Fornication definition

[NHB_MMA]

So, I did a little searching for instances of the word "fornication" in the bible... because it doesn't matter what the direct definition of the english word is... the applicable definition is that of the word translated INTO the english word fornication.

in some searching I found: "1 Cor 6:9 badly mistranslate "porneia" as fornication. Corinth was a wide-open port city. People there could get sex any way they wanted it. Where our English translations read 'fornication', Paul's original Greek word was 'porneia' which means to sell and refers to slaves bought and sold for cultic prostitution. What was happening in the Temples of Corinth was farmers were visiting the temple priestesses who represented the fertility Gods. By having sex with these prostitutes they believed their fields would be more furtile. It didn't even have to do with going to prostitutes, but pagan cultic worship."

In Acts 15:20 and again in 29, it mentions things to abstain from... one of those being fornication... but again... the greek word used is "porneia," "prostitution." Beyond the spiritual implication of sleeping with a pegan priestess in worship of her gods.... even mundane prostitutes are dangerous due to disease, you could be robbed, and you leave yourself vulnerable to being harmed otherwise... it seems prostitutes are something you were to abstain from, like idols, and things that have been strangled, and from blood. Plus, even if you weren't married, I'm sure the prostitutes of those times had the same potential for the problems modern prostitutes face... by hiring a prostitute you encourage them into a profession that is very dangerous for them.

In acts 21:25... again... porneia... "prostitution"... not "any sexual contact without marriage to that person.

Matthew 5:32, speaking of the grounds for divorce... again... porneia... "prostitution."

Romans 1:29 lists fornication as one of the things bad people were filled with... but the greek has no word describing it.

In fact... in my preliminary search, I'm not finding any greek word to mean something so restrictive as "any and all sexual contact outside of marriage."

Okay. I've heard the "porneia" argument before and I'm open to it...if someone can show me some credible proof. Are the supplemental writings that, while not canonical, can further elaborate on Paul's writings about the Corithians? I don't know of any. The only place I have ever seen this argument is on very liberal sites with no real citation. They simply take a "that's what Paul was really saying" kind of approach without credible documentation. You could argue anything like that.

So... what else does the bible say?
Remember Abraham was married and was not producing an offspring. His wife asked him to give her a son through her servant... although he was married to her, all three involved consented to the situation, and along came ishmael... without whom, we wouldn't have of the lessons learned via isaac and ishmael.

It's not entirely unheard of for exemplary bible characters to ASK their spouse to produce a child with someone other than themselves. Also, remember in the O.T. there was a very real commandment... if your brother is married and doesn't produce an offspring before he dies, it's your duty to produce an offspring for him... even though you may be married to someone else. Remember, Onan was killed for not obeying this, in spite of being directly commanded to do so. He was not killed for masturbating, regardless of what some say. He was not killed for having sex with his brother's widow... he was killed for having sex with her and purposefully avoiding the production of a child so that he could continue having sex with her.

Solomon was the wisest human to live... and how many wives did he have? And how many concubines beyond that? And have you ever READ the song of solomon? Yet, he was always considered a faithful man.

Good points. They have never been answered in a satisfactory manner by anyone I've asked thus far.

Some will argue that God meant for you to "know" only one person, so you will not have anyone to compare someone you love deeply above all others to and envy anyone else. Well, as you pointed out, the accounts of Abraham and Solomon pretty much destroy that argument.

So... if a couple are dating... they plan to marry, and engage in "non-intercourse sexual activity" ... are they committing a sin?

Probably not in every instance, IMO. It really would depend on the depth of the relationship and the nature of the intent to marry, IMO. Some people do not marry because they cannot afford it for the forseeable future. Should they be denied the relationship until better financial days are ahead? What if better financial days never come? Maybe one partner finally leaves convinced the biological clock is ticking and that the other partner will never be able to pull through with the commitment, only to regret it years later.

I have said before...of all the aspects that make up a marriage, the legal piece of paper is far and away the least important.

 

[NHB_MMA]

The word fornication stems from the location where the prostitutes hung out. Where the angles met, they made a fornix, thus Paul used fornication.
In Corinth, married men visiting the pagan temple were condemned for fornication, it had nothing to do with premarital sex in this case.

Premarital sex was barely an issue then, it was more adultery and pagan worship. As with polygamy, it was only condemned when pagan worship became apart of it.

I see you are a Baptist and, therefore, maybe more mainstream. Do you have a credible source for this argument?

