Monday, December 10, 2012

Genesis Principles - Marriage

One quite clear concept from Genesis that has carried through from the beginning to our time is the concept of marriage. The very first marriage was between the very first two people. We know the concept has carried through because Jesus referred to it (Matt 19:4-6) and Paul confirmed it (Eph 5:31). Thus, this Genesis Principle continues without deviation. What principle?
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh (Gen 2:24).
Now, walk with me for a few moments because I think we might get a lot more out of this Genesis Principle than you might have first imagined.

First, we clearly have "a man" and "his wife". To stretch that to "a man" and his wives (plural) is to deviate from this original version. They did, but it isn't in the original. To stretch it to a man and anything else (or a wife and anything else) is ludicrous. A man and his wife -- the original design.

Second, "they shall become one flesh". Two components are in play here. First is the union that marriage becomes. It isn't a simple relationship. It isn't a committed relationship. It is a union. Two "become one flesh". Paul indicates that there is something else going on than mere sex here: "Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her?" (1 Cor 6:16). This union goes beyond an event. It becomes a condition. It is the primary reason that Paul warns against sexual immorality (1 Cor 6:13). It is a union.

The second component is somewhat easier to figure because it is easy to see. Sex. The Genesis Principle of Marriage includes the idea that husband and wife engage in sexual relations with each other partly to become one flesh and partly to fulfill the commandment "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28). That is, it is not true that either sex is solely for reproduction or for mutual pleasure. It is for a union and reproduction.

But we're not done. I think we can gather more from these first two chapters on the Genesis Principle of Marriage. There is, for instance, another purpose indicated -- a reason for Man and Woman. According to the text, Eve was designed as "a helper fit for him" (Gen 2:20). The Genesis Principle of Marriage here will have none of modern feminism that claims that everyone is the same. Adam had his role. Eve had hers. She was "a helper fit for him."

"Ah!" you will complain, "You are making women as less than men." Not at all. Indeed, included in this Genesis Principle of Marriage is exactly the opposite. We read in the first chapter of Genesis "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Gen 1:27). Humans, if you recall, derive their God-given value from the Imago Dei, their being made in the image of God. Who is made in the image of God? The text says "male and female". Thus, men and women are of equal value. So Peter warns husbands to "live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered" (1 Peter 3:7). "Heirs with you." Not creatures of lesser value. Joint heirs. And not people worthy of less honor. They are people to whom honor is due. Remember, a different role does not equate to a different value.

"Okay," you might counter, "but you're still setting up a hierarchy. You're still making man over woman." Well, if you wish to put it that way. But I'm just telling you what the Genesis Principle says. It says that Eve was "a helper fit for him". Paul confirms this when he says, "I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3). Am I setting up a hierarchy? Only in so far as God has. Only in so far as Christ has agreed to. (Isn't it ironic that God is the head of Christ, but wives refuse to have husbands as their head?) The Genesis Principle of Marriage includes the honor a wife deserves as well as the submission (Eph 5:22-24) that God demands.

There are some ramifications to all this that should be apparent. First, if husband and wife are one, a union that exceeds mere physical coupling, what would that say about adultery? Clearly the notion would make no sense at all considering this Genesis Principle. Uniting with others outside of this union would be wrong in so many ways. In fact, this is why adultery in the Law was punished by death. There was no remedy for such a disastrous event.

Jesus brings up the other obvious ramification (Matt 19:3-12). If husband and wife are one, where does divorce fit in? In what possible sense does that union come to an end? What are the conditions required to terminate that union? Clearly death would do it. You know, "'Til death do us part". That makes sense. And Jesus pointed to "sexual immorality" (Matt 19:9). If sexual relations produce a union and sexual immorality produces an immoral union, that would make sense as well. How about "irreconcilable differences"? If you understand the Genesis Principle of Marriage, that doesn't work at all. How about "mental cruelty" or the like? If you continue to hold to the modern perception of marriage as simply a relationship between two people, that would seem reasonable. But if you see marriage as a genuine union, it would make as much sense as cutting off your leg because it hurts you. Such an act might be necessary in extreme circumstances, but only after every other possible avenue has been exhausted. Surely that is obvious when marriage is viewed through the biblical concept.

Well, there's more than enough to mull over here on this particular Genesis Principle. I am fairly certain, in fact, that I've left stuff out. Feel free to pick up your own connections from the text. I hope, however, that you see that it's much bigger in scope than today's simple "committed, loving relationship" that so many think defines marriage. Much bigger ... if you're willing to take your principles from Scripture rather than culture.

32 comments:

Chaplain Winston Tobias Muldrew said...

Jesus Principles - Marriage

I am against marriage as we know it today. I followed her to school one day, I married her, and she fleeced me white as snow. A fool and his money is soon parted so I followed her to the Church one day, married her and she fleeced me white as snow. Not to be outdone the next time I was no fool and I did not marry her. Boy, which was a marriage made in heaven. True to marriage after it ended my female apartment manager fleeced me white as snow.

Back in Adam’s and Eve’s time all it took was God to join them in one flesh. Then, as instructed, they set out to fill and replenish the earth. From the beginning God planned for man to have more than wife. Boy that was a busy time for Adam but Eve had some rest. Eventually, Adam had more women to fill and replenish the earth, their children, and their children’s children etc. for about 900 years. Most people don’t like to hear realities like that so they invented myths, morals, and ethics on shifting sand under the tide waters.

There were no restriction, no law, no ceremonies, no marriage licenses, and no ordained preachers to marry anybody. The Roman Catholic Church started marriage ceremonies about 1,000 years ago. That is one of their many bright ideas like ordaining openly Gay Priest in 1971. Well, no fault divorce has come back to bite us. The government is the third party in the legalized marriage. The Church won’t even marry unless the government says they can.

The government keeps stretching their authority and dictating the terms of the marriage contracts like credit cards. There no limits to changes to the marriage contract which in force for every couple. You are still subject to the new terms and conditions without the marriage contract becoming null and void.

One male contestant agreed with me and a lot of men basically saying the same words. He won’t get married because the government is in it. He still wants a woman and children. The woman contestant who was curious asked him will commit to a woman. To that he said yes and she smiled as she wrapped her arms around him,

Well, people do not live such a long time anymore like Adam and Eve. Even so, in King Solomon short lifetime he only had 700 wives and 300 concubines. King David only a had a few wives and God gave him Saul’s wives after he died. Gideon had many wives also. Okay that takes us to the Church age.

On the Day of Pentecost when 120 people, men and women were waiting in the upper room. They were waiting for the Holy Ghost as Jesus instructed them to do. They were not drunk with wine but with the Spirit as the flooded the streets speaking in an unknown tongue. Only 3,000 souls heard them in their own language and were saved.

