• 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.

Support Little Help? LIVE Polygyny Debate Online Next Week!

robbkowalski

robbkowalski

New Member
Real Person
Male
We are having a scriptural debate online on Thursday, December 21st at 9 pm EST. I would love to have as many of you as possible show up and fire questions and comments at the opposing side to trip them up. You can set a reminder here:

Also, we just started a Facebook Messenger chat for the Biblical Families Facebook group. If you haven't joined the Facebook group yet, you can do so here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/BiblicalFamilies

You can join the Messenger chat directly here: https://m.me/ch/AbbUChsITmhyELOR/

Looking forward to meeting many of you at the retreat next month! If any single men are interested in splitting a room, shoot me an email, rob@robbkowalski.com

12-11-23 Thumbnail Polygyny Debate (2).png
 
I don't know if I will be able to attend, but I wanted share a good rebuttal to the most common thing used from the monogamy only side of the debate. I hear them say a lot that if Polygyny was the design then why was just Adam and Eve made and not Adam with multiple wives made?, and using that passage to show that one man one wife was the design all along and that Yahuah just tolerated it in the old testament days.

A good rebuttal to that and I don't see anyone use this ---- so today a man is suppose to wait to be put to sleep, have a wife made from our rib and then have our children marry each other to start procreating for the earth for the first time?

to me it seems pretty clear this was a one time event done this way for a reason. I'm not sure what they would say to that, but I do think its a very valid point in rebuttal
 
Torahobservantmmck86 said:
I don't know if I will be able to attend, but I wanted share a good rebuttal to the most common thing used from the monogamy only side of the debate. I hear them say a lot that if Polygyny was the design then why was just Adam and Eve made and not Adam with multiple wives made?, and using that passage to show that one man one wife was the design all along and that Yahuah just tolerated it in the old testament days.

A good rebuttal to that and I don't see anyone use this ---- so today a man is suppose to wait to be put to sleep, have a wife made from our rib and then have our children marry each other to start procreating for the earth for the first time?

to me it seems pretty clear this was a one time event done this way for a reason. I'm not sure what they would say to that, but I do think its a very valid point in rebuttal
Click to expand...
Description is not prescription. Scripture interprets scripture. The fact that God gave Adam one wife does not constitute a universal command of monogamy. We must remember that God also gave David multiple wives, and blessed Jacob/Israel in his polygamous state, bidding Him to be fruitful and multiply (like Adam and Eve). Moreover the prophets Ezekiel and Jeremiah inform us that God Himself has more than one wife.

Marriage is regulated by the actual commands of God which are mainly found in Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers. The commands pertaining to marriage make it clear that polygyny is marriage, not adultery or immorality.

The rest of the Bible confirms this fact.

Proper hermeneutics will not allow us to come to any other conclusion.
 
Something I have been trying to wrap my head around is if the OT was done away with, how can anything from it be stood on for the morals of now? I often see arguments made by NT believers about the OT to support NT beliefs which subvert the OT. How does that even work? If it no longer applies you can't use it to argue for or against a point, if it's no longer valid you can only make your arguments from the NT.

Also in my opinion there needs to be vetting for the debaters. Someone who has never read the Bible in its entirety should not be debating against someone who has.
 
RemnantResilience said:
Something I have been trying to wrap my head around is if the OT was done away with, how can anything from it be stood on for the morals of now? I often see arguments made by NT believers about the OT to support NT beliefs which subvert the OT. How does that even work? If it no longer applies you can't use it to argue for or against a point, if it's no longer valid you can only make your arguments from the NT.

Also in my opinion there needs to be vetting for the debaters. Someone who has never read the Bible in its entirety should not be debating against someone who has.
Click to expand...
God is the same yesterday today and forever. The OT and NT both come from Him, reflect His character, and instruct us how we should live.

Personally, I try to come to the OT from a traditional protestant/reformed viewpoint, considering the three uses of the Law.

The dispensationalist view doesn't believe the OT Law applies any longer. The Torah observant view seems to believe that every OT command applies now the same as it did during the OT.

Most modern evangelicals are pretty dispensational while many people here are pretty Torah observance focused.

My personal conviction differs from both of those viewpoints.
 
