Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Interview With Polygamist Winston Blackmore
CNN ^ | December 8, 2006 | Larry King Live

Posted on 12/13/2006 10:36:35 AM PST by Bushwacker777

"CALLER: Hello. Mr. Blackmore, do any of your wives work?

BLACKMORE: Just about all of them do.

KING: They all do?

BLACKMORE: Yes.

KING: And while they're working, who's watching the kids?

BLACKMORE: Well, they take -- they take turns. I mean, there's nurses; there's schoolteachers. There's some going to school to become, you know...

KING: Do you ever gather with all of them?

BLACKMORE: As often as we can.

KING: With all the wives?

BLACKMORE: Yes.

"

(Excerpt) Read more at transcripts.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: mormon; polygamy; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last
This guy has 80 children and I think he has 20 wives. You know, this is maybe the answer to both low fertility rates in the western word as well as maybe being a family model that is more suited to the information age rather than the agrarian model. Many women with ambition and high IQs have to choose between career and family (at least they think they do) and maybe this sort of family model could solve that problem -- if a man has 4 wives maybe he and two of the wives work outside the home and two could take care of all the children. Also, there seems to be a lack of strong men today and the one thing you can say about a polygamist committed to his religion is that he certainly is no blue-state, metrosexual with a case of Peter Pan Syndrome.
1 posted on 12/13/2006 10:36:39 AM PST by Bushwacker777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bushwacker777
No, thanks, Bushwhacker. It ain't enough sex for a red-blooded Amurrican woman, and it ain't Christian, either:

1 ...It is good for a man not to marry. 2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. --1 Corinthians 7:1-3

2 posted on 12/13/2006 10:41:53 AM PST by Albion Wilde (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. -2 Cor 3:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

Hey, it is just another lifestyle choice. /sarc


3 posted on 12/13/2006 10:46:37 AM PST by DonaldC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bushwacker777

Most American men are polygamists. Only they do it one wife at a time. The most destructive way possible.

Imagine if a man had 3 wives at the same time then started casting them out on the street with their particular children. There would be an uproar.

Yet that is what we, as a society, approve of today.

If you want to have a dozen wives just do it. Marry yourselves in your church and don;t ask the government for a license or permission, or tax break.

There are many polyamory homes in the Houston area. They are perfectly legal.


4 posted on 12/13/2006 10:48:55 AM PST by Mark Felton ("Wisdom is supreme...and though it cost all you have, get understanding" -- Proverbs 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

That doesn't sound like the King James version I am used to.

Also, wasn't it God who commanded mankind to marry and have children? And wasn't if God who, through the prophet Nathan, told King David that God had blessed him with six wives?


5 posted on 12/13/2006 10:50:12 AM PST by Bushwacker777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bushwacker777

Sometimes it is hard to distinguish what is Paul's words and what was added in later.


6 posted on 12/13/2006 10:56:27 AM PST by DonaldC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bushwacker777
Your approval of this man and his lifestyle is appalling. I can't believe anyone would approve of young girls being forced to marry and old man against their will. Sure he makes it sound great, he's the benificiary of the young virgins for sex, but these girls/women see it very differently.

This is part of the Warren Jeffs sect of Polygamy that broke away to Canada.

7 posted on 12/13/2006 10:56:53 AM PST by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

Actually it IS Christian. Paul instructs the church in Timothy to select its' leaders from the members of it's congregation that have only one wife.....which means that there were accepted members who had more. Not to mention many of the old testament figures had multiple wives and absolutely NOTHING in the New Testement changes that allowance.


8 posted on 12/13/2006 10:57:25 AM PST by Dreagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bushwacker777
NO THANKS!

God didn't make women to enjoy sexual pleasure so we could get it once every six weeks. :(

9 posted on 12/13/2006 11:03:12 AM PST by Texas_shutterbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dreagon
LOL!

Back to logic class for you.

BTW, the Greece of Paul's day was a monogamous culture.

Polygamy was not a custom of neither the Greeks who lived in Paul's Greece nor the Romans who ruled Paul's Greece.

10 posted on 12/13/2006 11:10:00 AM PST by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Correction:

Polygamy was a custom of neither the Greeks who lived in Paul's Greece nor the Romans who ruled Paul's Greece.

