Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

non-ifb Song of solomon discussion


Recommended Posts

  • Members

@jerry#, I can promise you I have never read a romance novel, Christian or other...

@jerry, He calls her his bride (Spouse) in Chapter 4:8 right after describing her "features". You seem to want to hold onto the 'engaged' reference, but unwilling to accept the 'spouse' reference. The last verse of Chapter 4 and the first verse of Chapter 5 are pretty clear on their intended meaning. Again, this is not supposed to be erotica (as you put it), but it certainly describes the kind of eros love that happens between two people on their wedding night. Noone is making the claim that the whole book is about sex, but certainly there is a sexual element to the book. Perhaps it would be better said that there are descriptions of a highly passionate relationship.

About those streams... Proverbs 5: 15-19 also use the same imagery to describe sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Dwayner, good posts. Same to trc and Annie. Jerry and Jerry#s, why is that you are so quick to support commentaries by others, yet deny what is right in front of you in the scriptures? I don't get it. for the most part, you are two of the most biblically sound guys around here, but you are off base on this one. 2 Timothy 2:15, as mentioned by Jerry#s, says to study to show yourself approved.......it's talking about studying the bible, not Spurgeon or anyone else. They are married in the fourth chapter and there are certainly sexual references made in the SoS. The many passages you quoted Jerry, could not be talking about an unmarried couple as the descriptions given are entirely unappropriate for an unmarried couple.

God Bless to all and happy studying.

Futurehope

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The church (including individual Christians) is referred to as the Bride of Christ, yet we are not married to Him yet.

Thank you, Dwayner, for one parallel reference. Can you give some more cross-references, please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I study the Bible. I read commentaries to help me dig in deeper. The particular preachers/commentators I referred to would be considered by many here to be pretty sound overall, and their points fit in with the rest of the whole Bible. In all my years on these boards, Dwayner is the first person to actually give a cross-reference to support the view that sex is related in the SoS. I have heard many people say that - but if you want me to back up my view, it is reasonable to expect the other side to do so as well. We are not here to push our views on the Bible, but to dig in and see what the Bible actually says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And I am happy to do so, but cross references aren't the end all be all of Bible study. Nothing determines meaning more than the immediate context. There are plenty of places where scripture uses a word or phrase once one time and differently other times. The immediate context makes it clear as to the meaning. In this case, if we did a proper word study on the streams references we would find all the possible meanings throughout scripture, see if there are any others in ancient literature on how that word or phrase is used, and then look at the immediate context to determine its meaning. As shown, sexual reference is a possible meaning, and the immediate context is pretty clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As shown, sexual reference is a possible meaning, and the immediate context is pretty clear.

Not to everyone, or we wouldn't be debating this topic. The best way to determine what God means by a symbol is to see how it is used elsewhere in the Bible, not in extrabiblical literature - that won't help at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am not saying it is wrong to teach children about sex in an appropriate environment - but if the Song of Solomon is about sex, then it would be inappropriate for children to read, unlike the rest of the Bible. Sure, there are other parts they would not understand yet - but no other parts we would refuse them from reading. I would have serious prOBlems with my 6 or 7 year old (for example, if I had one) reading about sex within a marriage when they are not yet old enough to even understand that aspect of marriage.


I wanted to address this comment because there are plenty of passages in the Bible that might be deemed "inappropriate" by some. When handled with maturity and explanations for a child's mental level, they really aren't a prOBlem.

You wouldn't want your 6 or 7 year old reading SofS if it is talking about intimacy? What about the passages that describe forced circumcision... men urinating against a wall... the abuse and brutality against the concubine in Judges... or this phrase, "bruise the teats of her virginity"? What would you say when a child asks you what a concubine was - like my child asked me just today? I remember a child innocently asking her father what "pissing against the wall" meant and he about turned himself inside out from embarrassment.

I'm not saying we should be graphic but IFBs have a harmful mentality that anything related to sex or body parts is something to be shunned in discussion, something to be embarrassed about, something to avoid.

If a married couple has a loving relationship already, it will show in front of their children. It isn't a difficult jump to explain to a child that the SofS is describing the kind of love that is between a man and a woman and that it is sacred and beautiful within marriage. Most kids I know that grew up in such an environment loved that their parents were affectionate to each other and looked forward to the day of their own marriage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I'm curious, which parts of chapter 4 are sexual?

This part?

Song of Solomon 4:1-5 Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead. Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn, which came up from the washing; whereof every one bear twins, and none is barren among them. Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet, and thy speech is comely: thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate within thy locks. Thy neck is like the tower of David builded for an armoury, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men. Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies.

Because it describes her physically, it must be describing sex? That doesn't necessarily follow.


So if it does not include a exact physical desription of sex, it can't be sexual and sensual? So according to you I could tell your wife or daughter that i like the look of her breasts and it is not sexual.

Come on, of course it is intended to be sexual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In various places, the Bible refers to breasts in a non-sexual and non-sensual manner, such as Ezekiel 16 and the following passages:

Isaiah 66:10-11 Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her: That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory.

JOB 21:23-24 One dieth in his full strength, being wholly at ease and quiet. His breasts are full of milk, and his bones are moistened with marrow.

Just because the word "breasts" is mentioned doesn't mean it is referring to sex. The context will determine what is in view - so far no one has any substantial arguments in favour of that position, other than, "Of course it is talking about sex - it is so OBvious. Why can't you see it?" What kind of proof is that? A pervert can run to any passage of the Bible and prOBably twist it to make it refer to something perverse, such as David and Jonathan's friendship - but that is bringing their bias into it. (And NO, I am not saying all people that think the Song of Solomon is sexual are perverts - though I have met some or read quotes from some that certainly were.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

400 years ago (plus 2600 years ago), the word "piss" OBviously was not a crude term. It means the same thing as peeing against the wall - easy to understand. What DOES your modern version say? If the Hebrew says "piss against the wall," I wonder what your version of preference says?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Mine talks about killing all the men, which is what all the versions say, just in a cleaner way than the KJV. :frog:

When it talks about eating dung and drinking piss in Isaiah 36:12, mine says urine. Peronally, I'd rather my kids read the Bible and say, "I have to go urinate" rather than "I have to go piss." But that's just me. :wink

Like it or not, times do change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...