Sex in the New Book "Learn from the Great Teacher"

by AlanF 72 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

starScream

I can't find a text in the OT that specifically comdemns premarital sex

Neither can I. Like I said before certain laws cast serious questions to such a notion all together.
at least not on the level that adultery is condemned.
You have already stated for a fact that it wasn't condemned on the same level. All it would take is to show it condemned at all.
The fact that property sanctions were attached to fornication, however, at least shows that God did not approve of it.
It does nothing of the sort. Property is property. The violation of someone's property is what God does not approve of in those verses.
Argument to authority. The fact that one other person, even a learned Rabbi, agrees with you proves nothing.
The fact that he agrees with me for the same reasons proves something.
I suspect that you are looking at a text where he is trying to tell us not to marry at all, if we can avoid it
So you are saying we shouldn't marry if we can avoid it. Is it a sin to marry if we can avoid it?
In fact, unlike the Greek porneia, the English word "fornication" is generally restricted to that meaning
The english word fornication was in the Greek texts?
that is exactly what we mean by the term, "fornication."
What we white man? I already know that you consider is sexual immorality, Im not trying to prove what you believe.
If, as you assert, the case of the two sixteen-year-olds is not included in the meaning of porneia, then Bible translators have done us a grave disservice over the years by translating porneia as "fornication."
So the bible translators translating a non-specific word to a word with one specific meaning proves more than when I claim a Rabbi agrees with my take on OT law? I wouldn't call it a grave disservice for several reasons, unless that is you feel you have been severly injured by thinking it is a sin to have premarital sex. In addition there is no reason to conclude they intentionally mistranslated the word.
It would be a gross mistranslation.
Still, not neccessarily. It could be that we have in our minds and speech modified the meaning of "fornication" through its usage. This is an imperfect example but terrific used to mean horrifying, now it means fantastic. Of course fantastic originally meant something seemed ficticious.
It isn't a question of what the Mosaic Law prohibited, since, as we have seen, Christianity expands upon the Mosaic Law in several areas.
I don't know about several areas but the ones that are, I'm sure are clearly noted. You are at this point playing the Simpson defense. That is using multiple theories that are in contradiction to make the same defense. On the one hand you say that in the OT, though you can't find it, pre-marital sex is condemned as sin. Then on the other hand you say that the NT has expanded the law so therefore pre-marital sex is now a sin whereas it wasn't before.
Your reasoning is that sexual immorality has been translated into an English word that makes people think of pre-marital sex. You know it covers a multitude of things and is a vague refference. Both of your assertions can't be correct and you have yet to prove either one.
I am simply arguing that in the OT pre-marital sex by itself is not condemned as a sin. Furthermore, the laws stated in the NT cover the laws that remain in existence, and if something was added or modified it is specifically noted. The word you translate as fornication, you have already admitted means more than just one thing. Most things it refers to aren't in the NT. So I say, go to the OT and find out what it covers.
You really can't say that sexually immorality means xyz in the OT, if the bible only specifically forbids xy in the OT.
IMO it is ethical to discourage behavior such as pre-marital sex under the wisdom that not all things permissable are profitable.
Of course not all things permissable are profitable. But then if that is true some things that are not profitable are, as much as you might not like it, permissable.
Who is shouting you down? Certainly not me.
I may have been worked up over another post while I was responding to yours. I still welcome you to prove my assertions wrong. I don't have a persectution complex. I have in the past recieved some very harsh words for questioning far less concerning OT law even though I was right then too.
All you have to do is find the scripture in the OT that says pre-marital sex by itself is a sin. You must admit that pre-marital sex is vastly more common than beastiality, homosexuality, incest, adultery, prostitution, orgies, rape..... but this thing that is so common is never called a sin by itself in the OT. All those other things are specifically condemned in the bible.
- whereas divorce for any reason had previously been allowed, now the only grounds were to be porneia.
no, that is wrong. Divorce is still allowed for any reason. It is the re-marriage for any other reason that is prohibited. Be careful you are actually getting into an area which adds further support to my argument.
Beans

There are some hidden messages here, see if we take the first two letters out of illicit you get (lic it) so what are they implying here?
Again we see the 15th century type fear of ghosts and demonds here, again they are putting the fear into the youth at an early age and pumping the brain and putting an imprint on it, just a repeat from the early 80's.
Ah yes a great explination of sex, it almost seems they copied that from the Catholics I wonder if they will take there stance sooner or later?
Beans
http://Quotes.JehovahsWitnesses.com
NeonMadman

