"Premarital Sex is Not a Sin Against God"

[james2ko]

You do realize don't you that someone had to translate the Bible's Hebrew and Greek into all the modern-day versions we have. This is one one of the reasons we have at least seven versions of Isaiah 45:7. God either created

Bad times or
Disaster or
Evil or
Calamity or
Adversity or
Hard Times or
Doom.​

Take your pick.

So you say; but you have yet to produce any verifiable source. And, it's likely that this source of yours isn't the best source available. It's most likely there are other, much better sources, that contradict your source, which is what the translators relied upon when deciding NOT to use "his own wife" in Ephesians 5:33. Or do you think the 82% who didn't use "his own wife" in Ephesians simply wanted to bring a little variety to Paul's writing? Think that's how translators work?.

Take what pick??? You do realize the Greek text I produced is not a translation. It is the language in which the New Testament was written. What better verifiable source than Paul's own authored Greek words from the oldest NT manuscript in existence??

 

[McBell]

Take what pick??? You do realize the Greek text I produced is not a translation. It is the language in which the New Testament was written. What better verifiable source than Paul's own authored Greek words from the oldest NT manuscript in existence??

Which is rather comical gibven the fact you have to translate it for those who do not know the original languages.
In fact, those who do not know the original languages have to take your word that you presented the original languages.
Which adds a whole nother layer to your point about translations....

In short, you are not actually helping your point.

 

[james2ko]

Which is rather comical gibven the fact you have to translate it for those who do not know the original languages.
In fact, those who do not know the original languages have to take your word that you presented the original languages. Which adds a whole nother layer to your point about translations....In short, you are not actually helping your point.

With today's technology and various "free" interlinear online tools, no one has to take anyone's word when it comes to translation. Unless of course one is attempting to "skwirm" their way out of being refuted.

 

[McBell]

With today's technology and various "free" interlinear online tools, no one has to take anyone's word when it comes to translation. Unless of course one is attempting to squirm their way out of being refuted.

I am not taking sides one way or the otter.
I am merely pointing out that you look kinda silly complaining about translations then presenting something that has to be translated.....

 

[Skwim]

Take what pick???

Take your pick from the words I listed that are used in Isaiah 45:7 in various Bibles.

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create your pick goes here: I the Lord do all these things.​

You do realize the Greek text I produced is not a translation. It is the language in which the New Testament was written. What better verifiable source than Paul's own authored Greek words from the oldest NT manuscript in existence??

I give up. Have a nice day.


.

 

[james2ko]

Take your pick from the words I listed that are used in Isaiah 45:7 in various Bibles.

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create your pick goes here: I the Lord do all these things.​

I give up. Have a nice day..

You are wiser than I thought....

 

[Skwim]

Oops, a P.S.

Since you brought it up, one more thing. I put your Greek text, "την εαυτου γυναικα," through an online translator tool. It said it means "The self, managed."

I also went to a Greek interlinear New Testament for Eph_5:33. Its translation is

"Nevertheless let every one
of you in particular so love his
wife even as himself; and the
wife [see] that she reverence
[her] husband.
source
​

Nary a mention of "his own wife."


.

 

[Acim]

Since these words are in the Bible, this indicates to me that, while not a direct command from the Lord, that God inspired the writer to include them. (2 Timothy 3:16,17)

Thank you for confirming my point (about not being Word of God). But given what you are saying, the scripture says (or strongly implies) if single (right now) then better to remain unmarried. And strongly implies if you cannot exercise self control (will burn with passion) then better to marry. That's quite a leap in logic to conclude "God favors marriage" (however that appears to own religious sense). I see the passage/chapter as being about how it is better to devote 100% to spiritual connection with God than to entertain a life that is split between that and a physical relationship.

 

[Thanda]

You are wiser than I thought....

He is indeed. He's given up twice already.

 

[james2ko]

Since you brought it up, one more thing. I put your Greek text, "την εαυτου γυναικα," through an online translator tool. It said it means "The self, managed." I also went to a Greek interlinear New Testament for Eph_5:33. Its translation is

"Nevertheless let every one
of you in particular so love his
wife even as himself; and the
wife [see] that she reverence
[her] husband.
source
​

Nary a mention of "his own wife." .