 

[chingchang]

This is about as silly as saying 'if you believe in the trinity, show me where it says trinity in scripture! "
Thats NOT how it works, Im afraid.
We look at how God created things....at context from the WHOLE word of God, the 'evidence' as it were...to see where sex is designed for.
Evidence doesnt always say plainly 'this guy didnt do it'. No, it is compiled and examined to determine what it says as a whole.

True.

Its entirely naive to believe that EVERY possible 'sin' is listed in scripture.
The bible would be the size of a Library if it were intended to list EVERY conceivable wrong a man could commit.

Sorta...you're losing me though.

The CONTEXT from the WHOLE word of God shows quite conclusively that sex was created for a man and woman to share ONLY when they have committed themselves to one another as husband and wife for a lifetime.

Ahh...this is where you are wrong. The WHOLE word of God does NOT show that. Let's talk briefly about CONTEXT. If one examines the entire Bible (as you suggest) and documents every time God legislates regarding sexual acts you'll soon see the CONTEXT. All of the sex acts God has forbidden involve violation of a person's right to their body or involves a violation of property rights (i.e. spouse property rights over the body of the other spouse). There are all kinds of sex acts in the Bible that God NEVER said a word about. But he was VERY specific (Leviticus 18-20 for example) about what was NOT o.k. Did the men of Biblical times have sex with women other than their multiple wives? Yes they did...with concubines...slaves and prostitutes. God never spoke a word of condemnation to these men...instead he blessed them for being "pure of heart" and for serving Him well. Understand where I'm coming from here...I fully believe the safest and best place for sex to happen is within the covenant of marriage between a man and a wife. What I am saying is that we should not speak evil of that which is not. Let God speak concerning what is sin regarding sex...not man. So...while I do agree with you that sex between a man and a woman within the marriage convenant is ideal...it is not the only type of sex allowed by God.

My guess is that you probably think polygamy is sin as well? If so...point me to scripture that would support that thinking...please.

I'm enjoying this!
Chingchang

 

[The Gregorian]

This is about as silly as saying 'if you believe in the trinity, show me where it says trinity in scripture! "

well, if you must know, I don't believe in the trinity either. I believe it's specifically disproved by scriptures such as 1 Corinthians 8:6 which directly states: "There is for us one God, the Father." ... but that's not the topic of this discussion.

Its entirely naive to believe that EVERY possible 'sin' is listed in scripture.
The bible would be the size of a Library if it were intended to list EVERY conceivable wrong a man could commit.

True, we're not saying that. We're not asking for a list of EVERY possible sexual deviance... just a general guideline. Point is, there are plenty of examples of people we're supposed to look up to (Solomon for example) who did things we would consider "fornication" (such as having a LOT of wives and a LOT of concubines to which he was not married). Contrastingly, the only sexual prohibition is against prostitution. Obviously sexual acts can still be sinful for other reasons, for example rape and adultery are wrong because it's stealing, and can be violent. But it's the taking of something that's not yours which is wrong, not just because you're not married to the person. If you rape your husband or wife, it's still wrong.

The CONTEXT from the WHOLE word of God shows quite conclusively that sex was created for a man and woman to share ONLY when they have committed themselves to one another as husband and wife for a lifetime.

Solomon.

 

[NHB_MMA]

Did the men of Biblical times have sex with women other than their multiple wives? Yes they did...with concubines...slaves and prostitutes. God never spoke a word of condemnation to these men...instead he blessed them for being "pure of heart" and for serving Him well.

This is true.

 

[The Gregorian]

Okay. I've heard the "porneia" argument before and I'm open to it...if someone can show me some credible proof. Are the supplemental writings that, while not canonical, can further elaborate on Paul's writings about the Corithians? I don't know of any. The only place I have ever seen this argument is on very liberal sites with no real citation. They simply take a "that's what Paul was really saying" kind of approach without credible documentation. You could argue anything like that.

Well, outside of sites that debate the topic based on scripture, I personally used this website to find the word translated into "fornication" was actually "Porneia" :
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm

It seems legit to me, and coincides with other evidence I've found.

As far as the definition of Porneia... Use an english/greek dictionary. Does anyone speak greek fluently enough to definitively say that the dictionaries I've found are -all- wrong?

Probably not in every instance, IMO. It really would depend on the depth of the relationship and the nature of the intent to marry, IMO. Some people do not marry because they cannot afford it for the forseeable future. Should they be denied the relationship until better financial days are ahead? What if better financial days never come? Maybe one partner finally leaves convinced the biological clock is ticking and that the other partner will never be able to pull through with the commitment, only to regret it years later.

