[nolidad]

That's cause the Bible was not in English. It's non-the-less the topic. I've supported that repeatedly. I've supported mandated polygamy repeatedly. I've shown the inherent contradiction in your position (where you've simultaneously allowed multiples horses but disallowed multiple wives requiring two different definitions of one word in one sentence).

1. Not once did I ever allow multiple hoses, but not allow multiple wives, that is your own conclusion which I have rejected.

2. I cannot speak of hoarding- because that is not what the bible is addressing. It also has to do with motive. It also begets the question--how many wives make it stop being polygamy and start being hoarding and why is it not polygamy?

Going from 0 wives to 1 wife is adding a wife.

Going from 0 wife to 1 wife is increasing wives.

Solomon was married.

You don't believe your own claim.

So are you declaring the command is for kings to be celibate? because going from 0 to 1 is increasing in your understanding?

bad grammar on your part. I hav eyet to find anyone Hebrew linguist who supports your position. all commentaruies speak of polygamy and kings were forbidden to be polygamists.

Unless you have some "new revelation" into Hebrew that all rabbis and other linguists have missed please share.

Hrm. No you don't seem to do that. You've over and over denied your own claims; never taking the time to explain them. It makes me feel that your denials are dishonest.

Diversionary tactic that is beneath you

If you are claiming that the definition is different: support your claim. Otherwise, I've already supported that the discussion in Deut is of sex.

All you have done is declare hate refers to sex--support? Not yet we await your decision.

Deut already made clear that "hates" means "had sex with and disliked". Why would a slave owner who planned to marry a slave and just changed his mind be suddenly beholden to care for her? It doesn't even make sense. Why bother being "betrothed" at all?

Well take it up with :

http://www.ndtime.net/jewish_wedding...oused_wife.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=HoQ...esult&resnum=2 around pages 164-167

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/largerhop...ys/History.htm

http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=259 (even secularists recognize you are in error)

http://messianicfellowship.50webs.com/wedding.html

so you see it doesn't mattere if it makes sense to us or not-- it is what was in those days.

Do you believe that Deut 22:13 and Exodus 21 in using the exact same word (Strong's translates as "hates"), in both cases describing women to whom they were betrothed mean the same thing or mean something different.

If you are claiming that the definition is different: support your claim. Otherwise, I've already supported that the discussion in Deut is of sex.

Deut 22:13 In context

13If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

14And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

15Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

16And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

H8130
שׂנא
śânê'
saw-nay'
A primitive root; to hate (personally): - enemy, foe, (be) hate (-ful, -r), odious, X utterl

It appears 136 X in the OT in many context this time it appears. The reason he dislikes is because he founsd she is not a virgin.

Here the man is married and has had sex and found his wife not a virgin.

Now Exodus 21:

7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

8If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

9And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

10If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

11And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

please not (word in question)

H7451
רעה רע
ra‛ râ‛âh
rah, raw-aw'
From H7489; bad or (as noun) evil (naturally or morally). This includes the second (feminine) form; as adjective or noun: - adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease (-ure), distress, evil ([-favouredness], man, thing), + exceedingly, X great, grief (-vous), harm, heavy, hurt (-ful), ill (favoured), + mark, mischief, (-vous), misery, naught (-ty), noisome, + not please, sad (-ly), sore, sorrow, trouble, vex, wicked (-ly, -ness, one), worse (-st) wretchedness, wrong. [Including feminine ra’ah; as adjective or noun.]

Here the owner is simply betrothed and from what I showed form just a few Jewish sources-- betrothed, though legally bound to each other were not yet physically united in intercourse. so no sex here sorry.

On the fact that that Bible explicitly acknowledged it and said it was wrong but not adultery (I've already cited the verse). Are you disputing it?

Jesus and Paul both said having 2 spouses is adultery and Jesus said that was from the beginning-- that is five aces in any poker habd.

You are mistranslating 21:10. What you put in English as "right to marry" is hnwe (http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bi...rew&stnm=05772) meaning "cohabitation, conjugal rights". You are required to continue having sex with her, or let her go find a husband who will.

No- you are. The son in the passage is betrothed and not wed to her yet. If he finds another wife- he has broken the betrothal contract and must set her free of the betrothal.

Deut already made clear that "hat
es" means "had sex with and disliked". Why would a slave owner who planned to marry a slave and just changed his mind be suddenly beholden to care for her? It doesn't even make sense. Why bother being "betrothed" at all?

Just to reiterate the sex is not th ecause of hate.

3. The entire Jewesh community in the Bible from the beginning to post NT did not interpret it that way (proven by the fact they allowed polygamy)

Please support this statement you have declared that from the time of the forming of Israel- until after the NT began the ENTIRE Jewish community did not interpret it that way because polygamy was tolerated (and biblically there is a vast difference between tolerate and allow)

all polygamy is created equal (your arbitrary standard, but required for your position), then all marriage is created equal. Solomon proves marriage is bad. (actually: I could support that with Paul, but I digress)

No t his is your arbitrary standard. I do not beleive "all" polygamy was created equal. It is all adultery with the possibilioty of one exception ordained of by God.

It's the Bible that discusses hording. Sorry. I thought you were pretending to make a Biblical argument. My mistake.

Please show where the bible says anyone horded wives. If you refer to Solomon please show me where in the bible where polygamy ends and hording begins.

And still marriage; and therefore an irrelevant comment. You have not established that 2 or 3 wives is "hording".

being the one who did not bring hording into the debate- it is not incumbent upon me to prove there is a difference between hordinig and polygamy-- that would fall upon you or billgamesh.
I have yet to find anyone who does not call Solomon a polygamist. Besides you.

So now you deny the Bible in Deut 22:28, where marriage is a required action after pre-marital sex?

I did not deny it in the first place.

Deut. 22:28 speaks of a man raping a single girl-- the result- he had to marry her.

Lok at its context-- the prior verses-- the penalty for raping a betrothed girl was death. If both were willing partners they both died--because she is guilty of adultery. If polygamy and polyandry are biblically allowed then adultery is a non issue.

YOu must also remember that all these sanctions and prohibitons are all future for Israel. they have yet to enter their land, were still nomadic wanderers. These laws wewre said for when they entered the land. For Israel didn't own slaves at this point--heck they didn't even have houses, or fields or many possessions--they were finishing there wanderings in the desert after thewir Exodus from Egypt.

