Multiple wives in the bible, was that allowed ?

[Topanga]

I have a question regarding multiple wives in the bible . I've read the entire bible, with an open heart and mind but certain issues baffle me. It does not seem to appear anywhere in scripture to be forbidden to have multiple wives. Not only do certain great characters in the bible have multiple wives, the story of David and Basheba in 2 Samuel kind of leads me to believe it was ok. Not ok for David to be with the married woman Basheba, that was very clearly a sin. But Nathan says the following when he outed David . NIV translation~

7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.

He gave David his masters wives ?

Not only that , David had about 1000 women between his wives and concubines . I've heard scholars suggest David died around 72.
He was getting a new girl all the way up to his death bed. If you do the math, that's an average of 20 new woman a year, more than 1 a month.

David was a man after [G] own heart, and " on your word doth I meditate day and night"
Yet he never felt inclined to stop this practice ?

David's first wife was cursed by [G] for getting disgusted with David for dancing and worshiping in his loincloth , and she couldn't have children.

These unanswered questions create a huge stumbling block for me.

[ronjohn839]

Hi. One thing I came across on Godswordtowomen.org/lesson75 was that the original hebrew translates to women not wives (verse . Likely the woman of saul's court etc

[Jac3510]

Eh, I don't think we should play those kinds of games with the texts, RJ. The translators are pretty good, and they translated them that way for good reason.

To the OP, the short answer is, no, the Bible does not allow polygamy. There is a difference in prescribing behavior and describing behavior. Let me give you just two quick verses for you to consider:

• Deut 17:17 - He [the king] must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

So this is a part of the Law. The text says plainly that kings are NOT to take "many" wives. Of course, that leaves open the question of what constitutes "many," but at least two things are obvious: people like David and Solomon clearly violated this commandment. The reader of Samuel doesn't need for the author/editor of the book to comment on how their behavior was sinful. The Law has already expressly declared it so. In fact, if you look at that prohibition in the rest of the context, it very much implies monogamy, because the overall point is that the king is supposed to live just like everyone else. Polygamy may have been broadly practiced, but in reality, it was only practiced (usually) by the very rich (for economic reasons) and therefore wasn't that widespread. David, then, should have been content with one wife.

• Gen 4:19-24 - Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah. Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock. His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play stringed instruments and pipes. Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain’s sister was Naamah. Lamech said to his wives, "Adah and Zillah, listen to me; wives of Lamech, hear my words. I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me. If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times.”

So here Lamech is presented as a very wicked man, and interestingly, he is the first recorded polygamist. Moses had a reason for noting that. The reader is supposed to look at this guy and say, "Man, I don't want to be like him!" Among his many sins, polygamy seems evident enough. Add to this the fact that he is the seventh generation on Cain's side, he becomes the perfect representative of evil and is parallel to Enoch, the seventh generation on Seth's side, who becomes the perfect representative of good. Among the many lessons one should draw is that Lamech is altering God's intended order of things, and one of the ways he is doing that is by having two wives; it is a fair inference that polygamy is contemptible to God.

I could go on and on offering lots of examples. The bottom line is that the OT reports acts of polygamy. It does not endorse it. In fact, whenever the subject comes up, it is usually at the heart of a lot of strife, and the reader is intelligent enough to see that if the people had not gone down that road, their life would have been a lot easier.

Far then, from allowing polygamy, the Bible--while reporting that many believers have engaged in the practice--makes it clear in multiple ways that it ought to be avoided, that it is not part of God's plan for mankind, and that to engage in it is, as we might say today, to be asking for trouble.

[Gman]

It is anti-biblical to multiply wives.

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

[Kurieuo]

-- did Gman and Jac just agree?

[neo-x]

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

It is anti-biblical to multiply wives.

I think its anti-Christian to have multiple wives, since Jesus himself condemned divorce and marrying more than a single person. But as far as the O.T is concerned, that commandment is explicitly to the kings, it is not aimed towards the local-average Joe. And while this can be argued that it applies to all, one can not escape the fact that the O.T, especially the age of Judges and the kingdom era, doesn't seem to mind polygamy at all. It tolerates it without objection. Never once, in the O.T does the Lord shows his displeasure over multiple wives except for the case of Solomon. And that is because his wives turned him away yet the kings whose wives didn't, towards them the Lord God showed no anger or displeasure, not even a slap on the wrist neither a rebuke.