You have already stated for a fact that it wasn't condemned on the same level. All it would take is to show it condemned at all.
It seems clear that it was viewed in a negative light. One who engaged in simple premarital sex faced property sanctions, as we have discussed. He also faced practical sanctions, in that he was denied the right of divorce, to which he would ordinarily have been entitled. The fact that it was not punished by death doesn't mean that it wasn't sinful. That would be like saying that theft is not a crime because it doesn't carry the death penalty like murder does. If premarital sex were not sinful at all, why should any sanction be attached to it?
You might also review Deuteronomy 22:13-21. A bride who falsely claimed virginity was to be put to death. Why? If there is no sin attached to premarital sex, what guilt has she incurred by not being a virgin? Yet her actions are called "evil" and "a disgraceful thing."
It is important to read the Bible without preconceived notions. We are told that God's intention in the beginning was that man should cleave to his wife, and the two would become one flesh. (Matthew 10:6-9) No allowance was ever made for becoming "one flesh" other than in a marriage union. In that context, the premium placed upon virginity until marriage under the Law becomes understandable. If God intends and expects us to do A, and we do B, are we not sinning?

Property is property. The violation of someone's property is what God does not approve of in those verses.
Do you really mean to imply that a wife or a daughter is simply property in the same sense that an ox or a plow is? I hardly think that is reflective of God's thinking.
Argument to authority. The fact that one other person, even a learned Rabbi, agrees with you proves nothing.

The fact that he agrees with me for the same reasons proves something.

No, not really. Unless you mean that it proves that two people can make the same mistake. I think that if we took a poll of Rabbis, we'd find that the vast majority of them believe that premarital sex is sinful. That you can find one Rabbi who agrees with your view really doesn't lend it any credibility. Look at the JW's, after all - 6 million people who are wrong about what the Bible teaches. Numbers really mean very little; the proper way to interpret the scriptures is not by popular vote.
So you are saying we shouldn't marry if we can avoid it. Is it a sin to marry if we can avoid it?

I'm not saying that at all. Paul said that it was "better" not to marry. That isn't the same thing as saying that it is a sin to marry. One who marries might receive fewer blessings in service to the Lord than one who stays single. But the blessings are blessings nonetheless, even though they are fewer. Paul's remarks about marriage (and singleness) are a far cry qualitatively from what he says about fornication.
that is exactly what we mean by the term, "fornication."

What we white man? I already know that you consider is sexual immorality, Im not trying to prove what you believe.

We = those of us who speak the English language. Merriam-Webster Dictionary (online ed.) defines "fornication" as "consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other." That's all the word means in normal English. Now, we understand that the Greek porneia has a wider meaning, but there clearly is a correspondence between the two. If porneia does not include the English sense of the word "fornication," it would be very odd that so many translators have chosen the word "fornication" to translate porneia, don't you think? They would really be rendering a Greek term into an English word that has no relationship whatsoever to the meaning of the original word in Greek. If we allow that to be the case, can we trust any Bible translation at all?

So the bible translators translating a non-specific word to a word with one specific meaning proves more than when I claim a Rabbi agrees with my take on OT law?
Yes, absolutely. One Rabbi agreeing with you is a far cry from the dominant weight of scholarship in a field. I have never heard of a Greek scholar or Bible translator stating that "fornication" is a bad translation of porneia, which it would have to be if your assertions are correct. Some will say that "sexual immorality" is a better translation, and I'm inclined to agree, since it encompasses the entire range of conduct implied by porneia.

I wouldn't call it a grave disservice for several reasons, unless that is you feel you have been severly injured by thinking it is a sin to have premarital sex.
Well, sure I have, if you are correct. I passed up lots of opportunities to have sex when I was young and single, because I believed that premarital sex was sinful. Now you’re telling me that I was deprived of all that pleasure because of a mistranslation? “Grave disservice” is putting it mildly.

