What does the Bible mean by "fornication"?

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

Checkpoint
Prodigy
Posts: 3955
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 52 times

What does the Bible mean by "fornication"?

Post #1

Post by Checkpoint »

It seems to me it is seldom if ever specifically defined in scripture, although the term is used more than a few times.

Does it, for example, include polygamy?

How about sex before marriage?

Or homosexuality?

Adultery is a sin, but is it also fornication?

YahDough
Under Probation
Posts: 1754
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: What does the Bible mean by "fornication"?

Post #11

Post by YahDough »

[Replying to post 5 by Checkpoint]

It would be wise for a Christian believer to consider fornication as any sexuall activity that is outside the confines of a marriage sanctioned by God and recognised by man. That would (hopefully) cover activities that would keep a person outside the Kingdom of God,

1Cor:6:9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Yahu
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1488
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:28 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: What does the Bible mean by "fornication"?

Post #12

Post by Yahu »

JehovahsWitness wrote:
Yahu wrote: If you were betrothed, you could legally have sex. The betrothal was the beginning of the covenant. It was up to the couple when to start a sexual relationship.
Yahu is correct about the nature of a betrothal in Jesus' day but wrong to imply that betrothed people could not fornicate with each other or that such behaviour would be approved by God.

Does that fact that there was no specific law prohibiting engaged people from having sex in bible times mean that God sanctions single people having sex before they are wed, if they are committed to each other?

While it is true that by Jesus time, the engagement contract required a certificate of divorce to be annulled and an engagement was viewed as the beginning of the marriage contract, it is also true that unenforcable laws are laws that have no use or purpose. Since it would only be possible to prove a woman had had sex before her marriage and that only if she fell pregnant or her husband suspected her of unfaithfulness, and made those suspisions public there would be little purpose served in having a law that stipulated engaged couples should wait until marriage.

Further more those that wish to sanction extra marital sex do well to also note that when choosing a mother for Jesus, God chose an engaged woman that was still a virgin. It would not be unreasonable then to take that as the "gold standard" and a ^proper reflection of God's view of couples having sex before they are legally married.

It should also be noted that the Mosaic laws said nothing of "legally binding" engagments so the whole arrangement was basically manmade tradition and hardly one that can be used to imply God's approval. Remember, when Jesus referred to God's original standard he referred not to an engaged couple but God binding a man with his WIFE (not his fiance) thus it is evident that the scriptures do indicate that the privileges of marital intimacy should commence when God "yokes" the two together in marriage, not when manmade traditions provide a loophole to.

CONCLUSION: Not only are engagements today not legally binding but a study of scripure indicate that although God has tolerated certain behaviours, Christians today cannot use this to promote loose morals and degraded sexual practices such as sex before marriage. The Christian bible is clear, those that wish to please God must "flee from fornication" and this includes having sex before one is legally married.
Like I said, that is phariseeism, adding religious traditions of man rooted in our society by puritan ideals.

The only case it would be sin for a betrothed couple to have sex is if the marriage was canceled after a girl gave up her virginity. Refusing to marry after taking her virginity was considered a sin against her and her father. Taking a girls virginity without the betrothal which required the father's permission was an offense against the father and require a fine be paid to the father. It was not a death penalty offense. It could happen that a father disapproved of the man and refused to allow the betrothal against the wishes of the couple. In that case by taking her virginity you could still marry her without her father's initial blessing. By taking her virginity, he had taken her as wife but had not the legal agreement for the conditions of the marriage. The law set the condition that she could never be divorced by her husband.

You are equating modern day practices to ancient words in a different society setting. No LEGAL requirements are needed for covenant. It is an agreement between the two people involved. You are equating LEGAL requirements of our nation and equating that with Yah's law. That is nonsense. There no LEGAL requirement for covenants between two individuals. The marriage ceremony is just to reinforce that covenant before witnesses to make it harder to get out of it.

In my case, I asked her father for the right to marry his daughter. We were in the military stationed across the country. We had already been through a long non-sexual relationship but were ready to marry. Her father had to sell an investment property before he could pay for a big family wedding for his eldest daughter. He needed 6 months to a year to sell it and get a good price. He gave his blessing and permission to exchange vows and take her for my wife but we had no legal wedding at the time. I took her as my wife that night with her father's blessing and permission. Was that sin or fornication? No of course not but we were still attacked for being in sin by modern day pharisees that sabotaged our relationship to keep us out of sin.

