Fornication definition

[HuntingMan]

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.

For example.
I can say 'you are to avoid IMMORALITY' to someone who is with someone hes not married to....or to someone having sex with an animal....or with someone committing incest.....or to the man with the temple prostitute, and the intent is entirely understood.

"Immorality" is a BROAD term and doesnt need to be narrowed in ANY one of those cases just because the ACT itself is one specific thing.

Porneia is no different. It is 'sexual immorality' and doesnt need to be narrowed to some specific meaning to cover any individual sexual act REGARDLESS of where it occurs.
ONLY if the text itself specifically and purposefully causes the intent to be narrowed would it be the case.
There is NO evidence in 1 Cor 7 that this is the situation, Im afraid, and we can go back and forth 100 more times and its not going to change that fact.

 

[chingchang]

HuntingMan,

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

To be sure...it was Christ's disciples that said "it is better not to marry".

And thats probably because the NIV translators UNDERSTAND that sex belongs INSIDE a marriage.

So the NIV translators interjected their own understandings into the translation?

I can easily understand why they'd render the verse that way since we know where God created sex for.

No...the translation says "It is good for a man not to marry"...that is a "NOT". If sex is supposed to take place inside of marriage...and never outside as you say Paul (and God) says...then one can conclude that Paul is anti-sex. Let's engage in word substitution based on what you and the NIV translators wrote. You: "we know where God created sex for." (marriage...right?) NIV: "It is good for a man not to marry" Substitute "have sex" for marry: "It is good for a man not to have sex". Not a huge leap. I'm not saying Paul thinks sex was a sin...clearly he does not...but that doesn't mean he wasn't anti-sex.

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.I dont need to ask myself something I already know the answer to.



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.

We already KNOW what the corinthains were up to sexually speaking.
That fact does NOT narrow the meaning of 'porneai' to 'temple prostititution' nor does if even remotely have to in ANY of the chapter.
Sexual immorality is immorality/sin regardless of what specific act it is.
Finally...we can get at the issue. God didn't make a list of all the things we CAN do...he gave us a rather short list of commandments on what we SHOULD NOT do. So...in order for a sex act to be sin...God must have specifically said so...or it must violate one of his commandments. The reason I brought up premarital sex in an earlier post is because many Christians think of premarital sex when the hear the word fornication. But where in scripture has God forbidden premarital sex? Does premarital sex violate God's commandments? The burden of proof is on your position...prove that premarital sex is sin. You'll find you can't. Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 come to mind...maybe you should read them...rather meditate on them?
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

 

[HuntingMan]

To be sure...it was Christ's disciples that said "it is better not to marry".

please...lets NOT even pretend like Christ was in any disagreement.
It was CHRISTs words who made them conclude what they did.

So the NIV translators interjected their own understandings into the translation?

Do you even know how translation and rendering works, poster?
ALL translation is 'interjecting ones understanding into the texts' by its very nature.

No...the translation says "It is good for a man not to marry"...that is a "NOT"

And ?
it is good for a man NOT to marry.....it is good for a man NOT to touch a woman...what is your point ?
Both are perfectly harmonized WHEN we see that sex is FOR marriage alone.

If sex is supposed to take place inside of marriage...and never outside as you say Paul (and God) says...then one can conclude that Paul is anti-sex.

Wrong.
for Paul to be ANTI sex/marriage Paul would have to preach AGAINST these...Paul DOESNT. Nor does Christ.
They simply show that it is good for a man to be celibate/UNmarried if he is ABLE to be so.
If you read the REST of 1 Cor 7, youd see that that is exactly what Pauls point is in whole...

Let's engage in word substitution based on what you and the NIV translators wrote. You: "we know where God created sex for." (marriage...right?) NIV: "It is good for a man not to marry" Substitute "have sex" for marry: "It is good for a man not to have sex". Not a huge leap. I'm not saying Paul thinks sex was a sin...clearly he does not...but that doesn't mean he wasn't anti-sex.

The ENTIRE issue is resolved when one accepts the FACT that marriage is where sex belongs and then not trying ones best to play semantics games with the texts to force it to say something it doesnt such as you are now doing.

