Why Is Polygamy So Controversial?

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

I never said that the Bible disregarded the existence of polygamy. It was a fact of life during those times in that part of world. Acknowledging existence and approving are not the same thing. I acknowledge that crime is rampant in the world; that certainly doesn't mean that I approve of crime.

There is no place in the Old Testament where God approves of polygamy.

He handed down the laws how to treat multiple wives. In fact, the laws regulating Qu'ran is DIRECTLY derived from the Old Testament. Even Jews can be polygamists.

In every instance of polygamy in the OT, bad things result from it.

Again, this is open to interpretation-- not factual. Biblical scholars constantly bicker about why bad things happen. They all attributes different reasons to why those horrific events occur.

The NT is not divided at all on the issue, and clearly states that God's will for marriage is one man and one woman. The picture of Christ and His church is of the Bridegroom and the Bride--one of each.

It is indeed divided. Jesus says almost nothing on it. In fact, it not exactly clear what English translators meant in the pastoral epistles. Does it means unfaithfulness, or does it means polygamy is prohibited?

Using your logic: The Bible also has laws outlining what one is supposed to do about murderers and thieves. Do you say that means God approves of murderers and thieves?

But here's the crux, many Christians say the Holy Book is written by God, therefore, the Bible is infallible. If one questions the Bible, then God must be fallible-- at least that's how it goes with some.

Then why not use the sources instead?

Because it summarizes quite well. Plus I am less likely to be banned for bringing up a religious discussion on the forum about the multitude interpretations of the scriptures. Deferring to another source delegates the risk of being censored in the name of secularism away from myself.

I use the Bible as my source for what God said.

The problem is, you are completely ignoring OTHER equally VALID interpretations of the Bible just so you can carry out your agenda. If one rejects all other viewpoints,without acknowledging them, how can they even be sure their own is the right one?

I stated facts about people and the things that happened in the Bible. If you don't want to believe what the Bible says, you have that right.

Again, Biblical scholars bickers over the reasons behind the falls. You may believe polygamy is the source, others don't.

We weren't discussing the Reformation. I refer to the Bible, not religious movements.

It has everything to do with it. The Baptist Church you follow is influnced by the Reformation; every single sect of the Christian world was. If it wasn't, then everyone would still either be a following of one of the old orders seeing the Holy Roman Empire had an monopoly over the Bible. If it wasn't for the Reformation, people wouldn't think for themselves. If the people didn't learn to think for themselves, then the ethical question of monogamy would had not emerged within the Christian fellowships.

 

[Grummer]

HEY HEY HEY stay away from religious fight eh? i know its not my thread, but for goodness sake, be careful, thats all im saying...

 

[Reba]

He handed down the laws how to treat multiple wives. In fact, the laws regulating Qu'ran is DIRECTLY derived from the Old Testament. Even Jews can be polygamists.

God also handed down laws on how to treat divorce, debt, murder, manslaughter, etc. That doesn't mean He approved of those activities. It means He recognized that people were doing those things, so He showed them how to handle these situations when they happened. It's very simple and clear.

Again, this is open to interpretation-- not factual. Biblical scholars constantly bicker about why bad things happen. They all attributes different reasons to why those horrific events occur.

If you don't even believe that events did happen as they are written down in the Bible, then interpretation would be irrelevant to you.

It is indeed divided. Jesus says almost nothing on it. In fact, it not exactly clear what English translators meant in the pastoral epistles. Does it means unfaithfulness, or does it means polygamy is prohibited?

If you can't understand the meaning of "the husband of one wife" ...

How is it divided? Did half the apostles say God is for polygamy, and half said God is against it? No. Every reference in the NT states one man, one wife, one Bridegroom, one Bride. Did Jesus say anything supporting polygamy? No.

But here's the crux, many Christians say the Holy Book is written by God, therefore, the Bible is infallible. If one questions the Bible, then God must be fallible-- at least that's how it goes with some.

Um, no. If one questions the Bible, that doesn't mean God is fallible. It means the person questioning the Bible has problems with understanding and trusting the Bible.

Because it summarizes quite well. Plus I am less likely to be banned for bringing up a religious discussion on the forum about the multitude interpretations of the scriptures. Deferring to another source delegates the risk of being censored in the name of secularism away from myself.

Interesting way of thinking.

The problem is, you are completely ignoring OTHER equally VALID interpretations of the Bible just so you can carry out your agenda. If one rejects all other viewpoints,without acknowledging them, how can they even be sure their own is the right one?

Obviously not all interpretations can be valid because they would cancel out each other.

There is not logic to that.

Again, Biblical scholars bickers over the reasons behind the falls. You may believe polygamy is the source, others don't.

