I never said “because the bible has been debated for 2000 years it cannot be used as a source of what is right (I can’t believe I mistyped “right” as “write” above) or wrong.” I said that if it does contain what is right and wrong, humans are having a damned hard time agreeing on what it says is right and what it says is wrong.

The difference in science and religion is that the very basis of science is that we never know for sure we are right. We observe, figure out a theory that adequately describe current observations, and then if we find observations that don’t fit our theory, we alter the theory. Only a bad scientist would ever claim to have definitely figured something out. A good scientist will simply say “this theory seems to fit with the current observations.” On the other hand, many religions will claim “we already have the truth about the world given to us in this book.”

I will turn on a dime if shown verifiable evidence that something I believe is wrong. This is the very reason I am an agnostic atheist and not a gnostic atheist. Even Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett don’t claim to “know god doesn’t exist.” They simply say “the evidence I have does not lead me to a conclusion that a supernatural entity possibly exists.”

Since you asked me again my thoughts on Titus, I will put into this post what I ended up deleting from my previous. In the bible, god has required a higher standard of some over others. The Old Testament spends a great deal of time talking about “God’s chosen people” and shows the extra rules they were/are required to follow. Even among the Israelites the Levites where eventually set apart as the priests of Israel and required to maintain a “cleaner” lifestyle than the general public.

I’m not trying to argue either here. As I said, we are definitely going to just have to agree to disagree about this thread. There really is no other direction we can go when we disagree about what various versus “clearly” say.

(also, I’m not sure why you say we “disagree” on Cor. 5 and 6)

Concerning Titus: so are you saying you believe a higher standard is being required for one person over another?

I am not trying to argue here, I think by now, you know where I am coming from. But the same logic you are using to extrapolate the relationships about Adam and Eve and their descendants is the same logic you rejected as to the conclusion I drew in Titus concerning marriage.

You said:
“If “what the bible says” is our only source used to decide on wether something is wrong or write, we are pretty well out of luck as not even 2000 years of debate by thousands of people have succeeded in agreeing on what that book actually says/means on a good bit of it.”

The argument that because people disagree about the Bible and therefore we cannot submit to its being our standard for right/wrong is an invalid argument.
If we assume that the Bible is written by God (through men) then we have to assume that there is absolute truth contained in the Bible.
The fact that men misinterpret (whether through ignorance or arrogance or whatever reason) some of the truth (and I would counter that there is a majority of the Bible that people do not debate on) does not invalidate or nullify what the truth is.

Take for instance: People used to believe that maggots grew from meat. Was this the truth? No. Was the truth nullified because this interpretation was inaccurate or debated? No. It wasn’t until experimentation was done that it was discovered that they came from eggs laid on the meat.

There is much of science that is debated and misinterpreted and that we still don’t understand. Does this mean we are ‘out of luck’?

Now, how do we extrapolate truth from the Bible? We read a verse, we read surrounding verses and compare them with other verses in the Bible, we look at the verse through the perspective of what God’s character is. And from that we can get a pretty clear idea of meaning and context.

I do believe that the institute of marriage is very clearly defined in the Bible and consistently throughout the Bible. God first stated it in Genesis and Jesus repeated it in the Gospels (Matt. 19:5, Mark 10:7-8) as well as Paul in Corinthians (1 Cor 6:16) and Ephesians (Eph 5:31)
Genesis 2: 24
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh

There does not seem to be any ambiguity. One man and one woman and the two shall become one.

As I read it, the original blog post was trying to make the point that “God sanctioned” polygamous marriages as trying to prove that those who oppose legalizing homosexual marriage had to also accept polygamy.

The definition of Sanction is:
1. permission or approval, as for an action.
2.
something that serves to support an action, condition, etc.
3.
something that gives binding force, as to an oath, rule ofconduct, etc.

I do not think it has been successfully shown through the scripture that God “sanctioned” any such thing. Scripture shows that He “allowed” it, but the two are very different things and should not be confused. There are many things recorded in the Bible that are not sanctioned by God-some of those things are not specifically condemned but neither are they sanctioned.

So, logically, based on Scripture as a whole, and from what we know of God’s character, it is pretty clear as to what Marriage is supposed to be according to the Bible.

Agreed that in Ephesians 5, Paul’s usage is implying as you say.

If we take the creation story of Adam and Even as a picture of how god intended marriage (and other relationships) then in that picture, for the 3rd generation of humans (Adam and Eve being the first and Cain, Abel, Seth, and the other kids being the second), must include that god’s intention is that brother and sister may marry and procreate. Starting with 2 humans, there is no other possible way for a third generation to be born.

Unfortunately, especially about the original content matter of my blog post, we both have very different readings about what is actually being said or implied about marriage. Given that, we are simply going to have to agree to disagree. If “what the bible says” is our only source used to decide on wether something is wrong or write, we are pretty well out of luck as not even 2000 years of debate by thousands of people have succeeded in agreeing on what that book actually says/means on a good bit of it.

I completely respect the fact that you don’t try to take one verse to use one way or the other. And, as you know, I love these discussions

Concerning Deut. 17:14-17..I did in fact read the entire passage, but only quoted the “pertinent” part (for time’s sake..again, I apologize)

I’m actually not so sure it was taken out of context. I could be wrong on this, but as my thinking goes it was indeed written for “a king” listing the requirements he should have. What is interesting though, is that this was written even before Israel had a king (or even knew when they would even have a king) Setting up the future guidelines.

Now, one of the “stipulations” is that the king would be chosen “among your brethren” and “not a foreigner”.

