|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 1, 2009 12:40:05 GMT -8
Bryce, you've probably left by now, and I wouldn't blame you. But trust me, if you were being censored for your beliefs, you wouldn't have gotten five pages of dialog over a course of more than a couple of weeks. If this were a place where only my beliefs and comforts were tolerated, you would have been banned from this forum and all memory erased after your second post. The censorship is of disrespect toward those who do not share your convictions and speaking with contempt against those whom you cannot convince of your pserspective. That will not be tolerated here. Because we are a collection of vastly different understandings, it cannot be.
|
|
|
|
Post by bryce on Aug 1, 2009 12:45:26 GMT -8
My final response to John was deleted — that's censorship. You claim that it was an attack, but I don't think it was. Either way, I'm done. I've said my piece and I'm not interested in discussing this topic with you. You are guilty of making assumptions as to what I believe and posting them. That, combined with the censorship, is not something that I am interested in. Friendly discussion is what I'm interested in, not emotionally charged rhetoric. Shalom.
|
|
|
|
Post by Golfnerd on Aug 10, 2009 7:51:39 GMT -8
after reading this entire post, I would like to add a couple of things that no one has touched on yet. First - God, in His infinite wisdom, KNEW there would be a time that we would marry more than one wife, thus prompting the Instruction found in the  . Did this circumvent His idea on what marriage should be as evidenced in Genesis? NO! Secondly, why don't we take a closer look at the lives of the folks in the Bible who decided to have more than the allotted number of wives. Abraham...had a little fling - at Sarah's behest - with Hagar and had Ismael. We are seeing the fruits of that today with the conflict between the Muslims and Israel. Jacob - Leah and Rachel - look at all the conflict they had - not saying that God didn't use this situation to His glory. David - lusting after another woman turned the man after God's own Heart into a murderer and a fornicator. Then last but certainly not least - Solomon - whose SEVEN HUNDRED wives and THREE HUNDRED concubines drew him into GROSS idolotry and set the stage for the splitting of the Kingdom. A different woman every night for 3 1/2 years. Was this all planned by God - you betcha. HOWEVER, I imagine that God would've liked to have done it in an easier way. I certainly could not imagine having more than one wife. I personally think this falls under what Paul say about it being permitted, but not profitable. |
|
|
|
Post by bryce on Aug 10, 2009 15:16:45 GMT -8
I personally think this falls under what Paul say about it being permitted, but not profitable. It's nice to see that you acknowledge that it is permissible for a man to have more than one wife. Now, do you think that it would be loving for a man to take an additional wife if there were a single mother in his community, that both him and his wife loved very much, if there were no single G-dly men for her to marry? Perhaps it is an isolated community and after a time of war where there is a big shortage of men. If the man's first wife is in agreement, then what would be wrong about a man taking another wife and providing her with a loving husband and father for her children? |
|
|
|
Post by Golfnerd on Aug 11, 2009 7:26:53 GMT -8
Notice that I said permissible, but NOT profitable. Based on what God clearly states in Genesis, it's one man and one woman...adding more to the mix is asking for problems - IMHO.
With that said, would I want a second wife? Not a chance.
With regards to your question, I'd say that you could provide for this other woman and her children WITHOUT complicating it with marriage.
Bryce....are you married?
|
|
|
|
Post by bryce on Aug 11, 2009 8:11:07 GMT -8
With regards to your question, I'd say that you could provide for this other woman and her children WITHOUT complicating it with marriage. Bryce....are you married? Yes, you could provide for a woman financially and be a father-like figure for her children, but it isn't the same. Women need a man who will be their husband. They need someone to be intimate with. And, children need someone who actually is their father. I'm not going to answer questions about my personal life. |
|
|
|
Post by Golfnerd on Aug 11, 2009 20:02:37 GMT -8
With regards to your question, I'd say that you could provide for this other woman and her children WITHOUT complicating it with marriage. Bryce....are you married? Yes, you could provide for a woman financially and be a father-like figure for her children, but it isn't the same. Women need a man who will be their husband. They need someone to be intimate with. And, children need someone who actually is their father. I'm not going to answer questions about my personal life. Sorry to pry, but your marriage status affects your point of view whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Me...I've been hapily married to the same wonderful woman for 28 years. I have just enough to give to her. I CAN'T imagine having to provide all that I give to my wife to another wife. God's design is for ONE woman and ONE man as a couple. If He REALLY wanted us to have more than one wife, why didn't He just make a handful for Adam? |
|
|
|
Post by bryce on Aug 11, 2009 20:18:25 GMT -8
God's design is for ONE woman and ONE man as a couple. If He REALLY wanted us to have more than one wife, why didn't He just make a handful for Adam? I agree that one man and one woman is ideal. Nature itself demonstrates that, as the ratio of men to women is nearly equal. However, we live in a world tainted with sin and death. There are circumstances when a man might have to have an additional wife because of death, war, adultery, selfishness, and other nasty things. I agree that it would be best for all men to have one wife, but if that means that a sister is without a husband (because of a shortage of righteous men) she should become an additional wife of a married man if everyone is in agreement and he has the means to provide for more than one woman. |
|
veggirl
Full Member
Greetings!
