No, they are all gone, every mention of it.
-
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.
What do you wish you could post on FB about poly
- Thread starter Jessie
- Start date
There started to be more positive comments towards the end, so maybe they just didn't like the fact that it wasn't all hating.
The OP was a guy from Tanzania so he may have inadvertently stepped on a few toes, and cut the throat on one of their sacred cows.
Funny how some of these same moderators will complain about Twitter and FB shadow banning conservative thought, and deciding what they think is fake news.
@AmbassadorforChrist joined the group and found this post:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1603199626601170/permalink/2903986996522420/
Commented of course.
Let's see if it vanishes too.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1603199626601170/permalink/2903986996522420/
Commented of course.
Let's see if it vanishes too.
Gotta join if you want to see it.
Yeah, that guy was jumping in towards the end of the last one a lot! I actually used that same argument he made for 1 Cor. and 1 Timothy In one of my interactions I was going to put on here, but they deleted it all!@AmbassadorforChrist joined the group and found this post:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1603199626601170/permalink/2903986996522420/
Commented of course.
I guess he wasn't done arguing his point.
They are going at it pretty decently, on the link @Patrick Lauser posted.
I don't really have the time to get in there myself, but if anyone is interested they let you in pretty quickly.
Right now there is just the OP against all the anti's, he seems to know his stuff fairly well though, and seems to be holding up pretty well too.
I don't really have the time to get in there myself, but if anyone is interested they let you in pretty quickly.
Right now there is just the OP against all the anti's, he seems to know his stuff fairly well though, and seems to be holding up pretty well too.
He posted a link to an interesting letter:
https://www.foxnews.com/science/christian-letter-bible-discovery-rare
The full transcript of the letter:
“Greetings, my lord, my incomparable brother Paulus. I, Arrianus, salute you, praying that all is as well as possible in your life.
“[Since] Menibios was going to you, I thought it necessary to salute you as well as our lord father. Now, I remind you about the gymnasiarchy, so that we are not troubled here. For Heracleides would be unable to take care of it: he has been named to the city council. Find thus an opportunity that you buy the two [–] arouras.
“But send me the fish liver sauce too, whichever you think is good. Our lady mother is well and salutes you as well as your wives and sweetest children and our brothers and all our people. Salute our brothers [-]genes and Xydes. All our people salute you.
“I pray that you fare well in the Lord.”
https://www.foxnews.com/science/christian-letter-bible-discovery-rare
The full transcript of the letter:
“Greetings, my lord, my incomparable brother Paulus. I, Arrianus, salute you, praying that all is as well as possible in your life.
“[Since] Menibios was going to you, I thought it necessary to salute you as well as our lord father. Now, I remind you about the gymnasiarchy, so that we are not troubled here. For Heracleides would be unable to take care of it: he has been named to the city council. Find thus an opportunity that you buy the two [–] arouras.
“But send me the fish liver sauce too, whichever you think is good. Our lady mother is well and salutes you as well as your wives and sweetest children and our brothers and all our people. Salute our brothers [-]genes and Xydes. All our people salute you.
“I pray that you fare well in the Lord.”
I seem to recall @Verifyveritas76 posted that letter on one the threads here.
We discussed that letter on this thread. Turns out that was a misprint in one book (the author confirmed this was a misprint). A single letter "y" was accidentally added, turning "our" into "your", and introducing the entire apparent polygamy reference. The actual letter should read (after translation)
In other words, it is simply referring to the wives of the multiple men the author is writing on behalf of ("all our people"). No evidence of polygamy at all. Of course, some of those men could have been polygamous, but the letter offers no evidence in either direction.
That is so good to know! As we don't wish to project dishonesty on our part, we do good when we squelch things that could give us the appearance of being dishonest, when the reality is, some of these things used as evidence, are not critical to a person accepting the Biblical position that we hold.
Not on Facebook, but here's some conversations that might get interesting on the "Hebrew Roots Help Desk" group on MeWe (the name MeWe actually reminds me of polygyny ). Warning, large blocks of text.
(Me) "Out of curiosity, do many of ye all in this group support biblical polygyny?"
