And when something(s) is translated over and over and over, it looses at least a bit of the original meaning.

No the new translations don't more accurately translate. They are a translation of a translation of a translation, ect.

Those "newer" translations are not translations of the original scriptures, they are again translation of a translation of a translation.

KJ isn't directly translated from the original scriptures either, but there is only a couple of translations between it and the original. That is why most to all churches for years used the KJV. Because it is a more directly translated version of the scriptures.

I realize that this discussion has gone off-topic, but I believe that it is worth a reply.

In the early 17th century, England's King James I was the official head of the Church of England. James was power hungry, and he wanted absolute rule over everything including churches. However one thing stood in his way, the Bible that the people of England were using - the Geneva Bible. Regarding the Geneva Bible, Church historian Ernest Trice Thompson writes the following:



When the King James Version was produced, the king outlawed other English versions. As a result, British citizens - including colonists in America - were restricted to using the King James Version.

In short, the KJV gained common use as a result of the politics of the king of England, not because of the KJV's quality.

By the way, there are more than "a couple of translations between it and the original".

[ *Quote from Ernest Trice Thompson, Through The Ages, A History of the Christian Church (Richmond: The CLC Press, 1965), pp. 212-213. ]

I don't have a dog in this fight (my faith has different teachings), but I will point out that the bit about having "already committed adultery" with a woman in one's heart simply by looking at her in a spirit of lust doesn't apply to one's wife. Adultery is defined as a person having sex with someone other than their spouse. If you're fantasizing about your spouse, that can't be adultery, by definition.

Just a note:

I reject the idea that any fantasy or thought a person has can be "judged as a sin" by any church, or "god."

I do understand the power of thoughts, but if any preacher or church began to dictate to me what I can and cannot think about, I would scream CULT! so fast his or her head would spin off.

I agree with you there. Interestingly enough, my particular faith doesn't dictate things to anybody. We don't judge or use the concept of "sin". We expect people to live according to their own conscience, and to find their own path.

I was simply addressing the logical fallacy of something that had been said upthread, because it bugged me and because as someone who was raised devoutly Lutheran (a path I no longer follow), I'm familiar enough with the biblical reference to do so.

Watch out for the Thought-Police,it was here way before "1984"!

Yeah,right!

Sex is a physical capacity, but its exercise is determined by man’s mind—by his choice of values, held consciously or subconsciously. To a rational man, sex is an expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of existence. To the man who lacks self-esteem, sex is an attempt to fake it, to acquire its momentary illusion.

Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire. Such a man (or woman) is incapable of experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values.

Just as an idea unexpressed in physical action is contemptible hypocrisy, so is platonic love—and just as physical action unguided by an idea is a fool’s self-fraud, so is sex when cut off from one’s code of values . . . . Only the man who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire, is capable of the depravity of a desire devoid of love.


The man who despises himself tries to gain self-esteem from sexual adventures—which can’t be done, because sex is not the cause, but an effect and an expression of a man’s sense of his own value . . .

The men who think that wealth comes from material resources and has no intellectual root or meaning, are the men who think—for the same reason—that sex is a physical capacity which functions independently of one’s mind, choice or code of values. They think that your body creates a desire and makes a choice for you just about in some such way as if iron ore transformed itself into railroad rails of its own volition. Love is blind, they say; sex is impervious to reason and mocks the power of all philosophers. But, in fact, a man’s sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself. No matter what corruption he’s taught about the virtue of selflessness, sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act which he cannot perform for any motive but his own enjoyment—just try to think of performing it in a spirit of selfless charity!—an act which is not possible in self-abasement, only in self-exaltation, only in the confidence of being desired and being worthy of desire. It is an act that forces him to stand naked in spirit, as well as in body, and to accept his real ego as his standard of value. He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience—or to fake—a sense of self-esteem . . . . Love is our response to our highest values—and can be nothing else.


