There are more theological presuppositions containted in your comments than one can shake a stick at,

The basic presupposition is that Greek definitions for "immorality" include polygyny. I hate to say this, but there isn't any Greek Lexicon that would support that notion. That notion is nothing more than the anachronistic fallacy - reading into the test today's defintion. Nice try, but unprovable!

Interesting quote in Timothy... perhaps you might consider that many on this forum are actually, "forbidding to marry". Hmmm

Mike wrote:
Read carefully the question: "And he gave Cain and Seth sisters as wives. By your reckoning is this for today?"

Mike wrote:
OK.
"(4) God GAVE David his wives, 2Sa 12:7-8."
And he gave Cain and Seth sisters as wives. By your reckoning, is this for today?

bernie wrote:
These polygamists are blinded by their sin. They suppress the truth, and have been turned over to a depraved mind. They have never been humbled by Almighty God, cried out for forgiveness, repented, and been changed by His Holy Spirit. Their hearts remain unchanged. They are not born again; God has not granted the new birth and given them a new heart and mind.
There comes a point of no return in a sinner's life, by repeatedly denying the truth, they sear their own conscience, unable to discern right from wrong. There's nothing to gain by allowing these polygamists to drag any of us into their continual merry go round. God will bless all who have given His truth, and He will judge those who twist it. If God has turned them over to a depraved mind, there is nothing left for us to do. May God richly bless and keep the blood bought brothers and sisters who rightly divide His word.

Dr. Phil wrote:
Biblical polygamy? - An Oxymoron.
Your judgment is not the same as God's judgment. Thank God. Moreover, there can be no judgment for mocking that which is not Biblical. Even "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them derision." Ps. 2:4 In fact, he already has you bunch of polygamists in derision.
I have no problem mocking those who break the law, decieve the government with fraudulent welfare charges, and cause their illegimate wives and children they have sired to file for un-wed mother's compensation. Not to mention the sexual crimes against children, these polygamists are theives and robbers.
Why don't you just calm down and have a V-8? Your god has. He could have given Adam a multitude of wives if only he had just given Adam more ribs. Tonight when you lay down, count how many ribs you have and then count one of your wives' ribs. You will find that she has one more than you; this is the number of wives you should have.

Observation Post wrote:
Mike, Dr. Phil, Walt and all who love the Truth,
God bless you all for your contributions. As for me, I've had my fill of the evasions, parting insults when the Truth cannot be borne and the same old arguments trotted out again starting the whole futile process all over again. I part the room to not return in the hope these polygamists will slap themselves and each other on the back for a while and finally depart.
God's blessings.

Mike wrote:
Mark 10:8
"And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh." Mark 10:9 "No more twain" in the context of what God has joined together means one flesh from this point forward.

2. When Christ says that "the two" shall be one flesh, this applies to the monogamist as well as the polygamist in regard to EACH of his wives. You see, it would be sin for the wives to be "one flesh" with the husband as the same time, in one bed. So, the individual husband is to be with each individual wife (the two) apart from any other wives. These TWO become one flesh. It would contradict God's Law to say that an individual husband, together with, ALL the wives, become one flesh. Or another way of saying it - for all of them to become one flesh would be advocating lesbianism within the family unit. Therefore, "the two" are to become one flesh, not "the three" together.

Dr. Phil wrote:
It is not I who is ignoring the sin of polygamy. Thou art the man!

Dr. Phil wrote:
It is not I who uses the sins of the Patriarchs to justify my sin. Thou art the man!

Dr. Phil wrote:
It is not I who assumes that because the Patriarchs sinned in committing polygamy that the Law says "Thou shalt have a multitude of wives".

Dr. Phil wrote:
Regarding an official online debate, how do you think this will change things?

Dr. Phil wrote:
You would not be satisfied unless we found a moderator that would agree with your position. Who would you suggest - Joseph Smith or Brigham Young? They are currently in hell.

Dr. Phil wrote:
More Red Herrings:
Who said anything about Jusitification by faith means ignoring immorality besides you? Do you not know that is it justification by faith that sets a difference between the "spots of the Godly and the spots of the wicked" Deut. 32:5? Your comments illustrate that you fail to understand the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
Where in the Law does it say "thou shalt have a multitude of wives - as many as thou canst afford"? Allowance of sin does not constitute a law to commit sin. The righteous agree with Paul that "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I." Rom. 7:15-16

You assume so much. Why don't we have an official online debate, complete with rules, and a moderator. Since you engage in inconsistent hermeneutics, it would be nice to demonstate these inconsistencies. The way you wiggle out of consistent intepretation methods, it is like one trying to nail jellow to the wall.

