Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhy did not Genesis 2:24 read "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his [wives] ..." ?
It only applies to this forum. You seem quite lucid when it comes to music.
Why does Genesis 4:19 take time to stop at Lamech and point out to us that he took two wives ?
If it was not an abnormality why does the Bible take pains to single Lamech out as noteworthy for taking two wives?
Originally posted by jaywillMaybe he was the first to come up with the idea. Maybe there weren't enough wives to go around yesterday. Your question is based on questionable assumptions.
Why did not Genesis 2:24 read [b]"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his [wives] ..." ?
Why does Genesis 4:19 take time to stop at Lamech and point out to us that he took two wives ?
If it was not an abnormality why does Bible take pains to single Lamech out as noteworthy for taking two wives?[/b]
Seems the Bible is somewhat contradictory on polygamy:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/polygamy.html
By the way is fornication worse than adultery or not so bad?
===========================
Maybe he was the first to come up with the idea.
====================================
Okay .,, let's give it a "maybe".
Maybe ... maybe is non committal and easy to defend.
==============================
Maybe there weren't enough wives to go around yesterday. Your question is based on questionable assumptions.
===================================
Well I think Genesis 4 verses 16 -24 have a purpose to show us how those associated with Cain, the man who left the presence of God with a hardened conscience, develped a culture.
We have beginnings of the godless culture developing. The substitutes invented by man to replace God. This section of Genesis discribes how man is falling farther and farther away from God.
To our sensibilities there are some noble things going on like:
The invention of industry - TUbal-cain, the invention of musical entertainment - Jubal, the original nomadic herder - Jabal.
You have also the two wives of Lamech - "And Lamech took two wives for himself ..."
I think indulgence and excess is what is being highlighted.
But I don't want to make more of a deal of it than is necessary. Jacob had two wives and and Solomon had about 700. So it was permitted by God for some of His prophets. My only point is the the original ordination is one man joined to one woman.
===========================
By the way is fornication worse than adultery or not so bad?
=============================
I don't think it is profitable to get into trying to rank sins.
I don't even think to be sin centered or to focus on sins is healthy. We do not escape these sins by focusing on them. If we desire to be saved from the power of sin we need to repent and turn our heart to Christ the Savior.
Focusing on our sins is not healthy. And it is not helpful to those who desire to escape its power. We have to simply confess our sins when we become aware of them and turn our hearts to look away to Christ. By enjoying Christ and paying attention to loving Christ we are empowered to be delivered.
For this reason I am avoiding your question on how to rank sins. I am not interested in ranking them.
Originally posted by jaywillYou are well aware that your interpretation is ridiculous. Its only because you want the Bible to say what you want it to say, that you are using that interpretation. Here are 2 other ridiculous interpretations from that one verse:
Why did not Genesis 2:24 read [b]"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his [wives] ..." ?
.....[/b]
- that a man MUST get married.
- that when he gets married he MUST leave the house of his parents.
Rajk999,
===================================
You are well aware that your interpretation is ridiculous.
=========================================
No I am not well aware of that. And I am not sure anymore exactly what you are objecting to.
==========================================
Its only because you want the Bible to say what you want it to say, that you are using that interpretation.
========================================
I am opened to correction on the matter. But you will have to do better than just state that I am wrong.
=========================================
Here are 2 other ridiculous interpretations from that one verse:
===================================
You have not asked me if those two additional interpretations are positions which I hold.
===============================
- that a man MUST get married.
===================================
You did not ask me if I mean that there must not be any unmarried men in the world.
Did I state that ? If not then you have a strawman argument. Jesus was not married when He quoted the passage. So its obvious that He did not take the Genesis passage to mean that all men must be married.
================================
- that when he gets married he MUST leave the house of his parents.
====================================
I didn't see anything in the passage speaking one way or another about the "house". It speaks of leaving his father and mother and cleaving to his wife.
Nothing about the house was mentioned one way or another.
NOr does it really say how long the process of leaving and cleaving should take. For some leaving and cleaving may be gradual over a longer period of time. With others almost immediately.
There is flexibility in the discription of the ordination of marriage within which culture to culture may have some variations.
I think one can leave his father and mother in a certain emotional and psychological sense and cleave to his wife without leaving the house of his parents.
Originally posted by jaywillYoure a lost cause. Im sure it annoys you that no clear statement was ever made about having one wife in the Bible with the exception of Paul and that applies to deacons and bishops.
Rajk999,
[b]===================================
You are well aware that your interpretation is ridiculous.
=========================================
No I am not well aware of that. And I am not sure anymore exactly what you are objecting to.
==========================================
Its only because you want the Bible to say wh ...[text shortened]... nal and psychological sense and cleave to his wife without leaving the house of his parents.[/b]
Originally posted by Rajk999I have not yet seen you give a more reasonable expounding of the passages. Forget about my assumed motives and simply give me a more reasonable exegesis of Matthew 19:4-6 and Genesis 2:24.
Youre a lost cause. Im sure it annoys you that no clear statement was ever made about having one wife in the Bible with the exception of Paul and that applies to deacons and bishops.
You have evaded my questions. But I am open minded to be corrected if you have a case.
Why didn't Jesus Christ or the writer of Genesis say "shall be joined to his WIVES [plural] " ?
Originally posted by jaywillA man marries ONE wife.
I... Why didn't Jesus Christ or the writer of Genesis say [b]"shall be joined to his WIVES [plural] " ?[/b]
So man and wife must be joined and be as one.
He can marry and take a second wife if he is so inclined, but thats optional.
If you say that a man must be joined to his wives, it naturally implies that having more that one wife is compulsory.
Originally posted by jaywillA more important question which I hope you will answer but which you will ignore is NOT this :
I have not yet seen you give a more reasonable expounding of the passages. Forget about my assumed motives and simply give me a more reasonable exegesis of [b] Matthew 19:4-6 and Genesis 2:24.
You have evaded my questions. But I am open minded to be corrected if you have a case.
Why didn't Jesus Christ or the writer of Genesis say "shall be joined to his WIVES [plural] " ?[/b]
Why didn't Jesus Christ or the writer of Genesis say "shall be joined to his WIVES [plural] "
But This :
Why did Christ or Paul or God NOT say "Thou shall have one wife"
Lets see you give a reasonable answer.