主播大秀

Anything which looks that goofy just has to be French.

I'm posting this off-subject comment here so that Will has more chance of seeing it.
It's not fair that some credos are being pushed off the bottom of the 'recent entries' list on the right - esp as Will has put on so many posts recently.

#2. alan watson wrote: "I'm posting this off-subject comment here so that Will has more chance of seeing it. It's not fair that some credos are being pushed off the bottom of the 'recent entries' list on the right - esp as Will has put on so many posts recently."

Alan: I agree 100% there are too many new threads being started especially since several of you put in a lot of work on your credos.

I don't need quantity in the number of new topics - I would advise Will to go with fewer of higher quality.

But then it is his blog .....

Peace,
Maureen

Will could probably increase the number of 'back entries' - oops!I meant 'recent entries' from ten to twenty - there's plenty of room. Needs to talk to his IT consultant.
alan

Alan & Maureen- The most popular blogs on the web are the fastest-moving ones. Granted, I don't take that approach on my own blog, but mine is a fairly specific subject matter which is a slightly different dynamic. I see your point Alan on the credos disappearing, and the IT guys can, I'm sure, increase the length of that list (even temporarily until the week is over). But the fastest-moving blogs are generally the most popular (as people get into the habit of consulting them daily). I'm sure William's post frequency is just fine.

John
I see he's fixed it.
I agree re Will's postings
He does find interesting topics and there's def something missing when he doesn't post for a few days.

alan watson #6
I agree. Will keeps feeding me straight lines I can't resist. I especially had a lot of fun with the entry about closing down hell.

There, see Gellman H, I wasn't nasty to him...this time. I figure since it's his blog, he's entitled to a 1% discount.

Maureen, I see your point. Some of your best metaphors have been prematurely consigned to oblivion before everyone had a chance to read those gems. What a pity. They may never get a chance to find out what a true wit you are.

BTW Maureen, you've been pretty free with advice lately. I like your idea of waiting until after McIntosh has had his radio broadcast interview to make any comments about it. Your way, we could all jump all over Will later on for not asking the questions we wanted him to that we thought should be obvious. What would he say about that, that we should have suggested it ahead of time? I wouldn't by that excuse would you? OK Will, you've had your 1% discount, back to me being nasty again.

I can't stop laughing every time I look at that picture of that bus. It's gotta be Citroen's answer to the Lincoln Navigator and the Cadillac Escalade. SUV a la Francais, extra-ordinaire.

Once upon a time, a taxicab married a school bus. This is the proud parents' first baby picture :>)

This machine is starting to really grow on me. I'm getting to like it a lot. I wonder what it would be like to drive one around. A real blast I'll bet. I think it would get more than its fair share of stares. I wonder what it would cost to have one custom made. If I had one, I'd have to add my own touches. One of those old aoooooooga horns that were popular about 25 years ago would be a must. The front would have to have a face worked into it. Dark bushy eyebrows that go up and down applied over the front windshield (windscreen to you) when the lights blink on and off would also be a definite. And of course a change collection box right inside the door. Poles and straps for strap hangers inside too. This vehicle just screams with personality. This beats the Chrysler PT Cruiser by a mile.

I'm gonna miss this bus. I feel like I've gotten to know her. (Sorry Maureen, you have been replaced in my affections by a yellow mass of metal.) Good-bye bus, I'll catch you next time you pass my way on your route.

it turns out that the shortbus is an orgy club not a bus after all, mark!! you really WILL miss it :-)

Helen Hays #12
Then the bus was just a metaphor, an illusion. Sometimes people prefer illusions to reality. This blog gives more than ample evidence of that. Maybe the only real differences among us is which illusions we cherish most. I'll stick with my bus.

errrr..what has an orgy bus got to do with a Sunday morngin religious radio programme????

PB

Loved Shortbus ... glad to find a site dicussing it (sortof!).

on the the orgy stuff ... it's a movie about relationships, its not porn.

but the BIBLE is full of porn ...

"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled." Ezekiel 23:20-21

"One day the older daughter said to the younger, 'Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father.'" Genesis 19:31-38

"A loving doe, a graceful deer - may her breasts satisfy you always..." Proverbs 5:19

"Your breasts are like two fawns..." Song of Songs 4:5

"But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? " 2 Kings 18:27

Biblical vulgarity of the worst kind!

X-man

...taking these passages in context...

Ezekiel 23 condemns adultery
Genesis 19 condemns incest
Proverbs 5 enjoins men to enjoy sex but only with their wives
Song of Songs is a sexually explicit powem about the relationship between man and wife.

Remember, God created sex to be good, but within marriage. Sex is not sinful.

I didnt hear the radio show, but I was wondering if there was a religious dimension to the film review, that was the point to my question, as yet unanswered...

PB

The point PB is that those passages use erotic imagery to make a moral point, which is exactly what shortbus does.

You mention sex in mariage - let's not try to pretend that Solomon was into monogamy PLEASE. He had hundreds of wives, not one. The Old Testament does not defend monogamy. Adultery in the Old Testament MEANS sex outside of marriage, yes, but men were permitted to have many wives. Are you defending polygamy too PB or do you just believe the parts of the BIble you agree with?

Prof X

It has been recorded in the bible for millenia that Solomon and his father had many wives. The bible nowhere condones this and in fact if you read proverbs (written by solomon) adultery is condemned time and again.

Genesis makes it clear that marriage was created as between one man and one woman.

Scripture clearly records that adulterty was the downfall of both men, earning Solomon the title "the wise fool".

You seem to revel in the notion that the bible is a book of pornography (literally writings of prostitutes), but it continually condemns prostitution and sex outside marriage.

The Shortbus website makes it clear it wants to provide new solutions to sexual questions and that it is promoting a "polysexual" (all types of sexuality, inlcuding orgies, bestiality and paedophilia) outlook.

That is neo-paganism and equates to the sexual practises of Baal worship, which continually ensnared Israel in the OT and was confronted and condemned by the prophets.

It would appear that Shortbus continually focusses on sex, but this cannot be said of the bible, it is not the main agenda.

1) What boundaries do you think should be put on practising sex, if any?

