You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.
Commenter whysoserious? presented a rather interesting argument. It was rather long and I wanted to address it so I turned it into a post all its own. That continued in the comments and he finally narrowed things and presented the argument. It was fascinating, actually. In fact, it was so good that it pointed to a tremendous opportunity for serious black knighting.
Readers of this blog are aware that I have advanced the point that sex with an eligible virgin is the act of marrying her. What that means in practical terms is simple: the man who got the woman’s virginity is her husband. The guy who had a wedding with a woman who was not a virgin isn’t really married to her because she was already married. The technical term for this is adultery because unless the man who got her virginity was dead, she was still married to him. According to information from the CDC and other organizations, at least 80% of the so-called marriages in any given church are cases of adultery, not marriage. Which probably has a lot to do with why we see so many divorces.
For those who are familiar with this you can skip down to the next heading. For those who are not, you need to read this to understand why this is so much fun.
I have repeatedly made the argument using the text of what Genesis 2:24 actually says. Genesis 2:24 contains three elements. The first is a change in status, that by virtue of the fact he is marrying a woman, the man leaves from under the authority of his father and his mother in forming his own family, over which he is the head. This isn’t physically leaving because a man can get married and continue living in his parents home, this is a change of status. To date, no-one has ever argued to the contrary with me.
The second element is where the man has sex with his wife. The Hebrew word that is typically translated into English as “cleave” or “join” is the Hebrew word “dabaq.” That word is used 54 times and while I argue that it definitely means sex in Genesis 2:24 and I will also argue that it should mean sex in 1st Kings 11:2, in all the other usages of the word it basically means commitment.
(I believe a far better translation of 1st Kings 11:2 would be “Solomon loved to have sex with them” instead of “Solomon held fast to them in love.” We’re talking about the man with 1000 wives. That wasn’t about commitment, it was about sexual variety.)
The third element is the action of God, in which the two shall become one flesh. We know that it’s the action of God because Jesus said so in Matthew 19:6. In the first element we have the change in status, in the second element we have the action of the man and in the third element we have the action of God. This isn’t difficult to understand.
That view is completely contrary to the interpretation advanced a long time ago by the Easter Bunny. He claimed that because “dabaq” meant commitment everywhere else, so it meant commitment in Genesis 2:24 and that’s where the wedding ceremony was inserted. No, they claim, sex cannot make you married, there has to be a ceremony where the couple makes their commitment to each other. After that, the two became one flesh, which he defined as the point at which the couple had sex. There are multiple problems with this, but ultimately they all hinge on the meaning of the word “dabaq.”
Dabaq Gets The Shiv in Translation
I advanced the argument that we know the word “dabaq” as used in Genesis 2:24 means sex because Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:5 and the Apostolic translation of the word into Greek used the Greek word “kolloa.” With that we have a hard and direct translation of dabaq to kolloa. Then, the Apostle Paul, in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 used the word kolloa within the specific context of Genesis 2:24 to textually define kolloa as the act of becoming one body with a prostitute. Sex, in other words. The context of Genesis 2:24 cannot be questioned because Paul quoted half of Genesis 2:24 within the text of verse 16 and the structure makes it clear that kolloa was used in that verse exactly as dabaq was used in Genesis 2:24.
A = B and B = C, therefore, A = C. It’s that simple, and as used in Genesis 2:24, the word dabaq means sex. Which means that sex with an eligible virgin is to marry her. But, this gets even more interesting. The word dabaq is used everywhere else as commitment and and kolloa is used everywhere else in terms of human relationships as fidelity and faithfulness, so within the context of Genesis 2:24 sex is clearly the way a man demonstrates his commitment of fidelity and faithfulness in marriage. In other words, sex is the act of marriage for a man, the specific act by which a man marries a woman.
This answers the question of why the word dabaq, which means commitment everywhere else, would suddenly mean sex when it comes to the initiation of marriage. Because sex is how the man makes his commitment to the marriage. And, this fits perfectly with all the ancillary Scripture such as Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Again, I’ve written about this repeatedly.
That is the setup.
In order to defeat this argument, one has to show that the word kolloa does NOT mean sex in 1st Corinthians 6:16, that instead it means something else. Since, like the word dabaq, the word kolloa means faithfulness and loyalty in all the other times it’s used, that would be the logical way to go.
Commenter whysoserious? decided to make what he called the reasonable argument that kolloa meant marriage in 1st Corinthians 6:16, and the meaning of the passage was that the Apostle Paul was telling Christian men they were not to marry a prostitute or a promiscuous woman. This is where the fun began.