Yeah. But did you post a side by side comparison between the Greek terms of 1 Co 7:2 and Eph 5:33 from the same interlinear source (BTW bad link)? Of course not..Wanna know why? Because the same three Greek words, with identical grammar tags, are used for both passages, thus rendering your percentage argument null and void. Perhaps I overestimated your wisdom

 

[Skwim]

Yeah. But did you post a side by side comparison between the Greek terms of 1 Co 7:2 and Eph 5:33 from the same interlinear source (BTW bad link)?

Actually, I did, and here's the low down.


Assuming you're referring to the phrase:

thn .............. eautou............. gunaika

THE .... Of-self of-himself.... WOMAN​

[this how your την εαυτου γυναικα appears in the Scripture 4 all Greek Interlinear Bible (NT) web site I linked you to. (The Greek alphabet does not copy/paste from the site)]


Notice that the word "own," Δική, is not specifically mentioned. However, most of the translators chose to use it in Cor. but not Eph. Why? Context and no doubt other sources that convinced them the phrase was appropriate in Cor. but not in Eph.. As I pointed out, 94% percent of the translations agree that "his own wife" deserves to be in Cor, and 82% agree it doesn't deserve to be in Eph. Is this reasonable? It sure is.

Some basic linguistics:
You have to understand that a specific word or phrase does not necessarily mean the same thing everywhere it appears. This is one of the reasons why translations can't be done word-for-word or phrase for phrase. If you knew a foreign language this would likely be apparent, particularly for a language from a different linguistic family than your own. And this is why " thn eautou gunaika" or "την εαυτου γυναικα" is rendered differently in different places.

So in 1 Cor 7:2 "την εαυτου γυναικα" ends up being translated as "his own wife"

Nevertheless, to avoid]
fornication, let every man have
his own wife, and let every
woman have her own husband​

and in Eph 5:33 "την εαυτου γυναικα" as "his wife"

Nevertheless let every one
of you in particular so love his
wife even as himself; and the
wife [see] that she reverence
[her] husband
​

According to the scholars this is what Paul is saying.* Two different things but using the same words.

* 80%, of scholars feel Ephesians was not written by Paul.
source

Perhaps I overestimated your wisdom

Nope, just underestimated my knowledge.


.


.

 

[james2ko]

Actually, I did, and here's the low down. Assuming you're referring to the phrase:

thn .............. eautou............. gunaika

THE .... Of-self of-himself.... WOMAN

[this how your την εαυτου γυναικα appears in the Scripture 4 all Greek Interlinear Bible (NT) web site I linked you to. (The Greek alphabet does not copy/paste from the site)]

Some basic linguistics:
You have to understand that a specific word or phrase does not necessarily mean the same thing everywhere it appears. This is one of the reasons why translations can't be done word-for-word or phrase for phrase. If you knew a foreign language this would likely be apparent, particularly for a language from a different linguistic family than your own. And this is why " thn eautou gunaika" or "την εαυτου γυναικα" is rendered differently in different places.

So in 1 Cor 7:2 "την εαυτου γυναικα" ends up being translated as "his own wife"

Nevertheless, to avoid]
fornication, let every man have
his own wife, and let every
woman have her own husband

and in Eph 5:33 "την εαυτου γυναικα" as "his wife"

Nevertheless let every one
of you in particular so love his
wife even as himself; and the
wife [see] that she reverence
[her] husband

According to the scholars this is what Paul is saying.* Two different things but using the same words.

* 80%, of scholars feel Ephesians was not written by Paul.

Great job proving why there is no consensus on the translation of the two passages. Not so good a job proving why the minority, who did translate the two passages the same, cannot be correct.