You are at this point playing the Simpson defense. That is using multiple theories that are in contradiction to make the same defense. On the one hand you say that in the OT, though you can't find it, pre-marital sex is condemned as sin. Then on the other hand you say that the NT has expanded the law so therefore pre-marital sex is now a sin whereas it wasn't before.
No, that’s really not what I’m saying. I stipulated for purposes of this conversation that there is no text that says specifically that premarital sex is a sin. That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe that it is regarded as a sin in the OT.
I think that the fact that sex and marriage are inextricably associated since Creation is in itself evidence that any use of sex that does not involve marriage is contrary to what God intended. The fact that sanctions were imposed under the Law and that a high value was placed upon virginity until marriage only serves to strengthen my view.
The problem, at least as I see it, is that you are coming to the issue with the preconceived idea that premarital sex is not a sin, and challenging others to prove you wrong. Then you are dancing around all the scriptures that refute your position, even assigning a meaning to the word porneia that no knowledgeable scholar would support. If you really came to the subject with an open mind, I believe that you would acknowledge the connection between sex and marriage established at Creation as being the Godly way – anything foreign to that is sinful. Read in that context, the scriptures about sanctions and the value of virginity, as well as others that address the subject, make a lot more sense.

You really can't say that sexually immorality means xyz in the OT, if the bible only specifically forbids xy in the OT.
Sure I can. (Note – I’m assuming that you mis-typed and that the first “OT” in the above quotation should really say “NT.” If I’m wrong about that, please explain what you meant, since that’s the only way the statement makes sense to me.) Christians are not under the Mosaic Law. Christians are under the New Covenant, which replaced the Mosaic Law rather than expanded upon it. Is tithing still a hard requirement for Christians, because the Law about it was not specifically modified in the NT? How about keeping the seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday)? No, they are not, because all of these requirements were “nailed to the Cross” and a new arrangement was instituted.
Under that arrangement, porneia is forbidden. OK, so how do we determine what acts constitute porneia? You wish to assert that we do so by examining the features of the Law Covenant, but there is no scriptural basis for that assertion, since the Law Covenant does not apply to NT Christians. We must understand porneia to mean what a Greek-speaking person in the first century would have understood it to mean, for that is the first audience to whom the NT was written. And as I have stated above, I know of no reputable Greek scholar or Bible translator (with the possible exception of your one Rabbi) who would accept the concept that premarital sex is not included in the meaning of porneia. If you have the names of some accepted scholars who share your views on the matter, I’d be interested in hearing their names and reading what they have written on the subject.

Divorce is still allowed for any reason. It is the re-marriage for any other reason that is prohibited.

You could say that, I guess, but it’s really just a semantic distinction. The real question for a Christian in a divorce situation would relate, not primarily as to how the state views the marriage, but as to how God views it. A person whose mate has not committed porneia might seek a legal divorce from the state for other reasons, but would not be free to remarry under scripture. The reason for this is that, even though the state recognizes the divorce, there has been no breaking of the marriage bond – no true “divorce” – in God’s eyes. Divorces that are recognized by God are not allowed for just any reason. A couple might separate and file a legal divorce, but still be married in the eyes of God. For them to re-marry would be sinful.
starScream

One who engaged in simple premarital sex faced property sanctions, as we have discussed.

