1 Kings 11:3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. Matthew Henry Commentary 11:1-8 There is not a more melancholy and astonishing instance of human depravity in the sacred Scriptures, than that here recorded. Solomon became a public worshipper of abominable idols! Probably he by degrees gave way to pride and luxury, and thus lost his relish for true wisdom. Nothing forms in itself a security against the deceitfulness and depravity of the human heart. Nor will old age cure the heart of any evil propensity. If our sinful passions are not crucified and mortified by the grace of God, they never will die of themselves, but will last even when opportunities to gratify them are taken away. Let him that thinks he stands, take heed lest he fall. We see how weak we are of ourselves, without the grace of God; let us therefore live in constant dependence on that grace. Let us watch and be sober: ours is a dangerous warfare, and in an enemy's country, while our worst foes are the traitors in our own hearts.

Solomon's Foreign Wives …2from the nations concerning which the LORD had said to the sons of Israel, "You shall not associate with them, nor shall they associate with you, for they will surely turn your heart away after their gods." Solomon held fast to these in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and his wives turned his heart away. 4For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other gods; and his heart was not wholly devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been.… Pokin Around: What's 'biblical marriage' mean? Can you have 700 wives and 300 concubines? Pokin Around: What's 'biblical marriage' mean? Can you have 700 wives and 300 concubines? Pokin Around: What does 'biblical marriage' mean? Post to Facebook Pokin Around: What's 'biblical marriage' mean? Can you have 700 wives and 300 concubines? Pokin Around: What does 'biblical marriage' mean?

Check out this story on news-leader.com: CancelSend A link has been sent to your friend's email address. Posted! A link has been posted to your Facebook feed. 83 Pokin Around: What's 'biblical marriage' mean? Can you have 700 wives and 300 concubines? Steve Pokin , SPOKIN@NEWS-LEADER.COM Published 6:41 p.m. CT May 3, 2016 | Updated 7:02 p.m. CT May 3, 2016 King Solomon of the Bible was supposed to have been real smart. Yet he had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Was this a "biblical marriage"? (Photo: Dorling Kindersley, Getty Images/Dorling Kindersley RF) According to our state lawmakers, some Missourians who work in the wedding industry fear their religious freedoms could someday be trampled and that they could be sued for not supplying services to gay couples. A number of state lawmakers wanted to do something to protect such businesses in this legislative session. But that didn't happen.

In large part, from what I read, legislators were concerned that some conservative Christian business people don't want to have to write "Adam and Steve" in icing on a cake. In addition, lawmakers worry about florists who might feel it's against their religious views to serve gay couples who want to get married. The linchpin of the argument is that the people they're trying to protect are Christians and, as such, they should be free to follow the Bible's allegedly clear teaching on what marriage is and is not. I have studied this issue of "biblical marriage" and I agree with our conservative lawmakers. In fact, I feel so strongly that next year I will ask one of our state lawmakers to stop pussyfooting around and sponsor a bill I've drafted that clearly defines "biblical marriage" and what types of clients business owners should legally be able to deny service. I am calling this the "700 Princesses and 300 Concubines" bill. Interested, Elijah Haahr? Are you with me, Eric Burlison? Supposedly, King Solomon was the smartest guy in the world. I question that. What man in his right mind would want 1,000 wives?

King Solomon's "biblical marriage" consisted of "700 princesses and 300 concubines." I know what you're thinking. What's a concubine? A "concubine" was a sex-slave who was a step below a full-status wife. And even wives were mere property back then. My bill would allow business owners to deny service to anyone with fewer than 1,000 wives. I know. It sounds harsh. But the Lord hath spoken. This is the Show-Me State, after all, and if you want a wedding cake show me your concubines. I realize, of course, that the 1,000-wife requirement would have worked against King David — Solomon's daddy — who had only 18 wives and 10 concubines in his "biblical marriage." Sorry King David: No wedding cake for you! My bill has exceptions. I am not heartless. It states that if you rape a virgin you absolutely, positively must marry her. And then pay her father 50 shekels of silver. It's in the Bible, Deuteronomy.

