• 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.

My Conversation with a Pastor

Stupid question of the day, that I don't really feel like creating a separate thread for. Why does nearly everyone on this forum refer to God as Yah. His name is Yahweh (or something similar), or YHWH. Not Yah. Why are y'all continuing to abbreviate his name. I call Him Yahweh, his actual name. What's the point of abbreviating God's name.
David did. [Call Him "Yah."] So did Moshe on occasion. Hallelulah (spelled differently in 600+ known languages, even with different character sets) is still pronounced the same. And it literally means "Praise ye Yah."

But I contend there is compelling evidence that the 'vowel pointers' for YHVH (Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey) is almost certainly thus pronounced "Yahuah". (Links on request.)

Ironically, Y'shua or Yeshua is already a shorter nickname for the more formal Yahusha or Yahushua, the "Salvation of Yah."
 
Last edited:
David did. [Call Him "Yah."] So did Moshe on occasion. Hallelulah (spelled differently in 600+ known languages, even with different character sets, is still pronounced the same. And it literally means "Praise ye Yah."

But I contend there is compelling evidence that the 'vowel pointers' for YHVH (Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey) is almost certainly thus pronounced "Yahuah". (Links on request.)

Ironically, Y'shua or Yeshua is already a shorter nickname for the more formal Yahusha or Yahushua, the "Salvation of Yah."
Thanks for the detailed answer.
 
David did. [Call Him "Yah."] So did Moshe on occasion. Hallelulah (spelled differently in 600+ known languages, even with different character sets, is still pronounced the same. And it literally means "Praise ye Yah."

But I contend there is compelling evidence that the 'vowel pointers' for YHVH (Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey) is almost certainly thus pronounced "Yahuah". (Links on request.)

Ironically, Y'shua or Yeshua is already a shorter nickname for the more formal Yahusha or Yahushua, the "Salvation of Yah."
True reason is biological/physical.

We want to save energy, so we prefer shorter forms. It is long term trend in all brances of language.

For example from navy:
Aircraft carrier into carrier
Torpedo boat destroyer into destroyer
United States Navy (official name) into Navy or USN
 
Stupid question of the day, that I don't really feel like creating a separate thread for. Why does nearly everyone on this forum refer to God as Yah. His name is Yahweh (or something similar), or YHWH. Not Yah. Why are y'all continuing to abbreviate his name. I call Him Yahweh, his actual name. What's the point of abbreviating God's name.

Educate me.
Psalm 68:4 (KJV)
Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him.

Psalm 68:4 (NKJV)
Sing to God, sing praises to His name;
Extol Him who rides on the clouds,
By His name YAH,
And rejoice before Him.

This shortened form of YHWH, YH, is actually very common in scripture, it appears 49 times in the Hebrew. However, in English most translations just substitute "LORD" for both YH and YHWH, so it's lost in translation. And even the KJV and NKJV substitute "LORD" all 48 other times it is used, only preserving it in Psalm 68:4. But it is preserved in this verse, where we are told to actually use this as His name.
 
Kind of makes one ponder the reason...both of the substitution and for the single preservation.

I suppose an interesting question would be about precedence. Was it preserved in translations prior to the KJV? If so, perhaps the KJV set a precedent and future translators went with it to not rock the boat, so to speak.

...would provide context, but that it was done at all for any reason seems strange as it would seem that, of all things, this would be something someone might want to put effort into getting accurate.
 
Kind of makes one ponder the reason...both of the substitution and for the single preservation.
The 'reason' is often listed in the frontispiece of English Bibles: it was a 'jewish tradition' to NOT pronounce 'the innefable Name of HaShem' (the 'name of TheName) - because the peonage/laity/deplorables/unwashed might get it wrong. So, instead, HIDE it from them. The 'church' decided that was one tradition they were still OK with. ;) (Taking His Name 'in vain' does NOT mean saying the GD word - at best that's just His title.)

So they replace[d] the Name (tetragrammatron, YHVH/Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey) with capital-LORD in over 7000 occurrences in the Hebrew Scriptures (the later Greek renderings obfuscated it even more, since some tried to preserve proper nouns, others did not. I find it 'humorous' that there are Greek texts and ancient commentaries that say essentially the "name of the Hebrew diety was 'Pipi' - for reasons that make sense, once you see it...hint: think 'pi' and right-to-left...

Orthodox jews are taught the 'rules' for replacing His Name when they read Scripture. (again, if there are requests...) You may have noticed 'variations' if you have seen it.

But I contend, and teach - because He does! - that we are to 'know His Name.' He says it so often in Exodus alone that it is literally the THEME of the Book: "ki ani YHVH" You will know, Pharoah will know, they will know, the world world will know, "ki ani YHVH" - "that My NAME is Yahuah."

Later, virtually every prophet declares the same thing, often repeatedly, and often in conjunction with times that look VERY much like today:

[My people will know...] ki ani YHVH.

(Ezek. 36:23, Jer. 16:21 etc, and similar in places like Isaiah 52:6, Ezek. 39:7, and Revelation 2:13, 3:8. And don't forget Joel 2:32; wow, that one loses a LOT in mis-translation!)
 
Stupid question of the day, that I don't really feel like creating a separate thread for. Why does nearly everyone on this forum refer to God as Yah. His name is Yahweh (or something similar), or YHWH. Not Yah. Why are y'all continuing to abbreviate his name. I call Him Yahweh, his actual name. What's the point of abbreviating God's name.

Educate me.
None of those are His Name, we don’t know His Name.
 
Stupid question of the day, that I don't really feel like creating a separate thread for. Why does nearly everyone on this forum refer to God as Yah. His name is Yahweh (or something similar), or YHWH. Not Yah. Why are y'all continuing to abbreviate his name. I call Him Yahweh, his actual name. What's the point of abbreviating God's name.

Educate me.
Psalm 68:4 NKJV — Sing to God, sing praises to His name; Extol Him who rides on the clouds, By His name YAH, And rejoice before Him.
 
So they replace[d] the Name (tetragrammatron, YHVH/Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey) with capital-LORD

And thereby made LORD another name for God.
 
I suppose an interesting question would be about precedence. Was it preserved in translations prior to the KJV? If so, perhaps the KJV set a precedent and future translators went with it to not rock the boat, so to speak.
Geneva bible:
Sing vnto God, and sing prayses vnto his name: exalt him that rideth vpon the heauens, in his Name Iah, and reioyce before him.

The earlier Coverdale and Matthew translations use "Lord". Looks like the Geneva did it first. The KJV, as usual, is a nearly word-for-word copy of the Geneva, which was the truly scholarly work that underlies it.

But all later translations reverted to the earlier precedent set by Coverdale of using "Lord".

Coverdale:
Oh synge vnto God, synge prayses vnto his name: magnifie him yt rydeth aboue the heaues (whose name is ye LORDE) & reioyse before hi.
 
I agree.
So what is the solution?
Have Dr. William Luck or one of us, come to your church and debate it with the pastor. Let the pastor take the anti-polygyny position so that he can claim that he was only defending that position, and let him use all the old familiar arguments that have been thoroughly refuted, and let Dr. William Luck or whoever it is, dismantle those arguments.
 
Stupid question of the day, that I don't really feel like creating a separate thread for. Why does nearly everyone on this forum refer to God as Yah. His name is Yahweh (or something similar), or YHWH. Not Yah. Why are y'all continuing to abbreviate his name. I call Him Yahweh, his actual name. What's the point of abbreviating God's name.

Educate me.
I think that is the TO crowd. You know, in Romania, they say Dumnezeu, and in Spanish, it is Dios.
 
I just got an interesting email. I don't think the lady who sent it, came up with this on her own. I think she got this from the pastor. I will include a portion of what she said:

Notes on Polygamy
“It is impossible for a man and woman to become one flesh when one of them is married to more than one spouse.

While polygamous marriages are recorded in the Bible, one should not conclude that God approved of them. The Bible records deeds of wickedness as well as righteousness. At no time does God give approval for multiple spouses. In fact, from the beginning God intended for marriage to be between one man and one woman. In the Old Testament, God prohibited kings from having multiple wives, and in the New Testament He prohibited church leaders from having multiple wives. One should not conclude that God approves of multiple husbands either. Kings and elders are to be examples for others to follow (Deuteronomy 17:15-17; Hebrews 13:7; 1 Peter 5:3). God’s pattern for the family is monogamous marriages.”

