It's a very weird thing to defend King, especially so vehemently.
I don't think it's a weird thing to argue for? I mean alot of this board is made up of political/philosophical/theological debates.
One, saying Moses had two wives simultaneously because of the reference to him having a Cushite as a wife is a reach. There is never a reference to Moses having multiple wives. The Cushite wife may not have been Zipporah, his Midianite wife, but Zipporah may have passed away and Moses could have remarried.
If you need a definition of "reproach", here's one: "a cause or occasion of blame, discredit, or disgrace."
Two, you are being dishonest. You are saying the person is "squeaky clean and society has nothing to complain about" as if that contradicts what I'm saying. That's not the actual word uses in the Bible, though. What is the actual phrase used in English translations of the Bible? Say it.
Three, are the other qualifications Paul gives to overseers specific to the time period and culture as well? Was it only important to not be a drunkard, or a lover of money, because they were overseers and in Roman society? Is it ok for other Christians to be those things? Of course not. And it's not ok for them to be the husband of more than one wife, either. We can safely conclude this from Biblical teaching, without resorting to extra-Biblical tradition.
One it does not say Zipporah died. She MAY have died, well she may have not died. Again you haven't shown how the Ancient Israelites were opposed to polygamy so why do you assume Moses was monogamous and refrained from a second wife?
Two I'm not being dishonest. I gave a definition for "being without reproach" The word in the Bible used is reproach. But why should I take your interpretation and your scripture as authoritive? You gave me an English passage, NOT the original Greek.
en.wikipedia.org
"Many critics of polygamy also point to the
Pauline epistles that state that church officials should be respectable, above reproach, and the husband of a single wife. (
1 Timothy 3,
Titus 1)
hermeneutically, the Greek phrase
mias gunaikos andra is an unusual Greek construction, capable of being translated in multiple ways, including (but not limited to): 1) "one wife man," (prohibiting plural marriage) or 2) "a wife man" (requiring elders to be married) or 3) "first wife man" (prohibiting divorcés from ordination).
[30]"
Three why do you only go for the traits that all are supposed to have? You know some of the list for Timothy are things that are not required for everyone to be righteous before God. Again do all Christians have to be "able to teach"? Again a reason for Paul giving the command that Bishops and Deacons are the husbands of a wife with children is to show that they can run a household because running a Bishopric or a Church is larger and more difficult than just one household. Again you have to use outside the Bible sources to condemn polygamy because the Bible itself does not directly condemn or prohibit it. Hell even people like Martin Luther were able to conclude that the Bible does not prohibit polygamy. Yet modern day Protestants can't admit that they rely on tradition.
"Monogamy was the norm among Christians.
[48][49] However, in the context of the sickness of a wife preventing matrimonial intercourse,
[50] Martin Luther, the founder of the
Protestant Reformation, wrote: "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.""
And if you're willing to make facetious arguments, you can argue that the Bible teaches meat is murder, that the Earth is flat, etc, etc.
Just because people can make 'an argument' doesn't mean it's credible or made in good faith.
No you can't. Show me where the Bible can teach that meat is murder? God gave man dominion over the Earth and allowed man to eat the flesh of animals, just with certain prohibitions like flesh with the lifeblood of the animal still in it, unclean animals, and animals sacraficed to idols. Heck God even requires animal sacrafice in the past(not anymore) but you can't show vegetarianism being required in the Bible.
I've heard that Jewish tradition said that mankind was not supposed to eat flesh before Noah's flood but I don't remember that in the Bible itself.
As for earth being flat I'm not familliar with that but you might be able to do that.
And again just because something isn't popular with western culture in the modern day or historically does not mean that it's against God's law.
This is surreal. I assumed they were troll accounts but I follow some trad type accounts and sometimes there are these weird "Christian/Trad" accounts in their replies telling them that they should stop being so narcissistic and how being a second or third or fourth wife is great and how King Solomon had multiple wives etc. I thought it was trolling... and it probably is... or just people perving out (or both) but maybe... just maybe, we got that non-Mormon (and non-ironic) Christian polygamist demo out there.
Aren't you atheist?