[JerryLove]

1. Not once did I ever allow multiple hoses, but not allow multiple wives, that is your own conclusion which I have rejected.

Of course you did.

Originally Posted by nolidad "DC to Recognize Same Sex Marriages post#49

Multiplying wives, as well as horses and silver and gold were prohibitions.

You've never since, despite repeated requests for clarification, said that owning two pieces of gold was proscribed (but one piece was OK). You've said dozens of times that you mean something else, but are unable or unwilling to explain what that is.

You have clarified that you believe "two" is "multiplying". You've done that repeatedly in this thread in denying it to mean "hoarding" and similarly asserting that polygamy always meets the standard.

I cannot speak of hoarding- because that is not what the bible is addressing. It also has to do with motive. It also begets the question--how many wives make it stop being polygamy and start being hoarding and why is it not polygamy?

It's likely similar to the number of calories that moves from "hunger" to "gluttony". But I think you are right that motive, and ability, are involved. Men with very large numbers (hundreds) or wives are held up as bad examples repeatedly. Rich men are often as well (though not simply those with two pieces of gold or two horses).

The Bible opposes greed, generally speaking.

So are you declaring the command is for kings to be celibate? because going from 0 to 1 is increasing in your understanding?

Not at all. I'm saying the command is to not be greedy/gluttonous.

bad grammar on your part. I hav eyet to find anyone Hebrew linguist who supports your position. all commentaruies speak of polygamy and kings were forbidden to be polygamists.

Google "Martin Luther". He agreed with me.

Unless you have some "new revelation" into Hebrew that all rabbis and other linguists have missed please share.

The rabbis, throughout most of Jewish history allowed polygamy as religiously proper. The Muslims (who look at the same OT text we do) also concluded the same as a religion. Several sects of Christianity (the early Catholic church, the early Lutherin church) also allowed/supported it.

Judaism only disallowed it around 1000AD, and even then only in certain sects, and even then there's a technical out (requires permissions from multiple rabbis)

Jews in Yemen (one of the sects not affected) still take multiple wives, and those plural marriages are honored under Israeli law even today.

So I don't know where you are getting your claims of support from; but they are fictitious.

You've over and over denied your own claims; never taking the time to explain them. It makes me feel that your denials are dishonest.

Diversionary tactic that is beneath you

And your response still did nothing to explain your denials. I don't think it's me being diversionary.

Originally Posted by JerryLove post#11

So a guy had a slave that he wanted to marry but didn't realize he wasn't attracted to her (BTW, the word used in Hebrew translates as "hates"? That doesn't even make sense. Further, you ignore the Bible's own definition of the term. It also appears in Deut 22:13 "dislikes" is tied to "not virgin".

"If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,""

And before you argue that this is a case of "didn't sleep with her, just figured she wasn't a virgin", her defense requires proof that he did sleep with her (22:17), a bloody cloth.

And you are wrong. Sex is allowed between a master and a slave. Only in the case of a betrothed (to another slave) is it even declared sinful (but not adultery since he owned her at the time).

Leviticus 19:20. Since "betrothed" is a prerequisite; we've acknowledged sex with unmarried slaves and given no condemnation of sex with not-betrothed ones.

All you have done is declare hate refers to sex--support? Not yet we await your decision.

I went ahead and posted my support above.

Well take it up with :

[...]

so you see it doesn't mattere if it makes sense to us or not-- it is what was in those days.

Why should I? You are making the claim. You need to support it or I'll sit here and continue to point out that you can't. Do you actually doubt that I can put up a list of websites agreeing with me? But that would be as pointless as your list.

Man up and fight your own battles. Don't defer to people you don't even know to do it by proxy (or bring the authors here and I'll argue with them).

...snip some definitions...

Here the owner is simply betrothed and from what I showed form just a few Jewish sources-- betrothed, though legally bound to each other were not yet physically united in intercourse. so no sex here sorry.

That actually looks like an argument. I'm almost at a loss now that you've finally presented one.

Yep. Looks like "hate" and "please not" are different words leaving open the possibility that they discuss different things.

Sadly, it's not really enough.
1) "duty of marriage" per strong's is sex.
2) The father-in-law remains a father-in-law (required to treat her like a daughter). Silly if she's married to some other person.
3) She does not go free (unless mistreated). Though it's not impossible for a slave-girl to marry, it's interesting language.
4) If this were a "broken engagement", then the comment on the "other wife" is confusing and unnecessary. The passage doesn't cover broken engagements where the man remains a bachelor? That makes no sense either.

So we have rules that apply only if the groom takes another wife, and only if he fails to provide for her (including marital duties), but you assert it's a non-sexual non-marriage? That makes no sense.

TO get a little context, we wander around the Bible to see if bigamy is precedented. It certainly is. Your interpretation stretched credulity.

Jesus and Paul both said having 2 spouses is adultery and Jesus said that was from the beginning-- that is five aces in any poker habd.

They absolutely said no such thing. They said "lusting after a woman" was adultery. Anything you add to that is your interpretation and must be supported.

No- you are. The son in the passage is betrothed and not wed to her yet. If he finds another wife- he has broken the betrothal contract and must set her free of the betrothal.

Really?

05772 // hnwe // `ownah // o-naw' //

from an unused root apparently meaning to dwell together;
TWOT - 1650a; n f

AV - duty of marriage 1; 1
1) cohabitation, conjugal rights

Shall I go look up what "conjugal rights" are?

Just to reiterate the sex is not th ecause of hate.

It's clear that you said so. It's not clear that is true.

Please support this statement you have declared that from the time of the forming of Israel- until after the NT began the ENTIRE Jewish community did not interpret it that way because polygamy was tolerated (and biblically there is a vast difference between tolerate and allow)

My support is... the Bible. Do I need to re-list examples?

The first significant proscription in Judaism against polygamy is from around 1000AD

No t his is your arbitrary standard. I do not beleive "all" polygamy was created equal.

Of course you believe it's all equal. If you didn't, you wouldn't be saying "since 500 wives is bad, 3 must be bad".

It is all adultery with the possibilioty of one exception ordained of by God.

So it's a sin that God sometimes ordained? That's an unusual position. I wonder why he never mentioned it to be a sin... why he held up some polygamists as "righteous".