2) I'm still waiting for an answer to the question of what the religious context was of reviewing Shortbus on a Sunday morning religion programme.
Just curious, I missed this.

sincerely

PB

.

Pb, you really are re-writing history. I've been reading your comments out to people in the office and they are amazed! You've totally re-writing the history o the bible to make it sound like it always defended monogamy and never upheld polygamy. Read a book. Preferably a book about the ethics of the Old Testament! Polygamy was the structure that maintained the socio-economic life of ancient tribal Israel. I assume you are just ignorant about the Bible's history. The alternative is that you are deliberately misrepresenting this or simply lack the intellectual ability to grasp this. Even evangelical historians grant that polygamy was the norm for centuries. It continued within Judaism until into the middle ages. At least google this. You need to inform yourself.

You don't see why a religion and ethics show on the radio should be talking about this movie? A movie with lines like: "Everyone comes to New York in search of forgiveness"? A movie with things to say about the meaning of sexual life? Listen to the review on the show and you'll get some idea. Inform yourself before you comment.

Paedophilia? Nobody's defending paedophilia. The movie doesn't mention the topic. You're just throwing muck around now.

Prof X

It really doesnt matter that your whole office is amazed or that you think I have got it wrong. Amazement does not equal understanding or make a viewpoint accurate.

If you want to prove I am wrong in relating passages from the OT then prove it from the OT with contrary passages.

I am willing to be corrected on anything at anytime, but I understand I am correct in my posting.

I will try and look up some chapt and verse reps to show you.

I wasnt aware that forgiveness was in the title of the film, still, I'm interested in what context it was presented on SS...still waiting...

By the way, my definition of polysexual, that is not to imply the film justifies paedophilia, simply that in my understanding, and I stand to be corrected, polysexuality includes any and all types of sexuality.

The standing challenge...find a passage in the Old Testament law that condones polygamy... ie not through the life of a king but through the law itself.

I may be wrong on this, but let's see shall we...

Are you up for it?

PB

Prof X

Just to clarify... I am not saying polygamy didnt happen just that it was contrary/opposing to the OT law...

PB

Pb, don't exaggerate. That movie is not defending paedophilia. You haven't seen the film, you haven't even heard the review you say. Never let the truth stand in the way of a fundamentalist witchhunt.

A quote from the New international dictionary of the Bible (that's an evangelical bible dictionary, pb):

Though polygamy was considered legitimate and practiced in Judaism until approximately 1000 years after Jesus, the strong Greco-Roman influence of monogamy finally won out as the standard for the developing Western civilization; however, in none of the literature I have researched thusfar is polygamy or bigamy equated with adultery. For example, in Judaism divorce was often difficult to be granted -- and divorce was considered by Jesus as a form of adultery. Polygamy was sometimes employed as a means of getting a new wife without the the difficult step of divorce.

Just admit you're wrong about polygamy and we'll move on ...

Prof X

Please read again post 21. We all know polygamy was practised - no argument.

I am simply saying it was practised contrary to God's will and the law of Israel. See the following scriptures;-

Deut 17;-

14When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;

15Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

16But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

17Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

18And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:

19And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:

20That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

Also....鈥淔or this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife (not wives); and they shall become one flesh (not multiple fleshes)鈥� (Genesis 2:24).

As I said, you cannot prove me wrong unless you use the OT law, because I dont disagree that polygamy was practised; my point is that this was against the will of God.

Google and you will find that Solomon's weakness for women was his downfall, and David his father. His own family was racked with murder and lust because of his failure to keep his trousers on and his consequent murder of Bathsheba.

You will find these are open secrets if you google it.... my point being you must take the whole bible in context, it records they practised polygamy....and paid the price too!

PB

I have some small sympathy with what PB is attempting to say, since he wants to defend traditional Christian perspectives, but his approach is overly simplistic and his conclusions muddled. Sometimes we just cannot press the OT into our own image.

Deuteronomy 17 applies to the Kings of Israel rather than everyone in general. Furthermore, regarding the injunction not to multiply wives, we need to ask whether or not this rules out polygamy per se. Have a read at the Book of Chronicles - several of the good kings are noted as being polygamous and are rewarded for their faithfulness to God by being allowed land, fortifications, wealth, and many wives and children. Indeed, a close reading of Chronicles will demonstrate that the Chronicler was particularly pleased to record the many wives and progeny, because this was indicative of God's ongoing favour and blessing upon the Davidic Dynasty, the divinely ordained line of descent from which the Messiah would come. This seems to indicate to me that our understanding of polygamy in the OT has to be a little more nuanced. The Chronicler, writing very late in the history of Israel and well aware of the content of the Pentateuch, clearly did not see every instance of royal polygamy infringing against the strictures of Deut 17.

Polygamy did bring dangers of course - there were dangers inherent through intermarriage with foreign women, thus introducing heterodox belief into Israel; and secondly there was the danger - especially in the context of Royalty - that marriages indicated political alliances with foreign powers. The OT is very much against these things because they imperil the holiness of the nation and Israel's sole reliance upon God in political matters. But note that these loci of concern are not automatically or inevitably concomitant to polygamy.

Also note that Deut 17 urges the king against multiplying his horses. If we followed PB's line of reasoning, we would have to conclude that the OT is against us owning more than one horse each. But this is to miss the point of the text - the multiplication of horses means the expansion of military might (couched in the terms of the day, cavalry and chariots). The text indicates that God is opposed to this because - just as the multiplication of wives speaks of reliance upon human political alliances - this indicates a reliance upon human military power rather than reliance upon God.

Anyway PB, whilst your motives in using this text from Deuteronomy were good, your exegesis is unsound.

A small point, David did not murder Bathsheba, but I am sure that you meant Uriah. But ask yourself another question - was it really the existence of polygamy in ancient Israel that led to the murder of Uriah? Was it not lust and ruthlessness?

Shalom,

Shibboleth

Wasting your time trying to reason with PB, Shibboleth. Nice to hear from someone who knows what he's talking about all the same.

Pb, you just need a good shag, mate. You're obviously not getting any.

That's PB shut up.

Shibboleth

Welcome and good to have an intelligent contributor on this subject.

Of course you are right, it was Uriah that was murdered, not Bathsheba, silly me.

