Anti- Christian Crusade.

[StanJ]

Jesus said that marriage was between a man and a woman, and it was so from the beginning. You don't seem to understand that little fact my friend.

And while you support the perversion of marriage, are you suggesting sin is more acceptable one way or another in regards to marriage? What what a theology...

Regarding "yoked" - it means exactly what I said it means:

ἑτεροζυγέω heterozygéō, het-er-od-zoog-eh'-o; from a compound of G2087 and G2218; to yoke up differently, i.e. (figuratively) to associate discordantly:—unequally yoke together with.

Regarding 2Co 6;14 - it means exactly what I said it means - and I rebuke you and your fuzzy sentiment: we should not "JOIN" with sinners in their perversion of God's institution of marriage.

Expositor's Bible Commentary.
2Co 6:14 Paul has just appealed to the Corinthians for mutual openness in affection as in speech. His own heart is open wide to them, but he knows and they know why they cannot reciprocate as fully as they ought. Some of them have an uneasy conscience about their continuing pagan associations they know Paul disapproves of. The apparent abruptness of v. 14a after v. 13 may be explained1) by this mutual knowledge; (2) by Paul's "coming to the point" immediately, as he sets forth the truth plainly (4:2) or speaks the truth in love (Eph 4:15); and (3) perhaps by a brief dictation pause.

Now we can talk about your POV which twists things around so you say I have to accept their sin and it is right for me to be forced to help them promote their sin AND violate the very basic union of a man and a woman by putting two men together in holy matrimony.

I've asked you a few times where Jesus says this, and you ignore the request, so I can only assume you're making this up?
Actually I know, but I am trying to be kind.

Again, YOU have to show where marriage is defined and promoted as the ONLY marriage.

Pretty much what I posted Marcus, so you're not showing us anything new here. That you don't really see what the Greek conveys is rather telling given you show us you KNOW how to find the real meaning. you cannot yoke unequally, as yokes are one piece of equipment. Whether horses, oxen or any other animal, they have to be of the same size and stature. As this is being used as a metaphor, what does it refer to in people? It connotes being partnered, matched, made a union of, etc....
So now show us by an actual example, what you allude to, as surely your not saying we are being told to vilify sinners?

Your judgementalism aside, as you have no right to rebuke me given you obviously don't understand what I'm saying, but only react to your own LACK of understanding, 2 Cor is actually talking about idolatry. If you believe there are no contradictions in the Bible, as I hope you do, and you believe that everything Paul wrote WAS inspired, then how can he be right in 1 Cor 5 and seemingly say the opposite here? He can't, so obviously the real issue is how YOU don't understand.

Nobody, including myself, has said you have to accept ANY sin, and while you accuse me of this, you also prevaricate about what I say. IMO, that makes you either very dishonest or very confused. Nobody asked you to promote any sin, that is your desperate equivocal attempt in tryin to make your point stand, which obviously it does not.
What YOU seem to not get, is that you have to be a believer first, before you can be committed to ANYTHING God or His written word instructs you to do, otherwise all the obedience in the world to written instructions in the Bible, means absolutely nothing.

 

[StanJ]

In this case 5 liberals.

That doesn't make it Constitutional. It makes it political.

You're about as biased as she is.

 

[Barrd]

I've asked you a few times where Jesus says this, and you ignore the request, so I can only assume you're making this up?
Actually I know, but I am trying to be kind.

Again, YOU have to show where marriage is defined and promoted as the ONLY marriage.

Pretty much what I posted Marcus, so you're not showing us anything new here. That you don't really see what the Greek conveys is rather telling given you show us you KNOW how to find the real meaning. you cannot yoke unequally, as yokes are one piece of equipment. Whether horses, oxen or any other animal, they have to be of the same size and stature. As this is being used as a metaphor, what does it refer to in people? It connotes being partnered, matched, made a union of, etc....
So now show us by an actual example, what you allude to, as surely your not saying we are being told to vilify sinners?

Your judgementalism aside, as you have no right to rebuke me given you obviously don't understand what I'm saying, but only react to your own LACK of understanding, 2 Cor is actually talking about idolatry. If you believe there are no contradictions in the Bible, as I hope you do, and you believe that everything Paul wrote WAS inspired, then how can he be right in 1 Cor 5 and seemingly say the opposite here? He can't, so obviously the real issue is how YOU don't understand.