Far then, from allowing polygamy, the Bible--while reporting that many believers have engaged in the practice--makes it clear in multiple ways that it ought to be avoided, that it is not part of God's plan for mankind, and that to engage in it is, as we might say today, to be asking for trouble.

Agreed, yet the O.T shows little to no problem with this. The message you are taking out comes from your understanding of Christ and his commands. The O.T itself, on its own, apparently would agree more with polygamy than against it.

[Jac3510]

I think its anti-Christian to have multiple wives, since Jesus himself condemned divorce and marrying more than a single person.

How does condemning divorce make it a sin to marry multiple people? And I don't think Jesus actually says you cannot more "more than a single person." He says that God's plan is, once you are married, you are married for life, and that to divorce and remarry someone else is the sinful thing.

But as far as the O.T is concerned, that commandment is explicitly to the kings, it is not aimed towards the local-average Joe. And while this can be argued that it applies to all, one can not escape the fact that the O.T, especially the age of Judges and the kingdom era, doesn't seem to mind polygamy at all. It tolerates it without objection. Never once, in the O.T does the Lord shows his displeasure over multiple wives except for the case of Solomon. And that is because his wives turned him away yet the kings whose wives didn't, towards them the Lord God showed no anger or displeasure, not even a slap on the wrist neither a rebuke.

As I already said, there is a difference in reporting behavior and endorsing it, and the failure of the text to explicitly condemn an act does not make mean that the act is endorsed. Joab, for instance, was one murderous fella. My wife and I have been reading through 2 Sam together the past few nights. After the third or fourth person Joab just up and kills--granted, he had his reasons, but still, he just up and kills them--she says, "Sheesh! He's a really bad guy, isn't he?" The text doesn't need to condemn the act. The reader should be able to see it. And, beyond even that, as I said before, while there is no EXPLICIT command "do not marry multiple people" and while no story says about any individual, "And so and so sinned in marrying multiple people," it is the case that in almost every instance that polygamy is part of the story, that strife and anguish comes along as well. It may not be the case that ever specific woman causes strife--every new wife doesn't result in some great problem--but virtually everyone who does have multiple wives has problems precisely because they married more than one person. You can't, then, say that the Lord did not rebuke them. You may say that there was no special punishment, but why should we think that every sin deserves special punishment? God has so created the world that natural consequences follow sin far more than special consequences do.

Agreed, yet the O.T shows little to no problem with this. The message you are taking out comes from your understanding of Christ and his commands. The O.T itself, on its own, apparently would agree more with polygamy than against it.

As I've argued, I thin the OT shows serious problem with it. The problem you seem to be having is that much of OT theology comes in the form of narrative, which means much of it is not stated in propositional form like it is in the epistles. Obviously there are such propositions, and there is even one against "many wives" that is directed against kings but certainly has broad applicability. It's also possible (and I think preferable) to read the Song of Solomon as extolling monogamy.

Second, I am not taking my understanding against polygamy from Christ, and that for two reasons. First, I think He says less about the subject than the OT does, and second, it is bad hermeneutics to take NT principles and use them a lens to read the OT.

[Topanga]

Hey
Thanks for the Deut 17:17 verse , I asked this same question years ago to a pastor and he told me kings were told not to take many wives but I couldn't find the verse.
Can you please state some of the other examples you refer to.
What really baffles me about David is several things. First , his Psalms always state that he meditates on the law day and night , so if it was forbidden , how'd he mis it?
He's constantly described as a man after [G] own heart, so again , he missed it???
In Nathan's prophecy there was a pretty specific statement ...

"I gave you your master's wives into your arm"

Seems to condom it to me

Nathan confronted David on other sin, why not say hey! Your sinning Dude! Stop taking on new wives once a month.! Read Deut 17:17 while your meditating on His word day and night.

I understand what you are saying about the difference between the bible recording a historical event but not necessarily condoning it, but Nathan's confrontation falls short of condemning it , if it was sin, in my Humble , much to learn, opinion.

And as far as the trouble David got himself into, that seemed to be a result of the Adultery and Murder , when he's on the run for his life from his son

Sure, David had some family problems, but 1 wife can do the same,
Job had 1 wife, look at the mess she almost got him in with her advise " Job , why don't you curse ... and die"

David had some "Quality" problems.