Finally...we can get at the issue.

Huh...you just now think we're getting to the issue ?

God didn't make a list of all the things we CAN do...he gave us a rather short list of commandments on what we SHOULD NOT do.

Oh...you mean something like these ?

Exo 22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
​

yeah, I think its covered in BOTH testaments .
We going to play a semantics game now that 'lie with her' means something like bearing false witness or whatever to keep from accepting what is clearly stated in the law ?
The passage is just one more piece of evidence that conclusively PROVES that sex is ONLY meant for marriage...but we dont expect that some twist wont be put on it to make it say something it doesnt

The burden of proof is on your position...prove that premarital sex is sin.

it already has been. Some folks simply twist the meaning of any word that gets in your way..such as denying that porneia means what it means...but only where it suits your needs.

You see, poster, some of us didnt go into Gods word looking to see what we can get away with as some do, so we can accept that Gods word DOES show very clearly that sex is FOR marriage alone.

But where in scripture has God forbidden premarital sex?

When He tells the man to MARRY the woman if he entices her to have sex for one.
When his word shows that unmarried sex is 'fornication' secondly (1 Cor 7:1-2)...but you just change the meanings of words to get around that one

And again

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 !

anything else ?

 

[HuntingMan]

Huh....what do you know...the NT seems to agree with the precepts of the Old...

Exo 22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

and

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 !

 

[HuntingMan]

So...in order for a sex act to be sin...God must have specifically said so...or it must violate one of his commandments.

Now THIS is funny because Im sitting here wondering just how many things that are absolutely sinful/wrong that ARENT mentoined specifically in His word?
Do you think child molestation is wrong, poster? if so SHOW me the clear scripture that says it is sin.
There ARE sins that ARENT listed specifically in Gods word, Im afraid.

This nonsense sort of statement has been refuted quite a few times long before you ever got involved in the discussion here.

 

[chingchang]

The NIV for Exo 22:16 looks a bit different. If you understand the basis for God's law concerning sexual sin you'd see that the man was obligated to pay the price for her because she was a virgin. As a virgin still living under her Father's house she was her Father's property and more valuable (marriageable) as a virgin. Exo 22:16 does not prove that premarital sex is sin...but it does support that sex should be had within the marriage covenant. If premarital sex was a sin...then a sin sacrifice would have to be made after the act...not a payment to the Father and marrying the girl. If premarital sex was not a sin during OT...then it can't be now...God doesn't change. Remember the issue here is whether or not premarital sex is sexual sin. If it was...then it would have required sin sacrifice or death in the OT. I'm not saying people should have premarital sex...quite the contrary...I believe people should get married and have sex. But...what I am saying is that you can't prove premarital sex to be sinful. In order for it to be sinful it would have to violate God's law.

Huh....what do you know...the NT seems to agree with the precepts of the Old...

and

 

[HuntingMan]

The NIV for Exo 22:16 looks a bit different.

The NIV is the least of the bibles I would use myself.
I only thought it peculiar that they rendered that passage in 1 Cor 7 as they did.

If you understand the basis for God's law concerning sexual sin you'd see that the man was obligated to pay the price for her because she was a virgin.

And if you understood Gods law concerning sexual sin, youd understand that He created sex FOR the union of man and a woman....not some casual self gratification power trip that some use it for.

If premarital sex was not a sin during OT...then it can't be now..

Sure it can.
We can repeat this ten thousand more times, poster, if thats what it takes.
Paul gives ONE remedy for fornication...ONE..not two, not three.
That ONE remedy is to have ones OWN HUSBAND or WIFE.

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.

.God doesn't change.

Thats right.
So the God who told Paul to give ONE remedy against sexual sin, to have ones OWN husband or wife, meant just that all along.

But...what I am saying is that you can't prove premarital sex to be sinful. In order for it to be sinful it would have to violate God's law.

And it cant be PROVEN that molesting a child is sinful from CLEAR scripture either... ARE YOU claiming that THAT is not 'sin' because its not dealt with specifically in Gods word ?!?

Anything else or are we finished here?

