• 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.

Overcoming Objections To Plural Marriage: Topic 1

BobZupp said:
It is logical that Adam and Eve had a bunch of children, then, within their lifetime, the ‘sons of God’ (angels?) interbred with Adam and Eve's daughters. After the third generation of this defused genetics, humans could ‘legally’ breed with humans. Because they lived for centuries, Adam's and Eve's sons could breed with their great-grand nieces, all quite 'legally', in accordance with the later recorded specifics of what is an acceptable relationship.
Click to expand...
You're complicating this far too much with the presumption that it was not 'legal' for Adam and Eve's sons to marry their sisters. There was nothing wrong with marrying sisters before the delivery of the law to Moses, this command was not timeless.

Abraham married his sister, which is specifically prohibited in the law of Moses, but was never criticised by God for this. Rather, God chose to give Isaac by Sarah, blessing this union above his marriage with Hagar. The incestuous marriage was blessed and the non-incestuous one was not.

Was incest illegal for Abraham? No, clearly not. So it was not illegal for Adam's sons either. It was perfectly acceptable for them to marry their sisters, therefore there is no need to try and come up with convoluted explanations of where they might have found wives. They had plenty of eligible women already.

The ban on incest has a clear medical reason, to reduce the likelihood of the expression of genetic abnormalities. This would not have been a problem for Adam, who was created perfect and had no genetic problems (and incidentally married a woman that was more closely related than any sister, she was created from his own body, so could almost be said to be his daughter or a clone with opposite gender expression...). Nor would it have been a problem for the first few generations, which had no time for abnormalities to accumulate, nor even for Noah's descendants who would likewise have been marrying fairly close relatives after the flood. However once genetic problems had become common enough to be a problem, God banned incest.

The simplest explanation is almost always the best.
 
Samuel,

I agree with you. It is always best to rest on what the Scriptures clearly say, instead of focusing on what they DON'T say.

Blessings

Doc
 
Thanks Doc. Many people object to Adam's sons marrying their sisters, and then try to find some scriptural backing for this objection. You can always find scripture to back up any predetermined view, in reality this particular objection does not stand up to serious biblical scrutiny. Personally, I think the objection really stems from the fact that we all "know" incest is disgusting, because we've been taught that all our lives, and so we react to it out of personal disgust rather than theology. The Bible actually shows very clearly that it was not always so (despite being wrong now).

This is exactly why most people object to polygamy. They automatically feel it is disgusting, because they've always been told that so are conditioned to think so. They then think (or feel) "God has written His law on our hearts now, so if I believe it is wrong it must be wrong". They then look for scriptures to back up this view, find an "obvious" proof text or two (God made Adam only one wife for instance) and think that this proves it. They honestly believe they understand God's view of right and wrong correctly. What they fail to perceive is the level of cultural conditioning that is present in their perception of right and wrong. This belief is so ingrained that they think it actually comes directly from God, and all scripture must be interpreted in the light of this fact that they already know before even opening the Bible.

We know this the wrong way to look at polygamy. We must however be very careful not to do the same ourselves on other issues. If anyone still has an objection to incest for Adam's children, I would encourage you to ponder this very carefully.
 
DocInManila said:
Getting back to the topic at hand..... :D


How about this response to the 'Adam and Eve' argument?


Adam and Eve were created in a monogamous relationship. This was God's pattern from the beginning.
Therefore, polygamy is not in God's plan.

Adam and Eve produced a child, a son. This was God's pattern from the beginning.
Therefore, producing a daughter as firstborn is not in God's plan.

Whereas a lot of people would readily accept the first statement as true, they would be appalled at the prospect of the second statement, though both statements use the same logical assumptions.

The truth is, both statements are fallacious. Yet, again and again, I hear the 'fidelity of the original' response.
Click to expand...

I love your argument! Amen!
 
Ephraim said:
Good point Doc. I think Cecil also mentioned about living in a garden, walking around naked, etc. goes along with the same thoughts.