Only if it was a violation of property as was the case with any other property
He also faced practical sanctions, in that he was denied the right of divorce, to which he would ordinarily have been entitled.
only in that specific instance (and the one or two others) with the specific conditions that were given. There were plenty of examples where that was not the case.
The fact that it was not punished by death doesn't mean that it wasn't sinful.
Of course I know that. What would make it sinful is the simple statement, "do not have sex with a woman you are not married to, it is a sin."
If premarital sex were not sinful at all, why should any sanction be attached to it?
why would differring sanctions be attached if it is one sin (premarital sex)?
Why? If there is no sin attached to premarital sex, what guilt has she incurred by not being a virgin?
Apparently whatever it was, it was serious enough to warrant the death sentence. Are you now saying that premarital sex alone warranted the death sentence? There is just no consistency in what you say. Is premarital sex alone punishable by death or not? You seem to have said, no. If not, she was not put to death for premarital sex alone .
It is important to read the Bible without preconceived notions.
That is true. One preconcieved notion would be to say premarital sex is a or must be a sin. Having a lack of that notion is not a preconcieved notion.
We are told that God's intention in the beginning was that man should cleave to his wife, and the two would become one flesh. No allowance was ever made for becoming "one flesh" other than in a marriage union.
If your logic is true that there is no need to say premarital sex is a sin to prove beyond all doubt, on these grounds, then it would also be true that we don't need a law saying a man should not lie with a man as he does with a woman. No allowance was ever made for that or a number of other things that were prohibited. You are having the preconcieved notion. The precedent for prohibitions is explicit commands.
In that context, the premium placed upon virginity until marriage under the Law becomes understandable.
A virgin was worth more to her father then a nonvirgin. It was easier to marry off a virgin and the father got more money for them. The men wanted virgins and there was a market for them.
If God intends and expects us to do A, and we do B, are we not sinning?
If God commands us not to do B, yes we are sinning.
Do you really mean to imply that a wife or a daughter is simply property in the same sense that an ox or a plow is?
No. Im sorry if that is what it sounded like. A wife or daughter has human rights and in that sense they differ from other property. Let me say this. Property values were property values. A wife or daughter does not own her property value.
Some will say that "sexual immorality" is a better translation, and I'm inclined to agree, since it encompasses the entire range of conduct implied by porneia.
I have never heard of a Greek scholar or Bible translator stating that "fornication" is a bad translation of porneia,
You are telling me that porneia "encompasses the entire range of conduct implied by porneia." You are saying porneia simply refers to sexual misconduct. How on earth does sexaul misconduct explicitly mean premarital sex? One means that if something is a sexual sin it is a sexual sin the other refers to one thing only. You must have an existing notion to think that premarital sex is reffered to under the term sexual immorality. Maybe some notions were mixed into the translation. It has happened before.
but there clearly is a correspondence between the two.
this is how you are proving that correspondence?
it would be very odd that so many translators have chosen the word "fornication" to translate porneia, don't you think?
you must have known I would just use your quote, "Numbers really mean very little; the proper way to interpret the scriptures is not by popular vote." I think it is odd to use the word fornication when popularly it is not saying the same thing as sexual immorality which you also agree is a better translation. So now your argument mainly hinges on an English word that isn't even the best translation, or perhaps not even a valid one.
I'm not saying that at all. Paul said that it was "better" not to marry.
here is what you said:
I suspect that you are looking at a text where he is trying to tell us not to marry at all, if we can avoid it,
Doesn't matter.
Now you’re telling me that I was deprived of all that pleasure because of a mistranslation? “Grave disservice” is putting it mildly.
Well, if that is how you feel, I'm sorry. Not all things permissable are profitable. Maybe you have profited despite what you see as "disservice." How willing are you to continue to believe the same way now that you can't "take advantage" of it. You probably have an interest in preserving that idea for few reasons. You have already implied it in claim of injury. One, your adherence to it in the past would now seem to you in vain, and do you no added credit. "suffer for nothing." Similar to reasons JWs dont want "the easy route to God."
That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe that it is regarded as a sin in the OT.
Just to cover your bases you said that the law was expanded in the NT. You were playing the Simpson defense. You may believe that it was a sin in the OT but you made the contradicting defense. It is okay. All you have to do is show in the OT that premarital sex itself is a sin and bam, premarital sex is covered under porneia.
I think that the fact that sex and marriage are inextricably associated since Creation is in itself evidence that any use of sex that does not involve marriage is contrary to what God intended.
I am saying sex and marriage are not necessarily inextricable. I don't think you know the full definition of inextricable. Divorce in the OT was allowed. Divorce is still allowed. God gave us feet not wings. Was airtravel what God intended? God put us on Earth not the moon. Was the moonwalk a sin? That is why I use the law in determining law. That is why God gave the law, so we would know the law.
The fact that sanctions were imposed under the Law and that a high value was placed upon virginity until marriage only serves to strengthen my view.
You may think it does. Virginity had a cash value. And if im not mistaken that value was determined by the free-market.
The problem, at least as I see it, is that you are coming to the issue with the preconceived idea that premarital sex is not a sin,
That is a lack of notion, not a preconceived one. Having an idea that premarital sex is a sin is a preconceived notion.
and challenging others to prove you wrong.
Prove me wrong. you can pull proof-texts for almost anything. Certainly for sexual sins. I can prove the most esoteric sexual sin with a direct proof-text.
Then you are dancing around all the scriptures that refute your position
they don't refute my poistion. That is just it.
even assigning a meaning to the word porneia that no knowledgeable scholar would support.
What the hell are you talking about? The meaning I assigned, you agreed was better than the more common translation. You yourself said many scholars translate it that way.
If you really came to the subject with an open mind, I believe that you would acknowledge the connection between sex and marriage established at Creation as being the Godly way
The law explicitly states what sin is. I have seen scriptures, which I am trying once again to find, which will give you more insight into the law. Keep in mind, the Godly way is to give up all your posessions to help the needy. Is divorce the Godly way? Forgiveness is the Godly way yet you can divorce rather than forgive?
I have come to the subject with an open mind. I am looking for law. Law is the topic and law is what I am looking for.
anything foreign to that (the Godly way) is sinful.
You may want to rethink that.
(Note – I’m assuming that you mis-typed and that the first “OT” in the above quotation should really say “NT.” If I’m wrong about that, please explain what you meant, since that’s the only way the statement makes sense to me.)
No, it was written correctly.
No, they are not, because all of these requirements were “nailed to the Cross” and a new arrangement was instituted.
Well that is something JWs say. I don't know if it meant all requirements were nailed to the cross or just the mosaic law. I don't know why the mosaic law would be nailed to the cross if Jesus died for all sins. Tha is a whole other discussion though.
Christians are not under the Mosaic Law. Christians are under the New Covenant, which replaced the Mosaic Law rather than expanded upon it.
Okay. Just so we are clear, are the ten commandments still binding?
Under that arrangement, porneia is forbidden.
When was porneia not forbidden? Im the one that is saying porneia was always forbidden. Now you are saying it wasn't?
You wish to assert that we do so by examining the features of the Law Covenant, but there is no scriptural basis for that assertion,
Then we are free to marry our brothers and sisters.
since the Law Covenant does not apply to NT Christians.
I know I can find something that isnt covered in NT law that you arent supposed to do that is covered in the OT. come on. You are going out on a limb there. And once again you are playing the simpson defense.
We must understand porneia to mean what a Greek-speaking person in the first century would have understood it to mean,
Exactly. Sexual immorality.
And as I have stated above, I know of no reputable Greek scholar or Bible translator (with the possible exception of your one Rabbi) who would accept the concept that premarital sex is not included in the meaning of porneia.
Sexual immorality is going to mean different things to different people. The greeks practiced temple orgies. Would the greek speaking temple priests say that was sexual immorality? Wouldn't you get the definition from precedent in the bible in determining how you apply it?
If you have the names of some accepted scholars who share your views on the matter, I’d be interested in hearing their names and reading what they have written on the subject.
Maybe in ten years I will submit my name to you and you will listen to what I am saying. Probably not though. You would feel injured if you realized I'm right.