 

[chingchang]

Now THIS is funny because Im sitting here wondering just how many things that are absolutely sinful/wrong that ARENT mentoined specifically in His word?
Do you think child molestation is wrong, poster? if so SHOW me the clear scripture that says it is sin.
There ARE sins that ARENT listed specifically in Gods word, Im afraid.

We agree...but in order for something to be sin it absolutely has to violate God's laws/commands. Certainly molesting a child would violate Jesus' greatest command to "love our neighbor as ourselves". Molesting a child would also involve stealing something from that child that doesn't belong to the person doing the molesting...and therefore a breaking of the 8th commandment.

This nonsense sort of statement has been refuted quite a few times long before you ever got involved in the discussion here.

I'm glad I could shed some light...

 

[HuntingMan]

We agree...but in order for something to be sin it absolutely has to violate God's laws/commands.

Absolutely false.
Where on earth do you get the impression that EVERY possible 'sin' is listed in Gods word?
Ill say it AGAIN....having sex with a child is NOT mentioned in the list of sexual sins that Ive ever seen yet we KNOW that God would take offense at that heinous crime.

Certainly molesting a child would violate Jesus' greatest command to "love our neighbor as ourselves".

Now, now...you JUST said that "but in order for something to be sin it absolutely has to violate God's laws/commands."
Youre all over the place here, poster...which is it...is it sin only if it violates Gods laws /commands or not ?
Let me guess...YOU get to decide which is which, correct?

Molesting a child would also involve stealing something from that child that doesn't belong to the person doing the molesting...and therefore a breaking of the 8th commandment.

This is a VERY nice try but Im not playing along.
This 'sexual sin' is not listed in the law...nor anywhere in the NT...youre not getting off by twisting this into an issue of stealing.

I'm glad I could shed some light...

Youre fooling yourself, for sure.
The only thing I see is just one more person bent on twisting Gods word into allowing sexual immorality.

 

[NHB_MMA]

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.

I agree that casual sex is wrong. I am not theologically liberal and bent on discrediting everything and justifying things for selfish reasons. I fully acknowledge that "fornication" may refer to pretty much what most denominations have always considered it. Or "fornication" may, as some believe, condemn casual sex with no real attachment, rather than anything without a full marital relationship.

Obviously a "secondary wife" (concubine) was a LESSER relationship than a "primary wife", as I mentioned. Is having sex with someone a person has been dating for some time and truly cares deeply for any worse than the concubine relationship. I don't know. It might be and it might not be. Since we can really only speculate the differences between such relationships I think it's ludicrous for either of us to insist that there is an absolute answer defined here.

 

[The Gregorian]

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.

Read closer. The 1-2 says that he suggests men do not touch women at ALL... but if they HAVE to, then they should get married... he goes on to say that all this is specifically NOT a divine mandate, but is his own opinion.

Personally I'm of the same opinion. I think the lady-folk are trouble. Based on a couple bad experiences, I unfairly blame all women on the heartlessness of a couple bad apples. But that's for -me- ... I don't think God agrees, and I hope some day I'll have a more positive outlook on the situation.
... anywho... as far as the verse you presented... where do you see anything about unmarried sex? Literally translated, he's saying that if you have to "sow your oats," it's better to get a wife than a prostitute. Which is true in a way... then again, it's the reason there's so many divorces now-adays... people get married because they want sex... then some are unfortunate to experience what I went through... when the MOMENT a woman signs the marriage papers she turns into a completely different person and stops pretending to care about you at all.

... it's better to have love than lust... but if you have lust... marriage isn't the answer. That's why God made masturbation.

Jesus own followers drank wine as shown in scripture. They arent, however, shown as going around having unmarried sex.

... Jesus followers traveled a lot and couldn't hold a steady relationship. So of course not. I'm NOT saying it's OK to have recreational sex with some random stranger... that cheapens it. That's uncaring lust. But I don't think it's a sin to grab your girlfriend's tush simply because you're not married.

MANY exemplary bible characters who were not forced to move around a lot regularly practiced intimacy outside of the "one man, one woman marriage." ... It's actually pretty hard to make much of a list of people who had children by only one woman.

