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?

[JehovahsWitness]

If any Bible-thumpers think they're going to hide their kid under a rock so that she doesn't have a sense of this, well, better make sure there's not a Bible under that rock is all I can say.

Let's not flip this Purple, are there any religious people on this thread advocating this? Who is proposing the mere mention of the word genitals should be hidden from children? I know it is difficult on a long thread but I am against jumping into a discussion with both feet to stereotype positions when it's antibiblists and non religious people that are getting all hysterical about children being exposed to the language of sexual behaviours mislabelling it PORNOGAPHIC.

[JehovahsWitness]

DID THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION MISTRANSLATE EZEKIEL 23:20?

EZEKIEL 23 : 20 NWT

She lusted after them like the concubines of men whose male members are like those of a donkey and whose genitals are like those of a horse.

The Hebrew word used in this verse is BASAR and literally means "flesh"; it is a very versatile word used in a variety of ways to refer to the body (or body parts) of humans or animals .

2 CHRONICLES 32: 8 KJV

With him [the king of Assyria] [is] an arm of flesh [BASAR]; but with us [is] the LORD our God to help us, and to fight our battles

Obviously the writer of Chronicles wasn't saying the kings arm was made out of a giant penis. By no stretch of the imagination can the word be restricted to mean "penis" and it is inaccurate to suggest that that is a more accurate rendition of the word BASAR.

The fact of the matter is that biblical Hebrew is very euphemistic in nature describing things by their observable features rather than using specific terms, so for example sexual intercourse in Hebrew YADA literally means "to know" as in intimate knowledge of a person. The Jewish Virtual library under ANATOMY puts it this way :

There is no systematic account of the anatomy of the human body in the Bible, although abundant use is made there of anatomical facts, metaphors, and expressions. Biblical anatomy is factual, empirical in the good sense of the word, and based on correct observation

This fact lends to discretion for the reader but presents translational challenges which may demand moving away from the literal meaning to more easily understood terms. This is evidently the case for Ezekiel 23:20. Since the verse links basar "flesh" with sexual lust they can legitimately substitute "flesh" which might be misleading or confusing to the modern reader, to a more specific word or term of their choice such as "genitals" , "male members", or if they chose "penis"*. However, to suggest that the latter is more accurate (as in, closer to the word originally employed) is to ignore the meaning of the actual word in question .

* Most translators see no reason to opt for vulgar colloquialisms which themselves might not be universally understandable even to those that speak the same language.

Further reading BASAR in scripture A word study : https://dorshav.typepad.com/hebrewwisdo ... -one-.html

[JehovahsWitness]

Duplicate sorry

[Purple Knight]

Let's not flip this Purple, are there any religious people on this thread advocating this? Who is proposing the mere mention of the word genitals should be hidden from children?

In this discussion it's the anti-religious implying that mentioning genitals will burst children's brains. But I was alive a few decades ago when it was flipped. The religious would scream and cry about indecency, and I was sitting in the same position I am now, wondering why the heck anyone considers something relatively innocuous to be so horrible.

"but is the fact that women like big dicks, or that men like big boobs, really that unsuitable for children?"

Conveying with words explicit images of those things, while quite suitable for adults, they are not suitable for seven-year-old children.

Are you the uncle of any young children?

I don't see how you can make words into an explicit image. If the child is too young to be exposed to it, it's incredibly likely that they won't even understand it. A seven-year-old is not going to be reading or watching anything their parent has not gone over, at least, if that parent is a decent one. The parent needs to be honest about what these things mean and not be too embarrassed to talk to their child and put it in context.

I don't have children or nephews. But if I did have children I would just be honest with them about what things mean and I wouldn't deny them media they wanted because I felt it was lewd.

This used to be the anti-religious position.

[JoeMama]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #31]

JW wrote: Let's not flip this Purple, are there any religious people on this thread advocating this? Who is proposing the mere mention of the word genitals should be hidden from children? I know it is difficult on a long thread but I am against jumping into a discussion with both feet to stereotype positions when it's antibiblists and non religious people that are getting all hysterical about children being exposed to the language of sexual behaviours mislabelling it PORNOGAPHIC.

JoeMama

I don't oppose the use of the word, "genitals." I oppose instead exposing children to a story about a prostitute who was obsessed with genitals the size of donkeys, and emissions like those from horses.

You wouldn't want young children in Sunday Bible Study School seeing those words and having to ask the teacher to explain male orgasms and ejaculations, would you?

[JehovahsWitness]

young Bible-reading teen girls ..

... under-age children ..

... not suitable for seven-year-old children

...young children in Sunday Bible Study School ...

Your shock seems to be applying to a progressively younger demographic ...We started out with "teens" and through to pre teens , "seven year olds" and now have a a class of little ones at Sunday school. I suspect if you are given enough time you will have shifted the goal posts right into the maternity ward.

Anyway, Jehovahs Witnesses do not have or allow our children to attend "Sunday schools" and our parents assume the spiritual education of their own children. It is extremely unlikely any parent would sit down and make Ezekiels illustrations the focus of a bible study for 7s and under simply because they would not understand it. If the passage was read at one of our meetings a little one would simply not grasp what was being discussed.

