Why Is Polygamy So Controversial?

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

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.

For freakin' sakes, look at what Lenin, Fidel and Mao did with the Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx would be spinning in his grave if he knew how people interpreted his works. And he died... like 200 years ago.

 

[Reba]

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

The author himself said:

"When I began this work, I didn't really know how to start. I knew that in Aramaic, you can read a statement five, six, seven ways. That alone was revolutionary. But then, given that the King James Version of the Lord's Prayer has so much rhythm, it has so much poetry--those fellows knew what they were doing even if they had a vocabulary that was much more limited than Shakespeare--I was inspired in the timing of what lines work. I read Robert Bly's book on translation and that introduced me to the "long line", the Blake/Whitman line. That is where you count syllables rather then stresses. That was a real breakthrough. I consciously used the long line for the Aramaic prayer translation."

Interview with Neil Douglas Klotz

If it's contested, does it means it lacks merits?

It means it's a debatable source.

...Likewise, don't judge the book by the cover.

I didn't.

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

It does not say that it's a standard for bishops ONLY. The bishops/deacons/pastors are to be held up as examples for the rest of the membership to follow.

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

It's "the husband of one wife" not "husband of one's wife."

Correct. However He never said polygamous marriages are illegitimate.

According to God's definition, polygamous relationships are not marriages.

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.

So where is the proof that there were all those errors made specifically about multiple wives?

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

No, I didn't say scribes were supernatural. However, God's Word is, and I believe He protected the passing down of His Word from any consistent errors.

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.

What do you refer to as the "mainstream translation?"

What is my "Church?"

Just want to be sure that we're talking about the same things.

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.

Established by whom? You obviously haven't attended any Bible studies at my church.

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.

Are you saying that only English bibles don't support polygamy but all other ones do?

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.

God did and does forbid polygamy. It is not His definition of marriage, and it goes against the type He established for Christ and the Church.

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

Not at all. It's the topic of this thread.

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

I assume you mean II Samuel 12:8.

The custom of that time was for the victorious king to take all the possessions of the previous king. Wives were considered some of those possessions. However, it does not mean that the new king (in this case, David) took each woman as a wife to himself.

The verse is part of the complete passage where Nathan confronts David about his sin with Bathsheba.

 

[DeafCaroline]

Reba, this is Klotz's version of the Lord's Prayer, and he freely admits taking creative license with this. It's not the same as the one I posted. (In any case, the point remains the same. The Lord's Prayer as we know it and the original text as written in Aramaic are very different. If the Lord's Prayer could change words, meaning and context so much, then it's probable other original texts had also been very loosely and badly translated thus one cannot assume the English bible is the same as what was written originally).

THE ARAMAIC PRAYER OF JESUS
as translated from Aramaic by Saadi Neil Douglas-Klotz of the Sufi Order of the West

O, Birther of the Cosmos, focus your light within us -- make it useful
Create your reign of unity now
Your one desire then acts with ours,
As in all light,
So in all forms,
Grant us what we need each day in bread and insight:
Loose the cords of mistakes binding us,
As we release the strands we hold of other's guilt.
Don't let surface things delude us,
But free us from what holds us back.
From you is born all ruling will,
The power and the life to do,
The song that beautifies all,
From age to age it renews.
I affirm this with my whole being.

 

[Reba]

Reba, this is Klotz's version of the Lord's Prayer, and he freely admits taking creative license with this. It's not the same as the one I posted. (In any case, the point remains the same. The Lord's Prayer as we know it and the original text as written in Aramaic are very different. If the Lord's Prayer could change words, meaning and context so much, then it's probable other original texts had also been very loosely and badly translated thus one cannot assume the English bible is the same as what was written originally).

