She's brought to her father because clearly she isn't 'with' the guy she had sex with, right? What am I missing?
I'm not sure how that means you can't have sex before the marriage 'ceremony' stuff.
-
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
She's brought to her father because clearly she isn't 'with' the guy she had sex with, right? What am I missing?
I'm not sure how that means you can't have sex before the marriage 'ceremony' stuff.
I am firmly of the belief that marriage is a covenant, one that is entered in to by having sex. I don't think that there is a covenant you add to sex and then get a marriage. And I just keep having the same problem, if the covenant is important to the marriage then why didn't God tell us about it? He wrote us a Law we could live our lives by. I think He would have spelled out to us the correct way to form our marriages.
Because God didn't say what you're saying He said.
Sex can form a marriage if there is intent and/or action to make it a marriage, but a marriage can be formed before sex. Meaning there is a covenant, an agreement.
Deuteronomy 22:13-19 (KJV)
13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
Devarim 22:13-14
13 If any ish take an isha, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up a shem rah (bad name) upon her, and say, I took this isha, and when I came to her, I found her with no betulim (proofs of virginity);
If any man takes a woman (marries her), then has sex with her........I took this woman (married her), and when I picked her up from her home to bring her to mine, we had sex and she was not a virgin.
I cant say that sex outside of Marriage is fornication or that it isn't, but I do beleive it is a sin for another reason.
Sex outside of marriage it's self is not a sin clearly defined by Torah, I wouldn't recommend it. Refusing to follow His instructions and marrying her after you sleep with her, that is the sin of disobedience (Deut. 11:26-28). Sleeping with a woman you know you dont intend to marry or know will not marry you is willfully disobeying God for the sake of carnal desires.
Deuteronomy 22:13-19 (KJV)
13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
Devarim 22:13-14
13 If any ish take an isha, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up a shem rah (bad name) upon her, and say, I took this isha, and when I came to her, I found her with no betulim (proofs of virginity);
If any man takes a woman (marries her), then has sex with her........I took this woman (married her), and when I picked her up from her home to bring her to mine, we had sex and she was not a virgin.
I cant say that sex outside of Marriage is fornication or that it isn't, but I do beleive it is a sin for another reason.
Sex outside of marriage it's self is not a sin clearly defined by Torah, I wouldn't recommend it. Refusing to follow His instructions and marrying her after you sleep with her, that is the sin of disobedience (Deut. 11:26-28). Sleeping with a woman you know you dont intend to marry or know will not marry you is willfully disobeying God for the sake of carnal desires.
Last edited:
If you kill your neighbor, you haven't broken a covenant. But you'll still be punished.
Good observation. But that doesn't take into account the father's ability to say no to said prior man; and hence she not be his wife. The implication isn't that she is married; but that she was fornicating previously.
I agree about the spirit of the law, but your distinction is no distinction at all. Many a one night stand has occurred with the woman hoping that be sexing him well he'll stick around for a relationship that will lead to marriage.
Ya, that never happens. Well, it does to 30somethings who are going to 'do it right' this time. But that's so common as to be predictable and not an indication of repentance. So we're still left in the same place. Especially if you want kids and not to be divorced.
But you jump when you say it means fornication. Replacing every Hebrew word referring to some sexual sin for the Greek one for 'sexual immorality' doesn't necessarily tell us anything.
But I'm talking about sex with single non-virgin women; about which there is no command (therefore Deut 11:26-28 does not apply). His instructions to marry her after sleeping with her are only about virgin women. I have not problem with that; very very wise and very very necessary for a healthy society and not doing so would be disobeying a command.
But we don't have a healthy society. Virgins are non-existent and the rest are not interested in waiting months before having sex. I wouldn't recommend it either; but then we don't live in my ideal reality.
My question isn't about giving room for carnal desires (although you haven't shown how this non-sin is a carnal desire) but about practical considerations in navigating this mess we have today.
I wasn't actually responding to you, but other comments made. Since you asked for my beleif I'll try to catch up on your post but I'll need some clarification.
Just to be clear is your stance, you're justified sleeping with a non-virgin, not marring her, and there is no sin?
Like a one night stand or over a period of time and your not sinning and you dont owe her a marriage because scripture speaks only of virgins?
First, the word Bethulal can mean virgin, maiden (unmarried) but always means women of child bearing age regardless of virginity but in accordance to her marriage status. In the same sense that ekkelessia means church or assembly but always means the called out.