Or, take my situation (please)... I was in a WONDERFUL relationship. I knew it was short, but the girl I was with was very kind and caring and loving and all that. I married her after something like 6 months... the MOMENT we signed the papers, she COMPLETELY changed. I don't think I really even got a hug after that, let alone any "marital fulfillment" ... she completely stopped ANYTHING close to kindness, and spend the next 3 months "fulfilling" everyone in town BUT me (among other complaints I had with her). I kept trying to forgive her, but she kept telling me I had no right to be upset because she's her own person and she can do whatever she wants whenever she wants... she left over two years ago and I'm STILL waiting for the legal aspect to be done with (she FINALLY agreed to sign the papers... possibly tomorrow. I just have to drive about 150 miles to pick them up by hand because it's too inconvenient for her to drive 2 miles to office max and have pay them $1.00 to fax it back to me).

So, for me, even IF I trusted a woman again... I still can't marry her because technically the lady who never planned on a two way relationship is still listed as "wife." We both agree that we don't want to be married, but it's taking a LONG time to get the papers together... then they need to be filed and that'll probably take 90 days before a judge looks at it, then there'll likely be some waiting period before the marriage is declared invalid.

So legally I can't marry even if I would've spent the last 2 years with someone. ... fortunately for me, the evil (naughty phrase) has left me emotionally scarred to the point where all women completely disgust me, so marriage isn't something I'm really "missing out on" at the moment.

 

[HuntingMan]

Ahh...this is where you are wrong. The WHOLE word of God does NOT show that.

ahhh. actually it does poster, whether you like it or not.

Let's talk briefly about CONTEXT. If one examines the entire Bible (as you suggest) and documents every time God legislates regarding sexual acts you'll soon see the CONTEXT. All of the sex acts God has forbidden involve violation of a person's right to their body or involves a violation of property rights (i.e. spouse property rights over the body of the other spouse). There are all kinds of sex acts in the Bible that God NEVER said a word about. But he was VERY specific (Leviticus 18-20 for example) about what was NOT o.k. Did the men of Biblical times have sex with women other than their multiple wives? Yes they did...with concubines...slaves and prostitutes. God never spoke a word of condemnation to these men...instead he blessed them for being "pure of heart" and for serving Him well. Understand where I'm coming from here...I fully believe the safest and best place for sex to happen is within the covenant of marriage between a man and a wife. What I am saying is that we should not speak evil of that which is not. Let God speak concerning what is sin regarding sex...not man. So...while I do agree with you that sex between a man and a woman within the marriage convenant is ideal...it is not the only type of sex allowed by God.

Firstly a 'concubine' is not some harlot who has been taken to ones bed to be cast aside. Concubines were a 'secondary' wife of sorts.

Secondly I want you to CITE chapter and verse for EVERY instance of men lying with prostitutes and being called 'pure of heart' for doing so.
*I* want to see the CONTEXT involved with MY own eyes, not just your tossing out data without supporting it.

Ill expect the evidence in your next post if its not too much to ask.

Thirdly your other points are moot....You seem to think 'pure of heart' means 'without sin' and that is PREposterous !
NO man other than Jesus Christ has been a perfect man, yet scripture uses that sort of description for at least a couple men....so calling some 'pure of heart' who had been with someone outside marriage doesnt necessarily MEAN that that act itself was not sinful.

SCripture says Noah and a couple others were 'perfect'....

Gen 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

​

Does this mean that EVERY single thing Noah ever did was NEVER 'sin' or wrong ?
Hardly. NO man is without sin save Jesus Christ.

SAme thing here with Asa. The man CANNOT have been sinless as NO one other than Christ was ever sinless...so scripture saying what it does about him does NOT mean that the man NEVER committed something 'sinful'.

But the high places were not removed: nevertheless Asa's heart was perfect with the LORD all his days.
(1Ki 15:14 KJV)
​

And Job...same thing...'perfect'...

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.
​

Being called 'perfect' or 'pure of heart' does NOT = 'sinless' or that this person never committed a sinful act or thought.
That is YOUR fallacious assumption that *IF* it were true then that would mean that there ARE men who are 'sinless' other than Jesus Christ...is THAT what you are claiming ?

My guess is that you probably think polygamy is sin as well? If so...point me to scripture that would support that thinking...please.

Then your guess would be wrong.
Polygamy can be shown as being acceptable overall thru Gods word whether God intended it for marriage or not.

I sincerely hope you have something better to offer than this last post.

