kmcutez:

I think the best option is to look for the meaning of the original words which are in greek or hebrew and take it from there, but I do not think this will work with christians, as they are the most stubborn and close minded people I have ever had the misfortune to meet.

Fornication

Hebrew: zanah / Greek: porneia

Voluntary intimate intercourse between a man and woman who are not married to each other is a common type of fornication. Adultery is a type of fornication.

“The Greek word for ‘fornication’ (porneia) could include any intimate sin committed after the betrothal contract. …In Biblical usage, ‘fornication’ can mean any intimate congress outside monogamous marriage. It thus includes not only premarital sex, but also adultery, homosexual acts, Inbreeding, remarriage after un-Biblical divorce, and intimate acts with animals."

kmcutez:
1 Corinne 7:2
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

In the statement above, the word "own" means that there must have been at least one married woman or man being shared by a group of people, and Paul was simply telling them not to share husbands or wives anymore, but to have their own wife/husband instead.

Nice!! Insightful.

Paul giving this "command" indicates that there must have been a gospel and practice of s.exual-liberty going on, and because of the conflicts it generates through misuse, Paul had to order them to go back to traditional practices of man taking to his wife and wife taking to her husband.

kmcutez:

I think the best option is to look for the meaning of the original words which are in greek or hebrew and take it from there, but I do not think this will work with christians, as they are the most stubborn and close minded people I have ever had the misfortune to meet.

1) http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/fornication.html 2) http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6238-fornication

striktlymi:

Fornication

Hebrew: zanah / Greek: porneia

Voluntary intimate intercourse between a man and woman who are not married to each other is a common type of fornication. Adultery is a type of fornication.

“The Greek word for ‘fornication’ (porneia) could include any intimate sin committed after the betrothal contract. …In Biblical usage, ‘fornication’ can mean any intimate congress outside monogamous marriage. It thus includes not only premarital sex, but also adultery, homosexual acts, Inbreeding, remarriage after un-Biblical divorce, and intimate acts with animals."

I said the original meaning of porneia in a sentence. I did not say to translate it to mean fornication, and then give me the definition of fornication, and try to explain what fornication means.

Snowwy: @Mr Anony, Goshen and okeyxyz have settled it within themselves already

In that case, they are both unequivocally wrong!

....I will come back to this later. For now the developments I'm seeing here are very disturbing indeed.

kmcutez: As for me I do not see how sex between two consenting unmarried people can be wrong. Who are they hurting? Themselves?

It's not a first matter of "consent & not hurting anyone else" as you put it, but of appropriateness first. Appropriateness must come first before "consent & hurting no one". To follow your line is simply putting a secular spin on it rather than a christian argument, Else we'd also sanction homos.exuality.

striktlymi:


1) http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/fornication.html 2) http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6238-fornication

Ok.

Goshen360: King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery. - Matthew 5:32

Okay, to ALL OF YOU guys saying fornication means s.ex between UNMARRIED people. Following the words of Christ in KJV from the above verse, how can a MARRIED WIFE or WOMAN IN THIS VERSE ABOVE STILL COMMIT FORNICATION if your definition of fornication means s.ex between UNMARRIED? Jesus made this statement o, not me o.

Anyone care to answer? I wan go sleeping now, make una make sure una answer this kweshion before son of man wake up o.

@all, pls what this argument seeks to explaim? Are you guys trying to prove that fornication is not 'a sin' ?

okeyxyz:

It's not a first matter of "consent & not hurting anyone else" as you put it, but of appropriateness first. Appropriateness must come first before "consent & hurting no one". To follow your line is simply putting a secular spin on it rather than a christian argument, Else we'd also sanction homos.exuality.

I have no issue with homosexuality, but then that is a topic for another day. Let us not derail this thread.

What is Strong’s Concordance? It’s a list of every Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) root word in the King James Bible. It numbers each of these roots and lists every occurrence throughout the Bible. Using this tool one can look up the underlying root word which the translators rendered into English. Accompanying this is a list of every occurrence of this word in the Bible and a short English definition called a “gloss.”