A similar thought I had was; because Adam and Eve’s children must have married their brothers and sisters, wouldn’t that have to also be accepted as God’s pattern from the beginning?

Another thought I’d like to add, and I think it goes with the discussion; why do we assume Adam was monogamous?

I know this may sound weird but think about it. Eve was taken from Adam’s body, so would Adam have really thought it to be any different? Adam and Eve’s descendants had to have married their siblings, yet those siblings are never mentioned in the Scriptures. I’m sure there are a lot of things that are simply not mentioned. Is it possible that Adam may have been polygynous? The Law was not given until much later. So at that time if brothers and sisters were marrying could it have been possible that Adam may have later had another wife/wives? I’m just speculating here.
Click to expand...

Genesis 4:17 "Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch" It does not specify that it was Eve.
 
FollowingHim said:
BobZupp said:
It is logical that Adam and Eve had a bunch of children, then, within their lifetime, the ‘sons of God’ (angels?) interbred with Adam and Eve's daughters. After the third generation of this defused genetics, humans could ‘legally’ breed with humans. Because they lived for centuries, Adam's and Eve's sons could breed with their great-grand nieces, all quite 'legally', in accordance with the later recorded specifics of what is an acceptable relationship.
Click to expand...
You're complicating this far too much with the presumption that it was not 'legal' for Adam and Eve's sons to marry their sisters. There was nothing wrong with marrying sisters before the delivery of the law to Moses, this command was not timeless.

Abraham married his sister, which is specifically prohibited in the law of Moses, but was never criticised by God for this. Rather, God chose to give Isaac by Sarah, blessing this union above his marriage with Hagar. The incestuous marriage was blessed and the non-incestuous one was not.

Was incest illegal for Abraham? No, clearly not. So it was not illegal for Adam's sons either. It was perfectly acceptable for them to marry their sisters, therefore there is no need to try and come up with convoluted explanations of where they might have found wives. They had plenty of eligible women already.

The ban on incest has a clear medical reason, to reduce the likelihood of the expression of genetic abnormalities. This would not have been a problem for Adam, who was created perfect and had no genetic problems (and incidentally married a woman that was more closely related than any sister, she was created from his own body, so could almost be said to be his daughter or a clone with opposite gender expression...). Nor would it have been a problem for the first few generations, which had no time for abnormalities to accumulate, nor even for Noah's descendants who would likewise have been marrying fairly close relatives after the flood. However once genetic problems had become common enough to be a problem, God banned incest.

The simplest explanation is almost always the best.
Click to expand...

Very well said.
 
Gulliver said:
Genesis 4:17 "Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch" It does not specify that it was Eve.
Click to expand...
Given that Eve was Cain's mother, and Adam would have had something to say about that, I don't think there's any need to specify that for us to know his wife probably wasn't Eve! :shock:

Although had Adam died early it would have been technically ok fir Cain to marry her. Disgusting as the thought may be it wasn't prohibited. It was however highly unlikely.
 
Didn't Adam live something like 925 years? I should die so early! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Anyway, Eve wouldn't have been bone of Cain's bone, etc. He was, well, from HER!
 
Doc said:
When God created mankind, He did not create humanity en masse, rather, He created one male and one female, and from this He commanded they be fruitful and multiply.

Responses?
Click to expand...


The Adam and Eve story is history and not law. We don't run around naked just because the first human was naked.
 
All right, I realize I'm reawakening an old thread, so everyone that has no interest in keeping this topic up, don't feel bad about leaving me by my lonesome here--there are plenty other places to talk, and I'll see you all on those threads! XD

But, disclaimer said, I want to make a few observations.

First, thanks to my wife for directing me here and encouraging me to take on the intellectual workout that you guys set up so nicely.

As I read through the debate with Erskine (and what a debate it was O_o) I was struck by a few points that I found important, but did not see posted anywhere.

1: Basically coming from the OP, we have the question of whether PM is more or less valid, since Adam and Eve were made as a pair. Apparently, there is a notion that Eden should be a rule by which to judge our relationships. I just don't see how that is logical, when seen in Biblical context.

