T
TaterTot
Guest
The Bible covers such a wide spectrum of godly living. Why is it that SOS can't be a biblical look at how God views the marital act when done according to godly principles?
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I think we can all agree on that!Originally posted by USN2Pulpit:
I believe it is true that He desires an intimate spiritual relationship with His believers.
Where from Leviticus alone do you come to the view that sacrifice and offering are of Christ for His church? Or from Genesis alone, where marriage is instituted, that marriage is of Christ and His church? Or from Exodus alone that the tabernacle is a picture of Christ and His church? Or from Deuteronomy alone that the crossing of the Jordan is a picture of death and resurrection?Originally posted by PastorSBC1303:
I will ask you the same question I asked Aaron...how do you come to this view from the text of Song of Solomon alone? And by what hermeneutical principles did you use to come to this conclusion? If this is a legitimate position on the text, then there must be a clear way to present from the text how you came to that point.
God spoke to the fathers by the prophets in time past in diverse manners. Christ spoke to the multitudes in parables to hide His meanings from those with no heart for the Gospel, and to motivate His disciples to ask for wisdom to discern them. Not every meaning is on the surface.This view comes pretty close to spiritualizing a text to make it say something that is not there. Why can't we just let the text say what it says?
Sex in marriage is not a sin. How do we get married? We have sex. Paul can be saying two things here. But it all boils down to the couple having sexual intercourse. Paul can be saying after the coming together in the marriage act, now make it legal, as put forth in Deuteronomy 22:29. “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.” This seems to me what Paul could be saying for he had humbled her.Originally posted by BillyMac:
I gotta question, Diane.
Since it says first "let him do what he wishes. He does not sin;" and then it says finally, "let them marry". Is letting him do what he wishes, before marriage not a sin as long as they do marry???
NIV:
If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.
NIV Footnote for above passage:
If anyone thinks he is not treating his daughter properly, and if she is getting along in years, and he feels she ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. He should let her get married. But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind to keep the virgin unmarried-this man also does the right thing. 38 So then, he who gives his virgin in marriage does right, but he who does not give her in marriage does even better.
Also, sex does NOT create a marriage. Puh-leeze!NAS
But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry.
Originally posted by Aaron:
Guys, 1 Cor. 7 is NOT about a man who molests a virgin, feels guilty about it and then decides to marry her.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />NIV:
If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.
NIV Footnote for above passage:
If anyone thinks he is not treating his daughter properly, and if she is getting along in years, and he feels she ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. He should let her get married. But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind to keep the virgin unmarried-this man also does the right thing. 38 So then, he who gives his virgin in marriage does right, but he who does not give her in marriage does even better.
Also, sex does NOT create a marriage. Puh-leeze!You know that doesn’t make any sense don’t you? You quote NIV “If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to”, and then the Footnote changes Anyone to the Father toward the virgin?? Why don’t you try the ISV 7:36 which reads ” If a man thinks he is not behaving properly toward his virgin, and if his passion is too strong and he feels he ought to, let him do what he wants; he isn't sinning. Let them get married.” Just what is this Father in the NIV and ISV doing with his virgin daughter. What is he doing that is not proper?
People that believe sex is dirty will try anything to change the Word of God. God thinks sex is great for that one enjoyment he gives to the man and woman for pleasure, within marriage preferably, that will hopefully last a life time, and to entice them in order to carry out His command to be “fruitful and multiply”.
But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry.
The improper action here spoken of, whether you think the one behaving improperly is the father or the fiance, is preventing marriage, NOT molestation. By what evidence, Scriptural or otherwise, do you say the apostle is here speaking of fornication? He already dealt with that iniquity in the preceding verses.ituttut said:
You know that doesn’t make any sense don’t you? You quote NIV “If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to”, and then the Footnote changes Anyone to the Father toward the virgin?? Why don’t you try the ISV 7:36 which reads ” If a man thinks he is not behaving properly toward his virgin, and if his passion is too strong and he feels he ought to, let him do what he wants; he isn't sinning. Let them get married.” Just what is this Father in the NIV and ISV doing with his virgin daughter. What is he doing that is not proper?