Nobody, including myself, has said you have to accept ANY sin, and while you accuse me of this, you also prevaricate about what I say. IMO, that makes you either very dishonest or very confused. Nobody asked you to promote any sin, that is your desperate equivocal attempt in tryin to make your point stand, which obviously it does not.
What YOU seem to not get, is that you have to be a believer first, before you can be committed to ANYTHING God or His written word instructs you to do, otherwise all the obedience in the world to written instructions in the Bible, means absolutely nothing.

I don't want to get between you two....I don't think that would be a comfy place for a little thing like me.

But I am concerned about a couple of things you are saying here, Stan.

I am sure that you know that Jesus did say that marriage was between a man and a woman, and had been so from the beginning. I do not understand why you are arguing against this.

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


And this:

Again, YOU have to show where marriage is defined and promoted as the ONLY marriage.

I can't believe you are serious here. I know that I have shown you where God ordained marriage.
Where did you ever get the idea that there might be more than one kind of marriage?

I'm not sure if you really think that there is more than one kind of marriage, or if you are just baiting Marcus. Surely you are not saying that God ever ordained any other marriage besides the one man one woman model.

That's pretty basic theology, isn't it?

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

I've asked you a few times where Jesus says this, and you ignore the request, so I can only assume you're making this up?

Don't you read the Bible?

I don't have to make it up - and I've posted it before, so get off your baseless accusation.

Mt 19:4b "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?

Now I don't know how you can ignore some of the very simple implications here.

1.) From the beginning: Jesus is going back to the Garden of Eden. By the way, I am not alone in surmising that it is the very person of Jesus who is the personal God in the "second" Creation, or "J" account in Genesis chapters 2 and 3. So from our perspective, Jesus well knows what He's talking about because He was there.

2.) "united to his wife" incorporates the very reference made in Genesis between Adam and Eve. Now I know you like to argue from a legalistic standpoint that 'it doesn't say they were married by God' but that very simple notion is belied by the fact that God calls Eve Adam's wife. Who married them? No one else is there but these three. Marriage is the natural state between man and woman. You cannot find any same sex relationship called that in the Bible.

Now to you who would "educate" me on being yoked, I will educate you on the sin of homosexuality. It still is a sin. Jesus did not give homosexuality a pass. While we eschew the ritual and ceremonial law, it remains as a moral law we are to obey.

Given that homosexuality is a sin, and
given that God instituted marriage from the very beginning between man and woman,
Marriage cannot go against the natural order of man and woman and incorporate sin and still be marriage.
______________________________

Biased? Yeah, I am biased toward the Constitution - and keeping the law; not changing it willy-nilly.

And Sotomayor? Kagan? Ginsberg? These women have no real standing as great legal thinkers. They are there as liberals activists - period.
Breyer? Another liberal. He even thinks we should bow to the world's law and dump the Constitution. Worthless hack.

 

[StanJ]

I am sure that you know that Jesus did say that marriage was between a man and a woman, and had been so from the beginning. I do not understand why you are arguing against this.
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
I can't believe you are serious here. I know that I have shown you where God ordained marriage.
Where did you ever get the idea that there might be more than one kind of marriage?
I'm not sure if you really think that there is more than one kind of marriage, or if you are just baiting Marcus. Surely you are not saying that God ever ordained any other marriage besides the one man one woman model.
That's pretty basic theology, isn't it?

Jesus is quoting exactly what Gen says, and so WHAT is the reason? Because God made them that way, to be able to increase and multiply, or procreate. So where is the term marriage here or in Gen 2:23-24?

Of course I'm serious. You have NOT shown me where God ordained marriage, and THIS is not either.
There IS more than one kind of marriage, and they are itemized and condemned in Lev 18, but where exactly is gay marriage condemned? Lev 18 also condemns homosexuality and many other forms of immoral sex.
IF you are going to state your POV is supported by the Bible, then SHOW it. So far you nor Marcus have.
No, YOU are saying God ordained your concept of marriage, when the Bible doesn't even say he ordained marriage period.
A man cleaving to a woman is not marriage, it's sex. In fact, God allowed men to have more than one wife/partner/concubine, so where do you get this "one woman model" you mention?
Your assessment is NOT basic theology, it is made up of many bad interpretive processes, all mixed up into one conclusion that you can't even support from scripture. There is NO mandate by God to even MARRY your partner, but their is a mandate to stay WITH her except under very specific conditions, that the Jews had utterly messed up as Jesus states in Matt 19. He was NOT talking about marriage, but about divorce there.