The Law is the standard by which we are judged, not Eden. Christ came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, not restore Eden. God will make us a New Jerusalem after the end of the world, not reestablish Eden.

(Now, this is opinion based aside, having just popped into my head, but I think I should add--Eden seems empty, doesn't it? Basically, an entire world, with one couple? We were told to multiply and fill the place! It seems much more like "square one" than "perfect standard.")

2: The assumption of human inequality bothers me--and not just because I'm an American. Clearly, some gifts are better than other, and clearly, some people are given more grace than others, but it seems to me that these issues are being judged completely and solely in relation to the gifts and graces given to others, respectively. I don't think it is logical to extrapolate the assessments of these individual facets out to the point where they are dictating the level of godliness of a man's life story.

This also reveals a logical fallacy among those using Eden as a standard. In Eden, there was not "marriage-type" based hierarchy. There was only God reigning supreme, Adam as His servant, Even as Adam's helper (in marriage), and the world as humanity's charge. To use Eden as a standard would discourage the belief in any hierarchy of "marriage-type".

3: If we look in 1 Corinthians, we see Paul speaking about the Body of Christ. He makes it plain that we all have our different callings, but he also makes it clear that we are not to envy each other's callings, or to judge the validity or righteousness of them. We each have our own path to follow, as written out for us by God.

4: To focus on Erskine's mention of feeling like he is called to the polygyny because he has committed many sins, I would first argue that committing sinful acts is something entirely separate from being sinful people. Sin is the disease, a state of ruin. Sinful actions are the symptoms; this is why Paul makes a point of calling out those living in sin, for they are clearly not truly redeemed, only pretending to be of the brethren. Sin Nature is a huge topic, so I'll leave it there for now.

To also point out a flaw I noticed in Erskine's reasoning: Paul was called to celibacy, but before that, he was an ardent persecutor of Christians, killing many of our spiritual ancestors. His sins were horrendous, enough so that CHRIST HIMSELF appeared to him, punished him with blindness, rebuked him directly, and directed him toward a new path. If celibacy is the greatest calling, and is rewarded to those that do the most good and commit the least sinful acts, it does not logically follow that Paul would be called to it. Thereby, it is easy to infer that the inverse is faulty, as the entire notion is flawed. Our callings are not limited by our sins. God is the Almighty, and Christ's redemption is perfect. Sin has no victory in the church.

Now, relating to some of sicouple's comments:

If we believe that Adam was made perfect, which I am pretty certain we all do, it seems illogical to postulate that Adam’s need for a helper could in any way stem from a flaw. He did not have any.

This leads me to infer that God made Adam with an inherent need for a companion. Marriage was part of God’s perfect design.

I also think that those arguing for the equality of polygyny and monogamy on the “ideal” scale are missing a huge issue with their own arguments. Polygyny is not, in any way, different from monogamy, within the Biblical context that we are studying. It is all included within the concept of marriage.

Thus, in response to sicouple’s inference of the number of wives being a step up or down on the “ideal” scale, I would say that the problem is not, and has never been, the number of wives. It is a simple, binary issue of married or not.

Now, as I look over Paul's defense of celibacy, it seems to me that he is supporting its validity in a world where marriage is considered better than celibacy. He is giving encouragement to those that do not marry, and saying that they can use that free space in their life to further pursue God, when those who are married are expected to uphold their covenants with their wives and give them adequate care.

I am not trying to be combative in any way, I just wanted to state my thoughts after reading a VERY long thread.

God Bless you all

Curt
 
CecilW said:
Ooooh. Now THERE'S a fun argument! Unclean animals went on the ark by twos, clean by sevens.

We were unclean humans until Jesus saved us, and washed us in His blood, etc. Now we're clean. That means we're supposed to run around in family groups of 7, with one male. But ONLY born again Christians are allowed to. Everyone else has to stay monogamous.