Please show where the bible says anyone horded wives. If you refer to Solomon please show me where in the bible where polygamy ends and hording begins.

David and Solomon come to mind. Then there's the afore-mentioned proscription against multiplying wives, horses, or gold.

Or are you asserting that having two pieces of gold was proscribed but one was OK?

being the one who did not bring hording into the debate- it is not incumbent upon me to prove there is a difference between hordinig and polygamy-- that would fall upon you or billgamesh.

I have yet to find anyone who does not call Solomon a polygamist. Besides you.

I don't disagree that Solomon was a polygamist. I just keep pointing out that it's exactly as relevant as the fact that he was married. You don't think that marriage is a sin just because married-king-Solomon was picked on for his wives. Your argument on polygamy is, as a result, arbitrary.

Lok at its context-- the prior verses-- the penalty for raping a betrothed girl was death. If both were willing partners they both died--because she is guilty of adultery.

I keep looking for "betrothed guy" or "married guy" or "virgin guy" and it doesn't show up anywhere. It's almost (exactly) as if his marital status is irrelevant.

If polygamy and polyandry are biblically allowed then adultery is a non issue.

That makes no sense at all. I've already provided the Biblical definition of adultery (sex with a woman married or betrothed to a different man). No part of "men can have multiple wives" conflicts with that definition, nor does any passage anywhere in the Bible.

YOu must also remember that all these sanctions and prohibitons are all future for Israel. they have yet to enter their land, were still nomadic wanderers. These laws wewre said for when they entered the land. For Israel didn't own slaves at this point--heck they didn't even have houses, or fields or many possessions--they were finishing there wanderings in the desert after thewir Exodus from Egypt.

They either apply now or they don't. You keep asserting (often within a single sentence) that part of it applies now and part does not.

[nolidad]

Of course you did.

No I didn't check both threads-- never done by me.

You've never since, despite repeated requests for clarification, said that owning two pieces of gold was proscribed (but one piece was OK). You've said dozens of times that you mean something else, but are unable or unwilling to explain what that is.

Well then let me qoute you some hebrew scholars as you seem unable to take my word forit.

And never did I say 2 pieces of gold is proscribed. That is your conclusion based on taking a 21st century mindset and applying it to 14th century B>C. mindset.

14When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;

If you do a linguistic search you'll discover he is talking about amassing horses, gold solver and polygamy. but you know that already.

[QUOTEThe Bible opposes greed, generally speaking.]

And in this passage-- becoming wealthy, being polygamous, and having enough horses for a large army as was the custom of the nations around them.



15Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

16But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

17Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. [/QUOTE]

From Keil and Delitsczh:

The second admonition also, that the king was not to take to himself many wives, and turn away his heart (sc., from the Lord), nor greatly multiply to himself silver and gold, can be explained without the hypothesis that there is an allusion to Solomon's reign, although this king did transgress both commands (1Ki_10:14. Deu_11:1.). A richly furnished harem, and the accumulation of silver and gold, were inseparably connected with the luxury of Oriental monarchs generally; so that the fear was a very natural one, that the future king of Israel might follow the general customs of the heathen in these respects.

The rabbis, throughout most of Jewish history allowed polygamy as religiously proper. The Muslims (who look at the same OT text we do) also concluded the same as a religion. Several sects of Christianity (the early Catholic church, the early Lutherin church) also allowed/supported it.

Well the muslims do not look at the OT like we do and these say you are wrong about the early church and the super masjorities of rabbis disavowed polygamy. Only the school of Shammai in the time of Christ apporved polygamy and they were but a small group in relation to HIlled and Gamaliel.

Polygamy in the NT period

Celibacy in the early Church: the ... - Google Book Search

Writing about marriage, the Very Reverend the Chief Rabbi of the British Empire, the late Dr. Joseph H. Hertz, states:

The Biblical ideal of human marriage is the monogamous one. The Creation story and all the ethical portions of Scripture speak of the union of a man with one wife. Whenever a Prophet alludes to marriage, he is thinking of such a union — lifelong, faithful, holy. Polygamy seems to have well-nigh disappeared in Israel after the Babylonian Exile. Early Rabbinic literature presupposes a practically monogamic society; and out of 2800 teachers mentioned in the Talmud, one only is stated to have had two wives.

Monogamy in Israel was thus not the result of European contact. As a matter of fact, monogamy was firmly established in Jewish life long before the rise of Christianity …
— Rabbi Dr. Hertz (1

)

JewishEncyclopedia.com - POLYGAMY:

See once again the experts have while acknowledging polygamy existed- it was NOT the standard of God.

Google "Martin Luther". He agreed with me.

Well seeing he doesn't fit the query I made:

bad grammar on your part. I hav eyet to find anyone Hebrew linguist who supports your position. all commentaruies speak of polygamy and kings were forbidden to be polygamists.

your citing him is irrelevant here.

Judaism only disallowed it around 1000AD, and even then only in certain sects, and even then there's a technical out (requires permissions from multiple rabbis)

M - Cubed: Hillel Vs. Shammai Pharisees, What Jesus May Have Said Regarding Polygamy

TNN Online: Two-House News Network - Torah In Perspective - Is Polygamy for Today?

These show you are wrong again! Some sects of Judaism allowed polygamy--but Israel was a prqactical monogamous society.

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by JerryLove post#11
So a guy had a slave that he wanted to marry but didn't realize he wasn't attracted to her (BTW, the word used in Hebrew translates as "hates"? That doesn't even make sense. Further, you ignore the Bible's own definition of the term. It also appears in Deut 22:13 "dislikes" is tied to "not virgin".

"If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,""

And before you argue that this is a case of "didn't sleep with her, just figured she wasn't a virgin", her defense requires proof that he did sleep with her (22:17), a bloody cloth.

And you are wrong. Sex is allowed between a master and a slave. Only in the case of a betrothed (to another slave) is it even declared sinful (but not adultery since he owned her at the time).

Leviticus 19:20. Since "betrothed" is a prerequisite; we've acknowledged sex with unmarried slaves and given no condemnation of sex with not-betrothed ones.

Quote:
All you have done is declare hate refers to sex--support? Not yet we await your decision.

I went ahead and posted my support above.[/QUOTE

All you posted was sex with a wife- betrothal was a time of abstinence--even with a slave! You have yet to suppoprt your comment on Lev.19- it was still wrong and not condoned.