And it's not always clear to me when an act in the bible was condoned or not. While David was on the run from Saul, he performed some raids on people, and groups of people and he and his men killed them, that's always been unclear to me.

But thus issue of multiple wives ties into a bigger issue for me. Inerrancy , infallibility , and cultural relevance .

[Jac3510]

Can you please state some of the other examples you refer to.

Sure. As I said though, there are no direct prohibitions--just a general mindset:

1. All of the Song of Songs. There's a lot of debate about this book, with some seeing it as a unified love story about two women and some seeing it as a collection of love poems about different women and still others arguing that it is a collection of poems about the same woman. See, for instance, Tom Constable's commentary on the book, pages 1 and 4.

2. Prov 5:18-19: "May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer—may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be intoxicated with her love." Obviously not a prohibition against polygamy, but definitely an exhortation to love your first wife. Solomon (of all people) is clearly saying the ideal is to be satisfied with your first wife and not to look for love elsewhere.

3. Gen 16: While Abraham doesn't marry Hagar, he does take her essentially as a concubine. There should be no question that his particular action there was regarded as a lack of faith in God's ability to fulfill His promises through his first wife, and there obviously were frustrating consequences that came with his decision.

4. Obviously, Solomon is a great example of a serious problem with many wives. Granted, his case may be extreme, but all the same, extreme error leads to extreme consequences (the loss of the Kingdom).

5. Judges 8:30‑31: "And Gideon had seventy sons which he fathered: for he had many wives. And his concubine that lived in Shechem also bare him a son, whom he called Abimelech." Now, the Gideon story doesn't turn out well, so we have another example of difficulties resulting from the practice. But still, this verse is especially interesting to me, because a little noted fact is that Judges is so structured that each judge is progressively worse than the previous. As such, the decline of the quality of judges mirrors the decline of the faithfulness of Israel. That has ramifications for how we understand the book. Gideon's request, for instance, for the sign is not seen as a good thing but rather an example of a degree of fear and faithlessness later exemplified more strongly in men like Jephthah and Samson. In light of this, it is especially interesting that there is a decline in the family structure of the judges, from Caleb all the way to Samson. Gideon's polygamy, then, is presented in Judges as an example of national decline--it is not a good thing, but rather something ideally avoided. For more on this perspective (with reference to Jephthah's vow, but detailing this article, see a paper I wrote on the subject here).

6. Amos 3:2: "You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities." I take it that you know that God and Israel are often portrayed in husband/wife terms. This verse is the same. "To know" has sexual connotations. If God only has one wife, why should men have many?

This might be a good page for you to check out. It has some other examples as well: http://www.inplainsite.org/html/polygam ... ml#Poly-10. This seems to be a good blog post on it, too: http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2012/ ... rdid-tale/

What really baffles me about David is several things. First , his Psalms always state that he meditates on the law day and night , so if it was forbidden , how'd he mis it?
He's constantly described as a man after [G] own heart, so again , he missed it???

Easy. He still had a sin nature. People tend not to see what they don't want to, and what they want to, they tend to. In fact, imagine that he had not been polygamous. Do you think his sons would have been, or at least as much as he was? I mean, where do you think Solomon got the idea it was okay in the first place? So David's polygamy, while not causing, actually set the stage for the division of Israel after Solomon died.

In Nathan's prophecy there was a pretty specific statement ...

"I gave you your master's wives into your arm"

Seems to condom it to me

Saul is never pictured as a particularly good man. Just the opposite, in fact. And, in fact, David inherited ALL of Saul's kingly benefits. But that would include the many horses and much gold, etc., all of which violates Deut 17. So what gives? Is God breaking His own command? Simply, no. When God took the kingdom from Saul, He gave everything Saul had to David. That would include the women, and Nathan raises the point here because it is directly related to his sin with Bathsheba.

In short, God isn't condoning David's polygamy. He's noting that, even in David's polygamous context, his sin with Bathsheba is still terrible, and, in fact, his polygamous context made that sin ALL THE WORSE.

Nathan confronted David on other sin, why not say hey! Your sinning Dude! Stop taking on new wives once a month.! Read Deut 17:17 while your meditating on His word day and night.

