The Greek word 'mia' - oft-discussed here, and "obvious once you see it," has multiple meanings, which can only be discerned correctly by context:
It can mean, "a" - the article,
"first" - as in, first in a sequence, or,
"one," sometimes even thought to mean "one and only" - when there's a bone to be picked.
So - in the two almost identical references to the term phrase rendered in part as "mia wife man" in letters by Shaul/Paul to Timothy and Titus, the possible descriptions for an "elder" (or 'bishop,' or 'overseer,' etc - but that's another argument) are:
"one wife man,"
"first-wife man,
or "a wife man."
Question obviously arise. Did he man a man of ONLY one wife, or at LEAST one wife? Does he mean "Still-marrred?" Which could exclude both divorcees, and widowers. Or did he mean a man who has at LEAST been married, and is still; any number immaterial?
The context is vital. But in a world where that context is ASSUMED to be 'monogamania' -there is only one answer, and it is demonstrably WRONG. Easily wrong. Fatally-flawed wrong.
The correct, undeniable answer can only be discussed HERE on BF (whether that's still true or not, we'll see...)
And it's clear for a multitude of obvious reasons, directly from Scripture. All consistent, all straight-forward. All offensive to some. (But the Messiah already warned us about that.)
Any of these arguments are sufficient, all are consistent:
- Deuteronomy 4:2, and 12:31 BOTH say it is forbidden to "add to" OR to "subtract from" what He Wrote as "Instruction" for us.
Ergo, if Paul was doing EITHER - 'adding to' His requirements, like a numerical limit, or removing one, he would have been (by his own word!) "a liar, and the Truth not in him. ESPECIALLY if it contradicted His Written Word!
QED.
- Yahushua Himself said, in His "first public address" (Matthew chapters 5 through 7) that He did not come to do away with so much as "one yod or tiddle" of His own Word. Which is what He WOULD have said, since He was, is, and will be what He said: He changes NOT.
If He had "raised the bar" for adultery, or changed the meaning, or added a requirment (monogamy) that was contrary to the very "foundations", the Rock itself, upon which all the rest was built, "line by line, precept by precept," He would have been...a "liar and the Truth not in Him.
QED.
There are many, many others.
It's easy once you see it. If He is not CONSISTENT, from "Genesis to Maps" -- then somebody is lying. Guess Who it is NOT?
It can mean, "a" - the article,
"first" - as in, first in a sequence, or,
"one," sometimes even thought to mean "one and only" - when there's a bone to be picked.
So - in the two almost identical references to the term phrase rendered in part as "mia wife man" in letters by Shaul/Paul to Timothy and Titus, the possible descriptions for an "elder" (or 'bishop,' or 'overseer,' etc - but that's another argument) are:
"one wife man,"
"first-wife man,
or "a wife man."
Question obviously arise. Did he man a man of ONLY one wife, or at LEAST one wife? Does he mean "Still-marrred?" Which could exclude both divorcees, and widowers. Or did he mean a man who has at LEAST been married, and is still; any number immaterial?
The context is vital. But in a world where that context is ASSUMED to be 'monogamania' -there is only one answer, and it is demonstrably WRONG. Easily wrong. Fatally-flawed wrong.
The correct, undeniable answer can only be discussed HERE on BF (whether that's still true or not, we'll see...)
And it's clear for a multitude of obvious reasons, directly from Scripture. All consistent, all straight-forward. All offensive to some. (But the Messiah already warned us about that.)
Any of these arguments are sufficient, all are consistent:
- Deuteronomy 4:2, and 12:31 BOTH say it is forbidden to "add to" OR to "subtract from" what He Wrote as "Instruction" for us.
Ergo, if Paul was doing EITHER - 'adding to' His requirements, like a numerical limit, or removing one, he would have been (by his own word!) "a liar, and the Truth not in him. ESPECIALLY if it contradicted His Written Word!
QED.
- Yahushua Himself said, in His "first public address" (Matthew chapters 5 through 7) that He did not come to do away with so much as "one yod or tiddle" of His own Word. Which is what He WOULD have said, since He was, is, and will be what He said: He changes NOT.
If He had "raised the bar" for adultery, or changed the meaning, or added a requirment (monogamy) that was contrary to the very "foundations", the Rock itself, upon which all the rest was built, "line by line, precept by precept," He would have been...a "liar and the Truth not in Him.
QED.
There are many, many others.
It's easy once you see it. If He is not CONSISTENT, from "Genesis to Maps" -- then somebody is lying. Guess Who it is NOT?