Man up and fight your own battles. Don't defer to people you don't even know to do it by proxy (or bring the authors here and I'll argue with them).

Why so I can be as wrong as you or cite sources and not just list them? Your debating here-- do you have a degree in OT HIsotry? Ancient Hebrew/Aramaic? And even if you do you are using others information you gleaned to argue your points-- show me any of your debates that have come originally from you.

Your claims here are disingenious for you also use experts to form opinions. And where you don't it shows in your improper exegesis of th eOT passages.

first significant proscription in Judaism against polygamy is from around 1000AD

disproven several times already.

4) If this were a "broken engagement", then the comment on the "other wife" is confusing and unnecessary. The passage doesn't cover broken engagements where the man remains a bachelor? That makes no sense either.

You should look at ht epassages more carefully-- it is another meaning different not other meaning a second.

So it's a sin that God sometimes ordained? That's an unusual position. I wonder why he never mentioned it to be a sin... why he held up some polygamists as "righteous

".

If there is a place biblically it MAY only be sanctioned in a levirate marriage and that is not even a given at all. And if God wants to make a specific exclusion to the sin of polygamy--that is his right.

Yes he did but that would be a thread entitled how God views believers and the functioning of grace--Righteousness is never obtained by human deeds or the lack of deeds.

2) The father-in-law remains a father-in-law (required to treat her like a daughter). Silly if she's married to some other person.

Is it safe to assume you do not know the legal ramifications of a betrothal?

3) She does not go free (unless mistreated). Though it's not impossible for a slave-girl to marry, it's interesting language.

What makes it difficult for you? Slaves could get married if their masters appointed a husband for them. Just like they did for their sons and daughters.

So we have rules that apply only if the groom takes another wife, and only if he fails to provide for her (including marital duties), but you assert it's a non-sexual non-marriage? That makes no sense.

Because a betrothal legally bound the couple (requiring a bill of divorcement to break the betrothal) but they were not allowed to have sex yet. so it was in a sense a non sexed marriage.

They absolutely said no such thing. They said "lusting after a woman" was adultery. Anything you add to that is your interpretation and must be supported

.

they absolutely did:

Romans 7:

2For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

3So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Having 2 husbands is adultery>

Matthew 19:
9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Divorce AND remarriage except for sexual sin is adultery--why because any other divorce is not vailid in Gods eyes and thus the man has 2 wives and guilty of adultery.

How many web sites of scholars you want me to cite.

Really?

05772 // hnwe // `ownah // o-naw' //

from an unused root apparently meaning to dwell together;
TWOT - 1650a; n f

AV - duty of marriage 1; 1
1) cohabitation, conjugal rights

Shall I go look up what "conjugal rights" are?

Man up and fight your own battles. Don't defer to people you don't even know to do it by proxy (or bring the authors here and I'll argue with them).

HHHMMM

I keep looking for "betrothed guy" or "married guy" or "virgin guy" and it doesn't show up anywhere. It's almost (exactly) as if his marital status is irrelevant.

Well married guys had sex as much as they wanted. Israel in this time was not a psycho-sexual nation like ours is. They was far more sexual control than now--Rabbis tend to agree wholeheatedly with that. Remember they haven't even entered the land yet--they are a nomadic people still. Its not like Menachem can take the family camel and go to the goyim drive in with rebeccah and steam the windows of his saddle.

[JerryLove]

No I didn't check both threads-- never done by me.

I'm tired of the lies. Now you are denying a direct quote you yourself said a few days back on the thread that you spawned this one off of.

You are a liar and you bear false witness. You are the most dishonest person I personally am aware of. You are one of the very few people in my decade at CGR I can think of that, had I the power, I would simply kick off the board.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I'm tired of the lies. Now you are denying a direct quote you yourself said a few days back on the thread that you spawned this one off of.

You are a liar and you bear false witness. You are the most dishonest person I personally am aware of. You are one of the very few people in my decade at CGR I can think of that, had I the power, I would simply kick off the board.

I now feel compelled to have to defend myself from your false accusation of me. This will have some l ength so forgive it, but you are accusing me of lyiing, dishonesty and false witness. You have brought charges up against my character publicy and now I must defend it publicly.

Jerry this rant of yours comes from this :

1. Not once did I ever allow multiple hoses, but not allow multiple wives, that is your own conclusion which I have rejected.

And here are all the qoutes of mine from the closed thread concerning the Deut. 17 passage

Multiplying wives, as well as horses and silver and gold were prohibitions.

#49

In its context- yes it is prohibited.

Another cite showing monogamy was Gods ideal and that polygamy thopugh not sanctioned was permitted-like adultery because the hardness of ones heart

#52

So god forbids men to own two horses or have two pieces of gold ?!?

nope

#54 Here was not a reference to my earlier posts--because kings were prohibited and regular folks almost entirely did not own horses--they were very rare at this time.

on post 55 you said this:

Are you reversing yourself that farmers with two horses are committing a sin? Or are you just saying that they go to heaven as unrepentant sinners?

I never said farmers could or could not own horses- you now brought farmers up for the first time.

Jerry opines:Are you reversing yourself that farmers with two horses are committing a sin? Or are you just saying that they go to heaven as unrepentant sinners?

nope on both counts

Post #58

Iam showing you that first off- you brought up farmers and they were not even the topic, so no I cannot reverse a position I did not take but was applied to me by you. And the 2nd nop was that unrepentant sinners do not go to heaven.

Post #60 you posted:

Originally Posted by nolidad
Multiplying wives, as well as horses and silver and gold were prohibitions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove
Are you saying that having two horses or two pieces of gold is Biblically proscribed?[...]

Quote:
Originally Posted by nolidad
In its context- yes it is prohibited.[...]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove
So god forbids men to own two horses or have two pieces of gold ?!?

Forget worrying about marriage, there are a lot of farmers going to hell according to your interpretation of the Bible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nolidad
nope

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove
Are you reversing yourself that farmers with two horses are committing a sin? Or are you just saying that they go to heaven as unrepentant sinners?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nolidad
nope on both counts

Then you are clearly contradicting your own argument, unless you've got a verse unprohibiting only two of those three.

And I was cited for not showing my context yet as of this point on this thread. My argument to this point was and still is that in the context I was referring to it was sin for a KING to multiply horses, wives and gold All the rest was your presuming.