It's part of "biblical marriage." In my bill, you could not deny floral arrangements or cake in this wedding — once the shekels have been handed over, of course. Again, I know what you're thinking. What's a "shekel"? In ancient Israel it was a silver coin. Of course, some of you reading are saying "Oh Steve Pokin, you are a tricky little devil! You're talking about Old Testament polygamy. What about the New Testament?" We all know how the Apostle Paul felt about homosexuality, which he called an "abomination." But he really wasn't much of a fan of marriage in the first place — whether heterosexual or same-sex. In fact, he really wasn't a fan of sexual intercourse. He wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. ... Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.

But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." Which brings me to my "Burn With Passion" restriction. Any groom and his minimum 1,000 wives/concubines would first have to sign affidavits promising that — as part of a "biblical marriage" — all future nookie of the marital persuasion be passionless. (On a personal note: In avoiding ecstasy, I have always found it helpful to recite the names of the members of the 1985 Chicago Bears — Super Bowl champs). According to the Bible, a bunch of religious leaders were trying to trip Jesus up and asked him a question about divorce. His response is often cited by Christian conservatives as the definition of "biblical marriage." Jesus quoted from the creation story in Genesis: "For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one." Was Jesus forbidding same-sex marriage of the future when quoting from a text written thousands of years before his time? I doubt it. I think he was more concerned with loving relationships than same-sex relationships.

OK, as you probably have figured out, I have not really drafted a "700 Princesses and 300 Concubines" bill. My point is that there is no one understanding of "biblical marriage." At least not in the Bible. In my view, not providing flowers or a cake to a gay couple that plans to get married is not an exercise in religious freedom. It's discrimination against gay people that's no different from denying black people service at a lunch counter. Pick your verse. Pick your interpretation. I pick this one: Someone confused by all this religious stuff asked Jesus to sort it out. What was most important? His answer was simple. Love God and love your neighbor. These are the views of Steve Pokin, the News-Leader's columnist. Pokin has been at the paper four years and over the course of his career has covered just about everything — from courts and cops to features and fitness. He can be reached at 836-1253, spokin@gannett.com, on Twitter @stevepokinNL or by mail at 651 N. Boonville, Springfield, MO 65806.

583 CONNECT TWEET LINKEDIN 83 COMMENTEMAILMORE Read or Share this story: TOP VIDEOS Why did God allow Solomon to have 1,000 wives and concubines? Why did God allow Solomon to have 1,000 wives and concubines? Subscribe to our Question of the Week : Question: "Why did God allow Solomon to have 1,000 wives and concubines?" Answer: First Kings 11:3 states that Solomon “had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines.” Obviously, God “allowed” Solomon to have these wives, but allowance is not the same as approval. Solomon’s marital decisions were in direct violation of God’s Law, and there were consequences.

Solomon started out well early in his life, listening to the counsel of his father, David, as recorded in 1 Kings 2:2-3, “Be strong, show yourself a man, and observe what the Lord your God requires: Walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses, so that you may prosper in all you do and wherever you go.” Solomon’s early humility is shown in 1 Kings 3:5-9 when he requests wisdom from the Lord. Wisdom is applied knowledge; it helps us make decisions that honor the Lord and agree with the Scriptures. Solomon’s book of Proverbs is filled with practical counsel on how to follow the Lord. Solomon also wrote the Song of Solomon , which presents a beautiful picture of what God intends marriage to be. So, King Solomon knew what was right, even if he didn’t always follow the right path. Over time, Solomon forgot his own counsel and the wisdom of Scripture. God had given clear instructions for anyone who would be king: no amassing of horses, no multiplying of wives, and no accumulating of silver and gold (Deuteronomy 17:14-20).

