Porn in the Bible?

[JoeMama]

Porn in the Bible

2 Timothy 3:16 says that all scripture is God-breathed and suitable for teaching.

Including x-rated scripture?

"There were two women engaging in prostitution. The older was named Oholah who lusted after men who poured out their lust upon her. Her sister Oholibah lusted after lovers whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." (Ezekiel 23 NIV)

Did God really intend for young Bible-reading teen girls to see this passage? Or, it this one more example showing that all scripture is not God-breathed and suitable for teaching?

[Purple Knight]

...wondering why the heck anyone considers something relatively innocuous to be so horrible.

I think people are surprised to find sexual references in the bible at all and lose proper perspective when they do. If we consider that it is a book that reflects the human experience it shouldn't be surprising it contains such narratives.

I think it comes from a time when people were mentally healthier. It was likely that you were born into a house that owned a donkey or you at least had a goat or something and you'd be two years old and you'd know what was what.

If a child was born into my house, they'd see cats mating because I am a breeder. And they'd want to know what was going on. At that point I can either lie to them because I'm embarrassed or just tell them the truth: This is where kittens come from. I don't think it'll be disgusting unless you let it.

Maybe being gifted and reading books and looking at punnet squares since I was four gave me a weird perspective, but I pretty much always knew that animals mated to make babies and it didn't melt my brain or even make me a perv.

People expecting the "OMG a reference to genitals burn the book!" from the religious are probably expecting Puritans. Their influence still lingers on the religious community but pretty much only in America.

[Miles]

Thus there is sufficient internal and external evidence that the Hebrew ZIRMAH [זִרְמָה], was in fact a reference to genitalia rather than seminal emissions.

Fine, then bring it on. Everybody likes evidence, especially me. Internal and external alike.

Note the following bible translations:

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And she copulated with their Servants, whose flesh was like the flesh of donkeys, and their genitals like the genitals of horses

Brenton Septuagint Translation
and thou didst dote upon the Chaldeans, whose flesh is as the flesh of the asses, and their members as the members of horses

Peshitta Holy Bible Translated
And she copulated with their Servants, whose flesh was like the flesh of donkeys, and their genitals like the genitals of horses

Lamsa Bible
For she doted upon their servants, whose male organs are like those of asses, and whose privates are like those of horses

Why?

Why should anyone note some ancient "prehistoric" writings over the many scholarly works we have today? Reaching for the Brenton Septuagint Translation: first published almost 180 years ago, the ancient Peshita Bible and its more recent successor, the 1933 Lamsa Bible, plus the wry Aramaic Bible in Plain English, for which I failed to find the book of Ezekiel, must have covered you in a blanket of basement dust. But if this is the best you could find, so be it. Just keep in mind that reiterations of your contention do not constitute evidence of your claim. And evidence need not be in the least convincing to qualify as evidence. So, let's see your convincing evidence. We await.



And. . . . . . Secretly, I still bet you do.

.

OH yeah, I forgot to add

Lexicon :: Strong's H2231 - zirmâ זִרְמָה
________________________
Outline of Biblical Usage

flow, issue
issue (of seminal discharge)
_______________________
Strong’s Definitions

זִרְמָה zirmâh, zir-maw'; feminine of H2230; a gushing of fluid (semen):—issue.

_______________________
Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon [?] (Jump to Scripture Index)
STRONGS H2231:

† זִרְמָה noun feminine issue (of semen virile), in figure of the paramours of Jerusalem וְזִרְמַת סוּסִים זִרְמָתָם Ezekiel 23:20.
source

................................................

.

[JehovahsWitness]

People expecting the "OMG a reference to genitals burn the book!" from the religious are probably expecting Puritans. Their influence still lingers on the religious community but pretty much only in America.

That doesn't really explain non-religious or anti-religious reaction. I suspect this is not a little exaggerated but still I struggle to understand why those that are not even religious feel the bible should be censored on grounds of gross public indecency.

[Purple Knight]

That doesn't really explain non-religious or anti-religious reaction. I suspect this is not a little exaggerated but still I struggle to understand why those that are not even religious feel the bible should be censored on grounds of gross public indecency.

It might be a matter of expecting the religious to react that way and trying to stick them with their own pitchforks, or it might just be that we're sterilised and divorced from Nature in modern society to an absurd and unhealthy degree. It could even be that there's not a lot of middle ground in our society between the type of overstimulation and desensitisation leading to rage pursuit of that stimulus, which that very passage is talking about, and simply being made aware that that stimulus exists.

It might be that big screen TV thing we were agreeing about before. People can't just have a TV. They have to be trampling one another because OMG a TV that is a full 2 inches bigger than the one I've got I MUST HAVE IT!!! If you give crack to a rat when it presses a lever, it will sit there and rage pursue the crack, pressing the lever until it dies. Maybe I'm giving regular people too much credit but I wouldn't (...entirely...) blame them if they had an intuitive sense of TVs acting on people's brains like crack cocaine and forbidding their children from ever having a TV. I mean, I'd be telling them it was cruel and likely to backfire and chewing them out for abusing their kid, but I'd understand the reason.

[FatimaAdamu]

I think the key here is context. Pornography, in its modern form, is a whole different ballgame compared to animals mating. It's more about the intent behind it and the impact it can have on individuals and relationships. That's where the room for adults comes in. And you're spot on about not expecting every reference to be met with Puritanical outrage. We've come a long way since then, and different communities have different attitudes towards these things. It's all about understanding and respect. Oh, and by the way, I had to look up 신촌셔츠룸 – seems like it's a shirt room in Sinchon? Anyway, thanks for giving me something to think about!

[The Nice Centurion]

I think the key here is context. Pornography, in its modern form, is a whole different ballgame compared to animals mating. It's more about the intent behind it and the impact it can have on individuals and relationships. That's where the room for adults comes in. And you're spot on about not expecting every reference to be met with Puritanical outrage. We've come a long way since then, and different communities have different attitudes towards these things. It's all about understanding and respect. Oh, and by the way, I had to look up 신촌셔츠룸 – seems like it's a shirt room in Sinchon? Anyway, thanks for giving me something to think about!

I see it the other way around
This Salomonic psalms are the exact aquivalent from biblical times of todays modern porn

I doubt that the writers back then thought: "Now I am writing the Holy Bible and of course I hate porn."

No, rather they wanted their scribble to develope themselves a hard one and for their readers too.

Bible apologists and some neutral Scholars too, do have the wrong context, cause them cant unnerstand than men that wanted to entertain other men back then were just like their modern counterparts