Genisis book pdf download

Our Superior Rooms have a spectacular sea or garden view and include an additional comfortable seating area, bowl of fruit and bottle of water. Our Singer Rooms are the best, largest and most sought after rooms in the hotel, all with spectacular sea views.

Special Offers. Indulge in our traditional English cuisine, unwind and relax in our indoor heated pool, or simply take a break and explore Paignton and the surrounding English Riviera while staying in one of our comfortable rooms, at The Palace Hotel we have a special offer for all your needs. Pre-Christmas Special. Read More. Black Friday Offers. New Year 4 night Package Ring in with us in style at The Palace…. Christmas 4 Night Package Sit back and let us take care of your every….

Twixmas Offer. Join us for a rest between the busy festive period…. Lazy Days for Locals. Available daily 9am — 5pm A warm welcome awaits you…. Festive Lunches. Join us for a delectable lunch with all the trimmings…. Seaside Couple Retreat. Enjoy a romantic getaway at The Palace Hotel with your…. Coach Tours. And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.

Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, — 1 Timothy The constant message in the Bible is one man, one woman.

All the advice for dealing with marriages is within that context. Yes, there are a few verses to deal with edge cases, as there are with divorce, but that was never the intent of God to allow it. So, when did it change? I submit that God created marriage as a monogamous relationship, and He has always supported that approach.

And polygamy was never intended, and any commandments relating to it are there to mitigate the disasters that ensue after the fact, just as we have for divorce. So take care of your one spouse, and revel in the fact that they are yours and yours alone. Yes, it may cause some struggles, but struggles are good, conflict is an opportunity for growth.

Because I think having another spouse would just multiply your problems, as we see in the Bible. One relationship is hard enough. With two wives, you would have three relationships to manage…sounds like a nightmare to me. No wonder they all went homicidal. Subscribe to get the 2 page PDF full of questions to help you and your spouse start to talk about your sex life.

And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more. But the first place Monogamy is mentioned as the perfect standard is Gen States quite plainly ration of man to woman for the perfect mix. Or else why stop with just Eve? God did make just two,but then they commited a sin,so he set them out of the garden.

And then he said be fruitful and multiply. Or he had no control over what happened you post a long blog about when God decided man should not have multiple wives but u never really answered the question. Instead, He allows us free-will. Does that help answer the question? The first polygomy was in Gen.

He was also from the line of Cain, no longer walking with God. He was cut off for killing his brother. First of all a lot of older languages never had differences in words for plural or singular. Everything could honestly be a translation error. And guess who decided how it was written. The leaders of the church who wanted to be followed. My reply to everything would be this.

Let him ask of God and it shall be given. Be wary of Satan spirit for it will tell you that good is evil and evil is good. The morphology of Hebrew words is quite complex as they had different word forms for many things including gender, plurality and tenses. Lots of wives to populate the earth, sure, sounds good. This being the breaking of Gods words when he warned us not to speak for him but to simply teach what he had given us without altering his words.

God says in Hosea, … besides me there is no other savior ….. Nowhere did God give up his moniker of God nor does he share it anywhere in the OT nor did the Jesus ever say that he is god or that god is he. This is a translation by intent by the christian church via the first ecumenical counsel back in AD. When the christian bible was created. It was implied using that term. A young woman having a baby is not a sign that is recognizable.

A virgin having a baby, that is. He also implicitly states it in Matthew and Mark But even without that the Bible claims it. You could argue that expresses the Trinity. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Then the Bible falls into cohesion. Seems a simpler explanation than your conspiracy theory. Jesus needed to be born of a virgin. All of his born of a female is born of iniquity.

But Jesus was without sin. God sent him to Earth to represent himself but relate to is in human flesh. For Jesus to be a walking living powerful message of God sent to Redeem us, everything about him had to be extraordinary. Therefore Jesus had to be born of a virgin, just as his conception was of God. This is a bunch of evil justification to follow roman monogamy….

God does not condemn polygny…. Never says anything against it… People are reading into to much and adding to Gods word…. It to bad the article follows the world. Not three or more. Every time someone takes multiple wives in the Bible, it causes unnecessary strife. It does both explicitly and implicitly. You have to be trying hard to ignore it. And you ignore 2 Samuel, Chapter 12, verse 11, when God says to David, Thus says the Lord, I will bring evil upon you out of your own house.

I will take your wives while you live to see it , and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You also overlook Jacob, Rachel, Leah and their two maids, and Jacob made 12 kids with those 4 women, who went on to become the 12 tribes of Israel.

So if God could make Jesus with the Virgin Mary, why did he allow the polygamous situation with Jacob and 4 women? The Bible often does say one thing on one page, and if you turn enough pages you can find opposing sentiments. And you do not have to try very hard to continually find such counterpoints like Ecclesiastes — a time of love a time of hate, a time of war a time of peace. I am so far from knowing the truth that I cannot see the horizon.

But I am just as far from convinced that you possess the truth. Someone once said, if anyone tells you they have the truth, run far away, very fast. Saul already had a lot of wives, so they came as well. Rachel and Leah are another weird example that was not supposed to happen. Jacob was tricked. At no point did God tell him to marry Rachel though. He did it of his own accord.

God can take our terrible decisions and still sometimes make good happen from them. God puts up with a lot of garbage from us. I think if you read the Bible as a whole, and keep the verses with their context, the message is pretty clear — one woman for one man. Well done Jay Dee. Very well founded scripturally, but just to throw a fly in the ointment so to speak I wonder what your explanation of the prophetic passages of scripture in terms of the 10 virgins would be?

Given this instance in scripture I find it a little hard to put the final nail in the coffin that its a sin to have more than one wife, but as you showed with a breakdown of scripture it certainly seems to be the smart thing to have but one wife. Interested to hear your thoughts as always. I thought they were his friends that were to accompany him into the banquet a custom at the time, as I understand. Sort of like bridesmaids…but not. Far as I know, every time a bride of Christ is mentioned, it is always singular: the church as a whole at least, those who are faithful.

If the bridegroom is just a man inviting friends to his wedding then why the heavy emphasis on the women being virgins and not just friends? So I guess my response back to you Jay Dee is that according to what Jewish custom I do know is that the Bridegroom came looking specifically for these 10 women, which with what I know of custom and the matter of fact way of how the scripture reads they were his intended betrothed.

So, we have two possible interpretations. Does it not make more sense to take the one that is inline with the rest of scripture? The point is being ready, because it could come at any time. The early church had no such prohibitions on multiple wives. They decided priest none everyone else one. You are a product of the doctrines of the catholic church and are too blind to see it for what it is. God did not change His perspective, or He would have had Paul say that all the men of the church should be the husband of one wife.

Not just leadership. I disagree. The church did teach that a married man should have a single wife. Do you force divorces? Do you make the man kick the other woman women? Do you de-legitimize potential children perhaps endangering their lives? The answer seems to have been to accept them as they are — but forbid them from being in positions of power. This both let people join the church wherever they were at, while also ensuring that these practices were not passed on to further generations.

Keep in mind the actual wedding took place with the writing of the wedding contracts, not at any actual ceremony. The 10 virgins were there either as processional torch bearers or bridesmaids, and not as brides.

Because, otherwise, the oil should have been provided by the bridegroom himself. Or what would that say about a man who would not give oil to one of his wives a direct violation of Jewish Law? Since the virgins were not, in fact wedded, to the bridegroom, they were responsible for their own oil. Sorry buddy but your drawn out explanation is wrong…. The parable is there for an analogy of being prepared. The parable helped to illustrate a point in a way the people of the time would understand.

Remember, The Bible has euphemisms and comparisons from them at time just like we do today. So do your best to study from the stance of what lines up Biblically and not what would introduce a new line of Thought. Context is key. Excellent question and hope that helps. The whole episode makes a lot more sense to me if you assume that Abram and Sarai saw nothing morally wrong with what she suggested.

To me that seems like projecting current day views back into the past. The law of Moses did not forbid it, in fact it regulated it laying out rules on how husbands with plural wives should conduct themselves. You can just as easily attribute other motives like she wanted her husband to experience fatherhood without having to wait for the time she could experience motherhood, and she saw this was an allowable way to do that.

If he felt that was morally wrong and felt hurt and angry over being duped, why keep Leah? A deception like that is clear grounds to annul a marriage and he could demand he be given what he was promised so why not do that if it was wrong to have plural wives? Once again there is no condemnation of Jacob for his choice. David had multiple wives before he even made it onto the throne even, and after he got there God gave him more wives, why then would God have an issue with giving David more wives still after that if David wanted it?

If having plural wives was morally wrong, God would not have given him more wives already. God is not going to enable or help or cause a person to sin. Much evil happened after that but as a result of the adultery and murder, not the polygamy. The parable Samuel used to convict David of the one ewe lamb gave no condemnation to the rich man for all the sheep ie: wives he legitimately obtained, and like wise there was no condemnation to David for having more than one wife.

In fact, the Bible says:. David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

So there you have more than just the tacit approval as with Abram and Jacob. With what Solomon said and the other verses that speak of marriage in a singular manner, I think you have to take into account that while polygamy was allowed, it was rare as the men were obligated by the law of Moses to provide for all their wives and children.

The wording of Deut about wives is just like the wording of the verse before speaking of horses, yet who suggests that it means a king can only have one horse and never more than that? Those verses are a warning against gross excess only. It is also questionable to me to claim that polygamy is a violation of marriage being one man and one woman. A man with two wives has two marriages, each of them being between him and one of his wives.

The wives are not married to each other. It is all a non-sequitur. Trust me when I say I understand the high discomfort level with this topic, and often strong emotions about this can make it hard to be objective about the text of the scriptures, but faith needs to be built on a foundation of truth, not wishful thinking.

Trying to cast polygamy as inherently immoral by attributing motives and adding into the scriptures things not there to reach a desired conclusion is very unwise.

I think the evidence shows that God does not see polygamy as inherently immoral. We however are under command to respect the law of the land so that if nothing else requires monogamy.

The word bosom is ambiguous. I had not noticed that one before. Unfortunately, I think it substantiates my story yet again. Look at the strife caused in 1 Samuel 1 by having more than one.

It seems that in every single instance that polygamy occurs, it causes strife in the household, if not all out murder. And then a lot of verses that clearly state a man is to have one wife…these are clearly stated for those in power…those supposedly modeling a better life for us. Jacob — Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. Jacob — Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none.

Ether — Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

As well, the LDS church has plainly stated that it is church law that you may not have more than one wife regardless of the law of the land , and to do so is punishable by excommunication. It seems your church leadership have come to the conclusion that it is immoral as well.

I welcome any clarification. God did not say wards, but wives. The only thing it says about why Sarai did what she did was that it was to have children. Her motive has little to do however with the question if if polygamy was acceptable to God or not. There is no condemnation from God, in fact God stays very active in in their lives sending divine messengers etc.

Nothing in the scriptures indicates that intimacy was forbidden between them. Does God intend for some marriages to be sexless? The fact that they were his wives made sexual relations allowable, expected, even commanded. Even before he defeated Saul he had several wives, and God had no problems with that, and he had children by several of them, yet only in the case of Bathsheba did God find something to condemn him for.

No, likewise with that situation. If his mother was in sin being in a polygamous marriage, why did God grant her the blessing she sought, and give her even more children after Samuel?

They were faithful by accounts. What Jacob said in the Book of Mormon if you read it in context is that there are times when God allows or commands his people to practice polygamy, and there are times where God forbids it. Solomon certainly did go contrary to the will of God in his practice of polygamy.

He in effect trapped many women in a marriage where they had no hope of having any children, and no hope of any kind of relationship with their husband. They were denied everything marriage was supposed to give them because there were so many other wives as well.

That excess was wrong. Bathsheba would fall into that category of being a wife David recieved not of God, so the condemnation of David and Solomon that Jacob made is valid, but limited to specific instances where they violated the rules they were supposed to follow, not a condemnation of all polygamy at any time.

As for my church, as we see it, God commanded polygamy to be practiced in the early days, and then later according to his wisdom He commanded that it no longer be practiced and that is the current state of things today.

Church policy reflects the fact that at this time God has commanded it not be practiced. It was not wrong of them to practice it at the time it was commanded, and it was not wrong of them to stop it when God told them to do that. Having more than one spouse comes at a cost.

Even without polygamy, even serial monogamy comes at a cost. Human beings were designed to be one man, one woman for life. While remarriage is not sinful in some cases, I know first hand that even where remarriage is morally acceptable, there is always baggage that goes with having had another spouse.

I can only imagine just how much more trouble it would be to be married to two people at the same time! Paul writes about how it is better to stay single than marry, but getting married is better than to burn with lust. There is little need for a second wife. Paul makes it clear that a spouse takes away from the time you can spend dedicated to ministry. Monogamy comes at a cost too, but I do agree that making a polygamous arrangement work is a lot harder than a monogamous marriage.

A couple need to be Christlike toward each other to make a marriage work, and for a polygamous marriage that is even more true. My wife has ancestors from the early days of our church who were polygamous and she knows their stories.

There are benefits and costs to it, and the biggest hardship for her ancestors was economic. Marriage is a crucible that helps burn away flaws in our character, polygamy is the same with a much higher temperature setting. I see it as a tool that God made limited use of at certain times for his own reasons but it was never intended to be the norm in any society. I think you are placing way too many facts that are not in evidence.

For all one knows, that threesome is running a mobile soup kitchen in Africa. If one wife is not selfish, then neither will 2 or 3 or 4 if motivations are based on love. Assuming that one marries just for sex or that they will only be seeking pleasure during every moment of their life is not only false but the height of stereotyping. Some of us do not even get that much sex or any at all , so for us, a second source of comfort because it is not only sex that we receive from our spouses would be a definite Godsend.

We do not know per-se that polygyny is sinful. Does that mean only one wife or perhaps at least one wife? Martin Luther left it up to the individual, not being able to find an explicit directive against polygyny. We infer an ideal ratio based on Genesis. I believe it is correct, but I will not go and say that any form of married life 1, 2, or more is akin to playing computer games or hobbies.

I mean all the pleasurable things about marriage including just emotional comfort. Anyway, with a little more thought on the topic, the explicit directive is actually there — in all the verses that say if someone marries another while their first spouse is alive, they are committing adultery. Last time I checked adultery is a sin…. I cannot find a single passage that forbids a married man from marrying a virgin. If you can, please post. I would greatly appreciate the correction. Had he seen that more than years would have to pass, he might have said something else.

What Paul said about being single can be taken a number of different ways. As I see it his counsel was for widows to remain single if they can just as he had as a widow. The idea that marriage is some necessary evil flies in the face of the honor God puts on marriage.

Marriage is ordained of God, not some concession to our fallen nature. I sort of hold a view that he was married he had to be to if he a member of the Sanhedrin but likely the wife did not take kindly to him becoming Christian and divorced him. Actually, I also mixed up my rights in my previous reply.

Only Paul was single. It was that he and Barnabas were entitled to receive financial support from the congregation he was alluding to 1 Cor Isaac had one wife—happiness and peace Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, Lamech had multiples—all have strife. Noah and his sons had 1 each—Only survivors. But why would you assume he approved of it? Why did Jehovah wait another 14 years to finalize the covenant with Abraham and finally give Sarah a child? While in the meantime, giving them plenty of time and incidents to regret accepting another woman into their marriage.

Or did He make a mistake? HopefullyHelpful recently posted.. Every marriage has times where there are conflicts, that is normal and the fact that somebody acts in an unkind way only shows a lack of character in them. All those conflicts result from our fallen nature which leads us to be selfish or unkind. If you are going to invalidate polygamy because of such conflicts, then you have to invalidate monogamy too for the same reasons.

Yes, marriage is between one man and one woman. To be fair, the verse that says David was perfect is comparing him to his son Absolom…he was perfect by comparison. We cannot believe he lived a blameless life. That was one heck of indiscretion. Murder and adultery. He paid a price for it all the rest of his life.

Well, that, and the numbering of the people in 2 Samuel 24, which David admits is a sin 2 Samuel , and God punishes him for it 2 Samuel So, if David sinned in this way in addition to Bathsheba and Uriah , how many others are unaccounted for? Apparently, David was not sinless excepting the one transgression. Thus, he must have been a normal, sinful man, as we all are. He cannot give his flesh again since it is no longer his to give—it belongs to the first wife.

Otherwise the wife would also have rights to give her flesh to other husbands as well polygamy and that would totally discredit any genealogy tracing, for in those days they did not have DNA or blood testing. Mothers are a constant. Fathers, though…Well, you hope. Genuine question for you JayDee…. How would this apply to polygamists who become christians after they became a polygamist? Old one, but goody. Imagine the mess Nehemiah must have been in. I believe the Anglican Church as undergone the most open evolution on the matter.

I know pastors in my denomination have required the husband to divorce all but the first wife, but still continue to provide for the others in terms of shelter and food. Sin often has long standing consequences, even after conviction, confession and repentance. A little like telling someone not to remove a knife after stabbing someone, because it might cause them to bleed out. And concubines were I would say that seems unfair o he women!

Not fair to 2 health women either or to any healthy man. I really appreciate this! I also just read your part about the new blog for theology. Either way, we grow and learn from exposure and diversity, and I have really appreciated your blog. I like my sexuality and marriage talk with a little theology, otherwise, what is there to separate it from the godless mainstream? Thanks for your work! This is really silly. God made Adam. He decided it was not good for Adam to be alone, so he made Eve.

He probably wanted to be sure they had some children, since His goal was, in the story, to start populating the Earth. Who married? It was only for men of property, so that they could control their women and keep track of their children, to know who could inherit their estates.

When did marriage become something that ordinary people could engage in? I would put forth that it was to create a relationship that cannot be duplicated in poly-amorous relationships. To your second argument, I think we are differing on our definition of marriage. You are taking it as a purely legal construct. I would add one facet to your argument: the social status of women during Biblical days and leading up to today.

I think the Bible talks about multiple wives because women during that time were property and had no rights to their own identities let alone ownership of a man.

This double standard of the sexes has propelled men to argue the righteousness of polygamy from a purely multiple wives perspective. But today, women are not property and many Christians believe that wives own their husbands, just as much as husbands own their wives.

It is interesting that the change in social acceptance of women in society also corresponds with the strict religious interpretation that sexual partners should stick with each other for marriage. I think a good question for those who believe that multiple wives is still a valid religious marital structure is to ask, what about the religious right of a wife to have multiple husbands?

Instead, the conversation always turns to multiple wives. It seems we are clinging to arguments that were created in a day when women had no rights. Jay, great job. Keep up the good work! I personally felt a spiritual ripping away from my husband when this happened and am trying to fight against feeling spiritually dead. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.

If you cannot live with it, then you may divorce under the adultery clause. Where God even blessed them through it. But, find ways to connect with God, regardless of what is happening in your environment even in your marriage. And God can help you through it. Much of the paganism of Rome involved non-married priests. We still see that today. In the original Hebrew, that would disqualify them to lead.

A man must have at least one one to lead. They were appointing pagan priests over their new found religious creation. Here is the problem outside the obvious , Paul was never given permission to add or take away for the Torah.

Neither was Paul who knew better even trying to do so. He was misquoted as he was quoting Torah. But most western church goers do not know Torah well, so this goes without notice. HE says HE has more than one wife in many different ways. Ezekiel Monogamy is just fine. It is no better or worse than Multiple Wives. There is no different spiritual outcome for either choice.

The most obvious example is Gen. The second God made Eve, God had 2 wives. As soon as Adam and Eve multipled, God had more wives. The problem is, this is a foreign concept to western marriage as a generic whole. Where as Biblical and Hebraic marriage is rooted in strategy, function and contract keeping.

Feelings were never considered as anything but a fruit that is produced because the first three things were in strong condition. For the purpose of strategy and function, multiple wives clearly makes more sense.

More money. More help. Not ks and worldly social programs. Women get rest this way. The week of their cycle, they can rest and not work. It is a blessing and grace given to them during that time. Pregnant women get a break. Women have other women to talk with and hold them accoutable. Where men do not always say much and when they do, it tends to be the wrong thing.

Multiple Wives are very successful if done correctly. But marriage is hard! But we must remember that marriage is not there to make you happy. People liVing with people does that on its own naturally. Moses had at least 2 wives, and God backed Moses the second it was brought into question Numbers. But those are not Biblical principles. Also think about this… In multiple wife communities, most women wanted to be number 2 or 3.

The reason for it was pretty smart. They got to see the man in action first and see if he was a good husband. If he mistreated his wife, no way anyone was going to be second in line. Women could be choosy. Actually if the high quality husbands of America would take on second wives of single mothers who were abandoned by dead beat dads, you would decrease your use of social programs and raise the next generation with Godly fathers.

It does say that the King may not hoard all the horses or all the woman as wives. Then he commited Naaph. The Matthew passage in the Hebrew is very straight forward that any man that looks at a married woman in lust, has commited Naaph in his heart. It is unnatural for a man not to want sexual relations with his soon to be wife. Yet in the english, this somehow condemns this. To the point they are missing out.

All the single mothers who are forced to rely on your government help are missing out on already established and successful Godly homes allowing them to enter in and enjoy. This started when Eve was created. Even before HE gave them earthly marriage to be the symbol of our marriages to the Messiah. So they took the verses that restated a man must be married, and made it an anti multiple wife campaign. No argument there. Catholicism adopted a lot of Pagan Roman practices, which were actually Babylonian practices before that.

Right down to the hats and colours of the priests robes. Not quite true. The gospels would have been originally written in Hebrew for certain, and Jesus would have spoken in Hebrew. However, Paul was a Roman citizen, and when he wrote to the gentile Christian churches in Greece, I seriously doubt he would have written in Hebrew. I reject that premise. So they translated the Greek to say a leader must be a man of but one wife.

Not so, Paul said that leaders should have only one wife. The Torah says that leaders should not have multiple wives Deut Again, I disagree. God has one wife: His people as a whole. This thought is continued in the New Testament, where it says Jesus has one bride: the church.

Ezekiel 23 is not talking about two separate brides, but rather how individuals within His bride act. It shows two arch-types, not showing an example of polygamy. God created concessions to regulate something that was occurring, not to sanction it. Genesis is quite clear: One man and one wife.

Two become one. Not three become one, or three become two, or whatever the crazy math would end up being. One and one. And yes, I do think that is the only acceptable marriage. I wanted to talk about Judaism to help Jay Dee with his argument against multiple wives. I was doing some research into the Torah and one wife versus multiple wives. The prevalent Jewish opinion is that marriage is one wife and one husband.

There can be only one soulmate because the soulmate is your other half; this is the definition in Judaism as well as the mainstream definition. You cannot have two other halves because that would be more than one whole.

There has been a resurgence of thought in favor of polyamory. But, has it really ever gone away… not really, just underground. There are those people who will always have the selfish desire to think they need to experience more than one body.

I know from experience that it is not good to experience more than one body. I can count the number of people I was with prior to marriage on one hand and my husband had quadruple my experience. But, after we got married, we both looked at each other and wished we could have met in high school and gotten married in college.

Both of us feel that we gained nothing and actually lost a lot by having prior sexual experience. I think that when people have prior experience before marriage it opens the door to cheating and also to using justifications for polyamory.

I believe this is why infidelity is an epidemic. Because of so much promiscuity prior to marriage, I believe it is ingrained in a lot of men to look at a woman and immediately start wondering what she is like in bed. If a man had been single, he would have tried to make fantasy a reality.

Now, you could argue that even male virgins have with these thoughts and I am pretty sure they do. But, someone who has not had the experience of multiple bodies has an advantage because they have so many psychological mechanisms that prevent them from going forward with such a plan. I believe that strong and a God-centered family is the very heart of a civil society. I believe that to have a strong family, we must get rid of promiscuity.