What falls? Polygamy is the source of what? Disobeying God is what causes anyone to fall into sin. Polygamy is one sin but certainly not the source of all sins.

It has everything to do with it. The Baptist Church you follow is influnced by the Reformation; every single sect of the Christian world was.

You are incorrect but that isn't the topic of this thread. The Bible was mentioned in the original post, not various religions or religious movements. If, as you say, you don't want to get into trouble with your posts, you sure have a funny way of showing it.

 

[Grummer]

walrusm i wouldnt get heachaches, id get cockaches

DID God say anything about cochaches??

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

God also handed down laws on how to treat divorce, debt, murder, manslaughter, etc. That doesn't mean He approved of those activities. It means He recognized that people were doing those things, so He showed them how to handle these situations when they happened. It's very simple and clear.

Yet many fundamentalists who love the Old Testament because the legalism behind the text views such laws as endorsement. The odd thing is, they don't always adhere completely to their belief system-- only using it for justifiable killings; yet they don't go around chopping off people's hands.

If you don't even believe that events did happen as they are written down in the Bible, then interpretation would be irrelevant to you.

Again, marbles. I am not talking about the events, but rather how people interpret why those events occurred.

If you can't understand the meaning of "the husband of one wife" ...

How is it divided? Did half the apostles say God is for polygamy, and half said God is against it? No. Every reference in the NT states one man, one wife, one Bridegroom, one Bride. Did Jesus say anything supporting polygamy? No.

Because it's derived from Roman laws! In the original Latin and Greek texts, "the husband of one wife" is a mistranslation of mias gunaikos andra. In Roman and Greek societies, this would refer to widowers which are literally known as "one man woman". Under Roman laws, it was frown upon for a woman to remarry after their husband passed away.

Um, no. If one questions the Bible, that doesn't mean God is fallible. It means the person questioning the Bible has problems with understanding and trusting the Bible.

However that is the card fundamentalists use to discredit liberal and moderate Christians as "not real Christians". Very much like the stupid games Republicans and Demorats use with RINO and DINO labellings.

Obviously not all interpretations can be valid because they would cancel out each others.

There is not logic to that.

What falls? Polygamy is the source of what? Disobeying God is what causes anyone to fall into sin. Polygamy is one sin but certainly not the source of all sins.

Polygamy isn't even a sin! It's a mistranslation of Greek texts!

You are incorrect but that isn't the topic of this thread. The Bible was mentioned in the original post, not various religions or religious movements. If, as you say, you don't want to get into trouble with your posts, you sure have a funny way of showing it.

Oh come on, the Reformation has a profound effect even on the Catholic Church and the East Orthodox. To deny that the Reformation doesn't any influence over any of the churches that still exist today is intellectual dishonesty.

THe reason why the Bible has to do with the above is because what the Bible says and how it is interpreted are two different things! This is factual: God never forbid polygamy in Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic or Greek texts. It's because Titus and St. Paul inherited Greek and Roman laws. What Titus, Paul and Timothy wrote is not the same as the direct words of God himself. And how people translated those into German and English after liberation from the Catholic Church has significant implications for the direction all non Latin- or Greek-speaking churches.

 

[Reba]

DID God say anything about cochaches??

Yeah; don't eat them.

Leviticus 11
42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.

 

[Reba]

Yet many fundamentalists who love the Old Testament because the legalism behind the text views such laws as endorsement.

I don't see how a law about something is an endorsement for that activity or behavior but if that's the way you see, then that's the way you see it.

As a Christian, I don't follow legalism in my faith.

The odd thing is, they don't always adhere completely to their belief system-- only using it for justifiable killings; yet they don't go around chopping off people's hands.

My "belief system," as you say, isn't legalistic, so why should I?

Because it's derived from Roman laws! In the original Latin and Greek texts, "the husband of one wife" is a mistranslation of mias gunaikos andra. In Roman and Greek societies, this would refer to widowers which are literally known as "one man woman". Under Roman laws, it was frown upon for a woman to remarry after their husband passed away.

The passages I referred to were about a man. The man was supposed to be the husband of one wife. It wasn't about widows remarrying.

However, if you want to talk about the women, it was a custom for Jewish widows to marry an available brother of the deceased husband in order to carry on the family name. That was established prior to Roman law.

...Polygamy isn't even a sin! It's a mistranslation of Greek texts!

Which text would that be (minus the !!!!!)?

Oh come on, the Reformation has a profound effect even on the Catholic Church and the East Orthodox. To deny that the Reformation doesn't any influence over any of the churches that still exist today is intellectual dishonesty.