I must challenge one incorrect assumption you make; My aim is not to defend traditional Christian principles, it is to find what the full counsel of the bible really says about polygamy. That is why I invite submission of other passages.

I am sort of up to my eyes right now and cant look into this in depth.

But your claims that my exigesis is unsound I will challenge.

1) It is my understanding that the law does not condone or support polygamy but that the practise when it happened was tolerated, not approved. Do you see any passages which counter this?

1) You have overlooked the genesis ref I have given, and I also note that Paul said in the NT that elders must only have one wife.

2) Have you any references where it shows that God explictly blessed someone for polygamy, rather than in spite of if?

3) Whatever terms you couch it in, the law forbad the king to multiply wives for himself. Deut 17; this was certainly not an endorsement of polygamy, quite the opposite. While I dont dispute the horses may have had military significance, it seems to me the passage as a whole is more warning about kings gathering up excess for themselves, thereby forgetting God.

4) You dont think that lust and ruthlessnes would drive a man to have hundreds of wives?

PB

Hi Shibboleth. You're new, I think, so I should point out that Pb will never accept anything you say. Your thoughtful exegesis clearly reflects a professional knowledge of the Old Testament, but (as with every other thread here) Pb will never understand or agree with what you say. He's method is merely to re-state his earlier point, as if you hadn't written anything at all, untill you give up in frustration or slit your wrists in a moment of intellectual crisis.

Take his comments here, with his numbering:

(1) You've already listed the counter-passages he's requesting in your comments, had he bothered to read them.

(2) The Genesis passage is consistent with the account you've given (since it does not mention monogamy), and the NT point he makes is irrelevant to an OT exegesis. In fact, even taking his NT point, all that can be claimed there is that Paul limited eldership to monogamists. (Nb: the Orthodox communion to this day interpret that verse to mean that priests may marry, but bishops may not!)

(3) Kings WERE allowed multiple wives, as you show in your comments (indeed, many wives were considered an honour and a blessing on a good king). But Pb either didn't bother reading you, or he just reverts to his earlier point as a response to your follow-up!

(4) This comment is really better left unanswered, since it is really beyond stupid. Of course lust might lead a man in the ancient world to have many wives. That's not, of course, the only reason why a man would take many wives.

Shibboleth, I'm embarrassed that you have to deal with this silliness. I'm sorry. A more interesting response to a person of learning like yourself would be to ask you for more information rather than berate you with daft questions. So here's a request for more: can you say more about the role of women in all of this? Men could have many wives, women could only have one husband. What does that tell us about the values of the Old Testament world? Thanks for your comments.

i spoke too soon! Pb, are you licking your wounds there mate? After that assault, I nearly feel sorry for you! Nearly ...

Greetings to all,

Thanks for your kind words of welcome. I have been a reader of the blog for some time. I appreciate Crawley for a host of reasons.

David (Oxford) yes, I do indeed accept your point that PB has missed some of the more subtle implications of what I mentioned.

I think that we can concede that there is a theme of monogamy within the prophets in particular, as they develop the idea of Israel as the one and only bride of God, a concept that is adopted largely without modification in the NT for the Church - Christ relationship. But even within the Prophetic literature the emphasis is probably less explicitly on monogamy than on faithfulness to the marriage bond, and the wrongness of running after lovers (i.e. false Gods, inappropriate political or military alliances, etc) in order to engage in adultery (i.e. breaking the norms of the Mosaic Covenent).

We may also note that there are many examples in the OT narratives where polygamy led to family tensions or otherwise complicated family relationships.

These various passages may amount to an implied criticism of polygamy, but if they do, it is very subtle and pales beside the obvious endorsement of polygamy in the historiographical writings.

PB, we have to once again state that in all of the OT law, which is fairly comprehensive in laying down rules for marriage and sexual life, there is not one passage that may be cited that condemns the practice or polygamy, nor even remarks that the practice is sub-standard but tolerable. The OT law is silent on the issue, simply because it was not conceived of as a problem in that cultural milieu.

Even if we concede your point that the Deuteronomy 17 passage is about the theme of the need to avoid excess, it is obvious that the OT historians did not consider polygamy to automatically constitute excess, otherwise they would not regard multiple wives as a gift of God.

However, I maintain that you have mis-read Deut 17 and that it follows a consistent trajectory (wives, horses, silver and gold etc) of advising Kings to maintain their fidelity to God and not place their reliance upon human institutions. Please bear in mind that - within the wider cultural setting of the Ancient Near East - Kings, who were often understood to be divine or semi-divine, were expected to accumulate wives, horses, silver and gold in order to accentuate their exalted status. Deut 17 shows that the ideal for Kingship in ancient Israel was wholly different - the King was not divine, but rather relied wholly upon God.

I hope that this helps PB. I am no advocate of polygamy; the NT norm is to prefer monogamy and it is certainly the only allowed option for church leaders in the NT. But not so in the OT.

When I get time later today I will write a note on the issue of women within the polygynous norms of the Ancient Near East.

David from Oxford: "can you say more about the role of women in all of this? Men could have many wives, women could only have one husband. What does that tell us about the values of the Old Testament world? Thanks for your comments."

Well, it tells us that men were in a dominant situation in their society; that situation pertained not just in ancient Israel, but across the whole ancient near east. And it still exists in some societies today. (I suspect that it still pertains today in most societies, albeit in modified form!)

However, we need to be a little bit cautious lest we rush headlong into the common misconception that the OT endorses a whole scale denigration and oppression of women.

The OT does not lay down any stipulations as to how marriage arrangements should be conducted, other than to indicate which degrees of marriage are prohibited. Therefore, we have to piece together as best we may what the OT practice was. This is not easy, since the OT narratives take us from Bronze Age Mesopotamia through to Iron age Canaan. We only have little snippets from diverse times and places, and I would not want to dogmatically state that the practices recorded in the Patriarchal narratives would accurately mirror what was going on in post exilic times. Nevertheless, from what little information we have, we can say that in most cases, the parents did the chosing and negotiations, with the parents of a male child usually taking the initiative. In the case of a single parent family, the mother could initiate the negotiations. (Gen 21.21). Nevertheless, in some cases the parents / guardians of the girl initiated the procedings (Ru. 3:1-2; 1 Sa.18:21). We know that young people mixed relatively freely in ancient Israel, and often had a large degree of influence upon their parents in a choice of marriage partner (Gn. 34:4, 8) so it is within the bounds of reason that in the case where a girl's parents initiated marriage negotiations that the girl herself had drawn their attention to the man in question.

