Mishkab and Koiten should be translated Bed.

That's what they mean, there are other Hebrew and Greek words to say "lie with", which sometimes appear in the same verse.

"But they are clearly often used euphemistically of Sexual intercourse."

Well we also use "bed" that way in English so that's not an excuse for not translating them as "bed".  Just translate the word as what the word means and let grammar and context determine how it's being used.

The Greek Koiten/Koitus was definitely used that way hence being the origin of our word "Coitus".  But I can't help but suspect the Hebrew Mishkab only came to be used that way because of the Septuagint using Koiten to translate Mishkab.

This isn't just about the Homosexuality clobber passages, the other five times the KJV translated "Mishkab" as if it were a verb were in totally Het contexts and are also verses where a break down of the Hebrew Grammar shows it's being used as a noun.  They are Judges 21:11-12 and Numbers 31:17, 18 and 35.  The difference between those five and the two verses in Leviticus assumed to be about Homsexuality is those verses suggest the bed belongs to the Zakar (male) while in Leviticus the bed belongs to the woman or wife.

All seven verses are definitely about some type of sex happening, but whether or not the word for bed is being used as a noun or a verb can make a big difference in what a verse means.  And the number of times even the KJV translated this word as a Noun regardless of if sex is involved dwarf these seven occurrences.

The most hyper literal unbiased translations of Leviticus 18:22 tend to be something like "And with male not lay bed of woman; abomination-her."

In my initial analysis of the Leviticus clobber verses I talked about the theory some have proposed that it means "Thou shall not lie with a male in a Wife's Bed", but was ultimately dismissive of it.  Back then I stressed the Pagan context of Leviticus 18 but was also willing to slightly throw anal intercourse under the bus.  Today I'm not as comfortable with that.

The grammar of The Hebrew supports some from of the "Wife's Bed" interpretation.  But other aspects of it are still unclear.

What if that reading opens the door for it to not even be a gay act at all?  Looking at the very literal translation, what if it's about having another male lie with your wife?  Something many ancients practiced under the right circumstances.  The problem there is I also want to encourage Christians to be more open to Non-Monogamous arrangements.

The fact that the word 'Tovah" (commonly translated "Abomination" or "Detestable" but I feel is perhaps best rendered "Taboo"). has a feminine pronoun attached to it is fascinating.  Many scholars pointing this fact out don't see it as really relevant.  But I think it could be.

Traditional interpretations say the reference to "womankind" in the verse is just as an analogy, "don't do with a male what you're supposed to do with a woman".  And that includes my own past desire to see anal sex a key factor.

But this ignored fact of a feminine pronoun attached to Tovah suggests that this is in fact a crime or offense for which the wife is the victim, or the one being wronged.

Which would mean if it were about having another male sleep with your wife, the issue would be if she's okay with it or not.  And going back to the gay option, if your wife is a Fujoshi who's totally cool with you banging a guy in her bed then that's not an issue either.

Regardless of all that, it's certainly NOT a verse condemning all male Homosexuality.

Traditionalists may on this or other disputes throw a "these heretics can't even agree with each other" argument at a post like this.  But that's not evidence their view is right, it's evidence their view is one of many.  But it's inevitable people will think that way when they've been used to their interpretation being the default.

Fortunately I don't think we're under The Law anymore and so am not that concerned with knowing what these two obscure verses want people to not do. But I do address these Torah passages because I want LGBT Jews to know that the G-d of Abraham is cool with them.

Update: Here's an interlinear Bible showing what I'm talking about.

https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/lev18.pdf

The Feminine Pronoun attached to Tovah is Eua spelled Aleph-Vav-Heh.  

The translation on the side is just the AV (Authorized Version) more commonly known as the KJV.

Broader Sexual Morality can't be ignored when affirming Homosexuality

On the main Page of this Blog for my The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality dissertation I provide links to other posts relevant to the issue.  But also to posts about morality in general that may mention the Homosexuality or Transgender issues only briefly if at all.  Why do I do that?

Because one's broader view of Morality does effect how open one will be to the Homosexuality issue.  I think to many traditionalists that partly justifies their not even listening to the argument.

Because even when the Clobber Passages are properly understood, viewing it as totally okay to be a practicing Homosexual or Bisexual or Pansexual requires at least one of two major assumptions about Biblical Morality to be wrong.

1. That all Sex outside Marriage is a Sin.

2. That Marriage is only between Men and Women.

I have argued on this Blog quite strongly that The Bible does not Condemn all Sex outside Marriage, and that the word Fornication refers to Prostitution.  And the origins of condemning Sex outside Marriage lie with Plato.  It helps to understand my Ye Hath God Said study before reading those, to open one's mind to rejecting the assumption that of course God is super strict and questioning that is clearly a tactic of Satan.

While I am very open minded to equally rejecting the common assumption about Marriage.  My studies of it for The Old Testament on Polygamy and New Testament on Marriage posts lead me to conclude that The Bible presumes it to be a a union between Men and Women.

