Bible Passages on Fornication

[Lazerlike42]

You mean this criticism?

How does that site either suggest or counter the interpretation you are trying to make? Even if it did, one website on the internet does not indicate that this arguement has been used by those seeking to debunk the faith; five minutes on the internet will turn up a myriad of pages making absolutely ludicrous arguements that no knowledgable atheist, knowing the arguements to be bad, would even touch. I could dig up a website that tries to suggest that The book of James was written by an alien from pluto, but that doesn’t mean that any legitimate critic has ever made that arguement. All of this is irrelevant, however, because the site you provided doesn’t seem to have anything to do with this.

It wouldn’t do much in the way of justifying all sort of sex acts. Songs can’t justify adultery, incest, prostitution, or most anything else not allowed in the Bible.

It wouldn’t need to justify such acts, because these are not the sorts of things that the sorts of folks I’m talking about care about. They attempt to justify homosexuality, masturbation, anal sex, oral sex, and yes premarital sex. Premarital sex is one of the big things they care about, yet they do not mention Song of Songs.

That being said, you underestimate people. Here is one of the fringe sites I talked about above which does try to use Song of Songs to justify various acts: sexinchrist.com/

I don’t see it as far-fetched, unless you think King Solomon works as a shephard in his free time. The young man also refers to the girl as ‘her sister’. We know that this is figurative since the girl talks about wishing that her lover was also her brother so they wouldn’t have to hide their relationship.

It isn’t that it is far fetched, its that this is a major assumption they are making. They have no textual evidence to support the interpretation they make. It would be one thing to suggest that the shepard and the king are two different people, but the jump they make of claiming that the girl is having a daydream is purely without any textual support. This is an assumption that is being made to fit it into the interpretation. The “assumptions” that the authors criticize the allegorists of making are far smaller than this and from the others the authors make. More importantly, however, is that the authors are ignoring the fact that there area variety of interpretations that have been made over the centuries. He is making this conclusion based on the beliefs that the king is king Solomon, that the shepard is not also a king, that the shepard and the king are not two different people. None of these things can be defended perfectly from the textual evidence, and all three points have been viewed differently in different interpretations. The authors are starting off with plenty of axioms here, none of which are regarded as certain, and none of which really have clear textual support.

Could you go into detail?

Here are two definiions of the word in question:

dôd dôd
dode, dode
From an unused root meaning properly to boil, that is, (figuratively) to love; by implication a love token, lover, friend; specifically an uncle: - (well-) beloved, father’s brother, love, uncle.

דּד / דּוד
dôd
BDB Definition:

1. beloved, love, uncle
   1a) loved one, beloved
   1b) uncle
   1c) love (plural abstract)

Do either of those suggest anything to do with sex? No, in fact, we see that the meaning of “love” is figurative and not the literal meaning of the term.

cont.

 

[Lazerlike42]

cont. from previous

Here is a quote from Keil and Delitzsch’s commentary on the book:

For better is thy love than wine.
Instead of “thy love,” the lxx render “thy breasts,” for they had before them the word written defectively as in the traditional text, and read דּדּיך. Even granting that the dual dadayim or dadiym could be used in the sense of the Greek μαστοί (Rev_1:13),
(Note: Vid., my Handsch. Funde, Heft 2 (1862).)
of the breasts of a man (for which Isa_32:12, Targ., furnishes no sufficient authority); yet in the mouth of a woman it were unseemly, and also is itself absurd as the language of praise. But, on the other hand, that דּדיך is not the true reading (“for more lovely - thus he says to me - are,” etc.), R. Ismael rightly says, in reply to R. Akiba, Aboda zara 29b, and refers to שׁמניך following (Son_1:3), which requires the mas. for דדיך. Rightly the Gr. Venet. οἱ σοὶ ἔρωτες, for דּודים is related to אהבח, almost as ἔρως to ἀγάπη, Minne to Liebe. It is a plur. like חיּים, which, although a pluraletantum, is yet connected with the plur. of the pred. The verbal stem דוד is an abbreviated reduplicative stem (Ewald, §118. 1); the root דו appears to signify “to move by thrusts or pushes” (vid., under Psa_42:5); of a fluid, “to cause to boil up,” to which the word דּוּד, a kitchen-pot, is referred.
(Note: Yet it is a question whether דד, to love, and דד, the breast (Arab. thady, with a verb thadiyi, to be thoroughly wet), are not after their nearest origin such words of feeling, caressing, prattling, as the Arab. dad, sport (also dadad, the only Arab. word which consists of the same three letters); cf. Fr. dada, hobby-horse.)
It is the very same verbal stem from which דּיד (David), the beloved, and the name of the foundress of Carthage, דּידה ( =
דּידוןMinna, is derived. The adj. tov appears here and at 3a twice in its nearest primary meaning, denoting that which is pleasant to the taste and (thus particularly in Arab.) to the smell.

And you have proof the meaning of the word dodim changed over time or that the author wasn’t using an accurate translation.

I have no proof to show that the word changed meaning over time, no, because I haven’t looked up that specific detail of the word. I don’t need to show it though. I could just as easily and just as rightly ask if the author has proof that the word didn’t change meaning over time. The site is the one trying to present an interpretation different from thousands of years of belief, and different from the belief of those who spoke the language it was written in in an age much closer to or even within the document’s own era. What the author is doing would be like a person thousands of years from now in a culture where english is barely spoken anymore, and even then a different form of english, disagreeing with an interpretation I wrote down about a particular word. Who knows what the word means better, the people who lived during its use, or someone that lives 2000 years later? This is no different from Protestans disagreeing with Jerome’s translation of Luke. The author is the one disagreeing with thousands of years of interpretation, the burden is really on him. Aside from this, the point is that he is basing his interpretation of the passage based on the usage of the word in other books of the Bible. It is a key point to his arguement, yet the evidence he has is at best questionable, and by questionable I mean that it is not firmly known, it could be true or untrue. So it really comes down to if you want to believe thousands of years of interpretation founded by those that speak the language, or the interpretation of a person who’s arguement is based on evidence that not only disagrees with the thousands of years but is also unverified. Until someone can show that A) the word really ever did have a purely sexual meaning and B) the word didn’t change meaning, one has to go with the preponderance of the evidence, which clearly lies on the side of the thousands of years.

You might want to back up that claim before making such a gradiose analogy.

I don’t need to back it up, because as I have demonstrated the author of the page has not backed up the very point that my analogy is referring to.

 

[Lazerlike42]

And you still haven’t shown evidence that chapter 8 takes place before chapter 4.

In chapter 4, the girl has breasts, and rather large ones at that it seems. However, here the brothers say that their sister has no breasts, or in other words, is young. So it is clear that these men are talking about a young girl who is not yet old enough for marriage and most likely for sexual activity. One of two conclusions can be drawn, both interpretations that have been taken over the centuries as I was referring to above. One is that the girl with no breasts is the bride in Songs, in which case this statement would have to have been made long before chapter 4, and in fact long before anything written about in Songs, at a time when she in fact had no breasts. If this is so, then we have in the next verse the woman affirming that she was a wall as her brothers wanted. The other possibility is that these brothers are not the woman’s brothers, but the brothers of another young girl who are asking for advice. If this is the case, then in the next verse we have the girl telling them that she was a wall and now has found peace.

 

[CrossoverManiac]

Lazerlike42:

In chapter 4, the girl has breasts, and rather large ones at that it seems. However, here the brothers say that their sister has no breasts, or in other words, is young. So it is clear that these men are talking about a young girl who is not yet old enough for marriage and most likely for sexual activity.

You mean this verse.

Songs 8:8
8
“Our sister is little
and she has no breasts as yet.
What shall we do for our sister
when her courtship begins?”

And looks what follows it:

Songs 8:10

" 10
I am a wall,
and my breasts are like towers.
So now in his eyes I have become
one to be welcomed."

In the same time frame, the brothers talk about her sister having small breast, but the girl talks about her breasts being ‘like towers’. Either she had breasts that can grow and shrink on command or these verses are from two different points of view. To the brothers, their younger sister is just a snot-nosed brat, but the girl thinks of herself as a woman.

Due to time constraints, that’s all I can reply to right now. I’ll be back later.

 

[Lazerlike42]

You’re ignoring a third possibility, and the one that is the most simple conclusion, which is that they are from two different time periods. In fact, many translations render verse 10 "I was a wall, not “I am a wall,” as the translation you are using does. The fact is that the Hebrew can be translated either way, there is no definitive reason to make the verb be in the present tense. However, the rendering in the past tense is suggested because later in the phrase it is always translated (with the unique exception of the translation you have provided) as “then was I in his eyes.” Even without this grammatical evidence, the interpretation you have provided would not be the most likely because the two interpretations that I provided, the ones that have been taken for thousands of years, fit perfectly and simply into the passage without having to be creative with the interpretation. Among other things, the brothers do not at all come across with the tone that you are giving them. The idea that the brothers see the girl as a snot nosed brat is simply without any textual evidence.

It is also true that verse 9 is very important to this translation. It acts as a bridge which helps us to determine what is being said here. In full, it says:

We have a little sister, and she has no breasts. What shall we do for our sister on the day when she is spoken for?
If she is a wall, we will build on her a battlement of silver, but if she is a door, we will enclose her with boards of cedar.
I was a wall, and my breasts were like towers; then I was in his eyes as one who finds peace.

