Just so you know.

I see that we use an alias for the non-pastoral comments.

And what on earth does s post about my kids have to do with same-sex marriage? (Or did the realization that I’m a straight father of four just blow your mind?)

Why is it that the Christian opponents of marriage equality always have the most distinctively “un-Christian” dispositions?

I approved this comment for two purposes:

1) To show “Dr.” David Tee as the coward he is, hiding behind an alias to make his nastier comments.

2) To show the world your ridiculously flawed logic – the kind of logic we’ve come to expect from those with fundamentalist views.

And let’s add 3) Because someone is ALWAYS watching (and I’m not talking about the guy you claim to serve…)

Sigh.

Your argument that “it’s not the way it was supposed to be” is moot. The fact is that Sinai happened AFTER the fall.

According to the Bible, God witnessed the fall, and THEN gave the law. Are you arguing that the law is moot? If so, why cite legal bans on homosexuality?

The law was the law. Regardless of his they got to that point, God established a law (according to the Bible). So if he established law, it’s either binding or it’s not. One cannot pick the anti-gay laws and say “these are the will of God”, and look at the Levirate marriage laws and the slavery laws and say, “Well, God didn’t really intend that, he just included it in the Law because [insert theological apologetic excuse here] and so God really didn’t want that”.

And are you suggesting that the genocide against the Amalakites was the Amalakites fault? Are we blaming the victim again?

Good grief.

Pick and choose apologetics is what is driving the criminalization of same-sex marriage. You are grasping at straws and wasting the time of my readers. Your fundamentalist reasoning is on record here. We’ll let that be the last word.

As stated before, most of the laws governing these things were put there because man, through his sin, wanted them that way (Judg. 16:25). In fact, the children of Israel themselves thought these laws (and others) were too strict. This is why the Lord destroyed His people (Lev. 26:14ff; Deut. 28:15ff). It’s right there in the text what would happen if they did not follow the commands of God. So the children of Israel brought all this calamity on themselves, just as people in the world today bring strife and division to themselves by disobeying certain Biblical precepts.

But all these regulations were not unreasonable; they were all geared at keeping the people holy before God (Deut. 7:6). For instance, in Deut.7:2-3, the command was not to marry people outside of the nation. But in the next few verses, God explains why. King Solomon disobeyed the precepts concerning these things and sinned by so doing (Neh. 13:24-26).

Although you are technically correct by saying “the graphic does NOT say that ‘Genesis two somehow forbids ‘interfaith marriages’”, The chart clearly implies it. Based on this, the argument I presented is not flawed.

This is not the only misrepresentation on the chart. For instance, Deut. 22:28-29 is cited as “proof” that a woman “must marry her rapist” First, The Greek text does not demand that it necessarily be rape. Second, the chart fails to mention Ex. 22:16-17. This is proof that the woman did not have to marry this man, if the father forbade it. The man still had to pay the price of dowry though.

What all this means is that the chart provided in the OP is basically a lie. It misrepresents what marriage is supposed to be, contrary to the will of God. The chart is the instrument that is truly doing the “cherry picking” here, just like Satan did with Jesus in the wilderness in Matt. 4.
So it’s not that I “don’t want to understand this, because” I “don’t want to believe these are all ‘biblical’”. I don’t believe it because the implications are untrue, and believing such will cause one to perish (2 Thess. 2:10-11).

Thank you for you responses concerning these things.

Larry

Again, repeating the same flawed argument at greater length doesn’t make the argument any stronger.

The graphic does NOT say that “Genesis two somehow forbids “interfaith marriages””. It says that the concept of monogamous marriage (one man + one woman) is first introduced in Genesis two. There there is a nice line. Below that line are different descriptions of rules that pertain to the monogamous marriage first mentioned in Genesis 2. If the graphic is too difficult for you to understand, perhaps the person who made the graphic should have cited book, chapter, and verse for each of the descriptors. Perhaps the artist could have listed EZRA 9-10 next to “interfaith marriages forbidden”. Or perhaps DEUTERONOMY 7:3. Or maybe 2 CORINTHIANS 6:14.

Next to “marriages generally arranged” the author could have cited GENESIS 24, where Abraham’s trusted servant is sent to get a wife for Isaac.

Next to “bride who could not prove her virginity was stoned to death”, the author could have cited DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21, where wives get executed if they cannot prove they are virgins.

See how it works? I don’t know if it can be spelled out any more for you. You apparently don’t want to understand this, because you don’t want to believe these are all ‘biblical’.

Not only are these all forms of ‘biblical’ marriage, but the rules surrounding monogamous marriage are often so foreign to modern monogamous marriages, that many ignore passages like EZRA 9-10 and DEUTERONOMY 7:3 and 2 CORINTHIANS 6:14 and GENESIS 24 and DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21 and COLOSSIANS 3:18 (“Wives, submit to your husbands”) and EPHESIANS 5:22-24 (“For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church…Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, subject to their husbands.”).

Even the monogamous marriage described in the Bible is vastly different from modern monogamous marriage (unless your father arranged your marriage, your wife is subject to you in all things, and you could prove she was a virgin on your wedding day).

I believe we’ve belabored this point beyond reasonable understanding. If you still don’t understand this graphic, it’s either because you can’t, or you won’t.

G’nite.

The chart is simple enough to understand. It says Genesis two somehow forbids “interfaith marriages” among other things. The chart specifies only one verse in the upper left section. I’m just going off what the chart says, and it obviously does not align with the Biblical text.

I agree that other verses shed light on what marriage is supposed to be (Eph. 5:22-32; 1 Pet 3:1-7; 1 Cor. 7; Romans 7:2-3; etc.) Since God desires man to be saved and follow after Christ as an example and not after the Old law (1 Pet 2:21; Gal. 3:23-25; Gal. 6:2) those verses do not apply. Jesus clarified this when he contended with the Pharisees in Matt. 19. He made his appeal to the law that was given in the Garden of Eden…centuries before the Law of Moses.

Nowhere in the Genesis two text is anything said about polygamist marriages, punishing a wife, etc. The reason these things were permitted under the law of Moses is because of the hardness of people’s hearts (Matt. 19:8). They were added because of the transgressions of man (Gal. 3:19). Yet it is abundantly clear in the Old law that a new covenant would take the place of Moses Law (Jer. 31:31-34).

What you and others need to do is prove from the New Covenant how any of those Old Testament passages apply to marriage today. If not, it remains in the realm of human opinion (Matt. 15:9) Paul said not rightly dividing the word of truth causes one to risk falling from grace (2 Tim. 2:15; Gal. 5:4).

BTW, even as one who holds a doctorate degree and a biblical studies scholar, it appears you are not doing too good a job with reasoning from the scriptures. Also, I wonder who is really isolating scripture to try and prove a point? Not me (Matt. 4:1-11)

Looking forward to your response.

Larry

The chart introduces the different forms of marriage described in the Bible, and offers a verse that cites an example of each.
Beneath each example are rules/descriptions of each particular type of marital arrangement – many of which are drawn from elsewhere in the Bible.
So no, while one verse in Genesis does not describe all that is entailed in a monogamous marriage, several other verses in the Bible do.

Again, you seem to deliberately attempting to isolate and misrepresent some of the data, so that you can point to the data you actually DO want to highlight.
And once again, your argument and methodology make my point for me: some people ignore or deliberately misrepresent data/scripture that does not fit with their preconceived interpretations.

Cheers,

bc