So you think that having a pastor say words over a couple makes it LEGAL in Yah's eyes? Or is following the laws of the land like a judge or ship captain perform some ceremony? Nonsense, the marriage is the agreement between the two people, not some tradition of man ceremony that makes it official in Yah's eyes.

So why wasn't Marry stoned when she returned from visiting Elizabeth pregnant and she wasn't married yet? Because everyone assumed it was Joseph's child therefore covered under their covenant. Only Joseph could expose the fact it was not his child and have her put to death. That would be a death penalty offense because she was already in covenant.

In those days the girl could be VERY young when the covenant was made. The sexual relationship wouldn't begin until she was past puberty. The wedding ceremony might be many years later when a man gained his inheritance. It was a celebration of their covenant, not the covenant itself.

Yah doesn't have any problem with sex. He has a problem with hurting people through sex. That is what all the sexual law is about.

Whether an engagement is LEGALLY binding or not is irrelevant. Legally binding has nothing to do with covenant, it is recognition of that covenant by government for legal marital status. It has NOTHING to do with Yah's law. It is the traditions of our society.

I was married to my wife but didn't have the legal status of married. That is irrelevant. So it is even legal to take a wife without an official ceremony and yet have it covered under our laws. That is covered under our law as 'common law wife'. I was also asked (by my wife) to be a polygamist and take on a 2nd wife. I was also asked to be a surrogate father for a couple with a sterile husband. They, their parents and pastor considered it a levirate situation even though the husband wasn't dead but told medically he could never have children of his own. That couple raised 4 children but the eldest is my biological son while the other 3 are from the husband's younger brother. He was too young at the time of their 1st child.

Of course I have been attacked for those events many times by modern day Pharisees. And every one of the people involved will stand before the judgement seat of Christ for those offenses.

Yahu
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1488
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:28 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: What does the Bible mean by "fornication"?

Post #13

Post by Yahu »

YahDough wrote: [Replying to post 5 by Checkpoint]

It would be wise for a Christian believer to consider fornication as any sexuall activity that is outside the confines of a marriage sanctioned by God and recognised by man. That would (hopefully) cover activities that would keep a person outside the Kingdom of God,

1Cor:6:9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Do you even understand what Paul was up against with the Corinthians? Members of the church were still visiting the pagan temple prostitutes.

Yah doesn't bind people together by some ritual ceremony. They are bound together by intercourse itself.

Besides that, inheritance within the kingdom and being in the kingdom are two different things and the definition of fornication has changed from ancient times to modern times.

The topic is the biblical meaning of fornication, not our modern day society bias applied to scripture.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 16597
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 257 times
Been thanked: 392 times
Contact:

Re: What does the Bible mean by "fornication"?

Post #14

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Yahu wrote:Yah doesn't bind people together by some ritual ceremony. They are bound together by intercourse itself.
Does a man make a woman his wife by having sex with her? Is a couple's first sexual intimacy the moment a woman goes from being single to becoming "a wife" rather than at some ceremony or public ritual? There are those that claim so, thus rendering it impossible for single committed individuals to commit fornication with each other, but this is far from the bible's view.

WEDDING CEREMONIES IN THE BIBLE

Interestingly Genesis, when speaking of the first couple says that God "he brought her [Eve] to the man". We note here that Eve was not left to be discovered by Adam or that Adam found Eve, had sexual intercourse with her and then inform her father [Jehovah] the were forthwith married. Genesis has God (her Father) bringing her her to the man. This action of a Father presenting his daughter in the sight of witnesses (in the Edenic case before the host of Angels observing from the heavens) could be regarded as the first wedding since following that event and prior to their expulsion from Eden and the conception and birth of any children, Eve is referred to as Adams "wife" (see Genesis 2:24). Thus Jesus, thousands of years later did not imply that a man and a woman yoke THEMSELVES together by making a committment and then having sex but rather that is it God that "yokes' them together by blessing their union before they enjoy the privilèges of marital intimacy.

Did public wedding ceremonies exist in bible times?

Yes. While the early Hebrews had no legal or religious ceremony it is ill informed to believe there was no ritual by which the community acknowleged the changed status of the couple. The groom would go to the home of his betrothed and publicly escort her to his home and this with the permissiion of the parents in view of close relatives and onlookers. Usually the bride and groom were attired in fine garments, and at his home they would have a wedding feast with invited guests.—Genesis 24:65-67; Matthew 1:24; 25:1-10; compare 1 Maccabees 9:37, 39

Sex before or after the wedding?

We note that it was following a similar ritual that a vieled Leah was presented to Jacob instead of his beloved Rachel. What is interesting in this account is that Jacob evidently did not have sex with Rachel before there was some kind of wedding feast even though they were betrothed and were fully committed to each other. Such a thing would have been considered "fornication" (lude and and improper sexual behaviour). This is further born out by what happened to Jacob's daughter Dinah. When her brothers found out the young man Shemech, who was obviously committed to her and in love (and have every intention of marrying her) had taken her virginity, they didn't say "Oh well that means he's taken her as wife" rather viewed they rightly viewed it as an indecent sexual act and likened it to "taking her as a prostitute". Indeed after the couple had had sex Shechem begged his father to get her for him as a wife, he didn't say "we've had sex so now she IS my wife" try and see if you can rubber stamp it (see Genesis 34). In short all parties concerned recognized that having sex with a virgin (willing or not) does not make her your "wife".


Legal documentation

The Bible’s detailed genealogies suggest that marriages were recorded in some way, and papyruses of the fifth century B.C.E. from a Jewish colony at Elephantine (Egypt) contain marriage contracts, one reading: ‘ . . . I have come to your house that you might give me your daughter Miphtahiah in marriage. She is my wife and I am her husband from this day for ever. I have given you as the bride-price of your daughter Miphtahiah (a sum of) 5 shekels’" {end quote} Indeed the very notion of a bride-price becomes redundant if a man was legally married just by having intercourse with a woman in a private moment of intimacy. Samson asked (regarding the woman from Timna) that his father : “Get her for me, because she is the right one for me.� Obviously it was not a case of convincing the girl he (Samson) was committed and then taking her sexually so they were "married". Clearly Samson was requesting his father negotiate with the girls father before he had sex with her.

Weddings in Jesus' day

Jesus in three illustrations referred to weddings (Matthew 22:2-14; 25:1-13; Luke 14:7-11)and of course himself atteneded at least one marriage feast in Cana where he famously turned water into wine. Are we to presume Jesus was celebrating a man and a woman having sexual intercourse (wedding themselves) or rather the traditional presenting of a Virgin bride to her groom by her father or male guardian? Indeed Paul alludes to this ritual of presenting a bride to her betrothed by a third party, writing
2 CORINTHIANS 11:21
"For I am jealous for you with the jealousy of God himself. I promised you as a pure bride to one husband--Christ" - NLT
The metaphor becomes nonsensical if brides were traditionally presented to their betrothed as non-virgins because they had already had sex. The whole point of the metaphor is that a girl would be considered "unclean" if she were a non-Virgin at the moment of her being a bride. And the moment of being presented as a bride was evidently not when she accepted her betrothed into her bed but when she was presented as a Virgin by her guardian.

CONCLUSION: In the bible neither the early patriarchs nor God's people Under God's law viewed the act of sexual intercourse as binding a man and woman in matrimony ("making a Virgin ones wife"). Rather sex before a wedding ceremony of some description was viewed as an indecent act comparable to prostitution. All proven sex outside marriage was sanctionable by law even whether the sex was between conscenting committed virgins or not. While the scriptures don't outline a specific ceremony or ritual, the Jews in bible times most certainly observed some and Jesus by attending a first century wedding feast, indicated that there was absolutely nothing wrong with them.

Those that think sex is making someone one's wife or that it is impossible for a man to commit adultery or fornication are doing so by ignoring both explicit and implicit scriptural statements. And any so-called "believers" do so, often do so because they themselves are living immoral lives and are ignoring the bibles clear mandate that "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and ... the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous." Heb 13:4
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

YahDough
Under Probation
Posts: 1754
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: What does the Bible mean by "fornication"?