I understand what you are saying about the difference between the bible recording a historical event but not necessarily condoning it, but Nathan's confrontation falls short of condemning it , if it was sin, in my Humble , much to learn, opinion.

Do you expect the Bible to confront every sin individually? That's not how stories work. The reader is expected to be smart enough to see where certain things are just wrong. One of the pages I linked above (I think the second one) has a thing or two to say about that.

And as far as the trouble David got himself into, that seemed to be a result of the Adultery and Murder , when he's on the run for his life from his son

Sure, David had some family problems, but 1 wife can do the same,
Job had 1 wife, look at the mess she almost got him in with her advise " Job , why don't you curse ... and die"

David had some "Quality" problems.

And it's not always clear to me when an act in the bible was condoned or not. While David was on the run from Saul, he performed some raids on people, and groups of people and he and his men killed them, that's always been unclear to me.

But thus issue of multiple wives ties into a bigger issue for me. Inerrancy , infallibility , and cultural relevance .

And were David not polygamous, the adultery would have never come up. And why did David have to run from Absalom? Look back at the story. Absalom had murdered his brother Amnon for raping his half-sister Tamar. No polygamy, no half-siblings. No half-siblings, a more united family. A more united family, no running from Absalom.

Again, is polygamy the direct cause? No, and I've never said that polygamy is presented as directly causing sin. I've said that it isn't hard to read the OT and find out that the OT presents polygamy in a negative light. As far as how to tell what's condoned and what's just reported, the problem is that you are reading it all wrong. That's not even a question you should be asking. David, Job, even good men like Joseph and Daniel are not presented as good people whose lives we are to emulate. That turns the Bible into little more than a moral guidebook. In all of those stories, the hero always is only God. The goal is to understand HIS actions. And what you find is that He is constantly saving sinful men, and that in spite of themselves.

That's not to say that we should never look at the behavior of Bible characters. We should. But we must understand that their actions are secondary and are important, really, to the extent that they say something about their relationship with God. (Again, I refer you to the Jephthah paper linked above for a practical example of this.)

[Topanga]

Thanks for all the great examples, I haven't had time to check the links yet but I can't wait.

When reading the bible ( the entire bible ) I find I difficult to discern between the old law and what is still considered sin. For example, there is a huge debate throughout out time, and even on this forum , whether Christians should worship on Saturday vs Sunday ( 10 commandments, 7th day holly, rest, etc..)
The bottom line, I don't wont to be bound by any unnecessary rules.
And from my understanding , Christ doesn't want us too either. But figuring out the real rules is a pain. What's sin?
For instance , the bible is fairly clear about adultery, but I think it's really unclear about pre-marital sex. Concubines were basically girlfriends , women with rights less than wives . Well, these days, premarital sex is the new concubine, in my opinion. The 2 of you are taking a risk ( boyfriend and girlfriend) if she gets pregnant , your legally and morally responsible . So these days, she has probably even more rights than a patriarch's concubine .
I don't think any Orthodox Church will condone that , but it doesn't seem to be covered in the Big 10, the 500+ laws Israel had to follow , and when the New Testament address sexual immorality , it just says "sexual immorality " in the NIV,
Well , what's that? Go to the old testimony to try and figure it out and "men lying with men" is addressed , Adultery is addressed, but premarital sex isn't ? I can't seem to find it.
Meanwhile , I have to wait a lifetime for the right girl to come around, cross my fingers because I only have one shot at it - to get it right, yet David had around 600 concubines.
Like I said , I don't want to have to follow a rule , if it ain't really a rule.
Sure there's a risk, but there's a risk in picking the wrong wife too.
When I first became a Christian , I read the entire Bible, with an open mind, asking for help figuring out what to do. I didn't read any commentary. It got me far, in improving my life , but I got stuck on what was sin and what technically wasn't . I asked pastors and people at church tons of questions about some of the more confusing issues in the bible , but never got very far with good answers . In fact, I got tired of asking parishioners , because I just felt even more alienated with their stock answers . I fell away for about 3 years and got into some major sin ( Short of a full internet confession- lets just say I can relate to Samson and David), I stopped going to church for those 3 years. My frustrations didn't help my faith.
I'm back at church now, dug myself out of that major sin, with help from above . I still can't get good answers at church, so I'm glad I found this forum . I'm new here, just joined last week. Thanks again for the thorough answers and the links .