These commands were designed to prevent the king from trusting in military might, following foreign gods, and relying on wealth instead of on God. Any survey of Solomon’s life will show that he broke all three of these divine prohibitions! Thus, Solomon’s taking of many wives and concubines was in direct violation of God’s Word. Just as God had predicted, “As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God” (1 Kings 11:4). To please his wives, Solomon even got involved in sacrificing to Milcom (or Molech), a god that required “detestable” acts to be performed (1 Kings 11:7-8). God allowed Solomon to make the choice to disobey, but Solomon’s choice brought inevitable consequences. “So the Lord said to Solomon, ‘Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates’” (1 Kings 11:11).

God showed mercy to Solomon for David’s sake (verse 12), but Solomon’s kingdom was eventually divided. Another chastisement upon Solomon was war with the Edomites and Aramians (verses 14-25). Solomon was not a puppet king. God did not force him to do what was right. Rather, God laid out His will, blessed Solomon with wisdom, and expected the king to obey. In his later years, Solomon chose to disobey, and he was held accountable for his decisions. It is instructive that, toward the end of Solomon’s life, God used him to write one more book, which we find in the Bible. The book of Ecclesiastes gives us “the rest of the story.” Solomon throughout the book tells us everything he tried in order to find fulfillment apart from God in this world, or “under the sun.” This is his own testimony: “I amassed silver and gold for myself, and the treasure of kings and provinces. I acquired . . . a harem as well–the delights of the heart of man” (Ecclesiastes 2:8). But his harem did not bring happiness.

Instead, “Everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun” (verse 11). At the conclusion of Ecclesiastes, we find wise counsel: “Here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole [duty] of man” (12:13).” It is never God’s will that anyone sin, but He does allow us to make our own choices. The story of Solomon is a powerful lesson for us that it does not pay to disobey. It is not enough to start well; we must seek God’s grace to finish well, too. Life without God is a dead-end street. Solomon thought that having 1,000 wives and concubines would provide happiness, but whatever pleasure he derived was not worth the price he paid. As a wiser Solomon said, “God will bring every deed into judgment” (Ecclesiastes 12:14). 5. Solomon Had 700 Wives And 300 Concubines - YouTube 5. Solomon Had 700 Wives And 300 Concubines Want to watch this again later?

Sign in to add this video to a playlist. Need to report the video? Sign in to report inappropriate content. The interactive transcript could not be loaded. Loading... Rating is available when the video has been rented. This feature is not available right now. Please try again later. Published on Apr 12, 2015 All praises to Yahawah Bahasham Yahawashi Shalawam ahchyam Double Honors to the Apostles and Elders of GMS ( The Elect ) around the world teaching the word in sincerely and truth Category When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next. Up next King Solomon - Mysteries of the Bible - Duration: 44:34. Document Hub 20,379 views 44:34 THE SECRETS OF KING SOLOMON!!!! / and Freemasonry revealed - Duration: 2:28:55. john lockett 292,289 views 2:28:55 King Solomon (Wives, Concubines, and The Fall) Part 1 - Duration: 45:00.

Church of Yahawah ba ha sham Yahawashi 1,968 views 45:00 Having Multiple Wives Isn't Expedient In This Kingdom/Our Bodies Are The Church Of God - Duration: 15:01. Gms Charlotte 176 views 15:01 Solomon’s Wives and Concubines - All the Women of the Bible - Bible Gateway Solomon’s Wives and Concubines SOLOMON’S WIVES AND CONCUBINES 1 Kings 11:1-8; Song of Solomon 6:8 In the law regulating the life and reign of a king, it was distinctly laid down that he must not multiply wives who would turn his heart away from God ( Deuteronomy 17:17 ). Solomon, above all other kings in Israel, sinned against this decree with disastrous consequences. The nameless daughter of Pharaoh whom he married started him out on the downward course of idolatry ( 1 Kings 3:1-3; 7:8 ).

He loved many “strange women,” that is, women of different nationalities, apart from Israel, and he had 700 wives, princesses, and 300 concubines. His wives turned his heart toward other gods, and because of his idolatry accruing from such a strong female influence, God said that at his death He would rend Solomon’s magnificent kingdom in two. While Solomon had built a magnificent temple for God, he likewise built heathen shrines for his idolatrous wives. “No man can serve two masters,” said the Master Himself. “Ye cannot serve God and the idols of the world.” May we keep our heart perfect toward God, and not be guilty of seeking to worship and serve Him, yet at the same time have a forbidden shrine housing an idol! © 1988 Zondervan. All Rights Reserved Bible Gateway × Step 1 - Create an account or log in to start your free trial. Starting your free trial of Bible Gateway Plus is easy. You’re already logged in with your Bible Gateway account. The next step is to enter your payment information. Your credit card won’t be charged until the trial period is over. You can cancel anytime during the trial period.

Click the button below to continue. Next × Step 1 - Create an account or log in to start your subscription. You’ve already claimed your free trial of Bible Gateway Plus. To subscribe at our regular subscription rate of $3.99/month, click the button below. Next × Already Subscribed It looks like you’re already subscribed to Bible Gateway Plus! To manage your subscription, visit your Bible Gateway account settings . Close this window × Want an ad-free Bible Gateway? Try Bible Gateway Plus, a brand-new service that lets you experience Bible Gateway free of banner ads! It also gives you instant access to over 40 Bible study and inspirational devotional books, including the NIV Study Bible. With Bible Gateway Plus, you can experience and understand God's Word in life-changing new ways, without the distraction of ads. Try it free for 30 days—you can cancel at any time. Following your 30-day free trial, Bible Gateway Plus is only $3.99/month.

Try Today 700 wives 300 concubines they made Solomon upset God told - BIBL - 111 View Full Document 700 wives 300 concubines, they made Solomon upset God told Solomon he would take the kingdom from him 3.14. Name two of Solomon's adversaries. How did they become his enemies? (11.2.16) Rezon/Hadadezer. They disobeyed God 3.15. What was Jeroboam's job under Solomon? Whom does he meet who changes his mind about career opportunities? What symbolic action does this person make to dramatize Jer- 3 This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version. View Full Document oboam's future? Who protects Jeroboam from Solomon? How is this protector related to Solomon? (11.2.17) Jeroboam was incharge of forced labor. A prophet changes his mind. The king of Egypt pro- tects him. His brother in law 3.16.

In spite of his great success in the coup against the royal family of Ahab, and his dedica- tion to eradicating the cult of the god Baal, why is Jehu nevertheless identified as a failure of a king in 2 Kings? (12.2.8) Didn’t turn away from the sins of Jeroboam cultic violation he built a golden calf 3.17. According to the Deuteronomistic Historian, does Solomon measure up as an ideal king? Why? What biblical passage (book and chapter) did this historian use to evaluate Solomon and other kings? The law of the king in Deuteronomy 17 3.18. In light of the Law of the King in Deuteronomy 17, does Solomon measure up as an ideal king? How so, specifically? 3.19. As we discussed in class, the primary job of the king in early Israel seems to be as a mili- tary leader. When there was war, where would we expect the king to be? (11.1.1) King to be in battle 3.20.

What is the significance of Saul encouraging David to fight Goliath, the Philistine giant, when he gives David his armaments? He doesn’t wear armor because it’s to big so Saul expects him to lose 3.21. The Shepherd is a typical symbolic role of the king/leader in the Ancient Near East. We learn in Exodus 3 that Moses was a shepherd by occupation. Name another biblical leader who was also a shepherd: 3.22. What is the symbolic meaning and significance of the identification of Moses as shepherd in Exodus 3, David as shepherd in 1 Samuel 16, and Jesus as the Good Shepherd in John 10 (i.e., what is so special about being a shepherd)? 3.23. In ancient Israelite society, who was the “anointed one” (=messiah)? (12.1.4; 12.2.6) Christos, Jesus or a kingly figure 3.24. What does the Greek word christos represent against a Jewish background (i.e., what He- brew word or Jewish concept it is translating)? 3.25. This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