Now I do not want Biblical Marriage to define Legal Marriage.  I'd prefer the Government didn't give out Marriage Licenses at all, but as long as they do I want all alternative forms of Marriage to be legal and treated equally, Gay Marriage, Polygamy, Polyandry, Polyamory, Group Marriages, ect, even Incestuous Marriages.  As long as everyone involved is consenting and an adult, the State should not be allowed to restrict it.

And I feel Christians should refuse to get Marriage Licenses from the Government regardless, for the same reasons I support the House Church movement and rejecting the 501c3 status.  As I explain in The State, The Church and Marriage, There is no Marriage Ritual Ordained in The Bible and Marriage License vs Marriage Covenant.

Some Gay Affirming Christians may take the opposite approach, and I understand why.

1. They don't want their love to be viewed as different from or inferior to Male-Female love.  Marriage should not be necessary to achieve that, David's greatest love was Johnathon, regardless of only being married to women.

2. Some want to stick as close as they can to an Augustinian Sexual morality to avoid the stereotype that Gays and Bisexuals are deviants and perverts, that condoning them inevitably leads to anything goes.  Thus we get Dan Savage bragging about his husband being a "stay at home dad", and Yuri genre critics like Erica Freidman over reacting to even the mildest forms of Incest.

But I feel history shows the greatest gateway drug to perversion is being too sexually prudish.  When you tell people they're sinning anytime they don't wait for a long term commitment, and shame them for it, it frequently leads to them questioning any restrictions, even the basic idea of consent, since after all animals don't ask for consent.  That is again one of the points of my "Ye Hath God Said" study.

Allowing Sex Outside Marriage does not automatically lead to no morals.  As long as people try to stick to the Golden Rule, and Christians always seek the guidance of The Holy Spirit.  The right decisions can be made without needing to bind people to the minutia of a rule book.

However, since I believe we are not under The Law, I will never condemn or shame any Gay Christians for practicing a Gay Marriage.  We are under The Law of Liberty now, which is flexible.

My point here is, that in trying to open peoples minds on this subject, I think it's often necessary to begin with broader issues.  Then once that is achieved it may be easier for them to accept that what they thought they knew about the Clobber Passages is wrong.

Update July: I've made this post recently where I argue for more nuance in understanding the New Testament on Marriage and Gender.
 https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/07/neither-male-or-female-in-churhc-follow.html
But the overall point of this post I still stand by.
October 2018 Update: and now I've also done this post.
 https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-christology-of-sanctity-of.html
I've also basically reversed my past position on Polygamy in the Old Testament.
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/08/just-accept-that-bible-doesnt-condemn.html

An insightful article

http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2013/08/christian-cliches-dont-cause-your.html

Might be some small things I disagree with here.  But it ties in helpfully to other issues I've discussed.

Plato, Augustine, and Traditional Christianity

[Update: This is out of date.]

Delilah

This post I made on another blog about Delilah may be of interest here

Marcia Aurelia Ceionia Demetrias

Marcia Aurelia Ceionia Demetrias

She was an early Christian from the late Second Century A.D.  And was the mistress of the Emperor Commodus.

She is not discussed often by modern Evangelical Christian historians, because she presents a problem to many of them.  She was engaged in extra martial affairs, and used the influence she gained though them to do good in advancing the Gospel.

Marcia was most likely Christian and persuaded Commodus to adopt a policy in favor of Christians, and kept close relations with Victor, Bishop of Rome.^[2] After Pope Victor I gave her a list she had asked for including all of the Christians sentenced to mine works in Sardinia, she convinced Commodus to allow them to return to Rome.^[2][4] Despite the fact that Marcia was not Commodus' legal wife, he treated her like one and was thus greatly influenced by her. The inscription found in Anagnia testifies that the local city council decided to build a monument, commemorating particularly the restoration of baths on her account.

Today, mainstream Christianity is way too prudish.  They interpret the adultery laws completely gender neutrally, and insist they apply to all kinds of sexual expression.  And they also like to assume that Christians living pre-Constantine where nearly infallible unless it was someone known to have taught a weird Gnostic or Proto-Arrian heresy.

Of course we don’t know if Marcia was ever involved with Commodus while he was still married to Crispina.  It’s after she was divorced and killed that Marcia had clearly become Commodous’s favorite.  But the possibly of being involved before seems to me to be the only way to explain her escaping her potential culpability in Lucilla’s failed conspiracy.

But in fact early Christians were certainly no less flawed then we are today.  Meanwhile it’s pretty clear that Adultery in the Bible is defined in a clearly patriarchal context, it’s about sleeping with another man’s wife, not another woman’s husband.

And now I’m sure many are shocked.  “Are you condoning that double standard?".  Well I also believe from my studies that The Bible’s sex restrictions are mainly concerned with reproduction.  Adultery is defined as “Lying carnally" with another man’s wife.  The Hebrew word translated “carnally" is the same word translated “seed" only being used as a noun.  That word basically means Sperm or Semen, the basic premise is that it refers to potential reproduction.  Wives had a responsibility to the Tribe to make sure that if they become pregnant it was their husband’s child.  But in fact I do not see the Bible as condemning all extramarital sex the way most people do.

So yes I agree the double standard is unfair.  But society has decided to rectify it by putting on men the same restrictions women used to have.  I say the advancement of society should increase freedom not decrease it.  I think a couple should decide between themselves what they are or aren't okay with.