Wine is shown in scripture as being fine EXCEPT where it is used in excess.

The bible specifically orders a man and wife to 'not go withholding themselves from each other' (paraphrased, I don't recall the exact words). Within a marriage, there SHOULD be passion far surpassing the healthy amount one should drink alcohol, don't you agree? So, sex is like alcohol. It can be quite healthy.... but when misused, it can lead to trouble, even death. The question is: How do you define sexual "misuse?"

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'.

Which is it? Union or marriage? Do you agree that the idea of a concubine is biblically acceptable? If so, we're in agreement. Remember, I'm just suggesting that the typical church definition of fornication is too strict... the idea that ANY contact of ANY body parts normally covered up by a bathing suit is sinful unless that is the ONE person of the opposite sex to which you are married. I think that's too imaginative of a definition. However, I don't think the other extreme is OK either... I don't think people are free to do whatever acts they like to whatever strangers they like... I think there should be sincere emotional attachment correlating to the intimacy of the actions of those involved. i.e. I think it's immoral for some married couples to have sex if they don't legitimately care for each other. However, there are certain intimate activities one might do with the one you're engaged to... before being married. ... that you wouldn't do to a stranger. For example... kissing.

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 ?

Sarah wasn't rushing God at all... he didn't tell her SHE'D give birth until after Ishmael was born. And Ishmael needed to be born for the story of Isaac and Ishmael to be. It could very well be that her disobedience was holding Abraham back from Hagar. Remember, she was supernaturally baron UNTIL ishmael's birth... and then AFTER that, God said he would allow her to conceive. It seems that Ishmael's birth was God's will.
And remember, that wasn't the first example of polygamy. Adam's grandchild Lamech married two women shown in Gen 4:19. And I'm not entirely convinced Adam didn't have multiple wives. Also, remember in 2 Sam 12:8 it claims that God gave David multiple wives... And, yes, it was wrong of david to take uriah... not because it was another woman... but because she was already someone else's wife. There, the polygamy isn't the problem... the stealing of someone's wife... and murder of her husband... THAT'S the problem. ... and remember Judah?

Judah had three sons. His first married a woman, but died with no heir. His second was commanded BY GOD to impregnate her... but he slept with her and purposefully did not impregnate her, thereby disobeyed God, so he was killed. The third was too young to impregnate her.... Eventually she saw the third was old enough to impregnate her, so she dressed as a shrine prostitute to go have her way with him... but Judah happened by her first and she got what she wanted from him.

So... you know... God COMMANDING someone to sleep with someone other than his wife... kinda a good indication that he doesn't find it 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.
And knowing this you somehow think God is 'ok' with it ?

I don't know that any particular SPECIFIC sexual act is mentioned in great detail in the bible. Is one position OK, while another is not? Do you agree that solomon was a good example? Married to THAT many women, with THAT Many concubines... and do you honestly think none of them ever "cooperated?"

... with all the examples of polygamous relationship... it's sort of assumed that that sort of thing would happen.

 

[HuntingMan]

Since we can really only speculate the differences between such relationships I think it's ludicrous for either of us to insist that there is an absolute answer defined here.

I dont find it ludicrous at all to proclaim that a concubine was not some casual sexual encounter that was dismissed as easily as some woman we met in a bar and had a one night fling with.
You may not wish to make the assertion that a concubine was more than just a 'one night stand' but I will. Scripture shows that these concubines were not as much but were a bit more involved with the man than just giving sex to him and any number of others who came her way.

Scripture shows us overall where sex belongs and casual, uncommitted sex simply is not where it does belong, Im afraid.

 

[The Gregorian]

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.

again... you're basing your assumption that porneia means premarital sexual activity.... try translating it correctly:

Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
Nevertheless, to avoid prostitution, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

Makes perfect sense, then. This isn't a ban saying that you should never touch a woman until you are married to her! This is saying that if you're going to touch a woman, it should be the one(s) you marry.

... hense the discussion of the word "porneia" ... the whole conversation hinges on what exactly that means. Because scriptures such as this one read VERY differently if you assume porneia to mean something it doesn't. .... similar to many passages in the bible, where one word is translated to mean something entirely different and false doctrines form.

