Fornication definition

[HuntingMan]

You're fighting very fervently to disprove that concubines are harlots... Problem is, you're responding to an argument NO ONE is making.

Im HARDLY arguing ONLY that point, poster.

A concubine is still a binding relationship.

and there are SOME in this thread who seemingly are not accepting that fact.

.. and a relationship with a concubine is likely to be stronger than some marriages.

A matter of opinion, possible I suppose, not overly relevant to the point at hand.

The point of this thread is to show that sexual activity is not biblically restricted to one man the one woman to which the man is legally married.

And the ONLY argument that seems to be prevalent in this thread is the old 'concubine' thing...something that has been put down already, but not everyone is willing to accept it.

All those posts and your supporting evidence is completely off of that topic because you're latching onto fighting an assertion that no one is making.

Laughable.
Do you READ anyone elses posts ?
NHB_MMA and I have been discussing that very thing .

Does anyone here think "Concubine" is synonymous with a one-night stand situation? Or that such relationships are ethical/moral? Because I don't think anyone does.

And that ISNT the only point being talked about here, G...so read a post or two and SEE what is actually being discussed.

But, is it moral to sleep with someone to whom you are engaged, but not yet married?

Again, I take 'engagement' as seriously as I would betrothal so MY view of that is simple. If two betrothed persons who are ALREADY promised to one another have sex, they have simply done what they are allowed to do.

And, what if sex isn't involved, is just "sleeping" together wrong? Is it a sin to kiss before marriage?

I didnt realize we were breaking this down to handholding and back patting

We're asking this not to push that line... but to greater know God and his intentions for us.

His intention is presented quite clearly in 1 Cor 7:1-2...if youre going to have sex do it with your husband or wife....NO other options need apply.

 

[The Gregorian]

and there are SOME in this thread who seemingly are not accepting that fact.

... whoever's making the assumptions about concubines you're fighting against is quite obviously wrong. You win. That part of the discussion's not entertaining anymore.

And the ONLY argument that seems to be prevalent in this thread is the old 'concubine' thing...something that has been put down already, but not everyone is willing to accept it.

Not everyone's willing to accept that Christopher Columbus didn't invent america. ... some people are silly.

Laughable.
Do you READ anyone elses posts ?
NHB_MMA and I have been discussing that very thing.

... you mean the huge list of the same definitions over and over and over when you guys were getting way too specific on an unwanted tangent? No, wasn't paying attention... didn't care. Still don't.

And that ISNT the only point being talked about here, G...so read a post or two and SEE what is actually being discussed.

... I beg to differ... read the first post. =P

Again, I take 'engagement' as seriously as I would betrothal so MY view of that is simple. If two betrothed persons who are ALREADY promised to one another have sex, they have simply done what they are allowed to do.

Then we're in agreement. But often you give the impression that ALL SEXUAL CONTACT IS ONLY FOR A LEGALLY MARRIED PAIR OF TWO PEOPLE OF OPPOSITE SEX! ... that may not be what you mean. But that's how it comes across -sometimes-.

I didnt realize we were breaking this down to handholding and back patting

That's... what... the main part of the thread's about. Exactly what is considered "fornication?" Is it ONLY penile/vaginal intercourse? Or is other sexual activity uniformly prohibited?

... take Bill Clinton. He cheated. Hands down, that's a no-no, plus he lied about it. But... if it was his wife, many churches would still consider that fornication, because it's not proper use of the genitals. Or, a more liberal approach harking back to Abraham and Sarai.... What if it turns out Hillary was OK with it... maybe she had a legitimate headache, but still wanted to make him happy and all three parties consented. Is that act wrong?

 

[HuntingMan]

... whoever's making the assumptions about concubines you're fighting against is quite obviously wrong. You win. That part of the discussion's not entertaining anymore.

And since that part of the discussion doesnt really involve you, you dont need to READ those posts if you arent interested in them, are you ?

