Is Polygamy Wrong?

[Secular Liberation]

These things happen when you have to rely on translation that is using 400 year old English to get it to kinda say what you want.


I'm surprised he didn't use the Wycliffe translation: "Thou Shalt Not Slay"

Seriously, your more worried about what kind of English someone uses for a universal English translation but not worried that the Bible has polygamy in it?

[One Bad Pig]

Seriously, your more worried about what kind of English someone uses for a universal English translation but not worried that the Bible has polygamy in it?

Am I worried that the Bible portrays history? No.

[Secular Liberation]

Am I worried that the Bible portrays history? No.

So do you agree with Gary's view that morality evolves or not?

[Raphael]

Seriously, your more worried about what kind of English someone uses for a universal English translation but not worried that the Bible has polygamy in it?

1.) I come from a country where polygamy is fairly common.
2.) Whilst the Bible permits polygamy it is never held up as an ideal and in most cases in the Bible is the cause of problems.
3.) The English language has changed over the last 400 years.

[Secular Liberation]

1.) I come from a country where polygamy is fairly common.
2.) Whilst the Bible permits polygamy it is never held up as an ideal and in most cases in the Bible is the cause of problems.
3.) The English language has changed over the last 400 years.

Doesn't mean his translation was somehow different, it's just a thou rather than a you.

[Raphael]

Doesn't mean his translation was somehow different, it's just a thou rather than a you.

It translates the word as Kill where it is meant to be Murder.


There is a BIG difference between a command of "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not murder" the translation in the KJV is flawed (there are a number of translation issues with the KJV in general, this is one of them add in the language shift).



By using the KJV with it's "Thou Shalt Not Kill" Gary can claim that the Bible forbids any killing while sending the Israelites off to war and putting in crimes that carry the death penalty to their legal code.
All the newer translations use the correct word "murder"

[Secular Liberation]

War is murder in my opinion.

[lilpixieofterror]

"Thou shalt not kill."

The interpretation, even by Christians, of the Ten Commandments has changed: The definition of murder (killing) has changed; the rules of war (killing) have changed; and what constitutes just grounds for execution (killing) has most definitely changed.

You're truly are a special kind of stupid, huh?

[lilpixieofterror]

War is murder in my opinion.

So you're solution would have been to let the Nazi's conquer the world? Hey, your logic, I'm just using it against you.

[KingsGambit]

War is murder in my opinion.

That may well be, but that's not how the Israelites would have understood that particular commandment.

[Raphael]

I subscribe to Just War theory¹.




Back to Polygamy, the ESV Study Bible Ethics article dealing with Polygamy agrees with my assertion that while the Bible allows polygamy, it is never lifted as an ideal and is indeed the cause of trouble:
http://www.esvbible.org/resources/es...exual-morality (not sure the link will work for you)

Source: ESV Study Bible

Polygamy
Why did God allow polygamy in the OT? Nowhere in the Bible did God ever command polygamy or tell anyone to marry more than one wife. Rather, God temporarily allowed polygamy to occur (he did not give any general prohibition against it) without giving it any explicit moral approval. Nevertheless, in the OT narratives, whenever a man has two or more wives, it seems to lead to trouble (see ; 1 Samuel 1; 1 Kings 11; note the prohibition in Deut. 17:17Gen. 1:271 Pet. 3:71 Tim. 3:2) would exclude polygamists from being elders (evidence for polygamy among Jews in the 1st century is found in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 17.14; Mishnah, Yebamoth 4.11; Ketuboth 10.1, 4, 5; Sanhedrin 2.4; Kerithoth 3.7; Kiddushin 2.7; Bechoroth 8.4; and Justin Martyr, Dialogue 134; for polygamy among non-Jews, see 2 Macc. 4:30; Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 17.19; Tertullian, Apology 46). This has practical application today in missionary contexts in cultures where polygamy is still practiced: the Bible would not encourage a husband to divorce any of his multiple wives when this would leave them without support and protection. But it would not allow a man with multiple wives to be an elder. This restriction would provide a pattern that would generally lead to the abolition of polygamy in a church in a generation or two.

© Copyright Original Source

1. The just war ethic argues that warfare is sometimes necessary in order to resist or reverse specific unjust actions taken by one government or nation against another, but it also insists that war is always regrettable, is always something to avoid if possible, and is never to be used to establish some new vision of a social order.

[Gary]

It translates the word as Kill where it is meant to be Murder.