“Those who seek approval for polygamy in the pages of scripture ignore the lesson we are to learn from the original marriage that God created in Genesis 2:18-25. The lesson is that God did not give Adam multiple wives but one wife. She was Eve. They also ignore Deuteronomy 17:17; 1 Corinthians 7:2 and 1 Timothy 3:2. They ignore the fact that God allows us to sin and be disobedient. They ignore the truth that God will judge those who sin, if not here in this life then in the life to come.”

“1 Corinthians 7:2 Does Not Teach Polygamy
Polygamists want us to believe that 1 Corinthians 7:2 reveals God approves of polygamy. They state that the relationship between the husband and wife are different and, supposedly, heautou and idios reveal a difference in ownership. However, they miss the most obvious point that idios reveals the husband is the exclusive property of the wife. The family is the property of the husband.
Notice that even though the meaning of heautou and idios are relatively close in meaning, idios still has a weakened sense of “private.” That is, the husband is possessed by the wife. He is her exclusive property. Notice that Mark 4:34 is a good example of idios.
. . . and He did not speak to them without a parable; but He was explaining everything privately to His own disciples. Mark 4:34 (NASB)
Jesus’ disciples were His disciples. They were not the disciples of another teacher.Therefore, the husband is the exclusive property of the wife. No other woman owns him.
In addition, note that 1 Corinthians 7:4 reveals that the body of the husband belongs to the wife and the wife’s body belongs to the husband.
The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 1 Corinthians 7:4 (NASB)
The two English words “own” come from the same Greek word which is idios. That is, each spouse’s body is the exclusive property of the other spouse. The husband and wife are not independent of one another.”
Either she got it from him, or she found it online. I would like to respond, but I find the I Cor 7:2 section interesting, and I would like to get a better idea of how to address it before I finish my response. The first part is easy to address, and I have already prepared responses, but I thought you might find that part interesting, so I went ahead and included it.

EDIT: She found the I Cor 7:2 section on the neverthirsty.org website. That leads me to believe that she didn't reach out to the pastor to get his response. There is nothing better than trying to respond to someone who plagerizes something and fails to cite their source. https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-...on/is-polygamy-supported-by-1-corinthians-72/

EDIT EDIT: On second thought, she may have gotten that response from the pastor, who copied/pasted the article from neverthirsty.org in his response.
 
Last edited:
I just got an interesting email. I don't think the lady who sent it, came up with this on her own. I think she got this from the pastor. I will include a portion of what she said:


Either she got it from him, or she found it online. I would like to respond, but I find the I Cor 7:2 section interesting, and I would like to get a better idea of how to address it before I finish my response. The first part is easy to address, and I have already prepared responses, but I thought you might find that part interesting, so I went ahead and included it.

EDIT: She found the I Cor 7:2 section on the neverthirsty.org website. That leads me to believe that she didn't reach out to the pastor to get his response. There is nothing better than trying to respond to someone who plagerizes something and fails to cite their source. https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-...on/is-polygamy-supported-by-1-corinthians-72/

EDIT EDIT: On second thought, she may have gotten that response from the pastor, who copied/pasted the article from neverthirsty.org in his response.
So here is what she said:
Thank you Daniel and Angela for taking the time to visit with me to share your views and why you’ve been separated from our church. Daniel, I am impressed that you have read the Bible so many times, and that you have done so much research on this topic. You are obviously a very intelligent man, and I definitely don’t claim in any way to be a scholar. After prayer and meditating with God this morning, I have to say that I stand by Pastor Dan. The Bible is very specific on this topic. I hope you will take the time to read through some of the research I have found. I’ve listed a few New Testament scriptures that back up my conclusions.

Thanks again and Peace Be With You through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I love you both and will continue to pray for your reverence to God, and my discernment of the truth.

<Name removed>


Notes on Polygamy
“It is impossible for a man and woman to become one flesh when one of them is married to more than one spouse.

While polygamous marriages are recorded in the Bible, one should not conclude that God approved of them. The Bible records deeds of wickedness as well as righteousness. At no time does God give approval for multiple spouses. In fact, from the beginning God intended for marriage to be between one man and one woman. In the Old Testament, God prohibited kings from having multiple wives, and in the New Testament He prohibited church leaders from having multiple wives. One should not conclude that God approves of multiple husbands either. Kings and elders are to be examples for others to follow (Deuteronomy 17:15-17; Hebrews 13:7; 1 Peter 5:3). God’s pattern for the family is monogamous marriages.”

“Those who seek approval for polygamy in the pages of scripture ignore the lesson we are to learn from the original marriage that God created in Genesis 2:18-25. The lesson is that God did not give Adam multiple wives but one wife. She was Eve. They also ignore Deuteronomy 17:17; 1 Corinthians 7:2 and 1 Timothy 3:2. They ignore the fact that God allows us to sin and be disobedient. They ignore the truth that God will judge those who sin, if not here in this life then in the life to come.”

“1 Corinthians 7:2 Does Not Teach Polygamy
Polygamists want us to believe that 1 Corinthians 7:2 reveals God approves of polygamy. They state that the relationship between the husband and wife are different and, supposedly, heautou and idios reveal a difference in ownership. However, they miss the most obvious point that idios reveals the husband is the exclusive property of the wife. The family is the property of the husband.
Notice that even though the meaning of heautou and idios are relatively close in meaning, idios still has a weakened sense of “private.” That is, the husband is possessed by the wife. He is her exclusive property. Notice that Mark 4:34 is a good example of idios.
. . . and He did not speak to them without a parable; but He was explaining everything privately to His own disciples. Mark 4:34 (NASB)
Jesus’ disciples were His disciples. They were not the disciples of another teacher.Therefore, the husband is the exclusive property of the wife. No other woman owns him.
In addition, note that 1 Corinthians 7:4 reveals that the body of the husband belongs to the wife and the wife’s body belongs to the husband.
The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 1 Corinthians 7:4 (NASB)
The two English words “own” come from the same Greek word which is idios. That is, each spouse’s body is the exclusive property of the other spouse. The husband and wife are not independent of one another.”

Twisting Gods Word
2 Timothy 4:3-4
As he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
2 Peter 3:16
As he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Romans 16:17-20
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil. The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
Revelation 22:18-19
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
2 Corinthians 11:14-15
And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.
1 Timothy 4:1
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,
Galatians 1:6-9
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
1 Timothy 6:3-5
If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.
2 Peter 2:1
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
2 Peter 1:20-21
Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

And here is my response:
First I want to sayt that I agree wholeheartedly that we should not twist God's Word. Unfortunately that is a lot of what i see in the first part of your response. As far as Rom 16:17-20 is concerned, we could say this about the entire Reformation movement, and how it caused division to the point where now we have the Protestant churches and the supposedly "one true Catholic church", and I KNOW you don't want to go there and try to say that we should not have had that division! There are indeed times where we need to restore the church back to its original teachings, and as I mentioned to you last night, Martin Luther was clearly pro-polygyny. I can cite some of his writings for you if you don't believe me. I find it interesting that you included I Tim 4:1, but left out verses 2-3 which tell us some of these false teachings. Among them, is the "forbidding marriage". How many women in the church have been forbidden marriage? I told you last night about the 81 year old woman up in Seagoville who finally got married after her husband's first wife died. Is it the por-polygyny people that are forbidding her marriage, or the monogamy only crowd? Use the discernment that God has given you! Forbidding marriage is a doctrine of demons and it really needs to stop! If you want to see who the false teachers are spoken of in I Peter 2:1, read that book I recommended to you on the truthbearer.org website Here is the link: Books -- The History and Philosophy of Marriage - TruthBearer.Org --- Bringing Christian Polygamy to the Churches!

You said,
It is impossible for a man and woman to become one flesh when one of them is married to more than one spouse.
Why? Where is this shown in Scripture?

You said:
While polygamous marriages are recorded in the Bible, one should not conclude that God approved of them. The Bible records deeds of wickedness as well as righteousness.
This is not sufficient reason to argue either that God approved or disapproved of them, but it is sufficient reason to realize that God recognized that this is a possible definiton of marriage.