But often you give the impression that ALL SEXUAL CONTACT IS ONLY FOR A LEGALLY MARRIED PAIR OF TWO PEOPLE OF OPPOSITE SEX!

and you might be mistaking that I think that TWO ENGAGED/BETROTHED PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEX ARE ANYTHING LESS THAN 'MARRIED' BEFORE GOD ALMIGHTY !

Even betrothal required a bill of DIVORCE.

AS for the opposite sex thing, absolutely. Two man cannot be married and having sex for them is simply abomination.

 

[Crazy Liz]

There is a logical contradiction here in that you have said we cannot rely on the Bible to list everything that could possibly be a sin, if I'm not mistaken. Yet, you refuse to consider any other source for knowledge or clarification at all? The Bible does not cannot an all-inclusive and exhaustive lists of everything that could ever be sinful, nor does it necessary provide an exhaustive explanation of the finer points of a concubine relationship.

The Bible + HM's opinion is sufficient. Anyone who reads the Bible & disagrees with HM is wrong.

Simple enough?

 

[Crazy Liz]

I can tell you I would never feel comfortable with such a relationship where the attitude is "this is cool till something better comes along". That is playing with someone's emotions anyway and not being completely honest. Therefore, that is sinful in and of itself, as I've explained in previous posts.

Actually, I don't think you're far off. If the Mosaic Law gives any woman a right to divorce her husband, it is a concubine who marries a wife, and then neglects the concubine.

 

[Crazy Liz]

HOnestly, I dont know or care to even find out 'why'.

ISTM I've seen you ask "why?" questions lots of times when people disagree with you.

 

[HuntingMan]

The Bible + HM's opinion is sufficient. Anyone who reads the Bible & disagrees with HM is wrong.

Simple enough?

Simple enough that if you CAN show that Im wrong then you can.
If you cant, as apparently you have not been able to show in your posts, then its simply that you cant.
Yeah, that seems simple enough.

Now how about you stay on topic and not bring my name into anymore of your personal jabs

 

[NHB_MMA]

Funny you should treat this story as exemplary. Did you read the rest of it?

The Levite certainly did not treat his concubine as a wife.

David similarly treated his wives and concubines differently when Absalom was about to attack. Neither the Levite's concubine nor David's concubine were "taken care of like a wife."

I don't recall what you are referring to. Can you post the Scriptures you are referring to and explain your argument?

So you dont believe Gods word in Judges ?

I'm not saying that. Your account in Judges described a very strong relationship with marriage qualities. But I still don't understand why there is a distinction if the relationship is the same for all sakes and purposes.

I am curious to what Liz refers to. One thing is for sure: I can't deem the Judges passage irrelevant to the issue...nor can you ignore a distinction between the relationships if she manages to bring out some supporting Scriptures.

 

[NHB_MMA]

Hmmm.
So marrying a 13 year old girl is 'ok' then ?

Well, that's actually been a part of various cultures throughout history, but, in terms of our modern society...Heck NO!!!

I'd probably take the first bus out of town if I had a wife that wasted her time with stupid stuff like soap operas. Now, if I had one that spent her time watching Hannah Montana or something I'd throw myself under the bus and end my agony.

Clearly, these days both sexes are not prepared with the maturity and life skills for marriages at that age.

Well, ok but sometimes these posts sound less like a quest for truth and more like a firm assertion that something is 'true'.

Indeed. Sometimes theological discussions are agonizing because the people are about as serious about being open-minded and thoughtful in their considerations as Ahmadinejad is about peace with Israel.

You folks simply must stop reading emotion into everyones posts. Its only a couple here that do it, but its quite annoying to have to watch every single letter in a post worrying that someones going to read too much into it.
So now its DEFINITIONS that are offending ?
I offered those as EVIDENCE and you take them as OFFENSE !

Maybe we need to just let this discussion end here because if a definition meant to help EXPLAIN the facts is offending you, I dont want to take any more chances in this discussion with you

Let's be honest. I have discussed the matter with you in an intelligent matter, regardless of what points we agree and disagree on. You cannot possibly think I am so stupid as to honestly be in need of the definition of a "son-in-law" or "father-in-law". Therefore, I can hardly see it as anything but a little bit of a condescending jab.