(Commenter) “not sure how biblical polygamy is...in the beginning God created one wife for Adam from his rib..no other indications that he had more than one wife or concubine....I believe it was 'permitted' becasue of the hardness of man's heart....don't recall any of the sons of God having more than one wife....but the rebellious ones, some of Cain's descendents were polygamous....we saw the outcome of a polygamous relationships from Abraham to Jacob to David, etc..it is only my opinion that God allowed these patriarchs to have more than one wife because they lived in polygamous countries and it was a custom...but not God's plan...he allowed these men to have more than one wife, perhaps as a lesson that having 2 or more women in same home to one man breeds more than children, but jealousy & contempt that ran all the way to their children ( Jacobs 12 sons and daughters to 3 or 4 different women) and also as in case of Sarah and Hagar...the results of that relationship so impacted even today with Ishmael being the ancestor of Islam and and Isaac's descendents the Israelites that they are still fighting over who are the chosen people of God ...so I would not even dare call this 'biblical polygamy' in the sense that it was in God's plan...yes it's in the bible but to call it 'biblical' in the sense of it being endorsed by God, that is a deception....and we know who the 'great deceiver' is.......so I see no scriptural evidence to base this 'biblical polygamy' as God's plan for mankind....”
(Me) "You said you weren’t sure at first, but by the end you pretty much say it’s Satanic, so I guess that isn’t a Yes.
The main thing you bring up is troubles that these people experienced, so far as to say an entire people group should never have existed, and therefore the marriage that led to their existence was wrong.
But on the subject of Hagar, something that people often miss is that God had not promised a child by Sarai when Abraham took Hagar. When God promised him a child (and changed his name to “Father of many”), for him to then take a wife was an act of faith, which was miraculously rewarded by a son when he was 87 years old. God said he would bless this child because he was Abraham’s seed. “And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.” (Genesis 21:13) It was thirteen years later that God first made the promise to give Abraham a child specifically by Sarai, whom he then named Sarah, and it was then that he made with Abraham the covenant of circumcision.
A powerful Scripture that bears on the issue is the rebuke of Joshua against the Pharisees:
“Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?” - Matthew 12:3-4
Here when David does what is explicitly unlawful, Christ sees it as equal to the Law commanding priests to work on the Sabbath:
“Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?” - Matthew 12:5
David’s action is recorded, not explicitly condoned, and was in fact “unlawful”, but the Lord Joshua sets it as equal to the Law. David was a prophet, one who wrote Scripture, and was just as much an inspired prophet when he ate the shewbread. How much more when he married more than one wife, which was not unlawful?
And Joshua does not give this as a revelation, but as a rebuke, saying, “Have ye not read?” This is something we should already understand. But where the Pharisees were silenced, many today would continue to attack Joshua, striving with God, saying that we cannot use David’s actions as a guide (though they accept the Scripture David wrote as inspired, as if it was the pen and not David which was inspired).
It was the Romans and Greeks, who had exclusive monogamy long before Christ, who forced the Roman idea of marriage on the world. To them polygynous peoples (basically every nation except Rome) were barbaric, and set about to outlaw it. This was continued by the pagan Roman “church”:
“If any one saith, that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not prohibited by any divine law; let him be anathema." - Canon II of the “Doctrine on the Sacrament of Matrimony”
Plural wives is indeed a deep Hebrew Root, one which was credited with building the nation of Israel:
“YHWH make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel:” - Ruth 4:11"
(Another Commenter - the Admin this time (oh boy!
)) "The misunderstanding about polygamy stems from a misunderstanding about the marriage relationship. Christ said, in Matthew 19:4-6, that God ordained marriage between man and wife (singular) “from the beginning.” God never intended men to marry more than one wife. The first man said to have more than one wife in the Bible was Lamech, a murderer and man of the most degenerate kind of evil. “God made one wife for Adam—not a harem!” He started the human family out as He ordained they should go—a family of one man and one wife! … God did not condone polygamy! He punished those who practised it! It was always sin! It is sin today!”
In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul reinforced God’s disapproval of polygamy in 1 Timothy 3:2: “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife.” One of the qualifications for a minister in God’s Church is that he have only one wife. No polygamist may be a minister in God’s Church. We have all been called to be priests and rule with Yeshua.
Revelation 19:7 speaks of Christ returning to marry His Church, and His wife (singular) will be made ready. Christ will only marry the one Bride, not many different ones! This is why sins like polygamy are so grievous to God—because they demean the relationship He will have with His Church! The special relationship between husband and wife is to reflect the wonderful intimacy between Christ and His Bride, the Church. God condemned, and does to this day, polygamy because of this. However, God has blessed the institution of marriage between one husband and one wife as a God-plane relationship.
So you can follow man or you can follow what our Father said and put in place. I would go as far as to say that if your in this kind of relationship , your salvation may be on the line... for sin is the transgeration of the Torah... IMO."
(Me) "When I first realised that polygyny was not forbidden, I supposed that at least it wasn't meant for pastors, until I looked into it more.