.. overall... women are trouble anyway. I agree with paul. Just be safe and leave 'em alone completely.

 

[HuntingMan]

deleted

 

[HuntingMan]

again... you're basing your assumption that porneia means premarital sexual activity.... try translating it correctly:

You mean try translating it to something YOU accept. Sorry, not going to happen.
Lets look at what REAL scholars say the word means as a whole, shall we ?

G4202
πορνεία
porneia
Thayer Definition:
1) illicit sexual intercourse
1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mar_10:11,Mar_10:12
2) metaphorically the worship of idols
2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols


G4202
πορνεία
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.
​

Hardly narrowed to 'prostitution' as some of youd like it to be.
I can say this as many times as necessary.
NOTHING in the context of 1 cor 7 causes the MEANING of porneia to be RESTRICTED to 'temple prostitution'.
The word is FAR broader than some of you want to accept.

Paul makes it VERY clear that he is no longer on the issue in the previous chapter but is NOW responding to their queries written to him.
the topic CHANGED at 7:1...that is fact as presented in the text itself.

1Co 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me:
​

Makes perfect sense, then.

no, it made perfect sense before. and if we REDEFINE it to mean some other narrowed sexual sin it will make sense even then.
We dont play your little semantics game by REdefining any word that gets in the way.
The commonly accepted definition of porneia is pretty much ALL sexual immorality. It is NOT confined to prostitution in any way regardless of how many times or way you folks try to push it as such.

This isn't a ban saying that you should never touch a woman until you are married to her! This is saying that if you're going to touch a woman, it should be the one(s) you marry.

uh...yeah..I think we established that we are to ONLY have sex with the spouse we are married to
And having sex with our spouse is the ONLY remedy to avoiding this fornication REGARDLESS of what it actually is !
No dates, girlfriends or hookers need apply....

... hense the discussion of the word "porneia" ... the whole conversation hinges on what exactly that means.

And that word is defined above.

Because scriptures such as this one read VERY differently if you assume porneia to mean something it doesn't. .... similar to many passages in the bible, where one word is translated to mean something entirely different and false doctrines form.

I agree...so WHY is it that some of you are REdefining the actual meaning of the word and creating these fallacious doctrines that allow godless UNmarried sexual immorality ?

G4202
πορνεία
porneia
Thayer Definition:
1) illicit sexual intercourse
1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mar_10:11,Mar_10:12
2) metaphorically the worship of idols
2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols


G4202
πορνεία
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.
​

Another round ?

 

[NHB_MMA]

I dont find it ludicrous at all to proclaim that a concubine was not some casual sexual encounter that was dismissed as easily as some woman we met in a bar and had a one night fling with.

You're sounding like a broken record...playing notes that sound of dogmatism. You don't have to make that argument. Go reread post #90 where I say "I agree that casual sex is wrong." So I'm not trying to compare it to a "one night fling" with someone met in a bar.

It's cool to discuss these issues. Sexuality in the Bible is something that is very different from the way we practice it today. It is refreshing to have a person like yourself, obviously a devout man, acknowledge out-of-the-box ideals like polygamy is not condemned in Scripture. That being said, please have the courtesy to not imply I'm saying something when I'm clearly not.

You may not wish to make the assertion that a concubine was more than just a 'one night stand' but I will.

see above comments...and my previous post

Scripture shows that these concubines were not as much but were a bit more involved with the man than just giving sex to him and any number of others who came her way.

Again, I have made clear my view on casual, virtually meaningless sex, but where does Scripture detail the finer points of exactly what is, or is not, a concubine?

The only point I made was that if a concubine was deemed acceptable, then perhaps (and that's as far as I took it...never claiming any revelation or new interpretation of "porneia" or anything else) sex between two people that care for each other and have established a multi-faceted relationship is fine, even if not married.

Scripture shows us overall where sex belongs and casual, uncommitted sex simply is not where it does belong, Im afraid.

I agree with you...but it's a moot point. There is no justification of the one-night stand, regardless.