I sure get tired of this old chestnut. No one who uses that tired old argument has really thought the issue through. Who here has said that sex is dirty? You want to know who is profaning the act? It's folks that handle it like some cheap piece of limestone instead of the precious jewel God intended it to be.ituttut said:
People that believe sex is dirty will try anything to change the Word of God. God thinks sex is great for that one enjoyment he gives to the man and woman for pleasure, within marriage preferably, that will hopefully last a life time, and to entice them in order to carry out His command to be “fruitful and multiply”.
Yes. The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek, Ps. 110:4.ituttut said:
Can you name one oath that produced one baby ... ?
First of all, let's look at why God created woman. It is not good for man to be alone. I will make an helpmeet for him. He didn't say He was making a blow-up doll for man, but an helpmeet. Woman is not there for you to consume your lusts upon.ituttut said:
Is this “oath” you speak of oral, mental, or what? I really don’t believe that is going to do the job, now is it. That is a new way not documented since the beginning. Can you please explain it to us. If not, I imagine the homosexual male couple, or female couple may very well be a good source. They think along the same lines as you for they also give oath to each other, making their vow of marriage, and many of them are monogamous being faithful to the end.
God spoke to the fathers by the prophets in time past in diverse manners. Christ spoke to the multitudes in parables to hide His meanings from those with no heart for the Gospel, and to motivate His disciples to ask for wisdom to discern them. Not every meaning is on the surface.Originally posted by Aaron:
Where from Leviticus alone do you come to the view that sacrifice and offering are of Christ for His church? Or from Genesis alone, where marriage is instituted, that marriage is of Christ and His church? Or from Exodus alone that the tabernacle is a picture of Christ and His church? Or from Deuteronomy alone that the crossing of the Jordan is a picture of death and resurrection?
So, you see, the hermeneutic you're imposing on us is invalid. I don't have to come from the text of the Song of Solomon alone in order to interpret it correctly. Quite the opposite really. It's not intended to stand alone.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This view comes pretty close to spiritualizing a text to make it say something that is not there. Why can't we just let the text say what it says?
Which questions have I avoided? You asked, "How do you come to this view from the text of Song of Solomon alone?" I answered that one quite conclusively. Let me rephrase my answer to avoid any confusion.Basically in this entire answer you have avoided my questions.
No it isn't, as I've shown you and will show you again.There is no way from reading Song of Solomon that you can come to the interpretation that you come to, it is frankly impossible.
Again, the difficulty that babes have in digesting strong meat does not mean that strong meat is not good for food. Our dull ears and gross hearts make many things the Spirit wishes to teach us hard to be uttered. He said so Himself, Heb. 5:11. Hard-to-understand is not a disqualification for a view, nor is it a sign of weakness in the text.There is chaos in that view as no one agrees on what the different aspects of Song of Solomon mean when you begin using a spiritualized hermeneutic.
But you say it's impossible to see it that way. Are you wiser and more knowledgable than Archer? What of Henry, who, BTW, I do not "soley rely upon", or Calvin or Luther? Are you wiser than Charles Spurgeon?Understood in this way, the Song is rich in spiritual overtones which have proved a comfort and an encouragement to devout students of the Scripture throughout the ages of church history. And yet it requires a really mature soul to appreciate the spiritual beauties which are latent in this book. Not without justification is the old rabbinical requirement that no jew should read the Song of Songs until he had attained the age of thirty.
Oh, well then nevermind! Your entire point is moot!I agree that Song of Solomon should not stand alone.
