Christopher Hitchens Dies

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

I don’t see this supported anywhere in the text.

[/quote]

Read the first chapter carefully. Note the tense of the verbs.

Read it in several different translations.

She is trying to get him to notice her. She does not appear to be his bride yet. She is competing with the other young women to get his attention.

She even pleads with him not to consider her a prostitute (1:7).
[/quote]
Ch 1 is only 17 verses. She compares herself to others in vs 5. She is self-conscience because of the darkness of her skin. He does extol her beauty in vss 8, encouraging her to be think poorly of herself. These 2 places do not at all suggest they are not married. She is young servant girl, now the bride of the king.

The verb tenses are irrelevant, as the book is a poem, and therefore not necessarily chronological.[/quote]

Read it in context and with the comments I mentioned above in mind.[/quote]
Sorry, in the context of what? The whole book? That wouldn’t change my conclusion. I’ve read over 30 times over the years.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

I don’t see this supported anywhere in the text.

[/quote]

She even pleads with him not to consider her a prostitute (1:7).
[/quote]

Sorry, forgot verse 7 in my list. You are reading too much into this verse in my opinion.[/quote]

Tell me, my love, where are you leading your flock today?
Where will you rest your sheep at noon?
For why should I wander like a prostitute
among your friends and their flocks?

New Living Translation[/quote]
Your joking. Why would I place any value at all on this version. There have been over 200 versions of the English bible put out since 1881. If you’re going to be pulling out every version under the sun, we won’t able to have much of a discussion.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

Sorry, in the context of what? The whole book? That wouldn’t change my conclusion. I’ve read over 30 times over the years.[/quote]

You’re so desperate to maintain that she is his wife that you will NOT allow any other possibilities despite the verbiage of those several verses in ch. 1.[/quote]
I’m not desperate at all. She his called his wife throughout the book.

Well, so far I have much more reason to think she is than that she isn’t/

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The Young Women of Jerusalem (likely his harem, who else would be rooting him on to take her to bed, surely NOT the actual young female citizens of Jerusalem) say in vs 4b:

“How happy we are for you, O king.
We praise your love even more than wine.”

in response to Shulie asking him to have sex with her in 4b:

“Take me with you; come, let?s run!
The king has brought me into his bedroom.”

[/quote]
the word in vs 4 is “love” you are assuming it includes sex, which it certainly doesn’t have to. Also, this verse can just as well be her expression of her hope for the future WITHOUT it being fullfilled til after they are married, like we know they are later.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

I don’t see this supported anywhere in the text.

[/quote]

She even pleads with him not to consider her a prostitute (1:7).
[/quote]

Sorry, forgot verse 7 in my list. You are reading too much into this verse in my opinion.[/quote]

Tell me, my love, where are you leading your flock today?
Where will you rest your sheep at noon?
For why should I wander like a prostitute
among your friends and their flocks?

New Living Translation[/quote]
Your joking. Why would I place any value at all on this version. There have been over 200 versions of the English bible put out since 1881. If you’re going to be pulling out every version under the sun, we won’t able to have much of a discussion.[/quote]

More than one translation uses “prostitute.”

“Veiled one” indicates prostitute in the language of that day. Do more study and less accusations of joking.[/quote]
I think most do not use prostitute. “as one veiled” only means she is a prostitute? Whose scholarly opinion is that?

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

Sorry, in the context of what? The whole book? That wouldn’t change my conclusion. I’ve read over 30 times over the years.[/quote]

You’re so desperate to maintain that she is his wife that you will NOT allow any other possibilities despite the verbiage of those several verses in ch. 1.[/quote]
I’m not desperate at all. She his called his wife throughout the book.

[/quote]

Incorrect. Not til chapter 4. Sorry.

Do you have any reason to believe she is his one and only wife so that the Bride of Christ symbolism/analogy comes together?

No, I don’t think so.

So

Do you understand he ALREADY has many wives and girlfriends at this point so the Bride of Christ symbolism/analogy does NOT come together?[/quote]
We know Solomon later had many wives. At the time S of S was written she was the only one. the text does not really indicate anything else. Your opinion is speculation beyond what the text says. It’s not good to form doctrine on such speculation.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The Young Women of Jerusalem (likely his harem, who else would be rooting him on to take her to bed, surely NOT the actual young female citizens of Jerusalem) say in vs 4b:

“How happy we are for you, O king.
We praise your love even more than wine.”

in response to Shulie asking him to have sex with her in 4b:

“Take me with you; come, let’s run!
The king has brought me into his bedroom.”