I have argued in other threads that casual sex would be wrong in almost any instance, regardless of whether there is an issue with the sex itself. What I'm saying is, playing with a person's emotions or using them for your physical pleasure is sinful. For example, a troubled young woman sits reflecting in bar (could be anywhere, but let's use a somewhat common scenario). A man comes over to talk to her, asks her what is bothering her, offers consoling words, plays his cards right, takes her home.....and never calls her again. Even if God would have no issue with sex itself, that is sinful and cannot be justified, because he is leading her to believe that he cares about her, has some connection with her, while in reality he does not. For argument sake, a person can take the most theologically liberal interpretation (which I certainly do not) of sexuality in the Bible and casual sex cannot be justified.

In fact, while this is really getting off the subject, I have argued that prostitution is, in many ways, a more honorable way to behave, because at least there is no facade built about what the relationship really is. Yet, unless someone produces evidence that Paul really had no issue with the sexual aspect of the prostitution (an argument I believe to be a complete crock) then I'll be the first to say the Bible seems to clearly condemn prostitution.

 

[HuntingMan]

Sorry, NHB.
It sounded as tho in the post I responded to that you were using the old concubine argument that a few others have tried to use. You have to understand that when I see what seems to be just one more repetition of the same worn out point that the response is going to be the same...and it gets VERY tiring having to repeat and repeat and repeat the same exact response over and again 100 times because no one typically wants to waste their precious time READING a discussion before jumping into a thread and acting like whatever they are presenting is some new revelation that no one has ever thought of before.

For instance bringing up the idea that Sarah wasnt 'rushing' God (not an overly relevant point to the issue at hand, tho) because God didnt tell her that she would have a son until after she gave hagar to Abe.
Liz and I have already dealt with that point somewhere in these threads, but here it is having to be shot down yet again and it gets to a point where one starts to feel as tho the repetition might actually be purposeful in some twisted attempt to just get the opposition to give up.

Im sorry if I mistook your intent. I really did get the impression that your post was just hitting on the concubine excuse (since the arent called 'wives') again.

 

[HuntingMan]

Ive added enough to this post that I wanted to repost it.

Read closer.

I HAVE read it closer. Hundreds of times at this rate, maybe more.
I LIVE inside my bible pretty much EVERY single day of my life...and you ?

The 1-2 says that he suggests men do not touch women at ALL.

Uh...yeah
Meaning its GOOD not to touch a woman....not to marry at all. The SAME idea is REPEATED later in this very chapter both with UNmarried widow(ers) and UNmarried virgins.

I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
(1Co 7:8-9 KJV)
Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
(1Co 7:25-26 KJV)

But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
(1Co 7:32 KJV)

etc, etc, etc
​

.. but if they HAVE to, then they should get married... he goes on to say that all this is specifically NOT a divine mandate, but is his own opinion.

Thats a VERY nice try but the issue is to 'avoid fornication'...not just some good idea on Pauls part.
And youre being a bit misleading. The WHOLE passage there was NOT meant to be covered by Pauls speaking by permission not commandment.

1Co 7:6 But I speak this by permission,....
Referring either to what he had said before, though not to all; not to 1Co_7:2 that for the avoiding of fornication, every man should make use of his own wife, and every woman of her own husband; since this is not by permission, but by command, Gen_2:24 that carnal copulation should be between one man and one woman in a married
John Gill Exposition of the bible
​

... anywho... as far as the verse you presented... where do you see anything about unmarried sex?

I think Ive made it VERY clear that the ONLY remedy given by Paul is to have ones OWN husband or wife.

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.
​

I dont really know how much more clearer it needs to be made for some here, but Paul DOESNT offer ANY other options in avoiding this sexual immorality OTHER than to be with ones own spouse.
1+1=2....at least for most.

Literally translated, he's saying that if you have to "sow your oats," it's better to get a wife than a prostitute.

So you'll be showing us your credentials as a scholar in Koine Greek then ?

No, LITERALLY it says nothing of the sort..that is YOUR own paraphrase that rejects the CLEAR definition of 'porneia' that not one single person of your error has proven is NARROWED in meaning to 'temple prostitution' in 1 Cor 7.
You folks keep making the claim yet NONE of you has actually supported that assertion.

