"Premarital Sex is Not a Sin Against God"

[james2ko]

Why? He's talking about individuals. "each man have his own wife and each woman have her own husband." The meaning is that a man doesn't share his wife, nor a wife share her husband. The word "each" references an individual .

No. That would be inconsistent with your interpretation of discouraging polygamy. Paul started the discourse with men not touching (having sexual relations) with a woman. Thus encouraging celibacy. He goes on to indicate due to their sexually immoral conduct (apparently addressing reports of sex outside of marriage) it is better for each of them to have his / her own wife/husband. The NLT brings out the Greek the best: :

1Co 7:1 Now regarding the questions you asked in your letter. Yes, it is good to abstain from sexual relations.

1Co 7:2 But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband

Yup. There's no sharing suppose to be going on.

Nope. There's is no premarital sex suppose to be going on.

 

[Thanda]

In others words there are no gray areas in god's world. He sees everything as either black or white. That about it?

If by grey areas you mean things he doesn't really care about then yes there are. On the other hand if by grey areas you mean things he isn't sure about (as in, he is not sure whether they are good or bad) then no, there aren't.

He may expect us to do something about it, but there's nothing in the Bible that says all his unfulfilled expectations turn into sins. OR if there is, please cite the passage.

" Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." - Matt 4:4. Jesus would not have said this if God was in the habit of giving "grey area" counsels.

 

[Skwim]

Oh no you don't. Before I answer any of your questions you have to give a direct answer to mine.

I yes I do.

Then our conversation is over. Have a nice day.


.

Sexual immorality, or fornication, includes sexual relations between unmarried persons.

So YOU say. But let's see the Bible say it.

Regarding such conduct, Galatians 5:19-21 warns: "Now the works of the flesh are plainly seen, and they are sexual immorality, uncleanness, brazen conduct,... I am forewarning you about these things, the same way I already warned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s Kingdom."

Not seeing a thing denoting premarital sex.

1 Thessalonians 4:3 says; "For this is the will of God, that you should be holy and abstain from sexual immorality." That is clear enough for me.

Okay for you, but there's not a thing denoting premarital sex. You're simply seeing what you need to see, a common Christian affliction.

The inspired counsel at 1 Corinthians 7:8,9 to marry rather than "burn with passion" clearly excludes sex outside of marriage, which is not an option for true Chrstians. Rather than premarital sex, the Bible clearly reveals God's condemnation of any sexual activity outside the marriage bond, IMO.

So YOU say. But 1 Corinthians 7:8,9 certainly doesn't. See post #9.


.

 

[Acim]

Verses 8 and 9 state: "Now I say to those who are unmarried and to the widows that it is better for them if they remain as I am.

I like how many Christians gloss over this part to justify their own lack of self control (and their view of 'holy marriage').

I also like how words like this (below) get passed off as "the Word of God"

12 But to the rest say I, not the Lord:

 

[Thanda]

Then our conversation is over. Have a nice day.

Nice of you to admit defeat.

 

[Skwim]

No. That would be inconsistent with your interpretation of discouraging polygamy. Paul started the discourse with men not touching (having sexual relations) with a woman. Thus encouraging celibacy. He goes on to indicate due to their sexually immoral conduct , it is better for each of them to have his / her own wife/husband.

But then one has to explain why Paul went to the trouble of using "his own wife" and "her own husband" if it wasn't to differentiate between a monogamous relationship and a polygamous one. A normal person wouldn't bother. They would say:

1 Corinthians 7:1,2
" concerning the things about which you wrote, it is better for a man not to touch a woman; but because of the prevalence of sexual immorality, let men and women marry."
​

Now THAT would establish that premarital was immoral.

​

Simply compare, "let each man have his own wife and each woman have her own husband." with "let men and women marry." Using 14 words when 5 would do just doesn't make sense. UNLESS . . . . .

​

.

 

[james2ko]

But then one has to explain why Paul went to the trouble of using "his own wife" and "her own husband" if it wasn't to differentiate between a monogamous relationship and a polygamous one. A normal person wouldn't bother. They would say:

1 Corinthians 7:1,2 " concerning the things about which you wrote, it is better for a man not to touch a woman; but because of the prevalence of sexual immorality, let men and women marry

Now THAT would establish that premarital was immoral.

What trouble? That was Paul's way of communicating the fact men and women were to marry in a monogamous relationship. He used the same language in Eph 5:33 in support of monogamy:

Eph_5:33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (NKJ)​

Simply compare, "let each man have his own wife and each woman have her own husband." with "let men and women marry." Using 14 words when 5 would do just doesn't make sense. UNLESS . . . . .

Let me get this straight. So because you feel the Greek scholars used too many translated English terms in this particular translation to convey Paul's message, it has to mean something else?? Now I've heard them all.