11 posted on 12/13/2006 11:11:30 AM PST by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde
Actually, it is very Christian .... assuming that you actually follow the teachings of Christ, who not only NEVER opposed or spoke against polygamy, but actually uses the parable of 10 Virgins in a polygamist marriage under existing Jewish law, and also states that Jewish law is not replaced but fulfilled. Further, King David's six wives were counted as a BLESSING FROM GOD.

A FAR better argument against polygamy is the demands placed on the man of the house and the difficulty in meeting those requirements. I would postulate that a man with 2 wives would have to bring in an income of over $140,000 per year in order to meet the financial burden of a large family. I would also postulate that a man that NEEDS to have his wife or wives working outside the home in order to support his family is failing his duties as husband, provider and spiritual leader of his family.
12 posted on 12/13/2006 11:15:38 AM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bushwacker777
The answer to low fertility rates in the West is not continuing to abandon Christian marriage, but for Christians to marry and have the amount of children God chooses to give them.

Polygamy is more suited to the agrarian age than monogamy is: the more hands there are to work a farm the better.

Dignified people, whether they live in an information age or not, do not choose to share their spouse with others.

In any culture where polygamy is pervasive, indolence is the rule and pedophilia is inevitable.

Even societies that are theoretically polygamous - like Islam - are almost wholly monogamous in practice because of the impracticability of polygamy. Even in Islam, only the very wealthy or the very rural are polygamous.

13 posted on 12/13/2006 11:20:46 AM PST by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dreagon
Slight correction to your statement. Read the passage by doing your own translation of the original Greek. You will find that the word translated to 'one' can also be translated as

"a" - singular indefinite
"a certain" - singular specific
"at least" - as in minimal requirement

The 'one' - singular definite is an ENGLISH emphasis.

And when you think of it in context, it makes sense to say "... husband of a wife", as you would want to minimize the temptation of the leaders as they minister to the widows and wives in the church.
14 posted on 12/13/2006 11:48:18 AM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
But polygamy was practiced by the Jews, though not common. In fact, the Jewish law can create a situation where polygamy is the normal required behavior. If you doubt me, read up on when a man must marry his brother's widow.
15 posted on 12/13/2006 11:51:39 AM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
assuming that you actually follow the teachings of Christ, who not only NEVER opposed or spoke against polygamy

The is the same reasoning used by those who advocate sodomy - that since Jesus never specifically condemned it by name in the Gospels, it is somehow permitted.

Every time Jesus discussed marriage, He discussed it assuming that a marriage exists between one man and one woman.

and also states that Jewish law is not replaced but fulfilled

There is nothing in Jewish law that legislates polygamy excpet for the interesting provision of levirate marriage - which was not compulsory nor even encessary polygamous.

Are Christians required to live by the laws of levirate marriage?

but actually uses the parable of 10 Virgins in a polygamist marriage

The parable has nothing to do with polygamy whatever.

16 posted on 12/13/2006 12:01:46 PM PST by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Come now Christ never spoke directly to homosexuality either however He is GOD and did address it in the old testament. You need to quit pulling verses out of context to support your arguments. They are not biblical.


17 posted on 12/13/2006 12:06:48 PM PST by ThisLittleLightofMine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Texas_shutterbug
God didn't make women to enjoy sexual pleasure so we could get it once every six weeks. :(

Hmmm...You and my wife need to get together for coffee.

18 posted on 12/13/2006 12:08:14 PM PST by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bushwacker777

Thats the dumbest argument for polygamy ever.

Those women average 4 kids each. They could have had the same amount of kids if they each had their own husband.

Why not have women have more than one husband? 2 men supporting one woman and all the kids she can pop out?
That would be great!


19 posted on 12/13/2006 12:15:29 PM PST by JRochelle (Duncan Hunter 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
But polygamy was practiced by the Jews, though not common.

It had ceased to exist among the Jews by the time of the Second Temple.

In fact, the Jewish law can create a situation where polygamy is the normal required behavior. If you doubt me, read up on when a man must marry his brother's widow.

His choice is either to marry his brother's childless widow or to refuse and be repudiated by her in public.

In practice, the Jews preferred to marry the brother's widow off to an as-yet-unmarried son.

Actual polygamous levirate marriages were probably quite rare, and were usually ended in divorce once they had produced an heir.

In theory, one could marry one's deceased brother's wife, impregnate her with a male heir on the wedding night and divorce her as soon as she gave birth to a son.