Marcia was a an interesting woman.  I may not approve of everything she did but I admire her.  She wound up being involved in Commodus’s death when he decided he wanted to get rid of her.  Where she said a favorite quote of mine.

    "Well done, indeed, Commodus. This is fine return for the kindness and affection I have lavished on you and for the drunken insults which I have endured from you all these years. A fuddled drunkard is not going to get the better of a sober woman".

Incest in The Bible

This is my dissertation on Incest in The Bible, what it deems a Sin and what isn't, and it's history.

First as a Six Day Young Earth Creationist, I take note of the fact that the Incest restrictions don't come until the time of Moses. And I believe Cain and Seth married their full Sisters as did all Adam and Eve's children.

Critics of The Bible love to view this argument as absurd. But Genesis 20:12 shows us that Abraham and Sarah where brother and sister. "And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.". The later incest restrictions don't just generically condemn Brother-Sister incest, they specifically single out half siblings sharing the same father. And Abraham and Sarah is one of the most approved romantic relationships in The Bible. God specifically wanted Abraham's descendents through her, not anyone else, to inherit the Covenant.

Back to Genesis 4, some take verses 16 and 17 "And Cain went out from the presence of Yahweh, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived". As implying Cain met his wife in Nod, after traveling away to a distant land and thus proving the existence of tribes at the time independent of Adam and Eve.  It doesn't say that however, it doesn't depict how they met at all, just says that's when she conceived Cain's First-Born son. I think he was already married to this woman before he slew Able.

Either way though, I believe over a century had passed by the time Cain killed Able (about 9 months before Seth was born is my conjectured timing) Plenty of time for some of Adam and Eve's children to travel about, they were commanded to Fill and Populate the Earth from the start.

Another thing, Adam was basically married to his Clone.

The reason Genetic problems occur because of Incest is because of The Fall, Genetic mistakes always occur in the gene pool, and closer related individuals are more likely to have similar mistakes. But closer to when this deterioration started it was far less of a problem. I suspect God was preemptive and that it still wasn't until awhile after the time of Moses (Ussher dated it to 1492 B.C. I'm undecided on if I agree with Ussher's date, but Ussher's is the youngest I can accept) that noticeable problems would have been a concern.

All pagan mythologies have Brother-Sister incest (And other forms, but that's most common) among the gods. Even the mythologies of cultures that all through our recorded history of them disapproved of Brother-Sister incest, like the Greeks and Romans. I believe the reason this happens is that it's the distant memory of when Brother-Sister incest was not just allowed but nearly universal.

Now to get to the The Law.

 Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20, and Deuteronomy 27 are the three passages listing Incest restrictions. Only L20 and D27 list punishments to be carried out, so only those were part of Israel's civil law code. L18 is what deals with what's immoral but not necessarily illegal. Notice there is plenty included in L18 but not the other two, while the others never condemn anything L18 doesn't. This is consistent with what I'd expect from what I argued in my Libertarianism and The Bible article.

Wikipedia, and I expect other places, accuse these passages of not condemning Father-Daughter incest. This is incorrect. L18:17 says "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness." This basically says you can't have sex with any descendant of any woman you have had sex with. Since there was no artificial insemination back then, there was no way your daughter or granddaughter didn't qualify. I've seen people argue this is refereeing only to having a threesome with a mother and daughter, I think that's silly, it doesn't specify at the same time.

Wikipedia has a chart covering the various incest restrictions of the three chapters, but that chart made some mistakes, the one I addressed above and others, so I made my correction of it, and will share it with you all here.

Boxes filled in Red are condemned in that chapter, being still white and empty means it's not.

Step Siblings are ok. I don't know if that's illegal today, but people do have a tendency to consider it gross. It doesn't address anyone related by Adoption either, unless The Law simply doesn't consider adopted children/siblings distinct.

Some relations not allowed aren't biological ones, so genetic issues weren't their only concern. Inheritance and some other things were in mind too.

No same gender examples are covered, to some this would be because homosexuality is a sin altogether, but as I argued elsewhere, it's not. Genetic issues were not the only concern, but all the concerns did come basically down to reproduction in some way. So there was no reason to be concerned with same gender examples.

You'll notice they're not entirely gender neutral. The genders are different, including in how our Genetics work (Mitochondrial DNA is passed on only by the mother being one example). The main gender difference is, no restrictions on uncles marrying nieces, while nephews marrying aunts depends. Modern conventions are inclined to be the opposite here, if the relation implies the man is older then that's far more likely to be condemned as perverted. But as long as the younger is already an adult and consents I don't care.

It also doesn't address Cousins. Cousin relationships are inherently the most common (We're all Cousins ultimately if you believe The Bible) but First or even Second Cousin relationships tend to be viewed as wrong in most parts of the western world today. But at different periods this was different. The Bible not only doesn't outlaw Cousin relations, no matter how close, but it encourages First Cousin marriages in certain circumstances.