I'm enjoying this!
Chingchang

Good for you.

 

[HuntingMan]

Solomon

you have no pointsince Solomon and David BOTH did things that were 'sinful'.
That a man DOES something in scripture does NOT make it right in Gods eyes.
You seem to think if Solomon COMMITTED some act then therefore that act must be 'ok' with God by default.


Frankly you folks need to show a LOT more evidence than what youre showing if youre going to convince someone that sex is fine in Gods eyes outside marriage.
That it HAPPENED doesnt mean a THING and that is pathetic "evidence".
Many things HAPPENED in scripture, including two women having sex with their drunken father...are you folks claiming THAT was 'ok' with God too ?

 

[The Gregorian]

A: I think calling "prostitution" OK is pushing it because that's specifically what porneia means (although I believe it's especially referring to the pagan priestesses who do the dirty in worship of their false gods). However, the word should not be extended to mean more than it does.
B: People like abraham, solomon, david, etc. having multiple wives isn't proof that it's a GOOD thing... but the fact that it's mentioned as a common trait among people who are considered to be good... and the trait is, itself not specifically looked down upon makes it unreasonable for us to assume it's bad.

If it's not specifically said to be bad... but it IS specifically mentioned as a trait of otherwise good people... who are we to call it evil?

Is it "good?" Not necissarily. Is it a "sin?" Not necissarily. Like drinking alcohol. In moderation, there's nothing inherently wrong with it... but it's easy to abuse and over-use until it becomes destructive. That's especially applicable for sex. There's a big difference between being physical with someone you truly love, but haven't quite married YET vs. sleeping with a complete stranger out of nothing but lust.

But how many times throughout the bible did a wife give her husband permission, or even ASK her husband to "take" someone else? If all parties consent... I don't think it's necissarily sinful. Dangerous? Of COURSE! I would never try it! That's just asking for jealousy... but I'm not every couple in every situation. And there is such a thing as "cooperation" instead of "competition."

... trying to not be too explicit.

 

[HuntingMan]

It doesnt matter how many ways folks come at this, the WHOLE of Gods word conclusively shows that the UNION between a man and woman we call 'marriage' is where God 'intended' sex to be.

 

[HuntingMan]

A: I think calling "prostitution" OK is pushing it because that's specifically what porneia means (although I believe it's especially referring to the pagan priestesses who do the dirty in worship of their false gods). However, the word should not be extended to mean more than it does.

Scripture shows conclusively that 'porneia' is used to cover a broad range of sexual immoralities, not just prostitution.
This prostituion only thing is typically used by folks to keep from having to accept the fact that 1 Cor 7:1-2 condemns unmarried sex.

Is it "good?" Not necissarily. Is it a "sin?" Not necissarily. Like drinking alcohol. In moderation, there's nothing inherently wrong with it... but it's easy to abuse and over-use until it becomes destructive.

This is an illogical argument.
Jesus own followers drank wine as shown in scripture. They arent, however, shown as going around having unmarried sex.

That's especially applicable for sex.

No, its not even remotely comparable.
Wine is shown in scripture as being fine EXCEPT where it is used in excess.
Sex is shown as belonging inside a union of a man and woman...not something casual.
Not even concubines were just a casual sex thing, they were provided for and some sort of secondary 'wife'.

But how many times throughout the bible did a wife give her husband permission, or even ASK her husband to "take" someone else?

Once ?
The question that comes to my mind is 'how many times do you THINK it happened?"
Sarahs mistake was trying to rush God. is THAT your best evidence? A womans error ?

If all parties consent... I don't think it's necissarily sinful.

So you think orgies with married couples is 'ok' in Gods eyes ?
If so, youre going to have to show some scripture and tell us what bible your using.

Dangerous? Of COURSE! I would never try it! That's just asking for jealousy... but I'm not every couple in every situation. And there is such a thing as "cooperation" instead of "competition."

And knowing this you somehow think God is 'ok' with it ?

 

[Crazy Liz]

Scripture shows conclusively that 'porneia' is used to cover a broad range of sexual immoralities, not just prostitution.
This prostituion only thing is typically used by folks to keep from having to accept the fact that 1 Cor 7:1-2 condemns unmarried sex.

I thought this thread was about the meaning of the Greek word porneia, not about whether premarital sex is a sin. I think that question is being discussed in another thread.

So your assertion that 1 Cor 7:1-2 condemns unmarried sex still does not tie in with the meaning of the Greek word porneia. Can you make the connection and support it?

Once ?
The question that comes to my mind is 'how many times do you THINK it happened?"
Sarahs mistake was trying to rush God. is THAT your best evidence? A womans error ?

I can recall at least two other instances. Both Rachel and Leah did the same thing.

So you think orgies with married couples is 'ok' in Gods eyes ?
If so, youre going to have to show some scripture and tell us what bible your using.
And knowing this you somehow think God is 'ok' with it ?

Whether or not something is "OK with God" has nothing to do with the meaning of the word porneia.

 

[HuntingMan]

For you readers who might actually care about the truth and accepting what scripture presents....

2.0
...Even without the previous conclusion that the word is ALL sexual immorality, this passage entirely on its own condemns PREmarital sex by showing that a man or woman is to have their OWN spouse.

Lets play this nonsense game that porneia is only prostitution for just a moment and examine the verse.

Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
(1Co 7:1-2 EMTV)
​

Does it say to avoid this sexual sin let each have their own boyfriend/girlfriend ? Their own lover ?

No, it quite clearly shows that we are to have our own husbands or wives to avoid this sexual sin REGARDLESS of what it actually might be.

It is complete folly to try to assert that Paul MIGHT have also mean 'you can also have sex with someone else you arent married to as long as they arent a temple prostitute"...more like purposefully rejecting the facts.
Whether the immoral or argumentative can accept the facts or not, Paul ONLY gives ONE remedy for avoiding this sexual sin and that is to have OUR OWN SPOUSE.
*IF* you are going to partake of sexual intercourse GET MARRIED !

http://studies.assembly-ministries.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13&p=13#p13

When we look at 1 Cor 7:1-2 and see how the passage begins its quite easy to see whom Paul is speaking to and what he is speaking about.
It is BETTER for a man to not touch a woman at all, perfectly consistent with the REST of the chapter here that Paul shows that remaining unmarried is desirable, but to AVOID ANY sexual immorality let each have their own spouse...ie GET MARRIED.
It is pretty much rejection of a basic common sense understanding of the 7 chapter here as a whole to try to force 'fornication' to mean one specific type of sexual sin.
When the ACTUAL meaning of porneia is accepted verses 7:1-2 are perfectly harmonized with the rest of the chapter and also with ALL of the NT where the word is used elsewhere.

 

[NHB_MMA]

Well, outside of sites that debate the topic based on scripture, I personally used this website to find the word translated into "fornication" was actually "Porneia" :
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm

It seems legit to me, and coincides with other evidence I've found.

As far as the definition of Porneia... Use an english/greek dictionary. Does anyone speak greek fluently enough to definitively say that the dictionaries I've found are -all- wrong?

What I'm saying is I've never heard a scholar that is remotely mainstream hold this viewpoint and there certainly are open-minded people like myself out there that are not afraid to take a look at the legitimacy of established doctrine/dogma. At any rate, I was speaking more to the idea that Paul was really angry at the prostitutes representing fertility gods and had no beef with the sex itself. I have never seen a shred of credible evidence to support that was what Paul was speaking to.

The only place I have personally encountered these arguments was when I stumbled onto the ridiculous "Liberated Christian" community, a group of wife-swapping and group sex "Christians". And when you read their theological argument, you find out they're very pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, etc. So, it's not like they have an issue with "porneia" that is maybe legitimate, but they take the entirely of traditional orthodox Christian sexual morality and turn it 180 degrees.

Or, take my situation (please)... I was in a WONDERFUL relationship. I knew it was short, but the girl I was with was very kind and caring and loving and all that. I married her after something like 6 months... the MOMENT we signed the papers, she COMPLETELY changed. I don't think I really even got a hug after that, let alone any "marital fulfillment" ... she completely stopped ANYTHING close to kindness, and spend the next 3 months "fulfilling" everyone in town BUT me (among other complaints I had with her). I kept trying to forgive her, but she kept telling me I had no right to be upset because she's her own person and she can do whatever she wants whenever she wants... she left over two years ago and I'm STILL waiting for the legal aspect to be done with (she FINALLY agreed to sign the papers... possibly tomorrow. I just have to drive about 150 miles to pick them up by hand because it's too inconvenient for her to drive 2 miles to office max and have pay them $1.00 to fax it back to me).

So, for me, even IF I trusted a woman again... I still can't marry her because technically the lady who never planned on a two way relationship is still listed as "wife." We both agree that we don't want to be married, but it's taking a LONG time to get the papers together... then they need to be filed and that'll probably take 90 days before a judge looks at it, then there'll likely be some waiting period before the marriage is declared invalid.

So legally I can't marry even if I would've spent the last 2 years with someone. ... fortunately for me, the evil (naughty phrase) has left me emotionally scarred to the point where all women completely disgust me, so marriage isn't something I'm really "missing out on" at the moment.

I'm sorry for your personal unfortunate experience. It is quite bizarre, as a marriage almost never falls apart like that almost immediately, simply due to infidelity.

I can tell you that if it were me, I would not feel the least bit guilty of moving on and if the only thing that was holding up a new marital relationship was a legally finalized divorce then, yes, I probably would have cohabitation and sexual relations with someone else. Your marriage has been DONE for a long time. Again, of all the components that make up a marriage a piece of paper from the state of Virginia is of virtually no importance to me at all.

 

[NHB_MMA]

Firstly a 'concubine' is not some harlot who has been taken to ones bed to be cast aside. Concubines were a 'secondary' wife of sorts.

Well, "free love" type casual sex may not be justifiable, but the accounts in at least the OT do indeed seem to suggest that marriage is not necessary. I mean, Solomon had many "primary wives" and also had "secondary wives" as you say who were clearly nowhere near as important but good enough to....well...we'll keep it PG, but you know what I'm talking about.

Thirdly your other points are moot....You seem to think 'pure of heart' means 'without sin' and that is PREposterous !
NO man other than Jesus Christ has been a perfect man, yet scripture uses that sort of description for at least a couple men....so calling some 'pure of heart' who had been with someone outside marriage doesnt necessarily MEAN that that act itself was not sinful.

You're 100% right about that, in that just because they were called "pure of heart" does not mean that their actions were always right.

However, Solomon was truly the "mack daddy" (if you'll allow me to use a contemporary term) when it came to getting with the women and for as much emphasis as many Christians put on sexual sins, it's bizarre that there is no condemnation of him and others sleeping with women they were NOT married to.

 

[Elad]

When we look at 1 Cor 7:1-2 and see how the passage begins its quite easy to see whom Paul is speaking to and what he is speaking about.
It is BETTER for a man to not touch a woman at all, perfectly consistent with the REST of the chapter here that Paul shows that remaining unmarried is desirable, but to AVOID ANY sexual immorality let each have their own spouse...ie GET MARRIED.
It is pretty much rejection of a basic common sense understanding of the 7 chapter here as a whole to try to force 'fornication' to mean one specific type of sexual sin.
When the ACTUAL meaning of porneia is accepted verses 7:1-2 are perfectly harmonized with the rest of the chapter and also with ALL of the NT where the word is used elsewhere.

Maybe it isn't so easy to see whom Paul is talking to and what he's talking about. You're saying that this is speaking to unmarried people telling them to get married to avoid sexual immorality. I've always understood this passage to be talking to married people. I guess it comes down to how you define 'have'. If you're saying have means get then I can see how you reached the conclusion you have, but my understanding here is that have means have. Meaning have sex with your spouse to avoid immorality. What immorality? In this context it is talking about prostitution. Now, I don't think prostitution is the only definition of porneia, but it is here. The previous chapter is referring to the sexual practices of Corinth's goddesses' priestesses. The Corinthians were worshiping goddesses, and one of the methods of worship was sex with these priestesses (prostitutes). So, taken in context, isn't Paul in chapter 7 telling them how to deal with the activity going on in chapter 6?

 

[HuntingMan]

Well, "free love" type casual sex may not be justifiable, but the accounts in at least the OT do indeed seem to suggest that marriage is not necessary. I mean, Solomon had many "primary wives" and also had "secondary wives" as you say who were clearly nowhere near as important but good enough to....well...we'll keep it PG, but you know what I'm talking about.

the operative word being 'secondary WIFE'.
Concubines were not harlots. But Ive said this already, so theres no need to repeat it and I think scripture shows that concubines were hardly a 'casual' sexual thing at all.

You're 100% right about that, in that just because they were called "pure of heart" does not mean that their actions were always right.

Many times they werent.
Ive seen some false doctrines try to make it out like Davids marrying Bathsheba was the 'right' thing to do and that God was good to go with it, but SCRIPTURE shows that David paid a price for taking the 'wife of Uriah'...even if God did end up using the situation, it doesnt nullify Davids error/sin.

