i cant legally obtain a space ship. can i desire one?
-
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
I believe the same is true of "covet" within the old testament. The same word used within the 10 commandments is also used in Psalms 19:10 (emphasis added):
They're different in tense, and I don't understand Hebrew that I could be certain they don't have a relevant distinction, but the root is the same. To "covet" is fine, but it's what is being coveted that makes all the difference. Lust is the same way.
oh yes you can- you just cant afford it.
@frederick and @Joleneakamama
Agreed. Thanks for correcting what I wrote to what I meant.
I generally equate what Jesus was saying in these verses as him reiterating Torah and explaining the hypocrisy of the religious crowd in not committing adultery physically, but being guilty of coveting (lusting) over thy neighbor’s belongings. They were claiming righteousness in one area (bravo!) but not admitting to unrighteousness in another, thereby enforcing what Paul wrote later that…”all have sinned.”
Last edited:
indeed. that seems like the correct understanding to me. people come to this text thinking it is jesus "elevating" the law because he seems to speak derisively of divorce, which "was" "tolerated" but that is not what he is doing.
hebrew and greek shouldnt be necessary to understand the bible.
but...
as far as i know the hebrew and greek terms rendered "lust, covet" and "desire" are the same.
the english translation choice is determined by context - is this talking about sin? use lust, covet. is this talking about something that is not necessarily sin? use desire.
in practice this makes at least 2 problems though.
1, translators made a mistake when deciding if it's a sinful desire being spoken about, or not.
2, "lust" and "covet" are negatively charged terms in english. we think they "just are" sin, but the writer in hebrew or greek may not have shared such a low-context hermeneutical presumption.
it leads to really silly ideas like that jesus said sexually desiring women is wrong.
but...
as far as i know the hebrew and greek terms rendered "lust, covet" and "desire" are the same.
the english translation choice is determined by context - is this talking about sin? use lust, covet. is this talking about something that is not necessarily sin? use desire.
in practice this makes at least 2 problems though.
1, translators made a mistake when deciding if it's a sinful desire being spoken about, or not.
2, "lust" and "covet" are negatively charged terms in english. we think they "just are" sin, but the writer in hebrew or greek may not have shared such a low-context hermeneutical presumption.
it leads to really silly ideas like that jesus said sexually desiring women is wrong.
I’m glad we agree, brother.
Which is why I’m not a big fan of implications without citations.
In this narrative, we can easily refer back to His torah (which Jesus says He did not come to destroy) and have that color in the true message of what the Messiah was intending. It’s a solid, biblical witness. Without that Torah context, we get the standard evangelical interpretation that men shouldn’t look at women…period, forgetting that the lust described by Jesus is coveting of that which is a neighbor’s.
those are his words but i think the meaning can still be easily lost. you probably agree with this, but...
all commerce involves desiring what belongs to my neighbor.
obviously, that isn't sin, either.
-this post is not about commerce-
maybe you missed it but in that thread i did give real "implicative" arguments.
some were answered, some werent.
but they were there.
Gents...outside perspective trying to slow through the weeds of this debate. Ugh
My read of the situation
- genetic proof of way more moms than dads in all genetic history.
- plural marriage was fine everywhere until we reached a particular level of K strategy sort of success and by extension the concomitant nasty aspects that go with civilizational success...bureaucracy. it is bureaucracy that disallowed polygyny rather than any natter of faith
- Rome disallowed more than one wife for bureaucratic reasons and in no way for religious or moral reasons.
- Jews and Christians were under the the yoke of Rome and by extension were forced to follow their rules even though polygyny in each faith was fine
- time passes and as with any sort of rule, for it to make sense to the faithful, the way to go is to make the claim "God said so dumbass, so the answer is No!. Now shut up and sit down!"
- more time passes and nobody questions the idea.
- more time still passes. Mortality salients increase as the western world follows the civilizational pattern which leads to collapse time after time.
- human nature ie polygyny rears its head with some of the remnant normal population and most encounter the social norms which are based on manipulative inculcation vs actual words in scripture. All of which to the outsider is just looking to justify or deny natural famil building by combing through scripture to try to support their interpretation
My conclusion is that the only prescriptions have ALWAYS been the laws of man and never scripture explicitly saying that it was disallowed or even not a good thing.
Seems like the question has been answered long ago and it makes me wonder at the height of the weeds one needs to slog through.
Sure, I suspect that some enjoy getting into the deep details, but I suspect that just agreeing that yes it is fine...kind of thecreason we are here...and perhaps a touch more focus on being able to preach it's benefits and work towards social acceptance.
Ladies are really quite malleable and able to adapt to quite a range of cultural shifts by their very nature and design. They need to see us as normal and not scary.
Normalization is not going to be found unfortunately in debating minutia.
Normalization in my opinion will be found in showing/describing happy families and more focus on the inherent advantages to the natural human marriage.
Like I said, outsider perspective/observation and not trying to wizz on anybody's feet.
My read of the situation
- genetic proof of way more moms than dads in all genetic history.
- plural marriage was fine everywhere until we reached a particular level of K strategy sort of success and by extension the concomitant nasty aspects that go with civilizational success...bureaucracy. it is bureaucracy that disallowed polygyny rather than any natter of faith
- Rome disallowed more than one wife for bureaucratic reasons and in no way for religious or moral reasons.
