Is premarital sex really a sin?

[sojourner]

We do know.

'K. Which is it? And what exegetical criticism can you point to in order to back up your claim?

Exegesis is a correct giving of the meaning from one language to another.

Wrong. Exegesis is "reading out of the text" what is in the text. It includes some transliteration.

However, when one posts the contrary to the Scriptures under the guise of "everyone can interprete as they please" that is eisegesis.

Eisegesis is "reading into the text" what is not particularly in the text. It includes a lot of preconception and bias.

GOD said Isa.45:22-25(23), "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.
In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory."

This has nothing to do with the Levitican text in question, and so is not exegetical. It's obvious, based on your post here, that you possess only a rudimentary knowledge of the exegetical process. You may want to reconsider running with the big dogs on this one.

Rom.14:9-13(11), which you quoted above

Nope. It's Philippians 2. And Isaiah has nothing to do with it.

It was/is GOD who condemns the sexual sins as the Scriptures teach.

It is the writer of Leviticus who makes some condemnation of some sort of homosexual activity.

One can eisegesis as one pleases

You're certainly doing a good job of it here.

but that doesn't change that which "went out of the mouth of GOD."

Nothing went out of God's mouth in this case.

 

[JerryL]

sincerly said: ↑
Sojourner, first the Scriptures are NOT ambiguous, but man's interpretations can be. There is nothing ambiguous about "lieing with man as with woman.---sexually.

Got it. No penile-vaginal penetration of men. Not ambiguious at all.

And if you do that's what? An abomination right?

What are some other abominations mentioned in the bible that we might judge the sin? Wearing clothing of two different materials as I recall. That was an abomination. Oh my. You are doing that right now, aren't you?

 

[sincerly]

If by "manners" you mean "treatment of guests" : that is what the story is intended to indicate.

A better understanding of the culture helps inform the discussion. Ask a practicing Jew what that story is about (and BTW: You'll find it's also one of the pillars of Islam).

Jerry, the reason for the coming/imminent distruction wasn't "cultural", but condemnation. Even king Abimeleck knew of GOD'S condemnation of sexual sin. GOD had said from the forming of Eve that "man should leave his father and mother"(That before the first human being was produced sexually.) and cleave to his wife---not a male lover.

The Inspired Scriptures from GOD give the correct answer---one need not to be informed by another human being.

 

[JerryL]

Jerry, the reason for the coming/imminent distruction wasn't "cultural", but condemnation. Even king Abimeleck knew of GOD'S condemnation of sexual sin. GOD had said from the forming of Eve that "man should leave his father and mother"(That before the first human being was produced sexually.) and cleave to his wife---not a male lover.

The Inspired Scriptures from GOD give the correct answer---one need not to be informed by another human being.

Riiight.

Well. For millennia: "inspired scripture" convinced everyone that this story was about treatment of guests.

That term sounds like something from Luther or Calvin. Let's see what *they* took from "inspired scripture".

It would "pervert the course of nature" to say that "the sun does not move and that it is the earth that revolves and that it turns". - John Calvin, citing the Bible as his source.

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth." - Martin Luther

But I'm sure you have it right where they were wrong. You must just be the more inspired Christian.

 

[gsa]

There are actually conservative Christians (and Orthodox Jews and Muslims) who still affirm geocentrism. Not many, but it just goes to show...

 

[sincerly]

'K. Which is it? And what exegetical criticism can you point to in order to back up your claim?

It is the outside of the Scriptural context that "exegetical criticism" presents the falseness to the Spiritual context.
My claims have been backed up by the Scriptures from the first.

Wrong. Exegesis is "reading out of the text" what is in the text. It includes some transliteration.

"Transliteration" means reproducing in another language or the same language a meaning that the first message intending for the audience---NOT a contradictory message.

Eisegesis is "reading into the text" what is not particularly in the text. It includes a lot of preconception and bias.

That's true. an intention to falsify.

