Does Hebrew also lacks word for fiance or betrothalned like it does for wife?
Then only option is usage of my woman. How else to say?
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
What is fornication?
- Thread starter The Revolting Man
- Start date
Then only option is usage of my woman. How else to say?
You’re confusing the result with the process. I’m talking about the process that allows a man to take possession of a woman. The process of possessing a woman is not to possess the woman. Kidnapping is not romantic.
Like you said, it’s not important to hash it out. As long as people can see the debates and choose for themselves that’s what’s important.
Hey, speak for yourself
Hey, new memeber just wanted to chime in as I been researching and studying this topic for weeks now looking for takes. As I started to question the whole "pre-matrial" sex I came to the conclusion that I also could not find anything in scriptures specifically condemning this. Which has lead me to question a whole host things when it comes to sex and marriage. Though the Bible is clear on adultrey and divorce. It seems to be vague on what sex is permitted and what a marriage actually is.
I know people say that sleeping with prostitutes is a sin and being one is a sin but I don't think it's that black and white. As I see instances in scriptures of men sleeping with prostitutes and it not being condemned. Samson is a perfect example. He saw a harlot and slept with him yet the spirit of Lord never left him until he violated his oath. If sins seperate us from God shouldn't God had left Samson when he did that? There's also another (can't remember specifically but could find it if anyone interested) of someone in the bible sleeping with someone they thought was a prostitute but was their daughter or sister-in-law forget. Yet the focus was on the adultry aspect not that he slept with a prostitute.
When it says "don't make your daughter a whore" it would seem that the commandment was not for the father to make his daughter a whore but if the daughter made her own choice to be one independently from her father's house that seemed to be ok. There's also the case of the two harlots visiting salmon and the baby being cut in half but no evidence of salmon judging them as king for being a harlot.
Then finally I wanted to address the exodus one of a man sleeping with a virgin and forcing to marry her. Would this be any woman or just virgin women? I also see that the father can refuse and he would have to pay a dowry price. Which is the price of virgins because virgins were a higher price than none virgins.
It would seem to me from reading and researching this has to do more with economics terms since women in those days were basically property and a father would have a harder time giving his daughter to man that wasn't a virgin. Basically used goods
. But I don't think that has to do with a sin as it has to do with civil and economy worth. Also there's no penalty or sin atonement for this act either. No mention of it being an actual sin.
Plus it would seem to debunk the fact that marriage=sex cause if that's the case why would the father being able to refuse and why would they claim "he'd have to take her as his wife (woman)" if sex already equals marriage? Those appear to be two different acts. I would also say this would mainly imply for virgins and if the woman still lives with her father if none of these two things are applicable then a man just having sex with an independent woman by her own consent would not be immoral. Then I'd say it would be even less immoral if they decide to be together after that. If the woman decides she doesn't want to be with him afterwards the man isn't guilty of anything and vice versa.
I know people say that sleeping with prostitutes is a sin and being one is a sin but I don't think it's that black and white. As I see instances in scriptures of men sleeping with prostitutes and it not being condemned. Samson is a perfect example. He saw a harlot and slept with him yet the spirit of Lord never left him until he violated his oath. If sins seperate us from God shouldn't God had left Samson when he did that? There's also another (can't remember specifically but could find it if anyone interested) of someone in the bible sleeping with someone they thought was a prostitute but was their daughter or sister-in-law forget. Yet the focus was on the adultry aspect not that he slept with a prostitute.
When it says "don't make your daughter a whore" it would seem that the commandment was not for the father to make his daughter a whore but if the daughter made her own choice to be one independently from her father's house that seemed to be ok. There's also the case of the two harlots visiting salmon and the baby being cut in half but no evidence of salmon judging them as king for being a harlot.
Then finally I wanted to address the exodus one of a man sleeping with a virgin and forcing to marry her. Would this be any woman or just virgin women? I also see that the father can refuse and he would have to pay a dowry price. Which is the price of virgins because virgins were a higher price than none virgins.
