Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here are scriptures that's basically saying that we shouldn't have premarital sex (fornication):
1 Corinthians 6:18 - Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
1 Corinthians 7:1,2 - Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1 Corinthians 7:32-36 - But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
7:33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
7:34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
7:35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
7:36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
There are more scriptures, where Jehovah's telling all of us that fornication and adultery is wrong/a sin. Even though Jehovah's telling us this, many are constantly doing it and/or did it in the past.
Fortunately it is not I who has to prove that God and his Word is not relevant today.
Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
Considering I addressed just about every point made here to some degree, something tells me that you and the others who posted here recently (who paid no attention to my section on the Greek word "porneia" apparently) are not actually reading my whole posts ...not that I can blame you. I tried to read my own big post several times and had to take breaks I'll address them again later if need be.
Possibly, but you haven't proven that premarital sex in its modern context actually falls under "porneia" (prostitution/sexual immorality) and that it is always a violation of the law of love today.
Actually that "clear" answer becomes pretty vague when the culture and context are taken into account. Pauls recommends marriage because as I mentioned in the post above, there really was not realistic option other than marriage at the time since especially for Women since their economic survival depended on having a hasband or family to take care of them or become a prostitute Its not like they had many business opportunities at the time given that cultures view on Women. If we want to assuming that not following the 1st century cultural ideas on women is sinful, then sure, it would be easy to call premarital sex a sin ...what modern day mainline conservative church would dare do that?! lol
Another thing to keep in mind is that the word translated "sexual immorality" is "porneia" in greek which quite literally means "prostitution" or "harlotry" because "porne" is a female prostitute and "porno" is a male prostitute. Corinth was a port town where prostitution was arguably the biggest career in the city and the prostitutes were often considered cultic because of the stigma they carried. At one point before the fall of Corinth in 2nd Century B.C. there was a temple dedicated to worshiping Aphrodite the (god of Love and god of hookers lol) that had anywhere from 50 to 1000 prostitutes in it. In 1st century Corinth, there was still a shrine to Aphrodite who was now called Venus and viewed at least by the Romans as less of a hooker god. Even still, there were many other cults such as the cult of Cybelene and the cult of Dionysis and several others that used cultic prostitution as worship. As I mentioned before, Paul may offer the best proof of it when he talks about the a clear instance of it in Numbers 25:1-9 in 1 Corinthians 10:8 and and suggests the cultic connection of the type of prostitution he's taking about.
So yes, its still pretty vague from a non-biased standpoint in my mind. Which is why I'm mostly still undecided on this issue. Bare in mind Romans 4:15 as well and how it applies to the first century and them only having the Septuagint and Jesus' teachings as "Law." I know both of these do not cover every conceivable thing that might be considered a sin, but tahts where the law of love comes into play. "Reading between the lines" when it comes to the bible has not always turned out so well for the Church in the past
It's only vague to those who will not accept what it really say's. You not even reading between the lines but trying to base it on what you think was going on at the time. Were you there?
I showed you what God's word say's and that's all I can do. Good luck with your search for understanding.
It's only vague to those who will not accept what it really say's. You not even reading between the lines but trying to base it on what you think was going on at the time. Were you there?
I showed you what God's word say's and that's all I can do. Good luck with your search for understanding.
No I wasn't there but that's where hermenuetics comes it Believe me I understand your point of view as I once assumed these common arguments were unbeatable, but the more I researched this in light of our modern society, realized that to assume porneia covers every instance of premarital sex is to essentially call everyone, no matter who they are and what their relationship was like at the time a "prostitute" because of the core of that word. You might be ok with that and use the "for all have sinned" explanation but I'm not as comfortable with it because a large portion of these individuals were trying to do the right thing and loving thing for their relationship unselfishly (I also posted a few possibilities why it might be in my large post) and as I think I've demonstrated in my large post, allowable sexuality and the role of marriage has not been consistent throughout the bible and history.
At many points in Church history, the Church has assumed translation of certain verses based on what they believed was best for the populace. This may very well be no exception and again, it may be wiser for them to at least consider looking at these things dispensationally and more on a case by case basis based on the laws of love rather than blanket condemnations and read Romans 4:15 with a realistic understanding of what the bible has actually said. Maybe they are behind the scenes and they have some super arguments that I haven't seen, but so far from my research (on and off for the last few years), I keep seeing the same flawed or inconsistent arguments.
But anyways, thank you for your luck support in my search for understanding and I will do my best to continue my search unbiasedly and hopefully it will be spirit led too
Considering I addressed just about every point made here to some degree, something tells me that you and the others who posted here recently (who paid no attention to my section on the Greek word "porneia" apparently) are not actually reading my whole posts ...not that I can blame you. I tried to read my own big post several times and had to take breaks I'll address them again later if need be.
You asked the question .. me and along with others shown were God's Word says that it is wrong.