TERM Traditional Marriage: One Man, Many Women, Some Girls, Some Slaves | Religion Dispatches May 17, 2012 Traditional Marriage: One Man, Many Women, Some Girls, Some Slaves King Solomon and a few of his 700 wives. Neither he nor his wives were made of Lego. Well, it’s been quite a whirlwind week for same-sex marriage, from North Carolina to Obama to Colorado—and, of course, to the many outraged conservatives concerned with preserving traditional marriage, i.e., the time-honored sacred bond between one man and one woman. Why, just last week, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said that marriage has meant just that for over five thousand years. Huh? Time to break out your Bible, Mr. Perkins! Abraham had two wives, Sarah and her handmaiden Hagar. King Solomon had 700 wives, plus 300 concubines and slaves. Jacob, the patriarch who gives Israel its name, had two wives and two concubines. In a humanist vein, Exodus 21:10 warns that when men take additional wives, they must still provide for their previous one.

(Exodus 21:16 adds that if a man seduces a virgin and has sex with her, he has to marry her, too.) But that’s not all. In biblical society, when you conquered another city, tribe, or nation, the victorious men would “win” their defeated foes’ wives as part of the spoils. It also commanded levirate marriage, the system wherein, if a man died, his younger brother would have to marry his widow and produce heirs with her who would be considered the older brother’s descendants. Now that’s traditional marriage! Later Islamic and Jewish sources, unclear on these parameters (the prophet Muhammad, of course, had several wives), debated whether it is permissible for a man to marry a three- or four-year-old girl. St. Paul, meanwhile, said that marriage was a compromise between the ideal of celibacy and the unfortunate fact that people like to have sex. Fortunately, we pluralists can appreciate both those religious traditions which advise men to marry little girls and those which tell them not to marry anyone at all. And of course, even until the present day, traditional marriage has meant arranged marriage.

The notion that two adults would enter into a marriage on their own volition is a radical innovation in the institution of marriage, at most two hundred years old. Oh, and let’s not forget that in Europe and North America, marriage was considered a commercial proposition first and foremost—not a romantic one. Princes married princesses not because of fairy tales, but because their parents had political alliances to consider. Further down the economic ladder, people married for a variety of biological, commercial, and genealogical reasons—but rarely for love. (See Stephanie Coontz’s excellent Marriage: A History for more.) Oh, and that’s right, I almost forgot about interracial marriage, which in some parts of America was seen as a crime against nature and God up until the 1960s. (Of course, Moses himself was in an interracial marriage, but the anti-miscegenation crowd overlooked that inconvenient fact.) It’s easy today for the likes of Tony Perkins to say that this change was a minor one; but let’s remember that a century ago, African Americans were not considered fully human by religious conservatives. Interracial marriage—as much as it’s disgusting to even say so today—was seen as an unnatural marriage between different species.

Oh, wait a minute, I forgot the most laughable part of this whole ludicrous spectacle: that it’s a Mormon, Mitt Romney, who’s insisting that marriage has “always” been between one man and one woman. Right—except that Romney’s own great-grandfather had five wives, before the LDS church, under massive pressure and persecution, reversed its doctrine on polygamy. So, let’s see if I can total all this up. Traditional marriage is one man with multiple wives, multiple concubines, wives conquered in war and wives acquired in levirate marriage, possibly including girls under the age of ten, but definitely not including anyone of a different ethnic group, in an arranged marriage with disposition of property as its purpose. That seems very different from “one man, one woman,” does it not? Of course, it’s easy to say that marriage as an institution evolves—but then, if we admit that, we have to admit that sanctioning loving, same-sex unions is just another step in that evolution. Perhaps this is why the Tony Perkinses of the world simply ignore the Bible when it doesn’t suit their purposes, instead preferring to make pseudo-scientific (and wholly unsupported) claims about what’s best for children and society.

The Bible’s truths are just too inconvenient. Tags Jay Michaelson Dr. Jay Michaelson [ @jaymichaelson ] is Associate Editor of Religion Dispatches and the author of five books, most recently "Evolving Dharma: Meditation, Buddhism, and the Next Generation of Enlightenment" (North Atlantic, 2013). He holds a J.D. from Yale and a Ph.D. in Jewish Thought from Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Authoritarian Populism Vs Human Rights, The Campaign Against ‘Gender Ideology’ and More in Global LGBT Recap Ryan Well I cant see the anti religious bias in this. And I definitely cant see the pro-homosexual bias. Certain people will do anything to push homosexuality on society. But what this author forgot to add is that homosexuality being wrong is not a just religious thing its apart of natural law. Throughout history, people have always known through nature that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong. Atheists have known this and before Christianity, Greek philosophers wrote about the dangers and evil of homosexual behavior. Even the worlds leading religious leader Pope Francis said he based his view against homosexuality on nature first before Christianity. How will you geniuses argue to the millions of nonreligious and atheists who are against homosexuality and homo marriage?

Are you going to somehow twist the laws of Nature. How will you explain away that the main purpose of sexuality is procreation. That biologically men and woman were designed to be with each other. Even under evolution homosexuality makes no sense. Their would be no reason for evolution to allow it (it does not benefit us like procreation) and it biologically would not of lasted because homosexuals cant reproduce. Homosexuality is a behavior and therefore a choice. Their are many people who were once homosexual but are no longer. Many of them are in straight marriages now. Homosexual feelings are a mental disorder. Their are many sexual mental disorders such as pedophilia,incest or bestiality however its still the persons choice to act on them. Just because a person has homosexual feelings and thoughts does not mean they have to follow them and become a homosexual. Just like someome with pedophilia,incest or zoophilic thoughts/feelings does not have to follow them. And statistics show how homosexuality is dangerous. Homosexuals have higher rates of sexual diseases especially Aids which they created. This was proven by many sources such as the CDC.

They have higher cancer rates,higher drug and alcohol intake,higher suicide rates,higher mental disease rates and many other things. And homosexuals have a much lower life expectancy for a reason! Not to mention they have hundreds of sex partners. Why on earth would anyone want to promote such a unnatural and dangerous lifestyle? You are just hurting humanity and hurting those whom you influence into this lifestyle. and the biggest problem is homosexuals will raise kids who will be mentally,physically and spiritually hurt. Because its proven by statistics that kids need a mother and a father. Because of the selfishness of homosexuals they hurt innocent children. And many people raised by homosexuals have come out and said how awful it was. But in the end homosexuals have the freedom to choose their lifestyle however they have no right to push it on the rest of society! And they have no right to redefine marriage. because by doing so you are not only opening a Pandora box which lead into other unnatural dangerous marriages and morals. But also promoting homosexuality and homosexual adoption which will also lead to lots of negative effects! Ryan I already talked about why homosexuality is dangerous and know I will try to dissect this idiotic biased article.

First of all from what I recall the Bible does not say its okay for everyone to marry multiple wives it was only few people because of certain events. And exodus laws like such as exodus 20 took place in very barbaric times. All of these Jewish laws were very merciful in comparison to the rest of world. If the true Christian laws were said than no one would of followed them and the Jewish people would of gone extinct thought being killed or losing their identity/faith. Here is an example from the new testament Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. Many people even say that God did not give the exodus laws instead he permitted Moses to be the one giving them. And Moses gave lenient ones because of the evil of the Jewish people and the times. And Moses as shown in the old testament was not okay with exodus laws but again gave them because the Jewish people were evil and the rest of society was much worse. Regardless in Christianity we are taught that Jesus Christ fulfilled the law. And now we are strictly taught that it is one man and woman not multiple woman.

traditional marriage has always been between one man and woman talking about some very isolated incidents does not change that. And since Jesus Christ came it has not been allowed not even in isolated cases. And never has marriage between man and man been okay or allowed. Trying to say that certain people allowed bad stuff or did bad does not justify doing bad yourself! With your logic we can take anything bad or dangerous in history and use it to promote another similar or even different ideology. You could do the exact same thing with pedophilia or incest so should we allow pedophilia because some Jews had multiple wives? And traditional marriage has not always meant arranged marriage. their have been society’s in history earlier than 200 years! Many very old who have allowed non arranged marriage. And you make arranged marriage seem like a crime. Two people (man and woman) who are in a arranged marriage can and still do fall in love with each other. No one picks their family members like brothers and sisters but we still end up caring about them! Similar to people in arranged marriage who end up caring for each other. And this article totally misunderstands arranged marriages which still takes place today. Because arranged marriage throughout history did not always mean the man and woman getting married had no freedom of speech.

Many,many times they actually got to pick whether or not they wanted to marry the person. A mother and father may advise the child to pick this man or woman but they still have a say. And just because princes married princesses because of commercial purposes does not mean everyone did this. How on earth would two poor people coming from poor families do this? Most of the people in Europe and North America did not mainly marry for commercial purposes. Off-course the amount of money a man made or was apart of the decision just like it is today. Ask any girl today if she would marry a guy who worked at fast food place or a doctor and they would pretty much always say doctor. However most people back than did not choose commercial purposes for the main purpose of marriage. Even though they did at times does not change the fact that the man and woman could still fall in love and had say in it. Regardless of the reason why someone chose marriage like coming from the same village or neighborhood. It does not change that those two people could still be happy. And does not change the fact that it was between a man and woman which is biologically normal. I don’t see why people not putting love first changes the definition of marriage.

If people put such a high focus on love than as soon as love was gone for a little while, than they would leave each other. And If you want to base everything on love, than a daughter can sexually love her dad and marry him and you should have no problem with it. correct? Ryan1 Lastly if we went by your logic of marriage evolution, than marriage has evolved to something better than ever. Evolving solely into one man and woman. So if we allowed homosexual marriage we would be devolving. After these homosexuals cant even have their own children. And they have a very low life expectancy. Not to mention so many negative medical statistics. its similar if we now allowed an man to marry animal it would be devolving(this animal marriage is being debated in other countries). But lets say everything you said was correct in the end you did not give one non religious argument for homosexual marriage. You based your whole argument on attacking Christianity. And your Bible interpretation was very poor. What If I am an atheist, what will you tell me that changes natural law or negative statisticians of homosexual behavior. How can you prove to me that unnatural homosexual marriage is good for society or normal.

How can you change the proven fact (and common sense) that a human child needs a mother and father. Point is you cant so you resort to attacking Christians to prove an invalid and idiotic point. If your parents were homosexual you would never exist! GET THE WORD Biblical Polygamists | Bible.org Home Biblical Polygamists 1. Lamech, who was Cains great-great-great grandson, was the first man recorded to have two wives (Adah, Zillah) (Gen. 4:19). 2. Abraham had three wives (Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah) (Gen. 23:19; 25:1; 16:3). 3. Esau had three wives (Judith, Bashemath, and Mahalath) (Gen. 26:34; 28:9). 4. Jacob had four wives (Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah) (Gen. 29:15-35; 30:4, 9). 5. Moses had two wives (Zipporah and the Ethiopian woman) (Ex. 18:2; Num.

12:1). 6. Gideon had many wives and 70 sons (Judges 8:30). 7. Samuels father, Elkanah, had two wives (Hannah, Peninnah) (1 Sam. 1:1, 2). 8. King Saul had at least two wives (Ahinoam, Rizpah) (1 Sam. 14:50; 2 Sam. 3:7). 9. David had at least eight wives (Michal, Abigail, Ahinoam, Bathsheba, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah) plus Sauls wives (2 Sam. 12:8). 10. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). 11. King Ahab had more than one wife (1 Kings 20:7). 12. King Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines (2 Chron. 11:21). 13. King Abijah who ruled over Judah had 14 wives (2 Chron. 13:21).