It would seem to me from reading and researching this has to do more with economics terms since women in those days were basically property and a father would have a harder time giving his daughter to man that wasn't a virgin. Basically used goods
. But I don't think that has to do with a sin as it has to do with civil and economy worth. Also there's no penalty or sin atonement for this act either. No mention of it being an actual sin. Plus it would seem to debunk the fact that marriage=sex cause if that's the case why would the father being able to refuse and why would they claim "he'd have to take her as his wife (woman)" if sex already equals marriage? Those appear to be two different acts. I would also say this would mainly imply for virgins and if the woman still lives with her father if none of these two things are applicable then a man just having sex with an independent woman by her own consent would not be immoral. Then I'd say it would be even less immoral if they decide to be together after that. If the woman decides she doesn't want to be with him afterwards the man isn't guilty of anything and vice versa.
I have to ask, how can property leave? "If a wife should leave her husband"
Likewise, how does a husband not have the right to discard, sell or give away his property? "And a husband has no right to get rid of his wife"
12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
Likewise, how does a husband not have the right to discard, sell or give away his property? "And a husband has no right to get rid of his wife"
Are you saying that simply using the term "my" equates to ownership/possession?Possession is everywhere in scripture that you read the phrase "my woman" ("my wife" in most translations). If I say "my chainsaw", I am saying "I possess that chainsaw", I'm not saying "I have an intimate relationship with that chainsaw". Same goes for women. My means my
I immediately thought of 1 Corinthians. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding?Hey, new memeber just wanted to chime in as I been researching and studying this topic for weeks now looking for takes. As I started to question the whole "pre-matrial" sex I came to the conclusion that I also could not find anything in scriptures specifically condemning this. Which has lead me to question a whole host things when it comes to sex and marriage. Though the Bible is clear on adultrey and divorce. It seems to be vague on what sex is permitted and what a marriage actually is.
I know people say that sleeping with prostitutes is a sin and being one is a sin but I don't think it's that black and white. As I see instances in scriptures of men sleeping with prostitutes and it not being condemned. Samson is a perfect example. He saw a harlot and slept with him yet the spirit of Lord never left him until he violated his oath. If sins seperate us from God shouldn't God had left Samson when he did that? There's also another (can't remember specifically but could find it if anyone interested) of someone in the bible sleeping with someone they thought was a prostitute but was their daughter or sister-in-law forget. Yet the focus was on the adultry aspect not that he slept with a prostitute.
When it says "don't make your daughter a whore" it would seem that the commandment was not for the father to make his daughter a whore but if the daughter made her own choice to be one independently from her father's house that seemed to be ok. There's also the case of the two harlots visiting salmon and the baby being cut in half but no evidence of salmon judging them as king for being a harlot.
Then finally I wanted to address the exodus one of a man sleeping with a virgin and forcing to marry her. Would this be any woman or just virgin women? I also see that the father can refuse and he would have to pay a dowry price. Which is the price of virgins because virgins were a higher price than none virgins.
It would seem to me from reading and researching this has to do more with economics terms since women in those days were basically property and a father would have a harder time giving his daughter to man that wasn't a virgin. Basically used goods
Plus it would seem to debunk the fact that marriage=sex cause if that's the case why would the father being able to refuse and why would they claim "he'd have to take her as his wife (woman)" if sex already equals marriage? Those appear to be two different acts. I would also say this would mainly imply for virgins and if the woman still lives with her father if none of these two things are applicable then a man just having sex with an independent woman by her own consent would not be immoral. Then I'd say it would be even less immoral if they decide to be together after that. If the woman decides she doesn't want to be with him afterwards the man isn't guilty of anything and vice versa.
12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
Yes but what harlot was Paul talking about? Remember Paul couldn't add to the law that was already there. Not one time in old testament was any man condemned for sleeping with a commercial prostitute. After doing some more digging my thoughts is Paul may have been referring to a temple prostitute and they were having sex unto pagan gods or for pagan gods which would be consistent with scripture. As we see idolatry tends to correlate with fornication/sexual immortality. There's examples of this very same thing in the old testament.
I'm not 100% sure on that but it would go with the consistency of scripture. I could refers a couple sources that touches on this topic. They try to give a historical context of what was going on in the corthains church at that time. I do believe prostitution is unwise of course but whether or not it's a sin and of itself seems to be debatable.
My issue is cant find anywhere in scripture where halortry outside of temple prostitution and living with her father or her father specifically putting her into that practice is forbidden. I did hear one argument that whole verse of a father not making her daughter a whore was mostly in context of temple prostitution as well but I'm not 100% on that either I'd have to do further study. If it is forbidden it doesn't appear to be enforced or taken very seriously.