The literal meaning is precisely what the text shows....to avoid fornication/sexual immorality let every person have their OWN spouse....ONE option, no more.
*IF* you are going to have sex, to avoid immorality, do it with your OWN husband or wife. NO other options provided and that is pretty much factual an in agreement with the whole regardless of the error being presented by some.

-irrelevance snipped-

Which is it? Union or marriage? Do you agree that the idea of a concubine is biblically acceptable?

I agree that Concubines were some sort of secondary 'wife'...not some harlot or bar girl for a one night stand as some here might want to proclaim to make their error work.

Sarah wasn't rushing God at all... he didn't tell her SHE'D give birth until after Ishmael was born.

You might want to actually read the material before next time before posting.
Abraham KNEW about his 'seed' in Genesis 15 BEFORE Sarah did what she did with Hagar in Genesis 16.
Liz and I JUST covered this like last week !

And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
(Gen 15:13 KJV)

In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
(Gen 15:18 KJV)

​

Sarah would have KNOWN what God had promised Abe being his wife and all
Sarah KNEW about what was promised to Abes SEED above....ABES...get it ? She wasnt 'required' for ABE to have seed that is shown in the prior chapter.
Sarah, being old herself, then tried to RUSH the issue and gave Hagar to Abe to give him "seed".

Not to mention the most OBVIOUS reason for her action

But Sarai was barren; she had no child.
(Gen 11:30 KJV)
​

AFTER her little mistake THEN God tells them she will have the child.

Gen 16:1 Now Sarai, Abram's wife, bare him no children,....
She is before said to be barren, and he to be childless, Gen_11:30; God had promised him a seed, but as yet he had none, which was a trial of his faith; he had been married many years to Sarai his wife, she was his wife when they came out of Ur of the Chaldees, and how long before cannot be said; they stayed and dwelt some time at Haran, the Jews (x) say five years, and they had been now ten years in the land of Canaan, Gen_16:3; and were advanced in years, the one being seventy five, and the other eighty five, so that there was no great probability of having any children, wherefore the following step was taken:
John Gill Exposition of the bible

Gen 16:1-3
Sarai, no longer expecting to have children herself, proposed to Abram to take another wife, whose children she might; her slave, whose children would be her property. This was done without asking counsel of the Lord. Unbelief worked, God's almighty power was forgotten. It was a bad example, and a source of manifold uneasiness. In every relation and situation in life there is some cross for us to bear: much of the exercise of faith consists in patiently submitting, in waiting the Lord's time, and using only those means which he appoints for the removal of the cross. Foul temptations may have very fair pretences, and be coloured with that which is very plausible. Fleshly wisdom puts us out of God's way. This would not be the case, if we would ask counsel of God by his word and by prayer, before we attempt that which is doubtful.
Matthew Henry concise commentary
​

She WAS trying to rush the issue by giving Abe Hagar so he would have 'seed' thru her since Sarah was old enough to believe that she could even have a child....you DO remember their reaction when God told them she would have a child, right ?

Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?
(Gen 17:17 KJV)

And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him. Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?
(Gen 18:10-12 KJV)
​

Neither of them believed that a woman her age would bear a son.
THAT would have been the reason why she would have given Hagar to Abraham. She knew what God had said in Genesis 15 and then tried to RUSH the issue by giving Abe Hagar to have 'seed' with.
1+1=2

Every detail lines up to show a desperate woman trying to rush a situation that she believed impossible.

Apparently Im going to have to do an article on the point to keep from having to retype this out every week.
Sarah tried to rush God by giving Abe Hagar

And remember, that wasn't the first example of polygamy.

And ?
I havent said a single thing against polygamy (spelling ?).
Polygamy, as much as it disgusts me, IS a marriage covenant, not harlotry or promiscuity.
I use that polygamy was not prohibited for my own arguments
Evidences of Remarriage II - Polygamy

Judah had three sons. His first married a woman, but died with no heir. His second was commanded BY GOD to impregnate her... but he slept with her and purposefully did not impregnate her, thereby disobeyed God, so he was killed. The third was too young to impregnate her.... Eventually she saw the third was old enough to impregnate her, so she dressed as a shrine prostitute to go have her way with him... but Judah happened by her first and she got what she wanted from him.