However, Solomon was truly the "mack daddy" (if you'll allow me to use a contemporary term) when it came to getting with the women and for as much emphasis as many Christians put on sexual sins, it's bizarre that there is no condemnation of him and others sleeping with women they were NOT married to.

there are a lot of 'bizarre' things in Gods word as far as Im concerned. That doesnt change the overall theme that sex belongs inside a union of a man and a woman...not just some casual fling that we can just walk away from and think we are getting away with something.

 

[HuntingMan]

Maybe it isn't so easy to see whom Paul is talking to and what he's talking about.

Reallly ?
So we cant read 'it is good for a man NOT to touch a woman' in 7:1 there and not add it together with what Paul says to the UNmarried widow(er) and virgins later in the same chapter...and figure out that 7:1 is simply saying its good to remain UNmarried, but to AVOID immorality let everyone have their own spouse?
Forgive me, but I just dont see the complexity of the issue, especially given the overall usage of the word 'porneia'.

You're saying that this is speaking to unmarried people telling them to get married to avoid sexual immorality. I've always understood this passage to be talking to married people.

The WHAT meaning does verse 7:1 have in THAT context ?
Read it again....

"It is good for a man not to touch a woman. "
​

So are you claiming that a MARRIED man is not 'touching' a woman ?

Its almost like folks just shoot right to verse 7:2 there and completely ignore 7:1. Not to mention how it perfectly harmonizes with Pauls words later about it being better not to marry.

I guess it comes down to how you define 'have'.

What is the topic ?
It is "sex" as proven conclusively by the word 'fornication'.
How does one 'have' their spouse in a sexual context ?
Theyre ARENT baking cookies, I can assure you of that

What immorality? In this context it is talking about prostitution.

PROVE that 1 cor 7 and the use of porneia in that chapter is ONLY about prostitution.
I see this claim here in these forums over and agian and NO ONE has yet to PROVE the case.

Now, I don't think prostitution is the only definition of porneia, but it is here.

No, its not, poster. Claiming that it is yet not providing evidence for the case is a waste of both of our times.
The word porneia has a meaning just like the word 'cheese' does.
It would ONLY be narrowed *IF* the text itself CONCLUSIVELY gives reason to narrow the intent. There is NOTHING in 1 cor 7 anywhere that gives just cause to narrow the intent of 'porneia' at all. Its broad meaning is very clearly the intent as nothing shows otherwise.
Just because corinth was a city of temple prostitution does NOT mean that EVERY use of the word porneia is limited to THAT intent and it is preposterous to claim that it is UNLESS the text itself SHOWS that that is the ONLY intent....it doesnt.

The previous chapter is referring to the sexual practices of Corinth's goddesses' priestesses.

And did you READ the very first thing Paul said in THIS chapter?

"Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me..."
​

If THAT isnt signalling a CHANGE of topic then nothing is.
We've CHANGED topics here, poster...NOW we are talking about things they asked Paul about in some letter they apparently wrote to him.

The Corinthians were worshiping goddesses, and one of the methods of worship was sex with these priestesses (prostitutes). So, taken in context, isn't Paul in chapter 7 telling them how to deal with the activity going on in chapter 6?

see above

 

[chingchang]

How can we take Paul seriously here when he says 'it is good for a man not to touch a woman' ? Note the NIV says 'it is good for a man not to marry'. Paul is clearly anti-sex if we read this plainly. Now...ask yourself...is God anti-sex? We must first understand what was going on in Corinth to fully appreciate what Paul is getting at.

Oh...and Judges 16:1 gives an example of one of the "heros of faith" having sex with a prostitute...with no condemndation from God. In Gen38 Judah has sex with Tamar thinking she is a prostitute. It is my understanding that prostitution was legal and commonplace in Isreal...but forbidden in connection to worship of false Gods (i.e. cultic prostitution). The two examples above of VIP OT men having sex with prostitutes do not involve idol worship and there is no word of condemnation in either case. Appearantly the Cannanites and other cultures incorporated sex into worship...and with the use of prostitution (temple prostitutes). This was the case in Cornith as well. These new Christians were from a pagan culture and they were reverting back to their old ways. So I think in this case the 'porniea' Paul was referring to was cultic prostitution...which is a sin because it involves idol worship and a breaking of one of the ten commandments. Paul was basically saying...instead of having sex with temple prostitutes...have sex with your spouse...but if you don't have one and have that urge...get one...but it is better if you didn't have that urge (or something like that). Remember Paul didn't make the law. Paul does not decide what sin is or is not. Porneia is a generic term meaning "an illicit sex act". Having sex with temple prostitutes fits because of its connection to idol worship and is applicable to 1 Corinthians.