A couple might separate and file a legal divorce, but still be married in the eyes of God. For them to re-marry would be sinful.
That is a whole other issue altogther but I will state most of that is speculation.
A person whose mate has not committed porneia might seek a legal divorce from the state for other reasons,
This goes to something you said earlier. What if the mate had committed porneia. Isn't forgiveness the Godly way? You said anything other than that was sinful.
To wrap it up. You seem to be trying to get away from specific laws particularly in the OT. By going that route you will be allowing things which are sin and clearly wrong to preserve your senses concerning premarital sex which you cannot prove with specific laws.
If i failed to address something feel free to bring it up again.
ALEX_2003

Can You Send me the scann of the cover of the new book and brochure ?!
starScream

NeonMadman,
I am really enjoying our discussion so far. There is one point you made in your last post that I did not have a complete answer for at the time, although I knew it didn't prove your point and IMO I gave a good enough answer to buy some time.
I remember wondering if you would use that scripture to prove your point knowing that the death sentence derailed your argument quite a bit. I was a little surprised you went ahead with it but I can see why you did.
You might also review Deuteronomy 22:13-21. A bride who falsely claimed virginity was to be put to death. Why? If there is no sin attached to premarital sex, what guilt has she incurred by not being a virgin? Yet her actions are called "evil" and "a disgraceful thing."
I knew that your conclusion in this place was wrong if for no other reason than the girl here was to be put to death. The lack of information on the reason for her sentence seemed to leave the door open to interpret her crime as pre-marital sex. I knew that there was no precedent for that but it seemed that is the only thing that could be proven by her lack of virginity and because of that your point had some merrit. If I couldn't figure out what was going on in a timely manner I was considering concession until I had an answer.
I have nailed this one down though. The assumption that pre-marital sex is all that can be proved against her is error number one. I can prove more than that.
This is dealing with a woman who has been married to a man under the guise of virgin. Fraud of course is not grounds for death, so that is not the direct reason she would be stoned. Premarital sex is also not grounds for death. What we are forgetting is that a woman is engaged to a man prior to being married. We read the scripture and we forget about the engagement. The precedent for the death sentence is a virgin woman engaged to one man and having sex with another man. The woman testifies to her crime whether or not it is true.
When she gets engaged she is now facing execution if she commits fraud by claiming virginity because she is testifying that when she entered engagement she was a virgin. Whether or not she actually committed "quasi-adultery" it was her silence or claim of being a virgin at the time of engagement that is the evidence for her crime. She has no one to blame but herself. Now that I understand it I see how brilliant it was.
It was designed not to really punish sin (although it does) but more importantly to keep the brides honest about their chastity. When a man pays for a virgin he can be that much more assured he is getting what he has paid for because the law makes it so that if she lies she can be put to death not for the lying but because she is calling herself guilty of the quasi-adultery when she claims to be a virgin upon engagement.
Brilliant law.
And when I say "quasi-adultery" I'm reffering to a virgin woman engaged to one man and having sex with another. If she is not a virgin (in the future) I will call it pre-adultery. This is just to make the distinction between virgin and non-virgin fiance offenses should they arise.
NeonMadman