Post #61

Then you are clearly contradicting your own argument, unless you've got a verse unprohibiting only two of those three.

Nope and you even used a qoute of mine to show why.

Context was still kings and you posted th ein context it was prohbited.

You on post #64

I'm still waiting for an actual resopnse.

You reposted all earlier qoutes.

Me on post #65

Once again you qouted the correct answer I gave- go back and LOOK carefully.

Here I was angered that you kept plugging in farmers and others and I just simply said in its context it was prohibited. You had yet to realize I had use the word context. And because you kep tmaking assumptions on my words, I felt it wise to get you to finsd the word context.

You on post #66 after reposting all the arguments to date-- I will repost my second comment on this whole subject.

Still waiting. Can't answer the question on your own claim?

And I am still arguing from here"

nolidad in its context- yes it is prohibited.[...]

Post #67 from me:

Still waiting. Can't answer the question on your own claim?

In you rqouting our debate on this you put up my answer on 3 different occasions--LOOK VERY carefully and you w ill see.

I was still just simply waiting for you to ask me what context I was refering to instead of assuming I meant farmers or other people.

You on post #69

Still waiting. Feel free to answer my last question.

YOu on post #76

Read that one. You contradicted it in line 6. I asked for clarification of this contradiction in line 7. You have not responded to that yet. I continue to take your unwillingness to answer as an inability to answer. I'll wait.

You are accusing me of reversin gmyself concernignfarmers not being allowed to have two horses. You brought in the farmers- I said I wasn't talking about farmers, then you accuse me of reversing myself about farmers. You brought up the farmers not I. Also by this point two people asked me what I was referring to- as of yet you haven't you were still arguing about your own assumptions. I admit now that by this time I should have shown the context--that was my error here.

Me from post #77

Quote:
JerryLove Are you reversing yourself that farmers with two horses are committing a sin? Or are you just saying that they go to heaven as unrepentant sinners?

First I never asserted farmers having 2 horses are commiting sin. As a matter of fact they can have as many horses as they want and not commit sin. You continue to refuse to look at the one word that defines the answer inthae verse--so I will give it to you --context. It doesn't talk about farmers or vintners or carpenters stc.

I finally said what I hope dyou would find--CONTEXT.

you on post #79

Originally Posted by nolidad
First I never asserted farmers having 2 horses are commiting sin.

And I didn't say you said that. It's a non-sequiter.

on vpost #55 you asked if Iwas reversin gmyself on two farm,ers so yes you did asert I said a farmer having 2 horses is sin. Else wise you wouldn't be asking here if I now was reversin gmy position (whichwas your assertion to start with.)

You on post #77 again :

That's an incomplete answer. What establishes a polygamist in context and a farmer out of context?

MAybe by now you forgot that it was you who had kept harping on farmers. I do not know just reacihng for an answewr.

[nolidad]

Started a second reply- I don't know if space becoems an issue.

You keep bringing up farmers ans the context has nothing to say about farmers Why??

Me on post 93-- I think I had forgotten (though I cannot swear to it) that I had not yet posted the verse. I gopt caugfht up inyour farmer stuff.

YOu on post #95:

I've moved what you quoted from me to where it belongs chronologically for clarity.

No. I didn't assert it. I asked if you were asserting it. You said "nope". When I asked you to clarify, you got evasive. I've been asking you for an explanation ever since. You can't or won't provide one. Here's the thread:

Then here is the qoutes you pasted to hwere YOU asserted and inserted farmers in to the argument

you post #103

Another lie on your part I'm afraid. I did acknowledge that you said it and asked how two horses was out of context but two wives were not (see above). You've not answered my question.

Rather than stay out-of context, I'm going to quote everything and bold the parts you appear to be replying to (based on the fact that you quote them)

I only answered in context-- for there was never a context about anyone else owning two horses or silver (you borught up two- I used multiplied)

I could go on but I hope even you will see I did not lie at all. I never argued for or against farmers for the Deut. verse had nothing at all ever to do with farmers (unless they became king).

So how can I lie about a position I never took a stand on except to say they could own as many as they wanted because the biblical prohibition didn't apply to them. Though polygamy was proscribed in o ther places.

Jerry I think you just get so mad at me that you forget what you assert on my part and forget then you assert it and then start arguibg against your own assertions. I will accept blame here because I did "string' all along for too long on the previous thread. But once I disclosed th econtext it should have deased your assertions.

[nolidad]

On e last point and the defendant rests his case:

Look at post #16 on this thread. Jerry I never allowed multiple horses but forbad polygamy-- because the verse I kept referring to waqs simply that kings were forbidden to be polygamists, amass wealth, and get many horses . Farmers were inserted by you and irrelevant to me in the argument. The I also went on to show why "farmers" didn't own horses in these days. Th ecommon beasts of burdens for Jews were asses, oxen, and an occasional camel or two if wealth allowed or geography required. Horses were almost exclusively animnals for the rich.

Now can we get back on with the debate that I have straightened this out and proved myself not lying in these matters.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by nolidad

On e last point and the defendant rests his case:

Look at post #16 on this thread. Jerry I never allowed multiple horses but forbad polygamy-- because the verse I kept referring to waqs simply that kings were forbidden to be polygamists, amass wealth, and get many horses . Farmers were inserted by you and irrelevant to me in the argument. The I also went on to show why "farmers" didn't own horses in these days. Th ecommon beasts of burdens for Jews were asses, oxen, and an occasional camel or two if wealth allowed or geography required. Horses were almost exclusively animnals for the rich.

Now can we get back on with the debate that I have straightened this out and proved myself not lying in these matters.

actually, asses were the luxury vehicle, not common. And a mule was a king only animal pretty much. (sorry, one of my profs area of expertise is ancient near eastern donkey lore. )

I believe horses were mostly a war animal.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by Billgamesh

actually, asses were the luxury vehicle, not common. And a mule was a king only animal pretty much. (sorry, one of my profs area of expertise is ancient near eastern donkey lore. )

I believe horses were mostly a war animal.

Yes horses were, and asses and mules were mostly an upper class beast. If a man had a large enough farm the mor epopular beast would have been an oxen. Otherthan that sheep, goats and chickens were the big animals of the comomon class. I should have been more careful to delineate asses to the wealthy as I did camels.