 

[StanJ]

Don't you read the Bible?

Apparently a lot more than you do, and with much more comprehension.

Read my post above to Barrd...I can't be bothered repeating myself.

 

[mjrhealth]

Is homosexuality forbidden by God, Stan?
Just answer "yes" or "no"....keep the commentary for a minute, and don't "deflect".

Isnt all sin forbidden by God??

Oh thats right christians sin too, cant let that out.

 

[mjrhealth]

"What's this? A woman who says we shouldn't single homosexuality out among all the other sins, and says gays should have civil rights? Why, she must be a lesbian, or at least a closet lesbian!! And there's no way she's a Christian!"

Its something to do with

Mat 15:16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

Your not her first target.

 

[mjrhealth]

Luk 19:1 And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.
Luk 19:2 And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich.
Luk 19:3 And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature.
Luk 19:4 And he ran before, and climbed up into a sycomore tree to see him: for he was to pass that way.
Luk 19:5 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house.
Luk 19:6 And he made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully.
Luk 19:7 And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner.
Luk 19:8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.
Luk 19:9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
Luk 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

Funny how the pharrisses always

Luk 19:7 And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner.

Those who choose to keep the law condmen others because that is what the law does. It is very good at it, keeps millions of christians in bondage.

In all His Love

 

[Barrd]

Jesus is quoting exactly what Gen says, and so WHAT is the reason? Because God made them that way, to be able to increase and multiply, or procreate. So where is the term marriage here or in Gen 2:23-24?

Of course I'm serious. You have NOT shown me where God ordained marriage, and THIS is not either.
There IS more than one kind of marriage, and they are itemized and condemned in Lev 18, but where exactly is gay marriage condemned? Lev 18 also condemns homosexuality and many other forms of immoral sex.
IF you are going to state your POV is supported by the Bible, then SHOW it. So far you nor Marcus have.
No, YOU are saying God ordained your concept of marriage, when the Bible doesn't even say he ordained marriage period.
A man cleaving to a woman is not marriage, it's sex. In fact, God allowed men to have more than one wife/partner/concubine, so where do you get this "one woman model" you mention?
Your assessment is NOT basic theology, it is made up of many bad interpretive processes, all mixed up into one conclusion that you can't even support from scripture. There is NO mandate by God to even MARRY your partner, but their is a mandate to stay WITH her except under very specific conditions, that the Jews had utterly messed up as Jesus states in Matt 19. He was NOT talking about marriage, but about divorce there.

First of all, I would have thought that it was pretty obvious that before one could have a divorce, they pretty much had to be married.
Secondly, I can't for the life of me figure out why God would call someone a "wife" if she were not married.

Lev. 18 has a list of unlawful sexual relations. If it is unlawful to have sex with someone, how are you getting that is marriage?

Yes, God tolerated polygamy, but "from the beginning it was not so". And the first guy in the Bible to have more than one wife was also a murderer.

Gen 4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

Gen 4:23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.

Yes, later on God will give to men rules about how to treat more than one wife, and there does seem to be quite a bit of polygamy going on during Israel's hey day, but I suspect that, like the law that allows a man to give his wife a bill of divorcement and send her back to her father, those laws also were given for the hardness of their hearts. By the time Jesus comes on the scene, polygamy has pretty much phased out.
Polygamy never was a great idea to begin with. Don't believe me? Read about the home lives of the men who practiced it. It made David miserable on several occasions. And even the wisest man to ever live...old Solomon...could not handle his many wives. His women destroyed him. In the end, the kingdom of Israel was torn in two.

God also gives laws on how to deal with the virgin who has had sex before she was married. Depending on whether or not she was in city limits, or out in the country, she could be stoned to death. And the new husband who, on his wedding night discovers his new bride to be not a virgin may have her stoned to death. That's why Dad came first thing in the morning to collect his daughter's "tokens of virginity"...namely, the bloody sheet from the marriage bed. Nasty, but necessary. Why would God give laws like this if He didn't intend for them to be married?

Why would God, through the mouth of His Apostle to the Gentiles, namely Paul, give the Christian church rules about how husband and wife were to treat one another, if He did not intend for them to be married?


The term "marriage" is in the Bible. Why, God, Himself, compares His relationship with Israel to marriage, and threatens to divorce her. And later, Jesus compares His Own relationship with His followers in the same way. Why is the church considered to be His bride?