Sorry I haven't had time to reply to this sooner, and it may be a while yet before I have time to write a full reply to your prior post. Other matters are claiming priority right now. However, I do have a brief comment on your most recent post.
This is dealing with a woman who has been married to a man under the guise of virgin. Fraud of course is not grounds for death, so that is not the direct reason she would be stoned. Premarital sex is also not grounds for death. What we are forgetting is that a woman is engaged to a man prior to being married. We read the scripture and we forget about the engagement. The precedent for the death sentence is a virgin woman engaged to one man and having sex with another man. The woman testifies to her crime whether or not it is true.
You are assuming a lot here. There is nothing in the scripture that talks about what her state was, or what she claimed to be, at the time of her engagement. Her husband would have no way of knowing whether she had premarital sex before or after she became engaged. She could have lied about being a virgin at the time of her engagement as well as at the time of her marriage. All her husband would be able to know was whether she was a virgin when he married her. Therefore, in practical terms, a girl who had engaged in premarital sex before becoming engaged would face the same penalty as one who had committed "quasi-adultery" (to use your term).
I had to give the matter some thought, as well. Since premarital sex did not carry the death penalty, why did this particular situation involve a capital crime? I can think of three possibilities:
1. The text does say that she was “promiscuous” (NIV). The problem with that is that, even if premarital sex is a non-capital sin, at what point does it become promiscuity? If, as you assert, it is not sinful at all, then in theory, no amount of it could become sinful. If no sin is committed, then a girl who sleeps with a different man every night is no more sinful than one who has sex only one time, or not at all, prior to marriage. The lack of any definition of “promiscuity” leads me to believe that this is not the reason for the death penalty in this case.
2. Fraud was clearly involved. However, fraud in itself was not punishable by death. What circumstances in this case escalate to such a level?
3. The same can be said about premarital sex. Why would premarital sex now become deserving of death, when it otherwise would not have carried such a penalty?
The only solution that I can think of that makes sense to me is that it is the combining of premarital sex with fraud against one’s intended mate (and thus breach of what should be a lifelong trust) that makes the crime so heinous. Neither fraud nor premarital sex alone would merit the death penalty, but combining the two under circumstances such as these elevated the level of evil being perpetrated.
Of course, if premarital sex is not at all sinful, then we are dealing with a simple case of fraud, and the scripture makes no sense.
Another line of reasoning comes to mind: if premarital sex is not sinful, why was it not customary for engaged persons to have sex with each other prior to marriage? Joseph and Mary were engaged at the time that Jesus was conceived; yet Mary was able to say that she had “known no man.” I’m sure that young people back then had raging hormones just as much as in modern times. Once you are engaged, why refrain from having sex, if it is not sinful? And why, for that matter, should there be any virtue attached to being a virgin at the time of marriage, or any stigma attached to having an illegitimate child?
It was designed not to really punish sin (although it does) but more importantly to keep the brides honest about their chastity.
Again, why should it matter? If premarital sex is not sinful, what is so special about chastity? Why should a man care whether he married a virgin?
starScream