[JerryLove]

I now feel compelled to have to defend myself from your false accusation of me. This will have some l ength so forgive it, but you are accusing me of lyiing, dishonesty and false witness. You have brought charges up against my character publicy and now I must defend it publicly.

That's bullox. You've done it over and over and over again. Very rarely have I ever seen you so much as acknowledge it (your admitting to claims regarding governmental programs overhead being orders of magnitude off being the one exception that comes to mind).

You lie, you ignore the discussion of what you lied about, and you lie about something else. You mimic complaints about your posts without ever understanding them. You don't stand and defend previous statements.

You are either well aware you are doing it (I've pointed it out, with specifics, on many, many recent occasions), or nothing will ever make you aware. Either way, there's nothing to discuss; and I'm certainly not going to dignify your response by letting you side-track again. I've given you opportunities in pretty much every post to address apparent (and often inescapable) falsehoods and you never take them. I think the only reason you are making a pretense of trying now is because I've left you with nothing else to respond to.

Post all you want. The people who are on this thread and in this forum already have their own opinion of the veracity of my statement. I've already clarified the examples in the weeks prior to it. If I'm right, I would hope it's already clearly seen and your "defense" will do nothing... and I hope the same if I am wrong.

Though this is not the first time (target) I've tossed the term "liar", I do not do so lightly. It has taken repeated, bold-faced falsehoods on topics that I have already seen corrected.

This is, I hope, the last thing I have to say to you on this. To anyone who would like to continue any of the topics being discussed with me (I know some of you have in private already), I'd welcome the discussion. I'm happy to continue these threads, but believe there's no point continuing with noli. If push comes to shove: feel free to cut-n-paste any point he makes you think is valid and want a response to.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

That's bullox. You've done it over and over and over again. Very rarely have I ever seen you so much as acknowledge it (your admitting to claims regarding governmental programs overhead being orders of magnitude off being the one exception that comes to mind).

You lie, you ignore the discussion of what you lied about, and you lie about something else. You mimic complaints about your posts without ever understanding them. You don't stand and defend previous statements.

You are either well aware you are doing it (I've pointed it out, with specifics, on many, many recent occasions), or nothing will ever make you aware. Either way, there's nothing to discuss; and I'm certainly not going to dignify your response by letting you side-track again. I've given you opportunities in pretty much every post to address apparent (and often inescapable) falsehoods and you never take them. I think the only reason you are making a pretense of trying now is because I've left you with nothing else to respond to.

Post all you want. The people who are on this thread and in this forum already have their own opinion of the veracity of my statement. I've already clarified the examples in the weeks prior to it. If I'm right, I would hope it's already clearly seen and your "defense" will do nothing... and I hope the same if I am wrong.

Though this is not the first time (target) I've tossed the term "liar", I do not do so lightly. It has taken repeated, bold-faced falsehoods on topics that I have already seen corrected.

This is, I hope, the last thing I have to say to you on this. To anyone who would like to continue any of the topics being discussed with me (I know some of you have in private already), I'd welcome the discussion. I'm happy to continue these threads, but believe there's no point continuing with noli. If push comes to shove: feel free to cut-n-paste any point he makes you think is valid and want a response to.

Wow Jerry ! I am curious as to which staemtrn you accuse me of saying
1, That farmers are proscribed form having 2 horses (which I never said, asserted or omplied as the posts show)

2. That I cannot reverse my position on a position I never took?

But anyway

A look at some of the possibilities of polygamous marriage

1. What not is in question is that polygamy wass practiced. But as I cited form historians-- it occured prior to the removal to Egypt and then it is not known or spoken of till the KIngs arrived almost 4 centuries after the exodus from Egypt. (which by the way were th e one group explicitly prohobited form being polygamous)

2. Israel is finsihing their nomadic wanderings in the wilderness.

3. They lacked possessions. They had little

4. They are preparing to enter the land under JOshua and settle the land

5. They are being given instructions what to do whe entering th eland
6. Marriages were arranged by the fathers.
7. children were married in chronological order (as were most other duties domne-begining with the eldest ot he youngest.
8. Children were widely prized and eagerly sought after in Israeli society-- it was a blessing for a bride to be pregnant early.
9. If a husband died w/o children it was most likely easrly in the marriage- the younger brothers were most likely not married at the time but possibly betrothed. While there is no record of this-- it is the natural progression based on the historical data Israel does have from this time.
10. So then the widow would have been given to a younger brother to raise the first male in order for his brother- the rest belonging to him,
11. All Jewish and many Hebrew Scholars agree that Israel was in all practicality a monogamous society. Both because of the history of the problems passed on about the patriarchs who had multiple wives. but also until the time of the kings, Israel was busy capturing the promised land, in and ourt of trouble with the lllord, di dnot have that much opportunity to amass great wealth to sustain not only multiple bride prices (fifty shekels was alot to the average Israeli family in these days.

12. We can't assume she was widowed by him dying in war- newly married men were given a year off to be with their bride and satart a family.

13. Conclusion? If in th erare case that a levirate marriage required a polygamous situation- it is only a vary narrow allowance for a very specific reason- it by no means allows for a blanket endorsement of polygamy.

[nolidad]

Now concerning the other passage in contention:

Exodus 21:

7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

8If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

9And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

10If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

11And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.


verse 8-- If he has betrothed the Israelitess servant to himself and he is no happey with her--he has to let her go free. As the Bible and Israel differentiate between betrothaol and marriage sexually we must also- the bible declare sthe betrothal period over once sex has occured.

verse 9- is nnot a consequnece of verse 8 it is another possibility. If instead of betrithing the Israelite maid to himself he betrothes her to his son- he is commanded to treat her like a daughter- not a servant.

verse 10- If while h e is betrothed (th eson and no sex yet) he takes a different wife they are to continnue to provide for t his Israeli girl (verse 8 deceitfully is implid- the promise of marriage but ont the follow through) and if they don't- they have to let her go free without a price.

Now the contention is the term duty of marriage. Which I will defer to authority on this.

This is from Dr, Mingana
LESSON 75.

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND POLYGAMY.

(Concluded.)