Post #15

Post by YahDough »

Yahu wrote:
YahDough wrote: [Replying to post 5 by Checkpoint]

It would be wise for a Christian believer to consider fornication as any sexuall activity that is outside the confines of a marriage sanctioned by God and recognised by man. That would (hopefully) cover activities that would keep a person outside the Kingdom of God,

1Cor:6:9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Do you even understand what Paul was up against with the Corinthians? Members of the church were still visiting the pagan temple prostitutes.
Do you understand those people were not members of the Church.
Yah doesn't bind people together by some ritual ceremony. They are bound together by intercourse itself.
No Weh. , Yah (God) binds His people together by the Holy Ghost Spirit of Truth.
Besides that, inheritance within the kingdom and being in the kingdom are two different things and the definition of fornication has changed from ancient times to modern times.
No Weh. You cannot be out of the Kingdom of God now, and expect to get in it later. God makes the rules regarding fornication and those rules never change. You cannot justify sex sin.
The topic is the biblical meaning of fornication, not our modern day society bias applied to scripture.
This IS the modern day and that is exactly what we need to do: Apply it to today.

Yahu
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1488
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:28 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: What does the Bible mean by "fornication"?

Post #16

Post by Yahu »

YahDough wrote:
Yahu wrote:
YahDough wrote: [Replying to post 5 by Checkpoint]

It would be wise for a Christian believer to consider fornication as any sexuall activity that is outside the confines of a marriage sanctioned by God and recognised by man. That would (hopefully) cover activities that would keep a person outside the Kingdom of God,

1Cor:6:9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Do you even understand what Paul was up against with the Corinthians? Members of the church were still visiting the pagan temple prostitutes.
Do you understand those people were not members of the Church.
Yah doesn't bind people together by some ritual ceremony. They are bound together by intercourse itself.
No Weh. , Yah (God) binds His people together by the Holy Ghost Spirit of Truth.
Besides that, inheritance within the kingdom and being in the kingdom are two different things and the definition of fornication has changed from ancient times to modern times.
No Weh. You cannot be out of the Kingdom of God now, and expect to get in it later. God makes the rules regarding fornication and those rules never change. You cannot justify sex sin.
The topic is the biblical meaning of fornication, not our modern day society bias applied to scripture.
No kidding. Here I thought that was what you were trying to do.
The sexual laws were not even in place during the time of Noah with the exception of the law against adultery. It was because of the practices of the pagan worship that Yah gave sexual law to the Israelites because of what the neighboring nations were doing.

What I am saying is not justifying sexual sin. I am saying there is no sin unless it violates a specific law of what is forbidden and there is plenty of lawful sex outside of a marriage. You don't marry a concubine, you just start a sexual relationship. By modern day ideals Abraham would be guilty of adultery for getting Hagar pregnant. He didn't marry her, he took her as a sexual partner. Just because the english gets translated as 'to be his wife' doesn't mean they had a marriage ceremony. She was a slave that became a sex slave. The act of becoming sexually involved is all that is implied.

King David had many MANY wives, concubines and virgins. Yah even told him if that wasn't enough, He would give David more. David's sin was taking another man's wife and killing him to cover it up.

2 Sa 12:
8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

David had Saul's harem. The ONLY sexual sin David got in trouble for was Bathsheba. He equated the number of woman David had as a 'exceeding many flocks and herds'. And if that wasn't enough, Yah would give him more but he wanted another man's wife. Did Nathan say that having so many sexual partners, David was in sin? No.

2 The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:
3 But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.
4 And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.
5 And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die:
6 And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.
7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

Women could not have sex with more then one man at a time but men were allowed many sexual partners at a time. It was all about protection of the children conceived, not that sex is evil. Yah is all about sexual responsibility for the sake of the children or preventing conflict for taking another man's woman.

As to the Corinthians not being members of the church, that is nonsense. Paul had to deal with one individual in the church that taught that since Christians should share everything, share your wives as well. That man was cast out for a time until he repented. He was sleeping with his own step-mother.

When I was young, I had a coven that was trying to kill me but their death curses wouldn't work. They found out the reason as being I had not violated any law of Yah that carried a death penalty so they tried to get lead me into sin that would let them kill me. By the end of the conflict I had multiply wives and concubines but still they couldn't kill me because none of it was sin that carried a death penalty. Their own curses rebound on them because of their sexual sins. They were recreating the worship of the groves with orgies. They were in sexual sin, I wasn't.

The sexual sin of the worship of the pagan gods is what scripture means by fornication most of the time. It was rampant in the OT times and what the prophets were battling against. It was the sex that was the draw into the paganism. It was also the same problem in the NT with the gentiles in the church. They were to refrain from the sexual immorality of the pagan temples.

