Why I Can’t Agree With the Bible: 1 Chronicles: Part 1


I don’t have a lot to say about 1 Chronicles 1-9, since it’s just an overview of what has already been discussed. It’s mostly an overview of the earlier chronologies that have been discussed. Most of the people named are never discussed in any detail, so I see no reason to care about them. Those that are mentioned in greater detail have already been discussed.
The one thing I thought worth mentioning was this: Shaharaim divorced two wives before having his children. What is the implication of this? And was he married to them at the same time? It kind of sounded like he was. If so, was he already married to the woman/women that he had his children with? It’s funny to hear people claiming that gay marriage will redefine marriage when marriage in the Bible changes so much throughout the Bible, and there are some very obvious differences between marriage in the Bible and marriage today. Marriage has already been redefined many times. Why are the changes associated with gay marriage, which are arguably very minor compared to the change associated with no longer being able to marry multiple wives, so much worse than all the other changes?

Advertisements

10 responses to “Why I Can’t Agree With the Bible: 1 Chronicles: Part 1

  • eb571573

    Interesting question indeed. It certainly is one of the several instances where the Bible seems to contradict itself and not make any sense. It also seems to be an instance where modern day Christians simply “make up” their own rules and regulations. I however do not see an inconsistency in God’s thinking. Does God ever actually say that He agrees with polygamy? No. The only instance would be in 2 Samuel where it almost seems as if God is accepting of polygamy when speaking to David. But God never says that David specifically married Saul’s wives or had sexual relations with them. Is it possibly that God allowed these women to live with David? It’s possible. One theory that is out there is that the world was more populated with women than with men so God allowed men to take multiple wives and become a provider for the multiple women. I don’t know if I agree with that, but it is a theory. Here is where I’m going with this: OT scripture and NT scripture both point heavily toward a monogamous relationship being the intended godly relationship. Just because something may have not received very much attention in the OT, doesn’t mean that it is not important or that it contradicts the NT. Homosexual marriage becoming a norm today is very much a game changer in God’s intentions for marriage. Scripture very boldly condemns homosexual behavior and relationships (if you want more info on that, look up my blog post about the LGBT community). Polygamous relationships are also a game changer in His intentions and are indeed wrong in the eyes of God. There is far to many scriptural references that go against polygamous relationships for us to say that polygamy is okay. One man + One woman + marriage = Godly monogamous marriage.

    Like

  • authorbengarrido

    Many people, seeing the inconsistencies and vagueries of the Abrahamic religions, call this a weakness.

    I actually disagree. Religions must be plastic things if they hope to survive. Indeed, it is utterly impossible to imagine warrior cultures like the 9th century Danes adopting Christianity in the peace-hippy sense that Jesus seems to have meant it to be taught. It is further impossible to imagine the same Islam fitting both the wild and crazy high Ottomans and the Taliban.

    It is thus in the religion’s interest to rest on vague, contradictory scriptural foundations. If we can agree what the book means, we are going to have a lot harder time bending it to meet our self interest, not to mention exporting it to the Vikings.

    Like

  • SmokeyOlDragon

    Reblogged this on The Dragon's Wall and commented:
    I could not agree more; thank you, Hessian With Teeth!
    –Smokey

    Like

  • Terrance Thomas

    Interesting, one of many inconsistencies & contradictions of the bible.

    Like

  • Why I Can't Agree With the Bible: 1 Chronicles: Part 1 | Christians Anonymous

    […] Source: Why I Can’t Agree With the Bible: 1 Chronicles: Part 1 […]

    Like

  • FromTheDeskAndShelf

    It always fascinates me that Christians latch on to the negative commands of the Hebrew Bible while completely ignoring the commands to act. Most scholars are not even completely sure as to the purpose of the Biblical Laws in the first place (i.e, Who were they for? They were not publicly displayed and the vast majority of the population was illiterate, so who is following these laws?) On top of that, unlike the Assyrians, Babylonians, or even the Judean controlled island of Elephantine, there is no court records from the Israelites or Judeans in which what we know as Biblical Law was discussed as an authoritative source. The same is true from Akkadian legal texts in which the Code of Hammurabi is never mentioned as an authoritative source.

    Like

  • Alastor

    The Christian tradition of “one man, one woman” isn’t something that is supported by the Judaic texts. In point of fact, polygamy is explicitly permitted under Mosaic Law. The reason Christians have traditionally taken only one wife has more to do with the Roman custom of marriage, which was monogamous.

    Like

  • armandoc3

    A great question that will almost certainly be shot down with homophobic remarks. Anybody who appeals to some foundational belief system, religious or otherwise, fails to acknowledge how that belief system has needed to be flexible in order to have larger appeal and survive throughout history.

    Like

Tell us what you think

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: