Does the bible say Sex before marriage is wrong?

[Ciceronian]

There you go! The theologian agrees with me. There is no such thing in the Bible as "Don't have sex before you marry!". Fornication means sexual immorality, which is basically sleeping round a lot or homosexuality and suchlike, but it does not neccessarily include sex before marriage. I think you should take back what you said, classical_hero, and apologize!

 

[Stegyre]

There you go! The theologian agrees with me. There is no such thing in the Bible as "Don't have sex before you marry!" Fornication means sexual immorality, which is basically sleeping round a lot or homosexuality and suchlike, but it does not necessarily include sex before marriage. I think you should take back what you said, classical_hero, and apologize!

Let me be among the first to congratulate you on your "marriage," if you are this sort of biblical believer.

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." Deut. 22:28-29 (KJV).

Yours is a curious casuistry: sex outside of marriage is only bad if (a) you pay money for it, or (b) you are already married, or (c) you do it with a lot of different people. Considering the number of times and places in which biblical texts condemn sex outside marriage (a field that necessarily includes pre-marriage), one might more credibly argue that the onus is on the person advancing the virtue of pre-marital sex to show where it is condoned and excepted from these prohibitions. You are entitled to your views, but IMHO I find Curt’s or Dida’s outright rejection of biblical authority more intellectually honest than your reasoning.

 

[Plotinus]

[Ciceronian] Well, as I say, the word in question is "porneia", meaning sexual immorality. "Fornication" does mean "sex outside marriage" - the point is that the latter is an extremely poor translation of the former. It's like using "drink-driving" to translate a word meaning "motoring offences". In fact, it's worse, because drink-driving is uncontroversially a kind of motoring offence, but it is not obvious that sex outside marriage is a kind of sexual immorality. I don't think it is, anyway!

 

[CruddyLeper]

[Ciceronian] Well, as I say, the word in question is "porneia", meaning sexual immorality.

I always though it referred to the lowest rank of prostitute.

 

[muppet]

Finally, those insisting that the Bible condemns sex outside marriage might choose to read the book of Ruth more carefully. Ruth 3:1-14 describes Ruth "lying at the feet" of Boaz - a Hebrew euphemism, rather like our own "sleeping together"

Those of you who think Ruth 3 permits premarital sex should read Ruth more carefully. This interpretation is so grossly inaccurate that it is actually quite funny.

Ruth 3 taken of itself is simply out of context. First of all, the entirety of Ruth must be read to understand this chapter, secondly the customs of the land at that time must be understood. It is clear from a complete reading of Ruth that Boaz can be trusted to act properly - that there is no risk of impropriety in approaching Boaz so boldly. It is clear in Ruth 4 the marriage is consumated AFTER public ceremony. If it still is not clear, use logic. Is it logical for Ruth 4 to describe the wedding ceremony AND record consumation if they had already known each other from Ruth 3!? I didn't think so.

Biblical scholars use colorful language to describe consumation, but they do NOT avoid making intercourse clear: to know another, to lay with another, to come into another, to become one. The language chosen in Ruth 3, lying at the feet of another, is language that describes offering, humility, submission, etc. and clearly is NOT consistent with the stronger language used in other parts of the Bible that describes sexual intercourse.

 

[muppet]

Fornication means sexual immorality, which is basically sleeping round a lot or homosexuality and suchlike, but it does not neccessarily include sex before marriage.

This argument is spiritually empty.

Fornication in the customs and laws of the land in Biblical time includes premarital sex. Whether today or in 2050 drunkenness includes consuming excess wine or explicitly and exclusively beer does not change the meaning of drunkenness or gluttony in Biblical context.

 

[classical_hero]

There you go! The theologian agrees with me. There is no such thing in the Bible as "Don't have sex before you marry!". Fornication means sexual immorality, which is basically sleeping round a lot or homosexuality and suchlike, but it does not neccessarily include sex before marriage. I think you should take back what you said, classical_hero, and apologize!

Did you bother reading the first line from the Wiki link. Just in case you did not, I'll give it to you.

Fornication refers disapprovingly to any sexual activity outside of the confines of marriage, obviously including pre-marital sex.

That has always been the understanding of the word. Congratulation for reinterpretating the word so that it now means. :shakehead Go to any dictionary and you will find that is what Fornication means. Here are some links that agree with me.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Fornication
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=fornication&action=Search+OMD
http://www.onelook.com/?w=fornication&ls=a*

*This one is very useful because it lists many sites that define fornication. Need I go on. Your definition of Fornication is not correct. I shall turn this around on it's head. Find a passage of Scripture that permits pre-marital sex.

 

[CurtSibling]

A medieval/shamanistic mumbo-jumbo.
Dry dogma - Pure and simple.

A doctrinal tool to control people and their actions.

I see no actual reason for this putting of boundaries on natural human sexuality.

Should we stone people for adultery too?

 

[classical_hero]

Should we stone people for adultery too?

I think it would be better to stone a person for blasphemy.

 

[Plotinus]

Did you bother reading the first line from the Wiki link.

Did you bother to read my post above? Evidently not. Let me repeat myself.

The word "fornication" does mean sex outside marriage. But the word "fornication" does not appear in the Bible. The passages you quote actually use the word "porneia", which does not mean "fornication". You can cite as many bad translations of the Bible as you like, but it won't change what the Bible itself says.

It often annoys me that certain kinds of Christians (only some Christians, by no means all) seem to spend half their time proclaiming that they believe what the Bible says, and the other half telling us what the Bible says, and no time at all actually reading the Bible to find out what it says.

I shall turn this around on it's head. Find a passage of Scripture that permits pre-marital sex.

Find a passage of Scripture that permits the wearing of clothes with buttons, or walking the dog, or anything you like! The original question was whether the Bible forbids it, not whether it explicitly condones it.

 

[classical_hero]

The word porneia means sexual impurity. That has to include sex outside of marriage.

 

[CurtSibling]

I think it would be better to stone a person for blasphemy.

In that case you are hardly beneath my notice.
I respect spiritual people who are rational, not unthinking automatons.

Who the hang gave you the right to execute based on unproven fables?

Your stance has nary a leg to stand on.

.....

 

[CurtSibling]

The word porneia means sexual impurity. That has to include sex outside of marriage.

Please explain to me why sex outside of marriage is a bad situation?

Then tell me why I should heed your religion on this subject.

...

 

[Plotinus]

The word porneia means sexual impurity. That has to include sex outside of marriage.

Curt's already answered it, but on this I agree with him so I'll repeat the point. *You* say that "sexual impurity" must include sex outside marriage. But we're not talking about *your* views, are we? We're talking about what the *Bible* says, aren't we? So why not show us the Biblical passage that states that sex outside marriage is wrong?

You can't assume that the Biblical writer shares your views. I don't think that sex outside marriage is wrong. Am I therefore entitled to assume that Paul must share my view, simply because I think it's right? Of course not - I should look at what he actually says. And in the event I find that he says nothing whatsoever on the subject. If you want to claim Paul as an ally in your belief on this matter you must provide evidence, not simply assume that he shares your views.

Once again, typical fundamentalist argument: (1) The Bible says X (2) I know that Y is true (3) Therefore, X must mean Y (4) Therefore the Bible agrees with my view (5) Therefore the Bible is right. As usual, no attempt to actually see what the Bible says - as usual, an attempt only to impose upon the Bible one's own views which have been formed independently.

The notion that sex outside marriage is always wrong has been around for a while among Christians - you can find it in various medieval writers - but only relatively recently (since around the eighteenth century, perhaps, and since the nineteenth century in a more mainstream trend) has it been a *majority* view among Christians. Basically, it is a social more which has become confused with Christianity. But as we can see, it is not something that comes from the Bible, and even among the church fathers, the only one I can think of who explicitly condemns sex before marriage is Clement of Alexandria. Of course, he also condemns sex in the morning and having people pour water over you in the bath, so I don't see that we should take this as normative. In fact, the early church generally condemned (or at least strongly disapproved of) sex in general, whether inside or outside marriage. See the well-known controversy between Jerome and Jovinian, for example.

 

[classical_hero]

Curt's already answered it, but on this I agree with him so I'll repeat the point. *You* say that "sexual impurity" must include sex outside marriage. But we're not talking about *your* views, are we? We're talking about what the *Bible* says, aren't we? So why not show us the Biblical passage that states that sex outside marriage is wrong?

You can't assume that the Biblical writer shares your views. I don't think that sex outside marriage is wrong. Am I therefore entitled to assume that Paul must share my view, simply because I think it's right? Of course not - I should look at what he actually says. And in the event I find that he says nothing whatsoever on the subject. If you want to claim Paul as an ally in your belief on this matter you must provide evidence, not simply assume that he shares your views.

Once again, typical fundamentalist argument: (1) The Bible says X (2) I know that Y is true (3) Therefore, X must mean Y (4) Therefore the Bible agrees with my view (5) Therefore the Bible is right. As usual, no attempt to actually see what the Bible says - as usual, an attempt only to impose upon the Bible one's own views which have been formed independently.

The notion that sex outside marriage is always wrong has been around for a while among Christians - you can find it in various medieval writers - but only relatively recently (since around the eighteenth century, perhaps, and since the nineteenth century in a more mainstream trend) has it been a *majority* view among Christians. Basically, it is a social more which has become confused with Christianity. But as we can see, it is not something that comes from the Bible, and even among the church fathers, the only one I can think of who explicitly condemns sex before marriage is Clement of Alexandria. Of course, he also condemns sex in the morning and having people pour water over you in the bath, so I don't see that we should take this as normative. In fact, the early church generally condemned (or at least strongly disapproved of) sex in general, whether inside or outside marriage. See the well-known controversy between Jerome and Jovinian, for example.

Well then what does fornication mean? Then I will understand what you are saying because so far your ":version" of fornication does not add up. What is sexual impurity? It seems like that you are redefining words so that they mean what the exact opposite of what they mean. Never before in history has premaratial sex been oustide the defintion of fornication. Never before in history has sex outside of marriage been not thought of sexual impurity. It seems like you have changed the meaning of the two temrs to suit your needs. That is not how morality works.

 

[Taliesin]

Well then what does fornication mean? Then I will understand what you are saying because so far your ":version" of fornication does not add up. What is sexual impurity? It seems like that you are redefining words so that they mean what the exact opposite of what they mean. Never before in history has premaratial sex been oustide the defintion of fornication. Never before in history has sex outside of marriage been not thought of sexual impurity. It seems like you have changed the meaning of the two temrs to suit your needs. That is not how morality works.

You are assuming your conclusion. If porneia includes sex before marriage, then there's no controversy at all. But that's the question that's being asked-- does the Bible condemn sex before marriage?

So your argument is as follows:
1) The Bible condemns porneia.
2) Porneia includes sex before marriage.
3) Therefore, the Bible condemns sex before marriage.

But since the very issue in question is whether your second assumption is correct, this argument is circular and worthless. You have to find other biblical evidence to show that 2) is, in fact, a valid assumption, and saying "sex before marriage has always been considered impure" is to commit yet another fallacy, that of generalisation.

 

[classical_hero]

Then why on earth did God institute marriage then?

 

[Plotinus]

Well then what does fornication mean? Then I will understand what you are saying because so far your ":version" of fornication does not add up. What is sexual impurity? It seems like that you are redefining words so that they mean what the exact opposite of what they mean. Never before in history has premaratial sex been oustide the defintion of fornication.

How many times does it have to be said? Here, I'll write it again.

The Bible does not use the word "fornication".

We all accept what "fornication" means. But that is completely irrelevant. The word simply does not appear in the Bible.

Shall I say it again?

The Bible does not use the word "fornication".

Never before in history has sex outside of marriage been not thought of sexual impurity.

So wildly untrue. Have you read any Chaucer in your life?

I'll repeat myself again. Paul talks about "sexual immorality". He does not define what kind of behaviour is sexually immoral. If you want to argue that he means sex outside marriage, you have two options:

(1) Show us other texts where Paul does condemn sex outside marriage.
(2) Show us other uses of the word "porneia" in writers of Paul's time where it unambiguously is used to mean sex outside marriage.

If you can't do either of those then your claims are completely unsubstantiated and represent nothing more than reading into the text your own views - as Taliesin has shown admirably. Read his post carefully - logic is so important!

 

[Taliesin]

Then why on earth did God institute marriage then?

According to Paul, it was partly to prevent porneia. But that doesn't answer the question of whether sex before marriage is an example of porneia.

 

[classical_hero]

(2) Show us other uses of the word "porneia" in writers of Paul's time where it unambiguously is used to mean sex outside marriage.

Define "porneia", then.