song of solomon

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

chariots_of_iron
Student
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:32 am

song of solomon

Post #1

Post by chariots_of_iron »

I am always amused when I hear fundies say the Song of Solomon is a "beautiful love story". It is smut. Personally, I dont see anything wrong with that but since fundies are always railing against porn, why do they say nothing about this?

"Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine."

"I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste"

"My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him"

There are several others like this. It's certainly not something you would teach Sunday school kids

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11353
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: song of solomon

Post #11

Post by 1213 »

chariots_of_iron wrote: Sun Jan 30, 2011 1:45 pm I am always amused when I hear fundies say the Song of Solomon is a "beautiful love story". It is smut. Personally, I dont see anything wrong with that but since fundies are always railing against porn, why do they say nothing about this?
...
I think the difference is in that the words are as “smutty” as you imagine them to be. I personally don’t see it as porn, but perhaps it is because I am not as familiar with porn as you are?

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: song of solomon

Post #12

Post by nobspeople »

chariots_of_iron wrote: Sun Jan 30, 2011 1:45 pm I am always amused when I hear fundies say the Song of Solomon is a "beautiful love story". It is smut. Personally, I dont see anything wrong with that but since fundies are always railing against porn, why do they say nothing about this?

"Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine."

"I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste"

"My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him"

There are several others like this. It's certainly not something you would teach Sunday school kids
Frankly, I don't remember hearing much about this. And, with the exception of the last line, what you provided, which, you admitted, isn't in total, isn't worth more than middle school accolades.
The last line is a bit...surprising(?)...for a biblical verse IMO. Though the bible does contain passages about death and killing so there's that
Humanity can be hypocritical. Christians aren't exempt from this rule. Fact is, they seem a lot more apt to be hypocritical than non-Christians IMO. Maybe that has to do with the bible wanting them to be the opposite of their nature? Or maybe Christianity just allows people to be more hypocritical. After all, all they have to do is ask for forgiveness and POOF, you're all better.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

bjs1
Sage
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 225 times

Re: song of solomon

Post #13

Post by bjs1 »

nobspeople wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:50 am
chariots_of_iron wrote: Sun Jan 30, 2011 1:45 pm I am always amused when I hear fundies say the Song of Solomon is a "beautiful love story". It is smut. Personally, I dont see anything wrong with that but since fundies are always railing against porn, why do they say nothing about this?

"Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine."

"I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste"

"My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him"

There are several others like this. It's certainly not something you would teach Sunday school kids
Frankly, I don't remember hearing much about this. And, with the exception of the last line, what you provided, which, you admitted, isn't in total, isn't worth more than middle school accolades.
The last line is a bit...surprising(?)...for a biblical verse IMO.
That last line is about a literal door. The full context from a modern translation is, “’I slept but my heart was awake. Listen! My lover is knocking: "Open to me, my sister, my darling, my dove, my flawless one. My head is drenched with dew, my hair with the dampness of the night." I have taken off my robe-- must I put it on again? I have washed my feet-- must I soil them again? My lover thrust his hand through the latch-opening; my heart began to pound for him. I arose to open for my lover, and my hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with flowing myrrh, on the handles of the lock.”

Obviously we can’t control what people read into a text, but in this case it is almost certainly about unlocking a literal door and entering a room.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
-Charles Darwin

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: song of solomon

Post #14

Post by Miles »

.


Gotta say, I read through the whole chapter, and other than its obsession with breasts:


1:13 A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts.

4:5 Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies.

7:3 Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins.

7:7 This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes.

7:8 I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples;

8:8 We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts: what shall we do for our sister in the day when she shall be spoken for?

8:10 I am a wall, and my breasts like towers: then was I in his eyes as one that found favour.


I didn't see a thing that was pornographic, smutty, or even salacious. Maybe I read an expurgated version or simply missed all the "good" parts. Anyone care to clue me in?

But more puzzling is why the book is in the Bible in the first place. There's no mention of god, a coming savior, sin, salvation, genocide, the devil, or any other common Biblical subject. Could it have been included simply to appeal to women folk who love a good romance story?



.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: song of solomon

Post #15

Post by tam »

Peace to you,

[Replying to Miles in post #15]

I don't think you missed anything regarding how it is written. It isn't smutty, unless one looks for that I suppose.

It is scripture though, as it is actually about the bridegroom (Christ) and His Bride, and His love for her (and hers for Him).