Why would interpreting the Song of Solomon be any different than interpreting "any other Biblical book"? Because there's sex in it? Of all the arbitrary and inconsistent choices to make! My point is that a spiritual theory of interpretation is a valid one. Your stated objection to spiritualizing something was in the supposed inherent weaknesses of the method itself. You say it makes the text say something that isn't there. But only if you come to it alone. I'm glad you've abandoned that folly.So you are saying that we can use the same principles in interpreting Genesis, Leviticus, and any other Biblical book by the same principles as Song of Solomon?
Agreed. Where did anyone here NOT interpret it based on the text?You interpret the text first and foremost based on the text. God through the Holy Spirit inspired Song of Solomon and He has an intended purpose for His people in doing so.
I've already shown you that "spiritualizing" the text is a valid method. It's proper name is the allegorical method. Christ used it. The Apostles used it. It doesn't mean that Solomon and the Shunamite girl didn't fall in love and frolic in the valleys and fields. It simply means there's more than meets the eye of flesh.You take away that purpose by trying to spiritualize the text...
Now, this is really the question, isn't it. How do you know it's not there? You can't see it? I've already shown you that it takes a certain amount of maturity to glean it. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the consensus of spiritual giants through the ages....into something that is not there at all.
We shall see.You are reading into the text and have no clue what it actually says.
Not only did I say it, but God said it too. Didn't you read my post? I not only stated that not every meaning is obvious, I cited the Scriptural evidence. So, your argument isn't with me, it's with God.You said, "Not every meaning is on the surface." So where is it then? So did God hide the meaning of His Word?
Quit putting words in my mouth. Not only is it dishonest, it's unsanitary. No has to dig in "all different directions," but one must dig.Yet by your standard we have to go digging in all different directions to find a spiritualized meaning of a text...
Again, the text DOES say what it says, and more, but why do you insist on taking the easy path only. There's no promise of reward there....instead of just simply allowing the text to say what it says. Why is that so hard?
The improper action here spoken of, whether you think the one behaving improperly is the father or the fiance, is preventing marriage, NOT molestation. By what evidence, Scriptural or otherwise, do you say the apostle is here speaking of fornication? He already dealt with that iniquity in the preceding verses.Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />ituttut said:
You know that doesn’t make any sense don’t you? You quote NIV “If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to”, and then the Footnote changes Anyone to the Father toward the virgin?? Why don’t you try the ISV 7:36 which reads ” If a man thinks he is not behaving properly toward his virgin, and if his passion is too strong and he feels he ought to, let him do what he wants; he isn't sinning. Let them get married.” Just what is this Father in the NIV and ISV doing with his virgin daughter. What is he doing that is not proper?
I sure get tired of this old chestnut. No one who uses that tired old argument has really thought the issue through. Who here has said that sex is dirty? You want to know who is profaning the act? It's folks that handle it like some cheap piece of limestone instead of the precious jewel God intended it to be.ituttut said:
People that believe sex is dirty will try anything to change the Word of God. God thinks sex is great for that one enjoyment he gives to the man and woman for pleasure, within marriage preferably, that will hopefully last a life time, and to entice them in order to carry out His command to be “fruitful and multiply”.
Yes. The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek, Ps. 110:4.ituttut said:
Can you name one oath that produced one baby ... ?
First of all, let's look at why God created woman. It is not good for man to be alone. I will make an helpmeet for him. He didn't say He was making a blow-up doll for man, but an helpmeet. Woman is not there for you to consume your lusts upon.ituttut said:
Is this “oath” you speak of oral, mental, or what? I really don’t believe that is going to do the job, now is it. That is a new way not documented since the beginning. Can you please explain it to us. If not, I imagine the homosexual male couple, or female couple may very well be a good source. They think along the same lines as you for they also give oath to each other, making their vow of marriage, and many of them are monogamous being faithful to the end.
Are you sure you're stating that rule accurately? If so then you've disqualified Paul's allegorical treatment of the historical narratives of Isaac and Ishmael, Gal. 4:21-31.SBC said:
One of the basic rules of hermeneutics is that the text cannot mean something now that it did not mean to the orginal author and audience.