There is a BIG difference between a command of "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not murder" the translation in the KJV is flawed (there are a number of translation issues with the KJV in general, this is one of them add in the language shift).



By using the KJV with it's "Thou Shalt Not Kill" Gary can claim that the Bible forbids any killing while sending the Israelites off to war and putting in crimes that carry the death penalty to their legal code.
All the newer translations use the correct word "murder"

If you re-read my post, it was not my intention to infer that the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" meant you can never kill. I fully agree that the context indicates that it meant: "Thou shalt not murder". What I was trying to say is that many acts of killing during the time period of early Israel which would not have met the definition of murder, would today be considered murder. The definition of murder has changed:

---If the town council of a city today were to stone a woman for not having an intact hymen on her wedding night, most people today would consider that murder.

---If an army hunted down and killed every man, woman, and child of an enemy nation today, most people today would consider that murder.

---If a community stoned to death a child for cursing her father and mother, that act today would be considered murder.

Even most conservative Christians would consider these acts, if they occurred today, to be acts of murder. This demonstrates my earlier point (which I obviously did not express clearly): the definition of MURDER and the definition of "justified killing" have changed, even among the followers of Yahweh. This is confirmation that morality is not absolute; it changes with time and social circumstances.

[Adrift]

If you re-read my post, it was not my intention to infer that the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" meant you can never kill. I fully agree that the context indicates that it meant: "Thou shalt not murder". What I was trying to say is that many acts of killing during the time period of early Israel which would not have met the definition of murder, would today be considered murder. The definition of murder has changed:

---If the town council of a city today were to stone a woman for not having an intact hymen on her wedding night, most people today would consider that murder.

---If an army hunted down and killed every man, woman, and child of an enemy nation today, most people today would consider that murder.

---If a community stoned to death a child for cursing her father and mother, that act today would be considered murder.

Even most conservative Christians would consider these acts, if they occurred today, to be acts of murder. This demonstrates my earlier point (which I obviously did not express clearly): the definition of MURDER and the definition of "justified killing" have changed, even among the followers of Yahweh. This is confirmation that morality is not absolute; it changes with time and social circumstances.

Your entire perspective on this issue is off. The definition of murder hasn't changed. Murder is still the unjust taking of life. Most Christians do not consider the legal ramifications found in the Old Testament for ancient Israel unjust, nor do they consider it murder given the context, which was under a legal code written for a kingdom under a contractual obligation to God, in a collectivist, honor-based, agrarian society in which prisons were unlikely to exist, and under a pre-grace administration. That Christ's administration of grace freed those in Christ from the penalty of the law does not mean that morality changed, or that the law was immoral. Furthermore, that the legal penalty for adultery, persecution, disobedience, what-have-you, has changed/or no longer exists, does not mean that those things are now morally good. The morality hasn't changed. That you believe that a change/lack in penalty for immoral behavior somehow means that the definition of "moral" has changed just shows your complete ignorance on the topic (which, sadly, is not unusual for you). You really didn't think this out very thoroughly, did you.

[Gary]

Your entire perspective on this issue is off. The definition of murder hasn't changed. Murder is still the unjust taking of life. Most Christians do not consider the legal ramifications found in the Old Testament for ancient Israel unjust, nor do they consider it murder given the context, which was under a legal code written for a kingdom under a contractual obligation to God, in a collectivist, honor-based, agrarian society in which prisons were unlikely to exist, and under a pre-grace administration. That Christ's administration of grace freed those in Christ from the penalty of the law does not mean that morality changed, or that the law was immoral. Furthermore, that the legal penalty for adultery, persecution, disobedience, what-have-you, has changed/or no longer exists, does not mean that those things are now morally good. The morality hasn't changed. That you believe that a change/lack in penalty for immoral behavior somehow means that the definition of "moral" has changed just shows your complete ignorance on the topic (which, sadly, is not unusual for you). You really didn't think this out very thoroughly, did you.

You obviously did not read what I said.

During the time of early Israel, killing a bride for not having an intact hymen was not considered immoral. Most Christians today, justify the killing of brides without intact hymen during the time period of ancient Israel with various justificantions. Today, however, killing a bride for not having an intact hymen on her wedding night would be considered murder, even by the overwhelming majority of Christians.

The definition of "murder" and the definition of a "justified killing" have changed...even among the followers of Yahweh.

[Secular Liberation]

So you're solution would have been to let the Nazi's conquer the world? Hey, your logic, I'm just using it against you.

Ever heard of non-violent resistance? Of course not.