14. King Joash had two wives (2 Chron. 24:1-3). 15. King Ahasuerus had a harem. Two wives are mentioned by name: Vashti and Esther (Esther 1:10-12; 2:1-17). J. L. Meredith, Merediths Big Book of Bible Lists, (Inspirational Press, NY; 1980), pp. 151-152 The Bible and Sexuality | The Huffington Post The Bible and Sexuality 11/13/2011 08:17 am ET | Updated Jan 13, 2012 2.6k Douglas Knight The culture wars over family values have yet to reach détente and will not until the messiah comes (or returns, depending on the reader's affiliation). Battles continue over women's equality vs. a wife's graceful submission, no-fault divorce vs. attempts to strengthen marital bonds, the ordaining of gays and lesbians and the legalization of "gay marriage" vs. exhortations to "love the sinner but hate the sin," birth control and abortion, private sexual expression vs.

public interest.... People who read the Bible often find themselves on the opposite sides of many of these issues. This does not mean that they are necessarily reading their texts incorrectly. Indeed, before we even ask, "What does the Bible say?" we need to ask, "Whose Bible?" Canons - and so, cannons - differ among various Christian churches as well as between Jews and Christians, as do translations. Moreover, the Bible is open to multiple interpretations: we need to determine what is metaphor and what is to be taken literally, what is case specific and what is timeless, what is a matter of personal choice and what should be legislated. How then do we read in a manner that is grounded and thoughtful rather than uninformed or soporific? Here are five general guidelines. One approach is to begin with the broad picture of what the Bible says about physical intimacy. Before addressing the various "Thou shalt nots," it is often salutary to look at the "Thou shalts" and the "Thou might want tos." For example, although traditionally read as a love song between God and Israel, or Christ and the Church, the Song of Solomon/Song of Songs celebrates physical intimacy between a man and a woman.

Even Sarah, Abraham's menopausal wife, speaks of the pleasure she will have with her husband (Genesis 18:12, a verse easily remembered given the cannons in Tchaikovsky's 1812 overture). Ancient Hebrew women were not expected to lie back and think of Torah. A second is to acknowledge that the Bible is often less a book of answers than a book that helps us ask the right questions. From the narratives of rape, we learn to listen for the voice of the victim; we find that sexual abuse happens in the best of families, including that of King David; we realize that revenge taken on the perpetrator of sexual abuse leads to more abuse, to war, to death; we discover that this crime, like that of adultery, impacts more than just the people directly involved: it impacts their extended families, and society as a whole. And it means knowing that the perpetrators as well as their families are also human beings, also in the image and likeness of the divine. Third, we must read carefully.

This means not simply looking at what the text says: it requires seeking accurate translation, knowing to the best of our ability why the text was written and what it meant to its original audience, determining how it has been interpreted over time and what other passages say concerning the same subject. For example, the first interpreter of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the prophet Ezekiel, condemns Sodom not for homosexuality but for "pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease" and for failing to "aid the poor and needy" (Ezekiel 16:49). Nor does the story suggest that homosexuality is the problem. The Hebrew of Genesis 19 tells us that all the people of Sodom sought to "know" the two visitors: the people would have included the women, and they, like the men, died in the conflagration that destroyed their city. The problem is sexual violence, not homosexuality; attempted rape, not love. As for the Levitical commandments typically cited as prohibiting homosexuality, the Hebrew is not as clear as some claim, and the historicizing rationales typically proposed for the injunctions - e.g., keeping up the birth rate, avoiding Canaanite practices -- lack foundation.

Some readers even find the Levitical codes trumped by earlier pronouncements: given that Genesis 2:18 states that it is not good for the human being to be alone, they cannot support condemning gay people to lives of singleness and solitude. Fourth, we do well to recognize that biblical standards are not always our standards, and nor should they be. The Bible makes adultery a capital crime; if that legislation were put into practice, we'd knock out a third of our population. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines; we become apoplectic over bigamy. Fifth, we should continually reassess our views. If we ignore tradition, experience, science, and the personal testimony of our neighbors and look only to Scripture, we become bibliolators: we turn the Bible into an idol. And if we listen to those with whom we disagree rather than dismiss them as benighted literalists or atheistic relativists, then at the very least we might be able to avoid the demonization that usually comes with the culture wars. More:

Question: What biblical king had 700 wives and 300 concubines?
Answer: King Solomon