Any encouragement you would make for someone to read scripture though, I would have to agree with as being a great idea.
If it isnt spelled out in big, bold letters that scream out "I TOLERATE POLYGAMY BUT IT WAS NOT MY WILL FOR MARRIAGE" then you pretty much believe you can make it say whatever you want.
This is posted for the readers, btw, since I dont believe, nor care, that you are willing to concede a single point as we have been thru this before.
The scriptures do NOT have to express in words what is written above for it to be true.
"Trinity" is not found in scripture as such, but the concept IS in the texts.
"Toleration" of polygamy doesnt come in EXPRESSED statements in scripture, but it is VERY easily gleaned from those scriptures, as is the concept of the Trinity, that while God DID tolerate and permit polygamy, His original will for marriage was ONE woman for ONE man for LIFE.
But as the other nitpicking legalist I debate on a daily basis, Hugh thinks he can set up this false dilemma where I have two choices ..either produce a scripture that expresses word for word what HUGH demands it say; or, admit to being in error.
Sorry chap, but NEITHER of those needs to be chosen any more than having a Jesus Only type demand me to present scripture that says 'TRINITY' in it.
We learn from contexts and concepts in scripture MORESO than what is or isnt stated expressly in one or two passages.
We do NOT need any scripture to say "GOD IS A TRINITY" to know our God is triune in nature.
And we do NOT need any scripture to say "I TOLERATE POLYGAMY BUT IT WAS NOT MY WILL FOR MARRIAGE"
BOTH of these are gleaned from ALL of the scriptures relating to this matter.
So again, and finally, I will tell the READERS to simply spend some time in Gods word in the matter.
Start in Genesis then read everything you can about marriage paying close attention to areas where multiple wives comes into the picture, such as Exodus 21 where this wife is given permission to LEAVE her marriage by God and Moses if this man takes a second wife and fails even in his duty of marriage to this first wife.
That is but one of MANY passages you can find that is evidence that will help you understand the WHOLE picture, just as we all do to understand the concept of the Trinity.
I fully expect Hugh here to handwave away and dismiss any and all evidence provided against his views, but he is not the one Im concerned about since he has made his choice about what he believes.
You, dear reader, just break into your bibles and study the matter out. With the E-Sword software it is VERY easy to find all the relevant passages to fully understand this issue.
Now, Hugh, you asked me to step out of this thread.
Why is it that you keep posting towards me if you know Im not going to answer in the manner you want me to and thereby insisting that I return and respond ?
This will be my last post in this thread if Hugh can decide that we're done.
I don't think "legalism" amounts to a contradiction of God's will foc, I think legalism is an incomplete expression of God's will, namely a skeleton as opposed to a living breathing creature, or an outline, as opposed to the book. That which is expressed in the law is not wrong, it is not legalism to be following the law. It is legalism to think that all God wants of us is to follow the law to the letter, no more, no less.foc wrote:"Hugh, your problem is you're just like every other legalist I've ever met."
I also use as my signature in every post in this forum, a passage from Proverbs. It forbids you to do, what you do, and names you for what you are, when you add to the word of God. There are passages that state similar things before this one, and those that come after it that also express the same thought. I like the example best in Proverbs so I use it. "Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar." It is not legalism to say that God does not want you to add a concept to scripture that does not exist in it. It has been my constant point in all my posts anywhere on the internet, that in the face of a huge number of examples throughout the history of God's people, God never says one word to condemn or even discourage Polygyny as a practice. He compels it as a regular side effect of two of his laws, and in one of those laws, no wrong is committed by any party to the situation the law addresses. I don't think you can make a credible case that God merely "tolerates" a practice he sometimes forces as the result of a law he asks the entirely righteous to obey. Levirate Law (also a NAME not found in scripture) refers to the law in Deuteronomy that demands of three people that they enter a Polygyny. A man, his wife, and the widow of that man's dead brother must all enter into a marriage relationship with one another, provided that man is already married. None do anything wrong, yet they all end up in a marriage.
Once again, I have never been an advocate of Polygamy. I make this ongoing distinction for a reason. Polygamy is the practice of having more than one spouse and certain forms of Polygamy (namely Polyandry) are condemned as adultery in scripture. Polygyny is the practice of having more than wife. Only two forms of Polygyny are prohibited. Marrying a mother and her daughter. Once you marry one, you can never marry the other. Also marrying sisters while one of them remains alive. I can marry a woman, then she dies, and then I can marry her sister. I cannot marry both while they are both still alive.foc wrote:"If it isnt spelled out in big, bold letters that scream out "I TOLERATE POLYGAMY BUT IT WAS NOT MY WILL FOR MARRIAGE" then you pretty much believe you can make it say whatever you want."
This is a subtle equivocation. Yes, the word Trinity does not appear in scripture, and yes the concept is there. However, this assertion of yours, that the "toleration" of polygyny is gleaned from the scriptures, is still what I have claimed it is before, it is false. Nowhere. NOT ONE PLACE is there an expressed idea that Polygyny itself is wrong. In it's place are restrictions on the practice, just as there are on any marriage practice. A monogamist for instance, may not marry a woman, and then later, marry her daughter, neither can a Polygynist. Is this a condemnation of marriage? Polygyny has limits, just as monogamy does. Thus God MENTIONS the concept of Polygyny and regulates it and occasionally compels it, but never the concept of Polygyny. Solomon is judged for his FOREIGN wives, and perhaps he is also judged for his sheer number of wives. The large number of wives a King might acquire is said to be wrong. The foreign/unbelieving/"strange" wives of Solomon are said to be in the last chapter of Nehemiah to be his sin. I defy you, and throw down the gauntlet, that you SHOW Me where the CONCEPT of mere "toleration" of Polygyny is taught.foc wrote:"(The word)'Trinity' is not found in scripture as such, but the concept IS in the texts."
Actually, it is a wife of SLAVERY that is given that permission, a woman that would be known as a "concubine". You also engage in yet another subtle misleading here foc, you omit the reasons that God gives, that the woman could leave that man. Exodus 21:10 & 11:foc wrote:"Start in Genesis then read everything you can about marriage paying close attention to areas where multiple wives comes into the picture, such as Exodus 21 where this wife is given permission to LEAVE her marriage by God and Moses if this man takes a second wife and fails even in his duty of marriage to this first wife."
This is a conditional law. First, the man must take to himself another wife. Namely, we cannot say that if a man fails to provide his wife in this case, with food, clothing and sexual congress and has not taken another wife to cause the problem, that she may leave him. All monogamists are shielded from this provision and in fact all existing polygynists are as well. Let us say that I have five wives. I am able to provide them with all they need in these three areas and this goes on for many years. Later, a great famine strikes or I cannot get a prescription in my dotage, to Viagra. None of my wives may leave me, for the cause of their deprivation is not the addition of another wife."If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money."
Let us say, however, that I am providing perfectly well for all five wives, and I seek another. I get that wife and find that as a result, I am unable to support any one or all of the first five because I have spread myself too thin. It is then, and only then, that the wives I have acquired through slavery (for this passage refers to wives bought as maidservants verse 7) may go free, without money.
You said you would leave, you did not, you continue to raise points, I respond to those points. Sometimes I respond to the effort you make to appear to be making a point, when you in fact, are not.foc wrote:"Now, Hugh, you asked me to step out of this thread.
Why is it that you keep posting towards me if you know Im not going to answer in the manner you want me to and thereby insisting that I return and respond ?"
As long as you try to wedge in the last word, and I am a member in good standing, and this thread is open, you should expect that I will respond.foc wrote:"This will be my last post in this thread if Hugh can decide that we're done."