 

[Skwim]

What trouble? That was Paul's way of communicating the fact men and women were to marry in a monogamous relationship. He used the same language in Eph 5:33 in support of monogamy:

Eph_5:33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (NKJ)​

​

In Eph 5:33 the phrase "his own wife" appears in only 18%, 10 out of 54, of the Bibles I checked. Hardly an endorsement. Whereas in 1 Corinthians 7:2 "his own wife" appears in 94%, 51 out of 54 of the Bibles I checked. The bottom line being, it's a meaningless point.

Let me get this straight. So because you feel the Greek scholars used too many translated English terms in this particular translation to convey Paul's message, it has to mean something else??

No,

if it's anyone's argument it would be yours.


.

 

[Jiddanand]

There are reasons why Souls take so many different forms. Intimacy is surely one of the reasons why one transmigrate.

 

[james2ko]

In Eph 5:33 the phrase "his own wife" appears in only 18%, 10 out of 54, of the Bibles I checked. Hardly an endorsement. Whereas in 1 Corinthians 7:2 "his own wife" appears in 94%, 51 out of 54 of the Bibles I checked. The bottom line being, it's a meaningless point.

Fair enough. Let's skip the translations and look at both passages where it really counts-- the oldest Greek manuscript:

1 Corinthians 7:2 Δια δε την πορνιαν εκαστος την εαυτου γυναικα εχετω

Ephesians 5:33 Πλην και υμις οι καθ ενα εκαστος την εαυτου γυναικα ουτως αγαπατω ως εαυτον η δε γυνη ινα φοβηται τον ανδρα​

Paul said the same thing, word for word, in both passages--"his own wife", actually making your percentages "meaningless". So take your pick---your 94% or my 18%

 

[`mud]

But......................who wrote the books ?
~
'mud

 

[james2ko]

But......................who wrote the books ?
~
'mud

Go back and read our discussion. The "who" is not in question. It is "what" was written that is under investigation.

 

[`mud]

All those words are in the "Christian" bible ?
When an 'exact copy' exists in two separate testaments,
can they be 'quotes' or just 'plagiaristic' re-writing ?
~
Not being scholarly in bible study am I !
~
'mud

 

[james2ko]

All those words are in the "Christian" bible ?
When an 'exact copy' exists in two separate testaments,
can they be 'quotes' or just 'plagiaristic' re-writing ?
~
Not being scholarly in bible study am I !
~
'mud

Read the thread title. The authenticity of the Christian bible is not the topic under discussion. Talk about not being scholarly. Go try and hijack another thread.

 

[rusra02]

I like how many Christians gloss over this part to justify their own lack of self control (and their view of 'holy marriage').

I also like how words like this (below) get passed off as "the Word of God"

Since these words are in the Bible, this indicates to me that, while not a direct command from the Lord, that God inspired the writer to include them. (2 Timothy 3:16,17)

 

[McBell]

Nice of you to admit defeat.

Sad that you take such pride in such a shallow "victory".

 

[Skwim]

Fair enough. Let's skip the translations and look at both passages where it really counts-- the oldest Greek manuscript:

1 Corinthians 7:2 Δια δε την πορνιαν εκαστος την εαυτου γυναικα εχετω

Ephesians 5:33 Πλην και υμις οι καθ ενα εκαστος την εαυτου γυναικα ουτως αγαπατω ως εαυτον η δε γυνη ινα φοβηται τον ανδρα​

Paul said the same thing, word for word, in both passages--"his own wife", actually making your percentages "meaningless". So take your pick---your 94% or my 18% ​

​

Take it up with the translators. In main, 82% say differently: Paul didn't say the same thing.


.

 

[james2ko]

​

Take it up with the translators. In main, 82% say differently: Paul didn't say the same thing.

Lol...What translators ? Paul says the exact same thing in the original language in both verses . Brings to mind the old maxim, "Denial is not just a river in Egypt." [/QUOTE]

 

[Skwim]

Lol...What translators ?

You do realize don't you that someone had to translate the Bible's Hebrew and Greek into all the modern-day versions we have. This is one one of the reasons we have at least seven versions of Isaiah 45:7. God either created

Bad times or
Disaster or
Evil or
Calamity or
Adversity or
Hard Times or
Doom.​

Take your pick.

Paul says the exact same thing in the original language in both verses.

So you say; but you have yet to produce any verifiable source. And, it's likely that this source of yours isn't the best source available. It's most likely there are other, much better sources, that contradict your source, which is what the translators relied upon when deciding NOT to use "his own wife" in Ephesians 5:33. Or do you think the 82% who didn't use "his own wife" in Ephesians simply wanted to bring a little variety to Paul's writing? Think that's how translators work?


..

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I like how many Christians gloss over this part to justify their own lack of self control (and their view of 'holy marriage').
I also like how words like this (below) get passed off as "the Word of God"

...or rather how many 'so-called' Christians - Matthew 7:21-23 - gloss over the word 'fornication' ( porneia in the Greek for sexual immorality )
Porneia even covers more than pre-martial sex, but includes even having sex with an animal as wrong whether married or single.
Porneia is even where we get our English word for pornography ( porn )