The Instigator
SavedByChrist94
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Pennington
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Premarital Sex is not a Sin

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Pennington
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,707 times Debate No: 32279
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (5)

 

SavedByChrist94

Pro

Post every single proof verse against Pre-marital sex, I refute it and then you refute my rebuttals, and it goes back and forth until rounds are over or there's a winning.
Pennington

Con

Thank you Pro for instigating this debate. My opponent has all the BOP and all I must do is show that the Bible considers premarital sex as a sin.


My opponent must show the resolution true. I will now offer quotes and verses why I believe that the Bible views premarital sex as a sin.


We will use the King James Bible for this debate.


Pre·mar·i·tal- Taking place or existing before marriage. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...


Sin- transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam. http://dictionary.reference.com...


1 Corinthians 7


"7 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.4 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."


Clear from 1 Cor. 7, virginity in a woman was highly valued before marriage. In that this she is called both the betrothed and a virgin. In early Jewish law if you had sex with a woman you were considered married to her or you had shamed her. See the story of Mary and Joseph. Honor and shame, cultures placed a high value on sexual purity. Notice how prostitutes were stigmatized. Women were mainly blamed for sexual immorality. http://weareeleven20.wordpress.com...


Exodus 22:16


"16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife."


We should observe that the premise of this stipulation is that the man has willfully done something wrong and must now make amends. Also, although perhaps not directly related to the question of premarital sex, the single most neglected datum from the OT related to marriage is Gen. 2:24-25. http://seedbed.com...


Genesis 2:24-25


"24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."


The Bible's teaching concerning sexual immorality is rather plain. Ephesians 5:5 says, "For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God."


There are many other Scripture references one could use to show how sexual immorality is viewed by God. Some of these examples are: Matt 15:19; Mark 7:21; Acts 15:20,29; 21:25; 1Cor 5; 6:8,9,13,18; 7:2; 10:8; 2Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Col 3:5; 1Thes 4:3; 1Tim 1:10; Heb 12:16; 13:4; Jude 1:7; Rev 2:14, 20; 21:8.


1 Corinthians 6:9,10


"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."


In this passage, "fornication" is listed among a group of sins which do not come from any sort of good motive; as such, it is identified as an act that never has a good motive behind it. This agrees fully with the statement of Jesus, "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man" (Matt 15:19-20). http://www.dtl.org...


Deuteronomy 22:28-29


"28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;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."


These verses should suffice for this debate. I send it back over to Pro so he can make his argument.

Debate Round No. 1
SavedByChrist94

Pro

"My opponent has all the BOP and all I must do is show that the Bible considers premarital sex as a sin.
My opponent must show the resolution true."

My debate, my rules, no "atheistic" tricks this time, the Rules I posted clearly in the first round say,

"Post every single proof verse against Pre-marital sex, I refute it and then you refute my rebuttals, and it goes back and forth until rounds are over or there's a winning."

Don't like the rules? Forfeit because they aren't changing, you throughly refute my rebuttals or lose, that's been the rules since Round 1.

"We will use the King James Bible for this debate."

My debate, my rules, We're Using Hebrews and Greek as well, from which the king james is translated from.

"1 Corinthians 7


"7 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.4 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."


Clear from 1 Cor. 7, virginity in a woman was highly valued before marriage. In that this she is called both the betrothed and a virgin. In early Jewish law if you had sex with a woman you were considered married to her or you had shamed her. See the story of Mary and Joseph. Honor and shame, cultures placed a high value on sexual purity. Notice how prostitutes were stigmatized. Women were mainly blamed for sexual immorality. http://weareeleven20.wordpress.com...;

Nope, my opponent uses 1 Corinthians 7 yet dismisses 1 Corinthians 6, from which Paul is writing about, 6 and 7 are 1 continous chapter which deal with the word, Porneia, now whatever Paul says Porneia is, whether my opponent likes it or not, we have to take Paul's Interpretation and see what Paul wants to convey,

1 Cortinthians 6:12 -20,

12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.

15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

18 Flee fornication(porneia). Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication(porneia) sinneth against his own body.

19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.



Proof from Verses 13 to 17, Clear as day and as obvious as diamond Paul says from the bold that, Paul says the body isn't meant for "Porneia" which is a translation of the word Porneia which according to Strongs Greek lexicon can mean either, http://biblesuite.com...

"fornication, whoredom; met: idolatry."

Paul is talking about a specific definition, that being the Whoredom, he explictly isn't talking about Idolatry or Fornication, he is talking about Harlotry, and to flee it as it's a sin against ones own body

Evident like the sun Verses 15-17 Paul is Specifically Speaking on Prostitution, 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[b] 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.[c]


So then we go to 1 Corinthians 7 which turns more clear,

7 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

Meaning Paul is replying to what he received, that being "it is good for a man not to touch a woman"

Paul refutes this by saying,

2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication(porneia, as we found out in Chapter 6 Paul is using it for Prostitution, so to avoid Prostitution), let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

So Paul refutes his recipiant by saying every man should have his own wife and every woman her own Husband, now we come to this, 1, we know Paul is talking about Prostitution, now is Paul saying one should get Married(let every man, etc) to avoid Prostitution?

No, From, http://christianity.stackexchange.com...;

"Another reason that people have misunderstood 1 Corinthains 7:2 is the failure to translate "have one's wife or husband" [citation needed]accurately. It means to have sex or be in a sexual relationship with someone. It doesn't mean "get a wife, so you won't have sex before marriage." Paul was saying "let every man have sex with his own woman, not with a temple prostitute." Several commentaries bring out these points:

http://www.enduringword.com...;[404 - file or directory not found]
The New International Commentary on the New Testament by Gordon D. Fee
John Gill's Exposition of the Bible (first Corinthians 7:2)

Only a couple of translations have made the meaning clear for us, the NetBible being an example. Here is their note on this:

"Grk “each man should have his own wife.” “Have” in this context means “have marital relations with” (see the following verse). The verb O52;χ^1;τω (ecetw, “have”) occurs twice in the Greek text, but has not been repeated in the translation for stylistic reasons. This verb occurs 8 times in the LXX (Exod 2:1; Deut 28:30; 2 Chr 11:21; 1 Esd 9:12, 18; Tob 3:8; Isa 13:16; 54:1) with the meaning “have sexual relations with,” and 9 times elsewhere in the NT with the same meaning (Matt 20:23; 22:28; Mark 6:18; 12:33; Luke 20:28; John 4:18 [twice]; 1 Cor 5:1; 7:29)." [citation needed]

Richard suggests that Strong's dictionary defines porneia as "all forms of sexual acts that are not within the confines of marriage" when in fact it doesn't say that at all. As evidenced in Deuteronomy 22:14, when a man paid a bridal price for a girl, she was considered his wife from that day forward; it might be over a year later before they had the marriage feast and he took her as his bride. If this betrothed girl, his legal wife, had sex before her wedding day, she was guilty of a type of adultery and suffered the consequences. Comparing that situation to Exodus 22:16-17, sex with an unbetrothed virgin, the Bible clearly teaches that pre-marital sex is not a sin. There was no punishment upon either of them. The man was forced to pay her bridal price for otherwise her family could never recover the lost money. The marriage was obligatory upon the man if the parents approved it.