The doctrine that man’s sexual capacity belongs to a lower or animal part of his nature . . . is the necessary consequence of the doctrine that man is not an integrated entity, but a being torn apart by two opposite, antagonistic, irreconcilable elements: his body, which is of this earth, and his soul, which is of another, supernatural realm. According to that doctrine, man’s sexual capacity—regardless of how it is exercised or motivated, not merely its abuses, not unfastidious indulgence or promiscuity, but the capacity as such—is sinful or depraved.

Sex is one of the most important aspects of man’s life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important . . . .

[Sex should] involve . . . a very serious relationship. Whether that relationship should or should not become a marriage is a question which depends on the circumstances and the context of the two persons’ lives. I consider marriage a very important institution, but it is important when and if two people have found the person with whom they wish to spend the rest of their lives—a question of which no man or woman can be automatically certain. When one is certain that one’s choice is final, then marriage is, of course, a desirable state. But this does not mean that any relationship based on less than total certainty is improper. I think the question of an affair or a marriage depends on the knowledge and the position of the two persons involved and should be left up to them. Either is moral, provided only that both parties take the relationship seriously and that it is based on values.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sex.html

Once again,I do NOT need the Sanction of some Being up in the Sky,nor the Sanction from a Slip of Paper by some State who has forgotten it's proper function!
I am The Sanction!

Sex is one of the most important aspects of man’s life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important . . . .

[Sex should] involve . . . a very serious relationship. Whether that relationship should or should not become a marriage is a question which depends on the circumstances and the context of the two persons’ lives. I consider marriage a very important institution, but it is important when and if two people have found the person with whom they wish to spend the rest of their lives—a question of which no man or woman can be automatically certain. When one is certain that one’s choice is final, then marriage is, of course, a desirable state. But this does not mean that any relationship based on less than total certainty is improper. I think the question of an affair or a marriage depends on the knowledge and the position of the two persons involved and should be left up to them. Either is moral, provided only that both parties take the relationship seriously and that it is based on values.
good i like ur post everybody hv to understand this

d Bible says its fornicatn and a sin no argument end of story

Its very well known in todays world a man is stimulated by sight.. Women know this or it would not bother them when their man looks at another woman following her with his EYES.

Don't look or try to train yourself. Yahshua was saying Hey when u look at a woman like that what r u thinking?

I have not read the entire thread so this could of been addressed.

whats the difference between Fornication and adultery?

Adultery is having sex with someone who is married. Fornication is having premarital sex. I have had premarital sex with women I intended to marry. I am certain that my sins are forgiven by christ atonement. I haven't had sex for several months so I have repented. I doubt whether I will ever get married and so I may never have sex again but Godwilling I will.

Gods plan for sex is most logical. It's safe, it's a perfect way to respect sex, self and your betrothed.

All STD are a result of disobedience to Gods plan.

If everyone obeyed God in regards to sex, everyone would be with a spouse and be happy and society would be perfect.

We would all be running around naked with our perfect partner in paridise if it weren't for the first man and womans disobedience.

whoooooooeeeeee

Unbelievable

I fully recommend sex before marriage. It would really suck to be married to some lovers out there for life

My thoughts exactly.

read more closely dodo

did God tell adam and eve to sin when he said be fruitful? do you suppose they had a government document to validate their marriage before God? or a traditional ceremony?

or was their 'marriage' a marriage because HE brought them together in commitment to each other and to him?

just as much as I believe Christianity doesn't require a traditional ceremony, but is about the PERSONAL relation with God

I also believe marriage is about a couples personal relation with God,, I believe, biblically, people BECOME ONE, the moment they first have sex,,they become in the spiritual sense husband and wife with the instruction to become one,,,


another example, Jacob lying with LEah made her his wife,, he had no intent, no legal document, no ceremony to declare she was his wife, his action in lying with her MADE HER HIS WIFE,,,

there is nothing specific to either refute or specifically reaffirm my position,, except that I believe Adam and Eve were just as much husband and wife as anyone since who has had legal documents or ceremonies,,,,as were leah and Jacob, without participating together in ANY legal contract or ceremony,, but just by nature of Gods covenant once they laid together,,,

I agree. You don't need THE STATE to verify a marriage. Two people who decide to be committed before God or even just to each other, are MARRIED.