As to justifying sexual sin, I have been celibate for most of the last 25 years since the loss of my 1st wife.

I am TOTALLY secure of my position and inheritance in the kingdom. I am a prophet of Yah that has done battle against the pagan sexual practices and seen Yah destroy the covens. They repented or died.

You will be the one standing in judgement for telling people they are in sin when they are not. That is one of the major sins of the Pharisees.

13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

The enemy uses sex as the number one way to drive people away from and hate Yah because of people like you that attack them and tell them they are not qualified to enter the kingdom. It is a doctrine rooted in Baal worship requiring sexual celibacy unless sanctioned by the priests. It is also the root of the celibacy of the priesthood in the Catholic church. Some of the priest of Baal were even castrated to force celibacy yet Yah requires a man to have functioning testicles to qualify for any priestly position. It was ONLY the members of the high priesthood that were to have ONLY one wife and marry a virgin. It wasn't a requirement for any of the rest of the priesthood or the general populous of Israel.

You are trying to push the highest standards applied to the high priesthood upon all to even enter the kingdom and you are serving the enemy in doing so. That will get you a 'Woe unto you'. You are cursing your own life by trying to be a meddlesome busybody in the matter of other men's lives. That ranks right up there with the sins of murderer, thief and evil-doer.

1Pe 4:15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters.

The ancient paganism and the conflicts against it is my area of expertise in the role of a prophet to stand against it. That includes the sexual sins involved in those doctrines and practices. The simple truth is your not qualified to determine what is and is not sexual sin in others. You have to understand why something is sin. Then if you are not a man with functioning testicles you are instantly disqualified into judging sexual matter of other men because that is a requirement of any priestly position.

With your ignorance, you are not qualified so I will leave you with Yah's statement to Job.

Job 38:2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

The error of Phariseeism is to take what is sin in the law and put a fence around it to include anything even remotely close and calling it sin for anyone that violates their added expansion of the law. Then they attack anyone that doesn't bow to their added traditions of man. That is what got Yeshua crucified for following Yah's law not man's expansions to the law.

Mt 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

That is exactly what is going on in the church today with the modern day expanded definition of fornication.

Yahu
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1488
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:28 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: What does the Bible mean by "fornication"?

Post #17

Post by Yahu »

JehovahsWitness wrote:
Yahu wrote: A concubine was a sexual partner that was not a wife.

Was a concubine a single woman having sex with the Partner (a single woman "involved with a man") or was a concubine considered a married woman?

The bible is somewhat ambiguous about the status of a concubine but most scholars agree a concubine was considered a "secondary wife" and not a single woman that was choosing to have sex.
I could care less what JW scholars agree on. Our entire society is bias from our puritan roots.

Many women that were concubines were household servants or slaves. Many were war captives. Many were just sex slaves. Others were women of no property or means so they got involved sexually with a man for support. That is not to imply they were prostitutes by taking on multiple men. Women that had lost their virginity also had problems becoming a full wife. They entered into sexual relationship to gain partial wife status. That was a common problem were the groves were present. The pagan practices were into kidnapping and raping young women to make them unfit to be a wife in attempts to force them into prostitution and destroy marriage which was a symbol of Yah's covenant with mankind. Orphan girls or the poor were also given to the king as virgins for his harem. Later they could be released and passed to other men as concubines. Children of concubines were generally treated as servants or military arms-men instead of full sons. The blood ties made them loyal servants of the household.

A widow could be taken on as a concubine. She had already bartered away her virginity in her first marriage. No non-virgin was even qualified to have full wife status unless the man elevated her to that status. The man could also elevate the status of the children by a concubine to full heir status.

Those types of situations are considered repugnant to modern feminist. Our society differs greatly from the ancient societies. What was allowed then by law isn't like modern day bias on what is or is not sexual sin.

Sexual law was about protecting virginity so a woman could be qualified to be a wife. After that it was about protecting the children and women from starvation if they lost their virginity.

Any woman trying to find a man to support her that got involved sexually to gain that man was acceptable under the law. Many times those women would die otherwise.

Checkpoint
Prodigy
Posts: 3955
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 52 times

Re: What does the Bible mean by "fornication"?

Post #18

Post by Checkpoint »

[Replying to post 16 by Yahu]
The error of Phariseeism is to take what is sin in the law and put a fence around it to include anything even remotely close and calling it sin for anyone that violates their added expansion of the law. Then they attack anyone that doesn't bow to their added traditions of man. That is what got Yeshua crucified for following Yah's law not man's expansions to the law.
Exactly. The self-appinted keepers of the gate are too often shutting the gate and making it a stumbling block and worse. It is as Peter said in Acts 15:10:

Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

Thanks for your posts on this thread. They have been enlightening and helpful.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 16597
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 257 times
Been thanked: 392 times
Contact:

Re: What does the Bible mean by "fornication"?

Post #19

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Yahu wrote:I could care less what JW scholars agree on.
Did I mention JW [Jehovah's Witness] scholars? No I did not I said "bible schoars"?

======================================================================
Yahu wrote: You don't marry a concubine, you just start a sexual relationship.
Easton's Bible Dictionary
In the Bible denotes a female conjugally* united to a man, but in a relation inferior to that of a wife. Among the early Jews, from various causes, the difference between a wife and a concubine was less Marked than it would be amongst us. The concubine was a wife of secondary rank. There are various laws recorded providing for their protection (Exodus 21:7; Deuteronomy 21:10-14), and setting limits to the relation they sustained to the household to which they belonged (Genesis 21:14; 25:6). They had no authority in the family, nor could they share in the household government
* Definition of conjugal : relating to marriage or to a married couple
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

2. (n.) A wife of inferior condition; a lawful wife, but not united to the man by the usual ceremonies, and of inferior condition. Such were Hagar and Keturah, the concubines of Abraham.
"Thus, the concubine was not a kept mistress, and did not cohabit with a man unless married to him. The institution itself is an offshoot of polygamy" - R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980), 724.
"… is in fact a legitimate wife, but of second rank. We meet here with a figure typical of sovereigns, but rare in the private sphere� - Alberto Soggin, The Old Testament Library: Judges, tr. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981), 159
" In most contexts in the Old Testament the concubine was considered a legal if second-ranked wife" - Daniel Isaac Block, vol. 6, Judges, Ruth; The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 303



JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

YahDough
Under Probation
Posts: 1754
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: What does the Bible mean by "fornication"?

Post #20

Post by YahDough »

Yahu wrote:
YahDough wrote:
Yahu wrote:
YahDough wrote: [Replying to post 5 by Checkpoint]

It would be wise for a Christian believer to consider fornication as any sexuall activity that is outside the confines of a marriage sanctioned by God and recognised by man. That would (hopefully) cover activities that would keep a person outside the Kingdom of God,

1Cor:6:9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Do you even understand what Paul was up against with the Corinthians? Members of the church were still visiting the pagan temple prostitutes.
Do you understand those people were not members of the Church.
Yah doesn't bind people together by some ritual ceremony. They are bound together by intercourse itself.
No Weh. , Yah (God) binds His people together by the Holy Ghost Spirit of Truth.
Besides that, inheritance within the kingdom and being in the kingdom are two different things and the definition of fornication has changed from ancient times to modern times.
No Weh. You cannot be out of the Kingdom of God now, and expect to get in it later. God makes the rules regarding fornication and those rules never change. You cannot justify sex sin.
The topic is the biblical meaning of fornication, not our modern day society bias applied to scripture.
No kidding. Here I thought that was what you were trying to do.
The enemy uses sex as the number one way to drive people away from and hate Yah because of people like you that attack them and tell them they are not qualified to enter the kingdom.

The enemy is the flesh, our own fleshly desires that war against the Spirit of God.. You are lashing out at people who tell you the truth .
You are trying to push the highest standards applied to the high priesthood upon all to even enter the kingdom and you are serving the enemy in doing so.

Are you blaming me for what you du? Do you think my judgement is worse than God's condemnation? Salvation requires high standards. The enemy is the flesh,
That will get you a 'Woe unto you'. You are cursing your own life by trying to be a meddlesome busybody in the matter of other men's lives. That ranks right up there with the sins of murderer, thief and evil-doer.
Those who warn you are trying to do you a favor.

You have given me many Bible scriptures for someone who does not profess to be a Christian although you appear to have been brought uo in a Christian home. Let me leave a scripture for you.

Rom:1:24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Post Reply