In some rare cases, it appears that the people getting married did so without reference to the parents' wishes. (Gn. 26:34-35)

Although evidence is scant, there is no basis for suggesting that young women were forced into marriage or treated as mere commercial objects - see Gn 24.58.

The OT is certainly not inimicable to the idea of romance and eroticism within marriage, another indication that marriages were not contracted along purely commercial lines.

Within polygamous marriage wives had the protection of the Deuteronomic legislation (see Deut 21 especially) whereby every wife had to be treated equally and fairly. In the event of a woman being widowed, the OT makes provision that the extended family and community should care for the widow and orphans.

Whilst we can say that the OT may not fit neatly into conformity with our modern Western canons of rights and equality, it has to be stated that it is much more pro - women than the other Ancient Near Eastern cultures, enshrining as it does that both men and women are made in the image of God and that both fathers and mothers are to be honoured.

These are just a few hurried observations, but I hope that they serve to illustrate that the picture that we find in the OT is more nuanced and complex than one might expect.

Shibboleth

I am not an expert and any any relevant passage of scripture added to any other relevant passage will always expand the biblical perspective on a subject, in my view.

To me what I am interested in and am discussing is what the bible actually says about polygamy.

I will look at it in a bit more depth tongight I hope. But in the meantine my conclusion from the verses we have both brought so far is this;

1) Monogamy is explicitly endorsed in the OT and NT.

2) Polygamy is only mentioned in a ngeative context, ie whether that be in the explicit teaching of the law or through the life stories of those who engaged in it and the obvious problems it posed them.

3) I am not at this point aware of any passage of scripture which explicitly endorses polygamy.

Any other scripture passages on the subject that you think will further inform the discussion will be welcome.

Thanks for you time,
Cheers
PB

Shibboleth:

I warned you. He NEVER accepts he's wrong, and simply restates arguments you've already responded to until you lose the will to live. Welcome to the blog!

D

David (oxford) - you are correct, PB clearly does not allow facts to get in the way of his cherished prejudices. I have rarely met one so indefatigable in maintaining an untenable point of view.

is it possible that PB is an agent provocateur for those who are desirous of making Christians look like obscurantist buffoons?

Anyway, let me refrain from further uncharitable sentiment.

PB let me reply:

1)This is true of the NT, in that monogamy is stipulated for church leaders; but you will look in vain for a plain endorsement of monogamy in the OT. When the people of Israel practiced polygamy, they did so with the words of Genesis in their ears; marriage is endorsed, but monogamy is not specifically mentioned. Each time a man married a woman, she left her parents house and cleaved to him and they became one flesh.

2 & 3 ) like I say, read Chronicles; all of it. Note the pattern that emerges there. Good kings are blessed with - amongst other things - many wives. Many wives = blessing from God = good thing.

PB, I know that there is often a desire to engage in proof texting so that an issue is left unambiguous; this is not possible in this case. There is nowhere in the OT where polygamy is condemned. Given that the OT is extensive and explicit in condemning many things that God considered illicit, you must ask why it remains silent on this issue. Why? Because it was not considered to be wrong. Simple as that.

Shibboleth

I think you should expand on deut 21:15-17 as it does add some weight to your position.

PB

PB, I am glad to see that you have begun to see the point that I am making. I also trust that you will forgive my lighthearted comments above.

Deut 21.15-17 is an interesting portion of the legal corpus. It first of all establishes that polygamy is a normal part of life in ancient Israel, and is in no sense condemned here. You may say that this is not an endorsement of polygamy, and you would be right - it simply accepts polygamy as a societal norm that requires no endorsement.

Nevertheless, it does implicitly acknowledge one of the difficulties within polygyny, i.e. the showing of favour to one wife over the other.

You will note that this law offers protection to both wife and children, in that it forbids the father from disinheriting the less favoured branch of the family.

This contrasts with the law codes of the Ancient Near East, which offered very little protection to the vulnerable in society, such as women and minors.

I am not sure if that is the kind of expansion that you were calling for, but I am happy to comment further if you find it helpful.

Shalom

Shibboleth

Shibboleth

Dont be mistaken. I have not come to any conclusions until I have more fully studied all the relevant passages.

In the course of my study I came across this one verse which appeared to be quite in line with your thinking.

So I higlighted it to you to prove that I am not promoting my agenda or prejudices, but as I said above, always interested in the *whole* counsel of the bible on any given subject.

I am not sure we are as far apart as might appear from above postings, but that will become clearer when I post my interim conclusions this evening.

PB

Shibboleth
By all means add your thoughts, preferably with scriptural refs.
cheers
PB

THE BIBLE DEMONSTRATED FROM START TO FINISH TO UPHOLD MONGAMOUS MARRIAGE AND OUTLAW AND DENIGRATE POLYGAMY
BY PB

Monogamy was clearly how marriage was instituted by God at the start of Genesis2 and considered the norm throughout the bible.

Lamech an evil, murderous rebel and the son of the first murderer (Cain) instituted polygamy in Genesis4 shortly after God instituted monogamy (in Genesis2), and in defiance of it.

In Deut 17 the law states it was illegal for kings to muliply their wives.

David and Solomon did so and scripture records explicitly the problems it caused them, murder, loss of faith, lies, etc (refs below).

In Matt 19 Christ confirms that God in the Old Testament allowed divorce because of the hardness of men's hearts (see quote below), but against God's wishes. The same was true of God caving in and allowing Israel a king. (Christ also affirms the institution of *only* monomgamous marrige in Genesis2)....

...Deut 21 shows a law regulating polgamy, but it is *nowhere* actively encouraged or praised as monogamy is continually. In fact the law only exists because of the vexation and trouble polygamy was recorded to cause; and in context of the whole bible this law would therefore appear to be in the same category as laws on divorce and the granting of a king; ie far, far from God's ideal for his people. ie because marriage was begun as mongamous, polygamy was instituted by a rebel and forbidden for kings.