Second, To say scripture was only speaking of virgins would be an example of legalistic interpretation to justify a personal desire or belief. The same way scripture has been leagalisticly interpreted to force a mono only narative.
Last, I fail to see where indiscriminate, no-strings sex not being a sin glorifies God. It doesn't fill any biblical purpose. This beleif would eventually end up become a way of justifiing Beleivers to participate in stuff like "Playing the Game" or any other agenda someone who subscribes to that way thinking may have.
Galatians 5:14-19
14 For the whole Torah can be summed up in a single saying: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not destroyed by one another.
16 But I say, walk by the Ruach, and you will not carry out the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Ruach, but the Ruach sets its desire against the flesh—for these are in opposition to one another, so that you cannot do what you want. 18 But if you are led by the Ruach, you are not accused under law. 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are clear: sexual immorality, impurity, indecency,
Is the intent to sleep with her a Godly intent or one that merely satisfies the flesh?
Is sex without marriage in intent or is it impure in desire?
BTW carnal desire means worldly desire. The world is opposed to Rauch Hakodesh. If you can show that sex out side of marriage with the intent not to marry some how edifies God, glorfies God, or full fills a biblical purpose in scripture I'll accept it.
Last edited:
I'm with you until we consider what we were just talking about elsewhere: 1. what happens with a woman who is not under her father's leadership? 2. I feel like you are now using VerifyVeritas' definition of fornicating that you otherwise disagree with...
I disagree there is no distinction, but I hear why you say that. You're right, many one night stands do end up that way. I'd maintain that in that case, in your example (assuming the man was playing the woman), the woman did not sin (although she is still technically his wife). The man, however, would have sinner in lack of intent.
Kevin, where did your face go man?!
Deuteronomy 22:23 "If a man find a damsel [na'arah] that is a virgin [bethuwlah], which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;"
"If a man finds an unmarried woman that is an unmarried woman, which is not betrothed..."
One of those words becomes redundant. What is the point of using both na'arah and bethuwlah to denote the woman's condition, if bethuwlah in this context does not mean virgin? This word has been added in order to say something different to what na'arah already states, to further describe the woman's condition and add a critical detail. Remember that what matters is not all the things that bethuwlah might mean, but what it does mean in this particular sentence.
We don't need to reinterpret that to apply the same obligations to men in a modern Western context where many women are non-virgins. That's just not the topic of the passage at all.
I don't say this to justify sleeping around, far from it. You'll destroy your life and the lives of others, that's obvious. But we don't have to find a way to call something "sin", ie worthy of the death penalty from God on judgement day, to know that it's the wrong thing to do. Something can be foolish yet not sinful. The church has long been obsessed with calling bad choices "sin" - tobacco, alcohol, you name it some denomination has labelled it sinful. We don't need to do the same.
I can see no direct law of "thou shalt not sleep with a non-virgin woman without marrying her". Nevertheless, I can see it's a foolish idea to do so. "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." (1 Co 10:23).
This simplifies our view of past indiscretions. A man who has slept with several non-virgin woman, and then sees the error of his ways, doesn't need to try and marry all of them as part of his repentence. He may only have obligations to any women he took the virginity of, and that makes it a lot simpler for him to figure out what God would have him do from this day forward. A woman who has slept around also need only consider whether she has ties to the man who took her virginity, she doesn't have a complicated mess to try and unravel.
If this were not so, how would any such person be able to truly repent from their sin, and understand the consequences of that sin, let alone actually take responsibility for it and try and make amends?
I understand the various meanings of bethuwlah - but the word na'arah means an unmarried young woman. If in this particular context "bethuwlah" only means an unmarried woman also, then this verse would read:
"If a man finds an unmarried woman that is an unmarried woman, which is not betrothed..."
One of those words becomes redundant. What is the point of using both na'arah and bethuwlah to denote the woman's condition, if bethuwlah in this context does not mean virgin? This word has been added in order to say something different to what na'arah already states, to further describe the woman's condition and add a critical detail. Remember that what matters is not all the things that bethuwlah might mean, but what it does mean in this particular sentence.
If a man is required by Torah to marry any woman that he sleeps with, then what happens when a woman sleeps with several different men?