We have the brothers saying the girl has no breasts, then asking what to do with her in the future, when she has been spoken for. Now the wedding already occurred in previous chapters, so this should immediately alert us to the fact that this happened in the past. Then in verse 9, they say that if she is, in the future (we know this refers to the future due to verse 8), a wall, they will do one thing, but if she is, in the future, a door, they will do another. Here is another clue: if the woman had been a door, she would have been locked up, so this is strong evidence that she was not a door but a wall. If verse 10 reads that the girl was a wall, then it flows smoothly from verse 9, with verses 8 and 9 having been past events to which she is now in verse 10 responding. If verse 10 reads that the girl is a wall, it does not flow from verse 9 smoothly at all.

Furthermore, if verse 10 says, “I am a wall, then I was in his eyes,” this makes no sense. If she is currently a wall, then why does she speak about “then” as though something changed? This would equate to her saying, “I am a virgin, but then I was in his eyes.” This makes no sense. If she said, “I was a virgin, but then I was in his eyes,” it would make sense, indicating that she was a virgin until she was in his eyes, or if she said, “I am a virgin, but now I am in his eyes,” it would make sense, indicating that she is a virgin but will not be for long, but not “I am a virgin, but *then * I was in his eyes.” The “then I was in his eyes” part indicates that the statement before the comma was or is true but now, due do the fact of the statement following “then,” it is no longer true or will be changing. So if she is a virgin in the present, as the “I am a wall” would indicate, then it makes no sense to say that that changed due to something in the past.

The translation that is provided does really take many liberties, but even if it were perfect it would still present problems. It was rendered:

I am a wall,
and my breasts are like towers.
So now in his eyes I have become
one to be welcomed."

In this translation, the phrase after the “so” is a result of the phrase before it. Therefore, what this says is that she is welcomed in his eyes because she is a wall (and, if you understand the “towers” to be referring to size, because she is attractive). In other words, the translation indicates that the woman’s virginity is what made her pleasing to him now, in chapter 8, after they have supposedly been having sexual intercourse for a long time. If they had been having intercourse since chapter 1, then how can her virginity be pleasing to him in chapter 8? The only way this would make sense would be if this passage occured earlier, an interpretatin which you seem to disagree with. So not only does this translation indicate that virginity is good and desired, but also that this verse must occur earlier.

 

[CrossoverManiac]

Lazerlike42:

You’re ignoring a third possibility, and the one that is the most simple conclusion, which is that they are from two different time periods.

I’m not obligated to acknowledge it, especially since there is no proof that chapter 8 took place before chapter 4. Now you’re claiming that part of chapter 8 is taking place before any of the other verses making the Song of Solomon completely backwards.

In fact, many translations render verse 10 "I was a wall, not “I am a wall,” as the translation you are using does.

My translation is the New American Bible. The one the Catholic Church uses. You have a problem with their translation.

The fact is that the Hebrew can be translated either way, there is no definitive reason to make the verb be in the present tense. However, the rendering in the past tense is suggested because later in the phrase it is always translated (with the unique exception of the translation you have provided) as “then was I in his eyes.” Even without this grammatical evidence, the interpretation you have provided would not be the most likely because the two interpretations that I provided, the ones that have been taken for thousands of years, fit perfectly and simply into the passage without having to be creative with the interpretation.

Bait and switch. If the Hebrew could be translated with either tense, then both translations are valid, but then you after making that point, you then try to invalid the use of the present tense and contradicting yourself.

Among other things, the brothers do not at all come across with the tone that you are giving them. The idea that the brothers see the girl as a snot nosed brat is simply without any textual evidence.

Songs 1:6

" 6
Do not stare at me because I am swarthy,
because the sun has burned me.
My brothers have been angry with me;
they charged me with the care of the vineyards:
my own vineyard I have not cared for."

It is also true that verse 9 is very important to this translation. It acts as a bridge which helps us to determine what is being said here. In full, it says:

We have a little sister, and she has no breasts. What shall we do for our sister on the day when she is spoken for?
If she is a wall, we will build on her a battlement of silver, but if she is a door, we will enclose her with boards of cedar.
I was a wall, and my breasts were like towers; then I was in his eyes as one who finds peace.

We have the brothers saying the girl has no breasts, then asking what to do with her in the future, when she has been spoken for. Now the wedding already occurred in previous chapters, so this should immediately alert us to the fact that this happened in the past.

Didn’t you established a time frame couldn’t be determined since the words can be translated as either past or present tenses?

Then in verse 9, they say that if she is, in the future (we know this refers to the future due to verse 8),

Where’s your proof that that verse 9 is in the future since there is no way to be sure of the verb tense of the translation?

BTW: the age of which girls got married in OT times was 12. Most girls that age don’t have breasts like tower.

SNIP due to the 5000 word limit.

The translation that is provided does really take many liberties, but even if it were perfect it would still present problems. It was rendered:

You’ve taking quite a few liberties yourself by playing fast and loose with the verb tense.