And finally, why would God call Eve Adam's wife, if they were not married? God is the first to use that term, and He tends to use it rather often.

I can not imagine why, for the life of me, you have chosen to take this stance. I know that you think we ought to be more tolerant of homosexuals, and that stance I can understand. We are all sinners, and we should not "single out" any one sin as being any "worse" than any other sin. I do understand that, and I do agree that it is wrong to "vilify" anyone for their sin. I get that. I don't think calling homosexuality a perversion is vilifying anyone, it is simply telling the truth, but I do understand even if I don't agree. I am quite sure that homosexual sex is forbidden by God, and I am quite sure that we are not to encourage or support it, just as we are not to encourage or support any sin.
So it is not that I don't understand your stance here on homosexuals. I cannot agree with you, but at least I understand where you're coming from.

But when you say that God never ordained marriage....that I can not understand. Frankly, my friend....you are a few sandwiches shy of a picnic on this one.
And I say that with all the love in my heart.

I'm not sure why you have taken this stance, my friend, and frankly, it kind of surprises me. But I'm afraid I can not agree with you at all.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Apparently a lot more than you do, and with much more comprehension.

Read my post above to Barrd...I can't be bothered repeating myself.

Don't bother - and I seriously question your comprehension skills when you can't answer who married Eve to Adam.

 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Isnt all sin forbidden by God??

Oh thats right christians sin too, cant let that out.

Do you promote your sin?

Do you expect people to accept your sin?

Do you ask people to participate in your sin?

Are you proud of your sin?

-- There is a difference between the Christian who sins, is remorseful, repents, and asks forgiveness and tries to avoid sinning again & the radical anti-God homosexual movement.

 

[Barrd]

Stan, if you don't believe in marriage, why did you get married?
And if you believe in polygamy, why didn't you marry more than one wife at a time?

 

[mjrhealth]

Do you promote your sin?

Do you expect people to accept your sin?

Do you ask people to participate in your sin?

Are you proud of your sin?

-- There is a difference between the Christian who sins, is remorseful, repents, and asks forgiveness and tries to avoid sinning again & the radical anti-God homosexual movement.

No, neither do I promote HATE as some do.

Are they promoting sin. No they just want to be treated equally just as christians do, its just that some christians think they are better than everyone else, and love to point it out.

 

[StanJ]

Stan, if you don't believe in marriage, why did you get married?
And if you believe in polygamy, why didn't you marry more than one wife at a time?

I never said I don't believe in marriage, so please stop putting words in my mouth. I got married because at that time it was the socially acceptable thing to do as a Christian. I was 25. If I knew now what I knew then, I may nor have, but that is NOT the point.
I also never said I believe in polygamy, so you really need to pay closer attention to what I post and stop prevaricating about what I do post.

 

[StanJ]

Don't bother - and I seriously question your comprehension skills when you can't answer who married Eve to Adam.

Then I question what drugs you are on that make you see MARRIED in Gen 2? Cleave doe not connote marriage.

 

[Born_Again]

Then I question what drugs you are on that make you see MARRIED in Gen 2? Cleave doe not connote marriage.

Lets try to avoid the insults, guys and gals. Everyone is making good points and I am quite enjoying this. Keep it clean. Lets discredit with knowledge, not insults. You know the new TOS. If this keeps on like this, this one will get locked. Lets try to avoid that from happening. Remember, some guests on here read these threads looking for answers, some looking for Christ. Lets be the best example of Christ we can be! :) Carry on!

 

[StanJ]

First of all, I would have thought that it was pretty obvious that before one could have a divorce, they pretty much had to be married.
Secondly, I can't for the life of me figure out why God would call someone a "wife" if she were not married.

Lev. 18 has a list of unlawful sexual relations. If it is unlawful to have sex with someone, how are you getting that is marriage?

Yes, God tolerated polygamy, but "from the beginning it was not so". And the first guy in the Bible to have more than one wife was also a murderer.
Gen 4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
Gen 4:23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.

Yes, later on God will give to men rules about how to treat more than one wife, and there does seem to be quite a bit of polygamy going on during Israel's hey day, but I suspect that, like the law that allows a man to give his wife a bill of divorcement and send her back to her father, those laws also were given for the hardness of their hearts. By the time Jesus comes on the scene, polygamy has pretty much phased out.
Polygamy never was a great idea to begin with. Don't believe me? Read about the home lives of the men who practiced it. It made David miserable on several occasions. And even the wisest man to ever live...old Solomon...could not handle his many wives. His women destroyed him. In the end, the kingdom of Israel was torn in two.