- Are all these men required to marry her? Obviously not, that would be polyandry and adulterous. But that is what your interpretation would require.
- Is only the latest required to marry her? Sounds like a workable plan, but I can't see any scripture that states that.
- Is only the first required to marry her? That's my reading of Deuteronomy 22:23 etc.
We don't need to reinterpret that to apply the same obligations to men in a modern Western context where many women are non-virgins. That's just not the topic of the passage at all.
I don't say this to justify sleeping around, far from it. You'll destroy your life and the lives of others, that's obvious. But we don't have to find a way to call something "sin", ie worthy of the death penalty from God on judgement day, to know that it's the wrong thing to do. Something can be foolish yet not sinful. The church has long been obsessed with calling bad choices "sin" - tobacco, alcohol, you name it some denomination has labelled it sinful. We don't need to do the same.
I can see no direct law of "thou shalt not sleep with a non-virgin woman without marrying her". Nevertheless, I can see it's a foolish idea to do so. "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." (1 Co 10:23).
This simplifies our view of past indiscretions. A man who has slept with several non-virgin woman, and then sees the error of his ways, doesn't need to try and marry all of them as part of his repentence. He may only have obligations to any women he took the virginity of, and that makes it a lot simpler for him to figure out what God would have him do from this day forward. A woman who has slept around also need only consider whether she has ties to the man who took her virginity, she doesn't have a complicated mess to try and unravel.
If this were not so, how would any such person be able to truly repent from their sin, and understand the consequences of that sin, let alone actually take responsibility for it and try and make amends?
Last edited:
Or
If a man finds a woman of child bearing age that is an unmarried woman, which is not betrothed.
Which is a perfectly acceptable and legitimate translation. It doesn't create a double standard by the interpretation of man that can be used to side step accountability. I know accountability isn't as popular on the forum as authority but it's at the heart of repentance.
I know your not saying it's ok, but your saying its justifiable. Therefore ok.
So it's sinful for a man to sleep with a virgin and not marry her but after that its perfectly ok, sin wise, for any other man to do the same thing? Since women don't get stoned for losing their virginity out side of marriage any more then it's perfectly acceptable after shes no longer a virgin, sin wise, for her to sleep with who ever she wants, or a divorced woman or widowed woman also to have sex with who ever since theyre no longer virgins. Solves the debate if she can remarry after being divorced of sexual imorality, she can just shack up with a man sin free, it's a valid divorce. Yet there are some here, who are in support of it not being a sin for men to have sex outside of marriage because there is thou shall not command, have condemned women for this kind of behaviour in other threads even though there is no thou shall not command.
Romans 6:12-13
12 Therefore do not let sin rule in your mortal body so that you obey its desires. 13 And do not keep yielding your body parts to sin as tools of wickedness; but yield yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your body parts as tools of righteousness to God.
Repentance is about realising you were sinning being accountable before God and not repeating the sin.
If im not mistaken Yeshua taught us to go and sin no more.
Atoning for one's sins is something completely different, and Yeshua has atoned for our sins on that tree. Yet that doesn't mean we can continue to live in sin. BUT, if we have to make atonement for our sins we better get to sacrificing because that's how it was done biblically.
1 John 2:16
16 For everything in the world—the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and the boasting of life—is not from the Father but from the world.
I hope I'm clear about this. My interest in this is not to confront and condemn. It's not about justfing or condemning anything. I'm actually in a postion where I'm teaching and this may come up. Plus when I say sex outside of marriage I mean with a non virgin and no intent to form a marriage.
It's been said that because theirs no direct thou shall not, its not a sin. Same logic switch sides, there is no direct statement condoning it either therefore its not justified.
It would only be PolyAndry if she married them all. If sex equaled marriage even if there is no intent or action to make it a marriage it would be PolyAndry, but it's been proven that sex doesn't automatically mean married. A stance I held but have since admitted several times that without intent and action to make it a marriage it doesn't.
They would of all had an obligation to marry her but chose to be disobedient and not marry her. Only one had to redeem her but in this circumstance didn't choose to. The same goes for her She should have not committed the act in the first place but she chose to commit the act repeatedly. There's a whole lot of scripture to cover over her alone, but most of the guys here already know what scriptures to use to condemn her.
This next statement is probably going to trigger a you can't compare those two things there not the same thing response from someone. That's true if you believe scripture is isolated in sections and have no relation to other parts of scripture like a dead legal document.