I also did read where doing these pagan festivals where the corthians were attending there were festivities and lots of feasting which makes sense why Paul would also mention food in this context too when he says meat is for the belly and belly is for the meat.
I agree that morally, I think it's unwise. I'm also not a fan of creating sin or condemnation where there is none; I could very well be misunderstanding or taking scripture out of context. Lets tag @FollowingHim because I asked a similar question months ago regarding prostitution. I remember his response being that men are clearly instructed not to use prostitutes; however, for women, being a prostitute isn't forbidden. Maybe he can elaborate?
Here's a link to the thread if you're interested: https://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/prostitution.17206/
But if men shouldn't use prostitutes, why be prostitute? There is no profit in such work.
Well if that's the case he'll have to explain a few passages with Samson and I believe when Judah slept with Tamar. Neither of these instances were condemn by God. Tamar from my understanding was condemn for adultrey because she was married already. Obviously that's clearly a sin but nothing for Judah who slept with a prostitute. Paul is probably the only strong argument you can make for it being condemned but even then I'm not 100% convinced on that either.
And I think I even read in proverbs where it's better and less damage to pay a prostitute (only being a loaf of bread) for sex than sleep with another man's wife/adultress for how damaging is and the danger of a jealous husband. If it's a sin why would salmon even offer that as an alternative? Wouldn't make any sense.
I know your automatic reaction will be to interpret this as if I were saying that a woman is the complete property of a man, his slave, that he can do whatever he likes to, and you will then react to that highly negatively! So I first need to clarify that I'm not thinking whatever you're thinking I'm thinking, so we can start from blank slate!
I am simply referring to the social aspect: which woman is known to be assigned to which man. How this is achieved varies enormously between cultures, in the West that is a decision of the man and woman themselves, obviously in other cultures that can be through a sale/purchase agreement, but the detail is not what I'm talking about. I mean that one way or another, an understanding is reached whereby the man can say "this is my woman" and the woman can say "this is my man".
"Ownership" is not the best word for this, and @The Revolting Man was right to query that. "Possession" is closer. Because what I am really meaning is "which woman actually goes home with that man" or considers herself to be his.
To clarify what I mean by "possession", and why it is a useful concept to consider:
- A man sleeps with a prostitute, becoming one flesh with her. But he doesn't take her home. He can't just sleep with her again, he has to pay. She is not his woman - he cannot say "this is my woman". Prostitution is "one flesh" but without "possession".
- A betrothed woman is assigned to a particular man. In some cultures money may have changed hands to seal this deal, but even if not, she is culturally understood to be assigned to that man. He can say "this is my woman", and she can say "this is my man", even though they have not slept together yet. Possession without one flesh.
Now, there might be a more accurate word to use for that concept than "possession", feel free to suggest a better one. I would actually appreciate finding a suitable word for this concept that would not cause the negative reactions that "ownership" does!
Feel free to invent a new word. I can't be only one here inventing new words.
Depends on context I've seen some chicks go crazy when a guy they're in love says they own her or "you're mine".I know your automatic reaction will be to interpret this as if I were saying that a woman is the complete property of a man, his slave, that he can do whatever he likes to, and you will then react to that highly negatively! So I first need to clarify that I'm not thinking whatever you're thinking I'm thinking, so we can start from blank slate!
I am simply referring to the social aspect: which woman is known to be assigned to which man. How this is achieved varies enormously between cultures, in the West that is a decision of the man and woman themselves, obviously in other cultures that can be through a sale/purchase agreement, but the detail is not what I'm talking about. I mean that one way or another, an understanding is reached whereby the man can say "this is my woman" and the woman can say "this is my man".
"Ownership" is not the best word for this, and @The Revolting Man was right to query that. "Possession" is closer. Because what I am really meaning is "which woman actually goes home with that man" or considers herself to be his.
To clarify what I mean by "possession", and why it is a useful concept to consider:
- A man sleeps with a prostitute, becoming one flesh with her. But he doesn't take her home. He can't just sleep with her again, he has to pay. She is not his woman - he cannot say "this is my woman". Prostitution is "one flesh" but without "possession".