- Jews and Christians were under the the yoke of Rome and by extension were forced to follow their rules even though polygyny in each faith was fine
- time passes and as with any sort of rule, for it to make sense to the faithful, the way to go is to make the claim "God said so dumbass, so the answer is No!. Now shut up and sit down!"
- more time passes and nobody questions the idea.
- more time still passes. Mortality salients increase as the western world follows the civilizational pattern which leads to collapse time after time.
- human nature ie polygyny rears its head with some of the remnant normal population and most encounter the social norms which are based on manipulative inculcation vs actual words in scripture. All of which to the outsider is just looking to justify or deny natural famil building by combing through scripture to try to support their interpretation
My conclusion is that the only prescriptions have ALWAYS been the laws of man and never scripture explicitly saying that it was disallowed or even not a good thing.
Seems like the question has been answered long ago and it makes me wonder at the height of the weeds one needs to slog through.
Sure, I suspect that some enjoy getting into the deep details, but I suspect that just agreeing that yes it is fine...kind of thecreason we are here...and perhaps a touch more focus on being able to preach it's benefits and work towards social acceptance.
Ladies are really quite malleable and able to adapt to quite a range of cultural shifts by their very nature and design. They need to see us as normal and not scary.
Normalization is not going to be found unfortunately in debating minutia.
Normalization in my opinion will be found in showing/describing happy families and more focus on the inherent advantages to the natural human marriage.
Like I said, outsider perspective/observation and not trying to wizz on anybody's feet.
Good refinement of the details. A bit pedantic, but I’ll go along to eliminate potential misunderstandings.
Yes, I agree that commerce does require a basic amount of lust/desire of a product that belongs to another. Commerce is condoned in scripture, as are honest weights and measures.
Let’s refine: Lust/desire for something that belongs to his neighbor and is not specifically available or offered in commerce.
That wasn’t necessarily directed towards you, brother.
It was a general statement.
I’m not saying implications are illegitimate, only that reliance on them to formulate a doctrine is folly (I’m not saying that’s your approach). The first, and often only, round of argument against polygyny is Lamech and all others in the Bible had horrible outcomes. Folks rely on the suppose implications. It’s not a good hermeneutic.
still no.
my uncle's ferrari is not for for sale, and i couldn't afford it even if it was.
when he takes me for a ride and i imagine what it would be like to own a ferrari like his, i am not sinning.
i dont think its pedantic.
-this post is not about cars.-
if they can be legitimate, then reliance on them can be not folly.
Your semantics are interesting. Can be not folly? Is that a logician’s trap? I’m not exactly sure what you’re shooting for.
I will just say that Honey is good. Honey is sweet. Honey is natural. Honey is clean. Honey is kosher. Honey is a wonderful food.
It would be folly to eat only honey.
Honey with my oatmeal or on my lamb ribs can be not folly.
its writing/thinking in what is called formal logic
you said relying on implications is folly...
...but also that implications can be "legitimate" (meaning true, correct)
and this doesnt make sense, because...
if some implications are legitimate (which is obviously true)...
...then relying on them to form legitimate conclusions is sometimes not folly (obvious)
so you should not say both that 1. implications can be true, and also 2. that the use of them is foolish.
what you mean is that oftentimes people make silly stupid arguments based on implications that aren't there or are readily countered.
this is true.
but that is not the sort of argument(s) i brought. they have the implicational aspect to them, yes, but not the folly, which you grant as a possibility.
you said relying on implications is folly...
...but also that implications can be "legitimate" (meaning true, correct)
and this doesnt make sense, because...
if some implications are legitimate (which is obviously true)...
...then relying on them to form legitimate conclusions is sometimes not folly (obvious)
so you should not say both that 1. implications can be true, and also 2. that the use of them is foolish.
what you mean is that oftentimes people make silly stupid arguments based on implications that aren't there or are readily countered.
this is true.
but that is not the sort of argument(s) i brought. they have the implicational aspect to them, yes, but not the folly, which you grant as a possibility.
Correct. I’m not sure how what I wrote is in contradiction to this. If I lust for a Ferrari that is LIKE his, but NOT his, or anybody else’s, then it’s not sin.
If we refer back to the biblical narrative, we can see that Jesus uses the term for woman often used (but not always used) in reference to a married woman. If our acceptable premise that Jesus would not contradict his torah, then a reasonable extrapolation…dare I say implication…is that Jesus is speaking of not coveting a woman married to a SPECIFIC man.
There was an old song from years ago that said that “I want a girl just like the one that married dear old dad.” (I think that’s the lyric). Folks from a hundred years ago would understand it perfectly to mean that this guy wants a woman who reflects all the good characteristics of his mother. It’s an homage to her. Moderns would see the implications for incest and be disgusted. It’s just the age we live in.
As far as being pedantic, I’ll let others decide.
Yes, I recognized it as such. Which is why I was curious as to how you were using it. Was it accidental or purposeful.
I didn’t say using them is foolish. I said relying on them is folly. Perhaps a more precise way of expressing that would be to say that ONLY relying on them is folly.
Not necessarily. Often, the implications are there. They just can’t be used to justify prohibitions. The Bible really does speak extensively on the use of alcohol and points out its obvious potential abuses. Implications are everywhere. But that doesn’t justify prohibition, since there’s no language in scripture to say so.
Brother, as I’ve already stated, my commentary is not based solely on you. If the shoe fits, wear it, but I’m speaking generally of those who use implication to override strict interpretation when questions of morality come up.