“This people honors me with their lips, but their concordances are far from me.”
Matt 15:8 (DSP – Dave’s Sarcastic Paraphrase)

What’s the Big Deal?

This sounds like a great resource that we should use more! While it’s true that Strong’s concordance (and similar resources) is a powerful Bible study tool, it is abused almost as much as the Bible itself.

How can we identify ways in which Strong’s is misused?

Strong’s is NOT a Dictionary

Strong’s is primarily a concordance, not a dictionary. A dictionary defines words. A concordance acts like an index.

While Strong’s does provide a short gloss (English definition) of each Hebrew and Greek word it lists, its function is primarily to show all occurrences of that word in the Bible, not exhaustively define it. There are several problems with using Strong’s as a dictionary:

A. Getting it right doesn’t mean you’ve gotten it right.

Even if you can extract the precise meaning of a word from Strong’s (see point B below), you still don’t know for sure what the author intended to convey by using it. Consider the English noun “bear.” The large, fuzzy, four-legged critter that can ruin your day. Consider these two statements:

“That was a bear!” (At the zoo)
“That was a bear!” (After a hard test at school)

Both statements refer to the creature but mean entirely different things. You can’t depend primarily on a dictionary definition to understand the author’s intent. This is, perhaps, an overly obvious example but the precept remains: The manner in which an author uses a word, not its Strong’s definition, determines its meaning.

Grammatical and syntactical data are important only in that they enable us to grasp the meaning of the statements in their context. Claims of emphasis rarely come from individual words or constructions.

Dr. Rod Decker “Another Exegetical ‘Grump’ On Grammatical Maximalism“


B. The word you look up does not appear in the passage.

It is easy to assume that looking something up in Strong’s will show you exactly what was written in the passage. This is almost never the case.

Strong’s does not list every word in the Old and New Testaments. It lists every lemma (root word) in the Old and New Testaments. That makes a difference. We can deceive ourselves into thinking that two instances of a lemma represent two instances of the same exact word when this is not the case. The two instances are related but without more information one can’t determine if they represent precisely the same thought.

“Strong’s function is to show all occurrences of a word, not exhaustively define it.”

C. Exact correspondence between languages rarely exists.

The varying glosses (definitions) of a single root typically have a very similar meaning and reflect only varying nuances of meaning. There are, however, many words which have multiple distinct meanings depending on the manner of the word’s usage. This can lead to a “mix-and-match” interpretation where the reader picks a gloss to use based on a) a best guess, b) what they want the passage to say, or even c) at random.

I have seen people pick a definition from Strong’s based on preference with disastrous results. For example, I conversed with one person who supported the Serpent Seed heresy by choosing a particular nuance of the Hebrew “naga” because it best fit his interpretation of Gen 3:3 even though the context gave absolutely no indication that the word had his desired connotation in that passage.

An advanced lexicon (which is a dictionary, as opposed to a concordance like Strong’s) like BDAG or HALOT will provide extra information to explain what usages/contexts will result in each definition. Strong’s, since it is not in the business of defining words, does not provide this

Voluntary sexual intercourse between a man and woman who are not married to each other is a common type of fornication. Adultery is a type of fornication.

“The Greek word for ‘fornication’ (porneia) could include any sexual sin committed after the betrothal contract. …In Biblical usage, ‘fornication’ can mean any sexual congress outside monogamous marriage. It thus includes not only premarital sex, but also adultery, homosexual acts, incest, remarriage after un-Biblical divorce, and sexual acts with animals, all of which are explicitly forbidden in the law as given through Moses (Leviticus 20:10-21). Christ expanded the prohibition against adultery to include even sexual lusting (Matthew 5:28).” (Dr. Henry M. Morris)

@striktlymi,
This "Bible Encyclopedia" you used above is totally adulterated. The author simply "mixes" every definition together without proper understanding, let alone dividing of context.