The baptism line is just over here to my left ... :eek: :roll: :lol:
Click to expand...
:D hahahahahaha
 
I must admit that I haven't read the rest of this thread, but, just wanted to share an illustration with you all.
In my conversations with others regarding the marital union and Gods standards for marriage, I regularly quote Malachi 3:6 and James 1:17 to make the point that Gods standards do not change. It is common to then have arguments put forward that God has changed his standards for marriage from the Hebrew to Greek scriptures. One line of reasoning is that in the beginning a man could marry his sister (Cain and his wife) and yet this was forbidden in the law, thus the claim is made that God did indeed change his standard. Another example quoted is that of brother in-law marriage, required under the law but no longer required in the Christian congregation (1Cor 7:39). I have given some consideration to this line of reasoning and would like to share an illustration with you that I think might be helpful.

There are two types of craft that look very similar and yet are very different. One is a plane and the other is a WIG (wing in ground effect vehicle). The standard for a plane is that it fly's on the top of the wing and thus can reach altitude. The determining standard for a wig is that it fly's on the bottom of the wing and cannot get any higher than one and a half times higher than the wing span of the vehicle. Once you understand that standard you are able to discern what is a plane and what is a wig. Variations within those standards do not change the standard. EG a plane can be a bi-plane, a tri-plane, a concord, an airbus or a jet fighter or anything in between, its still a plane. When a plane comes into land they will WIG when they are close to the ground, even so they are still a plane due to the unchanging standard set for a plane. When it comes to a WIG, many look like planes, many can fly enormous distances and carry heavy pay loads and even fly at speed, yet they are determined to be a WIG due to the unchanging standard set for both planes and WIGs.

When it comes to the standards for marriage, Genesis 2:22-24 sets the standard. Male and female, and a lasting bond is formed between them to the point of becoming one flesh. Variations to that arrangement such as monogamy, polygamy, and concubinage do not change that standard! The allowance for the divorce of an unfaithful wife, does not change that standard! Who a man could or could not marry, does not change that standard!

I believe that the issue is that most do not understand the basic standard for marriage as set by God and thus they see variations in the marital union as an alteration in standard. Just as one could look at a WIG and think its a plane, its only when we come to understand the unchanging standard for both a WIG and a plane that the matter becomes clear. Its got nothing to do with how many wings the craft has nor how fast it can travel, if it is a jet or a propeller driven vehicle, if it big or small, nothing else determines what it is except the one standard, it either fly's on the top of the wing or it fly's on the bottom of the wing, that's it. No variation in the craft in question will ever change what that craft is due to that one unchanging standard.

So too with marital union, God set the standard and has allowed many variants, over time as the human family grew. But the unchanging standard is always the same be that union formed with just one wife or several wives, be it formed in common law or with a legally registered union. But a one night stand and loose morals do not form a marriage, just as a WIG can never be a plane. Thus any variation within the marital standard as set by God does not change the fact that it is an acceptable marriage before him! Nor does it change the standard!

However when many attempt to place a standard for marriage such as "monogamy" and thus attempt to reject polygamy and concubinage, then the standard is not that of God but rather it is a standard based on a God given "variant" of his original standard. When such misrepresentations of the "variants" of the marital bond are presented as "standards", then nothing makes sense, the bible seems to contradict itself, and Gods standards are rejected and replaced with the individuals own standard based on what "they" think is right and aceptable. Simply put, to understand Gods standard for marriage we must first understand what is a "variant" and what is the "original standard".
 
Aussies said:
I must admit that I haven't read the rest of this thread, but, just wanted to share an illustration with you all.
In my conversations with others regarding the marital union and Gods standards for marriage, I regularly quote Malachi 3:6 and James 1:17 to make the point that Gods standards do not change. It is common to then have arguments put forward that God has changed his standards for marriage from the Hebrew to Greek scriptures. One line of reasoning is that in the beginning a man could marry his sister (Cain and his wife) and yet this was forbidden in the law, thus the claim is made that God did indeed change his standard. Another example quoted is that of brother in-law marriage, required under the law but no longer required in the Christian congregation (1Cor 7:39). I have given some consideration to this line of reasoning and would like to share an illustration with you that I think might be helpful.