599. As now rendered into English, 2 Samuel 12:8 seems to give Divine countenance to polygamy, but that is only on superficial reading. Nathan, as translated, says to David: "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul, and I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom," etc. But Saul's wives did not become David's wives, and hence that comma should not have been placed after "house," and the word should have been translated "women," not "wives.” It is predicated both of the "house" and the "women" that they were given into David's "bosom.” The word might better have been translated "lap" as it is in Proverbs 16:33, instead of "bosom"; it means here simply "possession.” Saul's house and all his female court and domestics passed over into David's possession.

600. Three things prove this. (1) The only two wives Saul had were "Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahimaaz" (1 Samuel 14:50) and mother of Michal (David's wife); and Rizpah (2 Samuel 3:7). The penalty for marrying one's mother-in-law was to be burnt alive, Leviticus 20:14,¾so we may be sure David did not commit that crime. (2) As to Rizpah, David delivered her two sons, after the death of Saul, with five others, to be hanged (crucified) at Gibeah, on the demand of the Gibeonites. This woman has been famous in art, as guarding the seven bodies, for months, from the vultures. It is not credible that David should have treated his own wife thus. [Note: In this account of Rizpah, 2 Samuel 21:8, the other five are spoken of as "the five sons of Michal . . . which she bare Adriel.” It is thought that the word "sister" has been lost out of the text here¾see Margin¾for Adriel was brother-in-law, not the husband of Michal, 1 Samuel 18:19]. (3) David's wives are enumerated several times over (see 2 Samuel 2:2, 3:2-5; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, etc.), and that after Saul's death, but Saul's wives are never in the list. David, to be sure, had also a wife by the name of Ahinoam, but she is distinguished from Saul's wife as "Ahinoam of Jezreel," and David had her as his wife during Saul's lifetime (1 Samuel 27:3).

601. Please turn to Exodus 21:7-11, and give it careful study as the only passage seeming to provide for polygamy. But studied by a candid mind, in the original, the English translation will appear forced. (1) The expression, "betrothed her to himself,” (8) reads, according to the original Hebrew text, not, "to him (low) betrothed," but "not (loa) betrothed," but the rabbis read "w" for "a" as the vowel-letter, into the word (see par. 6). But the order of the words "to him betrothed" is unusual, and seems strained. "Not betrothed" is the rendering of the Samaritan, Syriac and Persian versions; of many manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint; of the Greek versions of Theodotion, Aquila and Symmachus, and it receives the support of the Latin Vulgate and the Arabic. The teaching is, then, if the master does not betroth the girl, either to himself or to his son, he must let her be redeemed. This is the first error to be corrected in this tangled passage. The rabbis have perverted the sense here.[1]

602. In verse 10 of this passage we find the second mistranslation; "If he take unto him another"¾that is all the phrase says. The translators insert "wife.” Not so; they should have inserted "as wife.” The thought is, "If he take unto himself another woman for his wife, instead of taking this girl,"¾not "If he take unto himself another wife in addition to this girl, who has become his wife.”

603. In verse 10 occurs that expression, "her duty of marriage," which is explained by expositors after the unclean, polygamous manner of the rabbis as referring to intimate matrimonial relations. The single, short Hebrew word, 'onah, translated "duty of marriage," occurs nowhere else in the Hebrew unless it be identical with a word translated "furrows" in Hosea 10:10. It has been the habit, quite too much, of Christian translators to adopt, without question or due investigation, the meaning put upon these ambiguous words which occur but once or twice by the Talmud, or Jewish works based on the teaching of the Talmud. But the Talmud, in some of its teachings, is scarcely above the level of an unclean parody on the Bible; thus some most objectionable expressions have crept into the English Bible, and this is one of them. Then this salacious sense has cast its shadow forward upon the N. T. page at 1 Corinthians 7:3, and a special, sensual sense given to the word "due" there.

604. The noun, 'onah, has been formed upon one of two Hebrew verbs. It is derived either from 'awun "dwell," or from 'anah, "afflict," in that form of the latter verb which means when applied to a woman, "to humble" that is, to outrage her¾the piel form, as it is called. In this sense it is the word found in Deuteronomy 21:14; 22:24,29; Judges 20:5 ("forced"); 2 Samuel 13:12, 14, 22; Lamentations 5:11; Ezekiel 22:10-11. The first verb, 'awun is obsolete, but it has one certain derived noun, monah, which means "dwelling place," in Psalm 76:2, which occurs nine times. The letter "m," when prefixed to a noun, often, as here, signifies "place.” But this "m" does not always occur when it is desired to transform an act into the place where an act is performed. For instance, 'ahal means "to pitch a tent," and 'ohel from the same root, means "tent" or ‘dwelling-place, Psalm 91:10. So here, monah and 'onah could both mean "dwelling place.”

605. There is no connection whatever between that original word, translated "duty of marriage" and any other word from which the idea of "marriage" could be derived. Some would derive the word from 'anah, "to answer.” But this is very far fetched in our opinion. The second verb, "outrage," speaks only of abuse, violence and crime, when connected at all with the idea of the relation of the sexes. Aside from that relation, its general sense is "affliction.” The first word gives no hint of the marriage relation; it simply means "to dwell.”

606. Now the translators cannot amalgamate the two senses, and get cohabitation out of them. They cannot have it both ways, after any such fashion. This noun means "dwelling place," pure and simple, or else it refers to indecent, God-defying wickedness. But what is more forced than to introduce the thought of "duty of marriage" along with a slave's food and clothing? And what is more natural than to mention "shelter" next after food and clothing, when speaking of one's obligations to a dependent? "Food, clothing and shelter" go so naturally together that one could have guessed what was said here, if no derivation could have been found for the word. The truth is, the other sense "duty of marriage," is only required, for this otherwise obsolete, word, because it was the sense desired by the early rabbis. The whole passage, then, should read: "If she please not her master, so that he hath not espoused her, then shall he let her be redeemed. . . . If he take another woman for his wife, her food and clothing and shelter he shall not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then she may go out free without money,"¾that is without paying for her freedom. And 1 Corinthians 7:3, cleared of the shadow of this perversion, means "what is due" in a more general sense.

Note by Dr. A.Mingana.

"'Her duty of marriage' is to say the least arbitrary. You should add in this connection that the Syriac version has Mashkiva which means 'place of resting, of sleeping, or of dwelling', and this corroborates your interpretation of the word."

Notes

[1] “What you say here is certain”—Dr A. Mingana.

