Senlando:In the bible there are God's laws, and Hebrew (human religious laws). God never meant for a man to have more then one wife, but men where corrupted by the tradition of the times and so God tolerated it, letting man make there own mistakes and learning from the consequences of it.

if you see all the examples of a man in the bible having more then one wife, there is never good that comes out of it.

"Abraham" was already married to Sarah, but he took on a concubine in order to have a son. Soon jealousy came between Sarah and Hagar. To the point where Abraham had to send away Hagar and Ishmael (Abraham first son). To this day, the children of Issac and the children of Ishmael are still fighting for who is the rightful heir to Abraham and therefor to Gods blessings.

Jacob married Leah and Rachel, (who where sisters, it wasn't till after this that sisters weren't allowed to be married to the same man, you see, instead of just saying man should only have one wife, like they should have, the Israelite and their human laws believed that the trouble occurred because they where sisters). Anyways,... the sons of one of them (can't remember which anymore) betrayed Joseph (the son of the other) and sold him into slavery into Egypt.

More examples can be taken from King David and the problems he had with his wives, and their children. And King Salomon, who's many wives are believed for his down fall.

from what i see, the bible is a big history lesson, God tells us what is right and wrong, and "people" don't listen, and therefore reap what they sow.

you must read the bible in context. somethings of it is just recordings of what people believed and did, but that doesn't mean they're right, or that their laws should be our laws.

theres so much more i could right, but i must get ready for school. if Any of my facts about the bible are wrong, please correct me, as i did this in a hurry and didn;t look everything up in the bible as i wrote it.

Sorry for the long message, its just so many people (both secular and religious) use one line of the bible, to interpret their own definition without taking the bible as a whole. Need to funnel out what Man says and what God says.

peace!

Excellent treatise!

orthohawk:

erinja:The Christian bible also says that a woman should be subservient to her husband, but lots of marriages don't follow that.

Um, no it does not. That some protestants say the bible says that doesn't make it true.

Um:
Ephesians 5.22:Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord.
Ephesians 5.24:Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands
Colossians 3.18:
Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
1 Peter 3.1:
Wives, in the same way accept the authority of your husbands, so that, even if some of them do not obey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives’ conduct,

But, I think these writers were mistaken. Men of their times.

@Miland, do you know the 1st Corinthians quotes about female submission? I really can't remember them at the moment, and I forgot how large 1 Cor was. I believe there are some in either Leviticus or Exodus as well.

@Erinja, I should have mentioned "consenting adults" aspect, not sure why it slipped my mind.

@Senlando, I'm sure you understand that there are plenty of points to both sides. And I am truly proud of you for accepting the homosexual's right to their own. Thank you, if all of the religious were like you we'd have a much more tolerant society. We may disagree on abortion, but I'll do my best to save that argument for later (as it's a large argument on it's own).

trojo:Well, mainly I wanted to see where the Bible "clearly states that a man can marry as many women as he wants".

It doesn't state that anywhere in the old testament, it is just allowed.

I did find a Christian resource that addresses the issue, and offers solution to it, but the conclusion is that "God allowed polygamy, but he did not condone it."

http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html

orthohawk: Not one place in the bible will you find any passage dealing with polygamous marriage and not find some kind of condemnatory or bad-consequence verbiage attached to the idea.

Well, it's not being condoned, it's just allowed. Many of the polygamists go unpunished, and that's even acknowledged by knowledgeable Christians. I wouldn't say that the bible supports polygamy, it just does not offer consequence for doing so (not in the old testament anyway).

webgovernor:@Miland, do you know the 1st Corinthians quotes about female submission? I really can't remember them at the moment, and I forgot how large 1 Cor was. I believe there are some in either Leviticus or Exodus as well.

Actually I used a search engine to find the passages I cited. I didn't find anything on this in the Pentateuch; the only submission required is that of Hagar towards Sarah by the angel of Yahweh (Gen 16:9). The nearest that 1 Corinthians has is 14.35: "If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

I don't agree with that one either!

@Miland, 1 Corinthians 14:35 is the main one that I remember. I define female submission as any example where a women must yield to a man in some way (1 Cor 14:35). Not just physical submission. Thanks for letting me know

Miland:

orthohawk:

erinja:The Christian bible also says that a woman should be subservient to her husband, but lots of marriages don't follow that.

Um, no it does not. That some protestants say the bible says that doesn't make it true.

Um:
Ephesians 5.22:Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord.
Ephesians 5.24:Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands
Colossians 3.18:
Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
1 Peter 3.1:
Wives, in the same way accept the authority of your husbands, so that, even if some of them do not obey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives’ conduct,

But, I think these writers were mistaken. Men of their times.

and what does the original Greek say? Translations are notorious for "saying" what the theologt of the translators says.

orthohawk:and what does the original Greek say? Translations are notorious for "saying" what the theologt of the translators says.

You're absolutely correct. Heck, Jesus could have been a two-headed cow for all we know, assuming he was real at all. Maybe God was laying down laws about women being less-equal than men all in jest, and the HEBREW interpretation states that fact. Makes perfect sense to me.

The thing is, if you say the "bad" was a misinterpretation, then, logically, so is the "good" and the whole thing is just a fairytale unless you read it in Hebrew or Latin (or, apparently to you, Greek as well).

orthohawk:and what does the original Greek say? Translations are notorious for "saying" what the theologt of the translators says.

The quotations I used came from the NRSV, which is widely accepted. If you prefer another translation, most of them (or acceptable equivalents) are available online. Feel free to look them up if you wish; I doubt whether it will make much difference.

webgovernor:

orthohawk:and what does the original Greek say? Translations are notorious for "saying" what the theologt of the translators says.

You're absolutely correct. Heck, Jesus could have been a two-headed cow for all we know, assuming he was real at all. Maybe God was laying down laws about women being less-equal than men all in jest, and the HEBREW interpretation states that fact. Makes perfect sense to me.

The thing is, if you say the "bad" was a misinterpretation, then, logically, so is the "good" and the whole thing is just a fairytale unless you read it in Hebrew or Latin (or, apparently to you, Greek as well).

Uh, dude, the New Testament is a set of GREEK documents. That you are apparently unaware of this.....well.

Miland:

orthohawk:and what does the original Greek say? Translations are notorious for "saying" what the theologt of the translators says.

The quotations I used came from the NRSV, which is widely accepted. If you prefer another translation, most of them (or acceptable equivalents) are available online. Feel free to look them up if you wish; I doubt whether it will make much difference.

This word was a Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader". In non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden". Note the word in bold.