Was Polygamy the "norm" in New Testament culture?

[Cow Poke]

As I said earlier, the church that actually worshiped in Greek (and still does) interpreted it as "first". Further, when I read the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, I do not find arguments against polygamy, but I do find arguments against digamy (for everyone, not only bishops). It never seems to have been a majority position, but it speaks to the fact that many were uncomfortable with the idea of re-marriage.

The notion that a man could not be divorced and remarried is one that is held by many Baptist Churches, particularly with regards to pastors and deacons. There was often discussion about exceptions for men who were divorced before they were saved.

Just out of curiosity, OBP --- to your understanding, would the same "uncomfortableness" apply to a man who's wife died, then he remarried?

[One Bad Pig]

The notion that a man could not be divorced and remarried is one that is held by many Baptist Churches, particularly with regards to pastors and deacons. There was often discussion about exceptions for men who were divorced before they were saved.

Just out of curiosity, OBP --- to your understanding, would the same "uncomfortableness" apply to a man who's wife died, then he remarried?

Perhaps not quite to the same level, but the same restrictions apply to Orthodox priests; people who have married a second time are generally not eligible for the priesthood (an exception is occasionally made for clergy who convert and become priests).

[master_mormon]

As I said earlier, the church that actually worshiped in Greek (and still does) interpreted it as "first". Further, when I read the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, I do not find arguments against polygamy, but I do find arguments against digamy (for everyone, not only bishops). It never seems to have been a majority position, but it speaks to the fact that many were uncomfortable with the idea of re-marriage. If marriage to two people in succession was looked upon with skepticism, marriage to two people at once would have been out of the question.

Further, the statistics you chose to show are rather misleading, and the word is emphatically singular.

mia

Outline of biblical usage: 1) only one, someone

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 79
AV — one 62, first 8, a certain 4, a 3, the other 1

Your comments on the usage here and I can see the argument on "digamy". It can mean "first". Though I may not agree with the view I can at least see it and the possiblity for it. That is really all i ask for. It allows me to at least see a different perspective that may exist. When people say that I am wrong and simply say "context" and don't give me an alternative to see other views it really is not helpful to me. I am left to guess to figure out what they are trying to get at.

For the most part you are right it is used in the singular. There are 3 times in the KJV where it simply translated as "a" but usually it it is translated as one or first. A lot of people use this example as an anti-polygamy argument and I just don't see it. Polygamy is not the subject matter and I don't believe Paul had the issue in his mind when he was writing it.

[Cow Poke]

Your comments on the usage here and I can see the argument on "digamy". It can mean "first". Though I may not agree with the view I can at least see it and the possiblity for it. That is really all i ask for. It allows me to at least see a different perspective that may exist. When people say that I am wrong and simply say "context" and don't give me an alternative to see other views it really is not helpful to me. I am left to guess to figure out what they are trying to get at.

MM, sadly, I think you're only seeing what you want to see --- I have said repeatedly, you don't just pull ONE WORD out of a passage and interpret the meaning by the POSSIBLE uses of that one word. I wasn't aware you didn't understand "context", but I should have been. I honestly believe that if you knew more about "context", you'd see a lot of things differently than you do.

[master_mormon]

MM, sadly, I think you're only seeing what you want to see --- I have said repeatedly, you don't just pull ONE WORD out of a passage and interpret the meaning by the POSSIBLE uses of that one word. I wasn't aware you didn't understand "context", but I should have been. I honestly believe that if you knew more about "context", you'd see a lot of things differently than you do.

So what exactly am I seeing what I want to see? I simply made a statement that the word "one" could be rendered differently an is done so in the KJV. Of course context will probably dictate of what way should be preferred over another. If the word "one" is preferred, I am fine with it. If the word "first" is preferred I am fine with it. If the word "a" is preferred, i am fine with it. My views are not based on this singular passage and there are much more important issues out there.

Perhaps my issue and it is not directed at you but often I hear people disagree with me or others and simply say they are wrong because of "context" and they never get around to explaining why they are wrong and why from the context the other view is correct.

I believe it is very important for people to question the words the translators use and it is good to examine one word in a passage and examine all the ways it can be viewed to see which way best fits the context. Translators can intentionally or not lead a person down the wrong direction if they render the word one way instead of the other even if the way they are doing it is technically correct. I am sure you are aware that often the word "day" means "year" in the scriptures and the same word rendered "day" can also be "year". So when we read say Daniel 12 and the figure 1290 and 1335 "days" are used it really can mean "years". There is a big difference between between the two and how one may understand the passage. I personally view those passages to mean years rather than 1290 consecutive 24 hour days.