Some will dispute that (the book mentions Solomon after all), but it tells us of the love between Christ and His Bride. Just as some of the Psalms mention David, but are actually about Christ. (Christ said that the scriptures do testify to Him.)


I love Song of Songs, personally.




Peace again to you!

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: song of solomon

Post #16

Post by Miles »

tam wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:34 pm Peace to you,

[Replying to Miles in post #15]

I don't think you missed anything regarding how it is written. It isn't smutty, unless one looks for that I suppose.

It is scripture though, as it is actually about the bridegroom (Christ) and His Bride, and His love for her (and hers for Him).

Some will dispute that (the book mentions Solomon after all), but it tells us of the love between Christ and His Bride. Just as some of the Psalms mention David, but are actually about Christ. (Christ said that the scriptures do testify to Him.)


I love Song of Songs, personally.

So, who is this bride of Christ who has a mutual love for him?



.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3250 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: song of solomon

Post #17

Post by Difflugia »

Miles wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:06 pmI didn't see a thing that was pornographic, smutty, or even salacious. Maybe I read an expurgated version or simply missed all the "good" parts. Anyone care to clue me in?
There are a number of things going on:
  • A lot of the Hebrew words seem to be archaic, poetic, and only present in the Song of Songs, allowing translators a bit of leeway and the translators of English, Christian Bibles have historically been prudes. Glance through the NRSV and note how many verses have "Meaning of Heb uncertain" as a footnote. An example where this matters is in 7:2, "your navel is a rounded bowl." Most modern scholars think that "navel" should instead be translated as "vulva."
  • There are also multiple Hebrew words for "love," "beloved," and "lover" used throughout the poem, with various levels of carnality, often in deliberate contrast to one another. These are obscured in English. In verses 1:2 and 1:4, for example, the young woman (or girl) refers to her boyfriend's "loves" as being better than wine. These "loves" (דֹּדֶ֖יךָ, dodeyk) are physical acts of passion, as contrasted with how the other maidens chastely adore (אָהֵב, ahev) him.
  • Much of the poem is allegorical double entendre as sexual imagery. Recurring themes for female sexuality are spices, wine, and the vineyard. Male sexuality is represented as ripe fruit. Read verse 7:2 again in light of this and the above translation note:
    Your vulva is a round bowl, which is never without spiced wine.
It's up to you to decide the differences between erotic, salacious, and pornographic, but it's at least erotic. English translators seem to try to hide many of the double meanings, but even so, they're not that hard to spot.

1:6b-7:
The sons of my mother were angry with me.
They made me keeper of the vineyards,
but my own vineyard have I not kept!

Tell me, you whom my soul loves,
where you graze,
where you lie down at noon;
for why should I be like one who is covered
beside the flocks of your companions?
She hasn't "kept" her own sexuality/virginity from her boyfriend. She asks where he "grazes" and "lies" as a double entendre for both pasturing his flock and "grazing" among the lilies at her waist (2:16 and 7:2), which is a recurring sexual theme throughout the poem. To "lie" with someone is a well-known biblical euphemism for sex. Why, she asks, should she be around the other young men, where whe would have to be covered (as a double entendre for both being veiled and being dressed), when she could be with her boyfriend and, by implication, be uncovered.

The whole poem's full of that kind of thing.
Miles wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:06 pmBut more puzzling is why the book is in the Bible in the first place. There's no mention of god, a coming savior, sin, salvation, genocide, the devil, or any other common Biblical subject. Could it have been included simply to appeal to women folk who love a good romance story?
Nobody's quite sure. The main guess is that it became traditionally attached to Solomon and was added for that reason, but it's kind of like Esther in the sense that it doesn't really seem to belong. From The Oxford Bible Commentary:
The placing of the Song in the Hebrew canon testifies to its lateness: the mention of Solomon in the superscription, as well as in other passages of the book (1:5; 3:7—11; 8:12), is ambiguous. It does not necessarily uphold the traditional Jewish view, probably shared by the editor who added the superscription, that King Solomon was the author of the book. The language, which is varied and sometimes contains Aramaisms, is relatively late biblical Hebrew. This points to a date of composition, or at least collection and editorship of the final text, not earlier than the Second Temple era. Therefore few modern scholars, with the notable exception of Rabin (1973—4), argue for a tenth-century (possibly Solomonic) date. On the other hand, the attribution to Solomon was probably influential enough for accepting the Song as a canonical text. Discussions in Jewish sources (m. Yad. 3:5; 'Abot R. Nat. i; t. Yad. 2:4; Sank. 12:10; b. B. Bat. 14-15; Sanh. loia) show that acceptance of the Song as a sacred text was problematic and largely conditioned by two factors: its acceptance by Rabbi Aqiba and the Hillel school; and its understanding not as secular erotic lyrics, but as an allegory of the historical love between God and his people, the Jewish nation.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: song of solomon