You said:
The Bible records deeds of wickedness as well as righteousness.
That is irrelevant. Whenever the Bible records deeds of wickedness, we typically find God sending a prophet or directly telling the individual that what he did was wicked. This NEVER occurs whenever there is an instance of polygamy except in the case of David, when he took another man's wife, and in the instance of Solomon, who clearly violated the warning against multiplying wives, as spoken in Deut 17:14-17.


Books -- The History and Philosophy of Marriage - TruthBearer.Org --- Br...​

Mark, the Founder
The History and Philosophy of Marriage or Polygamy and Monogamy Compared at TruthBearer.org


You said:
At no time does God give approval for multiple spouses.
Even if we accept that this were true, and it is not, we can also see that at no time did God ever disapporove of having multiple wives. I find it interesting you chose to use the word "spouses", a word that is only found one time in all of Scripture. Most of the time it uses either the term "husband" or "wife". God gives distinct unamiguous disapproval of having multiple husbands, but somehow failed to also mention any disapproval for having multple wives. You ought to be intelligent enough to see that this is an Argument From Silence fallacy.

You said:
In fact, from the beginning God intended for marriage to be between one man and one woman.
This is the Argument from example fallacy.

You siad:
In the Old Testament, God prohibited kings from having multiple wives,
This is dishonest and twisting Scripture. It says not to multply wives and horses andssilver or gold. Do you honestly believe that we should expel people who have more than one horse or who have a lot of silver or gold in their IRA? If not, you are being inconsistent in your application of that verse.

You said:
and in the New Testament He prohibited church leaders from having multiple wives.
That is a reasonable prohibition. In the FLDS, we see that the prophet seems to be the one who gets all the wives. Not all of us are called to be deacons, bishops, or elders. Some of us have more of a calling to be singers or musicians or serve in other areas of the church. I wouldn't necessarily refer to that so much as being a prohibition from having multiple wives, but more, the deacons, bishops and elders whom Timothy and Titus were to choose from among the congregation would be men who have one wife. Single men were also prohibited from being chosen! Does this mean that we should expel men who have zero wives? If not, I find agani an inconsistent application of that passage.

You said:
One should not conclude that God approves of multiple husbands either. Kings and elders are to be examples for others to follow (Deuteronomy 17:15-17; Hebrews 13:7; 1 Peter 5:3)
Deut 17:15-17 says no such thing regarding kings being an example to follow. Many kings certainly left examples that the people should not have followed, but they did so anyway, to their own demise. Heb 13:7 says that we are to imitate the leader's faith, not marriages. I Pet 5:2-3 are instructions to the leaders, not the congregation.

You said:
God’s pattern for the family is monogamous marriages.
That is a bunch of malarchy! You don't make a pattern out of one example. There is nowhere in Scripture that says that this is the pattern that everyone is supposed to follow.
You said:
Those who seek approval for polygamy in the pages of scripture ignore the lesson we are to learn from the original marriage that God created in Genesis 2:18-25
Oh that marriage worked out so well that the woman ended up being deceived by the serpent, and her husband followed suit, bringing sin into the world upon all mankind. If you want a good lesson from that marriage, it is that the husband should lead his wife and not allow her to drag him into disobedience against God.

You siad:
The lesson is that God did not give Adam multiple wives but one wife. She was Eve.
OK, that is patently false. No one is ignoring the fact that God only made one wife for Adam. This is absurdly ludicrous! What does that have to do with the rest of us? The only thing we can legitimately draw from this, is the fact that having two or more wives is not required, but the only people who believe that having three wives is required, are the FLDS folks who think this is some sort of requirement to get into the Celestial kingdom!

You said:
They also ignore Deuteronomy 17:17
No we don't!

You said:
1 Corinthians 7:2 and 1 Timothy 3:2
If that were arequirement, then why do we not expel men and women who have ZERO wives/husbands? Those who argue against polygyny, and twist I Cor 7:2 in their efforts, deliberately ignore the context of I Cor 7:2. In fact, only a few verses down, we have Paul saying this:
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord)
Have you ever asked yourself why Paul is clearly saying that v 10-12 is a command from teh Lord, and not simply Paul's suggestions? Could it not be because v 1-9 are Paul's admonitions for how to avoid fornication, rather than an explicit command that everyone is to follow. Paul is saying that it is good to not marry, but in order to avoid fornication, go ahead and get married. That is all he is saying in verse 2.