There are two types of craft that look very similar and yet are very different. One is a plane and the other is a WIG (wing in ground effect vehicle). The standard for a plane is that it fly's on the top of the wing and thus can reach altitude. The determining standard for a wig is that it fly's on the bottom of the wing and cannot get any higher than one and a half times higher than the wing span of the vehicle. Once you understand that standard you are able to discern what is a plane and what is a wig. Variations within those standards do not change the standard. EG a plane can be a bi-plane, a tri-plane, a concord, an airbus or a jet fighter or anything in between, its still a plane. When a plane comes into land they will WIG when they are close to the ground, even so they are still a plane due to the unchanging standard set for a plane. When it comes to a WIG, many look like planes, many can fly enormous distances and carry heavy pay loads and even fly at speed, yet they are determined to be a WIG due to the unchanging standard set for both planes and WIGs.

When it comes to the standards for marriage, Genesis 2:22-24 sets the standard. Male and female, and a lasting bond is formed between them to the point of becoming one flesh. Variations to that arrangement such as monogamy, polygamy, and concubinage do not change that standard! The allowance for the divorce of an unfaithful wife, does not change that standard! Who a man could or could not marry, does not change that standard!

I believe that the issue is that most do not understand the basic standard for marriage as set by God and thus they see variations in the marital union as an alteration in standard. Just as one could look at a WIG and think its a plane, its only when we come to understand the unchanging standard for both a WIG and a plane that the matter becomes clear. Its got nothing to do with how many wings the craft has nor how fast it can travel, if it is a jet or a propeller driven vehicle, if it big or small, nothing else determines what it is except the one standard, it either fly's on the top of the wing or it fly's on the bottom of the wing, that's it. No variation in the craft in question will ever change what that craft is due to that one unchanging standard.

So too with marital union, God set the standard and has allowed many variants, over time as the human family grew. But the unchanging standard is always the same be that union formed with just one wife or several wives, be it formed in common law or with a legally registered union. But a one night stand and loose morals do not form a marriage, just as a WIG can never be a plane. Thus any variation within the marital standard as set by God does not change the fact that it is an acceptable marriage before him! Nor does it change the standard!

However when many attempt to place a standard for marriage such as "monogamy" and thus attempt to reject polygamy and concubinage, then the standard is not that of God but rather it is a standard based on a God given "variant" of his original standard. When such misrepresentations of the "variants" of the marital bond are presented as "standards", then nothing makes sense, the bible seems to contradict itself, and Gods standards are rejected and replaced with the individuals own standard based on what "they" think is right and aceptable. Simply put, to understand Gods standard for marriage we must first understand what is a "variant" and what is the "original standard".
Click to expand...
I like your explanation thank you for sharing. I don't quite understand WIG (i cant vizualize what it is) but I understood the explanation.
I have been talking to my mom about what I have learned and felt for her I need to go back to the very basics of Biblical Families to try and explain. This helps. TY
 
Aussies said:
I must admit that I haven't read the rest of this thread, but, just wanted to share an illustration with you all.
In my conversations with others regarding the marital union and Gods standards for marriage, I regularly quote Malachi 3:6 and James 1:17 to make the point that Gods standards do not change. It is common to then have arguments put forward that God has changed his standards for marriage from the Hebrew to Greek scriptures. One line of reasoning is that in the beginning a man could marry his sister (Cain and his wife) and yet this was forbidden in the law, thus the claim is made that God did indeed change his standard. Another example quoted is that of brother in-law marriage, required under the law but no longer required in the Christian congregation (1Cor 7:39). I have given some consideration to this line of reasoning and would like to share an illustration with you that I think might be helpful.