The two phrases, “husband of one wife” and “wife of one husband” are translated the same, when they use different words in Greek (every single translator of the KJV was anti-polygynist). The two phrases are in fact: I Timothy 5:9, “ενος ανδρος γυνη”, “one man woman”, which by context must mean “only one”, and I Timothy 3:2, “μιας γυναικος ανδρα”, “a woman man” (man of/with a woman). I think it's safe to say Paul uses different words for a reason, not interchangeably.
Paul does not say anything about the "problems with polygyny", but rather why a person must be proven by how he leads a family, thus why he must be married. This is how it reads with this taken into account:
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of a wife"
"Let the deacons be husbands of a wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."
"(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)"
For overkill (I love overkill) you can go through with Englishman’s search and look at all the uses of the two words “heis (ενος)” and “mia (μιας)”.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1520&t=KJV
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3391&t=KJV
You’ll find that “heis” is never used as “first of” anything. You’ll find that both words are used for “one of”, and “two become one” - which can be the difference between “become the same thing” for “mia” and “become a single thing” for “heis”. Indeed when it comes to the word “mia” all cases of “one”, except the “one of” cases, can be rendered as either “a” or “the same”. For “heis” however, I can list at least 23 cases where the use is crystal clear that “heis” must mean “only one” - and for “mia”, there are none.
I had to go pretty deep into this, because I was raised to think the KJV was pretty much an inspired translation. But apart from this issue I have found that the KJV translators believed in partial preservation and non-verbal plenary translation and other things incompatible with the Infallibility of Scripture (which ironically many consider to be equivalent to a KJV Only stance).
God did indeed ordain marriage “from the beginning”, which is why divorce is separating what God has joined. This teaching of Christ is indeed what was always intended, not something new (as he says, “Have ye not read?”), thus if polygyny was incompatible with this teaching then all who practiced it could not have been of God. Yet Joshua and his disciples refer to David as a prophet. But polygyny in no way condones divorce, every marriage in a multiple wife family involves the man becoming one flesh with a woman for life, just like Adam, and just as Christ takes his Bride. The relationship between a father and son is also pictured in the very godhead, with God the Father and his only begotten Son. It does not break or violate that picture for a man to have more than one son.
In another way God pictures himself as taking two wives, Judah and Israel, in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. This is the tree into which we are grafted contrary to nature, we should be careful not to try and cut it down.
One instance where God takes direct responsibility for plural wives is when he rebukes David for his adultery, saying that he gave the women of his lord into his bosom, taking the glory for giving David the wives that he already had, to rebuke him for taking another man’s wife. I’m not embarrassed to say I believe like the “man after God’s own heart”, especially as he was a prophet; it is dangerous to speak against the prophets of Elohim."
). Warning, large blocks of text.(Me) "Out of curiosity, do many of ye all in this group support biblical polygyny?"
(Commenter) “not sure how biblical polygamy is...in the beginning God created one wife for Adam from his rib..no other indications that he had more than one wife or concubine....I believe it was 'permitted' becasue of the hardness of man's heart....don't recall any of the sons of God having more than one wife....but the rebellious ones, some of Cain's descendents were polygamous....we saw the outcome of a polygamous relationships from Abraham to Jacob to David, etc..it is only my opinion that God allowed these patriarchs to have more than one wife because they lived in polygamous countries and it was a custom...but not God's plan...he allowed these men to have more than one wife, perhaps as a lesson that having 2 or more women in same home to one man breeds more than children, but jealousy & contempt that ran all the way to their children ( Jacobs 12 sons and daughters to 3 or 4 different women) and also as in case of Sarah and Hagar...the results of that relationship so impacted even today with Ishmael being the ancestor of Islam and and Isaac's descendents the Israelites that they are still fighting over who are the chosen people of God ...so I would not even dare call this 'biblical polygamy' in the sense that it was in God's plan...yes it's in the bible but to call it 'biblical' in the sense of it being endorsed by God, that is a deception....and we know who the 'great deceiver' is.......so I see no scriptural evidence to base this 'biblical polygamy' as God's plan for mankind....”
(Me) "You said you weren’t sure at first, but by the end you pretty much say it’s Satanic, so I guess that isn’t a Yes.
The main thing you bring up is troubles that these people experienced, so far as to say an entire people group should never have existed, and therefore the marriage that led to their existence was wrong.
But on the subject of Hagar, something that people often miss is that God had not promised a child by Sarai when Abraham took Hagar. When God promised him a child (and changed his name to “Father of many”), for him to then take a wife was an act of faith, which was miraculously rewarded by a son when he was 87 years old. God said he would bless this child because he was Abraham’s seed. “And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.” (Genesis 21:13) It was thirteen years later that God first made the promise to give Abraham a child specifically by Sarai, whom he then named Sarah, and it was then that he made with Abraham the covenant of circumcision.