At the first bolded: It fails to indicate whether one of the parties is already married to someone else, thus breaking a matrimonial law. To just say people not married to each other is simply a lump and irresponsible categorization. There is no academic\research\theological text with this definition. It is just the author filtering-in his own sentiments.

At the second bolded says: "s.exual congress outside monogamous marriage", This is a blatant lie. Polygamy has never been regarded a fornication in bible times, whether in a religious or secular sense. Monogamy was never a requirement for christianity and even now is not a requirement for christianity. Paul simply commanded that a bishop(not a christian) must be "a husband of one wife". How this author could simply smuggle-in polygamy into these definitions shows there is no credit to this work. Again no academic\research\theological\peer-reviewed works are cited. It only cites the opinion of one Dr. Henry M. Morris, based on what document?? ... Again, his own sentiments.

Mr_Anony:
@Goshen and Okeyxyz, Let us settle this once and for all.

Is sex between two unmarried people a sin? Yes or No?

Your question is not well qualified. S.ex between two single, unmarried people is not a sin.

@All Good morning,

I have done my bit, what is left is for people to choose. We have seen arguments for and against fornication. We are adults and no what our conscience dictates. If in right conscience you believe that 'sex before marriage' is wrong then do endeavour to avoid it when the temptation comes up. In the same vein, if you believe in right conscience that 'sex before marriage' is okay and not sinful then do as you choose.

It is really not our duty to try and force people to believe in some thing they are not convinced about but we can only try to put the evidence forth and let the individual decide for him or herself. Personal convictions however, is different from what we make others believe through our endorsement of an act. Sacred scriptures has this to say:

Matthew 18:6
New International Version (NIV)

6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Thank you!

okeyxyz: [color=#006600]Voluntary sexual intercourse between a man and woman who are not married to each other is a common type of fornication.

At the first bolded: It fails to indicate whether one of the parties is already married to someone else, thus breaking a matrimonial law. To just say people not married to each other is simply a lump and irresponsible categorization..

Thank you for the above. I was going to ask him to clarify that statement but you did a wonderful job.

okeyxyz: [color=#006600]
At the second bolded says: "s.exual congress outside monogamous marriage", This is a blatant lie. Polygamy has never been regarded a fornication in bible times, whether in a religious or secular sense.

I have to agree with this - such a definition cannot be 'biblical' because those who had polygamous marriages in the OT were not regarded as committing fornication.

okeyxyz: [color=#006600] Monogamy was never a requirement for christianity and even now is not a requirement for christianity. Paul simply commanded that a bishop(not a christian) must be "a husband of one wife".

I agree monogamy was never a requirement for Christianity, but I do not think Paul's description is solely for Bishops - I regard them as the 'standard' all Christian men who decide to marry should aspire to. It doesn't make sense for ONLY Bishops to be instructed to be monogamous while the others were licensed to be polygamous.

okeyxyz:

Nice!! Insightful.

Paul giving this "command" indicates that there must have been a gospel and practice of s.exual-liberty going on, and because of the conflicts it generates through misuse, Paul had to order them to go back to traditional practices of man taking to his wife and wife taking to her husband.

Interesting view. However, the issue then arises - was this 'command' just for those it was directed to at the time/those practiciing 's.exual-liberty' or an 'everlasting command' that applies to every Christian today? This type of 'contextual instruction' could easily bring into question a lot if not all of Paul's teachings.

okeyxyz:

Your question is not well qualified. S.ex between two single, unmarried people is not a sin.

And if Yes, a sin againt whom?

okeyxyz:

Your question is not well qualified. S.ex between two single, unmarried people is not a sin.

And if Yes, a sin against whom?

okeyxyz:

Your question is not well qualified. S.ex between two single, unmarried people is not a sin.

iif it is not a sin, what is it, is an act of righteousness? Plz reply quick because am ready for you.

okeyxyz:
Your question is not well qualified. S.ex between two single, unmarried people is not a sin.

