Same
-
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.
Why does the Husband Not Need Permission from his Wife?
- Thread starter OttoM
- Start date
Cool! Now you can delete the posts that indicate that you deleted another post, and I can then delete this one, and we can all post about how we deleted the posts that say that other posts were deleted! 
In my formative years, I and my siblings would annoy our parents every time we would say the same thing simultaneously, by erupting in a never ending chorus of "We said it together". Kind of reminds me of this show:
In my formative years, I and my siblings would annoy our parents every time we would say the same thing simultaneously, by erupting in a never ending chorus of "We said it together". Kind of reminds me of this show:
Last edited:
Nah, I’m good.Cool! Now you can delete the posts that indicate that you deleted another post, and I can then delete this one, and we can all post about how we deleted the posts that say that other posts were deleted!
In my formative years, I and my siblings would annoy our parents every time we would say the same thing simultaneously, by erupting in a never ending chorus of "We said it together". Kind of reminds me of this show:
Evidence that posts were voluntarily deleted are, imo, a good example of brothers working together in harmony.
@steve =Nah, I’m good.
Evidence that posts were voluntarily deleted are, imo, a good example of brothers working together in harmony.
I hereby dub thee MrWolf
There’s something to try and live up to!@steve =
View attachment 8575
View attachment 8576
View attachment 8577
View attachment 8578
I hereby dub thee MrWolf
Yes - today, because more genetic defects have accumulated. Which is my point. This is a problem that will inevitably get worse over time as mutations occur and accumulate.
Adam & Eve: no genetic defects, even sibling marriage was unlikely to result in birth defects.
Moses: genetic defects had accumulated to the point that sibling and aunt/uncle marriage was prohibited, but cousins were still safe.
Today: it's probably prudent to avoid cousin marriage also, even though it remains legal in many places.
Last edited:
Anyone who is willing to ask the question "is what I have been taught really true?" when it comes to polygamy, is also usually willing to ask the same question regarding many other things. So this forum attracts people with a wide range of viewpoints, not all of which are correct.
Incidentally, I am careful to question everything also, and not just assume that I already know the truth. Accordingly, when I heard flat earth beliefs, I did not dismiss them out of hand just because they were different to what I had been taught. Instead, I considered them scientifically, to work out whether I could test and verify them myself. I soon realised that if the earth were flat the stars in the southern hemisphere would move in a certain pattern, and if it was spherical they would move in an entirely different way, so I could verify if the earth was spherical or flat just by looking at the night sky. And it is, without a shadow of a doubt, spherical - which I now know from my own observations, not because anyone else taught me that but because I have proved it myself. This is the best approach to take to any such question, whenever it is practical. Usually you'll find the mainstream view is correct, but sometimes you may learn something surprising.
Deborah is the exception that proves the rule. God's intended order is for men to lead. But when men fail to do so, like Barak, God sometimes raises up a woman to do the job instead and shame the men.
In Deborah's case, she was a prophet, and reminded Barak that God had told him to attack Sisera. Note the language - she said "has not the Lord commanded you?". Or in other words, "didn't God tell you to do this? Why haven't you done it yet?". He indicated he was too scared and would only do it if she came with him. Her response was that she would go, but as punishment for his cowardice, he would not be the one to actually kill Sisera, but a woman would kill him instead.
And absolutely, there are other times when a woman needs to step up like this, and many brave women can be pointed to throughout history as examples.
But that does not change the fact that wives are commanded to submit to their husbands. Firstly, it's irrelevant - we are never told that Deborah did not submit to her husband, the story has nothing to do with marriage, it's about war. Secondly, even if it was relevant (even if Barak had been Deborah's husband), it is very clear that this is an exceptional situation which required the men to be shamed by keeping the ultimate victory from them.
Last edited:
Being a Biblical Fundamentalist I point to the fact that there is not one single other instance of a man seeking his wife's permission to take another wife. The only time such a requirement is implied (indirectly) is in cases where the new wife was a slave of the first wife (Hagar, and Rachel and Leah's servants whose names I can't recall off the top of my head).
It was not brought maliciously. The same motivation that causes two young people calling themselves elders to interrupt my tranquility when I am having meal with my family is the same motivation for posting what I posted. It is to share good news. No need to be offended, in fact I would hope that you would appreciate the effort. Blessings to you.
And here is my response to another diversion from the topic. I do not mean harm by this. I hope both sides of arguments appreciate the difficulty of holding to unconventional understanding.
define bother you backSometimes we might even bother you back again.
Hmmm.... to disturb your piece of mind as you disturb ours.define bother you back
I found this definition interesting; to bother, to disturb the peace of mind of (someone) especially by repeated disagreeable acts.
Personally, I don't enjoy people being bothersome and disagreeable just for the sake of it. Much better if we work toward communion and peace. Blessed are the peacemakers
@Ruth Elizabeth said this: I'm sorry but this is not a contribution to the discussion as it is brought up arbitrarily and maliciously.
On this forum I feel like there has been a noticeable push recently to be militant about promoting the 'Correct' version of Christian. I still feel unclear about how some of that is defined as I don't understand how some members of the groups being called out are crossing any lines of belief that are outlined in either the statement of faith or statement of focus. Just because a vocal member of a group or denomination may hold to a particular position that shouldn't give allowance for calling out an entire group. In the statement of focus "We restate that our bond at Biblical Families is the bond of brotherhood in the saving grace of the Gospel of Jesus/Yeshua. We want to be clear that all those who consider themselves brothers and sisters in the Gospel are welcome to participate at Biblical Families" It seems like both LDS and TO who do claim this to be a true statement are being either directly or a comment is made on a thread they actively engage in which is meant to be sharing the gospel with them.
I can't claim any knowledge of LDS belief and theology, but only can go off of what some have personally stated on the forum.
I understand the reasoning behind calling out references that get pulled in from an individual denominations extra biblical understandings. (Book of Mormon, Catholic teachings/traditions, etc.) As that could confuse those who do not have or have less knowledge in the bible. And I understand that arguing between denominations has been called out as something which the forum doesn't wish to have engaged in.
Sharing a video focused at a specific denomination telling them they aren't saved isn't really an effective conversion method and will probably turn someone off rather than encourage them to engage in a discussion.
Shalom
There is a possibility though that the reason Jesus said what He said in Matt 19:9 and Mark 10:11, is that taking the second wife is done without the first wife's consent.
That seems to be a bit of a stretch. How do you get that idea from the context? Just asking... .
This is just one of many plausible alternatives to the nonsensical Monogamy Only claim that the reason Jesus said this, was that having a second wife, is adultery.
Yeah, OK. But taking a second wife can't be adultery because those who are adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Since men who had two (and more) wives are in the kingdom, such claims obviously contradict the truth of Scripture. We don't need to speculate, just stick with the text. Speculation inevitably opens the door to other problems. To quote Miss Deborah (from Cranford), "Speculation is the enemy of calm."
Nobody is making anyone to press play button on the video I posted. Nobody is forcing anyone's eyelids open. Of course I wish people would watch the powerful testimony of whole family.
I do not know about you but I have at least an ounce of concern about salvation of those who would suggest that Jesus and Satan were brothers, and there are many gods.
I did not know that there is some special etiquette for sharing good news outside of what is in the Bible.
As far as I know "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men;" (2 Corinthians 5:11) is one of those methods and I did not even use that one.
I have choice to open door to two elders from LDS and some people have choice to press or not to press play button.