These passages only talk about virgin girls under their father's care and say nothing about premarital sex by adult single females or males. There is no passage that speaks against males, whether single or married, having sex with an unattached female. Adultery laws only applied to sex with married women, not unmarried.

I hope people will stop adding their own rules to the Bible; they're like the Pharisees who made the word of God of no effect by their traditions."



You want to win the debate? you Have To refute Everything above, That's the rules you accepted, when you accepted this Challenge, "Post every single proof verse against Pre-marital sex, I refute it and then you refute my rebuttals, and it goes back and forth until rounds are over or there's a winning."

I have no more space will get to other verses in Next Round. 1 Corinthians 7 can no longer be used for my opponent's argument.

Pennington

Con

Thank you Pro for your opening argument. My opponent started this debate and forgot to properly establish rules and definitions. He can not in the midst of debate change things now. It is typical that both parties rebuttal each other, so that is a given, but I can so choose to rebuttal and debate anyway I like. My opponent gave us no rules and the few comments he made in round 1 were wide open for action as long as I rebuttal him.I agree with my opponent using Greek and Hebrew.


1 Corinthians


"Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband."


My opponent is right that chapter seven begins where Paul deals with questions about marriage but how can he connect it directly to chapter 6? Paul directly says, "Now concerning", showing a new issue is being brought forth. Paul is saying that husbands and wives should be having sexual relations with each other.A letter Paul received from the congregation contained a variety of questions on which the members sought his advice and counsel. They asked about marriage (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:1), about the young women getting married (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:25), about the eating of meat from animals the pagans had sacrificed to their idols in their heathen temples (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:1), about the women in the congregation covering their heads in the worship services, which was a custom unique to Corinthian society that indicated their submission to the men (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:2), and about spiritual gifts (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:1). Paul addressed the questions of the Corinthians who wrote to him. He says that it is good for man not to touch a woman and because he must touch her then he should marry her and be with only her. We get the message that sex equals getting married or a suggestion to it. This shows God considering unmarried sex unwanting. http://www.inplainsite.org...


As for the word Proneiva my opponent mentioned:


Porneiva-


illicit sexual intercourse; adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18 sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11, metaph. the worship of idols of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols. http://www.biblestudytools.com...


Illicit-


a sexual act that is improper or condemned by law or religion. www.definition-of.com/illicit sex.


Harlot- Prone-


a woman who sells her body for sexual uses; a prostitute, a harlot, one who yields herself to defilement for the sake of gain; any woman indulging in unlawful sexual intercourse, whether for gain or for lust; metaph. an idolatress of "Babylon" i.e. Rome, the chief seat of idolatry. http://www.biblestudytools.com...


Illicit=Fornication=Porneiva.


This shows that harlot don't mean Porneiva. Porneiva means adultry, (since marriage is presented) fornication which directly means Porneiva. Illicit sex is also adultry and pre-martial sex.


If we want to change the Bible at will, of course anything is possible. Most people who disbelieve its contents are not that brazen, however, so they take the more subtle route of misinterpreting the Bible and neglecting the meanings of words therein. We can see that correct interpretation has been given by the KJV and these words include a wide varity of sexual immoralities. This immorality included having sex outside of marriage. My opponent should explain why Paul tells them it is proper to become married? If sex outside of marriage is ok and not a sin then what need is there for marriage? The meaning of marriage which is compounded on in 1 Corinthians is that sex is reserved for husband and wife. This topic maybe was not as definitive topic as many others issues dealing with salvation. But, it is clear that the Bible urges one to be married with a woman and only have sex with her. Therefore showing it is incorrect and a sin to have sex outside of marriage. Today we see marriage different then back then. You may not have took vowels or had a celebration. Marriage could simply mean a man and woman who choose to sleep together and be together.


My opponent makes it seem as if anyone could have sex with one another and it is not a sin. My opponent supports whoredom as long as you are not married or that fornication only means sex with a whore. He further wants us to believe that Paul was only talking to married people. In fact every type of person would need guidance and this is why a word that describes all sexual immorality is used and making it clear that sexual immorality is anything outside of marriage. My opponent needs to show us why Paul is talking about just whoredom, when the definition of the very word he highlighted means every sexual immorality. I do not deny Paul is speaking about prostitution but my opponent must show that Paul only refers to prostitution.


Exodus 22:16-17


The first stipulation in Exodus 22:16, "if a man seduces a virgin," distinguishes this case from one of rape, where the woman remains unwilling. The language of seduction, of course, implies the man's initiative in this premarital sexual relationship, and perhaps for this reason, the stipulated remedy assumes that the man should take a similar initiative in regularizing the illicit relationship in marriage. If the man is genuinely repentant in keeping with the Word of God in Exodus 22:16, he do whatever is required. http://www.rededicate.org...


My opponent tells us and shows us that a price and requirement must be kept if one takes a non-married woman or virgin. My opponent tries to distinguish the two but they can be the same. Families lived amoungst one another and therefore every member was important and worth something. There is no matter the age of a woman and in fact a woman was the age of 13 or 14 then, maybe younger. When the Bible refers to father it is meaning the Patriarch of the community and also the daughters father personally. Sometimes these two are not the same, even male men live under rule of a Patriarch. If both woman and men were under the same Patriarch then the matter was most likely handled personally.


My opponent helped my case from his second round. We both have shown that the Bible suggest getting married if one wants to have sex. In the O.T. we see that the Bible tells one that if he has sex with a unmarried woman(adultry is conceded as a sin by both) that they should be married. In the N.T. we see that any sexual act outside of marriage is refered to as fornication and illicit sexual behavior and therefore is immoral. We see that the solution to this immorality of fornication is marriage. One is to conclude that if sex without marriage is considered fornication and immoral and marriage makes it ok, then marriage is needed for sex. Therefore sex without marriage is immoral and immoralities are a sin.


Back to Pro!

Debate Round No. 2
SavedByChrist94

Pro

"My opponent started this debate and forgot to properly establish rules and definitions. He can not in the midst of debate change things now."

Nope, Hebrews and Greeks are valid as that's what everything is translated from, if we can't use Hebrews and Greek we can't use any translation, as those are translations of Hebrews and Greeks.

Also rules were clearly given in First Round, "Post every single proof verse against Pre-marital sex, I refute it and then you refute my rebuttals, and it goes back and forth until rounds are over or there's a winning."

"He says that it is good for man not to touch a woman and because he must touch her then he should marry her and be with only her."