Most notably The Daughters of Zelophehad, discussed in Numbers 26:33, 27, 36, Joshua 17 and 1 Chronicles 7. Inheritance in Ancient Israel was normally Pater-lineal, but Zelophehad had no sons, so God decided in such a circumstance daughters could inherit so long as they married within their tribe, preferably their nearest kinsmen. They wound up marrying their first cousins.

Reheboam had many wives, all three named were fairly close cousins, and the mother of his successor was a first cousin. From what I argued before, pre-Moses examples don't prove anything, but I still feel like noting Jacob was married to two first cousins, and Issac to his first cousin once removed.

And if you consider Deutercanoical books like Tobit canon (as Catholics do).  Well that is a book that in the form we have it in is practically making it a sin not to marry your Cousin.  It seems the Book Tobit as we know it is a product of a time when Israelites were so paranoid about mixing with foreigners, they felt you should marry your nearest relation possible that's not forbidden in Leviticus 18.  Reason why I specify "as we know it" is because I have my personal theory that in the original version Sarah wasn't Tobit's cousin, in fact I speculate her name means Princess for a reason.  But that's for another topic on another blog.  Point here remains that if you think Tobit as it appears in the Septuagint, Catholic Bibles, or the 1611 KJV is God's word (I don't) then you have a pretty firmly pro Cousin marriage text in your Canon.

Genetically, between any two people there is always at least a 2% risk of these kinds of genetic problems.  Incest only increases the risk of it. First cousin relations (if there were few or no prior examples of incest in the shared ancestry) only increases the risk to 4%. So it's really not a big deal at all.

Today, for many reasons I don't think Gentile nations on this side of the Cross should be basing their Civil Laws on Ancient Israel's.

Genetic concerns are (or should be) the only concern of our modern civil laws. Some consider relations that imply a large age-gap should also be inherently wrong, but we have Statutory Rape laws (Which I feel need improving but I don't oppose having them) to protect minors. If both are adults and consent then I don't care and don't think the state should.

As a Libertarian I think only the most direct Heterosexual examples should be illegal, Biological Brother-Sister relations, and direct ancestors or descendants. But all incest laws outlawing anything else I oppose.

But to an extent I'm beginning to think perhaps any Incest laws are bad. The reasoning is the concern of genetic issues in the offspring makes it not a victim less crime. But that's basically Eugenics logic, and allowing the State permission to forbid reproduction in the case of Incest sets a precedent that could prove very dangerous.

The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality: Introduction

I'm giving this dissertation as a Fundamentalist Christian who takes the Bible literally, who once held the common assumption that it condemns homosexuality. I don’t change my views to appease anyone, but I always try to be polite towards and tolerant of people with different views, including those who may disagree with me on this. My views on this matter changed as a result of my carefully studying (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) all of the passages of Scripture relevant to this issue.

Before I explain everything in detail, here is the gist of it. Most of the passages are dealing with Pagan Goddess worship rituals involving Anal intercourse. And the Sin of Sodom was in-hospitality.

Now, I also want to make clear, that even when I did hold the common assumption, I was still very different from your typical Fundamentalist on the issue. I never obsessed over it as though it was the main spiritual problem facing the nation; in my view, that’s always been Darwinism. And I’ve never liked homophobes. Nothing is more offensive or blasphemous to me than to accuse God of hating anyone. “God is Love”- 1 John 4:8; and Jesus said to “love your enemies”. As Chuck Missler often says, “there is no sin God doesn’t hate but no sinner God doesn’t love“. He gave his only begotten Son to die for us, hatred is not in his vocabulary. It is of course only a loud minority of Christians who make the offensive statement that he hates homosexuals. But the majority of “conservative” Christians are also under the common misconception that the Bible condemns homosexuality, which is why I’m doing this.

Details matter.

Some will say I’m twisting things around to try and change what to them is the clear plain reading of the text. Many of these same Christians however will be unlikely to defend the out of context plain reading of many other verses in the KJV and other modern English translations as they're frequently cited by unbelievers to allege contradictions or make God look cruel. I believe that the design of God’s Word is perfect and precise, and every detail both of what it does and does not say is important.

Matthew 5:18 “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” The Jot/Yot/Yod is the smallest and most frequently used letter of the Hebrew alphabet. It would look to us like an apostrophe. A tittle is a small decorative hook on many letters. One doesn’t really need a brief Hebrew lesson to understand this, the point being that every detail of God’s Word matters, even the little ones, because seemingly insignificant details can make a world of difference, as any good detective would tell you.

Independent Baptists who are KJV-Only are the Christians most likely to be hostile to this interpretation. This is what makes my holding this view even more surprising, because I do basically consider myself an Independent Baptist. But being Independent means I don‘t just blindly follow what a Pastor tells me the Bible says, but rather I look it up for myself. I’m also basically KJV-Only, since I absolutely consider the King James Authorized Version to be the best English translation; it’s always the one I default to using. And I absolutely reject the changes made in modern translations based on the Alexandrian Manuscripts and the textual criticisms of Wescott and Hort, such as removing many critical occurrences of the word 'Blood'. Unlike some KJV-Only believers however, I do acknowledge certain imperfections of the KJV. It is in fact impossible to perfectly translate either Hebrew or Greek into English. NONE of those imperfections effect the Gospel, but some will be relevant to passages I will discuses on this issue. Unlike many KVJ-Onliers I do not discourage studying the original Hebrew and Greek; in fact I encourage it. I believe the Masorectic should be used for the Hebrew, and the Textus Receptus for the Greek (the sources for the KJV) are what should be relied upon.