The overall story of scripture from Genesis to Revelation shows that monogamy was the first and last ideal, promoted, blessed, encouraged.

Any deviations to polygamy by the few Godly men who indulged in it were clearly noted in detail to have caused the perpetrator serious trouble (eg David and Solomon, refs below). There are few Godly men of note who engaged in it, and those of note that did paid the penalty.

Most Godly men avoided polygamy and it is nowhere actively encouraged in the bible.

The state law forbade kings from engaging in polygamy in Deut 17.

Selected supporting references;

1) MONOGOMOUS MARRIAGE INSTITUTED BY GOD AT BEGINNING OF HISTORY FOR THE FIRST ADAM; Genesis 2:20
18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him (SINGULAR)...
23And 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.
24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

2) POLYGAMY INSTITUTED BY THE MURDEROUS, BOASTFUL, REBEL, LAMECH; Genesis 4
19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah...
23And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.
24If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

3) POLYGAMY FORBIDDEN BY STATE LAW FOR KINGS; Deut17:17
15Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose:...
16But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
17Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

4) THE STATE LAW, WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT A MAN MIGHT HAVE TWO WIVES, IS ACTUALLY THERE TO DEAL WITH THE VEXATION AND STRIFE THAT SCRIPTURE DETAILS TIME AND AGAIN THAT IT BRINGS.
15If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
16Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
17But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

5) MEN WHO PRACTISED POLYGAMY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT WERE USUALLY NOT NOTED FOR GODLINESS, MORE OFTEN THE OPPOSITE, 1&2 CHRONICLES.

6) OF THE FEW MEN DESCRIBED AS GODLY WHO PRACTISED IT, SCRIPTURE RECORDS IN DETAIL THE TROUBLE IT BROUGHT UPON THEM EG DAVID AND SOLOMON. GEN16, 1SAM1, 1KING11

7) MOST MEN OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AVOIDED POLYGAMY;-
EG ADAM, NOAH, ISAAC, JOSEPH, MOSES, BOAZ, JOB, ISAIAH, HOSEA...

8) PROVERBS; DON'T CHEAT ON YOUR WIFE (SINGULAR) WITH ANOTHER
18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
19Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.
20And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?

9) GOD MADE YOU *ONE* WITH THE WIFE (SINGULAR) OF YOUR YOUTH; BE FAITHFUL TO HER; Mal2:15
13And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.
14Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
15And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

10) THERE ARE NO GODLY MEN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT PRACTISING POLYGAMY

11) CHRIST IN THE NT AFFIRMS THE INSTITUION OF MARRIAGE IN GENESIS AS *ONLY* BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. HE ALSO SAYS THAT MARRYING A SECOND WIFE IF THE FIRST HAS NOT COMMITTED ADULTERTY IS ITSELF ADULTERY - Mat19:
3The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5And said (QUOTING GENESIS;), For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

12) THOSE WITH MORE THAN ONE WIFE ARE FORBIDDEN TO HOLD CHURCH LEADERSHIP; 1Tim3:2; A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife; Tit1:6 ...ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
6If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

13) Monogamy affirmed as the norm in NT. 1Cor7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

14) AS HISTORY BEGAN WITH MONOGOMOUS MARRIAGE INSTITUTED, HISTORY ENDS WITH CHRIST (KNOWN AS THE SECOND ADAM, IN ROMANS) AND HIS BRIDE (SINGULAR) IN MONOGAMOUS MARRIAGE
Rev 21:9,10
9And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
10And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God.
ENDS

Hello PB. I am just going to briefly reply before closing this exchange, I am too busy for this debate.

the points are those raised in your post above.

1) MONOGOMOUS MARRIAGE INSTITUTED BY GOD AT BEGINNING OF HISTORY FOR THE FIRST ADAM;

says who? Genesis says nothing about polygamy or monogamy. It speaks of the special relationship - mystical even - of marriage. It speaks in the singular because it is set against a narrative background that portrays there being only one man - and one single woman is created for him in the first instance.

2) POLYGAMY INSTITUTED BY THE MURDEROUS, BOASTFUL, REBEL, LAMECH

Says who? Just because this is the first recorded instance of polygamy in Genesis, it does not mean that he instituted it. And just to extend your argument, Lamesch sings the first song recorded in Genesis, so I guess you must think that singing is wrong because it is associated with Lamech. And metalworking and instrument making are associated with Lamech's family - recorded for the first time - so they must be wicked practices as well? Remember, just because a wicked person engages in a given practice, that does not automatically make the practice wicked.

3) POLYGAMY FORBIDDEN BY STATE LAW FOR KINGS

I believe that you are the only person in the world who maintains this view. It is a clearly mistaken view, as I have demonstrated above. I will re-iterate; the Chronicler, for example, notes that the godly kings of Judah, i.e. those who kept the law, were rewarded with many wives and children. Deuteronomy 17 speaks of the multiplication of wives for political ends.

4) THE STATE LAW, WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT A MAN MIGHT HAVE TWO WIVES, IS ACTUALLY THERE TO DEAL WITH THE VEXATION AND STRIFE THAT SCRIPTURE DETAILS TIME AND AGAIN THAT IT BRINGS

You are half right here. This particular law does indeed deal with a vexatious situation that may materialise in a polygamous marriage. But that does not mean that you can conclude that the law assumes that polygamy is a bad thing. Other laws relate to the breakdown of marriages in general, but using your line of reasoning, this would imply that marriage is in itself a vexation, polygamous or monogamous.

5) MEN WHO PRACTISED POLYGAMY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT WERE USUALLY NOT NOTED FOR GODLINESS, MORE OFTEN THE OPPOSITE, 1&2 CHRONICLES

Given that Chronicles consistently notes that many wives were a reward for the godly kings, it is clear that despite my advice, you have not read a word of Chronicles; and if you have, you have not understood a word of it.