Other than that, the Hebrew Scriptures take a pretty negative attitude toward polygamy. It is adduced as a contributing factor to the troubles of King David's monarchy (the Bathsheba incident, the rivalry of David's sons), the cause of Solomon's apostasy and as a source of strife in the home life of the patriarchs.

It is obvious that Jacob did not want to be married to Leah, that Abraham did not want to be married to Hagar who winds up giving issue to the Ishmaelite enemies of the Jews, it is obvious that polygamy was a source of great pain for Hannah, the righteous mother of the prophet Samuel.

Everytime polygamy is discussed in the Hebrew Scriptures it is not valorized.

20 posted on 12/13/2006 12:16:57 PM PST by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

You are so misinformed.

Read your Bible. A man shall leave his mother(not mothers) and father and cleave only unto his WIFE. NOT WIVES.


21 posted on 12/13/2006 12:21:14 PM PST by JRochelle (Duncan Hunter 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mark Felton; Bushwacker777; Albion Wilde
Imagine if a man had 3 wives at the same time then started casting them out on the street with their particular children. There would be an uproar.

Only for a little while, then that, too, would become a way of life.

Same as we used to have an uproar when a man tossed his wife and kids out on the streets, before divorce laws were liberalized, making your'serial polygamy' the current way of life.

There are many places in the New Testament that rule this out, and none that permit it. If one takes exception to the words of Paul; or cries "later additions", then try some thing much more deeply embedded:

Matthew 19: (NIV)
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife , and the two will become one flesh'?

Note that it does not say anything about more than one wife; nor that more than two become a conglomerate. In fact, two women "becoming one flesh" would be an abomination, since it would also imply and support lesianism.

Luke 14 (NIV)
26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-yes, even his own life-he cannot be my disciple.

Note that "wife" is singular, even though in the Greek, "brothers" is plural, implying strongly that a desciple...follower...is monogamous.

22 posted on 12/13/2006 12:32:18 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (Islam: a Satanically Transmitted Disease, spread by unprotected intimate contact with the Koranus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle

While in previous agrarian lifestyles, it may have been practical for a man to have more than one wife; today's consumer driven lifestyle makes more sense to have multiple husbands supporting one wife and her visa bills.


23 posted on 12/13/2006 12:34:13 PM PST by sportutegrl (This thread is useless without pix.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Bushwacker777

The issue is that from the beginning the ideal is that a man and woman should join together to become one flesh. I would say what Jesus said about divorce would apply equally to polygamy, since Jesus affirms that from the two becoming one flesh is what was meant from the beginning. That being said, I believe that polygamy would be better than the serial monogamy that goes on today.


24 posted on 12/13/2006 12:35:08 PM PST by bahblahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch
lesianism

Oh, oy! I dropped the "b" in "lesbianism".

Can I just lame it on my keyoard, rothers & sisters?

25 posted on 12/13/2006 12:50:11 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (Islam: a Satanically Transmitted Disease, spread by unprotected intimate contact with the Koranus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
Actually, it is very Christian .... assuming that you actually follow the teachings of Christ, who not only NEVER opposed or spoke against polygamy, but actually uses the parable of 10 Virgins in a polygamist marriage under existing Jewish law, and also states that Jewish law is not replaced but fulfilled. Further, King David's six wives were counted as a BLESSING FROM GOD.

Respectfully disagree with your theories. The New International Version and the New Living Translation both call those virgins "bridesmaids," not brides. And most plural wives were added one at a time, not in groups of 10 or more. Men's ability to perform hasn't changed that much since the old days, even the young ones.

Jesus' saying that he came not to replace the law but to fulfill it had to do with the promises of God to his people in Isaiah and elsewhere that a Messiah would come. Your theory is contradicted by most of the epistles, which explain over and over that legalism in following dietary and ritual laws is not the path to salvation, and that following Christ's teachings from the heart frees both the circumcized (Jews) and the uncircumcized (Gentiles) who follow him from the obligation to observe ritual minutiae.

And lastly, while King David's six wives may have been counted a blessing, they, too, were before Jesus' time. Jesus spoke of one husband and one wife. He overturned more than the tables of the tax collectors.

