Is it because it answers some moral qualms you have pertaining to gay marriage and its definition?
I'm going to teach you a little about life here and how to be smarter person in society. If you want to make a case for something, you have to be reasonable about your support. Look if I wanted to make a case that Jesus liked cotton candy, I wouldnt go and say the Genesis 1:1 teaches that Jesus likes candy. That's just a badly supported case. Why? Because Genesis 1:1 literally states: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
See that? There's no support. So don't make yourself look stupid by insisting that it does. Instead go back and try to make your case from another vantage point.
You might say Cotton candy is sweet, and similar in taste to...I dunno figs. If you argue that jesus liked figs, that might actually be supportable! See already that's a better case than insisting on something that doesn't exist.
Look at this case. Don't just keep insisting that God punishes polygamy. You make yourself look stupid because God clearly doesn't in the bible. It may well be that God prefers marriage between one man and one woman. Fine. But don't keep insisting on what the bible says when the text doesn't support you. All the evidence shows that God has left at least SOME cases of polygamy unpunished. Look even if you said, God eventually punishes those who commit polygamy. That would be better than what you wrote.
If the bible says God punished david for orchestrating the death of Uriah, husband to Bathsheba, dont go around making things up and say.. Oh! David was punished for Polygamy. You're point isn't supported! I'm sorry, its just not. I don't know what God actually thinks. But I know when theres support and when there's not.
Don't base your arguments on facts that are so clearly refutable, you make yourself look like an idiot when you keep insisting its true. Go back, and try to build your case on more solid ground.
Here I'll even try to help you. If I were you, I wouldn't say God punishes everyone for polygamy. Very bad thesis statement.
You might say something more refined and nuanced like,
Although God does not overtly condemn polygamy we can view the calamity which befalls characters who marry multiple wives as a recurring theme, expressing God's tacit disapproval of polygamy.
He wasn't the first king of England; he was about the fiftieth, depending on how you count. He wasn't the sixth king of Scotland; he was something like the twenty-fifth, again depending on how you count. And his reign wasn't at the end of the Dark Ages; those were from around AD 400 to 800, and James reigned from 1567 to 1625.
The Protestant Reformation had already been in full swing for over a century by the time James ascended the throne. And his wasn't the first English translation of the Bible. John Wycliffe's version is the most famous, but scholars and monks have been translating the Bible into English since before English was English.
In context, this verse is a condemnation of drunkenness, not a commentary about the language of the scripture. For that matter, even if we do take it to be a commentary about the language of the scripture, how is English not "another tongue"? Surely the tongue most preferable to Isaiah would be Hebrew, right?
Speaking of which, here's Isaiah 28:11 in Hebrew:
כִּ֚י בְּלַעֲגֵ֣י שָׂפָ֔ה וּבְלָשׁ֖וֹן אַחֶ֑רֶת יְדַבֵּ֖ר אֶל־הָעָ֥ם הַזֶּֽה׃
Okay. Not one word of this is accurate. England does not mean "Angel's land". The sons of Isaac bore no particular relationship to angels. The Anglo-Saxons bore no particular relationship to the sons of Isaac. And finally, even if all the rest were true, it wouldn't matter, because King James was not an Anglo-Saxon. He was a Scot. A Celt. The ancient enemies of the Anglo-Saxons.
Nnnnope. There's some uncertainty over whether "religion" comes from lig- 'to bind' or leg- 'to read', but Cicero says it's the latter. (Incidentally, Cicero predates Constantine by about three centuries, so clearly Constantine didn't invent the concept whatever it ultimately means.) Even if it does come from lig-, that word can mean 'to bind' in the sense of an obligation - note how "obligation" actually has the lig- root in it. As for "denomination", the nat- root found in natalis is nowhere in it; the "-nation" part simply comes from a noun form of nominare, nominatio, meaning 'an act of naming'. Furthermore, Both the re- and de- suffixes were frequently used as intensifiers in Latin. So "religion" can be understood as something like 'a thorough reading' or 'a very important obligation', and "denomination" something like 'a definitive act of naming'.
But all this is a pointless aside, because etymological fallacy.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Um, guys:
You really have to be twisting the scriptures backwards and forwards to fit your doctrine if you're taking some language tricks and narrative assumptions of consequences over the LORD literally saying "Here, have this." Why should we assume God is against something He is GIVING people? Because they used the singular form of a word in Genesis?
If we're going to take grammatical choices above any other consideration, then we should be saying there is more than one God, since the plural form of "God" is used twice in Genesis.
But, you'll tell me that's silly. Why? Because when a nitpicking detail supports your doctrine, it's paramount. But, when it detracts from your doctrine, it must immediately be discounted.
Jacob had multiple wives.
Jacob FOUNDED THE NATION OF ISRAEL. It's named after him.
Exactly what ill fate befell Jacob?
Now keep that ***** out of how government defines it.
Many of you are LAZY and didn't do what I asked (read the scriptures of those people with multiple wives). You're obviously making up your own doctrine to try to discredit The Most High:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2014/11/08/why-was-polygamy-allowed-in-the-bible/
By making up our own doctrine you mean directly quoting the king james bible, which you believe to be the inerrant word of God? Who now is trying to discredit God?
Also, pro tip: Yelling at your opponents that they are lazy is not a way to win friends and influence people.
FACT: God gave David Saul's wives. God is DIRECTLY causing polygamy.
So if Polygamy is against god's will, and going against god's will is sinning, god is sinning.
Whilst we might be lazy you have definitely proven yourself to be incredibly ignorant of some realy rather basic historical facts. I really suggest you go pick up any history book and educate yourself before you come back here and accuse others.
For an example take a look at Blinking_Spirit post where he demolishes your attempt at a history of my country line by line.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
I.E. using Google to find blog posts that support your position, while simultaneously ignoring any and all results that disprove it. (Like BS post, for example... and now I feel like a Flame Warrior Sycophant sticking up for the mod over the new guy...)