You can also ask to buy it before owner decides to sell 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.
False Witness on Polygamy: A Response to Michael Foster
Correct; it's the essence of what common law now calls "offer." And the precedent is Abraham, in Genesis, to the Hittite, for the Cave of Macpelah, to bury Sarah. Notice that he didn't hesitate to jump on the "acceptance," either.
No. It says Joash did. But what did Joash do? Well the main thing that it said he did was take two wives from Jehoiada. If taking two wives was a sin, then Joash sinned by taking them. But the Bible clearly said that he did not sin. Ergo, polygamy itself is not a sin.
This is basic and clear logic. His case is invalid.
No it does not. It never said that Joash was an innocent bystander of Jehoiada's sin. The whole point of this verse is to point out the wisdom of the young king listening to the wise high priest. It was not until later that Joash ran into problems, after Jehoiada's days and this was clearly before that.
You would have to go jump through giant hoops to reach this conclusion. As if you were wanting a certain conclusion before reading what the text actually says. The simplest and most direct reading is usually the correct one.
I would also add on that 2 Chron 24:16 indicates that Jehoiada did what was right and good in Israel and before God.
Excellent!
"x did what was right in sight of yahweh" is a formulaic statement which does not imply x did not sin.
the text assigns agency for josiah's polygamy to jehoiada. therefore, it should be assumed that josiah is not responsible. therefore, it is not something bad he "did" in the days of jehoiada the priest.
by placing jehoiada's action after the prognosis of josiah, the text is contraposing josiah's overall goodness with the bad actions of jehoiada fetching him multiple women.
it never said that africa is hot in the summer months, therefore africa is not hot in the summer months
so? we aren't asking a universal hermeneutical question; we are dealing with a particular.
Man_in_the_Middle
Seasoned Member
I think it is important to note that the scripture says that Joash "did what was right". That assigns agency to Joash and his decisions and actions are what are being called "right in the sight of the LORD".
2 Kings 12:2 KJV And Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the LORD all his days wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him.
Also
2 Chronicles 24:1-3 KJV Joash was seven years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Zibiah of Beersheba. (2) And Joash did that which was right in the sight of the LORD all the days of Jehoiada the priest. (3) And Jehoiada took for him two wives; and he begat sons and daughters.
Joash went on to have children and do many things related to restoring the temple. Many years pass by according to what all takes place.
So, the question I have for those that think that it would have been wrong for Joash to have two wives, what do they think is the righteous in God's eyes way of dealing with it? So, after they agree that he has come of age and his actions are his own, what would they say is the righteous thing for him to do with the two wives? Divorce them?
Was the point just to illustrate the kind of flawed logic often used by scoffers to dismiss cases of polygyny in Scripture?
Joash is not a 'proof text' - just an example. There are many. And there are proof texts, too.
i think when combined with 2 ch 24:1-3 it's functionally a proof text. my teacher (who has been fighting this) agreed.
that serves as a pretty strong proof for the OT but there still remains the apparent contentions in the NT and I think they are competent when phrased by a competent objector (my teacher)
that serves as a pretty strong proof for the OT but there still remains the apparent contentions in the NT and I think they are competent when phrased by a competent objector (my teacher)
I know you mentioned it before, but I can’t remember: Is your teacher one who leans more towards NT supremacy?
that sounds like you're describing an antinomian and those are the 99% of dummies thinking paul and jesus changed the law or that they even could. not worth arguing with. my teacher is a pronomian calvinist, like foster.
so, "nt supremacy," no, but he does seem to think paul or jesus can... not so much "change" or "elevate" the law, but he does note that god does seem to alter his law depending on time and place, which seems true and if so is definitely relevant when considering NT texts vs the law.
so, "nt supremacy," no, but he does seem to think paul or jesus can... not so much "change" or "elevate" the law, but he does note that god does seem to alter his law depending on time and place, which seems true and if so is definitely relevant when considering NT texts vs the law.
That’s a heavy burden to try to decipher.
Is the contention that God changes it for different times and people (relative?)
Or he is above the Law and is not bound to it as sovereign?
for one thing he, like all non-TO pronomians, assumes that some of the law is rightly categorized as "ceremonial." for whatever reason the "ceremonial" laws are the abrogated ones... and the abrogated ones are the ceremonial ones, i guess.
i dont think such a structuring is true but i could easily be wrong. have only looked into it enough to see that the traditional epistemics underlying this supposition aren't forthcoming, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
for another, subtracting the effect of the ceremonial piling, he cites:
1. god only disallowed consanguinity after adam
2. god changed diets multiple times, including pre/post deluvian
3. torah was always meant to be temporary, and the NT explicates this
i dont think such a structuring is true but i could easily be wrong. have only looked into it enough to see that the traditional epistemics underlying this supposition aren't forthcoming, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
for another, subtracting the effect of the ceremonial piling, he cites:
1. god only disallowed consanguinity after adam
2. god changed diets multiple times, including pre/post deluvian
3. torah was always meant to be temporary, and the NT explicates this
I wonder if this bnonn guy has read Psalms 18:21-24.
Yeah, but there really is no verse even in the New Covenant that states that polygyny is wrong. When there is nothing that supercedes it, we HAVE to go back to the Old Testament. I challenge people on where do we find the laws defining which people are forbidden for marriage (sister, aunt, etc.) One fellow tried the old Hebrew 13:4 on me, which does not forbid marrying anyone!
Man_in_the_Middle
Seasoned Member
To those that believe that the instructions God gave Moses no longer applies, Hebrews 13:4 could easily leave them believing that they could marry their own mother!
there are quite a few which certainly seem to. they've been alluded to in this thread. some have been answered, some haven't sufficiently.
one can say "the law is perfect for all time and no one can change it, not jesus, not paul, no one. so if you think they are doing that, you're mistaken in interpretation." but this has to be argued in at least 2 prongs: 1, that what they *really really* seem to be saying, they actually arent. 2, that they arent in some sense elevating or clarifying the law, if not changing it.
Man_in_the_Middle
Seasoned Member
Which have not yet been addressed sufficiently at this point? It would be interesting to try to address them and understand from your perspective why they have not yet been fully explained.
Looking forward to this!
Their (erroneous) presupposition is polygyny is adultery, and that's got to be sorted out first. I try to stick to the underlying problem the monogamy-only folks have which is to show from the Bible where God says polygyny is a sin. And they can't.