26 posted on 12/13/2006 1:16:22 PM PST by Albion Wilde (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. -2 Cor 3:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bushwacker777
That doesn't sound like the King James version I am used to

You are correct, sir; it is the New International Version. I also like the New Living Translation, altho my favorite remains the KJV. Here is the KJV passage:

1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.


Also, wasn't it God who commanded mankind to marry and have children? And wasn't if God who, through the prophet Nathan, told King David that God had blessed him with six wives?

This was the Old Testament Hebrew practice, one of the many that were revolutionized by Jesus of Nazareth, who came to earth to change mankind's understanding of God, and who wasn't crucified for nothing!

Also, see post 26.

27 posted on 12/13/2006 1:24:57 PM PST by Albion Wilde (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. -2 Cor 3:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dreagon
Actually it IS Christian. Paul instructs the church in Timothy to select its' leaders from the members of it's congregation that have only one wife.....which means that there were accepted members who had more.

Because people who attempt to follow Christ do a thing, does not make it Christ's or Father God's desired behavior. Christianity assumes that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

Also see posts 26 and 27.

28 posted on 12/13/2006 1:33:05 PM PST by Albion Wilde (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. -2 Cor 3:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
A FAR better argument against polygamy is the demands placed on the man of the house and the difficulty in meeting those requirements. I would postulate that a man with 2 wives would have to bring in...

There can be no better reason than desiring to please God in the way one lives.

29 posted on 12/13/2006 1:36:38 PM PST by Albion Wilde (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. -2 Cor 3:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde
As to brides maids.... there is not such word in the ancient Greek. Nor did the Jewish traditions have the equivalent role in their marriage ceremonies.

The word that is used in that parable is translated as virgins in other places in the Bible. As used elsewhere, it refers to a woman who is eligible for marriage. Therefore, to translate as "bridesmaid" significantly alters the meaning to something that was not even present at the time and uses a word and concept that was not present or used in Jesus day.

Selective translation is just as bad as adding unnecessary emphasis as it allows the bias of the translator to alter the original meaning.
30 posted on 12/13/2006 2:39:21 PM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ThisLittleLightofMine
Do you REALLY want to go down the Old Testament path for your argument? Because while homosexuality was BANNED by the law, polygamy was not. AND GOD granted King David 6 wives as a blessing.
31 posted on 12/13/2006 2:43:09 PM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Sodomy is a practice of homosexuality and as such is banded in the law.

Incorrect about Jesus never discussing marriage as a polygamist marriage... again the parable of the 10 virgins. And while the MEANING of the parable has nothing to do with a polygamist marriage, any person who has read the original Greek and has studied the marriage customs of the 1st Century Jewish traditions would know that what is being described is a marriage. The fact that 5 of the 10 were married to a man that could support 10 wives provides added cultural emphasis that we do not understand. This emphasis shows how much more foolish the 5 that did not make it to the wedding.

While levitate marriage was not compulsory, it is obvious that it was EXPECTED under the law. Ask yourself this. What would happen if the brother did not marry? And while not necessarily polygamist, there is NOTHING in the law that prohibits it from being polygamist.


But by all means, do not take my word for it....or anyone else's. Study the texts for yourself, read the original Greek. Translate each word and explore the alternative meanings. You will find that the milk toast religion that is spoon feed out of most churches today is different from what is written in the original texts.
32 posted on 12/13/2006 2:54:23 PM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Your assertion that Jews had given up the practice of polygamy by the Second Temple is patently and provably false. Jews were practicing polygamy well into the middle ages.

In theory, one could marry one's deceased brother's wife, impregnate her with a male heir on the wedding night and divorce her as soon as she gave birth to a son.

You need to go back and study the allowable reasons for divorce were under Jewish law.

Everytime polygamy is discussed in the Hebrew Scriptures it is not valorized.

Once again, a false statement. David's wives were given as a BLESSING FROM GOD. Solomon was never reproached for his polygamy. Rather he was reproached for not keeping his heart on God and loving foreign women 1 Kings 11:2

Now read 2 Samuel 12:8 and answer me this.... What did GOD tell David that he should have done?
33 posted on 12/13/2006 3:11:39 PM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

>>You are correct, sir; it is the New International Version. I also like the New Living Translation, altho my favorite remains the KJV.

Your intellectual dishonesty here is breathtaking. You “Like” a new translation of the Bible. You then want to hold everyone to a strict interpretation of it’s language. You then dismiss going back to the original source because??? Well you just don’t say.