Actually no, Paul is replying to someone saying "it's not good for a man to touch a woman", he refutes this by saying,

Another reason that people have misunderstood 1 Corinthains 7:2 is the failure to translate "have one's wife or husband" [citation needed]accurately. It means to have sex or be in a sexual relationship with someone. It doesn't mean "get a wife, so you won't have sex before marriage." Paul was saying "let every man have sex with his own woman, not with a temple prostitute." Several commentaries bring out these points:

http://www.enduringword.com...;[404 - file or directory not found]
The New International Commentary on the New Testament by Gordon D. Fee
John Gill's Exposition of the Bible (first Corinthians 7:2)

Only a couple of translations have made the meaning clear for us, the NetBible being an example. Here is their note on this:

"Grk “each man should have his own wife.” “Have” in this context means “have marital relations with” (see the following verse). The verb O52;χ^1;τω (ecetw, “have”) occurs twice in the Greek text, but has not been repeated in the translation for stylistic reasons. This verb occurs 8 times in the LXX (Exod 2:1; Deut 28:30; 2 Chr 11:21; 1 Esd 9:12, 18; Tob 3:8; Isa 13:16; 54:1) with the meaning “have sexual relations with,” and 9 times elsewhere in the NT with the same meaning (Matt 20:23; 22:28; Mark 6:18; 12:33; Luke 20:28; John 4:18 [twice]; 1 Cor 5:1; 7:29)." [citation needed]

Richard suggests that Strong's dictionary defines porneia as "all forms of sexual acts that are not within the confines of marriage" when in fact it doesn't say that at all. As evidenced in Deuteronomy 22:14, when a man paid a bridal price for a girl, she was considered his wife from that day forward; it might be over a year later before they had the marriage feast and he took her as his bride. If this betrothed girl, his legal wife, had sex before her wedding day, she was guilty of a type of adultery and suffered the consequences. Comparing that situation to Exodus 22:16-17, sex with an unbetrothed virgin, the Bible clearly teaches that pre-marital sex is not a sin. There was no punishment upon either of them. The man was forced to pay her bridal price for otherwise her family could never recover the lost money. The marriage was obligatory upon the man if the parents approved it.

My opponent must refute that in order to win the debate, as RULES state, whether opponent likes it or not, rules are(which he agreed to), "Post every single proof verse against Pre-marital sex, I refute it and then you refute my rebuttals, and it goes back and forth until rounds are over or there's a winning."

These passages only talk about virgin girls under their father's care and say nothing about premarital sex by adult single females or males. There is no passage that speaks against males, whether single or married, having sex with an unattached female. Adultery laws only applied to sex with married women, not unmarried.

I hope people will stop adding their own rules to the Bible; they're like the Pharisees who made the word of God of no effect by their traditions."


"This shows that harlot don't mean Porneiva. Porneiva means adultry, (since marriage is presented) fornication which directly means Porneiva. Illicit sex is also adultry and pre-martial sex"

Actually no, no matter how many times my opponent tries to change The Word of YHWH, the opponent will fail, he claims it's not mentioning Prostitution but Harlotry,


According to Strongs Greek lexicon Porneia can mean, either, \


Even The Septuagint Translation from Jesus Christ time agrees as The Septuagint Translates Deuteronomy 23:18 which says, οP16; προσο^3;σεις μ^3;σθωμα πa2;ρνης οP16;δP50; O40;λλαγμα κυνP56;ς εO84;ς τP56;ν οO90;κον κυρ^3;ου τοQ66; θεοQ66; σου πρP56;ς πQ18;σαν εP16;χ^2;ν P05;τι βδ^1;λυγμα κυρ^3;Q79; τQ83; θεQ83; σοa3; O52;στιν καP54; O36;μφa2;τερα

That verse says,

Which makes it Irrefutable proof that Porneia means Harlotly, whoredom, EVEN THE LEXICON agrees that 1 Corinthians 6 is talking about Prostitution, look, http://biblesuite.com... says,

"1. properly, a prostitute, a harlot, one who yields herself to defilement for the sake of gain (Aristophanes, Demosthenes, others); in the N. T. universally, any woman indulging in unlawful sexual intercourse, whether for gain or for lust: Matthew 21:31; Luke 15:30; 1 Corinthians 6:15;Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25.


Come on Con, we're not stupid.

Look, 1 Corinthians 6:15, Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

Even 1 Corinthians 7 agrees, watch this,

http://christianity.stackexchange.com...;

Another reason that people have misunderstood 1 Corinthains 7:2 is the failure to translate "have one's wife or husband" [citation needed]accurately. It means to have sex or be in a sexual relationship with someone. It doesn't mean "get a wife, so you won't have sex before marriage." Paul was saying "let every man have sex with his own woman, not with a temple prostitute." Several commentaries bring out these points:

http://www.enduringword.com...;[404 - file or directory not found]
The New International Commentary on the New Testament by Gordon D. Fee
John Gill's Exposition of the Bible (first Corinthians 7:2)

Only a couple of translations have made the meaning clear for us, the NetBible being an example. Here is their note on this:

"Grk “each man should have his own wife.” “Have” in this context means “have marital relations with” (see the following verse). The verb O52;χ^1;τω (ecetw, “have”) occurs twice in the Greek text, but has not been repeated in the translation for stylistic reasons. This verb occurs 8 times in the LXX (Exod 2:1; Deut 28:30; 2 Chr 11:21; 1 Esd 9:12, 18; Tob 3:8; Isa 13:16; 54:1) with the meaning “have sexual relations with,” and 9 times elsewhere in the NT with the same meaning (Matt 20:23; 22:28; Mark 6:18; 12:33; Luke 20:28; John 4:18 [twice]; 1 Cor 5:1; 7:29)." [citation needed]"

Have is there twice, meaning Have Sexual Relations with, so when Paul refutes the guy saying "It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have sexual relations with his own woman(γυν^2; which can mean woman and in this literary context means woman), and let every woman have sexual relations with her own man(anér, same with γυν^2;). All this is agreed by this website, Specially on Lexicon!, http://biblelexicon.org...

" When the Bible refers to father it is meaning the Patriarch of the community and also the daughters father personally. Sometimes these two are not the same, even male men live under rule of a Patriarch. If both woman and men were under the same Patriarch then the matter was most likely handled personally."

My opponent kills himself and refutes his own use of Exodus 22:16-17, unless we live where the patriach of the community runs men and women and virginity and marriage is something to be paid for again(bride price), then we have no reason to use this law anymore, which makes my opponent have no Old Testament back up for his satan driven pre-marital sex ideas.

My opponent must refute every single thing above, According to the rules which my opponent agreed.
Pennington

Con

Thank you Pro!

I feel like my opponent is making my case for me and let me show why. He quotes, "let every man have sex with his own woman, not with a temple prostitute." It is obvious my opponent does not understand what marriage is and specifically defines it moderately.

Marriage

1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock

c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3 : an intimate or close union

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

We see that marriage is an intimate union. According to the description by my opponent we have the description by Paul to marry. We see Paul telling them to have their own husband and wife, how much more clearer could you have it. Why would Paul endorse marriage and suggest it instead of sexual relationships without marriage? It is clear that when a man chooses a woman to lay with then it is right to take her as his wife, but why? Because it is considered fornication, which is clearly a sin.