Thing is though I do also believe even the KJV renderings are not blanket condemnations of all homosexual or even all male homosexual affection. And in some cases it's simply a matter of understanding the context of what those words meant in 1611 rather then what man has changed them to mean today.

In fact in some cases the modern versions are more blatantly anti Homosexual then the KJV.  Which tells me the perception that The Bible condemns Homosexuality is something Satan really wants to promote.  There is a popular meme out there that a "Lesbian goddess worshiper" helped write the NIV and that's why it removed Sodomite.  Regardless of if such a person was involved however the NIV does blatantly condemn Homosexuality in the New Testament.  In verses where the KJV is more ambiguous.

The point is, the common understanding of the relevant verses is based on just casually reciting the way they're usually rendered in modern English without putting much thought into them. What I have done is put a lot of thought and study into it - always under the starting premise that the Bible is the inspired, infallible, inherent Word of God, using Scripture to interpret Scripture and doing so logically and consistently.

I've written other articles about sex and marriage in the Bible, and in general, which would be useful to cross reference here.

Part 2: The Sin of Sodom
Part 3: Leviticus 18 and 20
Part 4: Romans 1
Part 5: Corinthians and Timothy
Part 6: Condoned Homosexual Affection
 I also have this Dissertation on MyTumblr. So if you have a Tumblr account, feel free to Re-blog parts of it to spread the word.  Also to view them all together on one label on this Blog.

Does The Bible condemn all Sex outside Marriage?

The first question we need to address on the subject of Biblical sexual morality, is how do we define Sex? and how does The Bible?

In the modern western world, it can often be outright offensive to suggest that only actual penetrative sex (vaginal or anal) technically qualifies. One reason being it implies Lesbians can't have "actual sex" at all. But like it or not, for most of human history that has technically been the assumption. The Hebrew Bible doesn't have any word that simply translates to "sex" how we use it today.  And there is plenty of evidence that in antiquity Lesbians took pride in being called virgins, looking at homo erotic myths related to Artemis/Diana and perhaps also Anath.

Biblical terms like "Lie with" or "Know" or "Uncovering Nakedness" are not strictly limited to sex in their literal definition anyway, so it's hard to determine without context.

The term "Lie Carnally" is more explicit, the word translated "Carnally" is Zera` [(zeh'-rah); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 2233] which means "seed", and can literally mean "sperm" or "semen". Technically the Strongs will give the impression in one occurrence that another word is what's translated Carnally. But that verse also uses Zerah, the order of words being changed in translation simply caused confusion here.

We tend to think of Carnally as meaning "fleshly" or "of the flesh". And in it's one New Testament appearance in the KJV of Romans 8 that is what the Greek word means there. But the Old Testament usages are different.

Now when a male orgasms his "Seed" comes out. So you might think that doesn't make it very specific at all. But in English we too have created a verb form of one of our terms for that substance. "Inseminate", and what we mean when we say "inseminate" isn't putting the semen anywhere, it's usually about putting your semen in a woman's reproductive organs making it possible a child could be conceived. Possibly with conception being the explicit intent. I think it's perfectly reasonable that Moses meant something similar, and that it's specifically reproductive sex those verses are about.

You may have heard of the principle that the Intent of the law is more important then the letter of the law, well that concept is in fact Biblical.   Mark 2:27 "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath". There is a reason for every law God gives, and the details are important because they help us understand the intent.

Only two not even potentially reproductive sexual acts are ever condemned. A very specific male act in a very specific pagan context, and Bestiality.  Both initially occurring in Leviticus 18:22-23.  Later verses are just repeating that commandment.   The context of being after verse 21, as I've explained elsewhere means they're condemned because of Pagan rituals involving those acts.

The Bible also does NOT condemn Masturbation. That line you often hear (comedian Ron White says in one of his bits that his Grandmother quoted it to him) spouted which sounds Biblical, "It's better for thy seed to land in the belly of a whore to fall on the floor", really isn't, it's made up. In the Strongs you can easily tract down every occurrence of "Seed" as well as the other key words of that sentence (and synonyms for them), and it doesn't appear.

The story of Onan in Genesis 38 is the only basis people have for condemning masturbation, but it's not about that at all, Onan's Sin was breaking his agreement to produce offspring for his brother.  And Masturbation isn't even what he did, but rather "pulling out".

Leviticus 15:16 has been cited as relevant to Masturbation.  That is a part of Leviticus not about Sin at all but about hygiene, the only actual command here is to clean up afterwords.

When Jesus said in Matthew 5:28 "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." It is important first to know that the word translated "Woman" here is the Greek "Gune" which like the Hebrew "Ishshah" also means "Wife". In the context of being about adultery "Wife" is clearly the intended meaning here. That's still incidental to my point, though. People often cite that verse to sound like it means you've sinned every time you observe a woman's attractiveness, or get turned on, or simply don't immediately look away. That's not Jesus' intent, the intent is just to show that God judges thoughts as well as actions.  But that doesn't mean being tempted itself is Sin.  Jesus himself was Tempted and He's without Sin.  It's indulging in those thoughts that makes it a Sin.  He's really not introducing something new, but folding the Tenth Commandment into the earlier ones.  Looking is fine, leering is not.

Now I've shown elsewhere that "Fornication" doesn't mean what you think it means, it means Prostitution.

The "Strange Woman" passages the occur throughout Proverbs are often cited by people as condemning any non-martial sex.  The woman in question may or may not be a Prostitute of some form, but the greater point is that both words translated strange mean "alien" or "foreign", they don't mean bizarre or weird.  And in these kinds of contexts it's being spiritually or religiously foreign, not ethnically or nationally that is the concern, (as we see with Ruth's marriage to Boaz being okay).  Her not worshiping the True God is why she should be avoided.

It is popular for Christians to insist any non-reproductive sex is a sin, but that as you can see is not Biblical. In fact it has become my conclusion studying the Bible, that besides the Blasphemy of Pagan ritual sex acts, it's chiefly reproductive sex God desires to limit. Yes we were commanded to "Be Fruitful and multiply" but we are still supposed to do so carefully to give each new child a healthy stable family to raise them in.

The Song of Songs or Song of Solomon has three verses that poetically allude to what we today would label Oral sex. The woman on the man in 2:3, and the man on the woman in 4:16 and 8:2. The last of which is also proceeded by a verse describing the man suckling his lover's breasts.

Conservative commentators insist the Song of Songs only condones sexual activity between a husband and wife, because the book revolves around a marriage. But that ignores the chronology of the book, the wedding is in chapter 4 at the soonest, the end of chapter 4 is indeed the first allusion to actual intercourse, but they're Intimate in ways we'd today deem sexual well before then.

The idea that sex is only for reproduction is not Biblical, it is an expression of love, and also a basic physical need. Lack of moderation with anything can lead to problems and thus be sinful, since our Bodies are the Temple of God we should take care of them.

The basis for saying all sex outside Marriage is prohibited, is an assumption that adultery being a sin, combined with the verses on the importance of virginity makes all extramarital sex a sin.

Number One, a woman who's already lost her virginity outside marriage is certainly not addressed, and in the culture of the time she was probably not going to get married. So should she be denied that pleasure for life based on one indiscretion? Which she might not have even consented to?

Number Two, what about a widow?  Widows were allowed to remarry, that's the only time a non virgin could ever get married. And nothing directly condemning a widow having extra marital sex exists in The Law.

Number Three, how is adultery defined? First of all like it or not it only goes one way in the Biblical laws about it, (Even in the New Testament) only the woman's fidelity is addressed. Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife".  Even in Matthew 5:28 condemning even the coveting there is no gender reversal equivalent.

 It's undeniably unfair to women, but it was an unfairness necessary in the ancient world lacking DNA testing to verify paternity.  And there are medical reasons why it's good to know who your a kid's biological parents are, even though that has nothing to do with the real definition of being a mother or father.

The actual wording of The Ten Commandments doesn't define adultery, just labels it a sin. It's Leviticus 18:20 and Numbers 5:12-13 that defines it, and the term used is "Lie carnally" (or "lie with her carnally") the definition of which I discussed on above.

Only one statement of Jesus, recorded in each Synoptic Gospel (it may be he said it more then once, since they seem to be at different chronological points), seems to imply a Man can commit Adultery against his Wife by being involved with another woman. Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18. "And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her." But this passage exists in the context of condemning Divorce, and also remarriage after Divorce.

In the Sermon on The Mount when Jesus discuses the same matter, he possibly clarifies what he meant. Matthew 5:32 "That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of prostitution, causeth her to commit adultery".  Unlike Men, Women more or less needed to be married to survive back then, so when a man divorced his wife back then he forced her to remarry.  So he's guilty of the sin of adultery because he forced someone else to commit it.  Not because Jesus was suddenly defining Adultery in gender neutral terms no one ever heard of before.

"But it's also his taking another wife Jesus refereed to?" you may respond.  Regardless of what Jesus thought of Polygamy, even in Polygamous cultures most men were Monogamous because supporting more then one wife was difficult.  So the man marrying a new wife means the chances of the rejected one being taken back are severely decreased.

So it's an old gender double standard that isn't as needed anymore because of modern technology. Yet modern society has chosen to try to make this double standard right by giving men the same restrictions women have always had. As a supporter of freedom, I think it should have been the opposite approach. The emotion of Jealousy is the basis for being so bothered by infidelity, Envy is a Sin.

Cheating is a Sin, but not a sexual sin, if it's part of the agreed terms of your relationship to be monogamous then yes failing to do so is a violation.

How is virginity defined? Many would argue it's absurd to purely base it on the modern clinical definition. I reject the traditional view of Tokens of Virginity.  But again the implied intent came down to the man needing to know he's the father of any child conceived.

So basically, there is no Biblical Basis for condemning non Reproductive sex acts between unmarried individuals.