>>This was the Old Testament Hebrew practice, one of the many that were revolutionized by Jesus of Nazareth

I guess you "like" this unsubstantiated belief as well.

As for 26:

The logic you are assailing is impeccable!

Let’s get the historical order straight shall we?

Abram takes Hagar to wife, has a child by her, has a child by his first wife sari, has a falling out with Hagar sends her away with her son to become the Ishmaelites. Then God asks him to sacrifice his son, Abram is obedient, is called the “Friend of God” has his name changed to Abraham, Sari is renamed Sarah. Abram Takes third wife, with no recorded problems and no loss of Blessings.

If God is unchanging (and he is.)

Then if Abraham Being the “Friend of God” was not a sinner then Polygamy is not a sin now.

Period, End of Story, The end.

Whether or not you “like” it is immaterial.

That said, I think it would take an extraordinary man to successfully live in a polygamous marriage.

I for one am all for marriage, to one wife (all I ever desired).

Polygamy IS biblical, to say anything else is just ignorant, or worse yet willful ignorance.

JM $0.02


34 posted on 12/13/2006 3:19:31 PM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle
I'm miss informed... how interesting.

You say 'read' the Bible. I have, many times. I have studied it in the original Greek and Aramaic translations and read commentary by many scholars. I have read and studied the Apocrypha, and the Nag Hammadi texts. I have also studied the Nicene Creed and other texts both historical and religious. I know what letters and texts make up the bible and why I choose to accept them. Can you say the same? If not, I HIGHLY encourage you to take up the challenge of developing your own personal apologetics. Know what and more importantly, why you believe.

As to your specific reference see Strong's Hebrew (NT refers to Gen 2:24) or Strong's Greek and you will find that the meaning you are attempting to force is not quite so specific in the original texts.
35 posted on 12/13/2006 3:38:03 PM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DelphiUser; taxcontrol
Because I "like" a translation does not make me intellectually dishonest; that is a figure of speech that DelphiUser seized upon apparently to unleash pride about his Greek translation skillz.

Do not be so quick to judge a FReeper of whom you have no real knowledge, nor to dismiss the power of the Holy Spirit in prayer and revelation to persons who pray daily to be Spirit-led and who study several responsible translations that have all gone back to the original Greek and Hebrew for their source material.

You two seem eager to use corollary "evidence" of ancient practices to justify polygamy rather than the plain words of Jesus. I hope for your sakes He finds your justifications pleasing. I must say I am not impressed by them.

36 posted on 12/13/2006 3:47:58 PM PST by Albion Wilde (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. -2 Cor 3:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DelphiUser

Abraham and Sarah didn't have any children. So Sarah decided to 'help' God and had Abraham take Hagar. So they both have children.

From Sarah's stupid idea came the Arabs.

Sarah dies.

Then Abrahan marries Keturah-AFTER Sarah is dead.

Saying polygamy is biblical is true, doesn't mean it was sanctioned by God. Using that method of thinking slavery and stonings, etc. is biblical too.


37 posted on 12/13/2006 5:06:53 PM PST by JRochelle (Duncan Hunter 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

DITTO!


38 posted on 12/13/2006 5:08:05 PM PST by JRochelle (Duncan Hunter 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde
Interesting. I provide historical facts to show where individuals using their own bias has altered the original meaning of the Bible, something easily verifiable by anyone, based upon the actual words of Jesus according to the gospels .....

yet somehow you accuse me of using something other "...the plain words of Jesus". The plain words of Jesus are in the original Greek texts.

Besides, as I have stated before.... don't settle for my words, don't settle for ANYONE's words. Don't even settle for some translation. Go to the original text.

STUDY the Bible... don't just read it. And if you continue to disagree with me, that's fine. It's your life, it's your soul and it will be you who will be judged in the end of days. For something so important, I would recommend to everyone, that they study for themselves and live their life with their understanding of God's truth. Because in the end, it doesn't matter what I say or the Pope says, or your neighbor says, all men have fallen short of the glory of God. No man can bridge the gap to God on their own efforts. Only Jesus can make up the difference.