[Silvertusk]

It is good to have you on board and just keep those questions coming.

If you are a believer in Christ then if you think something is wrong then there is a good chance that it is. The Holy Spirit convicts you of sin and sinful actions so listen to that inner quiet voice.

But remember our Christian journey can be a short or very long journey of santification. I know my one is stretching out a bit Just keep facing the right direction. Pray to God for discernment in gray areas and be guided by your answer.

For my own personal journey I can only say - thank God for his forgiveness.

God Bless

Silvertusk.

[cnh]

I haven't read the whole Bible, but I've read most of it (Gen.-Songs, Mal.-Rev....just haven't read all the prophets yet) and have had a lot of the same questions as you.

As far as premarital sex goes, I believe the N.T. does address it. The N.T. refers specifically to the sins of adultery, homosexuality, and fornication. I don't know about the biblical breadth of meaning of fornication - I'm convinced that premarital sex falls under this heading, and guess that other "close but not all the way" activities fall there, also.
The O.T. has some regulations on premarital sex that confuse me - ranging from "they must marry, but if the woman's father refuses, the man must pay him the bride price"(Ex.22:16) to "it is a sin against God they must be put to death"(Deut. 22:23-24) to "they must marry and not divorce."(Deut. 22:28-29)

In regards to other rules-which ones are we still supposed to follow-here are the broad statements I look to:
Mark 12:28-34 Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself
Deuteronomy 5 The 10 Commandments v. 33- "Walk in all the way that the Lord your God has commanded you, so that you may live and prosper and prolong your days in the land you will possess." Just because something is permissible does not mean it is beneficial - 1 Cor. 10:23
Acts 15 - the apostles' recommendations on regulations for gentile believers: abstain from sexual immorality and blood (see Lev. 17:11-14 - the life is in the blood)
Romans - This is my FAVORITE book of the Bible, hands down. It is a systematic exposition of the Christian faith. On the topic of what is considered sin, see chs. 12:9-15:4
Rom. 13:10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Rom. 14:5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
Rom. 14:13 Make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.
Rom. 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating or drinking, but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Rom. 14:23 and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

In my opinion, a good way to gauge what is sin and what isn't is to look at it more in terms of relationship than rules. I like how Lisa Bevere describes it in her book Kissed the Girls and Made Them Cry : When you're wrestling with how far is too far, what you're really doing is wanting to know how much you can get away with, how close to the line can I get before I'm "in trouble." Instead of seeing life with God as a set of rules, we need to change our mindset to that of a relationship with our Heavenly Father who cares deeply for us and wants what's best for us. Instead of asking, "how close can I get to sin without actually sinning?" we would do better to ask, "what would I feel comfortable doing if my father were in the room?" - because He is.

[Topanga]

Yes, the OT laws confuse me a lot.
This is part of the reason I question if the bible is inerrant , infallible , or if it was just written by men who were seeking [G], but written around their culture. The many laws, esp the one you mention about paying the father for what you have done to the Virgin, cause me to believe that the laws were written by men, that reflected their cultural traditions of the time.
There is the law that if 2 men get in a fight , and the wife of 1 try's to break it up, but accidentally touches the other man in his private area, they are to cut her hand off??? Yet, the guy who violates a virgin, gets let off with a fine . ???
Throughout the bible, homosexuality is addressed in terms of men lying with men, but I don't recall it ever being addressed as far as women with women. It causes me to wonder if that's because men had so many harems ??? I walk away asking myself " who wrote this ???" How much was inspired by above and how much was influenced by man?
As far as the word you use " "fornication" , the NIV uses the words " sexual immortality " not fornication. So define sexual immorality , that can be left wide open, even for a married couple and what they are allowed to do with each other, and we all know that some churches want to have a say in that too. One pastor of mine encourages us to use exegesis to understand original meaning and intent.

