• 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.

Polygamous Christian in Roman Empire

MemeFan said:
Thread's title says all:

www.foxnews.com

1,700-year-old recently discovered Christian letter offers clues into how faithful lived centuries ago

Researchers unveiled a rare 1,700-year-old letter "not recorded in any other historical source," shedding new light into how early Christian believers lived.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

Hope nobody has made errors with translation
Click to expand...
Good find. Bookmarked as later fodder in arguments with those who will tell me that they can cite dozens of biblical verses stating polygamy is an explicit sin.
 
paterfamilias said:
Good find. Bookmarked as later fodder in arguments with those who will tell me that they can cite dozens of biblical verses stating polygamy is an explicit sin.
Click to expand...
Make them cite the verses… there aren’t any verses that state that polygyny is an explicit sin or even sort of kind of a sin. I know what you mean though.

I was reading the comments on the article and it doesn’t seem like anyone noticed that Paulus had “wives”. They were more fascinated by the fish liver sauce.
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
Make them cite the verses… there aren’t any verses that state that polygyny is an explicit sin or even sort of kind of a sin. I know what you mean though.

I was reading the comments on the article and it doesn’t seem like anyone noticed that Paulus had “wives”. They were more fascinated by the fish liver sauce.
Click to expand...
Heh...not my first rodeo by a long shot.
Only one has ever replied. That one with a passage so easily debunked that even a non expert such as myself had no trouble. They all go away and likely go away mad. Not just because they look like prize boobs for making the claim in the first place and not being able to backup their silly boast but also because most are pretty snotty about it. I do a good reply to snotty. Generally telling them it is not their fault for being culturally inculcated by so many generations of false narratives or words to that effect. Since I know they are not coming back, I don't feel bad about putting their teeth on edge. Plus to be frank, I am real clear on any dating profile. I am married. I am seeking polygamy. I spent several years as a polygamist. I am not interested in cheating or a fling etc. Plursl family only. So, either they were not bothering to read or they just wanted to harass the weird ole plyg when they initiate contact
 
Already discussed here, and the hint of polygamy is a misprint in a translation. The author of the book the erroneous text appeared in even confirmed it was a misprint. When rendered correctly there is no suggestion of polygamy. Sorry but it's not as exciting as it first seems.

3rd century Christian with more than one wife

This came across the FB feed today: https://www.foxnews.com/science/christian-letter-bible-discovery-rare "...Our lady mother is well and salutes you as well as your wives and sweetest children and our brothers and all our people. ..." So that's neat.
www.biblicalfamilies.org www.biblicalfamilies.org
FollowingHim said:
We discussed that letter on this thread. Turns out that was a misprint in one book (the author confirmed this was a misprint). A single letter "y" was accidentally added, turning "our" into "your", and introducing the entire apparent polygamy reference. The actual letter should read (after translation)
"...Our lady mother is well and salutes you as well as our wives and sweetest children and our brothers and all our people. ..."
Click to expand...
In other words, it is simply referring to the wives of the multiple men the author is writing on behalf of ("all our people"). No evidence of polygamy at all. Of course, some of those men could have been polygamous, but the letter offers no evidence in either direction.
Click to expand...
 
FollowingHim said:
Already discussed here, and the hint of polygamy is a misprint in a translation. The author of the book the erroneous text appeared in even confirmed it was a misprint. When rendered correctly there is no suggestion of polygamy. Sorry but it's not as exciting as it first seems.

3rd century Christian with more than one wife

This came across the FB feed today: https://www.foxnews.com/science/christian-letter-bible-discovery-rare "...Our lady mother is well and salutes you as well as your wives and sweetest children and our brothers and all our people. ..." So that's neat.
www.biblicalfamilies.org www.biblicalfamilies.org
Click to expand...
Lame
 
FollowingHim said:
Already discussed here, and the hint of polygamy is a misprint in a translation. The author of the book the erroneous text appeared in even confirmed it was a misprint. When rendered correctly there is no suggestion of polygamy. Sorry but it's not as exciting as it first seems.

3rd century Christian with more than one wife

This came across the FB feed today: https://www.foxnews.com/science/christian-letter-bible-discovery-rare "...Our lady mother is well and salutes you as well as your wives and sweetest children and our brothers and all our people. ..." So that's neat.
www.biblicalfamilies.org www.biblicalfamilies.org
Click to expand...
Bummer
 
Don't know the intricacies and not realistically apt to look into it but you would have thought that plural v singular of wife would be a tough one to mess up. Hey ho
 
It's not that they changed plural and singular - it's plural. They changed "our" to "your". The original is a letter from a family group, and says "our wives" send you greetings (e.g. my wife and my brother's wife send you greetings). That was incorrectly rendered as "your" making it sound like the greeting was being sent to a man with multiple wives - or actually potentially to a group of men each of whom had wives, so even that way it wouldn't really indicate polygamy either.

I know you want it to mean this @MemeFan, sorry to disappoint you. But you have to be careful not to jump to conclusions just because you want something to be true.
 
Last edited:
FollowingHim said:
It's not that they changed plural and singular - it's plural. They changed "our" to "your". The original is a letter from a family group, and says "our wives" send you greetings (e.g. my wife and my brother's wife send you greetings). That was incorrectly rendered as "your" making it sound like the greeting was being sent to a man with multiple wives - or actually potentially to a group of men each of whom had wives, so even that way it wouldn't really indicate polygamy either.

I know you want it to mean this @MemeFan, sorry to disappoint you. But you have to be careful not to jump to conclusions just because you want something to be true.
Click to expand...
We have the Word of God supporting the reality of polygyny. Honestly, that is enough.
 
Bartato said:
We have the Word of God supporting the reality of polygyny. Honestly, that is enough.
Click to expand...
True.

Have you ever read Tertullian’s De Monogomia? In it Tertullian laments the fact that christian men of his time were taking a plurality of wives. He claims that monogamy was a new revelation of the Holy Spirit after the Apostles died. It’s an interesting read and while I’m sure he would be spinning in his grave if he knew his writings were confirming that plural marriage is biblical, it’s one of the stronger cases that many early christians were polygynists. Also it shows clearly that the teaching of monogamy only was a post 1st century teaching and one that required “new revelation” because Scripture doesn’t teach it.
 
Good info and raking note of that one
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
True.

Have you ever read Tertullian’s De Monogomia? In it Tertullian laments the fact that christian men of his time were taking a plurality of wives. He claims that monogamy was a new revelation of the Holy Spirit after the Apostles died. It’s an interesting read and while I’m sure he would be spinning in his grave if he knew his writings were confirming that plural marriage is biblical, it’s one of the stronger cases that many early christians were polygynists. Also it shows clearly that the teaching of monogamy only was a post 1st century teaching and one that required “new revelation” because Scripture doesn’t teach it.
Click to expand...
I have not reas that, but it sounds very worthwhile. Thank you
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
True.

Have you ever read Tertullian’s De Monogomia? In it Tertullian laments the fact that christian men of his time were taking a plurality of wives. He claims that monogamy was a new revelation of the Holy Spirit after the Apostles died. It’s an interesting read and while I’m sure he would be spinning in his grave if he knew his writings were confirming that plural marriage is biblical, it’s one of the stronger cases that many early christians were polygynists. Also it shows clearly that the teaching of monogamy only was a post 1st century teaching and one that required “new revelation” because Scripture doesn’t teach it.
Click to expand...
I'm more interested what is Lord's punishment for his BS writing.

Probably only good part of book is historical evidence of Christian polygyny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top