• 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.

Any good anti poly arguments?

Cecil,

Yes, I agree with you that this pastor's "argument was a little weak." I have been watching the pastor's sermons on television for about six months, and really enjoy them. His sermons are very sound in Scripture. This is the first sermon he has preached on pm since I've been watching. I think he used the words "new movement". I thought because, his other sermons were so good, that maybe he would be different and agree with pm marriage. What was I thinking? Of course, why would he ruin his career by expressing this on television?

Please excuse all the typos in my posts. I go back and look at them with embarrassment. I told SweetLissa about this before. I type and proof all day long at my work, so this is an escape for me not to have to correct my spelling, etc.

What I meant to say is how many churches would "allow pm if it was legal?" I think Rabbi Moshe told me at one time that the founder of my religion, Martin Luther allowed it. If it was legal according to the government, I wonder if Lutherans would choose to practice pm?

Michelle
 
I have never seen any legitimate anti-polygamy argument because they were all based on what people did but not what God commanded directly and expressly. Or if they were commanded directly and expressly it was only for certain very specific subsets of men and not all men. If and when polygamy was DIRECTLY and OFFICIALLY forbidden it was only forbidden for a certain subset of men and said nothing about all the other men who were not in the subset.
 
lutherangirl said:
I actually heard an interesting new argument brought up today. This pastor was talking about King Solomon starting to turn away from our Heavenly Father's wisdom and putting our Father on a shelf and doing his own thing. He implied that maybe King Solomon regretted having all those wives from this verse in Ecclesiastes 9:9, "Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun..." . The pastor said why did Solomon mention "wife" why didn't he say "wives"?
Click to expand...

I don't know if someone answered this, but if I pass it up I will never get back to it.

The word wife, in the original Hebrew, is an irregular plural word meaning: wife, wives, woman,and women.
An example of an irregular plural word in English, is the word "sheep". It is equally good to say: "One sheep", "Two Sheep", and "Three sheep".

So arguments that depend on the singularity of the word wife in the English text, are generally very weak.

Hope that helps.

God Bless,

Robert
 
The very best arguments I ever faced were due to my own ignorance. It is upon us to study the Word, and not just be familiar but to be an authority on subjects. Not for debate alone, but to be leaders in our families.
 
Nice to meet you NeoRobert,

You know, I knew that the Hebrew root was an Irregular Plural but I never had the sense to apply that knowledge to Ecclesiastics 9:9. Thanks for that.
 
@ lutherangirl

"I wonder if Lutherans would choose to practice pm?"

Considering all the other things the "Lutheran" church has allowed I'm surprised they aren't already performing plural marriages (sarcasm intended since most churches continue with the heretical view of polygyny being sinful). I grew up Lutheran, my dad even directed the church choir for many years! I am non-denominational and have been so for some time.

Luther had this to say:

"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter."

http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC0 ... &q&f=false

Adobe page 486 when downloaded (Page 459 as printed on the page of document and at the web link)

"Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis..."

You can download and save a copy right from that link if you wish.
 
I figured that I’d resurrect an old thread about arguments because I have a couple to offer.
When someone is contentious against a man taking another wife:
“For the duration of this discussion, I have chosen to identify as a woman. Now, you were saying?”
Against a wife accepting a sister wife:
For the duration of this discussion, I am identifying as a man. So in reality she would be marrying two men. You were saying?”

Edit: This is for liberals that you might be arguing with, not necessarily Churchians, although all too often they are one and the same.
 
Last edited:
Paul not the apostle said:
Has anyone ever had a discussion regarding the validity of plural marriage and heard an argument against that was well supported from scripture?
Click to expand...

A: No.

There's a long description in John 6 where Yahushua's disciples are reported to have said "this is a hard teaching."

Well, this ain't one-a THOSE. :)

I point, however, at those 'best' (still lousy) arguments that have been debunked here (and elsewhere) countless times. ALL ultimately can be traced to - at best - 'poor translations'. Most, actually, are really dishonest renderings, or perhaps ignorant.

In every single case, I suggest that the best, most direct, refutation consists of what He Himself actually said, whether it was calling those who "add to, or subtract from" His Word (Deut 4:2, Deut. 12:32, and the last commandment in the Book, in Revelation) "hypocrites,"
or - more clearly even - when He said He would NOT, so long as 'heaven and earth' still exist, change the tiniest part of His own Written Word. (Matt. 5:17-19).

'Translators' who ignore that, and then twist a passage into refuting Him are, in specific effect, calling Him a "liar, and the Truth not in Him."

Ironically, this is why I do not try to argue "Scripture" with some who ascribe to doctrines of what I call the "whore church" - because He uses the term repeatedly (in multiple references those here should be familiar with, like Jer. 3 and Ezek. 23, etc.) - like the "infallibility" of the pope, when he claims to speak as the 'vicar of christ,' embued with 'authority' to tell the Creator of the Universe what He got wrong THIS time.

[Aside: Just so we're clear: I have (unfortunately, in at least one case, had a late) friends who are well-known rabbis. They, too, will universally acknowledge the rabbinic statement that "if 51 rabbis disagree with 49 others and Hashem Himself, they prevail." Yes, the southern kingdom, Judah, and its 'whore synagogue' descendant are also similarly in exile 'for cause'.]

For those who accept what I suggest is a Scripturally-abhorent postulate, there is no argument. If the 'pope' "did away with" His Word, and "added to" it new prohibitions, while subtracting LOTS of others - there IS no argument. IFF he actually ever had such authority. And, BTW, does something which the Real Messiah said even He would not do.
 
Last edited:
Mark C said:
I point, however, at those 'best' (still lousy) arguments that have been debunked here (and elsewhere) countless times. ALL ultimately can be traced to - at best - 'poor translations'.
Click to expand...
Amen.
 
Actually, there is one good argument time against polygnyny. Regrefully we all 24 have hours per day. Pity we don't more time for more wives. ☹
 
It's good for a man to know his limits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top