A powerful Scripture that bears on the issue is the rebuke of Joshua against the Pharisees:
“Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?” - Matthew 12:3-4
Here when David does what is explicitly unlawful, Christ sees it as equal to the Law commanding priests to work on the Sabbath:
“Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?” - Matthew 12:5
David’s action is recorded, not explicitly condoned, and was in fact “unlawful”, but the Lord Joshua sets it as equal to the Law. David was a prophet, one who wrote Scripture, and was just as much an inspired prophet when he ate the shewbread. How much more when he married more than one wife, which was not unlawful?
And Joshua does not give this as a revelation, but as a rebuke, saying, “Have ye not read?” This is something we should already understand. But where the Pharisees were silenced, many today would continue to attack Joshua, striving with God, saying that we cannot use David’s actions as a guide (though they accept the Scripture David wrote as inspired, as if it was the pen and not David which was inspired).
It was the Romans and Greeks, who had exclusive monogamy long before Christ, who forced the Roman idea of marriage on the world. To them polygynous peoples (basically every nation except Rome) were barbaric, and set about to outlaw it. This was continued by the pagan Roman “church”:
“If any one saith, that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not prohibited by any divine law; let him be anathema." - Canon II of the “Doctrine on the Sacrament of Matrimony”
Plural wives is indeed a deep Hebrew Root, one which was credited with building the nation of Israel:
“YHWH make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel:” - Ruth 4:11"
(Another Commenter - the Admin this time (oh boy!
)) "The misunderstanding about polygamy stems from a misunderstanding about the marriage relationship. Christ said, in Matthew 19:4-6, that God ordained marriage between man and wife (singular) “from the beginning.” God never intended men to marry more than one wife. The first man said to have more than one wife in the Bible was Lamech, a murderer and man of the most degenerate kind of evil. “God made one wife for Adam—not a harem!” He started the human family out as He ordained they should go—a family of one man and one wife! … God did not condone polygamy! He punished those who practised it! It was always sin! It is sin today!”In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul reinforced God’s disapproval of polygamy in 1 Timothy 3:2: “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife.” One of the qualifications for a minister in God’s Church is that he have only one wife. No polygamist may be a minister in God’s Church. We have all been called to be priests and rule with Yeshua.
Revelation 19:7 speaks of Christ returning to marry His Church, and His wife (singular) will be made ready. Christ will only marry the one Bride, not many different ones! This is why sins like polygamy are so grievous to God—because they demean the relationship He will have with His Church! The special relationship between husband and wife is to reflect the wonderful intimacy between Christ and His Bride, the Church. God condemned, and does to this day, polygamy because of this. However, God has blessed the institution of marriage between one husband and one wife as a God-plane relationship.
So you can follow man or you can follow what our Father said and put in place. I would go as far as to say that if your in this kind of relationship , your salvation may be on the line... for sin is the transgeration of the Torah... IMO."
(Me) "When I first realised that polygyny was not forbidden, I supposed that at least it wasn't meant for pastors, until I looked into it more.
The two phrases, “husband of one wife” and “wife of one husband” are translated the same, when they use different words in Greek (every single translator of the KJV was anti-polygynist). The two phrases are in fact: I Timothy 5:9, “ενος ανδρος γυνη”, “one man woman”, which by context must mean “only one”, and I Timothy 3:2, “μιας γυναικος ανδρα”, “a woman man” (man of/with a woman). I think it's safe to say Paul uses different words for a reason, not interchangeably.
Paul does not say anything about the "problems with polygyny", but rather why a person must be proven by how he leads a family, thus why he must be married. This is how it reads with this taken into account:
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of a wife"
"Let the deacons be husbands of a wife, ruling their children and their own houses well."
"(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)"
For overkill (I love overkill) you can go through with Englishman’s search and look at all the uses of the two words “heis (ενος)” and “mia (μιας)”.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1520&t=KJV
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3391&t=KJV
You’ll find that “heis” is never used as “first of” anything. You’ll find that both words are used for “one of”, and “two become one” - which can be the difference between “become the same thing” for “mia” and “become a single thing” for “heis”. Indeed when it comes to the word “mia” all cases of “one”, except the “one of” cases, can be rendered as either “a” or “the same”. For “heis” however, I can list at least 23 cases where the use is crystal clear that “heis” must mean “only one” - and for “mia”, there are none.
