Is premarital sex really a sin?

[McBell]

1)Adam(Male) and Eve(Female) had better than "a ring or a license". They had the Creator GOD'S approval to the union. And that Union(one flesh--of two individuals) was for a lifetime. That was the "legality" determined by the Creator GOD.

2)Sojourner, you(of mankind) have left a "loop-hole" which the Creator GOD did NOT intend or condone Scripturally. The 'between two people" was to be between two members of the "opposite sex"---male and female---and yes, of the same "species".
The Same Creator GOD who determined the illegality of the sex with other "species". Also, stated the illegality of same sex unions in the human "species".

Except you have not demonstrated outside you wanting to believe it that the rules of your deity apply to anyone other those who subscribe to your deity.

 

[Muffled]

Hey, I just have a couple thoughts here.
First, when we read our English translations of our Bibles, we ought to always take time to study the words we are reading.

The Bible was supposedly written nearly 2,000 years ago.
The word fornicate is a Latin word.
It's first use was in the year 1552.
Someone chose to translate the original Greek word to it's Latin form for a reason. I personally don't know the precise reason why the word fornicate was chosen by the church and its translators, but the last thing we should do is assume that modern English definitions for the word fornicate accurately define the concept of fornication that was intended and understood by those early Bible translators, let alone the actual Greek word as used and intended by the author himself.

As far as we know, 1 Corinthians was first written in Greek. We don't even know for sure, do we, that Paul wrote this letter in Greek. Well, I don't know that. Perhaps I'll look into that, but I doubt anyone knows.

Anyhow, the modern English definition for the word fornicate is "to commit fornication". Well, that's a lexicographical joke, isn't it - defining a word with the same word?
Fornicate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Well the modern English definition for the word fornication is "consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other" It's first use was in the 14th century.
Fornication - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So when this word was first developed, what was it's purpose? What particular concept was it employed to symbolize? What was its original definition back then, when the word was first created in Latin? Well, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary had this to say:

fornicate -
"Late Latin fornicatus, past participle of fornicare to have intercourse with prostitutes, from Latin fornic-, fornix arch, vault, brothel.

So, is having intercourse with some particular woman the same thing as having sex with a prostitute? I don't think so.

Now, Paul wrote the verse in Greek, not Latin, and he wrote it about 1500 years earlier than this particular Latin word was created. The Greek word that the Apostle Paul used was "γαμησάτωσαν". The root word here is γαμησo. Go ahead, look up that word. You will find the F word. It has nothing to do with the social construct of marriage. It has nothing to do with the marriage ceremony. It is about the very act of marriage, or in other words, copulation, and sex. It doesn't seem to have had anything at all to do with prostitutes, nor the institution of marriage as we know it today.

Therefore we could rewrite this verse in English, replacing the word "fornicate" with another F word.

Here it is

NASB
But if they do not have self-control, let them {F}; for it is better to {F} than to burn [with passion].

KJB
But if they cannot contain, let them {F}: for it is better to {F} than to burn.

WNTB
If, however, they cannot maintain self-control, by all means let them {F}; for {F}ing is better than the fever of passion.

I would love to be wrong here, so please show me my errors.

I believe Sincerely posted the correct translation 1Co 7:9 But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. (ASV)

I believe they did us a disservice. It should be translated sex outside of marriage and the everyone would understand it. I used it as an excuse to have sex with my future wife thinking that since I was going to marry her anyway it was ok but then I found out it wasn't that easy to get her to marry me, lol. THat happened before my salvation but I think I knew better but was running short on patience being a virgin at 29 years old. BTW today is our 45th anniversary.

 

[Muffled]

Except you have not demonstrated outside you wanting to believe it that the rules of your deity apply to anyone other those who subscribe to your deity.

I believe a logical person could figure it out but it might take time when getting the information without having to figure it out is quicker. A fire burns a person whether there is an injuntion against touching it or not. I believe the law just points out the normal pitfalls a person is apt to fall into.