In Torah there are commands not to practice idolatry; worshipping and creating idols, nothing about eating meat sacrificed to false gods. There is no thou shall not command. Yeshua rebuked those who ate meat that was sacrificed to false gods. Why?, because idolatry is a sin. The meat was the byproduct of that idolatry. Man failed to realise that The Comand against idolatry included everything related to idolatry. The act of sin didn't stop with the one who commited the sacrifice, but extended to everyone who partaked of that sacrifice.
Many of you are saying you beleive that the command was for virgins but sin stops at the first man, that any man or her are able to have guilt free sex because why? A Sinful act creates a sinless situation?
Can anyone provide scripture that sex outside of marriage isn't a desire of the flesh, there for a way of the world? A world were supose to be called out of. One were are not supose to imitate its ways.
Last edited:
I have a daughter as do several of the men posting on this thread. I would say its a safe assumption, unless I'm seriously mistaken, that your teaching your daughter's to save themselves for marriage. Are any of the men who after this revalation yall have had and believe it's not a sin to have sex with a non virgin going to now sit down and teach your daughters that if they lose their virginity and don't marry the man who took it, it can happen as many of y'all have pointed out its a messed up society, it's not a sin to have sex after that even though you wouldn't recommend? Or sons aswell are you going to teach this to your sons. If not why not? You believe it's a "biblical truth", right? Are you willing to sit down and teach a non virgin you know this "biblical truth" you've come to understand? What's your intent when it concerns this "biblical truth"? All biblical truths edify and glorify God in some manner. They do so by shedding light on Gods nature, our relationship with Him, or by serving a purpose. What purpose dose this "biblical truth" serve? How are you going to use this "biblical truth" to edify and glorify? What good fruits is this "biblical truth" going to produce?
Last edited:
Everybody knows that Torah is everything taught in the first 5 books not just the 613 intrustructions right? That includes the teachings about the nature of sin. First lesson on that was Adam and Eve. They ate the fruit. They broke the thou shall not command and committed comited a sin. No living being after them broke that command, yet we were all condemned for it. Why? We we're condemned because by our existence and use of the knowledge they passed down to us we partake of their sin. The nature of sin is that those who benifit from a sin are partaking in the bad fruit of that sin and are guilty. A man deflowers a virgin and doesn't marry her. Sin. A another man then sleeps with her they benefit by stating their desires of the flesh outside the instruction of God because she had already sinned and they is sinless because?........Sure Eve I'll take a bite after all your the one who first sinned it won't be my fault.
C
Cap
Guest
I think it also goes deeper in that once one partakes of a known sin and they say, "hey, I didn't die", they go deeper in.
Again, don't have a daughter, but do have a son.
The point I was trying to make the whole time is that I'm going to teach my children what marriage REALLY is. And the answer is not spoken vows, signed papers, human witnesses, rings, money, ceremonies, etc.
Did you mistake this thread for the where is yhe covenant in marriage thread?
Bro, I've mistaken ALL THE THREADS for that threadDid you mistake this thread for the where is yhe covenant in marriage thread?
But yes. Let's get back on track.
@Kevin, the behavior we teach our daughters is identical. The labels we apply to some actions may differ ("sin" vs "foolishness" etc), as does our interpretation of past actions, slightly. But most of that is words. In practical reality we will teach and expect the same.
I am careful not to add to scripture, so don't label anything 'sin' unless that's really unarguably clear.
On the other hand, recognising my fallibility, I am careful to avoid any behavior that might be sin (and I could be wrong about) or is obviously foolish even if not sin.
I think this is being simultaneously conservative with scripture, and conservative with behavior.
I am careful not to add to scripture, so don't label anything 'sin' unless that's really unarguably clear.
On the other hand, recognising my fallibility, I am careful to avoid any behavior that might be sin (and I could be wrong about) or is obviously foolish even if not sin.
I think this is being simultaneously conservative with scripture, and conservative with behavior.
Sorry I didnt make it clearer. I went to the Septuagint to find out how they translated the verses. Though the English translation of the Greek tends to exercise translator license, the Greek utilizes porneia in some form or another in each case.
The verses I posted were specifically ones dealing with premarital sex, usually by a female.
I’m not sure I’m understanding what you’re saying. Are you saying that each of those instances were of something other than what we would term premarital sex today?