Now you have the local Church and two particular positions could not have multiple wives. You have to desire that office and you are limited to be a husband of one wife. Oh brethren, Timothy and Titus have been excommunicated from the Church for writing this.

Stan said...

Apparently you're reading a brand new version of the King James Bible because "From the beginning God planned for man to have more than wife" isn't found in my King James Bible. God designed Eve for Adam, not Eve and Mary and Joan. There is not, in fact, a reference to multiple wives is Lamech in Gen 4 and he was of Cain's cursed line. He told his wives, "If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold." There is no reference to Adam having multiple wives.

I believe, however, that marriage needs to be returned to its original form, that society and the government will continue to pervert it into public oblivion, and that believers will need to practice marriage as God intended without regard to societal practices. I do not believe that the answer is to avoid marriage because the public view of it is wrong.

(By the way, Solomon and David violated God's instructions (Deut 17:17) on kings and wives when they had multiple wives. That's a problem if you're going to claim that polygamy was God's plan from the start.)

(What does Pentecost have to do with marriage?)

David said...

Oh, and on the day of Pentecost, they didn't speak in some unknown tongue, they spoke in languages foreign to themselves, but were languages known to the people on the street. It would be like having 20 English-only speakers walk into a meeting of the UN and start talking in the different languages of the UN. They weren't speaking some heavenly language, just languages they personally didn't know. And like Stan said, what does Pentecost have to do with marriage?

And why would the "Jesus Principle" on marriage be different than the "Genesis Principle"? I apologize if this offends, but your entire post reads like someone with ADD. Each sentence seems to spawn its own rabbit trail, and each paragraph seems only loosely connected to the last.

Chaplain Winston Tobias Muldrew said...

1)
I knew when I wrote this piece it would be disturbing. I suggest you read again and again. Let me clarify some things. Oh by the way, I am so happy you are nice people and won’t call me a heretic, excommunicate me, and kill me for not speaking traditionally. My specialty is Apologetics, defending the faith.

Most disturbing to some is Adam having sex with more than Eve to populate the whole earth in 900 years. Man, did Eve have 900 babies over 900 years. Adam must have kept her barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. Come on and put on your thinking cap on you checked in at the door of your Church.

I don’t know if you have a Bible College or Seminary degree. Most people think a degree in accounting or no degree or a GED qualifies them to teach the Bible. I have had trouble with pastors because I am a Theologian and theology is the study of God! But I digress.

That brings up the matter of incest between siblings. Certainly they could not do that either and died of. So that means people are extinct, obsolete after Adam, Eve, and their children are dead.

“Apparently you're reading a brand new version of the King James Bible because "From the beginning God planned for man to have more than wife isn't found in my King James Bible.” God was referring only to Adam and Eve because they were the only people on the planet at the time. Do you know about progressive revelation? There are 65 other books in the Bible plus Genesis. When was the Mosaic Law that governs marriage?

“God designed Eve for Adam, not Eve and Mary and Joan.” Only God knew of Mary and Joan and they have to have children too. That takes a man either Adam or male sons. That had to happen exponentially to have 6 billion people on the planet.


“He told his wives, ’If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.’" Don’t you think there were males around? Whose offspring were they all? Adam and Eves. Adam did not have to have sex with all of his offspring. Don’t you know that the Bible is true? What is written is true or truly spoken. Cain wasn’t avenged. He got kicked out where ever he was and God placed a mark on him so they would not kill him. Lamech said he was seventy and sevenfold worse than Cain.

“I do not believe that the answer is to avoid marriage because the public view of it is wrong.” Who is enforcing the will of the government as it pertains to marriage? The local Church. I have heard members complaining about the Church agreeing with every thing that the government approves of. Members don’t have any place else to go to assemble more than 2 or 3 to have Jesus in the mix.

“(By the way, Solomon and David violated God's instructions (Deut 17:17)” I already said that God gave Saul’s wives to David. He said of Solomon one of your wives is going to bring you down. And Gideon was not a King and he had several wives.
And you said Lamech had several wives.

“(What does Pentecost have to do with marriage?)” The Church age did not begin until. The Epistles, instruction for the Church were not written before that. The Church did not exist before then. It was a mystery! There are plenty of instructions for marriage under the New Covenant. Also the Old Covenant has been reconcile with the New Covenant. And that is what we are supposed do. Not keep under the law. Read what Paul say by the Holy Spirit about people who try and keep the law.

Oh, and on the day of Pentecost, they didn't speak in some unknown tongue; they spoke in languages foreign to themselves, but were languages known to the people on the street.” This has been debated. Here is the thing. If they spoke in the laguages of the people on the street, why did some people not understand them and think they were drunk.

Chaplain Winston Tobias Muldrew said...

2)
Why did Paul explain to the carnal and babes in Christ the least of all gifts tongues and another gift interpretation of tongues. And why did Paul give instructions to a more mature congregation, “When someone speaks in tongues let two or three interpret. You might have a visitor and they won’t interpret the message, won’t be edified, and leave with a bad report about you local congregation.

“And why would the "Jesus Principle" on marriage be different than the "Genesis Principle?” Actually it is not different. That is what I pointed out. The government got evolved. And who do they say can get a legal marriage? If anyone has a marriage license you can’t discriminate. This includes everyone that is license in Church.

Look, the only passages that clearly state a man must be a husband of one wife you can read them in Timothy and Titus. Bishops can not get around that by calling themselves pastor. Deacons can’t get around it either. That is the resume or job description for these offices. Besides in the early Church they met in homes. They did not try to build Mega Church were everyone is an unknown.

Stan said...

Just be aware, Chaplain, that much of what you're claiming as God's truth is not found in the Bible. It is, then, "extrabiblical". You claim, for instance, that there were 6 billion people on the planet in 900 years. Nice number, I'm sure, but not to be found anywhere in your Bible.

You may be familiar with the singular question that put an end to teaching Creation in schools in America. In the Scopes "monkey" trials, the question put to Christianity was "If the Bible is true, who did Cain marry?" Assuming (as you have) that there was no incest at the beginning and understanding (as the Bible indicates) that there was no other race of people on the planet at the time, the question is unanswerable. You've required that Adam must have had multiple wives and you've required that there was no incest, so where did Adam get multiple wives?

I wasn't disagreeing that there was polygamy in the Bible, or that it was condoned. I'm disagreeing that it was God's original plan, that there is any reference to Adam having multiple wives, or that the New Testament church condoned the practice at all.

Thanks, by the way. I understand now that your reference to Pentecost was a reference to the beginning of the New Covenant.

