Observation Post wrote:Thanks for that latest post, John.Perhaps your clear demonstration that the storyline from the Garden to the flood completely escapes you will convince some of my brethren that trying to reason with your lot is an exercise in futility.
Your response is typical of those of your ilk. When you cannot refute the reason of your opponent, then you stoop to nasty remarks. May God purge from you such pride and foolishness!
When you are ready to discuss things rationally, I'll be happy to speak to you. Until then, I'll leave you with your self-deceit.
Perhaps your clear demonstration that the storyline from the Garden to the flood completely escapes you will convince some of my brethren that trying to reason with your lot is an exercise in futility. There are scriptural admonishions against continuance we should take to heart at some point in any discussion.
ObPost wrote:Lamech perished...
You cannot say that Cain's Lamech was killed in the Flood, nor that all of Cain's line were evil. This is an argument from silence. Some may have been righteous, but died before the Flood.
ObPost wrote:Gen 4:11...cursed from the earth,
ObPost wrote:Why did God set a mark on Cain so no one would kill him?
ObPost wrote:Back to...Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
ObPost wrote:All of Cain's progeny was destroyed...
ObPost wrote:It was before the time God...for the sins of the fathers...(Ezek 18:20)
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
So 2 Sam 12:8 is at best a weak proof text for your position.
Neil wrote:John Gill's remarks on 2 Sam 12:8 -www.freegrace.net/gill/2_Samuel/2_Samuel_12.htm
John_for_Christ wrote:Cain's line was not cursed. There's no Scriptural basis for that claim, to my knowledge. Only Cain was cursed. As far as we know, Lamech was perfectly righteous.
Gen 4:11 And now art thou cursed from the earth,
15 Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
Why did God set a mark on Cain so no one would kill him?
Deu 32:35-36 To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence... For the LORD shall judge his people.
Back to Lamech...
Gen 4:23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.
24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
All of Cain's progeny was destroyed in the flood when God avenged Himself and the blood of righteous Abel. It was before the time God proclaimed that no one would any longer die for the sins of the fathers "The soul that sinneth, it shall die."(Ezek 18:20)
Better find another role model for the first "righteous" polygamist.
Mike wrote:Read carefully the question: "And he gave Cain and Seth sisters as wives. By your reckoning is this for today?"
Even if you were to argue that He gave them passively, the Law is what amended this kind of situation. Hey, it is the same Law that opened up polygyny to be practiced. Hmmm!
Observation Post wrote:Listen, John. The Lamech who had two wives Adah and Zillah was of the cursed seed of Cain... not the Lamech of the blessed seed of Seth of which in Noah it was said he was perfect in his generations. Therefore your treatment of the Lamech passage is exactly backwards.
I also believe you are making a mistaken assumption. Cain's line was not cursed. There's no Scriptural basis for that claim, to my knowledge. Only Cain was cursed.
As far as we know, Lamech was perfectly righteous. The discussion is whether he was righteous in this instance, and I believe the record shows he was.
Observation Post wrote:But you continue to kick against this truth as well. No doubt you will ignore this correction which you could use to your good and make the same false assertion again in another discussion. Sad.
John_for_Christ wrote:Lamech called upon God's justice for his self-defense against the young man that attacked him. There's ZERO evidence that Lamech sinned here.
Listen, John. The Lamech who had two wives Adah and Zillah was of the cursed seed of Cain... not the Lamech of the blessed seed of Seth of which in Noah it was said he was perfect in his generations. Therefore your interpretation of the Lamech passage is exactly backwards and a gross perversion of the Truth. But you continue to kick against this as well rather that opening up your bible to see if what I said was true. No doubt you will ignore this correction which you could use to your good and make the same faulty interpretation of Lamech again in another discussion.
Mike wrote:And he gave Cain and Seth sisters as wives. By your reckoning, is this for today?
If we are not under the Law, then we are FREE. Now, the Law tells us what is sin. We are freed from the Law. The Law gave us a minimum for how to love our neighbor.
Jesus went beyond the Law in love. But, He remained under the Law during His time on Earth. He didn't change the Law.
The apostles, especially Paul, understood that after Jesus' resurrection, believers were not under the Law of Moses, but under the perfect Law of God in Christ. That "law" is the law of perfect love: Love God with your all, and love your neighbor as yourself.
Under freedom, some previously forbidden things are allowed: We can eat meat sacrificed to idols, can eat non-kosher, can live in houses that have "leprosy", no longer offer sacrifices for sin, don't need to tithe, etc. But polygamy was previously ALLOWED, not forbidden.
Now the question is, is polygamy to be allowed under freedom, or restricted? It seems to me that we need to find SOMETHING, anything in the NT to justify restriction. I find nothing. Therefore, I believe we are free to pursue polygamy...
Adelphos wrote:Read carefully the texts. David is told by God that He gave David wives. It is very specific text!
bernie wrote: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....May God richly bless and keep the blood bought brothers and sisters who rightly divide His word.
May God richly bless and keep the blood bought brothers and sisters who rightly divide His word.
You have not shown us where in the OT or the NT that God specifically says that a man is to only have one wife. You have ignored our references where He not only blesses a man with multiple wives, but He actually refers to Himself as having two wives.
Now you are telling us that we are so far out of reach that God can't even save us! In my opinion, that is quite wicked. If you feel we are so mislead then pray for us, but don't tell us that God is unwilling, or unable to save us, or that we are not allowed His grace! That goes directly against His word!
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 have never been humbled by Almighty God, cried out for forgiveness, repented... Their hearts remain unchanged.
The argument that it was always one man and one woman should be evident throughout Scripture, both OT and NT. However, we don't find that to be true. The very man, Moses, who wrote about Adam and Eve was, himself, a polygamist.
How about Abraham? God made a promise to him about his seed. We are also told how righteous his faith was. Yet he too was a non-repentant polygamist.
How can this be if what you say is true? Or am I mistaken and Moses and Abraham are currently in Hell for their non-repentant sins as polygamist?
"(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?