My opponent bolded some quotes and wanted me to address them, so, I will. The first part I have no disagreement in them. Matter of fact it supports my case, as so, "each man should have his own wife", "have marital relations with", "have sexual relations with", all support me and the last one puts a bullet in my opponents case. The first two clearly show marriage in wife, martial, and the third links sexual relations with marriage itself. I'm left to not really know what point it is my opponent is trying to make because it does not help him.

"the Bible clearly teaches that pre-marital sex is not a sin. There was no punishment upon either of them. The man was forced to pay her bridal price for otherwise her family could never recover the lost money. The marriage was obligatory upon the man if the parents approved it."

There was clearly a punishment and requirement placed on the male. Women having no choice to pick and choose men like today had no say. It is clear in the Bible that women had shame placed upon them if not married. Men having sex with a woman was required to take her in marriage. My opponent reads the words but simply ignores it or chooses to make a lite case on its texture. God is establishing that men and women should be married.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

"28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;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."

Exodus 22:16

"16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife."

First, in Exodus we see that the text does not include virgin. Second, we should define maid and damsel.

Maid

1. a. An unmarried girl or woman. b. A virgin.

2. A woman servant.


3.
A housemaid or chambermaid.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Damsel

1. A young woman or girl; a maiden.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

We can assume that most women got married and did not wait for too long but some may have. Women married young then and we can see that a damsel has no link to a virgin. These two verses above is infact addressing virgins and non-virgins. We can also consider that a unmarried woman would still have these titles even when exceeding marrying age. My opponent must show that all non-married women are not damsel's and maid's. From these verses we see a requirement is placed on the man for lying with a woman. If non-marital sex was not sinful then why would God want men and women to marry and not commit adultery?

"There is no passage that speaks against males, whether single or married, having sex with an unattached female."

My opponent ignores the requirements in Exodus and 1 Corinthians. He even further suggest that adultery is not a sin also, which makes me question his whole understanding of the Bible.

My opponents links do not work but that is not surprising, he wants us to be deaf, dumb and blind. My opponent has run out of material because instead of addressing the rest of my passages in round 1, he ignores them completely and repeats his argument again.

Porneiva-

illicit sexual intercourse; adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18 sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11, metaph. the worship of idols of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols.

http://www.biblestudytools.com......

My opponent has not refuted this link or source of Porneiva, validating my position. My opponent then goes on with the same thing and showing that Paul is saying that people should get their own woman and man, marriage.

I would like to address some more passages from my round 1.

Genesis 2:24-25

"24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."

Here we see from the very beginning of the Bible that God has commanded that a man leave his mother and cleave unto his wife. God has given the language of husband and wife. God has made one male and one female. God has commanded that this ritual shall be continued. God has shown that marriage was His intention, as sex, and children. Therefore showing that sex outside of this relationship set forth by God is unnatural and deemed unintended, hence sinful.

Corinthians 6:9,10

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

What does my opponent think this passage is referring? It is not fully about adulterers, or idolaters, or sodomites, or homosexuals but also fornicators. I have established that fornicators are people outside of marriage and in this passage we see that the other definitions of fornication is also included. This leaves pre-marital sex as the obvious target here.

My opponent is stumbling fast. He is repeating his argument and dodging other verses. He told us a lie last round and said he would address all my verses and didn't. He is just doing verbal gymnastics, trying to sound convincing but actually he is confusing. He is making my argument for me. I await my opponents next round.

Debate Round No. 3
SavedByChrist94

Pro

"I feel like my opponent is making my case for me and let me show why. He quotes, "let every man have sex with his own woman, not with a temple prostitute." It is obvious my opponent does not understand what marriage is and specifically defines it moderately."

Nope, I clearly understand what marriage is, problem is, marriage isn't mentioned in this verse, Sorry but you can't run away from this, you have to refute it, otherwise you lose(according to Rules)

Another reason that people have misunderstood 1 Corinthains 7:2 is the failure to translate "have one's wife or husband" [citation needed]accurately. It means to have sex or be in a sexual relationship with someone. It doesn't mean "get a wife, so you won't have sex before marriage." Paul was saying "let every man have sex with his own woman, not with a temple prostitute." Several commentaries bring out these points:

http://www.enduringword.com......;[404 - file or directory not found]
The New International Commentary on the New Testament by Gordon D. Fee
John Gill's Exposition of the Bible (first Corinthians 7:2)

Only a couple of translations have made the meaning clear for us, the NetBible being an example. Here is their note on this:

"Grk “each man should have his own wife.” “Have” in this context means “have marital relations with” (see the following verse). The verb O52;χ^1;τω (ecetw, “have”) occurs twice in the Greek text, but has not been repeated in the translation for stylistic reasons. This verb occurs 8 times in the LXX (Exod 2:1; Deut 28:30; 2 Chr 11:21; 1 Esd 9:12, 18; Tob 3:8; Isa 13:16; 54:1) with the meaning “have sexual relations with,” and 9 times elsewhere in the NT with the same meaning (Matt 20:23; 22:28; Mark 6:18; 12:33; Luke 20:28; John 4:18 [twice]; 1 Cor 5:1; 7:29)." [citation needed]

Richard suggests that Strong's dictionary defines porneia as "all forms of sexual acts that are not within the confines of marriage" when in fact it doesn't say that at all. As evidenced in Deuteronomy 22:14, when a man paid a bridal price for a girl, she was considered his wife from that day forward; it might be over a year later before they had the marriage feast and he took her as his bride. If this betrothed girl, his legal wife, had sex before her wedding day, she was guilty of a type of adultery and suffered the consequences. Comparing that situation to Exodus 22:16-17, sex with an unbetrothed virgin, the Bible clearly teaches that pre-marital sex is not a sin. There was no punishment upon either of them. The man was forced to pay her bridal price for otherwise her family could never recover the lost money. The marriage was obligatory upon the man if the parents approved it.

My opponent must refute that in order to win the debate, as RULES state, whether opponent likes it or not, rules are(which he agreed to), "Post every single proof verse against Pre-marital sex, I refute it and then you refute my rebuttals, and it goes back and forth until rounds are over or there's a winning."

Refute that ^ otherwise you lose.

My opponent mentions Marriage again and again and yet marriage ain't in this text, as proven from Greek, in order for my opponent to claim marriage he must refute everything proven above with no opinions, assertions, or "atheistic" bs.

" Because it is considered fornication, which is clearly a sin."

Again, you fail to refute the previous verse and the Fact that 1 Corinthians 6 and 7 mention temple prostitution, heck Matthew 19:9 states from Jesus Christ who is God Himself,

"9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

So according to my opponent if the word Porneia means premarital sex, Matt 19:9 is rendered as,

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for premarital sex, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery"


That makes absolutely no sense, obviously the word Porneias means AT LEAST something else than Premarital sex, Sexual Immorality or AS PAUL SAID in 1 Corinthians , Prostitution.

Even the word fornication stems from the word Fornix! meaning "arch", supposedly as a euphemism for "brothel", come on now, obviously Sexual Immorality or as Paul proves Prostitution.