In this translation, the phrase after the “so” is a result of the phrase before it. Therefore, what this says is that she is welcomed in his eyes because she is a wall (and, if you understand the “towers” to be referring to size, because she is attractive). In other words, the translation indicates that the woman’s virginity is what made her pleasing to him now, in chapter 8, after they have supposedly been having sexual intercourse for a long time. If they had been having intercourse since chapter 1, then how can her virginity be pleasing to him in chapter 8? The only way this would make sense would be if this passage occured earlier, an interpretatin which you seem to disagree with. So not only does this translation indicate that virginity is good and desired, but also that this verse must occur earlier.

Rather than argue with you about the verb tense of the verses, I’m going to show you they were having sex since chapter 1.

From Songs 1: 13

“13
My lover is for me a sachet of myrrh
to rest in my bosom.”

and Songs 1: 16

" 16
11 Ah, you are beautiful, my lover-
yes, you are lovely.
Our couch, too, is verdant;"

 

[Lazerlike42]

CrossoverManiac:

I’m not obligated to acknowledge it, especially since there is no proof that chapter 8 took place before chapter 4. Now you’re claiming that part of chapter 8 is taking place before any of the other verses making the Song of Solomon completely backwards.

I’m not making anything completely backwards. I am defending an interpretation that has been held for 3,000 years, including by the work’s contemporary Hebrew speakers, that this passage ris a recollection. The Bible is full of recollections.

My translation is the New American Bible. The one the Catholic Church uses. You have a problem with their translation.

I do have a problem with it. The NAB is not the greatest Bible in the world, it is full of problems. The Missal for the Mass is not even the NAB, it is a modified version of the NAB.

Bait and switch. If the Hebrew could be translated with either tense, then both translations are valid, but then you after making that point, you then try to invalid the use of the present tense and contradicting yourself.

There is no bait and switch. I am only t aking into account the original language of the passage. Of course if all we had was the one verse than both translations could be valid. I base my interpretation in the same way that BIble translators do - taking to context into account to determine the translation of ambiguous phrases.

Songs 1:6

" 6
Do not stare at me because I am swarthy,
because the sun has burned me.
My brothers have been angry with me;
they charged me with the care of the vineyards:
my own vineyard I have not cared for."

This says that they were angry with her, not that they saw her as a snot or an immature person.

Didn’t you established a time frame couldn’t be determined since the words can be translated as either past or present tenses?

As I said, a time frame cannot be determined by the one word, but the context can help in determining one. However, that is irrelevant because I was speaking about verse 10, not verse 9. The grammar in verse 9 does indicate a time frame.

Where’s your proof that that verse 9 is in the future since there is no way to be sure of the verb tense of the translation?

The proof is because it is a continuation of verse 8 where the grammar makes clear the time frame.

BTW: the age of which girls got married in OT times was 12. Most girls that age don’t have breasts like tower.

This is true. However, I was not contending about the wedding or when it was. I was making the sole point that when the brothers said this, the girl had no breasts, but when she made her statement, she did, indicating two different time frames.

You’ve taking quite a few liberties yourself by playing fast and loose with the verb tense.

I am not taking liberties. In evirtually very aspect of my analysis I have considered what would be the ramifications of each tense. I have analyzed both, since they are ambiguous, and determined that the verb tense your arguement relies on does not make any sense in the context of the grammar.

Rather than argue with you about the verb tense of the verses, I’m going to show you they were having sex since chapter 1.

From Songs 1: 13

“13
My lover is for me a sachet of myrrh
to rest in my bosom.”

and Songs 1: 16

" 16
11 Ah, you are beautiful, my lover-
yes, you are lovely.
Our couch, too, is verdant;"

These do not in any way prove that they had intercourse. In your interpretation it may, however the interpretation that I present has 3,000 years and hundreds of commentaries to back it up. There are plenty of ways to understand these things that make perfect sense without them having sex. Now, I would agree with you that without any other data, it would be understandable or perhaps acceptable to take these verses as you are suggesting. However, when the girl affirms her virginity in several other places, and the man says that she is desirable due to her virginity, we have to interpret these more ambiguous phrases in the light of the more direct ones.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Note: A document has been recently found, left by an ancient Hebrew shepherd. It reads:

They 'ere 'aving sex in mah field! 'Ow dare dey? Browsing 'mong the lilies, mah patootie!

But wait! There’s another text! Left by a wandering scholar:

The virginal maid and the delightful young man are frolicking chastely before the bells of their wedding. How lovely. In other news, I think I just got struck on the head by a renegade highwayman. Oh, dear.

And a note, this one by a theologian:

God made man, therefore man is good. God made sex, therefore sex is good. The Song of Solomon is an excellent depiction of how men and women ought to view each other, within the experience of erotic love. It ought not be lowered to the level of a simple political discourse, that supports or opposes a person’s agenda.