So... you know... God COMMANDING someone to sleep with someone other than his wife... kinda a good indication that he doesn't find it sinful.

Can you show me where God "commanded" this ?
I want to see the what it is you are refering to EXACTLY so I can look at the context myself.
Im betting my last dollar that there is more to this than you are providing such as (for an example) when a man childless and his brother is to take his widow AS his wife and give seed to his brother, which ended up being IN the law itself, so apparently is just something God finds to be important and in NO way promotes promiscuity.

Is THIS it, possibly ?
Where Onan was instructed to MARRY his brothers widow and give her seed ?

And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
(Gen 38:8-9 KJV)
​

Which ended up being godly law...

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
(Deu 25:5 KJV)
​

I don't know that any particular SPECIFIC sexual act is mentioned in great detail in the bible. Is one position OK, while another is not? Do you agree that solomon was a good example? Married to THAT many women, with THAT Many concubines... and do you honestly think none of them ever "cooperated?"

cooperated? What on earth are you talking about ?

... with all the examples of polygamous relationship... it's sort of assumed that that sort of thing would happen.

Polygamy is 'marriage' so I have no clue what point you are trying to make.

 

[NHB_MMA]

Sorry, NHB.
It sounded as tho in the post I responded to that you were using the old concubine argument that a few others have tried to use. You have to understand that when I see what seems to be just one more repetition of the same worn out point that the response is going to be the same...and it gets VERY tiring having to repeat and repeat and repeat the same exact response over and again 100 times because no one typically wants to waste their precious time READING a discussion before jumping into a thread and acting like whatever they are presenting is some new revelation that no one has ever thought of before.

For instance bringing up the idea that Sarah wasnt 'rushing' God (not an overly relevant point to the issue at hand, tho) because God didnt tell her that she would have a son until after she gave hagar to Abe.
Liz and I have already dealt with that point somewhere in these threads, but here it is having to be shot down yet again and it gets to a point where one starts to feel as tho the repetition might actually be purposeful in some twisted attempt to just get the opposition to give up.

Im sorry if I mistook your intent. I really did get the impression that your post was just hitting on the concubine excuse (since the arent called 'wives') again.

Thanks.

The concubine issue does throw an interesting monkeywrench into the equation. As I said, I am not sure exactly what the relationship consisted of and would be interested in historical insight. My only point is that clearly sexual relations were deemed okay in relationships that were not like our marriages of today. Therefore sexual relations may be permissible in legitimate dating relationships between two people that love each other and are responsible...not between a couple of teenagers that have no ideal what they're really feeling and no monetary means to care for any resulting children, handle the inevitable emotions etc. This differs from the viewpoint you have expressed, but I can assure you that I am not one seeking to turn orthodoxy on its head because it's convenient for my lifestyle.

 

[HuntingMan]

I personally just dont see that any monkey wrench is present at all.

I think where these women called 'concubines' are concerned that we need to look at the relationship/situation and determine whether these were just 'casual sex' scenarios or if the man took care of these women as he would a 'wife'.
If she stays with him like a wife would, if she is taken care of in a similar regard, if she bears him children (or not), etc, then its easy enough to discern that this isnt a situation of what we would necessarily see as premarital or UNmarried sex.
What if the the word 'concubine' is simply understood as something like a 'secondary wife' to the men who had them ? The relationship definitely seems to show overall that these women werent tramps, harlots or one night stands, but the instances Ive seen so far in scripture seems to present a woman thats about as near to being an all out 'wife' as one can get.

Based on the relationships overall where concubines are concerned, I simply do not feel that they are any sort of argument for UNmarried sex.

Gen 22:24 And his concubine, whose name was Reumah,....
Not an harlot, but a secondary wife, who was under the proper and lawful wife, and a sort of a head servant in the family, and chiefly kept for the procreation of children; which was not thought either unlawful or dishonourable in those times such as was Hagar in Abraham's family:
John Gills Exposition on the Bible


​