There is no reason to force explanations of phenomena the child is not intellectually ready for but neither is there reason to censor the bible under the misnomer of "PORNOGRAPHY". The sensible and happy medium is to introduce and discuss the various themes in scripture in an age appropriate manner.

The bible discusses menstruation, sexuality, adultery, sexual perversions and many other adult subjects which are part of life ; how and when they should be discussed with a child us up to their parents. If he asked about any of the words heard at our meetings, that would not be problematic as (as has been outlined) bible terms terms are entirely innocuous in themselves. In my experience, very young children are quite happy with simple brief explanations to things they are curious about and the worst thing you can do is stigmatise open and guilt free discussion.

[Miles]

CONCLUSION That the NWT Translation team chose not to add the word "seminal" at Ezekiel 23:20 was not from excessive prudery since the word "semen" does appear over a dozen times in the New World Translation. The editorially sound decision not to put the word in the passage above is based on the fact that there is no direct reference to semen in the passage.

Of course there isn't. The NWT Translation team deliberately left it out.

Ezekiel 23:20 as shown in the Masoretic Text with mention of "issue" in blue.

23:20 וַֽתַּעְגְּבָה עַל פִּֽלַגְשֵׁיהֶם אֲשֶׁר בְּשַׂר־ חֲמוֹרִים
ם׃ זִרְמָה סוּסִים זִרְמָה בְּשָׂרָם

Read on.

Quite a few bibles chose to use euphemisms for semen, but why did the JW editorial board choose to replace reference to it with a remark about genitals? A blatant censoring of a reference to ejaculate by putting something utterly unrelated in its place. May just as well have put my shoe size (9 1/2) and height (6') in its stead.


The New World Translation (2013 Revision and its partial censoring of Ezekiel 23:20

Ezekiel 23:20
20 She lusted after them like the concubines of men whose male members are like those of a donkey and whose genitals are like those of a horse.

Compare that to other translations.

KJ21
For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses and whose issue is like the issue of horses.
CSB
and lusted after their lovers, whose sexual members were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of stallions.
LEB
And she lusted after her male lovers whose genitalia were the genitalia of male donkeys and their seminal emission was the seminal emission of horses.
CEB
She lusted after their male consorts, whose sexual organs were like those of donkeys, and whose ejaculation was like that of horses.
CJB
Yes, she lusted after their male prostitutes, whose members are like those of donkeys and who ejaculate like stallions.
GW
She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose semen was like that of horses.

In regard to the NWT Translation, as I see it, it's pretty dumb, if not a waste of words, to compare the "members" of the men to those of a donkey, and iimmediately go on to compare their genitals to those of a horse. Don't ya think? . . . . . . Secretly, I bet you do.

.

[JehovahsWitness]

WHY DOES THE NWT DEPART FROM THE MAJORITY IN ITS RENDITION OF EZEKIEL 23:20b?

The majority of translations refer to "issues [or emission] " .... like that of stallions/horses, while the New World Translation reads " genitals ". The Hebrew word ZIRMAH [זִרְמָה], here translated stems from the root "zarem" which means "gushing" / flood and most translators presume because of its root, it is a reference to fluid, but this is not a foregone conclusion. Since the word in its feminine form is unique to scripture we have to look for clues as to its probable meaning. The two clues as to whether the root word was to be considered metonymic or literal, are the Hebrew method of parallelism and the Greek Septuagint.

HEBREW PARALLELISM

Put simply "parallelism" links two ideas together, sometimes in contrast sometime as synonyms. The website Christian Resource Institute states ...

Recognizing parallelism as a poetic feature can sometimes aid in understanding or interpreting a passage. For example, the use of parallelism usually means that the message of the text is in the larger passage and its overall point or impact rather than individual words or single lines. Also, specific words that may be ambiguous or used in unusual ways can be clarified or more narrowly defined by seeing them in the context of a parallel structure.
Source : https://www.crivoice.org/parallel.html)

Ezekiels illustrations is scattered with examples of synonymous parallelism where the second line repeats the first in different words having the same meaning

Verse 4
Her breasts were squeezed there }
Her virgin bosoms were fondled }

Verse 11
Her lust became more depraved }
Her prostitution was worse }

Verse 14
She saw men carved on the wall }
images of Chaldeans carved in vermilion }


So if the writer was using a similar literary device in verse 23 "Male member" of the donkey would lend to a synonym for the horses. To find out if this was likely the case , we turn to the Septuagint.


THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT

When ancient Hebrews scholars translated the bible into the Greek language their choices often shed light on the original meaning of the words. This is especially useful when the word only appears once in the Hebrew bible and /or its meaning is ambiguous or lost. The Greek word chosen for Ezekiel 23:20b was αιδοίο • (aidoío) n (plural αιδοία) which means vulva or pudenda ( pudendum external genitalia regardless of sex ).

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

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

BIBLE TRANSLATIONS , THE NWT and ... FIGURES OF SPEECH

[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.

.

[JehovahsWitness]

...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.