Post #18

Post by tam »

Miles wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:03 pm
tam wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:34 pm Peace to you,

[Replying to Miles in post #15]

I don't think you missed anything regarding how it is written. It isn't smutty, unless one looks for that I suppose.

It is scripture though, as it is actually about the bridegroom (Christ) and His Bride, and His love for her (and hers for Him).

Some will dispute that (the book mentions Solomon after all), but it tells us of the love between Christ and His Bride. Just as some of the Psalms mention David, but are actually about Christ. (Christ said that the scriptures do testify to Him.)


I love Song of Songs, personally.

So, who is this bride of Christ who has a mutual love for him?



.

His Church. Not a religion, but the people who belong to Him.

“Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God." Rev 21:9, 10

I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. Rev 21:2

Let us rejoice and be glad and give Him the glory. For the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His bride has made herself ready. Rev 19:7

The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" Rev 22:17

See also Ephesians 5 (22-32), where Paul is comparing the relationship of a husband and a wife to Christ and the Church. The Church is His Bride (made of people).


The Church (people, not a religion) is the Body/Bride of Christ, also known as the Holy City (a city made of people, rather than of bricks/stones/buildings/etc), the New Jerusalem.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: song of solomon

Post #19

Post by Miles »

tam wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:28 pm
Miles wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:03 pm
tam wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:34 pm Peace to you,

[Replying to Miles in post #15]

I don't think you missed anything regarding how it is written. It isn't smutty, unless one looks for that I suppose.

It is scripture though, as it is actually about the bridegroom (Christ) and His Bride, and His love for her (and hers for Him).

Some will dispute that (the book mentions Solomon after all), but it tells us of the love between Christ and His Bride. Just as some of the Psalms mention David, but are actually about Christ. (Christ said that the scriptures do testify to Him.)


I love Song of Songs, personally.

So, who is this bride of Christ who has a mutual love for him?



.

His Church. Not a religion, but the people who belong to Him.

“Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God." Rev 21:9, 10

I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. Rev 21:2

Let us rejoice and be glad and give Him the glory. For the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His bride has made herself ready. Rev 19:7

The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" Rev 22:17

See also Ephesians 5 (22-32), where Paul is comparing the relationship of a husband and a wife to Christ and the Church. The Church is His Bride (made of people).


The Church (people, not a religion) is the Body/Bride of Christ, also known as the Holy City (a city made of people, rather than of bricks/stones/buildings/etc), the New Jerusalem.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Considering that every source I found contends the book was written hundreds years before Christ,

(a sample of my findings)


"Solomon wrote the book during his reign as king of Israel, meaning he composed it sometime between 971 and 931 BC."
source

"When Was It Written?
The language suggests to some that the final form of the Song of Solomon was attained in the fourth or third century B.C.E. Other interpreters have argued, however, that the Song may, indeed, have originated during the Solomonic era."
source

" DATE: Tenth Century B.C. (971-931 B.C.)
A. Because many scholars deny Solomonic authorship of the book, they date it considerably later than the tenth century B.C.
B. Some date it as preexilic--before 600 B.C. with King Hezekiah as the king of Judah"
source

"Date of Writing: Solomon most likely wrote this song during the early part of his reign. This would place the date of composition around 965 B.C."
source

"The work is generally considered by scholars to have been written around the 10th century BCE, and some suggest that it was composed during the reign of Hezekiah, the thirteenth king of the Southern Kingdom of Judah "
source


that it alludes to Christ and the Church is out of the question.



.
Last edited by Miles on Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: song of solomon

Post #20

Post by tam »

[Replying to Miles in post #20]

The Psalms (of/from David) were written more than 2000 years ago as well. But that does not mean they are not about Christ (the Messiah). Them being about Christ might make no sense to someone who does not believe in such things (as prophecy, as God, the Son of God, the Messiah, etc), so I can understand why you might hold your pov. You asked the question about the Bride, though, so I responded.


Peace again to you!

Post Reply