 

[Sonofason]

I believe Sincerely posted the correct translation 1Co 7:9 But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. (ASV)

I believe they did us a disservice. It should be translated sex outside of marriage and the everyone would understand it. I used it as an excuse to have sex with my future wife thinking that since I was going to marry her anyway it was ok but then I found out it wasn't that easy to get her to marry me, lol. THat happened before my salvation but I think I knew better but was running short on patience being a virgin at 29 years old. BTW today is our 45th anniversary.

Actually, I do not find this to be very clear either. Words can be quite misleading. I personally have had desires, but I have never felt any sort of burning sensation associated with my desires. When I think of that which burns, I think of the process of combustion. Do desires cause combustion? What is the meaning then of burning with desire? Are these verses actually talking about burning in hell as a punishment for having a desire for sex? Is it talking about people who masturbate to satisfy their sexual desires? I just don't think it's all that clear.

 

[sojourner]

Do desires cause combustion?

Haven't you ever heard of "hot pants?"

 

[McBell]

I believe a logical person could figure it out but it might take time when getting the information without having to figure it out is quicker. A fire burns a person whether there is an injuntion against touching it or not. I believe the law just points out the normal pitfalls a person is apt to fall into.

The only way your fire analogy will work is to first show your deity exists as fire exists.

Now since we both know that that is not going to happen...

All we have is someone claiming their deity declares something a sin and that this alleged sin applies to all people.

Now since I do not subscribe to the alleged deity in question, I am not bound by the rules and punishments of said deity.

I do understand that there are loads of people who find said concept hard to grasp. Even though they themselves will declare they are not bound by the rules and regulations of a deity other than the one they subscribe to.

 

[Sonofason]

Haven't you ever heard of "hot pants?"

Well yes, I suppose I have. Clearly, though some may not agree, Respiration is a combustion reaction. I suppose that desire could indeed cause an individual to increase his/her rate of oxygen consumption, thereby increasing the rate of combustion taking place in his body, thereby increasing the heat output from the combustion reactions taking place in his body. So, do you think that this is what this verse is describing? Do you believe that the author knew about combustion reactions taking place in the human body?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
The Scriptures have not condoned other than male and female as partners.

Which is why they should rightfully be tossed out when considering the legality of same sex marriage.

Mestemia, the Scriptures are what is debated and the Scriptures are the "legality" of what the Scriptures claim---not man's courts.

 

[McBell]

Mestemia, the Scriptures are what is debated and the Scriptures are the "legality" of what the Scriptures claim---not man's courts.

To bad there are so many people wanting to use "scripture" as the basis for law.

 

[Sonofason]

To bad there are so many people wanting to use "scripture" as the basis for law.

Indeed, it would be far better if people would apply the New Covenant as a basis for self conduct.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
Mestemia, the Scriptures are what is debated and the Scriptures are the "legality" of what the Scriptures claim---not man's courts.

To bad there are so many people wanting to use "scripture" as the basis for law.

Mestemia, What is bad is that mankind has seen and incorporated those Scriptural laws into their secular laws---but refuse to acknowledge the fact.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by Mestemia View Post
To bad there are so many people wanting to use "scripture" as the basis for law.

Indeed, it would be far better if people would apply the New Covenant as a basis for self conduct.

Sonofason, The Scriptures, indeed, do say that the new Covenant is the basis for one's conduct. Those that heed the Scriptural model of Conduct will not only have that covenant written in their hearts and minds, but will daily apply them to their lives.

 

[Sonofason]

Originally Posted by Mestemia View Post
To bad there are so many people wanting to use "scripture" as the basis for law.



Sonofason, The Scriptures, indeed, do say that the new Covenant is the basis for one's conduct. Those that heed the Scriptural model of Conduct will not only have that covenant written in their hearts and minds, but will daily apply them to their lives.

Yes, but there remains a great deal many other people who do not heed the Scriptural model of Conduct, who will not have that covenant written in their hearts and minds. And those people will have a negative impact on the children of those who do have that covenant written in their hearts and minds. Hence, the need for civil law in conformance with scripture.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
Sonofason, The Scriptures, indeed, do say that the new Covenant is the basis for one's conduct. Those that heed the Scriptural model of Conduct will not only have that covenant written in their hearts and minds, but will daily apply them to their lives.

