• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

BibFam gets the shoutout... from the pulpit! 😂😂

I managed to listen to him all the way to the end. Pheeewww... that was difficult. One thing that surprised me was how often he referenced David having multiple wives but he never once showed God's condemnation of the practice. Surely he would have used the opportunity to show how God rebuked David for the sin of polygyny just like He denounced adultery! Oh but wait, polygyny is never denounced by God! We have to go to passage B to condemn the practise in passage A. We're still waiting, Joel.
 
Ah yes, the balloon animal hermeneutic. “Watch me turn this passage into a dog! ta da!”

Joel, if this pastor gig doesn’t work out, your twisting abilities are amazing, I think you could make a killing going on the road with a traveling circus.

Seriously though, where did this guy study hermeneutics? The way he mangles God’s Holy Scriptures is shameful. He shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a pulpit. Joel you are an embarrassment to the pastoral office, and you need to repent.
 
Did he just call God a liar? God said through Nathan, “your master’s wives”

Joel Saint says, “It looks to us like Saul only had one wife, and it looks to us that Ahinoam, Saul’s wife, was the mother of Michal David’s wife.”
 
Last edited:
Asforme&myhouse said:
Seriously though, where did this guy study hermeneutics? The way he mangles God’s Holy Scriptures is shameful. He shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a pulpit. Joel you are an embarrassment to the pastoral office, and you need to repent.
Click to expand...
He is totally normal for what stands in today’s pulpits.
 
NickF said:
The guy’s neverending logical fallacy and twisting scripture as well as incessant well poisoning was brain numbing.
Click to expand...
Maybe because this is only way to keep population from rioting because their brain is too fried to figure out lying.
 
Mark C said:
There is an appropriate term for such, straight out of Scripture...
...but it's Verbotten here. ;)
Click to expand...
Like what?

Lier, demon in human form, swindler, false prophet, idiot?

No such thing are forbidden here. Only too much consideration for emotions of such people and desire to have decent language.
 
Fivesolas777 has been arguing in the comments section, employing the Westminister Confession and fallible men as his source of authority. I am guessing one of his solas is sola Scriptura, which is a head scratcher.
 
Daniel DeLuca said:
Fivesolas777 has been arguing in the comments section, employing the Westminister Confession and fallible men as his source of authority. I am guessing one of his solas is sola Scriptura, which is a head scratcher.
Click to expand...
Yeah that is a head scratcher lol. The problem that they are running into, whether they realize it or not, is that for any doctrine to be biblical it must have a passage of scripture that clearly teaches it. That is called the sedes doctrinae “seat of doctrine”. There is no sedes doctrinae for monogamy only, nor is there one for the condemnation of polygyny. Therefore they have to try and make other passages attempt to teach it. That’s not how you interpret scripture and anyone with a basic understanding of hermeneutics should understand that.
 
So because David did not have sexual relations with Abishag, that throws open the possibility that David was not given Saul's wives to have sexual relations with. Then he misuses Leviticus to say that David could not have had sexual relations with ANY of Saul's wives, when in fact there was only one of his wives that David could not have had sex with. He neglects the fact that when the plural wives is used, it doesn't necessitate that all wives are included. I would argue though, that II Sam 12:8 is not the best argument that we could put forward. I like using Psalms 18:20-24, but I keep hearing responses that even though David wrote that he had been kept from sin, that he still sinned. That Fivesolas user went as far as to say that David was righteous because he had trusted in Christ, even though the promise of the Messiah had not yet been made to David.
 
Daniel DeLuca said:
So because David did not have sexual relations with Abishag, that throws open the possibility that David was not given Saul's wives to have sexual relations with. Then he misuses Leviticus to say that David could not have had sexual relations with ANY of Saul's wives, when in fact there was only one of his wives that David could not have had sex with. He neglects the fact that when the plural wives is used, it doesn't necessitate that all wives are included. I would argue though, that II Sam 12:8 is not the best argument that we could put forward. I like using Psalms 18:20-24, but I keep hearing responses that even though David wrote that he had been kept from sin, that he still sinned. That Fivesolas user went as far as to say that David was righteous because he had trusted in Christ, even though the promise of the Messiah had not yet been made to David.
Click to expand...
It would be better if that Fivesolas777 guy would stick with Sola Scriptura but he goes to every other resource. Mind you, he has to go everywhere else otherwise he has to admit he's batting for the wrong team.
 
Does anyone know how many people are in the congregation listening to Joel Saint? He's done a lot of free advertising for Biblical Families. Maybe someone should take him coffee and donuts and thank him for all he's done(?) Especially since he's done more to show how weak the arguments are for monogamy-only than anyone else I've ever heard.
 
frederick said:
Does anyone know how many people are in the congregation listening to Joel Saint? He's done a lot of free advertising for Biblical Families. Maybe someone should take him coffee and donuts and thank him for all he's done(?) Especially since he's done more to show how weak the arguments are for monogamy-only than anyone else I've ever heard.
Click to expand...
Only problem is that these weak arguments could be enough for monogamy-only crowd.

Never underestimate strength of stupid/weak argument for somebody who emotionally refuses to accept something. Thry will stick to that argument like person in danger of falling to branch of tree.
 
Last edited:
MemeFan said:
Never underestimate strenght of stupid/weak argument for somebody who emotionally refuses to accept something.
Click to expand...
Especially when they have been trained NOT to think. (but to 'emote'.)


"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." - Robert A. Heinlein
 
frederick said:
Especially since he's done more to show how weak the arguments are for monogamy-only than anyone else I've ever heard.
Click to expand...
I don't even want to suffer through his nonsense. I have enough headaches already and things that try my patience.
Kent Hovind has pointed out the bible verse that calls some "willfully ignorant." I agree with him ...that means dumb on purpose!
But just like king Ahab had "prophets" tickling his ears and telling him what he wanted to hear....those sitting in the pews at Joel Saint's location are there because they like what they are hearing.
MemeFan said:
Only problem is that these weak arguments could be enough for monogamy-only crowd.
Click to expand...
Yep! They want someone to affirm their own position, not challenge them to defend it.
Mark C said:
Especially when they have been trained NOT to think. (but to 'emote'.)
Click to expand...
This is why they are so irrationally entrenched in a defenseless position. They are like ostriches with their heads in the sand. ...pretending the issue isn't an issue, comfortable hiding the eyes of their understanding.

Asforme&myhouse said:
The problem that they are running into, whether they realize it or not, is that for any doctrine to be biblical it must have a passage of scripture that clearly teaches it. That is called the sedes doctrinae “seat of doctrine”. There is no sedes doctrinae for monogamy only, nor is there one for the condemnation of polygyny. Therefore they have to try and make other passages attempt to teach it. That’s not how you interpret scripture and anyone with a basic understanding of hermeneutics should understand that.
Click to expand...
Perfect description of the real issue....combined with the entrenched monogamy only indoctrination.

Speaking of indoctrination (and this would also connect with the comment/article "What natalists could learn from lgbtq")
I pulled this off of Facebook and have not verified it....but I have seen enough movies to believe it.
Here is how Hollywood does it with another issue. i strongly suspect that all the feminist, monogamy only movies...that NEVER have a biblical solution like patriarchy or polygyny portrayed in any kind of positive light is largely to blame for the knee jerk reaction most suffer when the subject of polygyny comes up. Oh, and we can also thank the catholics and the council at Trent. Why outside of extreme early indoctrination would any boy choose to serve God by never marrying or raising a family?

Screenshot_20240820_133124_Brave.jpgScreenshot_20240820_133153_Brave.jpgScreenshot_20240820_133202_Brave.jpg
 
Biblical Families acting classes. Sign me up!
 
Joleneakamama said:
I don't even want to suffer through his nonsense. I have enough headaches already and things that try my patience.
Kent Hovind has pointed out the bible verse that calls some "willfully ignorant." I agree with him ...that means dumb on purpose!
But just like king Ahab had "prophets" tickling his ears and telling him what he wanted to hear....those sitting in the pews at Joel Saint's location are there because they like what they are hearing.

Yep! They want someone to affirm their own position, not challenge them to defend it.

This is why they are so irrationally entrenched in a defenseless position. They are like ostriches with their heads in the sand. ...pretending the issue isn't an issue, comfortable hiding the eyes of their understanding.


Perfect description of the real issue....combined with the entrenched monogamy only indoctrination.

Speaking of indoctrination (and this would also connect with the comment/article "What natalists could learn from lgbtq")
I pulled this off of Facebook and have not verified it....but I have seen enough movies to believe it.
Here is how Hollywood does it with another issue. i strongly suspect that all the feminist, monogamy only movies...that NEVER have a biblical solution like patriarchy or polygyny portrayed in any kind of positive light is largely to blame for the knee jerk reaction most suffer when the subject of polygyny comes up. Oh, and we can also thank the catholics and the council at Trent. Why outside of extreme early indoctrination would any boy choose to serve God by never marrying or raising a family?

View attachment 8494View attachment 8495View attachment 8496
Click to expand...
Exactly why we need to be generating material w poly families working well together, dramatic shorts, etc... pure logic only goes so far...
 
Daniel DeLuca said:
You can see from the comments section that user @stevebearsley2308 is somewhat on the fence. He really wants to believe that polygyny is wrong, but he is not seeing the evidence pointing in that direction.
Click to expand...
Didn’t see any comments by that user name… weird
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top