I had to go pretty deep into this, because I was raised to think the KJV was pretty much an inspired translation. But apart from this issue I have found that the KJV translators believed in partial preservation and non-verbal plenary translation and other things incompatible with the Infallibility of Scripture (which ironically many consider to be equivalent to a KJV Only stance).
God did indeed ordain marriage “from the beginning”, which is why divorce is separating what God has joined. This teaching of Christ is indeed what was always intended, not something new (as he says, “Have ye not read?”), thus if polygyny was incompatible with this teaching then all who practiced it could not have been of God. Yet Joshua and his disciples refer to David as a prophet. But polygyny in no way condones divorce, every marriage in a multiple wife family involves the man becoming one flesh with a woman for life, just like Adam, and just as Christ takes his Bride. The relationship between a father and son is also pictured in the very godhead, with God the Father and his only begotten Son. It does not break or violate that picture for a man to have more than one son.
In another way God pictures himself as taking two wives, Judah and Israel, in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. This is the tree into which we are grafted contrary to nature, we should be careful not to try and cut it down.
One instance where God takes direct responsibility for plural wives is when he rebukes David for his adultery, saying that he gave the women of his lord into his bosom, taking the glory for giving David the wives that he already had, to rebuke him for taking another man’s wife. I’m not embarrassed to say I believe like the “man after God’s own heart”, especially as he was a prophet; it is dangerous to speak against the prophets of Elohim."
Another commenter:
(Commenter) "Even if Yah allows multiple wives what would be the purpose of needing/wanting more than one?.... especially in today's age. Maybe it's just my woman side of thinking where I don't understand the purpose of it other than the man not being satisfied with just one wife. "
(Me) "It's the same desire as when one is single, in that it is not out of discontent that a single person desires to marry. Or if someone has a child, it is not out of discontent or lack of love towards their child to still want children (I've seen objections like that a lot against large families, coming from a large family myself).
But also, from your woman's side of thinking, if you are attracted to a married man, Rome says you are an adulteress; God says, "Mazel tov!"
Often what is an abomination in the sight of men is highly esteemed with God."
(Commenter) "Even if Yah allows multiple wives what would be the purpose of needing/wanting more than one?.... especially in today's age. Maybe it's just my woman side of thinking where I don't understand the purpose of it other than the man not being satisfied with just one wife. "
(Me) "It's the same desire as when one is single, in that it is not out of discontent that a single person desires to marry. Or if someone has a child, it is not out of discontent or lack of love towards their child to still want children (I've seen objections like that a lot against large families, coming from a large family myself).
But also, from your woman's side of thinking, if you are attracted to a married man, Rome says you are an adulteress; God says, "Mazel tov!"
Often what is an abomination in the sight of men is highly esteemed with God."
Things I would like to share on Facebook, but have restricted to only people whom I think look up to me....Reviews of the Book, "The Monogamy Lie".
I love it @Patrick Lauser!!
Keep it up! Pointing out the differences will cause some to reconsider their point of view.
Turn the topic around.
Psalm 68:6 (KJV)
God setteth the solitary in families: he bringeth out those which are bound with chains: but the rebellious dwell in a dry [land].
Put the focus on the benefit that poly has for the single woman. A woman was not created to be a stand-alone, head of herself/family. She was created to be his help. Part of a man’s family. The current mindset that they are just fine as singles is a doctrine of the enemy.
Is 4:1 shows that it is a reproach, a shame, for women to not be under authority.
Im sure that this will go over well
but it takes the conversation out of the “It’s all about male privilege!” rut.
Definitely - if it isn't good for man to be alone, how much less for the woman who was made literally because it is not good for the man to be alone?
There are cases when a man or woman are better not getting married, that they may be "holy both in body and in spirit" and "attend unto the Lord without distraction", but you will find that this is in unnatural exceptions: "for this present distress". Or with Jeremiah, because of the curse on Jerusalem. Whereas the rule these things are an exception to is, "I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully." - 1 Timothy 5:14
What do you say when someone tries to argue that Paul didn't think it was a reproach for women?Turn the topic around.
Psalm 68:6 (KJV)
God setteth the solitary in families: he bringeth out those which are bound with chains: but the rebellious dwell in a dry [land].
Put the focus on the benefit that poly has for the single woman. A woman was not created to be a stand-alone, head of herself/family. She was created to be his help. Part of a man’s family. The current mindset that they are just fine as singles is a doctrine of the enemy.
Is 4:1 shows that it is a reproach, a shame, for women to not be under authority.
Im sure that this will go over well
I would ask them for the proof that he said that.
There is no need to refute a bogus statement.
Last edited: