He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? For he was cut off out of the land of the living: ***for the transgression of MY PEOPLE was he stricken***. (Is 53:8)

As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and ***I lay down my life for the sheep***. (John 10:15)

Behold I and ***the children which God hath given me***. (Heb 2:13)

They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but ***the children of the promise*** are counted for the seed. (Rom 9:8)

For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, ***that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.*** (John 6:38-39)

John_for_Christ wrote:
Cain's line was not cursed. There's no Scriptural basis for that claim, to my knowledge. Only Cain was cursed. As far as we know, Lamech was perfectly righteous.

Gen 4:11 And now art thou cursed from the earth,

15 Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

Why did God set a mark on Cain so no one would kill him?

Deu 32:35-36 To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence... For the LORD shall judge his people.

Back to Lamech...

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.

24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

All of Cain's progeny was destroyed in the flood when God avenged Himself and the blood of righteous Abel. It was before the time God proclaimed that no one would any longer die for the sins of the fathers "The soul that sinneth, it shall die."(Ezek 18:20)

John_for_Christ wrote:
Lamech called upon God's justice for his self-defense against the young man that attacked him. There's ZERO evidence that Lamech sinned here.

Listen, John. The Lamech who had two wives Adah and Zillah was of the cursed seed of Cain... not the Lamech of the blessed seed of Seth of which in Noah it was said he was perfect in his generations. Therefore your interpretation of the Lamech passage is exactly backwards and a gross perversion of the Truth. But you continue to kick against this as well rather that opening up your bible to see if what I said was true. No doubt you will ignore this correction which you could use to your good and make the same faulty interpretation of Lamech again in another discussion.

God bless you all for your contributions. As for me, I've had my fill of the evasions, parting insults when the Truth cannot be borne and the same old arguments trotted out again starting the whole futile process all over again. I part the room to not return in the hope these polygamists will slap themselves and each other on the back for a while and finally depart.

Born Again NT Bible Believer wrote:
Joseph was prepared to follow that betrothal custom no matter if it was wrong or not.

Do you feel the noose of the inescapable Truth getting tighter and tighter around you neck? Your vague, fuzzy responses to my probing questions have dimished to a wimper.

There was but one written law which legally bound Joseph to Mary at the time of Jesus' conception...

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Yes, indeed, Joseph was lawfully bound to and one flesh with Mary no less than nine months before he "knew" her. This Truth understandably escapes you people because you equate love (cleave to) with sex. Mike from NY sees this as well (and so should we all) and has given scripture and commentary to back it up. But for you people it is like water off a duck's back. You say in your hearts "Love = sex and we will not hear the Truth". So be it.

Born Again NT Bible Believer wrote:
Joseph wasn't betrothed to every neighborhood girl. He was betrothed to Mary.

Born Again NT Bible Believer wrote:
His promise of marriage was legally binding in Jewish law.

Born Again NT Bible Believer wrote:
I think you need to study the Jewish Betrothal period.

I trust you understand that if the Jewish betrothal period was based on the traditions of evil men that the infallibility of Matt 1:18-25 is brought into question and a proper interpretation is forever thwarted.

Dr. Phil wrote:
Check out this example of "sound hermeneutics" from "Technicus Terminus". This presupposes that he knows "good hermeneutics", e.g., And God said, "Wow, I could have had a V-8 . . . and given Adam more wives. . .by the way, let's throw some more ribs on that pit while we are at it".

Born Again NT Bible Believer wrote:
He didn't need to be "joined to her as one flesh" to be able to put her away. He only needed to prove that she was involved in fornication (Mat 19:9).

Joseph could not go to law and seek a divorce from someone he was not legally bound to although he could be a witness for another's petition for divorce. Now what law bound Joseph to Mary that made him think to put Mary away for infidelity? Don't tell me Jewish tradition because Jesus condemned their traditions which were not according to scripture.

Born Again NT Bible Believer wrote:
Neither the word divorce nor the concept of divorce is in Gen 2:24. You need to show how you think it is.

Derek wrote:
"Now, if you can, explain to us why Joseph would seek to divorce Mary if he was not lawfully joined to her as one flesh according to Gen 2:24."
It's called the betrothtal, and it was Jewish custom, and the very picture Jesus drew from when explainng salvation. The union, though not sexual yet, was still legally binding. That is why Joseph was also called her husband before their marriage. But he wanted to put her away "privily", without bringing shame on her. Usually a divorce becomes a public matter.

I think you need to study the Jewish Betrothal period.

"The union, though not sexual yet, was still legally binding."

John_for_Christ wrote:
"Cleave" in Gen. 2:24 means sexual intercourse, and only that.

The same exact Hebrew word is also used here....

Deu 10:20 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.

John_for_Christ wrote:
Lamech was the first polygamist and our first example of righteous self-defense. God neither punished him for his self-defense or for polygamy. That is proof enough that he was not sinning in either one.

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

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. 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

You and many others have been asserting that a man and woman become on flesh lawfully bound to each other upon intimate relations. None of you have provided any scriptural warrant for this assertion but that seems to be neither here nor there. You just keep asserting it as though it is commonly understood. That doesn't cut it, friend.

Joseph and Mary were husband and wife before Jesus was conceived and they did not have intimate relations until after Jesus was born. When Joseph learned that Mary was with child he intended to put her away.... divorce according to the Law of Moses.

Born Again NT Bible Believer wrote:
The context of the verse allows for a man to take his new bride and to leave his parents and to consummate the marriage (become "one flesh" at sexual intercourse). A man is only allowed to do this with his wife.

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph **her husband**, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

(Joseph could not divorce Mary for indfidelity if the two were not joined as one flesh according to Gen 2:24.)

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary ***thy wife***: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Thanks for the info on the Google download. I will look into it and download when time permits but for the present I must sign off. I have just been prompted by my wife of a medical emergency with one of her brothers (a possible blood clot in a leg). She is taking him to a hospital an hour away for a scan as we speak. Prayers would be appreciated.

May God bless His Israel (Gal 6:16)

Edit: Hardcore Polygamist,

Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Hsa 2:19 And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies.

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.

John_for_Christ wrote:
But it HAS been established conclusively that the man in question MUST be married--otherwise the analogy is lopsided and makes no sense.

[URL=http://www.creationists.org/eisegesis.html]]]Eisegesis[/URL] is the approach to Bible interpretation where the interpreter tries to "force" the Bible to mean something that fits their existing belief or understanding of a particular issue or doctrine. People who interpret the Bible this way are usually not willing to let the Bible speak for itself and let the chips fall where they may. They start off with the up-front goal of trying to prove a point they already believe in, and everything they read and interpret is filtered through that paradigm. Stated another way, they engage in what the Bible refers to as "private interpretation".

Adelphos wrote:
Actually, it doesn't really matter. The point is that one can be "one flesh" to each harlot the man has sex with, thereby, providing a "terminus technicus" for the term "one flesh"
Blessings!

It doesn't really matter that you must force two wives onto the text because it cannot be established through exegesis?

It doesn't really matter because there is an extrabiblical point to the passage which has been revealed to you and your lot which has been withheld from everyone else?

It doesn't really matter because the bible is not your final authority?

At least John had sense enough to not answer my direct question but you have no fear.
. . .

Walt,

I just noticed your post below and now understand your previous post to "Adelphos" was addressed to me. Thank you for your comments, Walt, and your very generous offer of "The Hebrew Wife". I would be grateful for an electronic version of this book and grateful for your efforts in making it available as well.