Neonmadman,
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.
A virgin having sex to one man while married to another is specifically called a sin and requires the death sentence. I have not said she dies for fraud, you said she dies for lying and premarital sex. You yourself admit neither is punishable by death.
The same reason that the girl would be stoned for not being a virgin. Because premarital sex is also sinful!
Now you contradict yourself. You say premarital sex is not punishable by death but you say it is punishable by death.
Then prove it. You certainly haven’t done so yet.
What are you denying? Are you saying that a virgin woman engaged to one man and having sex with another is not punishable by death?
Then you’d better restate your position, because I thought the whole thrust of this discussion was that premarital sex was not a sin
If premarital sex happens where the bible prohibits it is most certainly is a sin. If a virgin woman is engaged to one man and has sex with another that is sinful premarital sex. The bible says so. There are many specific ways premarital sex is sinful. You made it sound as though I was excluding them in what you said.
and therefore could not be included in the prohibition of porneia for Christians
Those specific types of premarital sex that are called sin are most definately included in that definition.
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!
What is not in the bible is someone being stoned to death just for premarital sex. In this relationship there is one precedent. That which I mentioned and it is perfectly plausible. The scenario you came up with:
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.
: has no biblical precedent and is pure speculation. Mine came directly from the Law code (deut. 22:23-24)
But the bottom line is, you made it all up – it is not in the Bible!
deut 22:23-24, where is your scenario in the bible?
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.
You are still not dealing with the strangeness of specifically calling so many esoteric things sins but not the one that is considered the most common.
If we just read the Bible without preconceived notions, what do we find?
We find that premarital sex is a sin under a number of conditions.
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.
No. The "idea baby" is that premarital sex is a sin. I dont need to change the bible to eliminate the law forbidding premarital sex. The law is not there.
This is what scholars call eisegesis, and it is not the correct way to approach the Bible.
I agree. You should really dump the "idea baby" you have created that premarital itself is a sin.
It is reading ideas into the text and seeking support for them.
Kind of like trying to prove premarital sex itself is a sin when the bible just never says it.
Its opposite is exegesis, the art and science of extracting the meaning that is already in the text.
Such as the numerous sexual sins mentioned in the bible, some that are very esoteric indeed.
And that is what we should strive for – extracting what is there, not imposing our own ideas upon the text.
Thank you for stating my position so articulately. You have saved me a lot of time.
Are you suggesting that young people in ancient times didn’t have raging hormones?
Not at all. My point is that they had no law on the books to universally supress these raging hormones as you call them. Today, we(you) pull out scriptures that talk about "porneia"(remember controversey) in order to do it. They did not have that back then. They had no law on the books telling them they couldn't do it.
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.
I told you. Your entire assertion in this area was speculation and I could only address it with speculation. You were not talking about God's Laws to Israel. If you are, state what law.
Marriage was not merely a commercial transaction, even though some exchange of value may have been customary.
No. The transaction value was law. Deal with it.
Why? Why pay more for a virgin?
I already demonstrated the male obsession that exists in some places with virgin women.