Something tells us ( or me anyway) is that you're not so much interested in reading what God has to say rather how you can justify the opposite.
Maybe that's because you're in such a situation, or that some close friend \ relation is and because of that do not want to accept the truth of the consequences that leads to such.
Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
You asked the question .. me and along with others shown were God's Word says that it is wrong.
Something tells us ( or me anyway) is that you're not so much interested in reading what God has to say rather how you can justify the opposite.
Maybe that's because you're in such a situation, or that some close friend \ relation is and because of that do not want to accept the truth of the consequences that leads to such.
Hebrews 13:4
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
Again Twin, you assume too much about me and the bible, and yet in the end you may still be right with better proof ...but I'm not going to let you off that easy MUHAHAHA!
Impurity assumes something is already labeled a sin and technicially Premarital sex is never labeled a sin again (see Romans 4:15). A sin always requires a blood sacrifice (Hebrews 9:22) and Premarital sex (except in cases where the virgin was betrothed or the father was not known) required nothing of the sort in the Torah as I've already explained. Also, purity in this case more or less contrasted Adultery which was a very specific sin in the Torah always deserving of death and The word used here translated translated "sexually immoral" is "pornos" which literally means "male prostitutes" (porne meant female prostitute). Both KJV and Youngs Literal translates this word as "whoremongers." If Whoremongers is the correct meaning they would have likely been sleeping with regular prostitutes or potentially in most cases "cultic prostitutes."
Indeed, Paul may have been talking about prostitutes in general, but in the Torah, it was only Cultic prostitutes (qadeshah) that were literally forbidden and Paul also references and instance of cult prostitution in 1 corinthians 10:8. I've already list some of the cults that did infact do cultic prostitution in the 1st century so its quite possible that that was his primary concern...though I have a feeling he didn't like Christian men with regular prostitutes either considering what a problem them would pose to his ministry But hey, Solomon recommended them as an better alternative to Adultery (see Proverbs 6:26)
Also, the reason porneia is often strangely translated as sexually immoral is because mostly because it was used to by Paul to describe a situation where "a Son has his fathers wife," though who knows if his father's wife had actually turned to prostitution. If Paul were using it to describe any type of non-marital intercourse, it does seem a little strange that he would use a word that comes from the Greek word pernemi which means "to sell."
If Paul had been able to see the future and all aspects of our society and how things have changed from his culture, would he immediately condemn all possible instances of pre-marital (meaning our comparatively very different model of marriage from his) sexual relations? Only he can answer that, but I have a feeling that no matter what I say or what proof I bring, I'll find it less likely that he would than you do so we may be at an impasse. I kinda figured that would be the inevitable result of discussing this with you in particular, but its just too much fun! You see only black and white while I believe only God sees black and white and we sometimes have to dig through the gray to find the truth. I'm sorry that's probably not entirely true, but you made an assumption about me your last post so its only fair that I return the favor! lol Hey, its a nice break from debating UR don't ya think? lol
Again Twin, you assume too much about me and the bible, and yet in the end you may still be right with better proof ...but I'm not going to let you off that easy MUHAHAHA!
Impurity assumes something is already labeled a sin and technicially Premarital sex is never labeled a sin again (see Romans 4:15). A sin always requires a blood sacrifice (Hebrews 9:22) and Premarital sex (except in cases where the virgin was betrothed or the father was not known) required nothing of the sort in the Torah as I've already explained. Also, purity in this case more or less contrasted Adultery which was a very specific sin in the Torah always deserving of death and The word used here translated translated "sexually immoral" is "pornos" which literally means "male prostitutes" (porne meant female prostitute). Both KJV and Youngs Literal translates this word as "whoremongers." If Whoremongers is the correct meaning they would have likely been sleeping with regular prostitutes or potentially in most cases "cultic prostitutes."
Indeed, Paul may have been talking about prostitutes in general, but in the Torah, it was only Cultic prostitutes (qadeshah) that were literally forbidden and Paul also references and instance of cult prostitution in 1 corinthians 10:8. I've already list some of the cults that did infact do cultic prostitution in the 1st century so its quite possible that that was his primary concern...though I have a feeling he didn't like Christian men with regular prostitutes either considering what a problem them would pose to his ministry But hey, Solomon recommended them as an better alternative to Adultery (see Proverbs 6:26)
Also, the reason porneia is often strangely translated as sexually immoral is because mostly because it was used to by Paul to describe a situation where "a Son has his fathers wife," though who knows if his father's wife had actually turned to prostitution. If Paul were using it to describe any type of non-marital intercourse, it does seem a little strange that he would use a word that comes from the Greek word pernemi which means "to sell."
If Paul had been able to see the future and all aspects of our society and how things have changed from his culture, would he immediately condemn all possible instances of pre-marital (meaning our comparatively very different model of marriage from his) sexual relations? Only he can answer that, but I have a feeling that no matter what I say or what proof I bring, I'll find it less likely that he would than you do so we may be at an impasse. I kinda figured that would be the inevitable result of discussing this with you in particular, but its just too much fun! You see only black and white while I believe only God sees black and white and we sometimes have to dig through the gray to find the truth. I'm sorry that's probably not entirely true, but you made an assumption about me your last post so its only fair that I return the favor! lol Hey, its a nice break from debating UR don't ya think? lol
Excellent series of posts on the topic.
Somehow I don't think many of the posters in this thread are taking on board your approach of understanding the original Greek or Hebrew words in their original linguistic and cultural contexts.
Afterall, just pick up a Bible and it's written right there in plain English right?
Again Twin, you assume too much about me and the bible, and yet in the end you may still be right with better proof ...but I'm not going to let you off that easy MUHAHAHA!
If Paul had been able to see the future and all aspects of our society and how things have changed from his culture, would he immediately condemn all possible instances of pre-marital (meaning our comparatively very different model of marriage from his) sexual relations? Only he can answer that, but I have a feeling that no matter what I say or what proof I bring, I'll find it less likely that he would than you do so we may be at an impasse. ....l
Paul does not have to answer ... for the answer has been already given:
Ecclesiastes 1:9 What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
God is the same, his standards of remain the same. What was wrong then, was wrong previously.. is still wrong today.
Premaritall sex occured before Paul, ... during Paul's time ... and after Paul
Premarital sex was a sin against God before Paul's time, ... during Paul's time, ... and still is today.
But you are correct .. between what God's Word proclaims vs a revision of the truth or supposed "truth", nothing that is contrary to the clear expressed truth of God's Word will find an approval from people like myself.
Paul does not have to answer ... for the answer has been already given:
Ecclesiastes 1:9 What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
God is the same, his standards of remain the same. What was wrong then, was wrong previously.. is still wrong today.
Premaritall sex occured before Paul, ... during Paul's time ... and after Paul
Premarital sex was a sin against God before Paul's time, ... during Paul's time, ... and still is today.
But you are correct .. between what God's Word proclaims vs a revision of the truth or supposed "truth", nothing that is contrary to the clear expressed truth of God's Word will find an approval from people like myself.
Where did it way it was wrong in the OT? I've already been over this...whatever, believe what you will. In Church history, there are many quote on quote "revisions of the truth" which are actually educated "re-understandings" that are now apart of the Christian Mainstream. Your not really addressing most of my points and I apparently don't understand yours in a way I think is proof of your argument. Maybe I just don't have the same cosmic radio to God installed in my head that you do but mine tells me to question things I find morally, logically, or biblically questionable. I'd like to say its guided by the Holy Spirit, but too many in our History have claimed its guidance through committing atrocities so I've stopped claiming a monopoly on it lol.
But to your credit, although ad populum arguments are flawed and there is plenty of motive because of tradition and what the leaders this is best, the majority of Christianity and probably most Christian Scholars do agree with you. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree as usual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
Excellent series of posts on the topic.
Somehow I don't think many of the posters in this thread are taking on board your approach of understanding the original Greek or Hebrew words in their original linguistic and cultural contexts.
Afterall, just pick up a Bible and it's written right there in plain English right?
LOL! (As Ma Ferguson) If English was good enough for Jesus, its good enough for me! lol
Nah, these posters are seasoned enough to know that. But posting the verses you know in English by heart is a lot easier than doing a ton of research on word origins and culture. I still can't believe I even bothered to do that much research on this topic since it doesn't really mean much to me, but there were things about it that went against my conscience and I like a good bible mystery anyways.
Btw everyone, assuming posting links to other forums is allowed (please delete if its not, I didn't see it in the rules), For another great and well balanced debate on this topic (read the whole thing if possible) Check this thread out: http://www.apologetics.com/forums/ub...r=64556&page=1
Last edited by Jrhockney; 09-29-2012 at 07:40 PM..
Reason: addition. noticed something
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...not that I can blame you. I tried to read my own big post several times and had to take breaks 
I'll address them again later if need be.
...what modern day mainline conservative church would dare do that?! lol
Believe me I understand your point of view as I once assumed these common arguments were unbeatable, but the more I researched this in light of our modern society, realized that to assume porneia covers every instance of premarital sex is to essentially call everyone, no matter who they are and what their relationship was like at the time a "prostitute" because of the core of that word. You might be ok with that and use the "for all have sinned" explanation but I'm not as comfortable with it because a large portion of these individuals were trying to do the right thing and loving thing for their relationship unselfishly (I also posted a few possibilities why it might be in my large post) and as I think I've demonstrated in my large post, allowable sexuality and the role of marriage has not been consistent throughout the bible and history.
...but I'm not going to let you off that easy MUHAHAHA! 
But hey, Solomon recommended them as an better alternative to Adultery (see Proverbs 6:26) 
