The bible does not prohibit polygamy

Thanks for your response I enjoyed reading it

If you are in a capacity to manage them justly, I don't see any problem to marry women of your choice. You are just committing sin, otherwise, if done only for your desire.

Lotterylover, 'I think that if God had intended us to have more than one wife would have made another one for Adam' -- There was no marriage at that time. I wonder if Adam and Eve will know the definition of plural marriage just in case.

1hopefulman, Adam was lonely at that time and so God had pulled one from his (Adam's) ribs and created Eve for a companion. There was no arrangement done not until the snake teases Eve.

Ladies (and whoever else read the above), I hope you don't think I'd espouse polygamy in favor of the female. The remark was meant to be amusing. Casandrina, all I can say is "wow!" Can't believe the men would agree to that (not to mention the woman). In which part of the world was it? For everyone, I'd typed in the wrong reference with the verses 3-5 bit. The correct one is Hebrews 13:4 alone.

1corner, "I find polygamy offensive" --me too and it will cause lots of problems

Hi marriane, that was funny... @Casandrina, she's very lucky to have more than 1 husbands. well at least it wasn't a bias and I wonder why some other religions recognize polygamy in favor of men only

We have to remember that the Kings of Israel and the Israelites did not always obey the commandments of God. The prophets were send to them to try to straighten them out but they persecuted and even killed some of the prophets that God send to instruct them. Notice this strong condemnation on the part of Jesus and they even killed him. Matthew 23:29-37 American Standard Version (ASV) 29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and garnish the tombs of the righteous, 30 and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we should not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31 Wherefore ye witness to yourselves, that ye are sons of them that slew the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33 Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the judgment of hell? 34 Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city: 35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. 37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

"We have to remember that the Kings of Israel and the Israelites did not always obey the commandments of God" --But, during the intertestamental period, according to what I have read, they (the Jews) had slowed down. Polygamy began to be criticized by them, the people of Israel. The old practice then was forbidden under the New Testament where some passages found in Timothy and Titus can witness it

"Early Christians did not have more that one wife or more than one husband" --Johnrock has termed it newhearts and I liked it... 1hopefulman, thank you so much!

codymac, I think you've misunderstood. No Christian, once a Christian, being married, could take a spouse additional to what he/she already had. But no Christians, found in a polygamous state at conversion, were encouraged to take the initiative to put away spouses simply in order to make themselves monogamous. Additionally, Christians in a polygamous state were disqualified from from being elders or deacons, but that didn't justify their breaking family ties already in existence. As always, family obligations, if real (example of an "obligation" that isn't real: taking the family to the seaside on the Lord's day instead of church because little Johnny says he's bored with church), take precedence over church activities.

hehehe

I think that I am now conviced with what johnrock and 1hopefulman had said --early christians headed down a new road thank you so much for your response

@ sabado_dc... God did not institute polygamy. He tolerated it for a while as he tolerates many things for a while. When Christianity was established, the toleration of polygamy ceased and so it has been ever since among those that want to do the will of God. God's purpose is progressive, it is never stagnant. You would be surprised where we are now! Just keep reading the Bible and keep searching and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free from errors and lies.

"you have come up with a good..................." So, the bible does not prohibit polygamy as long as it is sacred

Were not to have any problems with , the problem of what she gave birth to his son, the first ,his first wife Sarah sinking and asked him to take her away he , took her to Mecca and left there with a child ( Ismail ).. He prayed to them

"Gods original design is for a man to have just one wife" -- And that is due to the one flesh aspect of marriage, the need for oneness and harmony in marriage, and the lack of any real need for polygamy, it is our firm belief that polygamy does not honor God and is not his design for marriage

One lotter have asked if there has ever been same issue in the NT and I answered Mathew3:17-18

Mathew 5: same verse mentioned

"If it is done according to what is allowed and conditioned by God, it will not be harmful to anyone" -- nice point of view. however, please answer my question if it is applicable for both genders' favor?

No. Frankly, I'm not sure anyone would be able to practice it perfectly. One of the condition is that the man has to be fair to all the wives in EVERYTHING; physically, mentally, economically, etc, etc. With all our innate characteristic, it will take a super human to be perfectly fair. The tendency would be more to the favorite one, be it the youngest, prettiest, or whatever reasons.

Yes, I meant it wont be harmful to both gender.