Therefor, let everyone who claims Christ as their savior live according to their understanding of Christs teachings. On judgment day, we will all find out the truth.
39 posted on 12/13/2006 6:10:29 PM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle

>>Because I "like" a translation does not make me intellectually dishonest;

Nope, it’s what you did after that. (Using a non standard translation to try to prove a point, and rejecting references to the original text) That was intellectually dishonest.

>>that is a figure of speech that DelphiUser seized upon apparently to unleash pride about his Greek translation skillz.

BTW, I have no Greek translation skills, however, I can read English (most of the time).

>>Do not be so quick to judge a FReeper of whom you have no real knowledge,

I honestly could not pick you out of a line up that is true. I dare say, you couldn’t pick me out either (I’ll be the one picking my nose on the end).

I do have analytical skills, less so social graces though.

>>nor to dismiss the power of the Holy Spirit in prayer and revelation to persons who
>>pray daily to be Spirit-led and who study several responsible translations that have all
>>gone back to the original Greek and Hebrew for their source material.

Sorry, Prayer and spirit, while highly recommended are not good debate points.

You never mentioned going back to the original Greek, and even inferred that it was irrelevant. Are you now admitting that the translation could have just as easily been the husband of at least one wife?

>>You two seem eager to use corollary "evidence" of ancient practices to justify polygamy rather than the plain words of Jesus.

Syllogism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Syllogism)

God Does not change.
God specifically approved of Abraham, Jacob, and David before Bathsheba (all polygamists).
God does not have problem with Polygamy.

>>I hope for your sakes He finds your justifications pleasing.

I am quite sure he understands logic, having invented it.

>>I must say I am not impressed by them.

People are seldom impressed by that which they do not understand (it was just too tempting, sorry)

My logic is the dispassionate reasoning of one whose faith, emotion, relationships will not be affected either way by the outcome. God is still god, he never changes, only our perception / understanding of him changes. I am not going to get married to a second wife even if they repealed the law against it tomorrow.

Go with God.


40 posted on 12/13/2006 6:57:57 PM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
That is not biblical, chapter and verse please.....of where God "blesses" polygamy. Here is a few for you to chew on:

From the very beginning God created one woman for one man (see Genesis 1:27 2:21-25).

Deuteronomy 17:17 explicitly instructed the king not to “multiply wives.”

Moses’ law said, the king “shall not multiply horses to himself… Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold” (Deuteronomy 17:16-17).
41 posted on 12/13/2006 6:59:31 PM PST by ThisLittleLightofMine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
And while the MEANING of the parable has nothing to do with a polygamist marriage, any person who has read the original Greek

Stop right there. I'll put my knowledge of the Koine up against yours anyday, so quit the grandstanding.

The parable contains no implication or hint of polygamy in any way, shape or form.

has studied the marriage customs of the 1st Century Jewish traditions

Where and under whom have you studied Jewish marriage customs of the Second Temple period?

Give me a quick explanation of the legal implications of the dziqa if you have.

Otherwise, give it up.

Ask yourself this. What would happen if the brother did not marry?

His sister-in-law would publicly denounce him, remove his footwear and spit at him.

Not exactly the most fearsome punishment in the law.

Study the texts for yourself, read the original Greek. Translate each word and explore the alternative meanings.

Yawn. Way ahead of you.

But thanks for the condescension.

BTW - the proper spelling of the word is "milquetoast."

42 posted on 12/13/2006 7:16:32 PM PST by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle

>>Abraham and Sarah didn't have any children.

Cue Jeopardy Music,

Answer: The mother of Isaac, First wife of Abraham Matriarch of all the tribes of Israel.
.
.
.
Question: Who is Sara in the bible?

>>Then Abraham marries Keturah-AFTER Sarah is dead.

Yep, and then had Concubines…

Gen 25:1 THEN again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.

Gen 1:5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.
Gen 1:6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.

>>Saying polygamy is biblical is true, doesn't mean it was sanctioned by God. Using that method of thinking slavery and stonings, etc. is biblical too.

God never said Slavers were good. Stonings, you mean in the Law of Moses?

Gods said these specific polygamists were good while they were married to more than one wife. For me that ends the discussion of whether or not it is a sin.

Legal? That’s a secular Issue, but nope.
Smart? (Not in my book)
Easy? (Not on your life)

You guys just don’t get it, polygamy is Biblical, not condemned in either the old or new testament, and is approved of (by God calling some of the most important patriarchs righteous while they were married to more than one woman). So it is not a sin.