And, by the way, may I suggest that you check your attitude at the door? Phrases like "put on your thinking cap on you checked in at the door of your Church" and "Don’t you know that the Bible is true?" are insulting and have no purpose in a friendly discussion.

But, listen, since I don't have a Bible College or Seminary degree and you do, clearly you're much smarter than me. Perhaps it would be better if you took your dialogs to a blog where there were people up to your level rather than the dumb ones like me who simply spend a lifetime studying Scripture, relying on teachers and the Holy Spirit to lead me into all truth, and obviously coming up short. (I obviously come up short because I don't have the deeper insights that you do into things not written in Scripture that you are sure of.) I don't know that I can be beneficial to you since you know so much more than I and I don't think you can be beneficial to me since I have such a different understanding of Scripture than you. You know, when I played tennis years ago, I found that I only improved at the game when I played against people better than me. Perhaps you will improve much more if you dialog with people more smart and educated than you are?

Stan said...

Chaplain, I have a question (as opposed to an argument, contention, disagreement or the like).

Since you appear to believe that the the Church is wrong for having its people engaging in marriage as per government instructions (You said, "Who is enforcing the will of the government as it pertains to marriage? The local Church."), is it your view that people should not get marriage licenses? Should not abide by "the will of the government as it pertains to marriage"? (Should not submit to the government on this?) Is it, therefore, sinful or wrong to get the tax advantage that marriage (through government-approved methods) provides? Are Christians wrong for obtaining government-sanctioned benefits of marriage such as property rights, healthcare plan sharing, etc.? (I suppose the same question would carry over to other areas. Is it, for instance, wrong for a Christian to take "charitable donation" tax breaks?)

Just wondering, since you appear to believe that it's wrong for Christians to obey the government in this area.

David said...

While I don't have a ThD, I do have a minor in Bible Study/Teaching. And yet, I often defer to Stan theologically. From what I have observed of pastors is that a degree does not make you a theologian necessarily. Not all seminary trained pastors are theologians, or even claim to be.

As for Adam and Eve, the scientific understanding of how 1 man and 1 woman could produce many children is actually rather simple. Adam and Eve had a broader range of genetic information. They were the first humans, and they had all the genetic information of humanity. Because they had such a broad range of genetic information, incest among their children would not have been a problem because the genetic information was still broad enough to prevent the genetic deformations we find today in incest. The command to stay away from incest didn't come until after the Flood.

And your assertion that Eve would have had to been barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen is unfounded and merely an emotional response. She had been commanded BY GOD to populate the earth. She wouldn't have found as odious as women do today. And, while a woman is pregnant, most of the time she is able to do most of what she does on a normal basis anyway, so she wouldn't be bound to the "kitchen".

Add to that that women would have been able to produce and care for children at a much younger age than women today (its my belief that Adam's children would have been more emotionally mature and responsible than our children today) that they could have started to "marry" their brothers younger, and there would be no need for Adam to have sex with his children.

And for there to have been 6 billion people on the earth after only 900 years is ridiculous. There's barely 6 billion now, and that's after who knows how many millenia after the Flood. If people procreated as fast as you claim, there would have to have been a negative population growth as a whole 900 years or less after the Flood, and historically we know that isn't true. In other terms, after the first 900 years after the flood, more people would have died each year than were born, in order to maintain a 6 billion population for the last 4+ millenia.

As for multiple wives in the times of the kings, just because a king did it, or because God provided it, doesn't mean it is part of God's original design. If I remember, one of the things God warned Israel about when they demanded a king would be that he would have multiple wives. If that wasn't a bad thing, it wouldn't have been much of a warning. Also, just because something happened in the historical types of passages doesn't mean it was the right way to do it.

"Members don’t have any place else to go to assemble more than 2 or 3 to have Jesus in the mix."
That is taking a passage of Scripture out of context and making it mean something it doesn't. When 2 or more are gathered isn't a reference to worshiping together, but to church discipline.

As for the Law, it has not been abolished or exempted. We are still bound to the Law. The benefit for us now is that our adherence to the Law is placed on us through Christ, not through our actions.

While there are limited references in the New Testament to one man to one woman, all the references to marriage are in terms of one man and one woman. The inference when we read from the New Testament is that the marriage passages are as one man and one woman.

To the early church meetings, they could do home churches because there were so few of them. There were limited supplies and limited people. We have far too many people now to only meet in someone's home. Though I do agree that mega churches are way too much. Though I believe mega churches came out of a business mindset, not a Christian mindset.

Stan said...

Now, David, you must know how important that degree is if you want to teach the Word. Jesus had one. Peter had one. James and Jude ... wait ... let me think about this.

David said...

Of course, the first thing the Apostles did was create a Bible college so that they could give degrees to all those home church leaders.

Chaplain Winston Tobias Muldrew said...

3)
“Just be aware, Chaplain, that much of what you're claiming as God's truth is not found in the Bible. It is, then, "extrabiblical". You claim, for instance, that there were 6 billion people on the planet in 900 years. Nice number, I'm sure, but not to be found anywhere in your Bible.”

Here is what I wrote. Read it again using your critical reading and thinking skills (Kaplan Online University, communication major GPA 3.9).
“Most disturbing to some is Adam having sex with more than Eve to populate the whole earth in 900 years. Man, did Eve have 900 babies over 900 years. That takes a man either Adam or male sons. That had to happen exponentially to have 6 billion people on the planet.” If you did not know there are 6 billion as of now soon to be 7 billion from one couple. And you don’t think that God instructed this young couple to have 6 or 7 billion offspring?

All of human kind was created in Adam and Eve. God did not create any more people. Tell me how Biblical are you when you did not read in the Old Testament and the New Testament how they produced and reproduced Adam and Eve‘s offspring? Again, you have your head in Genesis and won’t include the rest of the Bible as your proof text. In other words the Bible testifies of itself.

“You may be familiar with the singular question that put an end to teaching Creation in schools in America. In the Scopes "monkey" trials, the question put to Christianity was "If the Bible is true, who did Cain marry?" Assuming (as you have) that there was no incest at the beginning and understanding (as the Bible indicates) that there was no other race of people on the planet at the time, the question is unanswerable. You've required that Adam must have had multiple wives and you've required that there was no incest, so where did Adam get multiple wives?”

Don’t you know the Scopes “monkey” trails were a Sham? Like you they did not understand the answer nor did they want to. There was a movement against Christians whereby they could not win an argument. They were called the “No Nothings.” They claimed their arguments brilliant but they did not have a clue what Christians are talking about. Was it foolish to them like the Bible says, or did they choose not to believe it, hence the Scopes Monkey Trail.

It is a court of law not a Bible college, Seminary, or Church. What the courts did was effectively declare the question not answerable. Church people are now afraid of discussing the obvious answer to the question because of the courts. They won’t speak of these things. They won’t even read the Song of Solomon. Why, because it contains the word breast, and the Shulamite chased down Solomon and had sex with him in her mothers bed. The Church preaches against that. But Solomon liked her. Out of 700 wives and 300 concubines, she is the only woman in his life mentioned by name.

I will say it again. I used the term incest so you would know what I am talking about. Of course there was no incest, but we would call it that, just people having sex, and not by 15th century standards, or 500 B.C. standards. Go did not plan for humankind to be extinct so he made sex extremely enjoyable. Some people would prefer to have sex that a car. Cain married an offspring of Adam and Eve maybe generations afterwards like I did. A generation is only 40 years. Let say at the time of the test Cain was 400 years old. We don’t know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden either. After 400 years he would have had a wife to marry. Lamech had wives to marry.

Chaplain Winston Tobias Muldrew said...

You have to understand that you can’t use opinions, current laws, customs and lifestyles, and assume it was the same 10,000 years ago. This is a college level book and you have to treat it that way, now any way. All the writers were very educated. Plus then there was no thought of governments, they operated under a theocracy, God ruled. It was only after the Hebrews insisted they have a king like the gentiles that God gave them Saul. God told them they would not like him, he would be cruel, and they would not like the decisions he made on their behalf.. Hence the governments and courts that is anti-Christ’s.

Second point, how well was Scopes prepared to go to trial. Did he attend Yale or Harvard Seminary? Did he have any formal Bible Education? He came against Doctors and Lawyers, and Judges. They treated him like a uneducated fool and with court proceedings. It was a stacked deck against Scopes. Even today People want to represent Church as uneducated fools and get pain big bucks for it. They scold those who want or have a Bible education and want to share their education.

Maybe if he was truthful and answered the question the judge would not have to rule against him. Saying, okay, okay, I admit it. Everybody had sex with everyone God directed to them. God commanded that they fill the earth and replenish it. I was a joint effort, and quite enjoyable I might add, as it is today.


I wasn't disagreeing that there was polygamy in the Bible, or that it was condoned. I'm disagreeing that it was God's original plan, that there is any reference to Adam having multiple wives, or that the New Testament church condoned the practice at all.

“Thanks, by the way. I understand now that your reference to Pentecost was a reference to the beginning of the New Covenant.

And, by the way, may I suggest that you check your attitude at the door? Phrases like "put on your thinking cap on you checked in at the door of your Church" and "Don’t you know that the Bible is true?" are insulting and have no purpose in a friendly discussion.”

Sorry about. I was quoting what people who go to Church say. We check Miss Manners in the door too. Have you’ve heard that Church hurt is the worst hurt? Have you been told you should sing solo? So low no one can hear you? You ain’t been to Church unless you’ve been talked about. Have you heard about people who attend a Church and complain the Pastor , he/she is talking about them, “How do you know my business? And the Pastor says, “Who are you? Are you a tithe paying member?” Etc., Etc., Etc., Church is fun.

“But, listen, since I don't have a Bible College or Seminary degree and you do, clearly you're much smarter than me. Perhaps it would be better if you took your dialogs to a blog where there were people up to your level rather than the dumb ones like me who simply spend a lifetime studying Scripture, relying on teachers and the Holy Spirit to lead me into all truth, and obviously coming up short.”

Chaplain Winston Tobias Muldrew said...


David
“Of course, the first thing the Apostles did was create a Bible college so that they could give degrees to all those home church leaders.”

Old Testament – school of the prophets – Elijah picked up Elisha there and Elisha's anointing was double of that of Elijah when he took off in a Chariot.

Jesus was called the Great Teacher and had many disciples/students besides the twelve. Some dropped out of school saying this is too hard. (Like those who abandon the KJV for the NIV, a 7th grade book they embrace. The media is 7th grade or below. One show Phd.’s are admitting they are not smarter than a 5th grader when they lose).

Paul was an educated man in the Bible having studied under the teacher Gamaleal.

Jesus left behind teachers after His ascension. They are not in Churches. They are in Bible Colleges and Seminaries. The members won’t have them. They don’t want to go to Sunday School either.

Chaplain Winston Tobias Muldrew said...

I have a Bible college degree and I think it is as silly as you do. But I like to learn. It was the best Church ever. I did not want to graduate which took 12 years. One teacher was a Pastor and had his own congregation. People from all over the world attended their. In 1980 something they had been around for 75 years without Church financial support. They only charged then $100 per class. The Teachers were Seminary Thd. graduates. Bay Cities Bible College in Oakland, Ca. If you expect a lot of students you are wrong.

Stan said...

Chaplain, I get that you have some difficulties and coherence is not your strong suit. I'm sorry about that. But I have to point out (for your benefit) that it is extremely difficult to discuss things with you when your responses are so incoherent. I'll try to respond with coherence.

Your source for your "900 babies over 900 years" is not the Bible. It is your paper. The Bible makes no such claim. On the other hand, the 6 (nearly 7) billion people on the planet now are not a direct result of Adam and Eve and his other wives. They are an indirect result of Noah and his children, but not a direct result. They are the product of generations of marriages (and illegitimate children) over millenia. This does not approach the question of Adam and Eve and God's "original plan" for polygamy.

The point of the reference to the Scopes Monkey Trial was not the trial. (It was called the "Monkey Trial" because of the claim of the prosecution that we came from monkeys.) It was the question. If there was no incest and no other people, who did Cain marry? Cain married a relative. (That's your claim, too.) Still doesn't provide a biblical proof that polygamy was God's original plan.

And the question still hangs out there, only amplified. Is it your position that it is evil (wrong, sinful, whatever) for Christians to get marriage licenses and follow the rules and reap the benefits the government provides for marriage? Is it your position that the biblical view of marriage is to have "sex with everyone God direct(s) to them"?

By the way, since David does have an education in Bible and I respect those who do, the comments were not against said education. The comments were against the notion that "This is a college level book", that those with credentials have a more accurate understanding of the Bible than those without, or that the Bible ever endorsed higher education as the best means. Study? Yes. Discipleship? Absolutely. A formal school? Can't find it. It can be a good thing, sure, but even you understand that a Bible college degree is "silly". We should probably just drop the "I'm educated so I understand this and you're not so you don't" type of line and deal with the texts in a reasonable way. Which brings me around to the original problem. There is no biblical proof that Adam had multiple wives and, thus, that polygamy was God's "original plan".

And I would like to know your answer to my questions regarding Christians and "legal" marriage.

David said...

"Here is what I wrote. Read it again using your critical reading and thinking skills (Kaplan Online University, communication major GPA 3.9).
“Most disturbing to some is Adam having sex with more than Eve to populate the whole earth in 900 years. Man, did Eve have 900 babies over 900 years. That takes a man either Adam or male sons. That had to happen exponentially to have 6 billion people on the planet.” If you did not know there are 6 billion as of now soon to be 7 billion from one couple. And you don’t think that God instructed this young couple to have 6 or 7 billion offspring?"


The obvious insult aside, you need to use your critical WRITING skills. Your original premise, based off the grammar of your writing, was that within the 900 years of Adam, there were 6 billion people. Based on your sentences, there is no possible way to know you meant from Adam to now there are 6 billion. You really ought to take your girlfriend's advice and take that writing class.

"Old Testament – school of the prophets – Elijah picked up Elisha there and Elisha's anointing was double of that of Elijah when he took off in a Chariot."

Being taught by someone is not the same as having a formal education. Elijah, Elisha, all the minor prophets, all the Bible writers, did not have a minor in writing, a Masters of Theology, or a ThD. Most of the New Testament was written by FISHERMEN. Last I checked, fishermen are not generally highly educated. You keep contending that only people with formal educations can understand the Bible. Problem is, it was written by people without formal educations to people without formal educations. Yes, Christ was the Great Teacher, and I believe everyone here would have loved to sit in on those teachings, but even the Pharisees were amazed by this son of a carpenter and how well he taught. Jesus, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, would have had the formal education of a carpenter. So before you continue insulted the uneducated masses, remember who it is we have faith in and how he would have grown up.
"Jesus left behind teachers after His ascension. They are not in Churches. They are in Bible Colleges and Seminaries. The members won’t have them. They don’t want to go to Sunday School either."

This is exactly why writing skills are important in a text based discussion. When you say, "They are not in the Churches.", that capitalized "Church", in most circles, identifies the invisible Church. All the people truly of God. Knowing that's not what you mean, we can proceed, but that is just an example of your ambiguity in writing. Next, it would be extremely unwise to have no Bible teachers in the churches. One of the requirements for an elder is the ability to teach. But if no teachers are in the churches, then there are no true elders in the churches, they're all holed up in colleges and seminaries, not doing a lick of good for the Kingdom.

Look, noone here is suggesting that a formal Bible education is a bad thing. We're only saying that it isn't a necessary thing in order to understand the Bible.

And PLEASE, stop insulting the non-KJV readers. Just because it wasn't written so that only the educated person can read it doesn't mean it isn't still brimming with the Truth.

I apologize, dad, for going so far off topic from the post.

David said...

Winston, just because the people of the Old Testament practiced polygamy doesn't mean it is what God wanted. There are no biblical indications that Adam had more than Eve, or that Noah and his sons had more than one wife. Yes, God gave the kings multiple wives, but He also chastised them for having them. He told them it wasn't good for them. Just because something is acceptable to a society doesn't mean it is good. EVERY indication in the Bible is that the best, healthiest, most successful marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. Yes, the allowing and giving of multiple wives by God were part of His good plan, but they were not part of His original design.

"Again, you have your head in Genesis and won’t include the rest of the Bible as your proof text. In other words the Bible testifies of itself."

Of course he has his head in Genesis. The title of the post is "Genesis Principles - Marriage" If the post is about a principle established in Genesis, then that's where he's going to focus. You may want to check the side bar and look up all Stan's posts on marriage though. He constantly uses multiple references from all over the Bible when defending the principle of monogamy in the Bible.

Chaplain Winston Tobias Muldrew said...

I am sorry that I seem incoherent but this is the first time I have discussed this with ANYONE. So excuse me while I use you and others to gather my thoughts and put them In a concise manner. I have been looking for a Berean like you to correct me. Most people just let things go. I hope this attempt is better. Please let me know if it is not.

Let me begin again from the top. I will start off with Adam and Eve and for sake of argument they did not produce any offspring from their Children. Although Adam and Eve were charged with filling the earth and replenish it they were faithful to each other. Do you like that better?

Now, who did their children, and their children’s children, and children up to today marry, and who will have children? That was the question at the Scopes Monkey trial. It wasn’t for the judge to defend his religious belief. He did not have a defense. He did not want to say that God permitted it because God wanted to fill and replenish the earth. People die every day so people had to be replenished. He could not tell the judge where all these people came from. Surely he did not was to say they came from Adam and Eve. To do that they who have to commit polygamy and sin according to his religious beliefs. Is he right? No. absolutely not!

If we all came from Adam and Eve you don’t need the Bible to prove that interbreeding had to take place after Adam and Eve. God did not create any more people that someone from Adam and Eve could marry. So they married brother, cousins, etc. They were all relatives. We are all relatives. All of us have the common parents Adam and Eve. There are no two ways about it. You can not escape from that fact. When God created Adam and Eve He said it was good as He said of all creation. In spite what anybody says we are all legitimate children. There no illegitimate children in Gods eyes.

Read your Bible. He allowed multiple wives. He can close and open wombs (Samuel the prophet whose mom was barren), Sarah gave her handmaiden to Abram and he hand a son by her. Then she had Isaac when she was over 90. Jacob had two wives and two handmaidens. God was an active participant In Jacob having the 12 tribes of Israel (his name was changed to Israel). So how can you say any other wise? I gave you some numbers just to make an illustration. I left numbers out this time. I hope I made it clear and coherent to you.

Stan said...

Chaplain, thank you for the excellent work at making a clear position. And I'm always glad to examine the Scriptures with a fellow believer. And, you're right, that happens far too infrequently.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you are not claiming any further that Adam had multiple wives. That is, the Bible is silent on that, so we won't make a claim to the contrary. And -- again, if I understand you correctly -- it would appear that you are saying that the line of Adam did engage in incest. Given that there is no biblical reason to believe that there were any other humans except Adam and Eve and their offspring, it would appear that this is a necessary conclusion. So it would appear that you are no longer making extrabiblical claims and we're all good with that.

I would like to point out that prior to Moses, keeping the Sabbath was not a command for Israel. Prior to the Mosaic law, Israel did not have a tabernacle, an ark of the covenant, or all those laws surrounding it. Silly, perhaps, but I use the point to illustrate the idea. Prior to the law given to Moses in Exodus through Deuteronomy, there was no mention of laws against incest. Indeed, incest seemed to happen without too much of a problem. In fact, Sarah was Abraham's half-sister. In Mosaic law and, certainly, in today's law, that would be illegal. But God hadn't mentioned such a restriction in Abraham's time, so it wasn't restricted.

And, yes, multiple people had multiple wives in the Old Testament. God did not strike any of them dead for it. It is clear from the biblical account that God allowed polygamy. It is not clear that He blessed it or intended it (in the sense of His perfect will). The fact that polygamy was dead both in Israel and the Church by the New Testament suggests that, like incest, it was an idea whose time had come to an end. In fact, I've written on the subject of polygamy, offering a biblical perspective, here, and I'm not alone in that.

Hopefully, then, you and I have managed to pull off a biblical and friendly end to this discussion.

David said...

Thank you, that was much clearer. Aside from a new term for me (Berean), that was much more understandable and coherent response.

While I agree we are all related in the sense that we come from the same ancestor, the genetic pool is so thinned out now that comparing the relativeness of you and me, and say 4 generations after Adam, is like comparing apples and oranges. The genetic information has been so spread out that familial relations to someone not in your family is easy to dispute. I don't know anything about the Scopes trial aside from what you've mentioned, but from the sound of it, when it happened, the Creationist hadn't really gotten into the nuts and bolts of it. The debate is much more difficult to "win" now because both sides now have scientific observances to refute with. While "the Bible says so" is a great tool inside the Church, when dealing with the secular world outside testing is needed. As far as I know, nothing in the Bible to date has been proven false or unreliable, in reference to its historicity and conformation to the evidence we see in life. Those that deny its veracity do so out of sin and stubborness.

" In spite what anybody says we are all legitimate children. There no illegitimate children in Gods eyes."

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Normally when someone is referencing "legitimate children" they are talking about someone having a mother and father there were married before they were concieved, or more liberally today before they were born.

"Read your Bible. He allowed multiple wives. He can close and open wombs (Samuel the prophet whose mom was barren), Sarah gave her handmaiden to Abram and he hand a son by her. Then she had Isaac when she was over 90. Jacob had two wives and two handmaidens. God was an active participant In Jacob having the 12 tribes of Israel (his name was changed to Israel). So how can you say any other wise?"

Are you claiming that because God used these sinful acts, and even commanded them in some cases, that He had made this to be the way it was meant to be? If so, I'd have to disagree. God commanded the wholesale slaughter of pretty much all of Canaan. That doesn't mean that killing all the people in a town in a time of war is the right thing to do. He explains why He made that command. He gave the kings multiple wives, not because that was the original design, but it was part of His plan. To me, it shows polygamy in a bad light. The multiple wives created constant strife in the husband's life in every single example given of polygamy. Solomon didn't have his thousand women because it was the right thing to do. He had them so that God could use him to break down Israel so that the perfect time would come for Jesus to arrive on the scene. All of the Old Testament is meant to lead us to the coming Christ. All of the New Testament is meant to tell of the Gospel of Christ. So, yes, there is God ordained polygamy in the Bible. No, that does not mean it was part of His original design. "It is not good for man to be alone. He needs a helper."..."A helper". God created one wife for Adam, not multiple. God told the Israelites, in the list of bad things of having a king, that multiple wives would come about. All references in the New Testament are to monogamy. Yes, God used polygamy to further His plan. No, that is not the intended course for marriage. And when He closed and opened wombs, those were meant as punishments and rewards, not as the normal mode of operation.

Stan said...

I'm a little surprised, David, that you hadn't heard the term, "Berean". It's standard Christianese. Comes from the story in Acts.

"The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 17:10-11).

In Christianese, then, a "Berean" is shorthand for those who receive the word with all eagerness and examine it daily to see if these things are so. That's the idea.

David said...

Nope. Was a new one on me. I looked it up when I saw it, but had never heard it before.

Chaplain Winston Tobias Muldrew said...

Like I said, the only men who are supposed to be husbands of one wife volunteer. They don’t have to but they want to be Bishops and Deacons. Look at Timothy and Titus. They are under the law. Most of them will teach the law and try and put us under it. They want to call themselves anything but Bishops. They don’t understand gentiles were never under the law. It was not for us. Jesus came for those under the old covenant then the Gentiles. We are under are under the new covenant.

Chaplain Winston Tobias Muldrew said...

David

I don’t know if you guys realize it but I believe we are making history. Correct me if I am wrong. I was raised in the Church and I have never heard or read a discussion like this. The Church buildings won’t even talk about heterosexual sex accept to condemn it, out of wedlock (a preacher or a must judge marry.)

They may not realize it but they condemn common law marriage which is legal still in some states. They called it shacking up. (You only have to live together 7 years to be considered married) Common law marriage was the law in all 50 states! God’s law is not legal. Man exalts his law against the Knowledge of God every time they make a law or change a law. Sodomy was illegal just a few years ago. Now two males can get married in some states and the Church buildings make them pastors and Bishops.

A Seminary graduate is only required to fulfill two years. That is after attaining a 4 year secular degree in anything. As I said it took me 12 years. And I am still not interested in being a Bishop. I prefer to study and minster as Jesus and the disciples did, a Public Ministry. I did not have to pay a $40,000 student loan. Thank God. I like the Bible College I attended I never had financial Church support. I would not think to ask for a tithe or an offering although I paid them. A Bishop’s job is much different than a Chaplain/Pastor/Teacher. A Chaplain is a Pastor with a Helps Ministry. Each class was taught by a Thd. But it only cost $100 a class. I completed 30 classes.

“And your assertion that Eve would have had to been barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen is unfounded and merely an emotional response. She had been commanded BY GOD to populate the earth.”

May I ask how old you are? I am 59 years. In my day my comment was considered humorous because of the, “Women’s Liberation Movement.” Women were redefining their roles. They wanted to work instead. A nuclear family now consists of 1.2 children. It was not uncommon for women to have more children. They were “Stay at home Moms.” They would sometimes work part time. My Dad and Mom had 5 children and a $5,000 house. Now women want “Stay at home Dads.”

“And, while a woman is pregnant, most of the time she is able to do most of what she does on a normal basis anyway, so she wouldn't be bound to the "kitchen".

Have you ever been married and your wife was pregnant? My married friends laughed and snickered after a while. She could not perform her duties as a wife and they knew it. And man she could cook. I think that is a lost art now. They have to be taught by their mothers. It is my experience they don’t all want to be pregnant or in the kitchen anymore. And shoes? They are expensive!!! They want shoes. As I tried to explain to Stan, that does not preclude the fact that Adam could have sex with any woman. Why would Eve complain?

As I tried to explain to Stan also, it would be physically impossible for Eve to have a child more than once a year. That is approximately 1 a child year for 900 years = 900 children. That is not very productive. She may have been tired of being barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen all the time. Like Jacob, God could have provided 4 women he did impregnate and in his short lifetime. Jacob only produced 12 sons. Do you think God wanted through Jacob to produce the 12 tribes if Israel? Of course he did. No one else could.

With the billions of sperm of man produces, and one egg at a time that will never exist again, people are like snowflakes. You can’t make two exactly alike. God even wanted me and you to be born. Do you think that was unintelligently designed like evolution or intelligently designed by God? Evolutionist can’t figure out why we evolved to have sex. An amoeba just divides into two amoebas. That is more efficient. We are not mistakes but born by the will of God. How can anybody be born out of the will of Gods? Some are born to righteousness some are born to unrighteousness.

Chaplain Winston Tobias Muldrew said...

I don’t believe scientific explanations anymore. They re-wrote the nature programs with unintelligent design in favor of intelligent design with the ACLU enforcing it. When the ALCU fought against to intelligence in the school system I thought that was silly.

They are still trying to find out the date of this sheet that they thru over Jesus head. A scientist ran into Jesus tomb he was buried in and grabbed it. They by scientific methods of dating are still trying to figure out when he did it. Why don’t they check a calendar and see when Jesus died? I used to read science (fiction) in my youth and now it is a fact they are teaching is schools. There are now Darwinist and Neo-Darwinist and they don’t agree. Like denominations they had a Church split. And Creationist is really Darwinist at their very core.

Why does scientist think we have been losing something in our genetic makeup over the years? That would be de-evolution. Evolution is just an academic study. Academic studies only that which would aid of the defense of their thesis. Therefore, evolution does not include the study of the mind, soul, and the spirit of humankind. According to scientist there is more evidence for De-Evolution than Evolution. It is interesting, in the U.S. Scientist makes claims, and at the same time the government makes laws so you can’t do those practices. What if they are wrong? There is no way you can prove scientist are wrong publicly.

Chaplain Winston Tobias Muldrew said...

Stan 2
Scopes Trial
I am older than you. I remember things and taught things you were not. Now, I can them look up on the Internet. Anybody can. I remember it did not have anything to do with evolution can’t be taught in schools. As I said it had everything to do with religion can’t be taught in schools. Evolution can religion can not. In fact you can’t even defend yourself against evolution on a religious basis. Most people have had some sort of religion throughout history, even pagans. The government has decided that billions of people throughout human history are wrong and science is right because of Darwin.

Have ever read Darwin he was a racist and women hater. Only white men had intelligence. Actually that may not be true. He attended Seminary. In this world you need a secular job to make ends meet. The secular world ate up evolution in his day and even more so today. It is interesting, to say the least, that Darwin could not prove any of his theory’s saying, “let those in the future figure out if it is true.” Evolution is only a straw man. If you study it you know it is full of holes.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Coordinates: 35°29′41.74″N 85°00′45.63″W
Tennessee v. Scopes
Court Criminal Court of Tennessee
Full case name The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes
Date decided July 21, 1925
Citation(s) None
Judge(s) sitting John T. Raulston
Case history
Subsequent action(s) Scopes v. State (1926)

The Scopes Trial, formally known as The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes and commonly referred to as the Scopes Monkey Trial, was a famous American legal case in 1925 in which a high school teacher, John Scopes, was accused of violating Tennessee's Butler Act, which made it unlawful to teach evolution in any state-funded school.[1] The trial was deliberately staged in order to attract publicity to the small town of Dayton, Tennessee, where it was held. Scopes was unsure whether he had ever actually taught evolution, but he purposefully incriminated himself so that the case could have a defendant.
Scopes was found guilty and fined $100, but the verdict was overturned on a technicality. The trial served its purpose of drawing intense national publicity, as national reporters flocked to Dayton to cover the big-name lawyers who had agreed to represent each side. William Jennings Bryan, three-time presidential candidate for the Democrats, argued for the prosecution, while Clarence Darrow, the famed defense attorney, spoke for Scopes. The trial set modernists, who said evolution was consistent with religion, against fundamentalists who said the word of God as revealed in the Bible took priority over all human knowledge. The case was thus seen as both a theological contest and a trial on the veracity of modern science regarding the creation-evolution controversy.
The trial is perhaps best known today for serving as the inspiration for the play, and later the movie, Inherit the Wind, both of which were critical successes.

Chaplain Winston Tobias Muldrew said...

Stan I enjoy dialoging with you

Forgive me. I learned from Harold Camping from Family Radio (a teacher) He involved people from around the world. He did Bible Study’s and he learned from his studies. The only criteria were that you had to prove yourself by the KJV. He was not opposed to spiritualizing. He understood that the Bible was a book of parables. He said the Bible uses human terms to describe the spiritual. Commentaries are like that, theological books, Bible Dictionaries, concordances; Sunday School Books are all like that. They are just studies. They were written over 400 a year period. He had his studies printed in books and they were freely given. He had support for his ministry from the listening audience. He had more that 50 radio stations. We are doing that too. Isn’t it great and a lot of fun? I think so. The Bible is the most important book you can study!

“Since you appear to believe that the Church is wrong for having its people engaging in marriage as per government instructions (You said, "Who is enforcing the will of the government as it pertains to marriage? The local Church."), is it your view that people should not get marriage licenses? Should not abide by "the will of the government as it pertains to marriage"? (Should not submit to the government on this?)”

That is not my view at all. If you want to get married under a 200 year old government law of man then does it. But why should anyone condemn someone who prefers to get married like Adam and Eve? Jesus is the midst as the third party and He said there is no divorce. Marriage under this government rule is a billion dollar industry.

Frankly, I prefer that the government stay out of my marriages. This government marriage is not a contract between a male and a female. It is a contract between a male and female and the third parties any judge. Any judge can dictate the terms of marriage. He can change them any time without you agreeing to the new terms. He enforces the new terms by creating new agencies. He has now redefined what marriage is even from the beginning. It can be same sex marriage. God did not intend same sex marriage. They are o be fruitful and multiply. Men don’t have a womb that God can open and close.

“Is it, therefore, sinful or wrong to get the tax advantage that marriage (through government-approved methods) provides? Are Christians wrong for obtaining government-sanctioned benefits of marriage such as property rights, healthcare plan sharing, etc.? (I suppose the same question would carry over to other areas. Is it, for instance, wrong for a Christian to take "charitable donation" tax breaks?)”

You must not be married or ever divorced. To describe what happens to men would take a paper in itself. Suffice it to say it is well know that there is a marriage penalty. People of the same sex have no idea what they are getting themselves into. And because of them changes are going to take place.

Can you still take a tax break for charitable donations? Things have gotten so bad that you can’t write off any interest and if you buy or own a home it is no longer considered an asset.

Chaplain Winston Tobias Muldrew said...

“If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you are not claiming any further that Adam had multiple wives.”

No I am not claiming that. I said for the sake of argument. You have to test, compare all of Scripture with Scripture to find the answer that God placed in His book. God is not silent on that point. Per your example Abram married his half sister. They had the same father but different mothers. So, why not Adam? This case is closed.

Chaplain Winston Tobias Muldrew said...

David - 3

“Are you claiming that because God used these sinful acts, and even commanded them in some cases, that He had made this to be the way it was meant to be? If so, I'd have to disagree. God commanded the wholesale slaughter of pretty much all of Canaan. That doesn't mean that killing all the people in a town in a time of war is the right thing to do.”

I am glad you asked question. They are one and the same. In fact the second question proves my point. It is extremely important that you read the Bible multiple times. I believe that God rewards Him that diligently seeks him. I may have stumbled on this during one of my studies. Do you know why God ordered the wholesale slaughter of the Canaanites? Could it be because of Ham’s sin against his father? It was passed down to his son Cain.

Another example: One of Solomon’s wives was a Baal worshiper and he built high towers for her. What was passed on to his son after his death? Israel was defeated by Babylon and taken into captivity. The prophets told of this because of Israel’s idolatry. Israel was split into two tribes. The other tribes were captured by Assyria and are referred to as the lost tribes of Israel.

It gets complicated but proper exegesis you have to know all of these things. You can’t base anything on 1 or 2 Scriptures.

Now what happened to Israel because they got too soft hearted and would not kill all of Canaan, men, women and child disobeying God? They lost the promise land. They were removed from the promise land. If you ever studied prophecy like reading Hal Lindsey you would know from Scripture the prophecy that Israel will again become a nation in Israel. That happened in 1948 after Hitler’s Holocaust. Their physical condition after they returned is prophesied in Ezekiel, Them Bones.

I can’t talk to you about your claims that God does not know what He is doing. That He could accomplish the same thing by another means. Calling things sin are not. You don’t understand predestination (Roman 8). You don’t understand Jesus died for the sins of the world before the foundation of the earth, not in Calvary on a cross. You have probably not have gotten that far in your studies yet.

Chaplain Winston Tobias Muldrew said...

The ultimate answer to all your question is,"It is not my will but it is always God's will that is done" How can you say human kind over rules God's will and He does not direct our paths, that thy word is a lamp upon my feet and a light unto my path.

He is the potter and we are just clay He breathed life into. He created all of us for His pleasure.
\
As He told Job, "Who are you to council me and where were you when I decided these things before I created anything! Hopefully you understand that parable. Jesus only spoke in parable. He said because He does not to save and heal everyone.

Stan said...

"the only men who are supposed to be husbands of one wife volunteer"

So, in your view the qualifications for an elder or deacon are not qualifications all believers should seek. If you want to be an engineer, you would seek the qualifications of an engineer. If you want to be a dish washer, you would seek the qualifications of a dish washer. If you want to be a deacon, you would seek the qualifications of a deacon. I have always viewed the qualifications for "elder" (or "bishop") and "deacon" as the pinnacle, the qualifications that all believers should seek. Thus, "the husband of one wife" would be the thing that all (male) believers should seek. Now, if you could just offer me one example of a New Testament character (especially a good one) with more than one wife, I'll consider reconsidering my position.

"I don’t know if you guys realize it but I believe we are making history."

Indeed, that would be the primary point of this post.

"As I tried to explain to Stan also, it would be physically impossible for Eve to have a child more than once a year. That is approximately 1 a child year for 900 years = 900 children."

As an aside, I did a mathematical experiment once. I figured 1 child every 5 years. I figured no child before the age of 20 or after the age of 500. I also threw in a random "every other child was a female" for calculation purposes. I no longer recall the exact results, but the numbers were huge. From Adam to Noah using this formula and allowing for interbreeding among family members, there would have been billions of people. Eve didn't have to bear 900 kids. She and her offspring would have done a fine job of repleneshing the earth.

"I am older than you."

At 59? Not much. We might have gone to high school together. Having said that, I wasn't trying to make an argument about the Scopes trial. That, in the realm of argumentation, is known as "a rabbit trail". Not going there. No point.

"But why should anyone condemn someone who prefers to get married like Adam and Eve?"

First, "married like Adam and Eve" can't happen again ... ever. They were the first and the only. Clearly, from Scripture and even from Jesus's example, public marriage is right. I'm not talking about "government" rules. I'm talking about a public joining, a public commitment, a public covenant. Adam and Eve had a "private" wedding because there was no one else around. No one since has had that. And I don't think God ever intended anyone else to do it either. Again, I'm not talking about government rules and licensing and all. I'm just talking about the public nature of a wedding of two people. If government stayed out of marriage, I wouldn't have a problem. Marriage is not a contract between two parties. It is a covenant between two parties. It is also the joining of two families.

"You have to test, compare all of Scripture with Scripture to find the answer that God placed in His book."

Well, then, I suppose we'll have to disagree, since Scripture does not in any place under any circumstances suggest or require that Adam ever had more than one wife or that God intended polygamy as the norm. Since Scripture is the test and Scripture does not support your contention, I'm sure you'll agree you've been wrong on this one.

(Please note. Jesus said that marriage is forever (Matt 19). Thus, if a man divorces his wife and marries another, it is not marrying a second wife; it is adultery. Thus, from Jesus's perspective, marriage was one-man-one-woman and not polygamy. This is also true of polyandry -- women marrying more than one husband. See Rom 7.)

David said...

Your 8:01 post was an improvement, but all the following posts quickly degraded. I would suggest proofreading your posts before clicking on "Publish Your Comment". Grammar, punctuation, capitalization, sentence structure, and lines of reasoning. I find myself having to translate what you typed before I can think about what you said.

As a courtesy to Stan (and because it is hard to follow), I'll stop commenting on your rabbit trails. As for the thrust of this post, I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. Do you believe polygamy is a good thing in the eyes of God, or not? You seem to be dancing around the answer.

Also, you may want to take care in your assumptions about us. I mentioned earlier that Stan is my dad, so he has been married (and divorced), so to claim he must never have been married is false. And I also mentioned that I have a minor in Bible Study/Teaching. I may not have the protracted academic education you have, but I have lived my entire life being taught about the Bible. I don't have a perfect understanding of the Bible (who does?) but I do have a pretty thorough one. And I never said God doesn't know what He is doing. In fact I was saying just the opposite. I apologize if that was unclear. I am quite clear on the teaching of predestination. Sometimes I feel I understand it more than most people. What we are trying to say is that in a sinless world, monogamy would be the standard, and any instance of polygamy in the Bible is not a demonstration of approval, but a warning and an act of God's overall plan. Yes, polygamy happened in the Bible. No, it is not the best course for marriage. Yes, God used it for His good work.