It's good he admitted his error. We all get things wrong, repeating the things we've heard or read, so we need to be humble enough to admit it. I'm encouraged as he might be humble enough to admit his error about polygyny being a sin.
-
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.
Mike Winger
- Thread starter Gadsden1791
- Start date
Do you recall the name of the linguistics professor?
You must think I have total recall...
Sheesh!I got in trouble the other day because I couldn't remember one of my wives' birthdays. You young guys might have good memories... I've forgotten what Alzheimer's is.
Alright! I know the things they are saying can get under our skin sometimes, but we have got to be cautious in how we react.
Anyone who starts his statement with “you need to shut your pie hole..” while addressing something they say is a Biblical matter.. I could NEVER take seriously
@rsarahi14
4 days agoAnyone who starts his statement with “you need to shut your pie hole..” while addressing something they say is a Biblical matter.. I could NEVER take seriously
Do you recall which university?You must think I have total recall...
I got in trouble the other day because I couldn't remember one of my wives' birthdays. You young guys might have good memories... I've forgotten what Alzheimer's is.
The University of Waikato.
New Zealand, eh!
I find Mike Winger's source on explaining five wise virgins compelling. But is it true. I will probably abandon using ten virgins example as a proof. Are we to believe that even during Christ's time it would be perfectly acceptable that one groom would be ready to consummate 10 virgins (if all of them were wise) in a chamber. It certainly possible, and Christ may have used this for hyperbolic effect so it would be remembered. It may be best to lead the argument with strong proofs. Polygynous situation of Ruth and Esther is a lot easier to prove than the ten virgins example. In another illustration about the kingdom of heaven we do not ask the question where is the bride when the antagonists of illustration did not come dressed for the wedding/marriage banquet and the believers are represented as guests (Matthew 22:1-14). But @PeteR introducing the word for weddings/marriages is compelling as the plural word. I am looking forward to the stream on Friday.
Also, it may be helpful to remind to Christians today that in Roman empire monogamy was dominant practice but also full of divorce and immorality. For this reason Josephus wrote that it is custom of Jews to have several wives. If polygyny was widely practiced in Roman empire there would be no need for Josephus to mention this. Therefore when apostles write, monogamy is dominant and assumed. For this reason requirement for one woman man deacon is not reaction to polygyny but to immorality or requirement to show oneself who can manage his household well. But we already know this.
Like @The Revolting Man pointed out, Winger's claims were not true but effective. And this is good to be challenged. This is great that truth still gets out there.
I recommend that we be cautious about confrontational tone. Throwing out labels false teacher would unlikely win someone over to your side even that label would be accurate. In some ways I may agree with Winger's beliefs more than with those whose come to accept biblical polygyny.
I hope to be more winsome and show grace that was not extended to us by many.
Also, it may be helpful to remind to Christians today that in Roman empire monogamy was dominant practice but also full of divorce and immorality. For this reason Josephus wrote that it is custom of Jews to have several wives. If polygyny was widely practiced in Roman empire there would be no need for Josephus to mention this. Therefore when apostles write, monogamy is dominant and assumed. For this reason requirement for one woman man deacon is not reaction to polygyny but to immorality or requirement to show oneself who can manage his household well. But we already know this.
Like @The Revolting Man pointed out, Winger's claims were not true but effective. And this is good to be challenged. This is great that truth still gets out there.
I recommend that we be cautious about confrontational tone. Throwing out labels false teacher would unlikely win someone over to your side even that label would be accurate. In some ways I may agree with Winger's beliefs more than with those whose come to accept biblical polygyny.
I hope to be more winsome and show grace that was not extended to us by many.
Last edited:
I like the comments on one of the videos where one of the monogamy only adherents says that it is more difficult for them to argue with people who say that it isn't a sin, but is also not advisable. Obviously, that comes from people who are more on the fence with regard to this issue.
I'm known to hang around there.
As were the claims of the Pharisees and Sadducees against Jesus Christ.
im watching this video from bill luck about burden of proof. i love logic and philosophy.
i don't think he's right when he says that "argumentum lamech" is fallacious. it's entirely normal, probably even biblical, for an author to make other-than-explicit associations between 2 or more things, and expect the reader to draw the conclusion. so the argument "we are told lamech did bad things. we are told lamech did polygamy. the author expects us to associate polygamy with bad things" is a valid one i think
im also not sure how burden of proof can be "assigned" based on who is making a "positive" "assertion." he claims that polygamists make no claims; that they are just being polygamists, and it's the detractors who must therefore prove that polygamy is a sin. but that's not what i see; i see polygamists making claims and assertions that polygamy is not a sin. how's that functionally different?
Because only Yah can label it as sin, and He doesn’t.
That totally puts the burden of proof on the anti-polygamists.
Then point out that Paul, who they love OTHERWISE and assume over-rides His Master anyway, points out that he thinks MARRIAGE, in general, isn't advisable.
And I often then like to challenge them: Can you cite a single "monogamous" marriage in Scripture where there are NOT problems?
(Answer, yes there is an easy one: Luke 1:5-6. But there are at least as many that are "problem-prone" that MAY be monogamous, and Scripture is more often than not silent anyway.)
Lamech defended himself against a man who wounded him, even a young man for hurting him. Lamech was married. The author expects us to associate marriage with self-defense.... . Nope, that's not valid.
Lamech's family brought livestock management, music and musicians, instructors in smelting, and metal workers into this world. Those are people we ought to be very grateful for. I think that's a valid association.
Yup! His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. Gen 4:21. I used this verse to show that he had to have had a daughter that was married to Noah or his father or grandfather, OR he must have had three daughters who married Ham, Shem, and Japeth. It sort of preempted the argument that all of Cain's descendants were so wicked that they were wiped off the face of the earth.
I usually just agree with them that polygyny is not advisable for MOST men, but then argue that it can work out well for some. I like to point to Ziona Chana.
Luke 1:7 But they had no child, because rElizabeth was barren, and sboth were advanced in years.
It looks like they had a bit of a problem there, until she was able to conceive and bear a son. Sounds familiar.
Last edited:
But @Transformator Reformator has a good point, we can make way too much of the 10 Virgins. The obvious implication in most people’s minds will be the one Winger made, orgy, and they clock out from the get go. This probably should be a tertiary argument at best and one where the fact that it’s a metaphor that just demonstrates New Testament’s comfort level with polygyny.
i heard somewhere that the narrative of them being virgins to be wedded was bunk and that scholarly consensus is that's not a viable meaning of the parable.
i forget where... think it was rob kowalski related, like some opposer he talked to on his podcast or something...
i forget where... think it was rob kowalski related, like some opposer he talked to on his podcast or something...