nmm
You are assuming a lot here.
I don't see how I am.
There is nothing in the scripture that talks about what her state was, or what she claimed to be, at the time of her engagement.
She was found to not be a virgin when he went to her. He was expecting that she was a virgin. She must have been or pretending to be a virgin when she was engaged. You know that.
Her husband would have no way of knowing whether she had premarital sex before or after she became engaged.
Yes he could, she claims it or lets him think it. It is her that proves it. She can speak, she has a tongue. She can prevent her death if she doesn't pretend to be a virgin.
She could have lied about being a virgin at the time of her engagement as well as at the time of her marriage.
I mentioned that. She testifies to being a virgin if she lies. It is her own fault. A woman knows she better not lie about being a virgin when she enters engagement because of this law. I don't think you realize that I have explained all this.
Therefore, in practical terms, a girl who had engaged in premarital sex before becoming engaged would face the same penalty as one who had committed "quasi-adultery" (to use your term).
You have proven no such thing. If she claimed she was not a virgin at engagement there is no precedent for her being stoned to death. The precedent for stoning is a virgin fiance having sex with another man. That is when the law prescribes death and it does so specifically. SHE TESTIFIES TO being a virgin upon engagement. If she lies it is her fault. If someone admitts to having gay sex would they be stoned to death? Yes? What if they were just lying? DONT LIE!
1. The text does say that she was “promiscuous” (NIV).
In the KJV it is just the deragatory "whore" adjective. This is applied to a woman who commits adultery also. The NIV softens the language at times to be less offensive.
The only solution that I can think of that makes sense to me is that it is the combining of premarital sex with fraud against one’s intended mate (and thus breach of what should be a lifelong trust) that makes the crime so heinous. Neither fraud nor premarital sex alone would merit the death penalty, but combining the two under circumstances such as these elevated the level of evil being perpetrated.
That is far more speculative and completely lacking precedent. My solution had precedent and could be proven. She testifies to virginity at her engagement because her husband thought she was when they got married. She is submitting the evidence that she committed the "quasi-adultery" which specifcally requires the death sentence.
Of course, if premarital sex is not at all sinful, then we are dealing with a simple case of fraud, and the scripture makes no sense.
Wrong. I didn't say premarital sex is not sinful at all. You are just ingoring the fact that she had sex while engaged to another man. I am saying that she was guilty of pre-marital sex in which she was another man's virgin fiance. The OT specifically prescribes death for that offense and in this case the offense is proven by the girl.
Another line of reasoning comes to mind: if premarital sex is not sinful, why was it not customary for engaged persons to have sex with each other prior to marriage?
I am looking for a specific scripture that will help with that question. You forget the flipside to that coin. If premarital sex IS sinful why is it not called a sin. That is what I want to know. My catechism uses this type of funny logic too, no scripture saying premarital sex is a sin.
It would take more than that to fight off:
I’m sure that young people back then had raging hormones just as much as in modern times.
Here is the problem, you are now (back to previous quote) speculating without grounds and I can't respond but to speculate without grounds. I don't want to elaborate on this speculation though because there is no point.
There may be many things that are not sins that are not customary and generally considered not profitable. If the man has sex with the virgin she is now not a virgin. What if he decides to back out? The custom was that a man take his bride after their wedding.
Now you have to marry off a nonvirgin. I hate to sound like the 'liberals' but the lack of precedent leads me to assume many opinions were cultural. I think that in fact they are. For example, muslim men have some cultural fantasies. Virginity is highly prized in the muslim world. When a muslim man is richly rewarded in heaven, among other things, he is to get 70 virgins. Not just any virgins, these virgins are magical virgins. They constantly are revirginized after he devirginizes them. So he gets to spend eternity devirginizing these 70 magical virgins.
Me personally, I dont want to take a woman's virginity. The thought of it is a turn off to me. So I would have gotten one(ten) of the "bargain babes" if I were in ancient Israel. And I would have been happy to do it. Of course I may have been culturally induced into wanting the virgins.
Once you are engaged, why refrain from having sex, if it is not sinful?
Why do a lot of things that are not sinful? The guy could decide he doesn't want to marry her. How do you know it didn't happen anyways?
And why, for that matter, should there be any virtue attached to being a virgin at the time of marriage, or any stigma attached to having an illegitimate child?
Why so much virtue attached to not getting married at all if getting married is not a sin?
and also, AHHA! Dealing with illigitimate children. The scripture I was looking deals with this subject. That scripture says that if a man and a woman unmarried have sex and the man "spills" his seed into her the man must take a ram (i think a ram) and make the atonement with the priest. And that was it. It was no more condemned than if someone accidentally touches a dead body. It doesn't say what to do if he doesn't spill his seed into her. But do you see the symbolism that it deals with? Unmarried and he spills his seed into her = illigitimate child.
Here is where I am going with this. As far as I can tell, a man(even married) was allowed to have concubines. I don't have the scriptures for this right now but I am looking. That scenario would apply in this instance.
Why should a man care whether he married a virgin?
If he wants someone that does not sin he is going to be looking for a long time. Premarital sex itself is not called a sin. Why does he want a virgin? Why does a muslim want an eternal virgin?
He wants a virgin BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT HE PAID FOR.
NeonMadman

