Cochin Hebrew Manuscripts crushing false doctrines!

[Mojo]

what I’m observing in many parts of this forum is an overemphasis on legality and an under emphasis on expediency and charity.

What you are observing is a group of people doing what you encouraged all of us to do…searching the scriptures.

Verses are found. They are read. They are taken at strict face value. That might seem legalistic, but it’s actually just basic hermeneutics.

If you’re looking for charity, I suggest you reread I Corinthians 13:2. You may have more knowledge than others, but a little more humility and charity is in order.

Dial it back a notch, brother.

 

[MemeFan]

I like these examples. I think they’re good evidence. If we are being 100% honest, they are implicit, not explicit commands for polygyny. I’m not sure these are a slam dunk, but they can be deduced to at least allowing the possibility of polygyny since no qualifiers come before.

Yes, they are in proof category for polygyny.

Otherwise, Lord would have added not already married qualifier.

 

[Mojo]

Yes, they are in proof category for polygyny.

Otherwise, Lord would have added not already married qualifier.

I don’t disagree that they’re in the proof category. I’m just saying they’re in the implicit category.

 

[Kojent]

What you are observing is a group of people doing what you encouraged all of us to do…searching the scriptures.

Verses are found. They are read. They are taken at strict face value. That might seem legalistic, but it’s actually just basic hermeneutics.

If you’re looking for charity, I suggest you reread I Corinthians 13:2. You may have more knowledge than others, but a little more humility and charity is in order.

Dial it back a notch, brother.

This whole thread is based on someone doing translational work for a fairly modern manuscript. They ain’t searching the Scriptures. They’re squinting at scraps.

The verses taken at strict face value? Maybe the pro-polygyny ones? Definitely not the Sermon on the Mount or the Epistles. Definitely not Acts 15. Poor @MemeFan had to dig thru a month’s worth of post history just to find a spot where he cited a Scripture, let alone exegetically expounded it. When he found it he got so excited to prove me wrong he even quoted it twice! Charity meant praising God that at least he found something. But this dude is doubling down on giving counsel contrary to Scripture and I won’t stand for it.

Bring all the moderation and ad hominem to bear you can muster, I love the Lord enough to take a stand for His Word.

I’m all for humility and charity, but I’m not going to seek to please men and affirm their silly hobbies and opinions, particularly when they can be so disastrous to the life of the saints.

 

[Mojo]

This whole thread is based on someone doing translational work for a fairly modern manuscript. They ain’t searching the Scriptures. They’re squinting at scraps.

Then argue why you disagree with the manuscript’s validity, not the credentials of the person promoting them.

The verses taken at strict face value? Maybe the pro-polygyny ones?

Yes, that’s the purpose of this forum.

Definitely not the Sermon on the Mount or the Epistles. Definitely not Acts 15.

Those are not necessarily directly related to polygyny. But, people are allowed to have different takes. Yours is not the only one.

Bring all the moderation and ad hominem to bear you can muster, I love the Lord enough to take a stand for His Word.

Good, now use that word to edify and instruct rather than destruct others around you. Charity.

I’m all for humility and charity, but I’m not going to seek to please men and affirm their silly hobbies and opinions, particularly when they can be so disastrous to the life of the saints.

Then affirm your charity by not calling others’ musings, interests and opinions silly. Prove them silly by way of humble teaching and exposition, not by personal proclamation.

Dial it back brother. Reset. Tell us why these manuscripts are not valid. What is your research on them? What has it informed you? What should we all be wary of?