In summery, Sex is only truly Sinful if it's motivated by something other then Love, or forced on someone against their will, or done in Pagan worship. But it is certainly preferred you try to avoid reproducing unless you know you can provide for the potential offspring.

I've seen one website (which argues many things I agree with) say that maybe sex outside marriage was fine under the Old Testament but not the New.  Nothing is more wrong to me then suggesting the NT condemns something the OT doesn't. The things the OT tolerated that the NT doesn't seem to anymore still had God's true disapproval apparent in the Old.  Even my Capital Punishment argument was not without OT basis.

Jesus came to remove a heavy yoke, not to add a greater burden.

1 Corinthians 7 is the key passage to their argument.

"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.  Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.  Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.  Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."

Notice how it goes both ways on your body now being owned by your spouse.  No notion here of the Wife as merely property of the Husband which so many assume The Bible condones.

It is also overlooked that most of what begins this is not Paul's words, he's quoting a question he was asked "ye wrote unto me", and I'm afraid it's not easy to tell where the question stops and his response begins.  And his answer to the question is not entirely a yes or a no.

But going on to verses 8 and 9.

"I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.  But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

There is an insistence that the terminology here treats marriage as the only alternative to being single (which they just assume is synonymous with celibacy).  And that there would be no point to this if one is simply allowed to have extra martial sex, even in a loving context with a fellow believer.

Fornication is a key word here, it's important not just to understand that it doesn't mean all Sex outside Marriage.  But that it is, no matter how many times it may be used more loosely, first and foremost a word for prostitution.  It's not just any random sex Paul wants them to avoid.

It is also important to know that this is a place where Paul is letting his personal opinions influence him, not enough to undermine the Divine inspiration, but it's there.  "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment."  "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord".  It is not the full testimony of Scripture that single-hood is preferable to marriage, in fact Jesus seemed to have the opposite opinion.  God did not want Adam to be alone.  The Bride of Christ is a vital Biblical doctrine.

The statement that it is better to marry then to burn with lust is not about avoiding any sexual fulfillment, you could condemn masturbation with that flawed logic, which is absurdly stupid. It's for people who need deeper intimate companionship.  A need that only a committed relationship can truly fulfill.  But if not fulfilled by that could lead to a certain kind of Prostitution.  A kind that is not as well known today as it used to be, but you see in films and literature about older times like, The Egyptian or Baccarat and Torquise in the Rocambole novels.  Where the mark winds up seeking a quasi-romantic relationship with a Courtesan.  And where actual physical intimacy may not even happen.

The word "lust" is not used in this chapter, but it's always inserted by commentators.  Even if it were lust can refer to more then just physical desire, in fact it can be used in contexts not sexual at all.  The desire Paul is speaking of people burning with is not just the desire for physical release, it's a desire for something more.

I will also disagree with those who say this instruction is only for those "in the ministry", I do not support Organized Religion.  All Believers are servants of Christ.

Update May 2020: A fun Twitter thread I had recently.
https://twitter.com/JaredMithrandir/status/1260267274142920707

What does Fornication actually mean?

The word "fornication" was first recorded in Middle English around 1303. It comes from the Latin word "fornix," which literally means "a vault" or "an arch." So what does a vault or an arch have to do with committing fornication? At that particular time in Rome, prostitutes solicited customers in archways. It was like a red light district is today.

Of course, The Bible was not originally written in Latin; it was originally written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. The first hand-written English language Bible was produced in the 1380's by John Wycliffe. Then came the Gutenberg Bible, the Oxford Bible, Luther's German Bible, the Tyndale New Testament, the Coverdale Bible, the Matthew-Tyndale Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible, which was originally published in 1611. Since the word fornication was first used in the early 1300's and continued to be used in the King James Version of the Bible, which is still being used today, it seems logical that these translators spanning over 200 years must have believed that the word fornication had something to do with prostitution; otherwise, they surely would have used a different word.

The Strongs concordance has some problems from being influenced by modern assumptions and indeed what the Strongs Concordance says about "Porneia" Strong# 4202 (the word translated Fornication in the New Testament) is completely wrong and not based on any study of Greek etymology at all.

In Matthew 19:9 The sin of Porneia is the only valid excuse he allows for Divorce, it can't possibly mean simply extramarital sex here. He was asked to intervene in an internal debate between the Pharisees about divorce, but he shocked them all by being more strict then any sect of the Pharisees expected.  All the Pharisees agreed that Adultery was a valid reason for divorce. The Shammai camp believed that adultery was the only valid reason, while Hillel allowed many others. Jesus was usually inline with Hillel's way of thinking but here he made an exception, he was shockingly to the right of even Shammai.

Some people think it means here Pre-Martial sex, or finding out the bride wasn't a virgin. But Jesus was all about forgiveness and not holding things against people, he would never condemn a bride for a pre-existing condition, that'd be even worse then allowing it for adultery.

Prostitution is the sin Gomer the wife of Hosea was guilty of and for which he divorced her.  The only time in The Bible a divorce happens because God instructs it.  But in the long run God prefers forgiveness even for this offense.  The story is ultimately an analogy to Israel's spiritual Adultery and Prostiution with other gods.