6) OF THE FEW MEN DESCRIBED AS GODLY WHO PRACTISED IT, SCRIPTURE RECORDS IN DETAIL THE TROUBLE IT BROUGHT UPON THEM EG DAVID AND SOLOMON. GEN16, 1SAM1, 1KING11

No, plenty of godly men practiced it, and because it brought them no bother, next to nothing is said on the issue. Indeed, Chronicles - if you read it - notes that the godly kings were noted polygamists.

7) MOST MEN OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AVOIDED POLYGAMY;-
EG ADAM, NOAH, ISAAC, JOSEPH, MOSES, BOAZ, JOB, ISAIAH, HOSEA...

Well, on the other hand, the *most* significant figures of the old testament did not.. Consider these towering figures: Abraham had his wife and concubine; the eponymous father of Israel with whom God renewed the Abrahamic covenant had two wives and two concubines; Moses had his Zipporah and the African lady; David had 7 wives prior to his adultery with Bathsheba, and it is his adultery for which he was condemned - 2 Samuel 12.8 clearly sets down that his previous 7 wives were gifts from God and that God would have given him more. Now, God, who cannot tolerate sin, would hardly say this if He regarded polygamy a sin.

8&9 These passages are blasts against adultery wherein the "wife of your youth" is used as a synecdoche for all wives.

10 & 12 THERE ARE NO GODLY MEN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT PRACTISING POLYGAMY

You have no proof of this at all. Indeed, the fact that Paul has to rule out polygamists from church leadership positions indicates that there were probably polygamists within the church who might be seriously considered for leadership positions.

11 This passage has no bearing on polygamy. It refers to the sinfulness of divorcing a woman in order to marry another woman. By this point , through Hellenistic influences, monogamy had become the norm, so those wanting another wife were resorting to divorce.

13 Marriage is being affirmed, and since Paul undoubtedly favours monogamy, he is by implication affirming monogamy; but this passage has no bearing on what was acceptable in the OT period.

14 Yes, this image is used in the OT too, as I have already noted in a previous post. Again, it has no bearing on this debate, since the language of mystic experience of God is not a firm basis upon which to base our understanding of what was lawful in the OT.

On a serious point, as one who takes Scripture very seriously, I urge you to pick up some books on biblical hermeneutics and exegesis; there are many good ones by conservative evangelical scholars. You need to learn to adopt a much more subtle, nuanced and reasoned approach to scriptural interpretation, and avoid crude proof-texting, as you have done in this issue. A pile of texts, denuded from their context prove nothing.

I will let you have the last word - which will probably be to re-state your traditional position. You are undoubtedly tenacious in defending your views; but remember that tenacity in espousing error is not a virtue.

Shalom (for the last time on this topic).

Shibboleth

Well Shibboleth no response to this?

David? Frankie? X-Man?

PB

I did, it did not appear. I will re-post.

Hello PB. I am just going to briefly reply before closing this exchange, I am too busy for this.

1) MONOGOMOUS MARRIAGE INSTITUTED BY GOD AT BEGINNING OF HISTORY FOR THE FIRST ADAM;

says who? Genesis says nothing about polygamy or monogamy. It speaks of the special relationship - mystical even - of marriage. It speaks in the singular because it is set against a narrative background that portrays there being only one man - and one single woman is created for him in the first instance.

2) POLYGAMY INSTITUTED BY THE MURDEROUS, BOASTFUL, REBEL, LAMECH

Says who? Just because this is the first recorded instance of polygamy in Genesis, it does not mean that he instituted it. And just to extend your argument, Lamech sings the first song recorded in Genesis, so I guess you must think that singing is wrong because it is associated with Lamech. And metalworking and instrument making are associated with Lamech's family - recorded for the first time - so they must be wicked practices as well? Remember, just because a wicked person engages in a given practice, that does not automatically make the practice wicked.

3) POLYGAMY FORBIDDEN BY STATE LAW FOR KINGS

I believe that you are the only person in the world who maintains this view. It is a clearly mistaken view, as I have demonstrated above. I will re-iterate; the Chronicler, for example, notes that the godly kings of Judah, i.e. those who kept the law, were rewarded with many wives and children. Deuteronomy 17 speaks of the multiplication of wives for political ends.

4) THE STATE LAW, WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT A MAN MIGHT HAVE TWO WIVES, IS ACTUALLY THERE TO DEAL WITH THE VEXATION AND STRIFE THAT SCRIPTURE DETAILS TIME AND AGAIN THAT IT BRINGS

You are half right here. This particular law does indeed deal with a vexatious situation that may materialise in a polygamous marriage. But that does not mean that you can conclude that the law assumes that polygamy is a bad thing. Other laws relate to the breakdown of marriages in general, but using your line of reasoning, this would imply that marriage is in itself a vexation, polygamous or monogamous.

5) MEN WHO PRACTISED POLYGAMY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT WERE USUALLY NOT NOTED FOR GODLINESS, MORE OFTEN THE OPPOSITE, 1&2 CHRONICLES

Given that Chronicles consistently notes that many wives were a reward for the godly kings, it is clear that despite my advice, you have not read a word of Chronicles; and if you have, you have not understood a word of it.

6) OF THE FEW MEN DESCRIBED AS GODLY WHO PRACTISED IT, SCRIPTURE RECORDS IN DETAIL THE TROUBLE IT BROUGHT UPON THEM EG DAVID AND SOLOMON. GEN16, 1SAM1, 1KING11

No, plenty of godly men practiced it, and because it brought them no bother, next to nothing is said on the issue. Indeed, Chronicles - if you read it - notes that the godly kings were noted polygamists.

7) MOST MEN OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AVOIDED POLYGAMY;-
EG ADAM, NOAH, ISAAC, JOSEPH, MOSES, BOAZ, JOB, ISAIAH, HOSEA...

Well, on the other hand, the *most* significant figures of the old testament did not.. Consider these towering figures: Abraham had his wife and concubine; the eponymous father of Israel with whom God renewed the Abrahamic covenant had two wives and two concubines; Moses had Zipporah and the African lady; David had 7 wives prior to his adultery with Bathsheba, and it is his adultery for which he was condemned - 2 Samuel 12.8 clearly sets down that his previous 7 wives were gifts from God and that God would have given him more. Now, God, who cannot tolerate sin, would hardly say this if He regarded polygamy a sin.