THE ARAMAIC PRAYER OF JESUS
as translated from Aramaic by Saadi Neil Douglas-Klotz of the Sufi Order of the West

O, Birther of the Cosmos, focus your light within us -- make it useful
Create your reign of unity now
Your one desire then acts with ours,
As in all light,
So in all forms,
Grant us what we need each day in bread and insight:
Loose the cords of mistakes binding us,
As we release the strands we hold of other's guilt.
Don't let surface things delude us,
But free us from what holds us back.
From you is born all ruling will,
The power and the life to do,
The song that beautifies all,
From age to age it renews.
I affirm this with my whole being.

The other problem is, the original Gospels were written in Greek, not Aramaic. So, there are no original Aramaic Gospels from which to translate into the English.

 

[DeafCaroline]

The other problem is, the original Gospels were written in Greek, not Aramaic. So, there are no original Aramaic Gospels from which to translate into the English.

Ok, and this is a problem, why? I'm lost.

Greek texts have also been mistranslated. Heavily. i.e. "Hell". Jerome really took creative license with that one. Big time. none of the original texts (both Greek and Hebrew) referred to anything about hell. Whatsoever. This is yet another example of how the English bible (ok, to be fair, the Catholic Bible) as we know it is inaccurate. It's been proven the concept of hell as first referred to by Plato (eternal punishments) is a pagan belief adopted by Roman Christians.

We can argue about this till we're blue in the face but I'd much rather find out if you believe the English Bible, say the King James version, is an accurate translation of the original texts and as such, what is said in the English Bible is exactly what was said in the original texts.

 

[jillio]

For freakin' sakes, look at what Lenin, Fidel and Mao did with the Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx would be spinning in his grave if he knew how people interpreted his works. And he died... like 200 years ago.

True that. Very, very few have any idea of what Marx's theories really were about. If they can distort that much in a mere 200 years...I'm just saying.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

God's Word is, and I believe He protected the passing down of His Word from any consistent errors.

So according your own words, the African churches which do allow for polygamous marriages are legit. After all, His Words are protected from errors when the Africans translated the Bible into their own languages. In fact, polygamous marriage is codified into their Bibles.

Do you not see how backward your argument is?

 

[Reba]

Ok, and this is a problem, why? I'm lost.

In other words, someone creating an Aramaic version of The Lord's Prayer has nothing to do with the English translation of the original Greek text.

Greek texts have also been mistranslated. Heavily. i.e. "Hell". Jerome really took creative license with that one. Big time. none of the original texts (both Greek and Hebrew) referred to anything about hell. Whatsoever. This is yet another example of how the English bible (ok, to be fair, the Catholic Bible) as we know it is inaccurate. It's been proven the concept of hell as first referred to by Plato (eternal punishments) is a pagan belief adopted by Roman Christians.

I'm not sure how this fits in with polygamy either.

The English word "Hell" represents Sheol, Hades, or Gehenna, depending on the text. Some people use the terms interchangeably which causes confusion.

I'll let Catholics answer about Jerome and the Catholic Bible.

Very briefly, Sheol (Hebrew) and Hades (Greek) are the temporary place of torment for the souls of unsaved dead people. Prior to Christ's resurrection, believers were kept in the now empty half of Hades, known as Abraham's Bosom. Gehenna (Greek, but originally a Hebrew name) is the Lake of Fire for the permanent place of torment of the souls of unsaved dead people in their resurrected bodies. Hell is the general name that is used to refer to Gehenna or the torment side of Hades.

We can argue about this till we're blue in the face but I'd much rather find out if you believe the English Bible, say the King James version, is an accurate translation of the original texts and as such, what is said in the English Bible is exactly what was said in the original texts.

Yes, I believe the KJV of the Bible is an accurate translation of the original texts.

Staying on track with the thread topic, I believe the KJV accurately describes God's design for marriage--one man and one woman.

 

[Reba]

So according your own words, the African churches which do allow for polygamous marriages are legit.

I never said that. I don't even use the word "legit."

After all, His Words are protected from errors when the Africans translated the Bible into their own languages. In fact, polygamous marriage is codified into their Bibles.

