Daniel P. Barron

David did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life.

Monday, August 12, 2019

This log has been modified for spelling, formatting, and offensive language; no meaning has been changed, although some lines have been removed for being part of an unrelated conversation. It has also been reviewed by Darwin Fish.

In response to a previous article.

Ross: Look under adultery.
Fen: Daniel, I think it's pretty clear that God's plan, from Adam and Eve, was for man to have one wife. He did explicitly dictate that kings in particular not take many wives.
Ross: consider the problem Abraham created when he took a 2nd wife.

Daniel: It's clear that He never forbid a man having multiple wives.

Ross: Look under adultery.

Daniel:

Darwin: It would have been good to mention that God explicitly commanded David as king not to "multiply wives for himself" (Deut 17:17). And as you quoted, "David did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life" (1 Kings 15:5). Thus, God declares via David's example polygamy is "right in the eyes of the Lord." I also like Proverbs 18:22 "He who finds a wife finds a good thing, And obtains favor from the LORD."

It's not adultery for a man to have more than one wife.

Ross: Sure it is.

Daniel: Show me where the Bible says such a thing.

Mickey52: That is true, instead of listing all the things you can't do, God told us the one thing we can do. First God created the man and woman, then God said, A (singluar) Man shall leave his mothers hearth and A (singular) Woman shall leave her fathers home and the TWO shall become ONE.
Ross: It's the definition of the term ... unless you are redefining it.

Daniel: Right, one marriage is between one man and one woman. Ross, it's not God's definition.

Ross: It is.

Daniel: Show me where the Bible says such a definition.

Ross: Try reading the 10 commandments and then how God judges His law in the judgments
Fen: Daniel, Hermeneutics teaches us that, when interpreting scripture, it's important to discern whether a passage is merely descriptive or if it's normative. Given God's design for marriage exemplified in Adam and Eve, a plan reaffirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19:4, it's clear that God's design for marriage as one man and one woman is normative.
Mickey52: !niv gen 2:24
BibleBot: Ge2:24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (NIV)

Daniel: Ross, I've read the 10 commandments; they don't say it's adultery for a man to have multiple wives. Fen, how then do you address Darwin's point that i pasted above?

Mickey52: !niv gen2:23-24
BibleBot: Ge2:23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man."
BibleBot: Ge2:24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (NIV)

Daniel: Mickey52, and yet after that declaration, king David was told not to "multiply wives for himself" and he had multiple wives and was called "right in everything that he did."

Ross: !kjv exo 20:14
BibleBot: Exo20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. (KJV)
Fen: Daniel, to quote 1 Kings 15:5 as God condoning every action taken by David would be absolutely wrong. We see from the passages themselves that David paid dearly for his sin with Bathsheba, so much so that their first child died. God did not let David's sin go unpunished.

Daniel: Ross, adultery is taking another man's wife.

Mickey52: Daniel What is your point? That, like Adam, men disobey God.

Daniel: Fen, the case of Uriah the Hittite is listed as the one exception. Mickey52, the point is God called David having multiple wives "right."

Fen: Daniel, David throughout his writings in Psalms admits to and laments his many sins.
Mickey52: Daniel Did you read what Fen posted about the punishment David endured, the death of his firstborn?

Daniel: Fen, did he lament having multiple wives? Mickey52, that was specifically for his adultery and murder regarding Uriah the Hittite.

Fen: Daniel, yes, he did. He wrote one of his psalms directly about the issue with Bathsheba and Uriah.
Mickey52 wonders if David had it to do all over again, would he have forgone multiple wives to have his firstborn live and carry on the family name?

Daniel: Fen, he had other wives that weren't already married to other men. Mickey52, he didn't lose his firstborn for having multiple wives.

Mickey52: Daniel: I get it, you are looking for an excuse for your sin. You want to commit adultery and are looking for justification for it from God. Sorry, but sin is never justified.

Daniel: My sin? I have no wives.

Fen: Daniel, I've said all I have to say on the topic. God's plan is clear, as is the reaffirmation by Jesus in the New Testament. You're attempting to twist a single verse into a blanket acceptance by God of David's many failings. You're either going to listen to clearly laid out scripture, or you're not. Up to you.
Fen has to go process 205 images from today.
Fen wanders off to get lost in Lightroom.

Daniel: Fen and Mickey52, you are both going to hell.

Fen: [laughing] @ "you are both going to hell." Daniel, that right there makes it clear that you're either a troll or just a brain damaged piece of garbage. Either way, welcome to ignore.
Mickey52: Daniel, If you say so. Thanks for the warning.

Daniel: Mickey52, you're welcome. May God save you both!

And then the review.

Darwin: Is there any other context to your warning that they are on their way to hell. Because, just based on this simple conversation, I wouldn't want to say such a thing without more substance (proof) that they don't believe the word.
Daniel: They were both calling it a sin to have multiple wives.. And yes there are other conversations I had with them, some of which are published.i
Darwin: Had you given them that warning previously? And stated, because they don't believe the word?
Daniel: I’m not sure.
Darwin: In this conversation, it doesn't read well, because it appears you just throw that at them (you're going to hell) without any substantial substance (like, because you reject the Word). Because, theoretically at least, someone can be wrong on something and not on their way to hell. Although, I know, basically every last person we deal with IS on their way to hell. We just want to be clear they know why we say they are lost.

  1. Here, here, and here.

One Response

  1. [...] believe the Bible is God's word, is because the Catholic Church says so. Daniel: BillyHW, you call king David a pervert. luke-jr: MacGyver_BE, God Himself only directly guaranteed His Church, not written [...]

Leave a Reply

Your words may be altered or altogether purged in accordance with my preference to abstain from publishing statements that may be unnecessarily offensive to other readers. Your criticism is welcome. Your name and website are optional. Some HTML tags are allowed.