8&9 These passages are blasts against adultery wherein the "wife of your youth" is used as a synecdoche for all wives.

10 & 12 THERE ARE NO GODLY MEN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT PRACTISING POLYGAMY

You have no proof of this at all. Indeed, the fact that Paul has to rule out polygamists from church leadership positions indicates that there were probably polygamists within the church who might be seriously considered for leadership positions.

11 This passage has no bearing on polygamy. It refers to the sinfulness of divorcing a woman in order to marry another woman. By this point , through Hellenistic influences, monogamy had become the norm, so those wanting another wife were resorting to divorce.

13 Marriage is being affirmed, and since Paul undoubtedly favours monogamy, he is by implication affirming monogamy; but this passage has no bearing on what was acceptable in the OT period.

14 Yes, this image is used in the OT too, as I have already noted in a previous post. Again, it has no bearing on this debate, since the language of mystic experience of God is not a firm basis upon which to base our understanding of what was lawful in the OT.

On a serious point, as one who takes Scripture very seriously, I urge you to pick up some books on biblical hermeneutics and exegesis; there are many good ones by conservative evangelical scholars. You need to learn to adopt a much more subtle, nuanced and reasoned approach to scriptural interpretation, and avoid crude proof-texting, as you have done in this issue. A pile of texts, denuded from their context prove nothing.

I will let you have the last word - which will probably be to re-state your traditional position. You are undoubtedly tenacious in defending your views; but remember that tenacity in espousing error is not a virtue.

Shalom (for the last time on this topic).

Shibboleth

Shibboleth

Thank you.

I will respond, hopefully tomorrow.

PB

Shibboleth

Thank you.

I will respond, hopefully tomorrow.

PB

Well, it appears that my original post has now surfaced. All quite beyond my control...

it does happen... strange sometimes...may be to do with moderator's backlog???

my response is half done and will be posted tomorrow, Mon, DV.

thanks for your patience

PB

Finally Shibboleteh, thanks for your patience.

MY RESPONSE IN SUMMARY;-

(note to reader, most scripture references are given in full in post 39 to allow the reader to make up their own mind).

I said at the outset that polygamy was common in the Old Testament but that it was contrary to the will of God and the law.

You said my understanding of this needed to be "a little more nuanced".

I have invited the benefit of your knowledge and I agree with you on this narrow point to some extent. This I suggested in post, 38, where I also highlighted a verse appearing to support YOUR argument in order to underline my attempt at objectivity.

So basically my initial assertion stands strongly, but here is the biblical nuance in my view.

GOD DOES TOLERATE EVIL AGAINST HIS WILL
God confirms his view that the creation of the office of kings for Israel was "wickedness" but still tolerated them because of Israel's stubborness (1 Sam2:17).

Christ quotes Gen2 as the institution of marriage and says it was not originally intended to include the possibility of divorce but that God allowed the introudction of it because of the "hardness" of Israel's heart (Matt19).

Similarly, I contend that God's institution of marriage (Gen2) was clearly monogomous and forbade polygamy and that it was emphasised again that polygamy was forbidden for Kings and church leaders.

God repeatedly defends faithfulness to "the" wife singular and promotes and blesses monogamy, but nowhere blesses or encourages polygamy, that I can see.

But within this God did suffer a level of TOLERANCE (not approval) of polgamy, much as he tolerated Israel demanding to be led by Kings rather than God himself, and much as he tolerated them introducing divorce against his will.

Christ summed up the bible as loving God with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself; So did God really believe that polygamy was truly loving to the original wife in a marriage?

His repeated condemnation of the betrayal of a man's wife (singular) I think is a good canvass on which to paint this story (sample refs in Proverbs and Malachi provided in earlier post).

His ideal is repeated explicitly in Ephesians 5 where the loving monogamy God designed is modelled by Christ and his bride as the example for a man and his wife to model themselves on.

This refutes your assertion that the mystical union of Christ and his church is irrelevant to the discussion.

RESPONSE TO YOUR CRITIQUE OF MY STUDY, IN DETAIL;

As I said, I was interested in whole whole counsel of the bible on this. That is why I drew your attention to the ONE verse of the bible that appeared to support your argument. But as I suspected, when put in context with the many others it must be interpreted by the weight of those many other verses on the subject.

Ref your responses, point by point,
1) You are wrong, Jesus explicitly affirms my point that Genesis 2 is the institution of marriage in Matthew 19; Point 11 in post 39 utterly refutes you on this point.

2) Lamech's actions are indeed the first instance of polygamy recorded in the bible; and Christ's teaching on marriage, detailed above, condemns it.
But Christ nowhere condemns singing or metalwork, nor does any other scripture. Why is it that from Lamech on, only evil people engaged in polygamy or else, when rigtheous people practised it were clearly recorded as having suffered evil for it?

3) I'm sorry but you are clearly wrong here when you say I am the only person in the world that believes Deut 17 outlaws polygamy for Kings. I have beside me several commentaries and study bibles that all agree. But I would rather appeal to the reader to study the verse again for themselves and make their own mind up.

4) This is your second strongest verse and even you admit I am half right in my reading of it. You say that by my reasoning laws that regulate vexatious situations in monogamous marriage would mean that it is vexatious too. Problem is, the rest of the bible says exactly the oppositie about monogamous marriage that it is good and blessed, as I have demonstrated with quotations above. But in contrast, the ONLY press that polygamy gets in scripture is BAD.

5) Interesting how you challenge me with very vague references to Chronicles here; you say it shows that God blessed men with many wives. I looked at 1&2 Chronicles (admittedly briefly) and could not see any such references. Can you actually provide chapter and verse on this? Until you do I cannot accept your point.

6) The same goes for this point, you have not demonstrated your point from scripture and until you do I cannot accept your point. I concede that not every case of polygamy recorded in passing is recorded as having brought trouble, but I contend that every case demonstrating polygamy on a day to day basis clearly recorded it did. Put another way, is there a single case of polygamy in day to day operation in the bible which records harmony in its workings? I cant think of any.