Nice try.


43 posted on 12/13/2006 7:23:53 PM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Bushwacker777
Hey, you started another "Die, heretic!" thread! LOL!

Polygamous relationships only work if all of the women involved are bisexual. One man with 20 straight, frigid, brainwashed "wives" is just an abusive personality cult.

44 posted on 12/13/2006 7:30:15 PM PST by Mr. Jeeves ("When the government is invasive, the people are wanting." -- Tao Te Ching)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
Your assertion that Jews had given up the practice of polygamy by the Second Temple is patently and provably false.

LOL! yet you adduce no evidence to prove it.

Jews were practicing polygamy well into the middle ages.

Some Jews who lived under Islamic rule readopted polygamy in the 800s - it was not a practice continued through the ages.

You need to go back and study the allowable reasons for divorce were under Jewish law.

LOL! The reasons for divorce in the Torah are completely vague. In practice the Jews could and did divorce their wives for any reason under the sun.

David's wives were given as a BLESSING FROM GOD.

No, they weren't.

Was Bathsheba truly a blessing from God? Was God pleased with that whole scenario?

No, in point of fact, 2 Sam 12:8 read truthfully in its context refutes your entire argument.

Nathan the prophet is berating David because God has allowed David - despite his sins - to enjoy so many privileges and amenities including his multiple wives.

This passage in no way endorses or blesses polygamy - do you really think that Nathan came to bless David and his deeds in the name of the Lord?

Or did he rather rebuke him and curse him?

45 posted on 12/13/2006 7:33:05 PM PST by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DelphiUser
Those men sinned too; hence the sacrifices.

To claim God sanctioned polygamy is crazy.

The ten commandments state clearly that adultery is a sin.
So having concubines was o.k.?
What is the purpose of the commandment against adultery if it was o.k. to have so many wives and concubines?
46 posted on 12/13/2006 8:18:17 PM PST by JRochelle (Duncan Hunter 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

I'll pray for you.


47 posted on 12/13/2006 10:00:39 PM PST by Albion Wilde (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. -2 Cor 3:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DelphiUser

I'll pray for you, too. Be blessed.


48 posted on 12/13/2006 10:03:02 PM PST by Albion Wilde (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. -2 Cor 3:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle

>>Those men sinned too; hence the sacrifices.

Man O man, so Abraham is now a “Sinner” to you? (If you mean that in the “all have sinned” context, point taken, if you mean he was committing a sin (being married to two wives) while God was blessing him, we disagree.)

>>To claim God sanctioned polygamy is crazy.

No, it’s correct. Abraham was married to two women while being blessed,

Second Samuel Chapter 12
7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Then I am crazy.

>>The ten commandments state clearly that adultery is a sin.
Polygamy - (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Polygamy)
Adultery - (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adultery)
Polygamy is not Adultery.

“Words mean things.” – Rush Limbaugh

>> So having concubines was o.k.?
IF ok means lawful, then Yes they had no law against it.
If you mean moral, then yes for some of the men who practiced this were highly blessed of the lord.

Try this on for size. God commanded Adam to multiply and replenish the earth. That command has never been repealed that I know of. Those who are more righteous keep the commandments to a higher standard, so they multiply more.

(Just for the record, I am not, nor have I ever been in favor of polygamy, but the statements here require that I state the truth that polygamy is biblical, and that “Logic” supports it, not the “polygamy is not Biblical” view.)

>> What is the purpose of the commandment against adultery if it was o.k. to have so many wives and concubines?

The purpose of the commandment against Adultery was to keep people from having sex outside of a marriage. (I mean really, you didn’t get that?)

Polygamy is a Marriage, just like the first marriage, only you have more than one wife.

Polyandry is a marriage, just like the first marriage only you have more than one husband.

Anti Adultery commandments are a prohibition against Sex outside of a legal union. What is a legal union has changed and now polygamy is illegal. There was no such provision in the Law of Moses, or before.


49 posted on 12/13/2006 10:19:29 PM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

>>I'll pray for you, too. Be blessed.

I never turn down a sincere offer for someone to pray for me.

Please also Mention to the Lord that I have a son who needs his help (I have been praying for him for 10 years, and he is making great strides, he is autistic.)

May God watch over you.


50 posted on 12/13/2006 10:22:53 PM PST by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson