Is it not pornographic to have "Songs of Songs" in the Bible?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Is it not pornographic to have "Songs of Songs" in the Bible?

Post  Leonidas on Thu 02 Sep 2010, 6:55 am

This question is posed to me by people from other faith. Is it possible to defend the inclusion. I believe in the word of God but certain Chapters in the bible is beyond my comprehension. This is one of it. could you please clear my doubt.
Leonidas


Last edited by Leonidas on Thu 02 Sep 2010, 6:58 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : mistake in spelling of a word)

Leonidas
Christian Talk Member

Mood : I feel Blessed
Male

Number of posts : 2
Age : 62
Location : India
Marital Status : Married
Registration date : 2010-09-02
Points : 11457
Reputation : 0
Country :

Warning :

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Is it not pornographic to have "Songs of Songs" in the bible

Post  Irv Everett on Fri 03 Sep 2010, 1:28 pm

Song of Solomon



“Song of Solomon”, Pornography, I should say not! It is a love song. One interpretation to be considered as the relationship between God and Israel or the relationship of Christ and the church; but there is nothing pornographic about Christ’ love for neither the church nor God’s love for Israel.
“Song of Solomon” is not pornography; it is only our vile sin filled body that directs us into to that kind of thinking. We must remember, God placed that information here for a reason and you can believe, it was not for pornography! Let’s think about this for a minute, after all of Solomon’s wives and concubines; Solomon could have for the first time, found and experienced real, true love. “Song of Solomon” could be a reflecting of just that.
Now, sometimes I look at things a little differently than others. I have been doing some reading and I kind of like the idea of a more radical approach to the interpretation of “Song of Solomon”.
What if we stepped out of the box for a moment and look at it as an epic tale, or a drama, or an opera? Or better yet, a musical! It is a song, isn’t it?
The cast of characters could be as follows: the King, the young girl, the maidens, and the Sheppard boy.
The maidens are making the young girl ready to meet the king. But the young girl is dreaming about her true love, the Sheppard boy.
The king desires the young girl and his desires appear to be purely sexual.
The maidens are all about the good things of the king but not of love.
The young girl’s conversations with the maidens could help us to understand a relationship of lasting happiness in the truth of love and sex.
The young girl and the Sheppard boy, theirs is to be a pure relationship between a man and a woman caring for each other, caring for each others hearts and souls not just about sexual desires.
The truth is the world is confused about marriage and the world has gone about perverting it. You have seen the news and you know of what I speak. But God is not confused! No, God is not confused! God says a marriage should be between a man and a woman. And God wants us to live our lives within the fullness of marriage, in the joy and peace of each others love, confident and secure of the lasting nature of true love; a life of true love, marital fulfillment and sexual bliss. When we let go of the world and let God direct our path, God’s love becomes more and more evident.

Irv Everett
VIP

Mood : I feel Blessed
Male

Number of posts : 305
Age : 58
Location : Birmingham, Alabama USA
Profession : I'm a child of the KING
Hobbies : Loving my wife, son and grandbabies; Praising the Lord for HIS mercy and grace!
Marital Status : Married
Registration date : 2007-12-31
Points : 16488
Reputation : 38
Country :

Warning :

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it not pornographic to have "Songs of Songs" in the Bible?

Post  Waqar Daniel on Mon 13 Sep 2010, 5:13 pm

Thank you for the question and thank you Irv for answering the question.
Then he said to them all:..If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. (Luke 9:23-26)
The people of other faiths surely raise this question and they love to play around Book of Song of Songs. However, we do not need to justify our faith to others. It is not on their approval that Bible becomes Word of God and Jesus as our LORD and Savior. For we should not be ashamed of Word of God because;
The words that I speak to you are spirit and they are life (John 6:63)
The answer is simple, if Bible has to be a code of life, then it must have instructions to every aspect of our lives. It should guide us spiritually, socially, and morally as followers of God the most High through our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ.

  1. "Love your wife in the same way you love your body and your life."(Ephesians 5:28-33)
  2. "The husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife."(I Corinthians 7:3-5)
  3. "Rejoice in your wife all your life. Let her breasts satisfy you. Be captivated with her."(Proverbs 5:18-19)
  4. "Tell your wife how captivated you are with her body."(Song of Solomon 4:7; 7:1-8)
If Bible is to be a moral code of life then Song of Songs play an important role in living a happy true married life.

Book of Song of Songs is detailed description of;
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

The man and his wife were both naked and they felt no shame. (Genesis 2:24-25)
First of all Song of Songs is only for married couples. It does not promote immoral sexual activity. It is a dialogue between King Solomon and his wife or husband and a wife. It only guides how a man should become one flesh with his wife.

God created man and woman and all the sexual parts too. People of other faiths do agree with this. Now God created sexual parts and so He knew why He created them. If He guides a man how to treat, love and treasure his wife, what is wrong in it?

Lastly, God commands us
"Do not be captivated by other women."(Proverbs 5:20)
How a married man can be captivated by other women? The answer is simple if that man looks down on the body of his wife and treasures some other woman's body. Song of Songs simply tells a man how to treasure his wife as a favor of God and how to be captivated by his wife's body.

God bless you


Last edited by Waqar Daniel on Wed 15 Sep 2010, 5:03 pm; edited 1 time in total

_________________


Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the LORD Jesus Christ. (Philemon 1:3)


Waqar Daniel
Administrator

Mood : I feel Blessed
Male

Number of posts : 2778
Age : 46
Location : The Kingdom of Heavenly Father
Profession : Consultant
Hobbies : Long drives, Gospel music, Bible study
Marital Status : Married
Registration date : 2007-06-25
Points : 19148
Reputation : 42
Country :

Warning :

View user profile http://christian-talk.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it not pornographic to have "Songs of Songs" in the Bible?

Post  Pastor on Mon 13 Sep 2010, 6:17 pm

Irv and Daniel very nicely explained. Blessings in Jesus

Pastor
Christian Talk Member

Mood : I feel Blessed
Male

Number of posts : 99
Age : 66
Location : UK
Marital Status : Still Looking
Registration date : 2008-09-27
Points : 15022
Reputation : 1
Country :

Warning :

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it not pornographic to have "Songs of Songs" in the Bible?

Post  FaithfulSon on Mon 13 Sep 2010, 6:42 pm

I searched Internet and found this information on Wikipedia

Title
The name of the book comes from the first verse, "The Song of songs, which is Solomon's."

"Song of songs" is a Hebrew grammatical construction denoting the superlative; that is, the title attests to the greatness of the song, similar to "the lord of lords", "the king of kings" or "holy of holies" (used of the inner sanctuary of the Jerusalem temple). Rabbi Akiba declared, "Heaven forbid that any man in Israel ever disputed that the Song of Songs is holy. For the whole world is not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel, for all the Writings are holy and the Song of Songs is holy of holies." (Mishnah Yadayim 3:5).

Authorship
Solomon as author

Some people translate the first clause of the title as "which is of Solomon", meaning that the book is authored by Solomon. Rabbi Hiyya the Great said Solomon first wrote Book of Proverbs, then The Song of Songs, and afterward Ecclesiastes. Rabbi Jonathan said Solomon first wrote The Song of Songs, then Proverbs, then Ecclesiastes. The Talmud, however, states the order of the canon, listing Proverbs first, then Ecclesiastes, and then The Song of Songs.

Solomon as audience

Others[who?] translate the first clause as "which is for Solomon", meaning that the book is dedicated to Solomon. It was common practice in ancient times for an anonymous writer seeking recognition for his work to write eponymously in the name of someone more famous. Some[who?] read the book as contrasting the nobility of monogamous love with the debased nature of promiscuous love, and suggest that the book is actually a veiled criticism of Solomon, who, according to 1 Kings 11:3, had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines.

God

Another approach to the authorship is that offered by Rashi, consistent with allegorical interpretations, rendering the narrator "he to whom peace belongs", i.e.: God. The Hebrew name of Solomon, Shlomo, can also be inflected to mean the constructed form of the noun shalom, peace, which through noun declension can be possessive. This means that the author is in fact Solomon, but he narrates the book from the perspective of God, who is conversing with the Jewish people, his allegorical bride.

Other

Twenty first century linguistic work, including re-examining the dating of early Hebrew poetry, according to evidence of dialectic variation, has been applied to the Song by a number of scholars from different traditions. Noegel and Rendsburg, for example, conclude as follows.

"The Song of Songs was written circa 900 BC, in the northern dialect of ancient Hebrew, by an author of unsurpassed literary ability, adept at the techniques of alliteration and polyprosopon, able to create the most sensual and erotic poetry of his day, and all the while incorporating into his work a subtext critical of the Judahite monarchy in general and Solomon in particular."


Last edited by FaithfulSon on Mon 13 Sep 2010, 6:45 pm; edited 1 time in total

FaithfulSon
Christian Talk Member

Mood : I feel Blessed
Male

Number of posts : 128
Location : California, USA
Registration date : 2007-07-16
Points : 17214
Reputation : 1
Country :

Warning :

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it not pornographic to have "Songs of Songs" in the Bible?

Post  FaithfulSon on Mon 13 Sep 2010, 6:43 pm

Interpretation and its use

According to Jewish tradition in the Midrash and the Targum, the book is an allegory of God's love for the Children of Israel. In keeping with this understanding, it is read by Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews on Shabbat eve, to symbolize the love between the Jewish People and God that is also represented by Shabbat. Most traditional Jews also read the Song on Shabbat Chol HaMoed of Passover, or on the seventh day of the holiday, when the Song of the sea is also read.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_Songs


FaithfulSon
Christian Talk Member

Mood : I feel Blessed
Male

Number of posts : 128
Location : California, USA
Registration date : 2007-07-16
Points : 17214
Reputation : 1
Country :

Warning :

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Is it not pornographic to have "Songs of Songs" in the Bible?

Post  hannielebed on Tue 08 Mar 2011, 5:43 pm

I'd like to add some perspective here. Often we start discussing these issues without defining our terms and we assume everyone defines words the same way. But after the Tower of Babel, we have needed to be more careful to make sure that we are using words the same way as the people we are talking to. So what is the definition of pornography?

According to Gnostic Dualism, the entire physical universe is evil. They say that only the spirit is good and that God created an evil place because he created the Earth and the human body. Therefore they naturally assume that the human body is evil and therefore sex is evil. But we are not Gnostic Dualists. We are Christians.

Everything God created was good when God created it. After God created humans, He said that it is "very good."
God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Genesis 1:31
Adam and Eve were naked for a while without sin. All of creation, including the naked human, was good and pleasing to God in the beginning. It was only by sin that all of creation, including the naked human, became corrupted and no longer good or pleasing to God. Therefore, Christians cannot make such a generalization by defining pornography to include all nudity or all mention of bodily parts. Neither nudity nor the bodily parts were sinful before sin came into the world.

I'll go one step further by saying that God created sex and therefore sex, just like the body and the rest of creation, was not sinful until after sin came into the world and corrupted it. The way God defines pornography is any lie or corruption about the way God intended sex to be. The Bible gives instructions about how God intended sex to be and whenever we treat sex in any manner contrary to the teachings of the Bible, than it is pornography.

So is Song of Songs pornography? No, because it teaches about sex according to the way that God intended sex to be.

I will agree that little children should not be reading Song of Songs. But then they should not be reading Ezekiel, Judges, Revelations, or Leviticus either. This is not because these books are sinful. They are holy books that ought to be read, studied, memorized and applied to life. But some portions of the Bible are dealing with subject matter that is difficult to understand and just as we have kids start out studying their basics (reading, writing and arithmetic) before they go on to higher education, new Christians need to start by studying the basics of Christianity (Genesis, Exodus, Samuel, Daniel, John, and Romans) before they go on to the more difficult books of the Bible. I would have no problem letting older children read Song of Songs after they've established a good foundation of understanding the basics of Christianity.

hannielebed
Christian Talk Member

Mood : Amused
Male

Number of posts : 29
Age : 47
Location : Boise, ID
Marital Status : Divorcee
Registration date : 2011-03-08
Points : 10549
Reputation : 0
Country :

Warning :

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Is it not pornographic to have "Songs of Songs" in the Bible?

Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:04 am


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum