• 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.

Biblical Monogamy

Joe88,
I appreciate your points, and I am thankful we are on the same side of this. I still say the burden of proof is on the monogamists. I like how Dr. Luck states it, "Condemnation of a marital practice bears the burden of proof." That doesn't change that those we debate will expect us to show the evidence - true point, but I am just as comfortable asking them to show me the evidence too.

My earlier post has, I think, given the impression that we are further apart on this issue than we are. I firmly believe our case should be able to be made without relying on potential polygamists, a point I did not make very well earlier. That doesn't mean I will not use that in my debate though. Even though I prefer to use different tools when I debate this, I think you come at this with a strong position for which I do not find fault.

All that said, I don't want to sidetrack this thread any further, nor do I see a need to do so. Jason's original question is a valid one that is worth discussing, even if only for our own education.

I would like to add one more thing before I close this out - praise God you and I, as well as many others here, are focused on the right thing first - God. Everything else on this earth pales in comparison to Him. The Bible is indeed the redemptive story of mankind by the loving Creator God. Praises be to Him!
 
Jason: I think you're completely right about unapologetically approaching the topic with confidence. The minute people sense shame, they will capitalize on that to belittle, ridicule, and dismiss. I don't know if it's interesting or not, or perhaps coincidental, but I test as INTJ. Just to clarify, I don't start from a position of weakness or embarassment; the way I perceive it, I start from a position of strength. That's why I made my points about the number of monogamists vs. polygamists. Really, it's fascinating to me, but not conclusive either way if so-and-so had more than one wife. Maybe it's my personality, but my approach has always been to disarm emotional responses and stick to facts. My strategy is to avoid side issues and cut straight to the heart by asking, "What is God's opinion?" Like you said too, if you live openly and others make assertions about your family, then the burden is on them to establish their indefensible position. Then, it's time to go for check-mate -- with courtesy and respect, of course.

But back to the topic, do you really think that only a minority of the ancients were monogamists? It seems to me (although I can't prove it), that polygamy would be more likely among the wealthy and ruling class, as it is today in polygamist societies, with a minority of men overall practicing it. A large portion of the confirmed polygamist husbands we read about in the Bible are men of wealth and power (tribe leaders, wealthy men, kings, etc). War could have increased the likelihood of polygamy, but peacetime and wives' death during childbirth would decrease the chances of multiple wives being available to the majority of the men.

ZecAustin: We build and learn from each other. I've continue to learn from people here at BF, even though I don't post all that often.
Aineo: Amen to your closing paragraph!
 
I don't post that much either, but, believe me, I'm certain many eyes are very interested in what is being discussed.

Thank you and, please, continue.

:)
 
Good research Joe. I agree many of those were probably monogamous. In some cases we know for certain that at a particular point in time they were monogamous - Adam, Noah & his sons - but it is only a snapshot so even then does not prove conclusively that they were monogamous their entire lives (although I think it is highly improbable that Adam took one of his daughters as a second wife, so I presume he was always monogamous!).

Aineo is correct that when stating something is sinful, the burden of proof is on the person claiming it is a sin. However the monogamists are so used to thinking they are right that they will struggle to accept the burden of proof is on them. So however much we point that out logically, emotion will prevail... And we need to assume the burden of proof if we are to even have a conversation with them.

Ultimately this does come down to emotion far more than logic.

Regarding Moses, Josephus clearly describes his marriage to his Ethiopian wife - and it occurred while he was serving Pharoah, before fleeing to Midian (long story short, Moses was general of Pharoah's army in a war against Ethiopia, won, and married a princess as part of the peace deal). Josephus doesn't have the authority of scripture, but in this case his account lines up with scripture in many different ways so seems sound. This means he married his Ethiopian wife first, then his Midianite wife, then his Ethiopian one is mentioned again in scripture, making the two certainly concurrent.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/284 ... k22HCH0010
 
Ever read the Book of Jasher? Awesome read, my kids beg to be read to from it. Mentioned twice in the Bible. It should have more weight, therefore, than even Josephus, but yes, it does state that Moses ruled over Cush after fleeing Egypt, before arriving in Midian. It states that Moses WAS married to the Cushite (Ethiopian) Queen before marrying Zipporah, the Midianite, Jethro's daughter, however, it says that Moses never actually had sexual relations with the Cushite because of the curse on Ham's descendants. So, yes, according to Jasher, Moses was a polygynist, but Miriam was wrong to condemn him for being married to the Cushite. Jasher gives us more information on WHO this Cushite woman was, and WHY Miriam condemned him for marrying her, and WHY YHUH declared Him innocent in His sight.
 
My only problem with this is that the book of Jasher that we have today doesn't appear to have existed before maybe 1625. I believe wholeheartedly that a book of Jasher existed and that it has some historically accurate material (although it couldn't have been scripture or it would have survived) but I don't think we have a copy of that work available to us.
 
I'm with Zec. There are several books floating around all claiming to be the book of Jasher. Josephus has more legitimacy than all of them in my view. Remember that it is highly likely that if the original book of Jasher was still in existence he would have accessed and used it in compiling his "antiquities", alongside other sources, so his work should contain the key facts from it anyway.

Wikipedia is far from an ideal reference here, but these two articles on claimed books of Jasher are interesting. Which do you refer to, or are you referring to a different one again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefer_haYashar_(midrash)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Jasher_(Pseudo-Jasher)

The idea that Moses would not have had sex with his additional wife sounds like a detail put in by a modern monogamist forger because he couldn't stand the idea of Moses being a polygamist so had to mitigate it somewhat, so reinforces in my mind the skepticism we need to hold the book of Jasher with.

I'm not rejecting all such apocryphal texts. For instance, the book of Enoch we have ancient copies of so seems fairly sound (maybe not inspired, I just mean we can read the original). It's just Jasher that is questionable.
 
Yes, there are different "versions" of Jasher out there, just as there are different "versions" of the modern canon out there. My NLT will differ from your KJV, for example. Then there's the differences between the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Septuagint, neither being original or VERY ancient. Then there's the copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls, more recently found, which are much older. But if that matters to some, I have read more than one version, and the stories about the Cushite woman are the same. The version I own is the Restoration Scriptures True Name Edition.

There is much speculation about when the Book of Jasher was written, even among scholars. I could care less. What matters to me is, is it in line with scripture? I have read it several times, and have determined that it does support scripture, and let us not forget, it's mentioned twice in the scriptures, in the New and the Old Testaments. It also increases my faith, just as scripture increases my faith. As far as any doubts to why Moses would not lie with her, if you read the Book of Jasher, you see that this was an incredibly wicked woman who later turned against Moses and overthrew his rule in Cush and had her son, Moses's step-son, the son of her first husband, take Moses's place as King of Cush. She turned all the people against him and they sent him away, though in peace. Again, she was a descendant of Ham, who's seed was cursed, and she was unrepentant, so Moses would not want to multiply with her because that seed would most likely turn out like her. Moses knew a little leaven leavens the whole lump. Moses did not TAKE her as a wife, she was given to him by the people of Cush. He did not consummate the marriage, so he was innocent in YHUH's eyes.
 
I'm not talking about different versions of the same book, I'm talking about completely different books with the same name.
I'm not sure which "Jasher" Rabbi Moshe has used in that translation, but I've got a copy coming in the mail any day so I can figure it out then! :D But I would assume he'd be using the Sefer haYashar midrash.

This work is not accepted by rabbinical Judaism to be the "book of the upright" mentioned in scripture. Rather, it is believed to be an interesting recent book that happens to have the same name. See here on:
Biblical "book of the upright": http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... er-book-of
Sefer haYashar midrash: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... r-sefer-ha

I believe Moshe has been far too quick to assume it is the book referred to in scripture against the opinion of most other scholars. I could be wrong of course. But it would be prudent to hold this book with a high degree of scepticism just in case.
 
And that's not to say it doesn't have value or shouldn't be read. I still value James Dobson's books although I disagree with him on almost anything. I just can't accept that the modern book of Jasher isn't exactly that, modern.
 
I agree with Zec and FollowingHim. If a book was apparently written in 1600AD, then it's around 3000 years too late to tell us anything relevant about ancient culture in which Moses lived. If someone wrote a book today, would it be considered "faith-building" to readers 200 years from now? If so, how can we make arguments against the many additions to Scripture from Ellen G. White, Mary Baker Eddy, and Joseph Smith in the mid-1800s? We can't.

I'll stick with the Bible, even when it means I have to say "we just don't know, but it's possible that..." Because after reading the supposed Book of Jasher, we're still in the same place, i.e. "we don't know, but it's possible that ..." However, our perception of the Bible has been skewed by another author. As for me, there's plenty in the Bible for me to prove essential doctrine and to demonstrate ideals that I will spend the rest of my lifetime seeking repentance to approach. Like someone once said, "It's not the parts of Scripture I don't understand that scare me, it's the parts I do understand."
 
joe88 said:
However, our perception of the Bible has been skewed by another author. As for me, there's plenty in the Bible for me to prove essential doctrine and to demonstrate ideals that I will spend the rest of my lifetime seeking repentance to approach. Like someone once said, "It's not the parts of Scripture I don't understand that scare me, it's the parts I do understand."
Click to expand...

I love this! It really speaks to me who is an "in the moment" person. I am busy trying to walk out the things God has shown me up to this point to focus on all the things I don't understand yet. Though sometimes I do a bit of wishful thinking of how it will all make sense when I see His face. Thanks for sharing Joe!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top