I Timothy 3:2 is only for the selection of the leader, but again, those who use that verse ignore the fact that it is specifically regarding those offices that Paul was writing about.

You said:
They ignore the fact that God allows us to sin and be disobedient.
That is patently false! We know that we have approval for having more than one wife (polygyny), because God's Word never condemns it, and because God's Word clearly says that it is not sin. I cited the passage in Psalms 18:20-24, but you seem to have totally disregarded that passage! I could also cite Gen 20:5-6 and Numbers 12 and II Samuel 12:8 and II Chron 24:1-3, 15-16 and Ezekiel 23:1-5 and Matt 25:1-13

I noticed that you cut and pasted the article from I Cor 7:2 from neverthirsty.org, but you did not cite your source. I was able to find it using google. If I Cor 7:2 were an explicit command, and if we were to apply it consistently, we would have to expel everyone who refuses to marry. Do you really believe that we ought to do that? That would mean you, since you don't have your own husband, and you do not wish to remarry!
 
Last edited:
RE: That "interesting email."

Too much 'churchianity' in there masquerading as "Scripture."

"Baffle 'em with BS," isn't in the Bible, but it IS in the Satanic Playbook, it would seem.

This, for just one example, is easily refuted: (and has been, here, MANY times. I've done it myself more times than I can count.)

At no time does God give approval for multiple spouses.
A 'pulled punch' is too kind. That is a bald-faced lie. See Exodus 21:10, et al. YHVH does not explain HOW to do that which He prohibits!!! [Edit: or - three times - mandates.]

Which brings me to the easy, undeniable, and UTTERLY hateful to the Whore Church Truth:

ANYBODY who changes His Written Instruction, which Yahushua Himself NEVER changed,-- not "one yod or tiddle --" is a "liar and the Truth is not in him."

Period.

When you argue 'Greek grammar,' and even idios vs heatou --
it IGNORES His Own Immutable STANDARD:

He never changed it. NOT even a little.

And if some letter written to people in Corinth or anywhere else suggest differently - then guess Who is still NOT wrong?
 
Last edited:
A 'pulled punch' is too kind. That is a bald-faced lie. See Exodus 21:10, et al. YHVH does not explain HOW to do that which He prohibits!!! [Edit: or - three times - mandates.]
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Just substitute "state" with "church", and a few other nice substitutes. I think it applies equally.

Proper citations of course: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joseph-goebbels-on-the-quot-big-lie-quot
 
OK, so perhaps she just pulled everything off the internet...

Here is her response:
Daniel, I don’t wish to argue with your points. I’m not a theologian, and I depend on the Lord alone to direct my paths. I absolutely believe polygamy is wrong in the eyes of God. I wish the best for you in whatever path you take.

She is small fish, not worth me trying to persuade her. If she had gotten her response from the pastor, I would expect more back and forth.
 
She is small fish, not worth me trying to persuade her. If she had gotten her response from the pastor, I would expect more back and forth.
If a person believes something is a sin; e.g. eating meat on Friday, or drinking wine, or something else, it's right for that person not to do those things. They are not sinning for following their conscience. They may miss out on enjoying e.g. a sumptuous steak meal with a glass of fine red wine one Friday evening or some other blessings, but that's their loss. However, the sad reality is false teachers have poisoned the minds of women against an opportunity for them to enjoy and benefit of a lifelong union with a godly man. By teaching polygyny is a sin, when God gives no law against polygyny to make it a sin, those false teachers have destroyed any hope for joy and happiness for so many Christian women.

The need to teach the truth remains. There are so many caught up in the lies and deceit who, if they knew and believed the truth, could experience God's favour and blessings. Don't give up on this poor deceived woman, @Daniel DeLuca, but remember she is the victim of a man spinning lies that are doctrines of demons. Only the truth can deliver such a one from those lies and someone needs to be proclaiming the truth to her!
 
Back
Top