Yes, but there remains a great deal many other people who do not heed the Scriptural model of Conduct, who will not have that covenant written in their hearts and minds. And those people will have a negative impact on the children of those who do have that covenant written in their hearts and minds. Hence, the need for civil law in conformance with scripture.

Sonofason, "NO Yes, but"---The good and the Bad are to live/"grow' together until the end/"harvest". Yes, you are correct in that there is an impact of influence. However, As you have "armored" yourself, make sure that your children are "fully protected"/"taught" the correct "beliefs". Governmental laws are no protection.
GOD doesn't need the "force" of "civil laws" to enforce HIS LAWS. HIS Government is one based upon LOVE and Obedience.

 

[Sonofason]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
Sonofason, The Scriptures, indeed, do say that the new Covenant is the basis for one's conduct. Those that heed the Scriptural model of Conduct will not only have that covenant written in their hearts and minds, but will daily apply them to their lives.



Sonofason, "NO Yes, but"---The good and the Bad are to live/"grow' together until the end/"harvest". Yes, you are correct in that there is an impact of influence. However, As you have "armored" yourself, make sure that your children are "fully protected"/"taught" the correct "beliefs". Governmental laws are no protection.
GOD doesn't need the "force" of "civil laws" to enforce HIS LAWS. HIS Government is one based upon LOVE and Obedience.

Actually, I have a couple of young daughters, and they have been so indoctrinated by this culture that they believe, for example, that homosexuality is not a sin. Surely, this conflict may be the basis for their eventual rejection of God's word. There are many examples of this kind of indoctrination that is capable of leading a person straight to hell.

 

[sincerly]

Actually, I have a couple of young daughters, and they have been so indoctrinated by this culture that they believe, for example, that homosexuality is not a sin. Surely, this conflict may be the basis for their eventual rejection of God's word. There are many examples of this kind of indoctrination that is capable of leading a person straight to hell.

I totally recognize your concerns and therefore, "This culture" of indoctrination is very insidious---just as subtle as was the serpent to Eve.
"This Culture" has as its mantra "changing minds one at the time" from a very young age.
Unless one keeps the scriptural truths before their children 24/7, as those scriptures state---Deut.6:1-15---Teach your children early and repeatedly or the subtle lies of false teachings will prevail.-----as was prophesied. You know ---the "broad way".

 

[sojourner]

Well yes, I suppose I have. Clearly, though some may not agree, Respiration is a combustion reaction. I suppose that desire could indeed cause an individual to increase his/her rate of oxygen consumption, thereby increasing the rate of combustion taking place in his body, thereby increasing the heat output from the combustion reactions taking place in his body. So, do you think that this is what this verse is describing? Do you believe that the author knew about combustion reactions taking place in the human body?

I think the author was aware that the genital area becomes flushed and hot when aroused.

 

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
The Scriptures have not condoned other than male and female as partners.



Mestemia, the Scriptures are what is debated and the Scriptures are the "legality" of what the Scriptures claim---not man's courts.

But only insofar as they are reasonably interpreted.

Even Jesus demonstrated that scripture is up for debate when it conflicts with what's best for humanity.

 

[Sonofason]

I think the author was aware that the genital area becomes flushed and hot when aroused.

So basically, for some reason, our author was suggesting that it is better to "marry" (whatever that actually means) than to have your genital area becoming flushed and hot from being aroused?

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
The Scriptures have not condoned other than male and female as partners.
Mestemia, the Scriptures are what is debated and the Scriptures are the "legality" of what the Scriptures claim---not man's courts.

But only insofar as they are reasonably interpreted.

Even Jesus demonstrated that scripture is up for debate when it conflicts with what's best for humanity.

The Scriptures are not in conflict with the GOD'S best interest for mankind. That is produced by mankind's false opinions/conclusions of the Principles of GOD---whether by courts or so-called scholars.
Jesus denounced man's man-made "commandments and man's false traditions."