Reallly ?
So we cant read 'it is good for a man NOT to touch a woman' in 7:1 there and not add it together with what Paul says to the UNmarried widow(er) and virgins later in the same chapter...and figure out that 7:1 is simply saying its good to remain UNmarried, but to AVOID immorality let everyone have their own spouse?
Forgive me, but I just dont see the complexity of the issue, especially given the overall usage of the word 'porneia'.
The WHAT meaning does verse 7:1 have in THAT context ?
Read it again....

"It is good for a man not to touch a woman. "

​

So are you claiming that a MARRIED man is not 'touching' a woman ?

Its almost like folks just shoot right to verse 7:2 there and completely ignore 7:1. Not to mention how it perfectly harmonizes with Pauls words later about it being better not to marry.
What is the topic ?
It is "sex" as proven conclusively by the word 'fornication'.
How does one 'have' their spouse in a sexual context ?
Theyre ARENT baking cookies, I can assure you of that
PROVE that 1 cor 7 and the use of porneia in that chapter is ONLY about prostitution.
I see this claim here in these forums over and agian and NO ONE has yet to PROVE the case.
No, its not, poster. Claiming that it is yet not providing evidence for the case is a waste of both of our times.
The word porneia has a meaning just like the word 'cheese' does.
It would ONLY be narrowed *IF* the text itself CONCLUSIVELY gives reason to narrow the intent. There is NOTHING in 1 cor 7 anywhere that gives just cause to narrow the intent of 'porneia' at all. Its broad meaning is very clearly the intent as nothing shows otherwise.
Just because corinth was a city of temple prostitution does NOT mean that EVERY use of the word porneia is limited to THAT intent and it is preposterous to claim that it is UNLESS the text itself SHOWS that that is the ONLY intent....it doesnt.
And did you READ the very first thing Paul said in THIS chapter?

"Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me..."

​

If THAT isnt signalling a CHANGE of topic then nothing is.
We've CHANGED topics here, poster...NOW we are talking about things they asked Paul about in some letter they apparently wrote to him.

see above

 

[HuntingMan]

How can we take Paul seriously here when he says 'it is good for a man not to touch a woman' ?

Are you kidding me ?
Jesus gives the SAME type of story in Matthew 19...are you questioning Christs integrity as well, poster?

Note the NIV says 'it is good for a man not to marry'.

And thats probably because the NIV translators UNDERSTAND that sex belongs INSIDE a marriage.
I can easily understand why they'd render the verse that way since we know where God created sex for.

Paul is clearly anti-sex if we read this plainly.

Fallacious entirely.
Paul isnt 'anti' at all. He shows why he speaks as he does later in the chapter. He wishes to keep them from the turmoil and stresses that go along with marriage. He isnt 'anti' sex or marriage at all.
This is why we HARMONIZE the WHOLE rather than running straight to ONE verse to prove a point.
7:2 is a continuous thought from 7:1 and that is quite easilly discerned from the text itself.
7:1 is NOT continued thought from the previous verse/chapter because the text simply refutes that idea entirely
The REST of the data from the chapter shows conclusively that Paul ISNt 'anti' sex or marriage at all.

Now...ask yourself...is God anti-sex?

I dont need to ask myself something I already know the answer to.
GOD is the one who created marriage and sex. Of course He isnt anti sex or anti marriage.
And that He isnt DOESNT show that Hes pro whoredom.

We must first understand what was going on in Corinth to fully appreciate what Paul is getting at.

This always comes back to temple prostitution with some of you.
Sorry but *I* gave my evidence that Paul is on a NEW topic in chapter 7.

"Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me..."
​

WHOLE new topic, Im afraid....hes NOW answering the direct things they inquired of him.
Unless YOU can provide evidence to show that hes STILL on the temple prostitution thing, I think we are done quite frankly...theres no point in continuing unless you can actually SUPPORT an assertion that 'porneia' is NARROWED to 'temple prostitution' alone in chapter 7.
Frankly you wont be able to do it from the texts and we both probably know it.

Im fully convinced that some of you actually think that temple prostitution was the ONLY sexual sin in all of Corinth

We already KNOW what the corinthains were up to sexually speaking.
That fact does NOT narrow the meaning of 'porneai' to 'temple prostitution' nor does if even remotely have to in ANY of the chapter.
Sexual immorality is immorality/sin regardless of what specific act it is.
The BROAD usage of 'porneia' can be used in ANY situation in 1 Cor without having to narrow its meaning to temple prostitution at all.


anything else