I would need some proof in order to give the possibility any consideration.
-
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.
Mike Winger
- Thread starter Gadsden1791
- Start date
Virgins is translated from παρθένοις, the feminine plural of the word παρθένος. If you do a search in the Greek lexicons you will see the word is commonly used in reference to a marriageable young woman, one who is a virgin. There is nothing in the context that would indicate Jesus meant anything other than the usual meaning.
Which is a REALLY good reason to "study [for yourself] to show yourself approved..."
Great discussion from yesterday by @biblemarriages , @PeteR, @robbkowalski, and Glenn. Thank you for your great contribution. I am looking forward to posting this discussion to various pastors. I was challenged to appreciate the story of five virgins and it's application.
Last edited:
Here’s the link, definitely worth the time investment.
We all listened through this one this past week. His explanations of new Testement passages seemed sincere and you could see where he was coming from. Honestly, Rob's comment about fathering a hundred children in a year sounds completely foolish to any parent of ONE TODDLER...who has siblings other ages, or parents of twins or triplets. Spread yourself around with just a modest family like ours (12th on the way) and deal with TWO wives going through childbirth (be the birth attendant/labor coach) and THEN see if 100 in a year sounds like an actual COULD! (SMH)
Mr. Winger's bias became EXTREMELY obvious when he barely touched on the Old Testament, not addressing any regulatory passages and then said YHWH refused to bless Ishmael as Abraham's firstborn. Yet Ishmael WAS BLESSED! ....but was not the son of promise.
It just shows anyone without that bias the folly of trying to make doctrine from new Testement "letters" and with it redefine and trump the law that was long ago established.
I wanted to say too when he was arguing the singular "bride" that OBVIOUSLY we are not each other as members of the body. Echad describes unity....not a singular individual, and one family can certainly be united in purpose. Yeshua prayed and asked that His followers be one with him as He and The Father were/are one. That is what one faith, one spirit and one baptism is about. These that want to redefine terms and create extrabiblical laws and restrictions actually divide and sever some members of the body from other members. Yes, doctrine is important!..
... But so is that verse close to the middle of the Bible that is translated "The sum of your word is truth." Just like a long math problem MUST have every step and symbol taken into consideration AND CORRECT to arrive at the right answer, the whole of YHWH's word and the examples of the faithful who have lived before us need to be seen HONESTLY for one to rightly understand YHWH's whole truth.
Amen. All of his word is truth and the Son prayed that we would be sanctified by this truth:
John 17:17 NKJV
Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.
Going into 100 children is silly. Start with two wives and go into the immense blessings that brings! It would mean the children don’t have to go to day care. They can be homeschooled. They can eat real food - instead of the fast food gunk. The husband can take turns with the wives going on dates - without being worried about finding a good babysitter.
But - the Word comes first - which according to the Son - includes the “Old” Testament. Ancient israel didn’t like those “ancient paths” - they chose their own paths as well:
Jeremiah 6:16
This is what the LORD says: “Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls. But you said, ‘We will not walk in it.’
Humans always think they know better than the Creator that created the brain inside of them.
At the heart of the issue is nothing new. Both Adam and Eve knew what God commanded yet chose to do something different; Eve was deceived into doing wrong but Adam knew he was doing wrong. Mike Winger knows what is written in the Bible but cherry-picks passages to support his position. He knows God never calls polygyny a sin. He knows there are many great and honorable men who are recorded in the Bible as having more than one wife. And he knows David was only condemned for taking another man's wife, not for the many wives he'd already taken. Unless he has a change in heart and is prepared to stop trying to defend the indefensible, he will remain in error and continue to teach error.
It is written, Listen to counsel and receive instruction, That you may be wise in your letter days (Proverbs 19:20). As long as people refuse to listen and learn they will remain ignorant and not be wise.
It is written, Listen to counsel and receive instruction, That you may be wise in your letter days (Proverbs 19:20). As long as people refuse to listen and learn they will remain ignorant and not be wise.
I have made this point since day one:
The ONLY way to rest in ignorance and reject the fact that His Word is clear about polygyny is do DENY the ESSENCE of the "old" Testament. Even their disdain for the fact that it "old" (as in 'return to the old paths,' or "build on the rock," the "foundation" - which by DEFINITION must be "older than what follows and is built on it!)
...shows their disgust at His Word, as Written.
Therefore, ultimately, they HAVE to claim that it is "old," and thus "done away with." Especially if a Savior that they'd prefer to ignore when He said He wasn't changing it either, says otherwise.
I took it as a great compliment when my wife accused me of being too "old testament".
To be fair to Rob though, he was speaking only of the biological capability of any man to father 100 children per year, vs the capability of women to give birth, which is much more limited. It is an argument from nature, which is not a strong argument, but it is a clue to what God intended.
You could use nature then and say lions, horses, sheep, etc. none of nature's creatures that sire that kind of number must raise them in the fear and admonition of The Lord.
Male emporor penguins incubate a single egg through extreme dark cold winters....but that ain't an argument for polygyny.
My point was that fathering as many children as a popular sperm donor is the "fun part" and represents day one of a project that the woman puts nine months into before anyone else can even hold the baby. Raising the child is at least 18 years after that (20 to biblical age of accountability) so getting excited about how much a man can (figuratively) bite off, doesn't mean he can chew it. Has he counted the cost? My husband gets comments shoping all the time because of the quantity of things on the counter. "No, I don't have a restaurant" he tells the clerks.
Cooking for a dozen people is like what many people do once a year for thanksgiving....MORE THAN ONCE A DAY!
I'm not hating on Rob here. I've met him and appreciate his outspoken manner and the work he's doing. ....but that is seriously like giving the other side ammo to use against us.
Gideon had 70 sons. One kept bad company and murdered 68 of his brothers.
Raising them right is kind of important.
I get it. It is hard enough to defend the practice of polygyny to some of those numbskulls out there, without having to explain comments that seem far fetched. Rob wasn't really saying that he intends to have that many children though.
Argument from nature regarding humans is very strong evidence, almost as Bible itself.
Because it is, in essence, argument from Lord's design of us. Therefore it must match very strongly with Bible teaching.
Polygyny laws are nonsense if men aren't capable of having sex with more than one woman.
Species where male is cannibalized during mating don't need marriage teaching. Why bother if male anyway won't survive virginity loss.
GodRules has weighed in!!!