I never said that the Reformation didn't influence any churches. I will say that it didn't influence all churches. Also, you keep bringing in more religions by name.

THe reason why the Bible has to do with the above is because what the Bible says and how it is interpreted are two different things! This is factual: God never forbid polygamy in Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic or Greek texts. It's because Titus and St. Paul inherited Greek and Roman laws. What Titus, Paul and Timothy wrote is not the same as the direct words of God himself.

The word "polygamy" isn't used in the Bible.

Each time that God gave His description of marriage, it was always one man and one woman. That's it. From Genesis to the Revelation, it was always one man and one woman. The type was Christ (the Bridegroom) and the church (the Bride).

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

The passages I referred to were about a man. The man was supposed to be the husband of one wife. It wasn't about widows remarrying.

However, if you want to talk about the women, it was a custom for Jewish widows to marry an available brother of the deceased husband in order to carry on the family name. That was established prior to Roman law.

No, I know the passage you are referring to: 1 Timothy 3:2, 13 and Titus 1:6.

Timothy, Titus and St. Paul were all Greek and Roman citizens. That passage is a byproduct of Roman laws. Under the Roman Empire, a widower who remarry loses her status as remarrying widowers were viewed as impure. However Paul and Timothy still cannot abandon their Jewish faith, yet they did not want to be categorized in the same fashion as their zealot countepart which the Roman Legion were trying to suppress the uprisings of.

An engaging controversial text about how Jews survived in the Roman Empire would be "[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Caesars-Messiah-Roman-Conspiracy-Invent/dp/1569754578"]Caesar's Messiah[/ame]". While the book is not considered as authoritative, and the credibility of the author is contested, given criticism of religions sell like hotcakes, there one will find how living under the Romans influenced Jewish zealots. Even if one doesn't agree with it, it does raise some interesting points.

Titus in particular was raised in Crete, where the Greeks considered polygny as selfish, barbaric adulterous behavours for several centuries prior to the rise of Christianity.

Furthermore, the numeral system in Greek is ambiguous. To compound to the grey area, some scholars may argue it only applies to bishops.

Which text would that be (minus the !!!!!)?

I am referring to the original Greek manuscripts.

I never said that the Reformation didn't influence any churches. I will say that it didn't influence all churches. Also, you keep bringing in more religions by name.

Because God never forbid polygamy. The church leaders did based on how they read the texts given to them. Any time a scribe copy the text, there are slight errors. Any time a text is translated, meanings are lost. Heck, in translation from Greek to Latin under Catholicism, many of the ambiguous passages became concrete.

American Christianity is based on either the English version of the Bible, in which there are numerous versions of, or the Lutheran German version of the Bible (or rather more correctly, the English translation of the Lutheran Bible.) The average pastor is not going to be knowledge in ancient Aramaic or ancient Greek. In fact, many of them haven't even began to consider that mankind could had unintentionally rewrote the Bible after two thousand years of translating and copying texts by hand. The easiest way to rile up a church leader is to suggest the King James Bible is not the same as the original Greek Bible

So, no, it's not "God never approved of polygamy"; the correct answer is: according to interpretation of the modern English translation of the Bible, most Americans believe God doesn't approve of polygamy.

The word "polygamy" isn't used in the Bible.

You are correct, however it doesn't means the concept is not there. It was considered as bigotry to have an affair with an unmarried woman, and adulterous for an married man to have an affair with unmarried woman; or to engage with another man's wife or wives.

Each time that God gave His description of marriage, it was always one man and one woman. That's it. From Genesis to the Revelation, it was always one man and one woman. The type was Christ (the Bridegroom) and the church (the Bride).

The Prophet Daniel would disagree with you. He told David if he wanted to, he could have more wives. You know well as I do, prophets speak for God.

 

[deafbajagal]

Well, well, soggy. I'm impressed.

 

[DeafCaroline]

Well, well, soggy. I'm impressed.

Me too. Well done.

What souggy was getting at is that the Bible in English as we know it today is not an accurate translation of original texts written in other languages. The translations were made far before the study of linguistics became a science. One doesn't just translate but also take into context the cultural references of that language. This is oft discussed by people I know in my town - it's a bilingual town requiring a lot of translations from French to English and vice versa.

This might be a very good example of how texts can really change so much through improper translations. You might be familiar with this one, it's called the Lord's Prayer:

The Lord's Prayer in Late Modern English,
Book of Common Prayer, 1928

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy Name.
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done,
on Earth as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, and the power,
and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.