[/quote]
the word in vs 4 is “love” you are assuming it includes sex, which it certainly doesn’t have to. Also, this verse can just as well be her expression of her hope for the future WITHOUT it being fullfilled til after they are married, like we know they are later.[/quote]

C’mon man, don’t do this to yourself. Anyone can tell that “Take me with you; come, let’s run! The king has brought me into his bedroom” is talking about romping in the hay ESPECIALLY when you look at the other sex references in the book.
[/quote]
I didn’t say it doesn’t. My point was it doesn’t mean they actually had sex before they were married.

I will try to read the other thread, even though it’s 27 pages.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Chen, you also need to read this thread: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/religious_controversies_manwoman_equality?id=3882691&pageNo=0

I don’t need to rehash all this all over again when I put hours and hours and hours into all of this before.[/quote]I agree. Simple version. God created one man and one woman in the beginning and used singulars everywhere to describe the members of that institution. After the entrance of sin all areas of humanity including sexuality and marriage fell into degraded states at best. God’s inclusion of that whole age from Genesis 3 to the 2nd chapter of Acts in His providential plan of salvation is not to be understood as a lasting endorsement. He commanded circumcision of Abraham and then had Paul denounce the practice in the context of new covenant (actually eternal covenant) grace.

He instituted the Sabbath under the law and then Jesus comes along and denounces the pharisees for doing EXACTLY what was commanded because they did not understand the intent God had in it.

The new testament, in which Christ is called “the last Adam” (1st Corinthians 15) not only restored, but exalted marriage far above even it’s original beauty as the image of Christ and His Church as Paul clearly states in the 5th of Ephesians. Singulars are again everywhere used to describe it’s members. Even in the old though when marriage is dealt with on a deep spiritual level it is singular. In the 31st chapter of Proverbs where the good and virtuous wife is described it is singular. When God tells us of His hatred of divorce and His rejection of Israel’s offering’s He cites as his reason their having dealt treacherously with the “wiFE” of their youth. Singular. In a nutshell.

The bible must be studied as a systematic whole to gain an understanding of it’s major doctrines and practices. On one level the life or death message can be conveyed in a few sentences. On another, 100 lifetimes wouldn’t be enough to grasp everything. Most blessedly God has raised up righteous reverent faithful (and brilliant) men since the first century to collectively offer to us a vaaaaaaast store house of sound scriptural scholarship and high devotional praise and worship.

Every last one, bar none, has agreed on the biblical view of sex, family and marriage that emerges from a SYSTEMATIC feeding on the whole bread of life, the Word of God, the scriptures. One must believe that millions and millions of faithful, committed believers. Surgically precise students of the bible, over centuries and centuries, some of whom went to their martyred death singing praise to their God through the torture and flames, ALLLLL got it wrong until a godless lecherous pervert wrote a paperback book in 2002 that will appeal only to other godless lecherous perverts.

I do not have time to go over all this again. The bible can be made to say literally anything. That’s why God has so providentially given us a consensus on the major doctrines and practices so that the saints have a safety net provided by God Himself. It’s never been needed more to which discussions like this do so manifestly attest. It goes like this. “If at this late date I come up something major nobody else has… I’m wrong… period”. Cults and damnable heresies are born when this “analogy of the faith” is abandoned. The pagans will side with Push which should be a telling sign to him, but won’t.

I want this man on my side. Before my God I tell you people I do. If however you believe that his posting history is a representation of looooooong loooooost gospel truth then God help you.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

Your opinion is speculation beyond what the text says. It’s not good to form doctrine on such speculation.[/quote]

Read your history, Chen, and definitely don’t lecture me on speculating when that is precisely what you’re doing.

It is laughable to maintain that she is his only wife at that point.[/quote]

Dude, I’ve read plenty of the history of Israel as well as that period. Who is lecturing, just having a discussion. I think your position is wrong. I have not speculated. I have formed a conclusion based on what the text says. I have not added or taken away.