Your choice, believe in Jesus Christ and Paul(Inspiired by The Holy Spirit) who says it means Sexual Immorality or Prostitution, or believe in my opponent and his satan to an unproven "premarital sex"

Keep in mind, Jesus Christ, The Holy Spirit and Paul proved it means Prostitution or Sexual Immorality, not me.



"

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

"28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;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.""

Again a bride price is given, back then in Old Culture Law(which Paul is against, ie, Circumcision and advising people who are not married to have sex, 1 Corinthians 7:2)

Use of verse dismissed.


"My opponent ignores the requirements in Exodus and 1 Corinthians. He even further suggest that adultery is not a sin also, which makes me question his whole understanding of the Bible."

Mistake by me copying and pasting the whole thing, I actually disagree with that part, Cheating(Adultery) is a sin for everyone, argument refuted.

"My opponents links do not work but that is not surprising, he wants us to be deaf, dumb and blind. My opponent has run out of material because instead of addressing the rest of my passages in round 1, he ignores them completely and repeats his argument again."

Get out of here, clearly said I have no more space, 8000's the limit.

Notice Corinthians 6:9,10 doesn't translate prostitution? Yet YHWH is against Prostitution, Porneia is Prostitution therefore Condemned here

""24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.""

Notice it says the Man and His Wife, why not Husband and Wife?

Also the hebrew word for wife here is ishshah which can mean, woman, since it's translated man instead of husband, we have Man and Woman, also notice NO Covenant or Ceremony is listed, satan is doomed folks.

" My opponent then goes on with the same thing and showing that Paul is saying that people should get their own woman and man, marriage."

Lo and behold you agree that I showed that paul said people should get their own woman and man, and I quote, " showing that Paul is saying that people should get their own woman and man, marriage.""

1, How does their own woman and own man mean marriage? it can mean boyfriend/girlfriend as well

2, My Opponent absolutely kills himself here by admitting that I proved people should get their own woman and man, woman and man doesn't mean Wife or Man,

AND I quote from previous round, "showing that Paul is saying that people should get their own woman and man, marriage." as I proved, therefore it can be Boyfriend/Girlfriend, aka, Unmarried, my opponent agrees that I proved it's Man and Woman and then assumes it means, "marriage", he assumes that man and woman mean marriage, however unless it's proven to mean Wife or Husband, he has no argument and killed himself in this debate, no reason to take his deceptions from satan serious.

My opponent has lost and satan's oppression has lost.

Pennington

Con

Thanks Pro.

My opponent obviously missed the whole purpose of showing what marriage is. Marriage is a intimate union between a man and woman. If my opponent wanted typical meanings for marriage he should have said so. I contend that marriage in those days was nothing more than a man taking a woman as his woman. These intimate human relationships are considered forms of marriage by the context of the Bible.

I have refuted my opponent, it is that simple. One can not help when someone refuses to accept they are mistaken.

1 Corinthians 7:2 in Greek,

διP48; because of

δP50; however

πορνε^3;ας sexual immorality,

O57;καστος each

τP52;ν one

O53;αυτοQ66; of himself

γυναQ50;κα wife

O52;χ^1;τω let have, http://biblos.com...

Wife is clearly refereed here and furthermore is distinctive of marriage. My opponent must justify his translation. It is clear that Paul is saying take your own wife and own husband and have not sex outside that union. My opponents link here has failed yet again.

"have one's wife or husband"

Considering that my opponents own copy & paste with no link refers to husband and wife shows his mistake, they also imply marriage. His own source says, "each man should have sexual relations with his own wife."

"let every man have sex with his own woman, not with a temple prostitute."

My opponent has no justification nor does his no link source, for removing wife for woman from the Greek translation. The meaning of woman is, "from and for man", signaling marriage again. Therefore the use of woman in a relationship means wife. http://www.etymonline.com...

As for the word Porneia, my opponent has shown nothing meaningful and he really thinks he has. I have shown it has always meant fornication or immoral sexual relations. But what type of sexual acts is it referring? My opponent says just prostitution but I think he is wrong.

"Porneia, which is relatively rare in classical Greek (Moulton-Milligan), originally stood for "prostitution" ... In other, later contexts it denotes "unchasity, illicit sexual relations" of any kind ("fornication" is a somewhat archaic but common translation)." [The Complete Biblical Library].

Porneia (fornication) "is used of illicit sexual intercourse…." [W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words] http://lavistachurchofchrist.org...

Furthermore my opponent did not even address that in Greek the word for 'Harlot' is 'Porne', which were pornography came from, and is used here. 'Porneuo' which is to prostitute one's body to the lust of another, is also used. These words describe a harlot or prostitute. How can my opponent assume that Porneia is used for prostitution when we have the words for prostitution? I have shown the definition of Porneia and does not include Prostitution. http://www.biblestudytools.com...

"It is apparent that in Jesus' day sexual activity with a person one is not married to would meet the definition of porneia. A man and woman who are physically intimate with one another and are having or simulating sexual relations would easily fit the definition and standard use of porneia in Jesus' time. To be physically intimate with someone not your mate, making physical contact with another person in a sexual way, is sinful porneia and defiles marriage ( Hebrews 13:4). It destroys and betrays the trust so necessary for marriage to continue and thus would be a scriptural cause for the exercise of Matthew 19:9." http://static.justchristians.com...

My opponent claims that marriage is not in the context but husband and wife are. Do not husband and wife signal marriage here? My opponent claims I assert, I offer evidence as you can see and it is my opponent who uses assertions and no resources. My opponent further never addresses my point about 1 Corinthians 7, it starts with Paul addressing the questions of the Corinthians and not temple prostitution at all. I established that Paul was starting at a new point in the letter.

"9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

I have shown that fornication means multiple things and this seems to be my opponents problem. He looks at one meaning and throws out all the rest. Fornication means adultery also unless so identified by itself. It is identified here and clearly shows to be talking about adultery. I never claimed that Fornication only means pre-marital sex.

"Again a bride price is given, back then in Old Culture Law(which Paul is against, ie, Circumcision and advising people who are not married to have sex, 1 Corinthians 7:2)"

My opponent admits that a price is given for a woman by a man who sleeps with her and he must take her as his wife. He then suggest Paul advises people to have sex, Pros interpretation is distorted.

"7 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

Paul starting a new context here by saying, "Now concerning". Paul clearly advising no sex when he says, "not to touch a woman." He then advises them to marry instead of being in fornication. This further increases my case by Paul telling men not to touch women but to marry them. It also shows that Paul was directly referring to pre-marital sex.

He then says he refutes my argument by clearing up he made a mistake but ignores the passages given. He thinks he can just ignore what he doesn't want to talk about and just focus on what he wants to discuss but it don't work that way. He must stay on topic and address all my points. He needs not to complain about not enough space or make excuses for not approaching my full argument. I agree that God is against prostitution. I have already shown that woman means wife.