- A betrothed woman is assigned to a particular man. In some cultures money may have changed hands to seal this deal, but even if not, she is culturally understood to be assigned to that man. He can say "this is my woman", and she can say "this is my man", even though they have not slept together yet. Possession without one flesh.
Now, there might be a more accurate word to use for that concept than "possession", feel free to suggest a better one. I would actually appreciate finding a suitable word for this concept that would not cause the negative reactions that "ownership" does!
This is an assumption that will cause you problems, as it means that God cannot give us any further instructions following Moses. It means Jesus could not give any further instructions either. It is too limiting on God.
Where, in scripture, are we told that a later writer like Paul could not be the method through whom God delivered additional instructions to His people?
It is clear throughout the Old Testament, not just the new, that prostitution is viewed as a bad thing. Just read through the prophets and see how many times "harlot" is used as a term of insult. The fact that men are forbidden in the Law from forcing their daughters into prostitution is also a strong statement. I know it is tempting for theological reasons to distinguish between temple prostitution and secular prostitution, but the division is not clear in scripture.
However, despite discouraging it, the Law does not give any penalties for it. This is because God is compassionate.
It is hard to imagine in our comfortable Western lives, but there are today, always have and always will be, women who are in such desperate poverty that the only way they can see of buying bread for tomorrow is to sell their body. Why should such a woman be punished for just trying to survive? And how would they have any customers if the men were to be punished for being their customers? This is a compassionate concession.
But that does not mean we should take advantage of it. The situation is clarified by Paul, who states that we should not use prostitutes. Rather, Jesus was big on charity towards the poor. If there is a poor woman in such need that she has nothing to eat, we should feed her out of charity without expecting sex in return. Or marry her. We should not just use and discard her, for many reasons. I presume I don't have to list all the practical reasons why using a prostitute is a bad idea.
Nevertheless, if there is no decent man around, she can sell her body to a less honourable man to get money to buy food, and nobody is condemned for it. It's just that there is a far better way, and we are called to a higher path.
Well I meant in a good way in other words its turn on for some of them lol.Yes. @theleastofthese would also go crazy about it, but she'd probably be holding a knife.
I guess we can add mind-reading to your list of many talentsI know your automatic reaction will be to interpret this as if I were saying that a woman is the complete property of a man, his slave, that he can do whatever he likes to, and you will then react to that highly negatively! So I first need to clarify that I'm not thinking whatever you're thinking I'm thinking, so we can start from blank slate!
I am simply referring to the social aspect: which woman is known to be assigned to which man. How this is achieved varies enormously between cultures, in the West that is a decision of the man and woman themselves, obviously in other cultures that can be through a sale/purchase agreement, but the detail is not what I'm talking about. I mean that one way or another, an understanding is reached whereby the man can say "this is my woman" and the woman can say "this is my man".
"Ownership" is not the best word for this, and @The Revolting Man was right to query that. "Possession" is closer. Because what I am really meaning is "which woman actually goes home with that man" or considers herself to be his.
To clarify what I mean by "possession", and why it is a useful concept to consider:
- A man sleeps with a prostitute, becoming one flesh with her. But he doesn't take her home. He can't just sleep with her again, he has to pay. She is not his woman - he cannot say "this is my woman". Prostitution is "one flesh" but without "possession".
- A betrothed woman is assigned to a particular man. In some cultures money may have changed hands to seal this deal, but even if not, she is culturally understood to be assigned to that man. He can say "this is my woman", and she can say "this is my man", even though they have not slept together yet. Possession without one flesh.
Now, there might be a more accurate word to use for that concept than "possession", feel free to suggest a better one. I would actually appreciate finding a suitable word for this concept that would not cause the negative reactions that "ownership" does!
However, I was not thinking that way. I was asking you to clarify your statement, per the question mark. You're assuming that I think being owned by or being the property of a husband is a bad thing when, in fact, being owned by a godly man doesn't seem like that bad of a deal. I was genuinely interested in what scripture says about the topic. And, slightly confused by your statement because I've used phrases such as "my" mother "my" father "my" Lord, all things which I would not consider my property or my possession.
Last edited:
Go crazy like they are smitten with love or go like they are possesed with devil?
Women love being owned, some girls just need proper training.