So you see food clothing and shelter is a far more natural fit than cohabitation- because he was not cohabitating in the first place (and once again as of th ewriting this was only theoretical as it was an ordinance for once they entered the land) And given that Israel was over 400 yeaars in bondage and decades inteh desert- it does stretch credulity that polygamy was common fo such a nomadic people who had no land, no wealth to speak of and little possessions and wewre beiong fed by God dorectly.

Now to the direct prohibition against polygamy.

Deut 17:

14When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;

15Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

16But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

17Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

1. let us remember that this was written nearly 4 centuries before Saul their first king.


From Kiel and Delitsczh

Three rules are laid down for the king himself in Deu_17:16-20. In the first place, he was not to keep many horses, or lead back the people to Egypt, to multiply horses, because Jehovah had forbidden the people to return thither by that way. The notion of modern critics, that there is an allusion in this prohibition to the constitution of the kingdom under Solomon, is so far from having any foundation, that the reason assigned - namely, the fear lest the king should lead back the people to Egypt from his love of horses, “to the end that he should multiply horses” - really precludes the time of Solomon, inasmuch as the time had then long gone by when any thought could have been entertained of leading back the people to Egypt. But such a reason would be quite in its place in Moses' time, and only then, “when it would not seem impossible to reunite the broken band, and when the people were ready to express their longing, and even their intention, to return to Egypt on the very slightest occasion; whereas the reason assigned for the prohibition might have furnished Solomon with an excuse for regarding the prohibition itself as merely a temporary one, which was no longer binding” (Oehler in Herzog's Cyclopaedia: vid., Hengstenberg's Dissertations).
(Note: When Riehm objects to this, that if such a prohibition had been unnecessary in a future age, in which the people had reached the full consciousness of its national independence, and every thought of the possibility of a reunion with the Egyptians had disappeared, Moses would never have issued it, since he must have foreseen the national independence of the people; the force of this objection rests simply upon his confounding foreseeing with assuming, and upon a thoroughly mistaken view of the prophet's vision of the future. Even if Moses, as “a great prophet,” did foresee the future national independence of Israel, he had also had such experience of the fickle character of the people, that he could not regard the thought of returning to Egypt as absolutely an impossible one, even after the conquest of Canaan, or reject it as inconceivable. Moreover, the prophetic foresight of Moses was not, as Riehm imagines it, a foreknowledge of all the separate points in the historical development of the nation, much less a foreknowledge of the thoughts and desires of the heart, which might arise in the course of time amidst the changes that would take place in the nation. A foresight of the development of Israel into national independence, so far as we may attribute it to Moses as a prophet, was founded not upon the character of the people, but upon the divine choice and destination of Israel, which by no means precluded the possibility of their desiring to return to Egypt, even at some future time, since God Himself had threatened the people with dispersion among the heathen as the punishment for continued transgression of His covenant, and yet, notwithstanding this dispersion, had predicted the ultimate realization of His covenant of grace. And when Riehm still further observes, that the taste for horses, which lay at the foundation of this fear, evidently points to a later time, when the old repugnance to cavalry which existed in the nation in the days of the judges, and even under David, had disappeared; this supposed repugnance to cavalry is a fiction of the critic himself, without any historical foundation. For nothing more is related in the history, than that before the time of Solomon the Israelites had not cultivated the rearing of horses, and that David only kept 100 of the war-horses taken from the Syrians for himself, and had the others put to death (2Sa_8:4). And so long as horses were neither reared nor possessed by the Israelites, there can be no ground for speaking of the old repugnance to cavalry. On the other hand, the impossibility of tracing this prohibition to the historical circumstances of the time of Solomon, or even a later age, is manifest in the desperate subterfuge to which Riehm has recourse, when he connects this passage with the threat in Deu_28:68, that if all the punishments suspended over them should be ineffectual, God would carry them back in ships to Egypt, and that they should there be sold to their enemies as men-servants and maid-servants, and then discovers a proof in this, that the Egyptian king Psammetichus, who sought out foreign soldiers and employed them, had left king Manasseh some horses, solely on the condition that he sent him some Israelitish infantry, and placed them at his disposal. But this is not expounding Scripture; it is putting hypotheses into it. As Oehler has already observed, this hypothesis has no foundation whatever in the Old Testament, nor (we may add) in the accounts of Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus concerning Psammetichus. According to Diod. (i. 66), Psammetichus hired soldiers from Arabia, Caria, and Ionia; and according to Herodotus (i. 152), he hired Ionians and Carians armed with brass, that he might conquer his rival kings with their assistance. But neither of these historians says anything at all about Israelitish infantry. And even if it were conceivable that any king of Israel or Judah could carry on such traffic in men, as to sell his own subjects to the Egyptians for horses, it is very certain that the prophets, who condemned every alliance with foreign kings, and were not silent with regard to Manasseh's idolatry, would not have passed over such an abomination as this without remark or without reproof.)
The second admonition also, that the king was not to take to himself many wives, and turn away his heart (sc., from the Lord), nor greatly multiply to himself silver and gold, can be explained without the hypothesis that there is an allusion to Solomon's reign, although this king did transgress both commands (1Ki_10:14. Deu_11:1.). A richly furnished harem, and the accumulation of silver and gold, were inseparably connected with the luxury of Oriental monarchs generally; so that the fear was a very natural one, that the future king of Israel might follow the general customs of the heathen in these respects.

So despite Jerry's repeated assertion-- this had nothing to do with farmers, but everything to do with kings.
No ploygamy
No large standing armies
No amassing wealth--like th eother kingsd around did as a rule. Remember God repeatedly told Israel they were to be different than the people around them.

He was to be Jehovah -Jireh their provider they didn't need to accumulate wealth
He was to be Jehovah -Sabaoth-- the Lord of hosts--He was to fight their battles (even th ePsalmist said to not rust in horses)
And for marriage- He had already established the standard of marriage in Genesis 2.

I could post dozens of rabbinic and Christian sites here showing th eagreement is that this meant no polygamy for the kings.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

this thread needs to die.

Nolidad, you said you were done before the massive plagiarism.

Jerry said he was done.

Nolidad, please behave.

Thread closed, and if another one pops up, I am closing it and giving a permanent infraction to the responsible party. I will make an exception if you PM me first and we discuss some ground rules.