"notice NO Covenant or Ceremony is listed"

Well actually there is ceremony and ritual by God and He tells us here:

"24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

"1, How does their own woman and own man mean marriage? it can mean boyfriend/girlfriend as well"

My opponent should show anywhere in the Bible it talks about boyfriends or girlfriends. He should show any acceptable sexual relationship outside of marriage that is shown any positive light in the Bible.

"2, My Opponent absolutely kills himself here by admitting that I proved people should get their own woman and man, woman and man doesn't mean Wife or Man,"

My opponent is mistaken, woman means wife.

My opponent fails. He must convince us without a doubt his resolution is true but I just don't see it. I send it back to him.

Debate Round No. 4
SavedByChrist94

Pro


"Paul clearly advising no sex when he says, "not to touch a woman."

Actually no, that's not Paul, that's who Paul is replying to, do not deceive,

KJV, Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me:(Now what you wrote to me, notice semicolon) It is good for a man not to touch a woman.(What The Guy wrote)

NIV - Now for the matters you wrote about:It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.

Again Quotations, NO translator translates this as if Paul says it, all major translations translate it as someone else saying it and Paul refuting it

ESV Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

It's in quotes as that is what the recipent of the letter says, Paul replys to it with 1 Corinthians 7:2,

Paul's Reply is, 1 Corinthians 7:2 διP48; δP50; τP48;ς πορνε^3;ας O57;καστος τP52;ν O53;αυτοQ66; γυναQ50;κα O52;χ^1;τω, καP54; O53;κ^0;στη τP56;ν O88;διον O40;νδρα O52;χ^1;τω. Which as proven means Have Sexual Relations with your own woman(and you agreed it means woman in round 3 that's where you lost the debate)

Even the King James version messed up, they translated the word But and Now concerning for "nevertheless" when the word δε is But as a However or Rebuttal.

"Well actually there is ceremony and ritual by God and He tells us here:

"24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.""


Actually no, again No Covenant is listed, When YHWH says They shall be one flesh and he shall cleave unto his wife, he means sex, Proof? 1 Corinthians 6: 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”

It's Sex! you have been Refuted.

. He should show any acceptable sexual relationship outside of marriage that is shown any positive light in the Bible.

Songs of Solomon
http://www.dubiousdisciple.com...

"My opponent obviously missed the whole purpose of showing what marriage is. Marriage is a intimate union between a man and woman. If my opponent wanted typical meanings for marriage he should have said so. I contend that marriage in those days was nothing more than a man taking a woman as his woman. These intimate human relationships are considered forms of marriage by the context of the Bible."

So according to my opponent, any sex in a relationship isn't a sin, I can have a girlfriend right now and have sex with her if I want to, I believe Promiscuity is a sin, however sex before marriage, EVEN MY OPPONENT agrees isn't a sin, how can one have sex before marriage? according to my opponent, marriage is " I contend that marriage in those days was nothing more than a man taking a woman as his woman." so Boyfriend taking girlfriend as his woman/girl according to him is a marriage, so my opponent has no argument and even Admits a marriage doesn't need a ceremony. for this reason, since marriage doesn't need a ceremony, and boyfriend/girlfriend can have sex, my opponent again, kills himself and his entire argument, premarital sex isn't a sin, as my opponent says Marriage can be Boyfriend/Girlfriend, so Pre-marital sex is impossible, as my opponent agrees that anyone in an intimate relationship is considered married, all my opponent can go against is Promiscuity.

he has been refuted

"

1 Corinthians 7:2 in Greek,

διP48; because of

δP50; however

πορνε^3;ας sexual immorality,

O57;καστος each

τP52;ν one

O53;αυτοQ66; of himself

γυναQ50;κα wife

O52;χ^1;τω let have, http://biblos.com......
"

Nope, notice my opponent uses Biblos CHART which cuts some words, lets use THE ENTIRE SENTENCE of 1 Corinthians 7:2,

SBL Greek New Testament - διP48; δP50; τP48;ς πορνε^3;ας O57;καστος τP52;ν O53;αυτοQ66; γυναQ50;κα O52;χ^1;τω, καP54; O53;κ^0;στη τP56;ν O88;διον O40;νδρα O52;χ^1;τω.

1894 Scrivener New Testament - δια δε τας πορνειας εκαστος την εαυτου γυναικα εχετω και εκαστη τον ιδιον ανδρα εχετω

1881 Westcott-Hort - δια δε τας πορνειας εκαστος την εαυτου γυναικα εχετω και εκαστη τον ιδιον ανδρα εχετω


All with sources even the layman can understand,

δια - through, on account of - http://biblesuite.com...

δε - but, on the other hand, and http://biblesuite.com...

τας - the - http://biblesuite.com...

πορνειας - Porneia which 1 Corinthians 6 makes this whoredom as opponent failed to refute - http://biblesuite.com...

εκαστος - each, every one - http://biblesuite.com...

την - the - http://biblesuite.com...

εαυτου - himself, herself, itself - http://biblesuite.com...

γυναικα - a woman, wife, my lady - http://biblesuite.com...

εχετω - have - http://biblesuite.com...

και - and, even, also, namely - http://biblesuite.com...

εκαστη - each -http://biblesuite.com...

τον - the - http://biblesuite.com...

ιδιον - one's own, private, personal - http://biblesuite.com...

ανδρα - a male human being, a man - http://biblesuite.com...

εχετω - have - http://biblesuite.com...

Easy to understand, all with links for proof for definitions and wording, 3 different versions of greek no words taken out, all words included(Look up any Greek of 1 Corinthians 7:2, I missed 0 words)

"Grk “each man should have his own wife.” “Have” in this context means “have marital relations with” (see the following verse). The verb O52;χ^1;τω (ecetw, “have”) occurs twice in the Greek text, but has not been repeated in the translation for stylistic reasons. This verb occurs 8 times in the LXX (Exod 2:1; Deut 28:30; 2 Chr 11:21; 1 Esd 9:12, 18; Tob 3:8; Isa 13:16; 54:1) with the meaning “have sexual relations with,” and 9 times elsewhere in the NT with the same meaning (Matt 20:23; 22:28; Mark 6:18; 12:33; Luke 20:28; John 4:18 [twice]; 1 Cor 5:1; 7:29)." [

All verses with have twice, meaning Sexual Relationa and all those verses are Proof, if 1 Corinthians 7:2 is not Sexual Relations and is instead marriage then my opponent must refute the following LXX(Septuagint Translation) and New Testment verses which all have the same grammar, Exod 2:1; Deut 28:30; 2 Chr 11:21; 1 Esd 9:12, 18; Tob 3:8; Isa 13:16; 54:1 and Matt 20:23; 22:28; Mark 6:18; 12:33; Luke 20:28; John 4:18 [twice]; 1 Cor 5:1; 7:29)


"My opponent has no justification nor does his no link source, for removing wife for woman from the Greek translation. The meaning of woman is, "from and for man", signaling marriage again. Therefore the use of woman in a relationship means wife. http://www.etymonline.com...;

My opponent again, Kills himself as earlier in Round 4 he Agreed that it means Man and Woman,

he agrees it's man and woman, man and woman aren't Husband and Wife, they have distinct meanings thus, my opponent loses, argument dismissed, I'll post again,

" My opponent then goes on with the same thing and showing that Paul is saying that people should get their own woman and man, marriage."