The Lords Prayer translated from Aramaic into English, rather than from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English

O cosmic Birther of all radiance and vibration!
Soften the ground of our being and
carve out a space within us where
Your Presence can abide.
Fill us with your creativity so that we
may be empowered to bear the fruit
of your mission.
Let each of our actions bear fruit in
accordance with our desire.
Endow us with the wisdom to produce
and share what each being needs to grow and flourish.
Untie the tangled threads of destiny that
bind us, as we release others from the
entanglement of past mistakes.
Do not let us be seduced by that which would
divert us from our true purpose, but illuminate
the opportunities of the present moment.
For you are the round and the fruitful vision,
the birth-power and fulfillment,
as all is gathered and made whole once again.

That's what souggy was talking about, how things get lost in translation and hence one cannot assume that what is written in the English Bible is what was actually said originally.

 

[deafbajagal]

Deafcaroline impressed me too. We got some good history buffs here.

 

[Reba]

No, I know the passage you are referring to: 1 Timothy 3:2, 13 and Titus 1:6.

Timothy, Titus and St. Paul were all Greek and Roman citizens. That passage is a byproduct of Roman laws. Under the Roman Empire, a widower who remarry loses her status as remarrying widowers were viewed as impure. However Paul and Timothy still cannot abandon their Jewish faith, yet they did not want to be categorized in the same fashion as their zealot countepart which the Roman Legion were trying to suppress the uprisings of.

An engaging controversial text about how Jews survived in the Roman Empire would be "Caesar's Messiah". While the book is not considered as authoritative, and the credibility of the author is contested, given criticism of religions sell like hotcakes, there one will find how living under the Romans influenced Jewish zealots. Even if one doesn't agree with it, it does raise some interesting points.

Wow, that's a stretch.

You've added a lot of creative speculation.

A widow and widower are not the same thing.

You're referring to a source that even you say has contested credibility.

Titus in particular was raised in Crete, where the Greeks considered polygny as selfish, barbaric adulterous behavours for several centuries prior to the rise of Christianity.

So what is your point? That others, in addition to Christians, realized that polygamy was a bad idea? That certainly doesn't negate anything I posted.

Furthermore, the numeral system in Greek is ambiguous. To compound to the grey area, some scholars may argue it only applies to bishops.

Keep trying.

Because God never forbid polygamy.

God said that marriage was one man and one woman. That's not polygamy.

Any other relationships beyond what God ordained are not marriage as He said.

The church leaders did based on how they read the texts given to them. Any time a scribe copy the text, there are slight errors. Any time a text is translated, meanings are lost.

Do you have proof that these slight errors just happened to be in all the references to how many wives God ordained in Genesis?

Heck, in translation from Greek to Latin under Catholicism, many of the ambiguous passages became concrete.

I'm not referring to anything from Catholicism.

American Christianity is based on either the English version of the Bible, in which there are numerous versions of, or the Lutheran German version of the Bible (or rather more correctly, the English translation of the Lutheran Bible.) The average pastor is not going to be knowledge in ancient Aramaic or ancient Greek.

I'm blessed with knowing and having access to above average pastors and Bible scholars (using your definition).

In fact, many of them haven't even began to consider that mankind could had unintentionally rewrote the Bible after two thousand years of translating and copying texts by hand. The easiest way to rile up a church leader is to suggest the King James Bible is not the same as the original Greek Bible

I hate to burst your bubble but yes, they have considered that premise and found it lacking.

So, no, it's not "God never approved of polygamy"; the correct answer is: according to interpretation of the modern English translation of the Bible, most Americans believe God doesn't approve of polygamy.

Just Americans, huh?

BTW, what is your horse in this race? Just curious.

You are correct, however it doesn't means the concept is not there. It was considered as bigotry to have an affair with an unmarried woman, and adulterous for an married man to have an affair with unmarried woman; or to engage with another man's wife or wives.

Point?

The Prophet Daniel would disagree with you. He told David if he wanted to, he could have more wives. You know well as I do, prophets speak for God.

In what passage was that? Seeing that David lived centuries before Daniel, how could that be a prophecy? Since David died hundreds of years before Daniel was born, how could Daniel tell David anything?

 

[Reba]

The Lords Prayer translated from Aramaic into English, rather than from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English

O cosmic Birther of all radiance and vibration!
Soften the ground of our being and
carve out a space within us where
Your Presence can abide.
Fill us with your creativity so that we
may be empowered to bear the fruit
of your mission.
Let each of our actions bear fruit in
accordance with our desire.
Endow us with the wisdom to produce
and share what each being needs to grow and flourish.
Untie the tangled threads of destiny that
bind us, as we release others from the
entanglement of past mistakes.
Do not let us be seduced by that which would
divert us from our true purpose, but illuminate
the opportunities of the present moment.
For you are the round and the fruitful vision,
the birth-power and fulfillment,
as all is gathered and made whole once again.

