NOGO

Question:
Is verse 20 related to verse 18 and 19?

Some Bibles go out of their way to separate them as with NLT

NLT Proverbs 30:20
Equally amazing is how an adulterous woman can satisfy her sexual appetite, shrug her shoulders, and then say, "What's wrong with that?"

CEV starts the verse as if it was a totally new subject.

CEV Proverbs 30:20
An unfaithful wife says,
"Sleeping with another man
is as natural as eating."

Yet it is obvious that verse 20 belongs with the same idea started in verse 18 and continued in verse 19.

The author is saying something like this:

There are three things which I can never do because they are too dificult and there are four which I have never done.

Obviously the forth thing which he has never done is an abstinence not due to the fact that it is difficult but because there is another reason for not doing it. Otherwise why hasn't he been married? Is this proverb trying to say that we should not marry? obviously not!

The forth thing is adultery which he can do but does not because of moral reasons and that is the whole purpose of the proverb. We can do certain things but we should not.

Stopping the thought at the end of verse 19 makes no sense.

But why then try to break out verse 20 from the rest?

The root of the problem is Isaiah 7;14 which Christians quote as a prophecy of Jesus' birth.

NASB Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

The word translated "virgin" in NASB is actually maiden and is the same word used in Proverbs 30:19

Some people say that 'almah' or maiden implies virginity.
Proverbs 30:18-20 says otherwise. If a maiden ('almah') can commit adultery and still be called maiden ('almah') then the word does not imply virginity.

This is therefore the reaon that Bibles play with the text in order to 'fix' problems in the 'word of Gof'.

Magus55

Strong's:

almah:


1) virgin, young woman

a) of marriageable age

b) maid or newly married
++++

There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. (TWOT)

YHWHtruth

This subject was delt with on another post

Max

NOGO

If Strong says so it must be true. Is that your point?

Isaiah proves you wrong. Isaiah 7:14 says that the maiden is with child and not the usual will be as in the translation below

YLT Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the almah is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel,

The verb is in the present which means that the girl was already pregnant at the time and therefore was not a virgin.

Notice that in Isaiah, contrary to the NT, the text does not express any wonder at the idea that a 'almah' is pregnant.

I also note that you have no comment on the my first post.

Bede

NOGO, Can you count? 1, 2, 3, 4?

Three or four good things contrasted with a bad one.

B

NOGO

The problem here, Bede, is that you cannot read.

It says that there are three (3) which he cannot understand or cannot do, four (4) which he has never done. I did not make the count the author did. If there is a fifth item then the author is unaware of it.

Obviously there is an overlap the three which he cannot do are also part of the four which he has never done.

The statement after that explains why he has never done the fourth statement. That is the basis for the contrast. Otherwise verses 18 and 19 cannot stand.

The author assumes that the reader knows why he has never flown like a eagle, never moved like a snake on a rock, and never floated on the high seas. All that is left for him is to explain why he has never been with a maiden.


Try another ...

Proverbs 30
21 "Under three things the earth trembles,
under four it cannot bear up:
22 a servant who becomes king,
a fool who is full of food,
23 an unloved woman who is married,
and a maidservant who displaces her mistress.

This one requires no explantion and the author does not offer one. Notice that there are three and four items as with the one which concerns us but no explanation.

Try another ...

15 There are three things that are never satisfied,
four that never say, 'Enough!':

16 the grave, the barren womb,
land, which is never satisfied with water,
and fire, which never says, 'Enough!'

17 "The eye that mocks a father,
that scorns obedience to a mother,
will be pecked out by the ravens of the valley,
will be eaten by the vultures.

The first three are never satisfied and the author assumes that the reader can understand why.
The fourth " Fire which never says 'enough' " is unclear until the explanation is given. The author cannot understand why some children take such great and renewed pleasure at mocking their parents.

If that is not so then this author has a very acute problem with numbers. You will understand, however, why I prefer to believe that the problem is with your reading of it.

NOGO

I doubt that you even know what the subject is.

I will give you a clue. It is not my ability to count but if you look at Bede's answer you will perhaps figure it out.

NOGO

Bede: Three or four good things contrasted with one bad one

Bede can't seem to decide whether there are three or four good things ... AND ... he asks WHETHER I CAN COUNT.

I can see his problem.

A maiden is a young unmarried woman.
So what is the way of a man with a young unmarried women?
Note that we are not talking about marriage here since the word 'almah' implies that the girl is not married.

The author says that he does not know or does not understand the way!

So if it is not a normal marriage relation then does he mean by the "way"
1) regard and respect until marriage
OR
2) illicit sex?

Regard and respect until marriage simply does not cut it as a subject of contrast with the flight of an eagle and the others.

We are therefore left with illicit sex.

Is it then
a) rape?
b) two youngsters making out?
c) adultery?

An explanatory note is required and does follow.

Perhaps Bede can tell us why he hesitated between three and four good things. He either can count (unlikely) or he was not sure of whether the fourth thing was good or bad. I vote for the latter.

NOGO

Looks like Bede returned to his ivory tower.
Funny thing about Christians, they keep talking about truth but as soon as they catch a glimpse of it, they run away.

Magus55

Huh? Isaiah 7:14 doesn't say anything about "is with child" - how could it when Mary won't be born for 1000 more years?

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Your translation is describing it as its happening - as though the prophet is looking into the future. Ever seen Minority Report? The female Precog describes the future as though its happening in the present. Thats what the translation you are using is describing. Isaiah was written a 1000 years before Mary, so obviously it can't be present tense.