7) In this point you begin by making my point for me; Abraham was a polygamist alright but this is precisely the point I am making; the bible records in very great detail the trouble it gave him when his wives fought etc. This is the pattern throughout scripture; when polgamy is practised by a high profile Godly man the bible records every detail of the ensuing vexation. Will be corrected. Are there any windows in the bible showing a happy polgamous household??? I dont believe there is a single one, but plenty to the contrary.

Now, Moses had an african wife as well as Zipporah???? This is a new one on me, can you back this up with scripture please?

2Sam12:8 is your strongest verse in contending that God approved of polygamy. But in light of Gen2 and Deut17 (instituting marriage as monogomous and forbidding polygamy to Kings, as well as the context of all other passages discussed) how can 1Sam12:8 come from the same God?

If you dont believe scripture is divinley inspired seamless garment here, which I sense you may not (do you???), you may go in a different direction here.

But let us first build a picture, Matthew Henry condemns David for taking wives in 2 Sam5, as MH says, building on the bad example of the patriarchs and perhaps thinking it would consolidate his political power and alliances.

MH also condemned polygamy for preparing David's heart to engage in the theft of Bathsheba and murder of her husband. MH says: "David had many wives, yet that did not keep him from coveting his neighbour's wife and defiling her; FOR MEN THAT HAVE ONCE BROKEN THE FENCE [OF MONOGAMY, MY WORDS] WILL WANDER ENDLESSLY."

So I think in order for 2Sam12:8 to make sense with the broader mind of God on this subject, we must read it thus, my personal paraphrase with my words added follows;

"I, God, rejected the previous King, Saul, because of his rebellion against me, but I passively allowed you, David, to inherit all his wealth including his harem because you were the new King and this was custom/practise/legal procedure.

I had already tolerated the patriarchs practising polgamy after all.

"But if that harem had not been enough for you I would rather have suffered the lesser evil of extending your it even further, rather than having had you steal another man's wife and murder him, thus bringing shame on yourself and my name.

"That is not to say I was pleased with Saul creating a harem or pleased that you inherited it, just that your ownership of the harem gave you even less excuse for your theft of another ma's wife and murder of her husband.

"Sticking to your harem would have been a much lesser evil that this course of action."
MY EXTENDED PARAPHRASE/COMMENTARY.

8&9) You are introducing abstract metaphor into the text when the plain reading rejects it; If God approved taking more wives in preference to your original wife, then why would God warn against betraying the original wife? You have been refuted by a contridiction which you introduced yourself.

This also reflects badly on God's character as my references in Proverbs and Malachi show him standing up for the rights and feelings of the original wife.

10&11). You say I have no proof there are no Godly men in the New Testament practising polygamy but indeed I do. The fact that the New Testmanet lists no Godly men in the New Testament practising polygamy is itself the proof. To contradict this is pure ungrounded speculation. My point does not prove anything in itself, but taken in context of all my other points it adds to the complete picture of the biblical record.

12 You say Matt19 has no bearing on polygamy but that is wrong. You are correct to say it is not teaching ABOUT polygamy but it IS teaching about God's order in marriage. And it clearly stipulates this is meant to be mongomy.

Furthermore, Christ in this passage quotes Gen2 as God's institution of marriage, (you deny Gen2 is teaching this very point).
In a sister passage in Matt5 where Christ teaches on marriage/adultery John Wesley makes my point well.

John Wesley says of this sister passage Matt5, (quote in triple quote marks);

"""Nor may marriage itself, holy and honourable as it is, be used as a pretence for giving a loose to our desires. Indeed, "it hath been said, Whosoever will put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:" And then all was well; though he alleged no cause, but that he did not like her, or liked another better. "But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the case of fornication, (that is, adultery; the word porneia signifying unchastity in general, either in the married or unmarried state,) "causeth her to commit adultery," if she marry again: "And whosoever shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery." (Matt 5:31, 32)
All polygamy is clearly forbidden in these words, wherein our Lord expressly declares, that for any woman who has a husband alive, to marry again is adultery. By parity of reason, it is adultery for any man to marry again, so long as he has a wife alive, yea, although they were divorced; unless that divorce had been for the cause of adultery: In that only case there is no scripture which forbids to marry again."""
END OF QUOTATION

13) You are pulling Paul's teaching in 1Cor7 out of the full monogomous context of the entire bible in order to discredit it. But the raft of references I have provided already shows it is complete harmony with the rest of scruptire.

15) I agree that the picture of Christ marrying his singular bride in Revelation and any similar prophetic image is not a firm basis to found a doctrine on. But as I mentioned earlier Eph5 shows this union is not an abstract accident but rather a reflection and a model for everyday married life; so there is your doctrine of monogomy in black and white; the thread of doctrine teaching monogomy as God's ideal is once again shown to be woven through the entire bible and not reliant on a few "proof texts" plucked out of context on a pretext.

So to repeat, I stand by my original comments that polygamy in the bible is contrary to the will of God and the law.

But I invited and accept your correction on only the narrow point that there is a nuance to this; God begrudingly tolerated polygamy as he begrudingly tolerated Israel's stubborn insistence for the introduction of Kings and divorce.

But all three practises were clearly and explicitly contrary to what he wanted man to do and all three are clearly recorded in scripture as having brought much pain and hardship - hardly the will of a loving and wise God.

I have never studied this subject in such depth, so thanks for the opportunity to clarify more fully the biblical record.

I suspect that your perception of me and your own theology (quite like William's you suggest) has pushed you to overcompensate in challenging me and to make SOME assertions that may be fashionable conversation among SOME theologians, but which have no grounding in what the bible actually says and records (ie that the bible unconditionally approves of and encourages polygamy).

The scriptural record is primary evidence and trumps theological opinion every time. I will let the reader make up their own mind about what the bible itself teaches on the subject of polygamy.

But as an aside, I happen to have a study bible in the house which over 20 theological Drs compiled and it clearly concurs with my understanding of polygamy and the bible.

This proves nothing at all of course, only that many people highly qualified in hermeneutics broadly support my reading techniques and leave me with just a crumb of comfort that I may not be the only person alive today who reads the bible as I do, especially on Deut17:17.

That said, I wouldnt dream of questioning your standing before God and trust in his grace that we may both be seen as brothers in his eyes on that Great Day.

sincerely
PB