I'll check out that book " kiss the girls and make them cry" but let me say this. When I first became a Christian, I was celibate for 7 years, it was not easy dating. Girls will not take no for an answer these days, even some church going girls. I dated both believers and non believers . Holding out caused a lot of conflict. Some girls questioned if I was straight. They actually asked my female friends if I was possibly homosexual , what man would say no ?
I do not regret holding out with any of those girls, but then, eventually, a girlfriend and I did eventually have sex, after the 7 years, I caved in at that point. I was so tired of holding out. The bible confused me, unanswered prayer wore me down . I just wanted to be with her. But I was so conflicted at that point , and back and forth on the issue, it caused great confusion for her, it frustrated her very much and caused her to get mad at me, very mad. It hurt her too.
Her anger contributed to me letting her go, my waffling on the issue didn't draw her towards Christianity , it probably pushed her away from it.
It was my fault, she probably viewed christianity as the barrier that contributed to us not getting closer. That's my fault, I regret it very much . Looking back, I regret not marrying her. She's the best woman I have ever dated. She's married and has 2 kids now. There's a lot more to the story than that, it's mostly my fault, but it depresses me that I got it so wrong, I believe I had the prerequisite mustard seed of faith. And I tried really hard for 7 years, and I still blew it big time.
I don't believe I ever would have been able to date her for as long as I had, if I had said no to her. I miss her very much. But the bible was so confusing at that point I just got too tired. Like Abraham not wanting to wait for his wife to have a child.
It's not easy to date girls these days and say no, I know that's not an excuse but it doesn't help when the bible is so confusing and David was getting a new girl every month .

The mosaic laws just leave me with the feeling that it was written by men and reflected the culture at the time. When Christ came, I feel he threw some of the laws back in their face. He touched lepers! Of course that was going to stir things up!
Some of the Jews were probably trying very hard to follow these baffling laws, then he comes and says he is the messiah and seems to break some of the laws . Very few understood what was going on, I would have been confused too , of course that would rock the boat. He did stuff on the Sabbath, the mosaic law laid out a bunch of rules about the sabbath. It makes me wonder if he knew something about the mosaic law that we didn't?
It leaves me wondering if those 500 +laws were written more by man, men seeking [G] but maybe those laws were not as perfect as we think.
I hope my questions aren't a stumbling block to anyone, 1 more reason I'm apprehensive about asking questions at church, I don't want to cause anyone to stumble.
Yet Paul, says he studied the scripture thoroughly , to verify if Christ is the messiah. He had even been healed! And Christ appeared to him , blinded him ! , and even he felt the need to dive in and verify.

[Jac3510]

Topanga,

Check out this short video by Voddie Baucham. I think it will get you started:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XkZq4KuoCI

Then check out his other videos as they interest you. He has GREAT stuff on love and dating from a biblical perspective, about what it means to be a man, to be a woman, etc. Just fabulous.

As to the issues of the Law, I strongly encourage you to read the article by Hays I already linked to. Then pick a particular issue that confuses you and address it on a case by case basis. It is very difficult if not impossible to answer a barrage of questions. Your questions are good and deserve answers, but if you really want them to be answered--if you respect your own questions--then ask them in a way in which they can be answered.

It'll take awhile to do it that way, I grant. But at least you'll get answers, and soon enough, you'll reach a point where answers will start suggesting themselves based on what you are learning from your other studies.

[Topanga]

Yes, sorry for the barrage of questions. I just gave up 3 years ago and caved into the world. Now I have to pick up where I left off. Thanks for the support. I will definitely check out all the links. I'm so glad I found this forum. On the funnier side of things. I signed up for it about 2 weeks ago .
I was desperate to find something like this and asked everyone at church if they knew of any chat rooms, no one did. Finally I found this and signed up, since no one at church seems to want to talk about this stuff. Then I never got a confirmation email. So I waited a week and tried to sign up again with another email address. Again, no confirmation . I just sat there and thought " Really [G] ? you won't even let me on the forum?" "Do I seriously have to pray and ask to be let on?" I was really depressed.
But I had just heard a sermon on the word "Kara"
"Then began men to call out on the name of the [L]" Genisis
Call being the Hebrew word "Kara"
Which according to this sermon, is a desperate plea for help . So I begged, like the woman who told Christ that even the dogs can feed on the scraps.

Turns out, the confirmation email got sent to my spam box. It dawned on me shortly after praying to check the spam box.

I attached the sermon from Tom Canter.


http://www.friendshipwithgod.org/FWG-ra ... _TCFWG.mp3