Dr. Phil wrote:
For that matter, who made "technicus terminus" the keeper of the gate? By merely questioning his interpretation without addressing his specific arguments does not make it so. Scripture may affirm the righteousness of Abraham, Jacob, and David, but it does not affirm that the polygamy of these men was righteous. This only confirms that their righteousness was outside of themselves. In his doctrine of justification by faith alone, Calvin can not be disputed, and his understanding of the righteousness of the OT saints is sound.
Your argument about "double predestination" is a red herring - a diversion from the real issues.

The Law tells us that polygyny is allowed. The Law of the Lord is perfect, unless you deny that. Therefore, the practice of Abraham, etc... falls within this guideline.

Justification by faith does not mean ignore immorality, so if God was not pleased with their lifestyles, then He would have said so. Moreover, if your argument is true, then the argument is always true. Meaning, all polygynists who have been Justified by Faith need not be concerned with polygyny as well.

Dr. Phil wrote:
Calvin's Reformed position:
1 Tim. 3:2
"The only true exposition is. . that in a bishop he expressly condemns polygamy, which at that time the Jews almost reckoned to be lawful. This corruption was borrowed by them partly from sinful imitation of the Fathers, (for they who read that Abraham, Jacob, David, and others of the same class, were married to more wives than one at the same time, thought that it was lawful for them also to do the same)

Observation Post wrote:
It doesn't really matter?
It doesn't really matter that you must force two wives onto the text because it cannot be established through exegesis?
It doesn't really matter because there is an extrabiblical point to the passage which has been revealed to you and your lot which has been withheld from everyone else?
It doesn't really matter because the bible is not your final authority?
At least John had sense enough to not answer my direct question but you have no fear.
. . .
Walt,
I just noticed your post below and now understand your previous post to "Adelphos" was addressed to me. Thank you for your comments, Walt, and your very generous offer of "The Hebrew Wife". I would be grateful for an electronic version of this book and grateful for your efforts in making it available as well.
Thank you and God bless.

Observation Post wrote:
John,
Will you admit that it cannot be established conclusively that the man in Paul's hypothetical discourse is married to two WOMEN? That when taken at face value the hypothetical discourse in context speaks of three parties; Christ, a member of His body and a harlot and beyond these three parties one must assume and impose on the text that which is not stated?
This has been my sole point in rejoining this discussion today.

enough already wrote:
Abraham, David, Solomon and Jacob did practice polygamy, but God never condoned it. In fact, He warned Solomon against it in Deut. 17:17 saying, "He must NOT take MANY wives". As a result of this sinful practice, Abraham's household was fractured because of jealousy between Hagar and Sarah. Jacob also endured the same spousal jealousy. David's adulterous tendencies was his downfall as he approached Bathsheba, and Solomon's many wives were a snare to him and drew him into idol worship.
It's funny how polygamists never refer to the 'aftermath' of such sexual immorality. Study the lives of these men, what happened to them and why. Referring back to Deuteronomy 17:17, when God speaks out against something, He does NOT change his mind at a later date.

2. Solomon violated the Law by taking too many wives, not by taking more than one wife.

3. The Bible tells us that the sinful nature is what causes jealousy.

4. Adam and Eve had serious family problems - I guess that proves monogamy results in murder! Too funny!

Observation Post wrote:
Save it. The words of God and Jesus are clear. If you want to reject the clear for the obscure that is your business. (The harlot passage is obscure because it cannot be establish that the man is still married to the wife of his youth.)

Observation Post wrote:
I can't prove anything to you that you are unwilling to believe but the very passage you would like to have endorse polygamy by argument from silence makes clear what "one flesh" means if you will but believe what it states and stop trying to create doctrine from what it doesn't state.

Observation Post wrote:
You got my point and that was my purpose. Enough said.

Observation Post wrote:
And this is called argument from silence. The passage means what it means yet you want us to believe that polygamy is blessed by God because of what the passage does not say. Astounding!

"God's original design is recorded
Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.""

If God's original design is in the creation story that would mean that it is sin to be single, eat meat, or work outside of farming! Very weak interpretation!

You said,

"Matthew 19:5 "And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"
That is God's and Christ's word on the subject."

This is what logicians call a "non sequitar". Just because Christ said that the "twain shall be one flesh", it does not mean that other "twain" cannot become also become "one flesh". That is reading into Scripture!

enough already wrote:
Polygamy has always brought grief, as in the life of Jacob. It was finally forbidden in Leviticus 18:18, "Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive". All polygamy is forbidden by the original law of marriage, instituted in Gen. 2:24, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife {singular, as in ONE} and they shall become one flesh." If anyone can understand the singular usage of 'man', then they should be able to comprehend the singular usage of 'wife'. Because of stony hearts, Moses 'tolerated' polygamy, as did others in Israel during the early stages of that nation, however, it always led to tragedy. The bible also speaks of murder, homosexuality, drunkenness, etc. That doesn't mean God condones any of it. Twisting His Holy Word is a sin in itself.

"One Flesh" should be studied throughout Scripture in order to get a good understanding on that phrase.

The verse about not marrying sisters is not a law against polygyny