 

[NHB_MMA]

The Bible + HM's opinion is sufficient. Anyone who reads the Bible & disagrees with HM is wrong.

Simple enough?

I've always found him likeable enough in other threads. Him and I, and likely you and I, and a thousand other people will not see eye to eye on all matters and it's human nature to be wary of other views.

 

[HuntingMan]

I'm not saying that. Your account in Judges described a very strong relationship with marriage qualities. But I still don't understand why there is a distinction if the relationship is the same for all sakes and purposes.

That we dont understand 'why' concerning an issue doesnt give us any reason to deny what we see as far as facts.
I dont understand 'why' a young woman whos parents could not present the tokens of her virginity would have been so horribly put to death.
That doesnt change Gods law in the matter tho, does it ?

I am curious to what Liz refers to. One thing is for sure: I can't deem the Judges passage irrelevant to the issue...nor can you ignore a distinction between the relationships if she manages to bring out some supporting Scriptures.

Much of what I see from certain posters is twisting the intent of scripture beyond any recognizable intent. That and an uncanny knack of inserting things INTO the texts that arent actually there.
Ill leave it at that.

Let's be honest. I have discussed the matter with you in an intelligent matter, regardless of what points we agree and disagree on. You cannot possibly think I am so stupid as to honestly be in need of the definition of a "son-in-law" or "father-in-law". Therefore, I can hardly see it as anything but a little bit of a condescending jab.

We BOTH needed to see what the intent of the Hebrew was. There was always a possibility that the Hebrew involved could have been just vague enough that the rendering might have been 'questionable' as it is in a few places in some translations.

Would you rather that I simply make claims and then NOT provide evidence to support them?
I gave the definitions so that you could immediately discern whether I was making anything up or not.
I assure you that when I wrote that post up that there was nothing even remotely on my mind other than presenting enough evidence that might convince you. There was no ill intent at all.

Now do as others have done in the last day or so and make it look like our boys putting their lives on the line in Iraq are only there because of their hate and desire to murder, then I might not have anything overly pleasant on my mind.

God bless

 

[Crazy Liz]

I don't recall what you are referring to. Can you post the Scriptures you are referring to and explain your argument?

I was referring to the story of the Levite and his concubine in Judges 19. Right after the passage HM quoted, he throws her to a mob to be raped all night & won't open the door for her when she come crawling up half dead. Instead, in the morning he puts her on his donkey, takes her home, and cuts her to pieces, sending her body parts to be displayed all over Israel.

I'm not saying that. Your account in Judges described a very strong relationship with marriage qualities. But I still don't understand why there is a distinction if the relationship is the same for all sakes and purposes.

I am curious to what Liz refers to. One thing is for sure: I can't deem the Judges passage irrelevant to the issue...nor can you ignore a distinction between the relationships if she manages to bring out some supporting Scriptures.

Would a man have thrown an actual wife to a mob to be raped?

And after that, would he refuse to open the door to her or give her medical attention, or even a decent burial if she was dead, but cut her to pieces and put her body parts on display?

I don't think this story supports the idea that a man cared for a concubine the same as a wife.

 

[HuntingMan]

Would a man have thrown an actual wife to a mob to be raped?
I don't think this story supports the idea that a man cared for a concubine the same as a wife.

THAT is your argument ?
And what about when a man was going to cast out his own DAUGHTERS, Liz ?
Your view that a concubine isnt in any way 'married' is based on a mans ACTIONS towards her OVER the scriptures that SHOW that it IS 'marriage' ?

Right after the passage HM quoted, he throws her to a mob to be raped all night & won't open the door for her when she come crawling up half dead. Instead, in the morning he puts her on his donkey, takes her home, and cuts her to pieces, sending her body parts to be displayed all over Israel.

interesting.
By YOUR logic I guess these werent 'actual' daughters then ?

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
(Gen 19:5-8 KJV)

​

Odd that you think that a man WOULDNT do such a thing to a WIFE, but to his own virgin daughters....I guess that entirely different.
Maybe Lot didnt 'care' for his daughters like REAL daughters since he was offering pretty much the SAME thing with them ?