You are assuming a lot here.
I don't see how I am.
You are doing it by bringing in a lot of speculation about what may or may not have been said at the time that the engagement occurred, none of which is found in the text under discussion. Engagement is not mentioned at all. All we are told is that the girl claimed virginity, but was found by her new husband not to be a virgin. Everything else in your discussion is pure speculation on your part.
That’s what I meant before when I spoke of not coming to scripture with preconceived notions. Because you have decided that premarital sex is not a sin, you have to read your way around scriptures that conflict with your idea, and assume things that are not in the Bible in order to make them fit your scenario. The JW’s are masters at explaining what “must have” happened in certain accounts. “Must have,” that is, because to just read the account the way it is written wouldn’t work within their doctrinal system.
SHE TESTIFIES TO being a virgin upon engagement. If she lies it is her fault.
So, since premarital sex is not sinful, she’s being stoned solely for lying (fraud). How inconsistent of God to frame His laws in such a way.
If someone admits to having gay sex would they be stoned to death? Yes? What if they were just lying? DONT LIE!
Sure they would. Because it’s a sin to have gay sex! The same reason that the girl would be stoned for not being a virgin. Because premarital sex is also sinful!
My solution had precedent and could be proven
Then prove it. You certainly haven’t done so yet.
I didn't say premarital sex is not sinful at all.
Then you’d better restate your position, because I thought the whole thrust of this discussion was that premarital sex was not a sin, and therefore could not be included in the prohibition of porneia for Christians
You are just ingoring the fact that she had sex while engaged to another man. I am saying that she was guilty of pre-marital sex in which she was another man's virgin fiance.
I understand that’s what you’re saying; you can even believe it if you want to. But the scripture we are discussing says nothing about it. You assume it “must have” happened that way because it fits your particular idea. But the bottom line is, you made it all up – it is not in the Bible!
You forget the flipside to that coin. If premarital sex IS sinful why is it not called a sin.
To use the old JW analogy, why does the Bible not tell us specifically that it is a sin to dump our garbage into our neighbor’s back yard? You have made yet another assumption – that an act cannot be sinful unless the Bible spells out its sinfulness in the most specific of terms. There are many truths that must be gleaned from the study of Bible principles.
If we just read the Bible without preconceived notions, what do we find? Well, we find that, in Bible times, there was a high value attached to a girl’s being a virgin at the time of her marriage. There were both property and personal sanctions under the Law against an unmarried man who had sex with an unmarried woman. We find that there was a stigma attached to bearing an illegitimate child. There was also a stigma attached to being an illegitimate child – one could not become part of the congregation of Israel. We find specific prohibitions in the NT of something called porneia – a blanket term that virtually all Greek scholars and Bible translators include what we in English call “fornication” – simple premarital sex. Most people, on becoming aware of all these facts, would reasonably conclude that God does not approve of sex between unmarried persons.
But you’ve given birth to an “idea baby,” as I heard one preacher call it. And suddenly, you’re reading the entire Bible in the light of that idea, and molding every text to make it fit. This is what scholars call eisegesis, and it is not the correct way to approach the Bible. It is reading ideas into the text and seeking support for them. Its opposite is exegesis, the art and science of extracting the meaning that is already in the text. And that is what we should strive for – extracting what is there, not imposing our own ideas upon the text.
I’m sure that young people back then had raging hormones just as much as in modern times.
Here is the problem, you are now (back to previous quote) speculating without grounds and I can't respond but to speculate without grounds.
Are you suggesting that young people in ancient times didn’t have raging hormones?
I hate to sound like the 'liberals' but the lack of precedent leads me to assume many opinions were cultural.
What opinions? We’re not talking about opinions; we’re talking about God’s Law to Israel. The Law placed a high value on virginity of a bride. If premarital sex was not sinful, it should make no difference whatever whether she was or wasn’t a virgin.
He wants a virgin BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT HE PAID FOR.
Why? Why pay more for a virgin? Why would the Law of God honor such an arrangement? It only makes sense if there is something wrong about her not being a virgin.
And, I might add, that comment sounds a lot like your earlier remarks that led me to ask whether you regarded a woman as merely property in the same sense as an ox or a plow. Marriage was not merely a commercial transaction, even though some exchange of value may have been customary.
pamkw

This book isn't being written for 5 year old, but the kids who are pre teen the 9 to 12 year old set. I won't let me son even look at it. I borrowed a copy from my mom, it is crazy. The demons are the basis of everything bad. Really sick stuff.
Pam

Sex in the New Book "Learn from the Great Teacher"

Share this