-
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.
The most common objection to plural marriage
- Thread starter sicouple
- Start date
1. Obey the laws of the land - a gross oversimplification of which there are exceptions in Scripture, and in church history.
2. Out of wedlock - possibly out of civil wedlock, but not out of biblical wedlock - there are plenty of other posts on this one. What God has joined together let no man put asunder.
3. W..... - unwritten rule - under no circumstances must this word be printed in BF regardless of context, setting or background
. I will rephrase this one to "the Bible is clearly against creating a scandalous reputation for women of God". In response, I suggest that following God's laws and general outline for your life is more important than the opinions of others (says ylop the secret believer without the slightest hint of hypocrisy).
ylop
2. Out of wedlock - possibly out of civil wedlock, but not out of biblical wedlock - there are plenty of other posts on this one. What God has joined together let no man put asunder.
3. W..... - unwritten rule - under no circumstances must this word be printed in BF regardless of context, setting or background
. I will rephrase this one to "the Bible is clearly against creating a scandalous reputation for women of God". In response, I suggest that following God's laws and general outline for your life is more important than the opinions of others (says ylop the secret believer without the slightest hint of hypocrisy).ylop
sicouple
New Member
The word Christ used for mans "law" was properly translated into traditions. Traditions come and go and that's what makes them traditions. Law is something that is the same today, tomorrow and forever. Obviously the translators recognized the difference between mans "laws" and the "Laws of the land" because they translated one law and the other traditions. In short, the Bible is not telling us to obey the traditions of man over the laws of God. The laws of the land is Gods law!
You can't serve two masters. When the government of man comes against the government of God, we are to serve God and not fear those who can take our bodies but have no control over our eternal salvation..
You can't serve two masters. When the government of man comes against the government of God, we are to serve God and not fear those who can take our bodies but have no control over our eternal salvation..
sicouple
New Member
ylop said:
Your missing the point. God never said man has the right to pass laws that go against His. When men pass their own laws they are traditions and not laws at all. The Bible does not say follow the traditions of men. The Bible says Follow the "LAWS" of the land. Following the laws can only mean follow the only thing God considers law.
If we are following the laws of the land, we will be following Gods laws and not the traditions of men.
sicouple said:
I was just thinking this last night. As a young woman, I took a bible study with my Pastor who talked about the laws of man and that if we went against them then we were sinning. ie, if you go above the speed limit, we are ultimately sinning. I take every sin to be as bad as another. I did not post anything on this because I am not educated enough to know what laws are out there, polygamy. I am questioning myself a lot about the topic. In my personal opinion, I think polygamy is a win win, but my opinion does not count when it comes to the laws of the Bible. I was questioned the other night, and some of you read my note on face book in regard to a conversation I had with a woman at the book store and what happened afterward.
We not only discussed polygamy, but the "Cain's wives". Cains Wives is another forum post on here, which also talked about incest. Her views on that to me was this, "God is not corrupt and I do not believe that God only created Adam and Eve. Incest did not need to happen. I believe that God created more humans to procreate with." And of course she went to 1 Timothy ch.2 about the "one wife" deal. I feel like I am easily swayed on topics of the Lord.
I picked up a book on Southern Baptist and what it means to be one. So far I agree, the Word is law and the law was written by selected people of God's choosing. I tend to over analyze on everything, and when she talked of the Lord creating others, I had to stop and think for a minute. (It is possible, that God used his selected person to write Genesis to show an example and left others out, then I thought, that would just be stupid)
Even though I may be swayed with my thinkings to go further into investigations, I think I would stand trial and death if mans law said I could not practice and praise the Word of God. (Sin or not)
sicouple said:
Here are the definitions of the words translated as "law," "tradition," and "commandment."
An in-depth word study would be required to confirm or disprove this, but IMHO, it was not the translators who selected "law" or "tradition" or "commandment" according to the context, but what they used was an accurate translation of the actual Greek words.
Just because any given "law of the land" is not found in the Bible is not license for us to disregard it. But if any given "law of the land" contradicts something in the Bible (that is, obeying such a law would cause us to violate any of God's laws and commandments) we must choose whether we will render homage to God or to Caesar. "But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." (Joshua 24:15c)
As was noted, God added some laws and clarified others, not because He changed His mind, but because man changes over time. The incest laws are an excellent example of this. (There is a major discussion of this in the thread about Cain's Wives.) When Adam and Eve were created, they were genetically perfect. But when sin entered the world, mankind's DNA started to deteriorate. For the first approximately 2500 years, from the fall to the Exodus, genetic defects had not accumulated in the human gene pool to the point that it was dangerous for close relatives to marry and have offspring. But by the time of the giving of the Law (about 1490 BC give or take a few years) there were enough damaged genes in the human gene pool that if a brother and sister married and had children together, it was highly likely that both would have the same damaged gene and thus, their children would have birth defects.
Now, about 6,000 or so years after sin entered the world, there is so much accumulated genetic damage that it is likely that a couple who are first cousins will pass the same defective gene to their children, resulting in birth defects. So most states in the US now have laws prohibiting first cousins from marrying.
God did not change His underlying law (which could be stated as, "Do nothing to harm another human") but rather, told us about something (incest) that will likely cause that law to be violated.
Here's a "quick and dirty" word study. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus is talking about "the law, and the prophets." In Matthew 15:2, the Pharisees asked why Jesus' disciples "transgress the tradition of the elders." And in Matthew 15:3, Jesus asked, "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?"
Here are the definitions of the words translated as "law," "tradition," and "commandment."
- G3551 (law)
νόμος
nomos
Thayer Definition:
1) anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, a command
1a) of any law whatsoever
1a1) a law or rule producing a state approved of God
1a1a) by the observance of which is approved of God
1a2) a precept or injunction
1a3) the rule of action prescribed by reason
1b) of the Mosaic law, and referring, acc. to the context. either to the volume of the law or to its contents
1c) the Christian religion: the law demanding faith, the moral instruction given by Christ, especially the precept concerning love
1d) the name of the more important part (the Pentateuch), is put for the entire collection of the sacred books of the OT
Part of Speech: noun masculine
- tradition
G3862
παράδοσις
paradosis
Thayer Definition:
1) giving up, giving over
1a) the act of giving up
1b) the surrender of cities
2) a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc.
2a) objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching
2b) of the body of precepts, especially ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence
Part of Speech: noun feminine
- commandment
G1785
ἐντολή
entolē
Thayer Definition:
1) an order, command, charge, precept, injunction
1a) that which is prescribed to one by reason of his office
2) a commandment
2a) a prescribed rule in accordance with which a thing is done
2a1) a precept relating to lineage, of the Mosaic precept concerning the priesthood
2a2) ethically used of the commandments in the Mosaic law or Jewish tradition
Part of Speech: noun feminine
An in-depth word study would be required to confirm or disprove this, but IMHO, it was not the translators who selected "law" or "tradition" or "commandment" according to the context, but what they used was an accurate translation of the actual Greek words.
Just because any given "law of the land" is not found in the Bible is not license for us to disregard it. But if any given "law of the land" contradicts something in the Bible (that is, obeying such a law would cause us to violate any of God's laws and commandments) we must choose whether we will render homage to God or to Caesar. "But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." (Joshua 24:15c)
As was noted, God added some laws and clarified others, not because He changed His mind, but because man changes over time. The incest laws are an excellent example of this. (There is a major discussion of this in the thread about Cain's Wives.) When Adam and Eve were created, they were genetically perfect. But when sin entered the world, mankind's DNA started to deteriorate. For the first approximately 2500 years, from the fall to the Exodus, genetic defects had not accumulated in the human gene pool to the point that it was dangerous for close relatives to marry and have offspring. But by the time of the giving of the Law (about 1490 BC give or take a few years) there were enough damaged genes in the human gene pool that if a brother and sister married and had children together, it was highly likely that both would have the same damaged gene and thus, their children would have birth defects.
Now, about 6,000 or so years after sin entered the world, there is so much accumulated genetic damage that it is likely that a couple who are first cousins will pass the same defective gene to their children, resulting in birth defects. So most states in the US now have laws prohibiting first cousins from marrying.
God did not change His underlying law (which could be stated as, "Do nothing to harm another human") but rather, told us about something (incest) that will likely cause that law to be violated.
sicouple
New Member
PolyDoc said:
Good post... I didn't mean to imply they were the same Greek words used for both tradition and law and the translators changed them because of context. I was merely stating the obvious that it wasn't a mistake by the translators.. The 2 words used were not the same and the Bible does not tell us to Obey the traditions of the land which is what Christs called the statutes of men. I wondered if it would come across that way after rereading my post but figured if it did I would clear it up as i will attempt to now.
If anything I was saying that it wasn't by accident mans laws were translated into traditions and not laws.. The reason being is because Christ himself did not honor them as law and that's why he didn't use the word for law.. Instead He called them traditions which was obviously a slap in the face of the government of men at the time.. Christ was basically telling them you are not following Gods laws so the statutes you have in place for this time are not Gods law and therefore are not law at all .. If Christ had felt they were in fact Law He would have used the word for law and he would have followed them because we were to follow the law.
Obviously some things have changed and they didn't have to worry about driving 75 miles an hour on the freeway.. So this type of statute by man for this time should be followed because it is set in place to keep you from killing someone and braking Gods law. But I do not believe it is a sin if you brake the speed limit. if you do you run a higher risk of braking one of Gods laws so it would be smart of us to follow the speed limit. So no i don't believe mans statutes should be disregarded as long as those statutes don't contradict Gods Laws which we were commanded to follow then there really is no reason to not follow them but I suspect there is wiggle room in that statement.
Its not about disrespecting mans government, or being a rebel without a cause either, However, any time man puts a statute in place that contradict Gods law they become an enemy to God, they are forcing us to make a choice to follow them or God. There is no question in my mind who God commanded me to follow in those situations. As we know, even to the point of death God tells his people to serve Him first over any other form of government over and over again without exception.
"But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." (Joshua 24:15c) Sums it up rather well, thank you for bringing that into the discussion.
Doc here! Salut!
Actually we cover this topic in a number of places. First, on our RESOURCES page:
http://biblicalfamilies.org/common_misconceptions#ref9
I produced a PDF for download on this topic in particular called "Render Unto Caesar":
http://biblicalfamilies.org/doc/Render_Unto_Ceasar.pdf
William Luck addresses this issue and others with information from the January 2011 retreat:
http://biblicalfamilies.org/files/BillLuck/Response to Anti-Polygynous Marriage Arguments.docx
I hope that these will help you get started.
Blessings,
Doc Burkhart
Actually we cover this topic in a number of places. First, on our RESOURCES page:
http://biblicalfamilies.org/common_misconceptions#ref9
I produced a PDF for download on this topic in particular called "Render Unto Caesar":
http://biblicalfamilies.org/doc/Render_Unto_Ceasar.pdf
William Luck addresses this issue and others with information from the January 2011 retreat:
http://biblicalfamilies.org/files/BillLuck/Response to Anti-Polygynous Marriage Arguments.docx
I hope that these will help you get started.
Blessings,
Doc Burkhart
sicouple
New Member
jsw said:
Thank you for your response jsw.. It is good to test every outlook and compare it to Gods word.. There is a lot of beliefs centered around subjects that don't seem to be important enough in the Bible to go into detail on. I think after reading the Bible it gives clues to a lot of things that for whatever reason God chose to leave a mystery. It is also believed that this was done for the same reason Christ spoke in parables.. He knew that those that had ears to hear and eyes to see would hear and see the truth in His cryptic parables and those without would not and obviously that was his intent.
I wont derail this thread with a discussion on something not relevant to the thread but I believe the Bible supports the idea of other men being created then just Adam. The most obvious reason is because there is more then one race of human and the Bible clearly recognizes there being more then one race. There is no painfully clear account in the Bible of God anywhere changing or creating other races of people so no matter what someone believes on how they got here, that believe will be from assumptions gained from other events not directly aimed at the matter or worse, that belief may not be from anything the Bible said at all. one thing we know is that everything in Gods word must add up and if it don't we can be sure we are missing some of the pieces to the puzzle and that's why the picture looks abstract and creates confusion with those trying to understand it. instead of it being clear and complete with understanding that leads to truth and consistency.
The important thing isn't that we can clearly see and understand everything about God and His ways, the important thing is that we be counted among those looking at the picture and trying to figure out what we are looking at. The level of importance in which we put on being able to understand the picture indicates what is truly in our hearts. All truth and the lack there of comes from that level of importance, we wont be let in if we don't knock and we will never see if we don't look.
If braking mans statutes/laws was counted toward us as sinning against God, then it would have to be said "every Christian who was killed because they served God was sinning against God in doing so" If you lived in a country where the government of men said you can't believe or follow Christianity would you be sinning by believing in Christianity and going against the government of men? Sin constitutes going against a deity or God. If it were sin to go against the government of men to serve the Father then the government of men would be your God not the Father.
That don't mean we go against the government of men just because its not sin if we do. But we need to understand that government of men only has power over our fleshly body and has no power over our eternal soul, the Bible tells us to not fear them but instead fear the creator who does.
sicouple
New Member
DocInMO said:
thank you for the links..
Most of everything in regards to PM is spread throughout every thread and been talked about. I just thought your 7 threads that addressed each objection separately was a great idea and made it easy for those who have come up against those objections to see the opinions of the board in regards to each specific encounter..
Thanks again and God Bless...