This has nothing to do with the Levitican text in question, and so is not exegetical. It's obvious, based on your post here, that you possess only a rudimentary knowledge of the exegetical process. You may want to reconsider running with the big dogs on this one.

I do not think human beings are equivalent to the "Inspired Scriptures by the Creator GOD." and HIS Lev.20:15 law came from his Mouth to Moses's to teach the people the right sexual relationships.

Nope. It's Philippians 2. And Isaiah has nothing to do with it.

Paul wrote Romans and Philippians and those quotes were from Isaiah 45:23.

It is the writer of Leviticus who makes some condemnation of some sort of homosexual activity.

That would be Moses as GOD instructed him in Lev.20:1

You're certainly doing a good job of it here.

Thank you! The Scriptures are True and GOD is Awesome! But, I know you are speaking about eisegesis and that "insertion" job has been yours in this case.

Nothing went out of God's mouth in this case.

Then you did not read Lev.20:1 nor the other Scriptural verses.

 

[gsa]

Moses did not write Leviticus. Or Genesis, or Exodus, or any of it. It was written by multiple authors and compiled and edited by redactors over a period of centuries.

 

[sojourner]

It is the outside of the Scriptural context that "exegetical criticism" presents the falseness to the Spiritual context.
My claims have been backed up by the Scriptures from the first.

Exegesis isn't the same thing as proof-texting. You don't exegete one text through a completely foreign text.

"Transliteration" means reproducing in another language or the same language a meaning that the first message intending for the audience---NOT a contradictory message.

This doesn't even make sense. Transliteration is converting a text from one script to another.

That's true. an intention to falsify.

Not necessarily. Sometimes the intention is honorable, but the result is generally false.

I do not think human beings are equivalent to the "Inspired Scriptures by the Creator GOD." and HIS Lev.20:15 law came from his Mouth to Moses's to teach the people the right sexual relationships.

And exegesis of Leviticus includes textual and historical criticism that reveals Moses as a literary -- not a historical -- character.

Paul wrote Romans and Philippians and those quotes were from Isaiah 45:23.

Doesn't matter. We're dealing with Philippians in the exegetical process.

That would be Moses as GOD instructed him in Lev.20:1

Nope. Not according to the exegesis of Leviticus. Perhaps an eisegetical reading of Leviticus brings us to that false conclusion, but not an exegetical reading.

that "insertion" job has been yours in this case.

Nope.

You've produced an epic, epic fail here.

 

[sincerly]

Riiight.

Well. For millennia: "inspired scripture" convinced everyone that this story was about treatment of guests.

That term sounds like something from Luther or Calvin. Let's see what *they* took from "inspired scripture".

It would "pervert the course of nature" to say that "the sun does not move and that it is the earth that revolves and that it turns". - John Calvin, citing the Bible as his source.

"Inspired Scripture" is that given by GOD---Not misguided men.

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth." - Martin Luther

From Joshua and the people's point of view, the Sun and the Moon did not move from their positions. That is what was recorded. The Sun does appear to "go down".
That fact that the earth is what is rotating and in orb around the sun does not diminish the fact that the Creator GOD caused the delay in the "going down" of the sun---nor that the battle was won thereby.
All because of the powers of the Creator GOD.
It s only the fool who disbelieves the power of the Creator gOD or the Scriptural affirmation of HIM.

But I'm sure you have it right where they were wrong. You must just be the more inspired Christian.

The word is "I Believe".

 

[psychoslice]

I think religion should keep its nose out of what's in our pants and what we do with it, look at the story of Adam and Eve, a whole lot of inbreeding is going on.

 

[Harikrish]

Premarital sex is a sin if you practice sex with one partner only to marry someone else later. The Muslims got it right. They marry child brides which guarantees premarital sex was prevented by marrying them before such sexual thoughts even occurred to the child.

 

[JerryL]

"Inspired Scripture" is that given by GOD---Not misguided men.

... and you have it where John Calvin and Martin Luther did not. Surely you are the world's greatest Christian.