Notice that the word "own," Δική, is not specifically mentioned. However, most of the translators chose to use it in Cor. but not Eph. Why? Context and no doubt other sources that convinced them the phrase was appropriate in Cor. but not in Eph.. As I pointed out, 94% percent of the translations agree that "his own wife" deserves to be in Cor, and 82% agree it doesn't deserve to be in Eph. Is this reasonable? It sure is. Nope, just underestimated my knowledge.

Maybe not as knowledgeable as you think. A knowledgeable person would know that "reasonable" is not definitive. A knowledgeable person realizes the majority does not equate to correctness. A knowledgeable person should realize with all the grammar being identical and no glaring contextual differences, the minority who translated the two identical Greek phrases the same in both passages are closer to the correct rendering than those who did not. So you're right, I did underestimated your knowledge

 

[Skwim]

Great job proving why there is no consensus on the translation of the two passages.

Proving? Proof is only useful in mathematics, logic, and alcohol. Besides, it would be obvious to anyone with a second or third grade reading ability that there's no consensus. Hardly a biggie.

Not so good a job proving why the minority, who did translate the two passages the same, cannot be correct.

Can't bring myself to care. That's your burden if you care.

Maybe not as knowledgeable as you think. A knowledgeable person would know that "reasonable" is not definitive. A knowledgeable person realizes the majority does not equate to correctness.

I'm holding back a "Tee Hee" here. Stop straining so hard.

A knowledgeable person should realize with all the grammar being identical and no glaring contextual differences, the minority who translated the two identical Greek phrases the same in both passages are closer to the correct rendering than those who did not. So you're right, I did underestimated your knowledge

Too bad all those stupid scholars with all their expertise and resources didn't have you around to set them straight.


.

 

[james2ko]

Proving? Proof is only useful in mathematics, logic, and alcohol. Besides, it would be obvious to anyone with a second or third grade reading ability that there's no consensus. Hardly a biggie.

Can't bring myself to care. That's your burden if you care.


I'm holding back a "Tee Hee" here. Stop straining so hard.


Too bad all those stupid scholars with all their expertise and resources didn't have you around to set them straight.


.

Now that we got that out of our system. Let's focus back on the topic. The article concludes the bible does not forbid sex outside of marriage. If that is true, the author does not address why women in Israel were executed for engaging in sex outside of marriage?

Deu 22:13 "Suppose a man marries a woman, but after sleeping with her, he turns against her
Deu 22:14 and publicly accuses her of shameful conduct, saying, 'When I married this woman, I discovered she was not a virgin.'
Deu 22:15 Then the woman's father and mother must bring the proof of her virginity to the elders as they hold court at the town gate.
Deu 22:16 Her father must say to them, 'I gave my daughter to this man to be his wife, and now he has turned against her.
Deu 22:17 He has accused her of shameful conduct, saying, "I discovered that your daughter was not a virgin." But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity.' Then they must spread her bed sheet before the elders.
Deu 22:18 The elders must then take the man and punish him.
Deu 22:19 They must also fine him 100 pieces of silver, which he must pay to the woman's father because he publicly accused a virgin of Israel of shameful conduct. The woman will then remain the man's wife, and he may never divorce her.
Deu 22:20 "But suppose the man's accusations are true, and he can show that she was not a virgin.
Deu 22:21 The woman must be taken to the door of her father's home, and there the men of the town must stone her to death, for she has committed a disgraceful crime in Israel by being promiscuous while living in her parents' home. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you. (NLT)​

The author commented on Deu 22:28-29 but seems to have "overlooked" the part of the chapter which refutes his conclusion.

 

[rusra02]

Thank you for confirming my point (about not being Word of God). But given what you are saying, the scripture says (or strongly implies) if single (right now) then better to remain unmarried. And strongly implies if you cannot exercise self control (will burn with passion) then better to marry. That's quite a leap in logic to conclude "God favors marriage" (however that appears to own religious sense). I see the passage/chapter as being about how it is better to devote 100% to spiritual connection with God than to entertain a life that is split between that and a physical relationship.

You misunderstood what I wrote. These words are, indeed, part of all Scripture inspired of God, IMO. And I believe the Scriptures mention honorable marriage as the outlet for sexual passion, not fornication. I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[McBell]

If that is true, the author does not address why women in Israel were executed for engaging in sex outside of marriage?

