To have to choose, and let either one be practiced without objecting is really impossible to imagine. We have seen first hand the effects of incest, and the other is unnatural in every way. If it was a death sentence then, it is hard to imagine it ever being OK with an unchangeable God.If you have to pick one to prohibit I would definitely go with forbidding either incest or bestiality if I had to chose.
Maybe, if your target audience had never heard of them. If he was speaking to Jews, or established believers, would that be necessary?The only way to have a list of prohibited sex acts is to list them all.
Zec, think about what you're saying. "All my problems can be solved if porneia can just mean what I want or need it to mean. That creates problems for other people, but that's not my problem."All of these questions can be answered very easily if porneia equals prohibited sex acts and points back to the Law. Now that raises some hard questions of its own but not as many as the other options.
Zec, think about what you're saying. "All my problems can be solved if porneia can just mean what I want or need it to mean. That creates problems .
All I did was make this substitution:All of these questions can be answered very easily if porneia equals prohibited sex acts and points back to the Law. Now that raises some hard questions of its own but not as many as the other options.
Not much of a stretch....ZecAustin said:All of these questions can be answered very easily if porneia equals [the thing I'm arguing it means]. Now that raises some hard questions of its own but not as many as the other options.
Since none of us are first century Greek speakers, we can't say for sure, can we?@Mojo , same drill. You can make it say what you want/need it to say or you can just read it the way an ordinary 1st century Greek speaker would read it (best we can figure that out now). Again, y'all have fun but I'll stick with plain translation, not hidden meanings and secret jokes.
Well, right, which is why I said "best we can figure that out now"....Since none of us are first century Greek speakers, we can't say for sure, can we?
With that in mind, what did Paul mean about women leaving the natural use of their bodies?
I agree that it's off topic, but I don't expect an answer here on that question.We actually addressed that question once on another site. Definitely off topic here.
I know what you said, but I just wanted to emphasize my point.Well, right, which is why I said "best we can figure that out now"....
I've been a little leery of the sense of the phrase "commit adultery", as with the English word "commit" one associates in one's mind the idea of "committing" a particular sin or "committing" a particular crime, and it makes "committing adultery" seem to be a matter of whether or not one "breaks the rules" of marriage. I wonder whether a better reading might be "adulterate" rather than "commit adultery". It seems to better fit the sense of Deuteronomy 24, where Moses speaks of a man's wife being defiled when another man marries her.
In Hebrew: "you will commit adultery" is just 1 word תנאף "tinaf". I imagine the "commit" must be a hold over from an older flavor of English?And it also seems to fit the pattern of our Lord Jesus taking the laws given by Moses and working toward the sense. Then the sense of these passages would be something like "You have heard that it was said, 'do not adulterate'. But y'all ought to know that divorcing your wives for 'any cause', just because you want to marry someone else is really just adulterating your wives, so don't think y'all are really keeping the commandment."
I'll throw that out there as what I think He means in these passages, but I'd like to hear what some of you with more knowledge of the original languages think.