People often tie this into Deuteronomy 24:1, especially if they want to say Jesus wasn't really doing away with The Law but clarifying it.   But it was in chapter 22 that Deuteronomy dealt with if a husband accuses his bride of not being a virgin.

Defilement in Deuteronomy could refer to anything in Leviticus 18, as well a prostitution.  Jesus made it clear his teaching on divorce was about how it was only to appease man it was allowed under The Law of Moses at all.

That Gomer's sin is what Jesus meant is the most Biblically sound and logical conclusion from using Scripture to interpret Scripture.

Porneia derives from pernaō, which means "to sell off". Putting that meaning in a sexual context clearly means Prostitution. Another related word used in The Bible is

Pornos (por'-nos); Word Origin: Greek,  Noun Masculine, Strong #: 4205 a man who prostitutes his body to another's lust for hire a male prostitute

Which is 5 times translated "Fornicator" but 5 other times "Whoremonger" which typically means one who visits prostitutes. King James English simply didn't know how to communicate the idea of a male Prostitute, Gigolo wasn't coined yet.

Also

Porne (por'-nay); Word Origin: Greek,  Noun Feminine, Strong #: 4204 a woman who sells her body for sexual uses a prostitute, a harlot, one who yields herself to defilement for the sake of gain an idolatress of "Babylon", the chief seat of idolatry

8 times translated Harlot and 4 times Whore in the KJV.

So as you can see, it's about Prostitution, not simply any and all sexual activity one doesn't like.

1 Corinthians 6:13 and up when talking about Fortification explicitly defines it "shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh."

Revelation 17 also used Fornication to describe the allegorical Prostitution of the Whore of Babylon.

Now sometimes words affiliated with prostitution are casually used more loosely to express disapproved of sexual behavior. A Biblical passage where that might be how it's being used is in Jude when discussing Sodom and the Pre-Flood world. But again premarital sex isn't the issue there. And it certainly is possible prostitution was going on too.  Actually Ezekiel 16 when talking about Sodom clearly mentions prostitution.

John 8:41 is one of the few verses where they're obviously using it loosely, but it's the villains of the narrative using it there, believers are supposed to understand everything they say to be wrong on every level.

But sexual acts with not actual financial translation isn't the only way we use words for prostitution euphemistically.   We also say things like "whoring myself out" to refer to the idea of "selling out".

Now I've seen some argue that New Testament usage of certain Greek words should be understood by how the Septuagint (The Hellenistic era Greek translation of the Old Testament) used them. Well to begin with the Septuagint is very flawed, and I feel the assumption that early Christian, and specifically NT authors where always following it is also flawed. Our main existing Septuagint manuscripts come from Christian copyists, so we should be careful what we assume about places where the LXX and the New Testament seem to match.

Now, I can't easily check how the Septuagint used Pornea. But I do know that all 5 occasions where the KJV of the OT used "Fornication", it's one of 2 Hebrew Words. Zanah (Strong# 2181) or Taznuwth (Strong# 8457). Both words that the majority of the times the KJV translated something like Whoredom, "go a whoring", Whore, Harlot, Whorish, and so on.

So again, there is no Biblical basis for the word meaning anything more then Prostitution.

1 Corinthians 5 verse 1 is a passage that one might consider the Achilles heel of arguing the word only means prostitution. "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife." Paul uses the word, but then specifies he's talking about a type of Incest.

First of all this is still a specific Sin specifically addressed in Leviticus 18. So it is still hardly enough to argue that the word means "everything" the way "Fornication" has come to mean to modern pharsiees.

Even if it did mean "sexual immorality" (as many modern Bibles translate it) we'd still have to use the greater testimony of Scripture to determine what is sexually immoral. I have a separate study on that, and with the help of the Song of Solomon I refute the notion that all none reproductive sex is a sin. And argue that it's mostly reproductive sex God wanted to restrict, though Prostitution and Pagan sex acts have other reasons for being deemed a sin.

Secondly, we don't know the full details of this situation.

 Since we're still in the first generation of Christianity, all Paul's readers were likely not born into the faith, so this individual's father's wife, may likely have been an unbeliever. Which leads back to the fact that Prostitution in the Bible is often used symbolically of Idolatry. That's what the "Strange Woman" discussed repeatedly in Proverbs is really, about, all the words translated "Strange" there mean Pagan or Heathen (foreign in a spiritual sense).

So I'd argue the only way in which The Bible would approve of loosening the definition of Prostitution is in the context of Believers getting involved with Unbelievers.

And at any-rate, as I discus elsewhere, ritual Prostitution was known to be going on in Corinth. Some scholars have seen an allusion to that here, but that's speculative.

Those verses where it might seem to casually be used more loosely are not passages that define sexual sin, they're  simply stating that "Porneia" is/was going on somewhere. So just because you can cite a verse as seeming to mean more then just "Paying money for sex" doesn't mean you can then just jump to saying it means "Everything but sex between a husband and wife". Even today our using words like "whore" loosely does not change that when someone specifically says they disapprove of prostitution they clearly mean paying money for sex.

Originally Fornication was a perfectly accurate translation of the meaning of this word. Man has simply abused it since 1611.