Seriously?
You do know that religions have punished people for things they CLAIM their god hates/dislikes/etc. that is not supported by their Holy Writings, right?

 

[Acim]

You misunderstood what I wrote. These words are, indeed, part of all Scripture inspired of God, IMO. And I believe the Scriptures mention honorable marriage as the outlet for sexual passion, not fornication. I agree with the rest of your post.

I don't see what you are saying I misunderstood, but I'm guessing it is (slight) disagreement on "Word of God" stuff. I could see that being larger, rather significant debate, but probably outside scope of this thread.

 

[Skwim]

Now that we got that out of our system. Let's focus back on the topic. The article concludes the bible does not forbid sex outside of marriage. If that is true, the author does not address why women in Israel were executed for engaging in sex outside of marriage?

Deu 22:13 "Suppose a man marries a woman, but after sleeping with her, he turns against her
Deu 22:14 and publicly accuses her of shameful conduct, saying, 'When I married this woman, I discovered she was not a virgin.'
Deu 22:15 Then the woman's father and mother must bring the proof of her virginity to the elders as they hold court at the town gate.
Deu 22:16 Her father must say to them, 'I gave my daughter to this man to be his wife, and now he has turned against her.
Deu 22:17 He has accused her of shameful conduct, saying, "I discovered that your daughter was not a virgin." But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity.' Then they must spread her bed sheet before the elders.
Deu 22:18 The elders must then take the man and punish him.
Deu 22:19 They must also fine him 100 pieces of silver, which he must pay to the woman's father because he publicly accused a virgin of Israel of shameful conduct. The woman will then remain the man's wife, and he may never divorce her.
Deu 22:20 "But suppose the man's accusations are true, and he can show that she was not a virgin.
Deu 22:21 The woman must be taken to the door of her father's home, and there the men of the town must stone her to death, for she has committed a disgraceful crime in Israel by being promiscuous while living in her parents' home. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you. (NLT)​

The author commented on Deu 22:28-29 but seems to have "overlooked" the part of the chapter which refutes his conclusion.

Just love these asinine Biblical customs of yore. And, you could possibly have a point; however, Deu 22:21 does limit the extent of the infraction to Israel. ". . .for she has committed a disgraceful crime in Israel. . ." Qualifiers aren't normally used unless they're meant to qualify. So, as it reads, the Bible is only saying that premarital sex is against the law in Israel. It's like saying fireworks are illegal in Wisconsin; which means one can't assume they're illegal in Minnesota or anywhere else.
However . . . I guess one could say "Premarital Sex is a Sin Against God," as long as the caveat is understood.

WHERE GOD CONSIDERS PREMARITAL SEX TO BE A SIN

(According to Deu 22:21)​

.

 

[james2ko]

Just love these asinine Biblical customs of yore. And, you could possibly have a point; however, Deu 22:21 does limit the extent of the infraction to Israel. ". . .for she has committed a disgraceful crime in Israel. . ." Qualifiers aren't normally used unless they're meant to qualify. So, as it reads, the Bible is only saying that premarital sex is against the law in Israel. It's like saying fireworks are illegal in Wisconsin; which means one can't assume they're illegal in Minnesota or anywhere else.However . . . I guess one could say "Premarital Sex is a Sin Against God," as long as the caveat is understood.

WHERE GOD CONSIDERS PREMARITAL SEX TO BE A SIN

(According to Deu 22:21)​

​

\You are absolutely right. At this point in time, the law only applies to New Testament Israelites--Romans 9:4. Thanks for assisting me refute the article.

 

[Muffled]

A very poor article. Most of it is spent speculating on women's ancient status than actually discussing premarital sex. Furthermore since there were no contraceptives in ancient days, it is very unlikely that an ancient document like the Bible would not condemn premarital sex.

I believe non-phalactic contraception allows a person to pick up a disease and I know of a person who had that happen to her. And that doesn't even get into the psychological problems