What are "African" Bibles? Africa is a continent made up of many countries, with hundreds of languages and dialects. Some dialects don't even have a written form. You would have to discuss the content of each and every Bible language that is used on that continent.

Do you not see how backward your argument is?

No. You haven't even accurately represented my argument.

 

[Reba]

I'll be glad to reply to posts that relate to polygamy in the Bible. I will not get dragged into criticizing other religions by name, so please don't try to lure me into that.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

True that. Very, very few have any idea of what Marx's theories really were about. If they can distort that much in a mere 200 years...I'm just saying.

Less than 50, actually.

I am done with debating this though.

It's pretty clear if scribes are protected by God from making errors, then there's no logical explanation for all the slight changes in other translations and different versions of the Bibles unless one wants to accuse others of being heathens; which is a dangerous ground to walk on.

 

[Grummer]

True that. Very, very few have any idea of what Marx's theories really were about. If they can distort that much in a mere 200 years...I'm just saying.

i do.

 

[Grummer]

Less than 50, actually.

I am done with debating this though.

It's pretty clear if scribes are protected by God from making errors, then there's no logical explanation for all the slight changes in other translations and different versions of the Bibles unless one wants to accuse others of being heathens; which is a dangerous ground to walk on.

more than 50.. but remember the Russian Revolution? it was in 1917

 

[Grummer]

i like polygamy but in real life it wouldnt work out well, also for religion, Karl Marx wrote a famous Marxist line which was; Religion is the opium of the people.

when i googled this to check accurancy of my recall, i found the full quote as this; Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people"

frankly i couldnt care less abou the Bible, afteral i must admit i wonder why this thread went to religion debates on polygamy rather than actual records, politics, or compare theory and practices of such. This is a little dismaying , sorry had to say it. I think Polygamy is risky thing especially in a soceity where we live is predominantly mongamic as the social configuration, in so saying its little point ranting and raving when clearly vast majority of you in this debate arent even near qualifed to banter it, largely because none of you had experienced that.

 

[Grummer]

...and... since we are experienced in the side effects of society not making allowances for us being d/Deaf in this case we Are qualified to have debates but polygamy? i dont think so.
in a way i can see some of you likes to get in the mind sword fights showing off your bibical knowledge...honesty i thnk thats' really strange!!

 

[Reba]

Less than 50, actually.

I am done with debating this though.

It's pretty clear if scribes are protected by God from making errors, then there's no logical explanation for all the slight changes in other translations and different versions of the Bibles unless one wants to accuse others of being heathens; which is a dangerous ground to walk on.

Individual scribes can make random inconsequential errors but God protects the integrity of His Word. "Different versions" of the Bible are not minor transcription errors.

Someone accusing others of being heathens as part of this discussion is ridiculous. Isn't happening.

 

[Secretblend]

What it all comes down is is what you believe. If you believe in the Bible and choose to have faith, it would make sense. If you choose to not believe then the Bible wouldn't make sense.

That is why I don't debate the Bible often cause there is no point in it.

Therefore as for answering OP question, it all comes down to what you believe in.

One day at our death, we'll find out the truth without a doubt and one or the other would be wrong at what they chose to believe.

 

[jillio]

i do.

You are an academic in sociology. I would hope that you had studied Marx in that context.

 

[jillio]

What it all comes down is is what you believe. If you believe in the Bible and choose to have faith, it would make sense. If you choose to not believe then the Bible wouldn't make sense.

That is why I don't debate the Bible often cause there is no point in it.

Therefore as for answering OP question, it all comes down to what you believe in.

One day at our death, we'll find out the truth without a doubt and one or the other would be wrong at what they chose to believe.

Actually, it is more about putting 100% faith in what someone interprets as what the Bible says for you.

 

[DeafCaroline]

Actually, it is more about putting 100% faith in what someone interprets as what the Bible says for you.

Exactly!