[Cerebrum123]

So what exactly am I seeing what I want to see? I simply made a statement that the word "one" could be rendered differently an is done so in the KJV. Of course context will probably dictate of what way should be preferred over another. If the word "one" is preferred, I am fine with it. If the word "first" is preferred I am fine with it. If the word "a" is preferred, i am fine with it. My views are not based on this singular passage and there are much more important issues out there.

Perhaps my issue and it is not directed at you but often I hear people disagree with me or others and simply say they are wrong because of "context" and they never get around to explaining why they are wrong and why from the context the other view is correct.

I believe it is very important for people to question the words the translators use and it is good to examine one word in a passage and examine all the ways it can be viewed to see which way best fits the context. Translators can intentionally or not lead a person down the wrong direction if they render the word one way instead of the other even if the way they are doing it is technically correct. I am sure you are aware that often the word "day" means "year" in the scriptures and the same word rendered "day" can also be "year". So when we read say Daniel 12 and the figure 1290 and 1335 "days" are used it really can mean "years". There is a big difference between between the two and how one may understand the passage. I personally view those passages to mean years rather than 1290 consecutive 24 hour days.

The verse you are referring to is a prophecy of the end times, and the context of him talking about the 'a time, times, and half a time" refers to 3 and a half years, so those thousands of days have to be ordinary 24 hour days, because they end up corresponding with the 3 and a half years. CP's warning of context applies quite well in this situation, and the context would be the whole chapter, as well as the context of eschatology. MM, you're just complaining that the translations don't match up with what you want them to say, and this is a very bad way to interpret the Bible. It sounds a lot like "Illegitimate Totality Transfer", where a word can mean onw thing in one context, so it must mean the same thing in all other contexts.

[Cow Poke]

Perhaps my issue and it is not directed at you but often I hear people disagree with me or others and simply say they are wrong because of "context" and they never get around to explaining why they are wrong and why from the context the other view is correct.

Then CHILL a little!

I believe it is very important for people to question the words the translators use and it is good to examine one word in a passage and examine all the ways it can be viewed to see which way best fits the context.

And MANY people WAY smarter than either of us have done this for centuries --- but to examine "one word in a passage" is silly without understanding the language, and that the "one word" can mean a whole variety of things depending on its use in the sentence --- the context --- and words in Scripture, in the Greek or Hebrew, are not the same as words in English. Besides, an English word TODAY can be drastically different from the same KJV word.

If you want to examine the "one word", you really need to have a working knowledge of the language in which it was WRITTEN, not the English into which it was translated.

Translators can intentionally or not lead a person down the wrong direction if they render the word one way instead of the other even if the way they are doing it is technically correct.

Which is why we have so many great scholars who actually know the language, and can look at the original to see how or why it was translated the way it was. I'm guessing you're not able to do that, yes? Are you a Greek scholar?

I am sure you are aware that often the word "day" means "year" in the scriptures and the same word rendered "day" can also be "year". So when we read say Daniel 12 and the figure 1290 and 1335 "days" are used it really can mean "years". There is a big difference between between the two and how one may understand the passage. I personally view those passages to mean years rather than 1290 consecutive 24 hour days.

Totally beside the point. And you're technically incorrect, anyway. It's not the word "day" and "year" --- it's the word from which those words were translated. Unless you are familiar with the original language, you're just spitting into the wind.

Is there anything else about "context" you would like me to explain?

"the husband of one wife" is NOT about the word "one"... it is about the whole phrase and how it was used in the original language, in the context of its day. And polygamy was NOT "the norm" in NT times.

[One Bad Pig]

The verse you are referring to is a prophecy of the end times, and the context of him talking about the 'a time, times, and half a time" refers to 3 and a half years, so those thousands of days have to be ordinary 24 hour days, because they end up corresponding with the 3 and a half years. CP's warning of context applies quite well in this situation, and the context would be the whole chapter, as well as the context of eschatology. MM, you're just complaining that the translations don't match up with what you want them to say, and this is a very bad way to interpret the Bible. It sounds a lot like "Illegitimate Totality Transfer", where a word can mean onw thing in one context, so it must mean the same thing in all other contexts.

I suspect that the interpretation of years rather than days is applied in an attempt to legitimize the idea that the church was apostate for a long time.

[Sparko]

MM, how do you get from "'one' can be translated into 'a' also" to multiple wives?

"a" wife is still singular.