There are two types of craft that look very similar and yet are very different. One is a plane and the other is a WIG (wing in ground effect vehicle). The standard for a plane is that it fly's on the top of the wing and thus can reach altitude. The determining standard for a wig is that it fly's on the bottom of the wing and cannot get any higher than one and a half times higher than the wing span of the vehicle. Once you understand that standard you are able to discern what is a plane and what is a wig. Variations within those standards do not change the standard. EG a plane can be a bi-plane, a tri-plane, a concord, an airbus or a jet fighter or anything in between, its still a plane. When a plane comes into land they will WIG when they are close to the ground, even so they are still a plane due to the unchanging standard set for a plane. When it comes to a WIG, many look like planes, many can fly enormous distances and carry heavy pay loads and even fly at speed, yet they are determined to be a WIG due to the unchanging standard set for both planes and WIGs.

When it comes to the standards for marriage, Genesis 2:22-24 sets the standard. Male and female, and a lasting bond is formed between them to the point of becoming one flesh. Variations to that arrangement such as monogamy, polygamy, and concubinage do not change that standard! The allowance for the divorce of an unfaithful wife, does not change that standard! Who a man could or could not marry, does not change that standard!

I believe that the issue is that most do not understand the basic standard for marriage as set by God and thus they see variations in the marital union as an alteration in standard. Just as one could look at a WIG and think its a plane, its only when we come to understand the unchanging standard for both a WIG and a plane that the matter becomes clear. Its got nothing to do with how many wings the craft has nor how fast it can travel, if it is a jet or a propeller driven vehicle, if it big or small, nothing else determines what it is except the one standard, it either fly's on the top of the wing or it fly's on the bottom of the wing, that's it. No variation in the craft in question will ever change what that craft is due to that one unchanging standard.

So too with marital union, God set the standard and has allowed many variants, over time as the human family grew. But the unchanging standard is always the same be that union formed with just one wife or several wives, be it formed in common law or with a legally registered union. But a one night stand and loose morals do not form a marriage, just as a WIG can never be a plane. Thus any variation within the marital standard as set by God does not change the fact that it is an acceptable marriage before him! Nor does it change the standard!

However when many attempt to place a standard for marriage such as "monogamy" and thus attempt to reject polygamy and concubinage, then the standard is not that of God but rather it is a standard based on a God given "variant" of his original standard. When such misrepresentations of the "variants" of the marital bond are presented as "standards", then nothing makes sense, the bible seems to contradict itself, and Gods standards are rejected and replaced with the individuals own standard based on what "they" think is right and aceptable. Simply put, to understand Gods standard for marriage we must first understand what is a "variant" and what is the "original standard".
Click to expand...


Well done
 
Patricia C said:
I don't quite understand WIG (i cant vizualize what it is)
Click to expand...
Have a look at "wing in ground effect craft (wig)" on the net.
Patricia C said:
I like your explanation thank you for sharing. I don't quite understand WIG (i cant vizualize what it is) but I understood the explanation.
I have been talking to my mom about what I have learned and felt for her I need to go back to the very basics of Biblical Families to try and explain. This helps. TY
Click to expand...
I agree, the scriptures are always our starting point and indeed the foundation of any teaching or understanding.
 
Centurion127 said:
I also think that those arguing for the equality of polygyny and monogamy on the “ideal” scale are missing a huge issue with their own arguments. Polygyny is not, in any way, different from monogamy, within the Biblical context that we are studying. It is all included within the concept of marriage.
Click to expand...

Right. We think of monogamy and polygyny as different things because of our culture, but the Bible (and God) does not. Biblically speaking they are all the same thing: marriage.

Or said another way: what is the Biblical word for polygamy? Marriage.
 
My understanding of Polygyny is Biblical marriage that is ordained by Jehovah, be it one man and one woman or one man and multiple wives? I think that is the same thing @cnystrom is saying?
Vs. Polygamy which is just the act of a man being married to more than one woman, woman being married to more than one man. It is not ordained by God or necessarily follow Biblical principles?
 
Patricia C said:
My understanding of Polygyny is Biblical marriage that is ordained by Jehovah, be it one man and one woman or one man and multiple wives? I think that is the same thing @cnystrom is saying?
Vs. Polygamy which is just the act of a man being married to more than one woman, woman being married to more than one man. It is not ordained by God or necessarily follow Biblical principles?
Click to expand...

Correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top