Polygamy in the Bible

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Look, here's my honest injun opinion, and YES, I am playing semantics:

You know the allowance for divorce based on adultery? In my opinion, the biblical ideal is for a person to FORGIVE their errant spouse and remain with them. BUT, I believe God understands that a person may have the inability to remain in such a relationship and makes allowance for it, since the covenant has been broken. He does not always expect us to live up to His ideals, and even makes rules for how we should handle ourselves when we do not.

I believe polygamy lies outside God's ideal and plan for the home and marriage. I believe the same about slavery. I do not understand why God didn't condemn either practice, and I acknowledge that He did not, but I do not believe either practice falls into line with other commandments given by God in both the OT AND the NT.

I think that's a balanced opinion. But God appears to not only allow for polygamy...he required it in the case of Liverite marriage. Why didn't God just reveal his ideal plan?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Dr. V, it's all about studying. You are making a lot of errors because evidently you have not looked into the context of these verses nor their historical settings.

TK Burk....

Can you provide a sound Jewish source illustrating this "bridesmaids" practice as described in popular commentary? I once read or heard that there was no historical foundation for this belief in ancient Jewish practice. The context of the point was in reference to the Rapture. Some use the illustration of the wedding to teach the Pre-Trib position. Post-Trib scholars point out that this practice is of medieval origin and wasn't known in the time of Christ.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Aquila

There is no difference between the terms "slave" and "servant"

Colossians 3:22
Servants(doulos), obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;

1401 // doulov // doulos // doo'-los //

from 1210 ; TDNT - 2:261,182; n

AV - servant 120, bond 6, bondman 1; 127

1) a slave, bondman, man of servile condition
1a) a slave
1b) metaph., one who gives himself up to another's will
those whose service is used by Christ in extending and
advancing his cause among men
1c) devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests
2) a servant, attendant

Yes, part of a SLAVE’S duties entailed SERVING.

Study Roman customs of the First Century. A Roman could own slaves. He also could hire servants. The slave had NO rights. The servant was a hired hand. He had Roman rights and was paid a wage.

Study, brother, study....

[Dora]

Ok! that did it! I'm not hanging around with a bunch of wacko nutcases who condone perverted behavior! You guys are el sicko!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Yes, part of a SLAVE’S duties entailed SERVING.

Study Roman customs of the First Century. A Roman could own slaves. He also could hire servants. The slave had NO rights. The servant was a hired hand. He had Roman rights and was paid a wage.

Study, brother, study....

What was a "doulos"... a slave or a servant?

Originally Posted by Dora

Ok! that did it! I'm not hanging around with a bunch of wacko nutcases who condone perverted behavior! You guys are el sicko!

Dora.. you make broad assumptions about people who enjoy discussing debatable issues.. no one is promoting nor pracitcing this lifestyle.. you started this conversation not us.. to be intellectually honest no one can condemn Polygamy as sinful.... how much more honest can we be?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Dr. Vaughn

The same idea applies to all gay marriages before now... they were not viable relationships because they were ILLEGAL... now in many states they are legal.. so with the stroke of a pen in a legislative branch in ONE SECOND an "unviable relationship" becomes viable

Now the difference being that gay marriage has never been in ANY SOCIETY in history.. Polygamy has been in EVERY society in History and LEGAL

When it once again becomes legal in this nation.. then all of the persecution against it will stop just like people are beginning to no longer look at two gay men with the stares we did many years ago......

Its all WESTERN mentality....

You know.... some theologians would take issue with that right? My uncle-in-law is an Episcopal priest and we've had some interesting debates about gay marriage, ancient practices, and the context of various biblical laws. I don't believe in gay marriage, but I am very familiar with theological positions regarding it's supposed practice in biblical times and the various classifications of eunuchs in Jewish literature.

Originally Posted by Aquila

You know.... some theologians would take issue with that right? My uncle-in-law is an Episcopal priest and we've had some interesting debates about gay marriage, ancient practices, and the context of various biblical laws. I don't believe in gay marriage, but I am very familiar with theological positions regarding it's supposed practice in biblical times and the various classifications of eunuchs in Jewish literature.

Agreed,, lets go to the past 2000 years of civilization.. the Roman Empire forward.. we have no historical evidence of Homosexual Marriages

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

WHAT?? The Mishnah and Talmud have NOTHING to do with the Masoretic text. The Mishnah and Talmud are about the Jewish "ORAL" Law. The Masoretic Text refers to the written text of the Tanakh. Unreal!

So much for making for "great preaching"!

Hey, we are NOT the one's messed up here.... Which is getting more and more evident the further this conversation goes....

My point is that when I was studying the Rapture these traditional understandings regarding Jewish weddings were deeply evaluated. I had read or heard how these Jewish wedding customs most attribute to the 10 Virgins were unknown in Christ's day, in fact there were references to these customs being of medieval origin. And the end result was....the 10 Virgins were to be regarded as virgins awaiting their groom.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Really? This answer surprises me. ...that you would offer vague support for any polyamorous relationship....

A husband and wife's private sexual "ventures" should be with one another. There should be no third party involved.

It might surprise you but I know a UPCI minister who practically said the same thing. I had come from an ultra conservative church where our pastor told us in marriage counseling exactly what were the only "holy" behaviors between a husband and wife. It was pretty strict and to be honest....my wife and I were from the world and knew each other before we were married. We were very disappointed and felt condemned in our love life. So after changing churches and talking to various ministers on the subject I talked to a friend of mine who is a UPCI minister who said that nearly anything mutually agreed upon by both partners was acceptable including various forms of copulation, "marital aids", and "marriage enhancement" videos. I was a bit take aback and asked some more specific questions and he basically said that he wouldn't ask if we didn't tell, it was between us.