God also gives laws on how to deal with the virgin who has had sex before she was married. Depending on whether or not she was in city limits, or out in the country, she could be stoned to death. And the new husband who, on his wedding night discovers his new bride to be not a virgin may have her stoned to death. That's why Dad came first thing in the morning to collect his daughter's "tokens of virginity"...namely, the bloody sheet from the marriage bed. Nasty, but necessary. Why would God give laws like this if He didn't intend for them to be married?

Why would God, through the mouth of His Apostle to the Gentiles, namely Paul, give the Christian church rules about how husband and wife were to treat one another, if He did not intend for them to be married?


The term "marriage" is in the Bible. Why, God, Himself, compares His relationship with Israel to marriage, and threatens to divorce her. And later, Jesus compares His Own relationship with His followers in the same way. Why is the church considered to be His bride?

And finally, why would God call Eve Adam's wife, if they were not married? God is the first to use that term, and He tends to use it rather often.

I can not imagine why, for the life of me, you have chosen to take this stance. I know that you think we ought to be more tolerant of homosexuals, and that stance I can understand. We are all sinners, and we should not "single out" any one sin as being any "worse" than any other sin. I do understand that, and I do agree that it is wrong to "vilify" anyone for their sin. I get that. I don't think calling homosexuality a perversion is vilifying anyone, it is simply telling the truth, but I do understand even if I don't agree. I am quite sure that homosexual sex is forbidden by God, and I am quite sure that we are not to encourage or support it, just as we are not to encourage or support any sin.
So it is not that I don't understand your stance here on homosexuals. I cannot agree with you, but at least I understand where you're coming from.

But when you say that God never ordained marriage....that I can not understand. Frankly, my friend....you are a few sandwiches shy of a picnic on this one.
And I say that with all the love in my heart.

I'm not sure why you have taken this stance, my friend, and frankly, it kind of surprises me. But I'm afraid I can not agree with you at all.

Then I guess you don't understand Jesus when He said DIVORCE was never God's intent. These were man made laws never condoned by God. You apparently also don't know that marriage in the OT was a legally binding social contract, NOT something God instituted.

Lev 18 is about both, which you would know if you took the time to read it. The point is that it does NOT mention gay marriage.

So was Cain a murderer...what does that have to do with the issue of polygamy, and where do you see "from the beginning it was not so"?

The point is it existed, so what are you trying to justify?

Your point?

I suggest you read and learn what the actual Greek says and not how it is translated into English. Husband is an Old Norse term that connotes "master of the house". The Greek word means a male person of full age and stature, ἀνήρ (anēr).

I suggest you study on what "wife" means as well. neither had to do with an institution called marriage. In Hebrew, nâshı̂ym, means women as a sexual partner, just as bethûlâh, young girl, connoted a virgin. FYI, the NEW Jerusalem in the bride of Christ, NOT the church. Rev 21:9-10

It is obvious it has upset your understanding, but that is what the word of God is mean to do. Jesus did it many times when He put God's word into proper perspective. Because it appears a lot of your belief is based on misconceptions of what the Bible does teach, and how you have been taught, you are REACTING, just as Marcus is. The Pharisees reacted similarly when confronted with the truth.

You deny what I say yet cannot refute it, and then resort to ad hominem and derision? I guess I'm in good company.

I'm not posting for your agreement Barrd...I post to show God's word and the truth therein. You base your POV, on this and a few other issues, on a fallacious understanding of what you were taught but never bothered to study. We are told to STUDY, not just accept what we are taught.

 

[StanJ]

Lets try to avoid the insults, guys and gals. Everyone is making good points and I am quite enjoying this. Keep it clean. Lets discredit with knowledge, not insults. You know the new TOS. If this keeps on like this, this one will get locked. Lets try to avoid that from happening. Remember, some guests on here read these threads looking for answers, some looking for Christ. Lets be the best example of Christ we can be! :) Carry on!

Sorry BA, but some people just bring the worst out of me, especially when THEY resort to derision.

 

[Barrd]

Then I guess you don't understand Jesus when He said DIVORCE was never God's intent. These were man made laws never condoned by God. You apparently also don't know that marriage in the OT was a legally binding social contract, NOT something God instituted.