Having been on the receiving end of this type of argument as it applied to dabaq, I was very familiar with it, but I wanted to see how far he would take it. And credit must be given to whysoserious? because there was obviously a lot of work put into that argument. Yes, it was weak. The points were specious and none of it hung together very well, but on the surface it sounded damn good. For those Christians who don’t know their Bibles well, it would be an extremely intimidating argument. It doesn’t get much better than this.
Unintended Consequences
There was a problem with the argument, which falls into the category of unintended consequences. The only reason to make the argument in the first place was to defeat the point I’d been making, that the Hebrew word dabaq meant sex when it was used in Genesis 2:24. Seriously, who in their right mind would try to reinterpret 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 to mean that it’s not talking about sex with prostitutes unless there were a damn good reason for doing so? The passage is so clear that it’s been recognized for exactly what it means for 2000 years. Banging prostitutes is forbidden for Christian men. It’s so well understood that it’s where the English word fornication actually comes from.
As a result of torturing the text and twisting it out of shape to claim that kolloa meant marriage and not sex, there was an unintended consequence. Many people do not know this, but the only place in all of Scripture that forbids a man from having sex with prostitutes is 1st Corinthians 6:15-16. There is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture that forbids a woman from being an ordinary money-for-sex prostitute. There is a specific prohibition on cult prostitution, which is associated with idolatry, but not on ordinary prostitution. An odious profession, but not an immoral profession.
However, the only way that prohibition exists is if, in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, the Greek word porne means a prostitute and the Greek word kolloa means sex. As long as the word kolloa means sex there is a prohibition on using prostitutes and possibly even promiscuous women for sex. But, what happens if someone creates an argument designed to prove that kolloa doesn’t mean sex in order to support the Easter Bunny’s claim that dabaq doesn’t mean sex in Genesis 2:24?
There is no longer any prohibition on having sex with prostitutes.
Consider for a moment just what kind of fun you can have using this on churchian cucks. All that’s happening is the dabaq script is being flipped on kolloa, but when it’s presented as the “proof” that the Bible doesn’t actually forbid sex with prostitutes, it only forbids marrying them, it will provoke the insane desire to overcome the argument. Which is exactly what is desired. Commenter whysoserious? did all the heavy lifting in putting this argument together and if I ever create a “Toad’s Hall of Fame” then he’s got the first nomination in the “Unintended Black Knight” category.
So, make the argument that the Bible only forbids marrying prostitutes, not having sex with them, because kolloa doesn’t mean sex, it means marriage in 1st Corinthians 6:16. The little known fact that the only prohibition against having sex with prostitutes is that particular passage and the even less well-known fact that if it weren’t for 1st Corinthians 6:16 banging prostitutes would be a moral activity (within certain limits) combine to really set things into high gear. Because those points are the absolute truth and easy to prove. It all comes down to the meaning of the word kolloa and the argument is that kolloa doesn’t mean sex in that passage.
Your favorite churchian cuck is now on a mission to prove the truth, that in 1st Corinthians 6:16, the meaning of the word kolloa is in fact sex because the meaning of the word porne in that passage is a prostitute and men go to prostitutes to get sex, not marriage. The Black Knight’s job is to get them stirred up so that they put some energy into solving this little problem. Be obnoxious about it. Taunt them. Make sure they want everyone to know when they defeat your argument, because after publicly owning it, you can congratulate them on proving that sex with an eligible virgin is the act of marrying her.
Oh- and what are we going to do about all the adultery here in the congregation?
Best of all, this is an either or choice. If kolloa means sex in that passage then banging an eligible virgin is to marry her. If kolloa doesn’t mean sex then there is no prohibition on banging prostitutes. Words mean things.
In modern churchianity it’s the women who control the money. In large part it’s women who determine whether a family attends any particular church. Ask yourself this: which of these two options will the women choose? My money is on sex with an eligible virgin is marriage. There are options there, like Daddy annulling the marriage. Not so with the moral legitimacy of her husband getting the odd piece on the side. That’s not going to fly.
Keep in mind the power dynamics and Black Knight the hell out of this. Now that the Cucks have proven that kolloa means sex, it means dabaq means sex. What about all the adultery around here? This is a tar baby of magnificent proportions. So don’t forget to thank whysoserious? for doing the heavy lifting by putting this together.
whysoserious?
“Shall become his wife.”
With the soles the need To be save, if Christian men can just use hoes wouldn’t be less time consuming and thus better the body of believers. Kinda like staying at rather by a mortgage?