It only seems to reason that this law was intended for the whole of Israel. No one knew who would be chosen king,they didn’t even know when and therefore it stands to reason that they should all live to the standard, so that, when the time came, every man would “be ready” so to speak. It was, in essence, a collective call to righteousness.

Concerning 1 Cor. 5,6,7- 5 and 6 while in the same vein are different subject matters.

I feel as though the main point in chapter 7 was missed in your response. Paul does recognize the value in remaining single, however he is not declaring that all Christians should be celibate.

What I feel was missed is the language used. Always singular “husband” and “wife”, never plural (except in verse 29 and in that instance Paul is speaking collectively eg “brethren”, “those”, “they”)
The entirety of chapter 7 is very clearly referring to the union of one husband and one wife.

In Ephesians 5:22-33 Paul again addresses marriage (Yes, vs 22 uses the plural, but I think we can both agree that is due to speaking to a group)

After that it remains in the singular tense. Even more so, it uses the marriage state as a symbol of Christ and His Church. That symbolism would not work whatsoever if polygamy were implied.

Concerning Titus- I can’t agree that the stipulation of “the husband of one wife” is only for those holding a leadership position in the Church.

To say that would be to say that only the elders/deacons would be required to follow the other mandates listed in vs6-9, which just isn’t the case.

It would be out of character of God to require a higher level of righteousness from one person vs another (Acts 10:34 is one of example of stating that “God shows no partiality”

Concerning Adam and Eve: you are correct and it was worded poorly, my apologies. There were only two humans, do you not think that was a picture of the marriage union God intended? He created one man and gave him one woman.

So to conclude, is there an explicit verse in the Bible that says “God condemns polygamy”? No.

But, in the context of the scripture, in the language used, in the symbolism of Christ and His Church as “Husband” and “Wife” I don’t see how the line can’t be drawn in conclusion of “One man and one woman”

In all of the discussions we’ve had and in my writings to others, I do my best to read any verse I use in context. That is why I provided links to the entire chapter/passage next to every reference I made and I also included a decent chunk of the passage directly in my article. There have been plenty of times when I will remember a verse and think it will help my argument only to go read it in context and find out it means something completely different. I actually disagree with a lot of anti-theist blogs because they will use a verse that sounds bad on its own but in context isn’t.

Anyways, having said all of that, I do believe that the versus you gave me above are being taken out of context in your reply.

You are correct that Deuteronomy 17:17 commands against taking multiple wives. However, if you read the entire passage of Deuteronomy 17 versus 14 through 17 it is very clear that this commandment applies ONLY for whomever was appointed king over Israel. That this must be specifically commanded for whoever became king, it implies pretty heavily that a man being married to multiple wives was common during this time. Granted, I would be dishonest to say it means polygamy was definitely practiced due to just this passage.

In a similar manner Titus 1:6 does say “the husband of one wife” but even within this one verse it is clear that being the husband of only one wife is a qualification for being a church elder, not for the general congregation. The versus around verse 6 also make it exceptionally clear that these are set out as requirements for a church elder. They are the list (though neither of us is baptist) every baptist church has used as part of their requirements for deacons, pastors, or anyone else in a leadership position at the church.

Corinthians Chapter 7 verse 2 is an interesting one. It’s been a while since I’ve read Paul’s letter to Corinth so I just now read Chapter 5, Chapter 6, and Chapter 7 to make sure I remembered correctly what Paul is addressing in this portion of his letter. Paul addresses in Chapters 5-7 a lot about the sexual immorality that he hears is going on in the early church. By the time we get to Chapter 6, and Chapter 7, in the first verse he states that it is best for a person to remain unmarried and instead devote themselves fully to serving the church and serving god. He states this explicitly later in Chapter 7 versus 32 through 35 in that someone who is married must devote time to caring about his/her spouse instead of devoting all of his/her time to serving god. In Chapter 7 verse 9 that the only people who should get married are those who cannot live without sex. Given the overall context, even though he doesn’t like how marriage diverts ones attention from serving god, it is better to be married and suffer a small deviation from serving god than it is to be unmarried and give in to fornication.

Given Paul’s reasoning, I believe it sheds light on why church elders and the king of Israel are commanded to have no more than one wife. A king should be devoted to ruling his people (and in the context of the bible serving god) and a church elder should be devoted to serving/leading the church and serving god. If the church elder or the king has many wives he is forced to divide his attention from his main calling in order to make sure he keeps his wives happy.

One last point, I do agree with you that “The fact that it happened, and that it was recorded, does not equal approval.” However, nowhere in the bible (of which I am currently aware) does it show dissaproval of polygamy by god in regards to those who were not in positions that required them to devote themselves to god or the church in a manner above and beyond the “regular people.”

Edit: Corrected “tribe of Eli” to “tribe of Levi”

Since it is the Bible which is being used in the first place, it will be the Bible that I use for examples.

In Genesis, God set-up what marriage should be: Adam and Eve. God said “for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother..and the two shall become one flesh” (Mark 10:6-8).

It wasn’t until sin entered that polygamy occurs.

Yes, Abraham and Solomon and David had multiple wives, but they were not blessed by it..in fact their doing so caused irreversible and harmful consequences.

In Deuteronomy 17:17 it specifically commands against taking multiple wives.

Titus 1:6 also states that the elders of the church should be “the husband of one wife”. And as such the example to follow.

1 Corinthians 7:2 also states for a husband to be with his own wife (singular) and for the wife to be with her own husband (singular).

So to say that because Polygamy occurred in the Bible therefore it is “God-sanctioned” is to take it out of context.

Anyway, just my two cents