NHB_MMA....I hope you can understand why I dont exactly run with Liz's conclusions very often.
Her evidence in this case is quite easily shown as not being even remotely damning to what was shown from Judges and we can see with our own eyes that Lot offered his own daughters up, so that a man did so with his concubine/wife isnt that far fetched at all.
Especially when we see things like the terrible situation that Abraham was willing to put Sarah in to save his own skin, not once but twice.

​

 

[Crazy Liz]

THAT is your argument ?
And what about when a man was going to cast out his own DAUGHTERS, Liz ?

Your view that a concubine isnt in any way 'married' is based on a mans ACTIONS towards her OVER the scriptures that SHOW that it IS 'marriage' ?

interesting.
By YOUR logic I guess these werent real 'daughters' then ?

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
(Gen 19:5-8 KJV)​

Lot offered them his daughters, not his wife. A man had the right to sell his daughters into slavery and do all sorts of things he could not do and would never do to his wife. Some of these stories are barbaric, but they show that concubines and daughters were treated like property more so than wives.

Why did the Mosaic Law have to specifically legislate that a man could not sell his concubine?

(Recall that the Mosaic Law did explicitly say a man could sell his daughter.)

Odd that you think that a man WOULDNT do such a thing to a WIFE, but to his own virgin daughters....I guess that entirely different.
Maybe Lot didnt 'care' for his daughters like REAL daughters since he was offering pretty much the SAME thing with them ?

Yup. The idea of considering your children more precious than your spouse is a modern innovation. In fact, probably 20th century.

That you would consider this odd simply demonstrates your lack of cultural knowledge.

NHB_MMA....I hope you can understand why I dont exactly run with Liz's conclusions very often.

​

That's OK.

You just didn't choose a very good example.

==============

ETA response to HM's addition:

Her evidence in this case is quite easily shown as not being even remotely damning to what was shown from Judges and we can see with our own eyes that Lot offered his own daughters up, so that a man did so with his concubine/wife isnt that far fetched at all.
Especially when we see things like the danger that Abraham was willing to put Sarah in to save his own skin, not once but twice.

What Abraham and Sarah did was a little different, but yeah. That's a better example.

 

[HuntingMan]

No I chose a perfect example.
Apparently 'love' for ones children is something you dont comprehend in Gods word.
Was God 'ok' with a man 'sacrificing' his childrens lives or flesh ?
Shall we examine that a bit tonite, liz ?

And also a wife was pretty much 'property' of her husbands as well.
So you didnt go a very good job of defending your claim.

 

[HuntingMan]

NHB_MMA....I hope you can understand why I dont exactly run with Liz's conclusions very often.
Her evidence in this case is quite easily shown as not being even remotely damning to what was shown from Judges and we can see with our own eyes that Lot offered his own daughters up, so that a man did so with his concubine/wife isnt that far fetched at all.
Especially when we see things like the terrible situation that Abraham was willing to put Sarah in to save his own skin, not once but twice.

NHB_MMA
YOud do yourself a great justice in looking to what Gods word SAYS concerning concubines rather than running with Liz's hypothetical nonsense about 'would a man toss his wife out to be raped' when we can see that a man offered the same with his own daughters.

Liz is now going to change her mode to this being about what a man was 'allowed' to do, but was that what her first point was ?
Did LIZ not make her point be about how this man 'CARED FOR' ?

crazy liz:
"Would a man have thrown an actual wife to a mob to be raped?
I don't think this story supports the idea that a man cared for a concubine the same as a wife.

And now since that has been shot down in flames, she's just going to dodge the issue by making it a 'property' issue instead.

And all the while what I gave you from SCRIPTURE proves her view entirely wrong.
Yes, there seemingly is some 'difference' with wives" and concubines, but we can see very clearly in scripture that the concubine IS seen as being "married" this man to whatever extent.

So do we trust GOD definition or Liz's hypothesis that seems to be built on shifting sands here ?

And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the side of mount Ephraim, who took to him a concubine out of Bethlehemjudah.