What is the difference between a 'single' and an 'unmarried' person?

striktlymi: @All Good morning,

I have done my bit, what is left is for people to choose. We have seen arguments for and against fornication. We are adults and no what our conscience dictates. If in right conscience you believe that 'sex before marriage' is wrong then do endeavour to avoid it when the temptation comes up. In the same vein, if you believe in right conscience that 'sex before marriage' is okay and not sinful then do as you choose.

It is really not our duty to try and force people to believe in some thing they are not convinced about but we can only try to put the evidence forth and let the individual decide for him or herself. Personal convictions however, is different from what we make others believe through our endorsement of an act. Sacred scriptures has this to say:

Matthew 18:6
New International Version (NIV)

6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Thank you!

And again i say, basing every aspect of ones life on the "sacred book" is definitely a sign of devolution. The same bible contradicts and have been used to justify a lot of atrocities e.g slavery,molestations

Check this out.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Only a moroon will teach his book to his children.

When talking about morals, the bible is not an ideal book to quote from.

Sex with unmarried couples ain't wrong as long as rape isn't involved

ifeness:

And if Yes, a sin against whom?

1corithians6:15-20, "know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall i then take the members of Christ, and make them members of a harlot? GOD FORBID. 16. What? Know ye not that he which is join to a harlot is one body? For two, said he, shall be one flesh. 17. But he that is join unto the Lord is one Spirit. 18. Flee fornication, every sin that a man doeth is without the body. But he that committed fornication sineth AGAINST HIS OWN BODY. 19. What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20. For ye are bought with a price, therefor glorify God in your body, and in your spirit which are God's. (kjv). QED

christemmbassey: iif it is not a sin, what is it, is an act of righteousness? Plz reply quick because am ready for you.

Yes it is an act of righteousness. You think otherwise ?

ifeness:

And if Yes, a sin against whom?

we are discussing bible values here, dont u think, you in the wrong thread? Pls you have no portion here, i wish to respectfully ask u to leave us alone, tnx

christemmbassey: we are discussing bible values here, dont u think, you in the wrong thread? Pls you have no portion here, i wish to respectfully ask u to leave us alone, tnx

Why should i?

ifeness:

Why should i?

because you are not a christian and will definitely not understand us as we must refer to the bible. No offence plz.

christemmbassey: because you are not a christian and will definitely not understand us as we must refer to the bible. No offence plz.

Christians scared of logic as usual

This is the age of reasoning. A time to put everything on the table- what is perceived to be right or wrong.

Sex is not a crime as long as it is not forced. The laws of the old generations my not fit into our societies.

Back in the days wayward kids were stoned to death(according to the bible) but now, man has evolved beyond such barbaric reasonings

Marriage itself is not a necessity, as long as couples love themselves( be it homo or heterosexual), be it for fun or paid sex, sex is sex as long as it is not rape

The future generation might consider sex with animals, who knows!

christemmbassey: @all, pls what this argument seeks to explaim? Are you guys trying to prove that fornication is not 'a sin' ?

Welcome my beloved brother. You're very welcome! lemme make it ETERNALLY CLEAR HERE BEFORE FOLK START READING ME OUT OF CONTEXT, THAT IS IF THEY ARE NOT DOING SO ALREADY - FORNICATION IS A SIN. The argument (reasoning) here is, what then is fornication? That's the bone of contention here sir. You're welcome to answer the question.

Goshen360:

Welcome my beloved brother. You're very welcome! lemme make it ETERNALLY CLEAR HERE BEFORE FOLK START READING ME OUT OF CONTEXT, THAT IS IF THEY ARE NOT DOING SO ALREADY - FORNICATION IS A SIN. The argument (reasoning) here is, what then is fornication? That's the bone of contention here sir. You're welcome to answer the question.

Dis is self deceit! Christembassy d real argument of dis hypocrites is whether d bible supports sexx by two unmarried people. Someone even said Apostle Paul had sexx when body no gree am

^ But I didn't say that right? Was it me that said that?