Lo and behold you agree that I showed that paul said people should get their own woman and man, and I quote, " showing that Paul is saying that people should get their own woman and man, marriage.""

1, How does their own woman and own man mean marriage? it can mean boyfriend/girlfriend as well

2, My Opponent absolutely kills himself here by admitting that I proved people should get their own woman and man, woman and man doesn't mean Wife or Man,

AND I quote from previous round, "showing that Paul is saying that people should get their own woman and man, marriage." as I proved, therefore it can be Boyfriend/Girlfriend, aka, Unmarried, my opponent agrees that I proved it's Man and Woman and then assumes it means, "marriage", he assumes that man and woman mean marriage, however unless it's proven to mean Wife or Husband, he has no argument and killed himself in this debate.

My opponent killed his own argument and refuted himself and satan has lost, Vote Pro, enjoy the sex YHWH made, don't be promiscuous and harm others, have safe sex, and love YHWH, remember The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit made Sex.
Pennington

Con

Thank you Pro for your last round.

1 Corinthians 7

King James Version (KJV)

"7 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

I should give a proper interpretation of the wording used here. If my opponent is right and the Corinthians asked "It is good for a man not to touch a woman," then why does it not have question mark at the end(like so)? Why does it not have the statement in parenthesis? Also, if one asked a question then it would began with 'Is it' not 'It is', 'It is' is a statement not a question. The colon mark shows that Paul was addressing the question(unwritten here), with a answer. The next verse starts with 'nevertheless' linking it to another statement made. Where is the statement if 'it is good a man not to touch a woman' is not it? Nope, my opponent is wrong, This is a statement made by Paul to the Corinthians and verse 2 connects to that statement with 'nevertheless'.

My opponent said, "NO translator translates this as if Paul says it", well I found many that do and here they are:

http://www.christnotes.org... http://www.spiritandtruth.org... http://barnes.biblecommenter.com...

Let's say that he is right, does this change or make sex without marriage not a sin? No! This is semantics. Even if Pro is correct in this instance, Paul still tells them to get married to avoid fornication. These verses connects pre-marital sex to fornication.

"24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.""

My opponent claims no covenant is listed but was a covenant listed for original sin and its consequences? No, a statement by God was made, this was a commandment to Adam. Are we to say that God made a commandment to Adam which is the man and not to all men? This verse kills my opponents whole case, God shows the desire and design by him for a man and woman to be together, in marriage, to have children, and to stay one flesh.

He says that 'one flesh' means sex but that is incorrect. A family is considered one body and therefore this is the means in this context, 'a man shall leave his first family and begin his own and they shall be one flesh, one body, a new family.' http://www.barrybiblicalnotes.com...

"Ephesians 5:23, "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body."

My opponent distorts the meaning of marriage and the body of Christ. As Christ is the head of the body and the Church is the body, we are one flesh with Christ. Is my opponent suggesting that Jesus refers to sex? Is Jesus saying that He and the church will have sex? Or can we be with other religions and not be apart of that marriage with Him? My opponents thinking is flawed. In 1 Corinthians 6:16, my opponent suggest it is talking about just sex but it is much more. In 1 Corinthians 6:16, it is describing that someone for Jesus is one flesh with him but one who fornicates with a whore is one flesh with the whore and not Christ. In Corinthians it is reminding them of their wives and Christ and that they are one flesh with them(which is pure), but if they choose to have sex with a prostitute then they are one flesh with corrupted flesh. http://www.bible.ca...

My opponent offers us a link that supposedly shows pre-martial sex as a positive, well lets look at the link:

I quote, "you may write your own ending, to match your own religious standards!"

A kind of odd statement when trying to find truth, 'just make your own.' Let's just look at the standard version of interpretation:

Barnes' Notes on Song of Solomon 8:8

A brief dialogue commencing with a question and answer probably made by brothers of the bride concerning a younger sister who will soon be old enough to be asked in marriage. The answer is given in the form of a parable: "If she be a wall," i. e., steadfast in chastity and virtue, one on whom no light advances can be made, then let us honor and reward her. This fortress-wall shall be crowned as it were with a tower or battlement of silver. But "if she be a door," light-minded and accessible to seduction Proverbs 7:11-12, then let us provide against assailants the protection of a cedar bar or panel.

Wesley's Notes on Song of Solomon 8:8

8:8 We - These are still the words of the bride. The present church, which was that of the Jews, speaks of a future church, which was to consist of the Gentiles, which she calls little, because she was the younger sister, and then scarce had a being; and she calls her sister to intimate that the Gentile - church should be admitted to the same privileges with the Jews. She hath - No grown and full breasts, as virgin have when they are ripe for marriage. http://www.godvine.com...

Neither talks about anything my opponent is suggesting. No where is it suggesting pre-marital sex and in fact says to lock up the girl that is easy to be seduced.
My opponent seems stuck on today's version of getting married but that is not what marriage is throughout history. I can take a woman, live with her and have children with her, but never go to a court and marry her, I am still considered married to her by common-law. The Bible makes it clear to devote yourself to one woman and only one. This devotion to another is marriage regardless of how we see marriage today. My opponent also never shows us one time in the Bible that boyfriends and girlfriends are mentioned. Furthermore my opponent never gives us any definition of marriage from the Bible. The Bible simply considered marriage as a man and woman who made a commitment to one another for life, as one flesh.

MAN- (1) : an individual human; especially : an adult male human (2) : a man belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combination man> (3) : husband (4) : lover http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Woman- 5- a chiefly dialect : wife b : mistress c : girlfriend 2 http://www.merriam-webster.com...

In fact a man and woman do mean husband and wife.

Pro says that Porneia is the word used in 1 Corinthians 6 but it derives from two different words in Hebrew, Taznuth and Zanah. The Hebrew " taznuth " and the Greek " Porneia " do have several meanings.

Taznuth: fornication http://biblesuite.com...

Zanah: to commit fornication, be a harlot http://biblesuite.com...

Porneia is not used but once in 1 Corinthians 6. The other words used in 1 Corinthians 6 in Greek for fornication or sexually immoral or harlot or homosexuals are: Porne-Harlot, Pornoi-whoremongers and fornicators, Arsenokoitai-homosexuals, and Pornes- members of harlots. Only once is Porneia actually presented in 1 Corinthians 6 and it is used for sexual immorality. It is easy to see that if Porneia was for Harlots then it would been used several times. I have shown multiple words used for Harlot, Prostitute and whoremongers, none are Porneia. Matter of fact a harlot, whore or prostitute are not just for standing on the corner women but also a promiscuous woman, debasement, or to lower character. http://www.merriam-webster.com..., http://www.merriam-webster.com..., http://www.biblestudytools.com......