And his concubine played the harlot against him, and went away from him unto her father's house to Bethlehemjudah, and was there four whole months.

And her husband arose, and went after her, to speak friendly unto her, and to bring her again, having his servant with him, and a couple of asses: and she brought him into her father's house: and when the father of the damsel saw him, he rejoiced to meet him.

And his father in law, the damsel's father, retained him; and he abode with him three days: so they did eat and drink, and lodged there. And it came to pass on the fourth day, when they arose early in the morning, that he rose up to depart: and the damsel's father said unto his son in law, Comfort thine heart with a morsel of bread, and afterward go your way.

And they sat down, and did eat and drink both of them together: for the damsel's father had said unto the man, Be content, I pray thee, and tarry all night, and let thine heart be merry. And when the man rose up to depart, his father in law urged him: therefore he lodged there again.

And he arose early in the morning on the fifth day to depart: and the damsel's father said, Comfort thine heart, I pray thee. And they tarried until afternoon, and they did eat both of them. And when the man rose up to depart, he, and his concubine, and his servant, his father in law, the damsel's father, said unto him, Behold, now the day draweth toward evening, I pray you tarry all night: behold, the day groweth to an end, lodge here, that thine heart may be merry; and to morrow get you early on your way, that thou mayest go home.
(Jdg 19:1-9 KJV)

​

The word 'father in law' is this

H2859
חתן
châthan
BDB Definition:
1) to become a son-in-law, make oneself a daughter’s husband
1a) (Qal) wife’s father, wife’s mother, father-in-law, mother-in-law (participle)
1b) (Hithpael) to make oneself a daughter’s husband

H2859
חתן
châthan
khaw-than'
A primitive root; to give (a daughter) away in marriage; hence (generally) to contract affinity by marriage: - join in affinity, father in law, make marriages, mother in law, son in law.

​

And "son in law" is this

H2860
חתן
châthân
BDB Definition:
1) son-in-law, daughter’s husband, bridegroom, husband
Part of Speech: noun masculine

H2860
חתן
châthân
khaw-thawn'
From H2859; a relative by marriage (especially through the bride); figuratively a circumcised child (as a species of religious espousal): - bridegroom, husband, son in law.​

 

[Crazy Liz]

No I chose a perfect example.
Apparently 'love' for ones children is something you dont comprehend in Gods word.
Was God 'ok' with a man 'sacrificing' his childrens lives or flesh ?
Shall we examine that a bit tonite, liz ?

You really want to?

Let's start with Isaac.

And also a wife was pretty much 'property' of her husbands as well.
So you didnt go a very good job of defending your silly claim.

The Mosaic Law allowed a man to sell his daughter but not to sell his wife or concubine. I assume that gives some evidence of their relative value in that culture.

 

[HuntingMan]

You really want to?

Let's start with Isaac.

How about you not try to lead me down a rabbit trail
*I* will, as always, dig up MY evidence as *I* see fit

So what is the assertion here?
State it clearly.

.

 

[Crazy Liz]

So do we trust GOD definition or Liz's hypothesis that seems to be built on shifting sands here ?

NHB_MMA, I hope by now you've come to understand the meaning of "God's definition." It's simply what what HM makes up when he wants to substitute his own assumptions for the facts of culture.

 

[HuntingMan]

The Mosaic Law allowed a man to sell his daughter but not to sell his wife or concubine. I assume that gives some evidence of their relative value in that culture.

wonderful try, Liz...
Im sorry but that was NOT your original point in this matter NOR what *I* originally responded to.

crazy liz:
"Would a man have thrown an actual wife to a mob to be raped?
I don't think this story supports the idea that a man cared for a concubine the same as a wife.

YOU made this and issue of how the man "CARED FOR"....lets not play this game that your first intent had a thing to do with property rights.
I know full well how wives, daughters and concubines were seen by men then...I dont need a lesson from you on the issue.

YOU asked if the man WOULD have thrown her to the mob to be raped and made it a question of his CARING for her as one does a wife.
And when you were cornered you pulled your bait and switched to ownership.

Im not an idiot, believe it or not.