Okay....what I actually said was that I couldn't see how there could be a divorce where there was no marriage. I never said that divorce was God's intent. But He did give a law allowing a man to give his wife a bill of divorcement, and Jesus says that the law of divorce was for the hardness of their heart.

Lev 18 is about both, which you would know if you took the time to read it. The point is that it does NOT mention gay marriage.

I read the chapter. I could post it here, but that would take up a lot of space.

The chapter opens with God warning the people not to follow after the kinds of things they had learned in Egypt, nor the things they would see in Canaan:

3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

And then He gives a list of unlawful sexual practices, a list which covers just about every form of incest possible. He opens with:
Lev 18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.

And homosexual relations do appear in this list, down towards the end of the list, as does bestiality:

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Lev 18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

God says that these things "defile the nations":

Lev 18:24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
Lev 18:25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

So was Cain a murderer...what does that have to do with the issue of polygamy, and where do you see "from the beginning it was not so"?

I thought that the first polygamist mentioned in the Bible was also a murderer was an interesting little factiod. And if I recall correctly, murder was what got Cain cast out.
And didn't Cain find a wife in the land of Nod shortly after that?

The point is it existed, so what are you trying to justify?

Polygamy existed, but it was never God's idea, and it was never a good idea.
And that's what I am saying.

Your point?

My point is that sex outside of marriage was against the law, and the young virgin who indulged in it did so at the risk of her life.
In other words, sex was intended to be for a man and his wife.

I suggest you read and learn what the actual Greek says and not how it is translated into English. Husband is an Old Norse term that connotes "master of the house". The Greek word means a male person of full age and stature, ἀνήρ (anēr).

All of that is very interesting, but kind of irrelevant to the discussion we are having.
I believe that the Bible says what God intends it to say....in any language. Or did you think that God does not speak English?
You know, when Genesis was actually happening, Hebrew did not yet exist as a language. Everyone who lived till the time of the tower of Babel, where God confounded the language, spoke the same language.
Can you read and translate that language?

I suggest you study on what "wife" means as well. neither had to do with an institution called marriage. In Hebrew, nâshı̂ym, means women as a sexual partner, just as bethûlâh, young girl, connoted a virgin. FYI, the NEW Jerusalem in the bride of Christ, NOT the church. Rev 21:9-10

Rev 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
Rev 19:8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
Rev 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

It is obvious it has upset your understanding, but that is what the word of God is mean to do. Jesus did it many times when He put God's word into proper perspective. Because it appears a lot of your belief is based on misconceptions of what the Bible does teach, and how you have been taught, you are REACTING, just as Marcus is. The Pharisees reacted similarly when confronted with the truth.

I think I told you long ago, Stan, that I was never taught by any man. For most of my youth, I was not a part of any church. Just me and my Bible. Yes, my family were supposedly Episcopalians, but we seldom went to church except at Christmas and Easter. Later, in my teens, I would walk to town and go to church without my family's knowledge, but by then my ideas were pretty well formed. As I told you, I was 12 years old when I began to read and study the Bible.
Your comparing me to a pharisee now? Funny how in threads where we agree with each other, I'm a great gal....but if I disagree with you, I am a pharisee. I'm hurt, Stan, I truly am.

You deny what I say yet cannot refute it, and then resort to ad hominem and derision? I guess I'm in good company.

Oh, Stan...the worst thing I've said here was that you are a few sandwiches shy of a picnic on this one. And that is after a paragraph talking about how I could understand where you're coming from, even if I don't agree. i thought you and I were friends, Stan. I have consistently in this thread and elsewhere referred to you as my Brother, my beloved Brother, my precious Brother, and other "terms of endearment". Now suddenly you see me as attacking you? If you took offense at anything I have said, Stan, I most humbly offer my abject apology, and crave your pardon. But if you're just mad at me for not agreeing with you...well, no apology for that.

I'm not posting for your agreement Barrd...I post to show God's word and the truth therein. You base your POV, on this and a few other issues, on a fallacious understanding of what you were taught but never bothered to study. We are told to STUDY, not just accept what we are taught.

No, of course you are not posting for my agreement. But I do not agree with you that what you are posting is the truth, although I'm sure you think that it is.
Your assumption that I do not study is just not true, as is your assumption that my beliefs are based on any teaching by any man.
You do tend to jump to conclusions, my friend. Just because someone doesn't agree with you does not mean that they have not read the Bible or that they do not study.

As you seem to have missed the reference in Lev 18 to homosexual sex, perhaps you are the one who is not reading and studying for yourself?