I did not have to prove my case, my opponent needed to show that sex without marriage not a sin. He has not did that. Did he convince you that pre-marital sex is not a sin? If he did then vote for him but if he did not vote for Con. Thanks.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by henryajevans 3 years ago
henryajevans
Is the debate about whether it's a sin like eating shellfish or charging interest on loans, or whether it's actually wrong?
Posted by SavedByChrist94 4 years ago
SavedByChrist94
"Pro tried to win this debate by messing with the bible and creating new contexts for each of the passages provided by trying to change the context altogether. "

How did I change the context? if you don't demonstrate this then you voted out of emotion and blindness, not from reading the argument., I didn't mess with The Bible, that is what my opponent did, I used Jewish Resources and Proper Lexicon and THE ORIGINAL GREEK text, to prove Premarital Sex isn't a sin.
Posted by SavedByChrist94 4 years ago
SavedByChrist94
"Is not rules, it is a statement."

Nope that's an Assumption, it's the rules, if you disagreed with that you should've declined, you accepted so you agree now your changing it, it's like when we take your using KJV as a rule.

"I would have debated you again since I know right where to attack you now but your too rude."

You know right where to attack me? Why do you have to attack? why don't you prove instead of using satans tactics which just raise my OCD.

"You talk Pagan sex cultures and you are driving to the same thing. DUH. Sex cultures who had homosexual, premarital, sodomy, and the such and you are supporting that....wake up."

Actually no Hebrew unless influenced by Greeco-Roman Philosophy takes you serious, you don't have the beliefs of Christianity but of Stoicism and Acetic, of Early Church Father who took platos ideas of sex, who thought sex was for procreation and that women were evil, read it, http://www.Godrules.net...

"You also shatter the body of Christ and Jesus has the husband-bride by suggesting He is tefering to sexual content at all. You flatout deny the exact wording as to each have their own husband and wife. Who is changing the words and meaning. You did not even know man and woman means husband and wife. ON..ON..& On."

You were refuted because I overcame your tactics Thanks to The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit, throw the false doctrines away and get Biblical.
Posted by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
"Post every single proof verse against Pre-marital sex, I refute it and then you refute my rebuttals, and it goes back and forth until rounds are over or there's a winning."

Is not rules, it is a statement.

I would have debated you again since I know right where to attack you now but your too rude. You talk Pagan sex cultures and you are driving to the same thing. DUH. Sex cultures who had homosexual, premarital, sodomy, and the such and you are supporting that....wake up.

You also shatter the body of Christ and Jesus has the husband-bride by suggesting He is tefering to sexual content at all. You flatout deny the exact wording as to each have their own husband and wife. Who is changing the words and meaning. You did not even know man and woman means husband and wife. ON..ON..& On.
Posted by SavedByChrist94 4 years ago
SavedByChrist94
No excuse but to vote Pro, doesn't matter if you don't like me, Vote based on the proof, my side had the proof and facts from YHWH and my opponent had lies and deception from satan.

your choice.
Posted by SavedByChrist94 4 years ago
SavedByChrist94
Almost religions such as "atheism" have some twisted sex doctrine, modern day "Christians" try to impute Greeco-Roman Philosophy into YHWH's Teachings(The Bible) by mistranslations ands pretexts, and pervert it's meaning, I clearly proved that Premarital Sex isn't a sin, my opponent even admitted I was right and refuted himself in the debate,

Also to Pennington
"Post every single proof verse against Pre-marital sex, I refute it and then you refute my rebuttals, and it goes back and forth until rounds are over or there's a winning."

you agreed to those rules

"I care more about you gaining salvation and understanding the Bible properly than winning."

No you don't, if you didn't you wouldn't be a liar and deceiver and continue to debate something in which you admit defeat, you refuted yourself in this debate, and that's good, maybe now you will see you were wrong and hold on to the Correct Doctrine from now on, that being Premarital Sex isn't a sin.
Posted by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
makhdon5, please vote on which one you think won.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
this is called adulteree.
so it is sin in all religion has book.
Posted by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
LOL, You should look up the definition of debate and Instigator, you had to prove your point, not me. I am not losing, neither of us are. You keep saying insults and slanders just like a true Christian would. I care more about you gaining salvation and understanding the Bible properly than winning. You are pitiful. I didn't lose you didn't prove anything at all. I said Proneia was in 1 Corinthians 6, once and it was not used as a whore or prostitute. The meaning was changed, look it up. Matter of fact it is in the debate in my round. Or matter fact what don't you just stop debating after the debate.
Posted by SavedByChrist94 4 years ago
SavedByChrist94
"I did not have to prove my case, my opponent needed to show that sex without marriage not a sin."

Actually no, these were not the rules my opponent agreed to, The Very First round states Clearly, "Post every single proof verse against Pre-marital sex, I refute it and then you refute my rebuttals, and it goes back and forth until rounds are over or there's a winning."

And my opponent agreed to that challenge, changing the rules when he's losing is cowardice and deceptive.

" Did he convince you that pre-marital sex is not a sin? If he did then vote for him but if he did not vote for Con. Thanks."

My Opponent failed bad in this debate, even went as far as to deny the word Porneia in 1 Corinthians 6 when it is clearly there,

13 `4;P48; ^6;`1;a4;_6;^5;`4;^5; `4;Q35; _4;_9;_3;_5;^3;Q15;, _4;^5;P54; O69; _4;_9;_3;_5;^3;^5; `4;_9;Q50;`2; ^6;`1;a4;_6;^5;`3;_3;_7;" P01; ^8;P50; _2;^9;P56;`2; _4;^5;P54; `4;^5;a3;`4;_1;_7; _4;^5;P54; `4;^5;Q66;`4;^5; _4;^5;`4;^5;`1;^7;^2;`3;^9;_3;. `4;P56; ^8;P50; `3;Q82;_6;^5; _9;P16; `4;Q35; HELLO>`0;_9;`1;_7;^9;^3;Q15;<HELLO O36;_5;_5;P48; `4;Q83; _4;`5;`1;^3;Q79;, _4;^5;P54; P01; _4;a3;`1;_3;_9;`2; `4;Q83; `3;a4;_6;^5;`4;_3;"

Even the word Pornieas ryhmes and matches the word for prostitute in 1 Corinthians 6:15, the word is porn&#275;s

1 Corinthians 6:15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be!

My opponent lost this debate, and if he gets votes then people voted biasedly or blindly.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
SavedByChrist94PenningtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to CON for reasons of civility.
Vote Placed by NUMBER_1RED_SOX_FAN 4 years ago
NUMBER_1RED_SOX_FAN
SavedByChrist94PenningtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used the first part of several rounds to critique the version that Con used. He should of spent it debating, not bickering. Pro insulted Con instead of debating. The mark of a coward.
Vote Placed by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
SavedByChrist94PenningtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Stop it qopel.
Vote Placed by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
SavedByChrist94PenningtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: cvb
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
SavedByChrist94PenningtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was notably the more rehearsed in scripture than pro. Pro tried to win this debate by messing with the bible and creating new contexts for each of the passages provided by trying to change the context altogether. Con did a good job refuting this and negated to resolution better than pro affirmed it.