Proverbs 18:22 He who finds a WIFE..

[Tinker Grey]

Anyone else find it interesting that there is no verse that reads: She who findeth a husband findeth a good thing.

 

[Supernaut]

Anyone else find it interesting that there is no verse that reads: She who findeth a husband findeth a good thing.

Perhaps Eugene Peterson can also write a genderless version of the Message. Perhaps also an LGBT friendly version.

 

[Sojourner1]

Excellent post. I'm looking forward to Sojourner1's response.

You rang

That's based on an English reading. The Hebrew is filled with hinted subtext that's mostly translated out. Hebrew writers loved plays on words and double-meanings, and used it especially to speak about sexual matters discreetly. It never says outright, in Hebrew, "They were lovers" but the allusions and hints are glaring. Things like Saul offering his daughter and telling David, "If you marry her, you'll be my son in law, doubly" (in two, by two, or through two.) Their relationship is described using lines taken directly from the genesis description of a marriage, with a word here and there replaced with a synonym.

Any Hebrew reader would have looked at it and gone, "What the heck?"

I guess I will focus on the verse you have quoted since you haven't given any other Biblical reference to look at. The verse you quote is 1 Samuel 18:21...

And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in [the one of] the twain.

Found a good rebuttal for this Was King David Gay?. It explains this specific verse in way more detail then I ever possibly could. It is well worth reading.

Honestly it's hard to believe that God would call David a "man after God's own heart" if David was in homosexual relationship. God specifically address the homosexual act in Leviticus:

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." --Lev. 18:22

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." --Lev. 20:13

If David had slept with Jonathan they both would have been put to death according to the law of God.

 

[Mling]

You rang



I guess I will focus on the verse you have quoted since you haven't given any other Biblical reference to look at. The verse you quote is 1 Samuel 18:21...

And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in [the one of] the twain.

Found a good rebuttal for this Was King David Gay?. It explains this specific verse in way more detail then I ever possibly could. It is well worth reading.

Honestly it's hard to believe that God would call David a "man after God's own heart" if David was in homosexual relationship. God specifically address the homosexual act in Leviticus:

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." --Lev. 18:22

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." --Lev. 20:13

If David had slept with Jonathan they both would have been put to death according to the law of God.

Wow...that article was written by somebody with no understanding of human nature. If you want to actually have this discussion, could *you* please have it, though, rather than repeatedly pointing me to other people to speak for you?

 

[Sojourner1]

Wow...that article was written by somebody with no understanding of human nature. If you want to actually have this discussion, could *you* please have it, though, rather than repeatedly pointing me to other people to speak for you?

You don't agree the article so you claim that the author has no understanding of human nature? The article does a good job refuting your claim that David and Jonathan were in a relationship because of the phrase "in the twain".

 

[Mling]

You don't agree the article so you claim that the author has no understanding of human nature? The article does a good job refuting your claim that David and Jonathan were in a relationship because of the phrase "in the twain".

He bases it on the assumption that son-*in law* is a literal translation, intended to be taken literally by Saul, and interpreted literally by the people he opposes. Saul, David and Jonathon aren't just tools that The Bible uses to communicate with us. They are characters in literature and history. People. People do not always speak literally, and they don't always expose all their motives. The writers explanations completely ignore the possibility of even *slightly* figurative speech. That's why he has no understanding of human nature. Real people don't talk or think the way he describes.

Ultimately, all he really says is that David was not actually Saul's son in law. Of course he wasn't! Of course David wouldn't have *actually* been a member of Saul's house, in a legal sense. Their culture had no formal concept of homosexual marriage. Even if everybody had been on board with the idea, they'd have no way to codify it. I have never seen *anybody* argue that David was actually, literally, Saul's son in law through Jonathon. The point is that Saul characterized it that way.

When Saul is trying to trick David into marrying his daughter, the tactic he uses is to say, "You are already a member of the family," or "I already think of you this way, anyway."

It's the first time he ever says anything like that, and he says it while trying to manipulate David. Personally, I think he was acknowledging the relationship that David had with his son and pretending to be ok with it, in order to give the impression that he loved David and just wanted to secure and formalize his place in the family.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The Bible says: He who finds a WIFE finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD.

Does that mean the the alternative is the opposite? I would say so...

HE who finds a MALE MATE finds what is evil and receives disfavor from the LORD.

Sux to be a heterosexual woman then, huh?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Brieuse,

The Bible doesn't talk about homosexual relationships.

I think men lying with men and men with men instead of women is homosexual rather than heterosexual don’t you, in which case the Bible does talk about what you call homosexual relationships.

 

[brightmorningstar]

The Bible does condemn what people call homosexual relationships because if men with men instead of women isnt a homosexual relationship than it must be heterosexual. This is why discussions on the topic with people who want to support same sex relations is dysfunctional.
Those arguing for same sex relations usually start to systematically and legalistically make their objections to the various passages without any holistic appreciation. Many recognise such an approach as merely disbelief and one big deception, but some are sucked in.
The idea that a homosexual relationship is about love and not necessarily sex is obviously a deception as the relationship is a same sex attraction by definition so the relationship is based on the sex of the people.

 

[Psudopod]

The idea that a homosexual relationship is about love and not necessarily sex is obviously a deception as the relationship is a same sex attraction by definition so the relationship is based on the sex of the people.

BMS, please, please please, do whatever it is you need to do to understand that sex has two meanings -
sex, as in the act, sexual intercourse; and sex as in the identifier male and female.

Then maybe you will stop making comments like the one above.

 

[OllieFranz]

You don't agree the article so you claim that the author has no understanding of human nature? The article does a good job refuting your claim that David and Jonathan were in a relationship because of the phrase "in the twain".

A good job? It has to lie about what the Bible clearly tells us in order to make its case.

From the article:

To begin, had such a marriage indeed taken place between Jonathan and David, that means that Jonathan would have either become a member of David's house, or David would have become a member of Jonathan's house. Since Saul does not want David in power, as is quite clear, and would also presumably want Jonathan to have the throne after him, there is no way Saul would have permitted either scenario.
​

From the Bible:

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.
1 Samuel 18:1-2
​

The article also derides the interpretation of the word "love" as the love between a married couple, saying that the word in Hebrew does not always refer to the love between spouses. As his example, he gives occasions where it is used of God's love for Israel, conveniently forgetting all the other occasions where Israel is called His bride.

 

[Sojourner1]

The same hebrew word for "love" or "loved" is used in the following verses as well. Would it be your interpretation then that Hiram and David also had a homosexual relationship? How is it that the same word is used to describe the love of Israel and Judah for David? Was Saul saying that all his servants had homosexual feelings for David? He must have, because the same word "love" is used in that verse as well.

1 Kings 5:1
Now Hiram king of Tyre sent his servants to Solomon, because he heard that they had anointed him king in place of his father, for Hiram had always loved David.

1 Samuel 18:6
But all Israel and Judah loved David, because he went out and came in before them.

1 Samuel 18:22
And Saul commanded his servants, "Communicate with David secretly, and say, 'Look, the king has delight in you, and all his servants love you. Now therefore, become the king's son-in-law.'

loved: 'ahab
1) to love

1) human love for another, includes family, and sexual
2) human appetite for objects such as food, drink, sleep, wisdom
3) human love for or to God
4) act of being a friend

a) lover (participle)
b) friend (participle)​

5) God's love toward man

a) to individual men
b) to people Israel
c) to righteousness​

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

 

[Brieuse]

The Bible does condemn what people call homosexual relationships because if men with men instead of women isnt a homosexual relationship than it must be heterosexual. This is why discussions on the topic with people who want to support same sex relations is dysfunctional.
Those arguing for same sex relations usually start to systematically and legalistically make their objections to the various passages without any holistic appreciation. Many recognise such an approach as merely disbelief and one big deception, but some are sucked in.
The idea that a homosexual relationship is about love and not necessarily sex is obviously a deception as the relationship is a same sex attraction by definition so the relationship is based on the sex of the people.

firstly, same sex sex is not the same as a homosexual relationship.

secondly, a homosexual relationship can be and often is about love and not necessarily sex whether you like it or not, which affirms my first point.

Most reputed psychiatric organisations refer to sexual orientation as the following:

Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions.

From the above definition you can see that attempts to diminish sexual orientation and the acts thereof to mere sex and attraction is actually deceptive.

Further, I should add, from your posts, that by your definition, that your relationship with your partner if you have one, is by your definition based on sex only and the love, emotions, and friendship is meaningless.

 

[Brieuse]

To Brieuse,
I think men lying with men and men with men instead of women is homosexual rather than heterosexual don’t you, in which case the Bible does talk about what you call homosexual relationships.

so, if looking in context, somebody hires a prostitute for the night. By your definition, that person is in a relationship with that prostitute if he were to be asked?

The Bible talks about various same sex acts. If the acts of Sodom had been allowed to go ahead, that would have been a same sex act. But the Bible says firstly that ALL the men. All the men were gay? You have to be ignorant to believe that. Were they all looking for a relationship? You have to be ignorant to believe that.

Same sex sex is not necessarily based on the two person's sexual orientation!

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Brieuse,

The Bible talks about various same sex acts. If the acts of Sodom had been allowed to go ahead, that would have been a same sex act. But the Bible says firstly that ALL the men. All the men were gay? You have to be ignorant to believe that. Were they all looking for a relationship? You have to be ignorant to believe that.

Well the Bible shows woman was created for man to be in union so none of the men were gay, all they exhibit was same sex attraction. So one error leads you to another. Your understanding of the Bible is based on what you feel and want to believe rather than what it says.
Even under your thinking I fail to see why you ruled out that some of them weren’t bisexual.

Same sex sex is not necessarily based on the two person's sexual orientation!

True, same sex sex is two people of the same sex having sexual experiences with each other. I suggest if you paid two heterosexual men enough to have a sexual experience together then might. Its all about what one wants to do, if one wants to have same sex sexual relations instead of following Christ’s teaching I am sure they do.

 

[OllieFranz]

The same hebrew word for "love" or "loved" is used in the following verses as well. Would it be your interpretation then that Hiram and David also had a homosexual relationship? How is it that the same word is used to describe the love of Israel and Judah for David? Was Saul saying that all his servants had homosexual feelings for David? He must have, because the same word "love" is used in that verse as well.

1 Kings 5:1
Now Hiram king of Tyre sent his servants to Solomon, because he heard that they had anointed him king in place of his father, for Hiram had always loved David.

1 Samuel 18:6
But all Israel and Judah loved David, because he went out and came in before them.

1 Samuel 18:22
And Saul commanded his servants, "Communicate with David secretly, and say, 'Look, the king has delight in you, and all his servants love you. Now therefore, become the king's son-in-law.'

loved: 'ahab
1) to love

1) human love for another, includes family, and sexual
2) human appetite for objects such as food, drink, sleep, wisdom
3) human love for or to God
4) act of being a friend

a) lover (participle)
b) friend (participle)​

5) God's love toward man

a) to individual men
b) to people Israel
c) to righteousness​

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

I did not claim that the word was never used to indicate lesser types of love. I merely pointed out that the author of the article chose a poor example to make his point, and that he had to misrepresent the Scriptures in order to do so using that example. Combined with his lie about David living with Jonathan's family, this author does more harm than good to your side of the debate.