That's what souggy was talking about, how things get lost in translation and hence one cannot assume that what is written in the English Bible is what was actually said originally.

That "translation" is actually a creative poem from a book written by Saadi Neil Douglas-Klotz of the Sufi Order of the West.

Amazon.com: Neil Douglas-Klotz: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle

More resources at:

http://www.squidoo.com/abwun

 

[KristinaB]

Not a subject for me to get involved in at all.

 

[Reba]

Not a subject for me to get involved in at all.

OK.

 

[Beowulf]

That "translation" is actually a creative poem from a book written by Saadi Neil Douglas-Klotz of the Sufi Order of the West.

Amazon.com: Neil Douglas-Klotz: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle

No, it was the original Aramaic Prayer of Jesus included in the book. Neil Douglas-Klotz did not write it himself.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Wow, that's a stretch.

You've added a lot of creative speculation.

A widow and widower are not the same thing.

You're referring to a source that even you say has contested credibility.

It's not creative. It's a constant matter of debate between Biblical scholars, historians and pastors.

If it's contested, does it means it lacks merits? To compare, many philosophers dismiss The Selfish Gene without reading it purely based on the title of the book, and the jargons used made it seems cold and bleak, yet the book itself is about how humans are naturally altruistic and the promising future it holds. Likewise, don't judge the book by the cover.

So what is your point? That others, in addition to Christians, realized that polygamy was a bad idea? That certainly doesn't negate anything I posted.

Polygny in the historical days means knowingly having affairs with people outside the initial union. If one was to remarry after their wife or husband died, then it would be considered as polygamous.

Keep trying.

Come on, now. If you look up the various translation of Timothy 3:2, some of the translation specify it only applies to bishops.

God said that marriage was one man and one woman. That's not polygamy.

No, that "husband of one's wife" is a mistranslation. I even showed you the original phase it was translated from.

Any other relationships beyond what God ordained are not marriage as He said.

Correct. However He never said polygamous marriages are illegitimate.

Do you have proof that these slight errors just happened to be in all the references to how many wives God ordained in Genesis?

It's a well-established fact, prior to the invention of the printing press, scribes were hired to copy the text by hand. It is also well-documented if people copy a note over and over again, the end copy is different from the original copy.

Are you insisting scribes are supernatural humans blessed by divine will? I hope not.

I'm not referring to anything from Catholicism.

But the mainstream translation of the Bible which you are using in your Church is based on translation from Latin texts. It was only under the Catholic Church the Greek and Aramaic texts were translated to Latin. Ignoring the role of the Catholic Church in the history of the Bible is at best, intellectual dishonesty. At worst, ignorant.

I hate to burst your bubble but yes, they have considered that premise and found it lacking.

Because it doesn't conform to their cultural upbringings. It has been established most Christians don't like God of the Old Testament due to the cruel and unusual nature, however they do revere in the concept of a perfect God who will deliver them salvation through Jesus. Concepts and reality are often very different. When one considers that, then yes, there is an inherit bias with every person who read the scriptures.

Just Americans, huh?

This is AllDeaf. We live in North America and we are all byproducts of Anglo-American culture. It certainly doesn't factor in how African Christians have a completely different translation of the same Bible. It also doesn't factor in how Europeans have a slightly different view of marriage, in regard to divorces, from Americans as well.

BTW, what is your horse in this race? Just curious.

Historical accuracy. I am not trying to say polygamy should be legitimate from a Christian point of view. After all, one's upbringing shapes a person's morals. After all, the ancient Christian churches are dead and they no longer have an influence over the mainstream. But to say God forbid polygamy is absurd because it invokes every Christian's view, every scripture, every translation and official religious statements issued by religious leaders in the history of the world; and they are not consistent.

Point?

Then why bring up the word "polygamy" isn't used in the Bible? Was it meant to be a red herring?

In what passage was that? Seeing that David lived centuries before Daniel, how could that be a prophecy? Since David died hundreds of years before Daniel was born, how could Daniel tell David anything?

Good catch. It was Nathan in Samuel 12:8.

 

[DeafCaroline]

No, it was the original Aramaic Prayer of Jesus included in the book. Neil Douglas-Klotz did not write it himself.

Thank you.

 

[Reba]

No, it was the original Aramaic Prayer of Jesus included in the book. Neil Douglas-Klotz did not write it himself.

That's not what he said in this interview:

Interview with Neil Douglas Klotz

 

[Beowulf]

That's not what he said in this interview:

Interview with Neil Douglas Klotz

It says in the interview that he was translating, not "being creative."