Posts: 103
|
Post by veggirl on Aug 12, 2009 11:29:18 GMT -8
I should have not got my posts deleted, I was just wondering! I never said u have 10wives! and I never said u didn't love the , thats why we are all here because we love the .... Oh my, trying to justify Polygamy,, There are enough men out there, us women don't need or want another women coming into our husbands BED! Well I am not married, but someday maybe I will be.. I am speaking of the women that are married, There are still Messianic's and Mormons that still believe this to be true (Polygamy) , well I have some great news for u Yeshua will come back and set Y'all straight! Peace&love Bri'gette |
|
|
|
Post by bryce on Aug 12, 2009 12:03:24 GMT -8
Bri'gette,
There are Christian women who want to be married to a man who already has a wife. And, as you know, King David had many wives and they all wanted to be with him too. Some women would rather share an exceptional man than be with a man who hasn't proven himself a good husband and leader.
If you want to talk with your sisters who are already in polygynous marriages go to:
www.biblicalfamilies.org/forum2/index.php
Women have the freedom to marry whomever they choose, in the L-rd. If a woman is happy to share her husband with another then who are you to judge her?
Shalom,
brYce
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 12, 2009 16:33:54 GMT -8
I'm curious as to why you, Bryce, suppose that Paul considered more than one wife an immediate disqualifier for congregational leadership?
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
(1 Timothy 3:2-5 KJV)
If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
(Titus 1:6-9 KJV)
|
|
|
|
Post by bryce on Aug 12, 2009 16:54:45 GMT -8
Is that the only way that Greek phrase can be translated? No, it isn't. However, all translations render it "husband of one wife". Did you know that it can also be translated, "husband of a wife"?
The following link explains why in detail:home.sprynet.com/~jbwwhite/HEIS_MIABW.html
|
|
|
|
Post by Golfnerd on Aug 12, 2009 20:09:19 GMT -8
Bryce,
Here are several translations of this verse...notice how the Complete Jewish Bible renders the verse...
1Ti 3:2
(AMP) Now a bishop (superintendent, overseer) must give no grounds for accusation but must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, circumspect and temperate and self-controlled; [he must be] sensible and well behaved and dignified and lead an orderly (disciplined) life; [he must be] hospitable [showing love for and being a friend to the believers, especially strangers or foreigners, and be] a capable and qualified teacher,
(ASV) The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
(CJB) A congregation leader must be above reproach, he must be faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, orderly, hospitable and able to teach.
(ESV) Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
(HCSB) An overseer, therefore, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, self-controlled, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher,
(KJV) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
(KJV+) A bishopG1985 thenG3767 mustG1163 beG1511 blameless,G423 the husbandG435 of oneG3391 wife,G1135 vigilant,G3524 sober,G4998 of good behaviour,G2887 given to hospitality,G5382 apt to teach;G1317
(KJV-1611) A Bishop then must be blamelesse, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behauiour, giuen to hospitalitie, apt to teach;
(KJVA) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
(NAS77) An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
(NASB) An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
(NASB+) An overseerG1985, thenG3767, mustG1163 be aboveG423 reproachG423, the husbandG435 of oneG1520 wifeG1135, temperateG3524, prudentG4998, respectableG2887, hospitableG5382, ableG1317 to teachG1317,
(RNKJV) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
(Webster) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
(YLT) it behoveth, therefore, the overseer to be blameless, of one wife a husband, vigilant, sober, decent, a friend of strangers, apt to teach,
Something from the E-Sword dictionary...
One
ONE, a. wun. [L. unus; Gr.]
1. Single in number; individual; as one man; one book. There is one sun only in our system of planets.
2. Indefinitely, some or any. You will one day repent of your folly. But in this phrase, one day is equivalent to some future time.
3. It follows any.
When any one heareth the word of the kingdom. Mat 13.
4. Different; diverse; opposed to another. It is one thing to promise, and another to fulfill.
5. It is used with another, to denote mutuality or reciprocation. Be kind and assist one another.
6. It is used with another, to denote average or mean proportion. The coins one with another, weigh seven penny weight each.
7. One of two; opposed to other.
Ask from one side of heaven to the other. Deu 4.
8. Single by union; undivided; the same.
The church is therefore one, though the members may be many.
9. Single in kind; the same.
One plague was on you all and on your lords. 1 Sam 4.
1. One day, on a certain or particular day, referring to time past.
One day when Phoebe fair with all her band was following the chase.
2. Referring to future time; at a future time, indefinitely. [See One, No. 2.]
At one, in union; in agreement or concord.
The king resolved to keep Ferdinand and Philip at one with themselves.
In one, in union; in one united body.
One, like many other adjectives is used without a noun, and is to be considered as a substitute for some noun understood. Let the men depart one by one; count them one by one; every one has his peculiar habits; we learn of one another, that is, we learn, one of us learns of another.
In this use, as a substitute, one may be plural; as the great ones of the earth; they came with their little ones.
It also denotes union, a united body.
Ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal 3.
One o'clock, one hour of the clock that is, as signified or represented by the clock.
One is used indefinitely for any person; as, one sees; one knows; after the French manner, on voit. Our ancestors used man in this manner; man sees; man knows; "man brohte," man brought, that is, they brought.
This word we have received from the Latin through the Italian and French. The same word from our Saxon ancestors we write an.
One pointed question for you....why is this issue a burr under your saddle? Why do you burn so fervently over this issue?
|
|
|
|
Post by bryce on Aug 12, 2009 20:20:52 GMT -8
CJB is not a translation, but a paraphrase.
What is your assessment of the conclusion the link I provided made?[/black]
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 13, 2009 3:26:59 GMT -8
Bryce, you're blowing smoke. I read Greek. Anyone who translates this passage "a wife" instead of "one wife" does not.
|
|
. Did this circumvent His idea on what marriage should be as evidenced in Genesis? NO! 
