Song of Solomon is a dialog between a man and a woman. So your assumption that it is between two men is incorrect. In Old Testament times, "moving bowels" was equivalent to today's term of "my heart was stirred" it was not a reference to a bowel movement. The Bible is very clear that homosexuality is not acceptable. Check out the passages in Genesis on Sodom and Gomorrah.
2006-11-15 13:46:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by mandiedq 3
·
1⤊
3⤋
Why are you so mad...no were in the Bible dose it say no such a thing You are still con fussed ...Trying to make ones self feel better....Because you no what you have chose to do is wrong...And what you are doing is WRONG...We don't hate you we are not excepting what is wrong that is why...What you are doing is in humane and sicking.You are so messed up...You cant understand nothing you read ...Why do you call them haters their is a difference in HATE and NOING It Is Wrong so go to school and learn the meaning of Hate and Right from wrong...CO FUSSED....
2006-11-15 16:26:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by patricia 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The hole of the door is the latch on the door. When the lady hears his hand turning the latch she becomes emotionaly excited because she can tell by the way he is comming in that its her special love. This is straight sex and and has nothing to do with Sodomy. You might want to take a reading course in English lit.
I Cr 13;8a
11-15-6
2006-11-15 13:50:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
Reading in the context of that time, 'bowels' is referring to someone's inmost being, and the author is probably not Solomon himself when "The title in the Hebrew text is "Solomon's Song of Songs", meaning a song by, for, or about Solomon."
So it is not clear that there is a singular author of this book.
2006-11-15 13:50:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by keepingGodfirst 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
Sorry, to burst your bubble but Song of Songs is about a man and a woman. Try reading it, especially the following verse which refers to her getting "moist."
2006-11-15 13:45:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
It does say that - in 1600's English.
Check Strongs Hebrew dictionary some relevant information.
Oh, I guess you're not really looking for that, are you?!
2006-11-15 13:50:42
·
answer #6
·
answered by WindWalker10 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Righto...you've taken that way off par!! It's like if you had to take personification for real!! God has made it man and woman from day one!
2006-11-15 13:51:15
·
answer #7
·
answered by paTROLLer 2
·
2⤊
2⤋
Wow... you really ought to read something before you quote and interpret it on a public forum like this!
2006-11-15 13:47:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Real Scholar....geez
2006-11-15 13:45:23
·
answer #9
·
answered by Royal Racer Hell=Grave © 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
the FLYING SPEGHETTI MONSTER is in great aw that his book was translated in such horrific chaos....the original was much clearer
2006-11-15 13:46:17
·
answer #10
·
answered by ur a Dee Dee Dee 5
·
4⤊
1⤋