What's God's position on cloning?

 

[sincerly]

sincerly said: ↑
"Inspired Scripture" is that given by GOD---Not misguided men.

... and you have it where John Calvin and Martin Luther did not. Surely you are the world's greatest Christian.

What's God's position on cloning?

It was all those Prophets which were used of GOD who wrote GOD'S messages.
No! They had access to the Scriptures as well, but what they lacked was the thorough cleansing of the corrupted beliefs by the falling away of those "early church fathers"---thus, "daughters" with corrupt ideas.
How much "cyanide" they put in the koo-laid depends on the organization.

 

[sincerly]

Premarital sex is a sin if you practice sex with one partner only to marry someone else later. The Muslims got it right. They marry child brides which guarantees premarital sex was prevented by marrying them before such sexual thoughts even occurred to the child.

HK, Your first sentence is correct Scripturally, but the second one isn't correct. You spoke of the female's condition, but the male's condition wasn't mentioned. How many wives does he have? Or has discarded?
Gen.2:24 says wife---not wives and "the two shall be one flesh".

 

[McBell]

HK, Your first sentence is correct Scripturally, but the second one isn't correct. You spoke of the female's condition, but the male's condition wasn't mentioned. How many wives does he have? Or has discarded?
Gen.2:24 says wife---not wives and "the two shall be one flesh".

Please be so kind as to explain how the "two become one flesh" for the Biblical characters who had multiple wives.

 

[sincerly]

sincerly said: ↑
HK, Your first sentence is correct Scripturally, but the second one isn't correct. You spoke of the female's condition, but the male's condition wasn't mentioned. How many wives does he have? Or has discarded?
Gen.2:24 says wife---not wives and "the two shall be one flesh".

Please be so kind as to explain how the "two become one flesh" for the Biblical characters who had multiple wives.

Mestemia, Jesus answered that in Mark 10:2-12,
"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

 

[McBell]

sincerly said: ↑
HK, Your first sentence is correct Scripturally, but the second one isn't correct. You spoke of the female's condition, but the male's condition wasn't mentioned. How many wives does he have? Or has discarded?
Gen.2:24 says wife---not wives and "the two shall be one flesh".



Mestemia, Jesus answered that in Mark 10:2-12,
"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

You must have misunderstood my question...
I am not talking about divorce.
I am talking about the Biblical characters that had multiple wives.

Now if your mental gymnastics is to claim that they divorced each wife before marrying the next, please present verses that support your claim.

 

[sincerly]

You must have misunderstood my question...
I am not talking about divorce.
I am talking about the Biblical characters that had multiple wives.

Now if your mental gymnastics is to claim that they divorced each wife before marrying the next, please present verses that support your claim.

Mestemia, In the eyes of the Creator GOD there was to be NO Divorce except for fornication(being unfaithful to one's spouse). Therefore, more than one wife was not allowed/condoned. Yes, there were many incidences where multiple wives were recorded. However, as was written and attested to by Jesus multiple wives were forbidden by that Mark 10:2-12 excerpt---whether divorced or added to.

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
Moses could not change the Laws of GOD. Neither can any person.

 

[sojourner]

Mestemia, In the eyes of the Creator GOD there was to be NO Divorce except for fornication(being unfaithful to one's spouse). Therefore, more than one wife was not allowed/condoned. Yes, there were many incidences where multiple wives were recorded. However, as was written and attested to by Jesus multiple wives were forbidden by that Mark 10:2-12 excerpt---whether divorced or added to.

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
Moses could not change the Laws of GOD. Neither can any person.

So, all the OT guys (like Abraham and Jacob) who had multiple wives were going against God's Laws. Good to know.

 

[sincerly]

Nothing went out of God's mouth in this case.

Lev.20:1, 14, "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,.......If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Man with man(woman with woman) is "homo". and that is declared by GOD to be and abomination.
Deny it all you want, but it does not change the fact that GOD is displeased with the act and levied a penalty for the activity.