Last edited:
robbkowalski said:
We are having a scriptural debate online on Thursday, December 21st at 9 pm EST. I would love to have as many of you as possible show up and fire questions and comments at the opposing side to trip them up. You can set a reminder here:

Also, we just started a Facebook Messenger chat for the Biblical Families Facebook group. If you haven't joined the Facebook group yet, you can do so here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/BiblicalFamilies

You can join the Messenger chat directly here: https://m.me/ch/AbbUChsITmhyELOR/

Looking forward to meeting many of you at the retreat next month! If any single men are interested in splitting a room, shoot me an email, rob@robbkowalski.com

View attachment 5793
Click to expand...

Wahoooo.... 👍
Go TEAM!
 
RemnantResilience said:
Something I have been trying to wrap my head around is if the OT was done away with, how can anything from it be stood on for the morals of now? I often see arguments made by NT believers about the OT to support NT beliefs which subvert the OT. How does that even work? If it no longer applies you can't use it to argue for or against a point, if it's no longer valid you can only make your arguments from the NT.
Click to expand...
If the 'NT' somehow 'did away with' the 'OT' - then it's a Lie and the Truth is not in it.

It's a bit like saying "what if the Supreme Court did away with the Constitution?"

Then they have no excuse even to exist.
 
Bartato said:
The Torah observant view seems to believe that every OT command applies now the same as it did during the OT.
Click to expand...
Wrong. That's the problem with not understanding that the word 'torah' means INSTRUCTION.

Do you forget about basic math or science or history when you get an engineering degree? As if once you can do calculus you can't multiply and divide any more? Or do you just recognize wider applications of the "laws of nature"?

It's not like He changed them just because you have a bit more understanding.
 
RemnantResilience said:
@PeteR When Deut. 17 is brought up as the guidelines for all men, don't leave out the application of Deut. 17:18-19 on them as well. I bet not a single one has wrote their own Torah, let alone reads the one they have everyday.
Click to expand...
Also, insist that no man is ever allowed to own more than one horse. Verse 16 says exactly the same thing about horses that 17 says about wives.
 
RemnantResilience said:
@PeteR When Deut. 17 is brought up as the guidelines for all men, don't leave out the application of Deut. 17:18-19 on them as well. I bet not a single one has wrote their own Torah, let alone reads the one they have everyday.
Click to expand...
Make sure none of them have more than one vehicle. Modern day horses and all.
 
NickF said:
Make sure none of them have more than one vehicle. Modern day horses and all.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t the motors need to be limited to a single horsepower also?
I mean, hundreds!
How dare we?
 
TONIGHT IS THE NIGHT!!
We could use your support. Please pray for Pete Rambo and Bible Marriages, that they will present the truth clearly and effectively, and that God will open people's hearts and minds to His truth regarding this subject as people hear it.
Also, would love for you to show up and fire hard questions for me to ask the other two pastors on the opposing side.
9 pm EST. Set a reminder: https://www.facebook.com/events/3583380968646989/
 

Attachments

  • debate.jpeg
    debate.jpeg
    151 KB · Views: 2
Here's the Big One: If Yahushua said He wouldn't change "one yod or tiddle" of His Word, so long as heaven and earth still exist (Matthew 5:17-19) - they how did he do away with ALL of the parts that say a man may, and in some cases MUST, take an additional wife/wives?

And why is He then not "a liar, and the Truth not in Him?"

PS> That, of course, did not come up in the 'debate.' But JD would've just made something up anyway.
 
Last edited:
Good job, Pete (et al)...honestly, I ran out of patience with that snake JD. He not only didn't have a clue what "adultery," means, but took it upon Himself [sic] to say what God REAALLLY meant when the actual Written Word says something different that he wants.

He actually said that Abraham, Yakov, Gideon...and I lost track...were all "adulterers" because He knows what God should've said, and David evidently could not have been a "man after Yah's own heart."

I conclude he's a False Preacher of the Whore Church of Makin' S#!t Up. He even actually admitted at one point that he doesn't need to find his claims in actual print, 'cause they're from the "common sense" Bible (I'm not kidding.)

But the comments tended to prove that 'itching ears' trump His Word for those who worship the Lie.
 
I didn't see the whole debate, but the circular reasoning and logical fallacies were so bad I was embarrassed for those guys. Very sad they kept repeating that taking more than one wife is a sin yet had no command or law against it, nor any condemnation of a man for taking more than one wife. They kept saying foolish things like there is no law against abortion yet abortion is murder. It was quite pitiable.
 
It was very hard to watch. I lasted 5 minutes. Some people have more patience for fools than I do. That must be a gift from God. His Word never returns void, so I'm sure something said last night will take root and grow in those men's lives or the life of someone who watches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top