Commentary on Questions About What We See
Hi, MH readers.
The following is a scriptural exegetical followup of some passages mentioned by Stag-on-a-hill on another post titled, “Questions About What We See”. I am offering it here, on a new blog post, due to its length. I hope this will help all who read it gain some insight into the discussions concerning sexual immorality in the ancient Scriptures.
This is not intended to be a definitive treatise about the validity of voyeurism, whether serendipitously or prearranged. It doesn’t include the many other passages which speak of public and private conduct. These must be considered to avoid “proof-texting” or the “hanging of one’s hat” on a single tentative support.
I aim to offer a first-century understanding as it pertains to the Koine Greek language used and recorded in the ancient New Testament manuscripts. Firstly, please note that much of our first century Greek understanding across the Theological realm comes from Liddell & Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon.
This lexicon covers approximately 500 years of the Greek language from the works of Homer to about 200A.D. Published in 1843, it encompasses Koine and Athenic/Classical definitions. This work is not specific to Christianity, but it does offer some Judeo-Christian references. Because many of the translators of the New Testament relied upon Liddle & Scott, we need to understand what the English words they chose meant in their day. To do so, we must use an English dictionary of that era.
Over time, the meanings of words evolve. Some nuances of the definitions remain from the original while others fade. Sometimes other definitions are added to words because a society begins using the word in more varied ways and contexts from previous generations. (Consider the words “cool” and “stoked.”) So we cannot lean solely on today’s definitions since the Lexicon used to translate Koine Greek was written in 1843. We must go to that same era and see what the English words meant at the time of the translation work.
As an example, let us consider the word “orgies.” I suspect that your first thought is a group of naked people all tangled up in sexual positions. That is not the overwhelming conclusion for the definition from the first century words nor the words of Noah Webster, the man behind the Webster dictionary. Noah Webster (1828) defines orgies as “Frantic revels at the feast in honor of Bacchus, or the feast itself. This feast was held in the night; hence, nocturnal orgies.” Bacchus was also called Dionysus. Dionysus was the false god of agriculture, wine, wine-making, revelry, and fertility. We have no record of drunken, sexual trysts involving multiple people in conjunction with sacred events associated with Dionysus/Bacchus in the first century.
According to Noah Webster, the word “orgies” comes from the Greek word ὄργια-orgia, which derives from ὀργάω-orgao (or-gah-oh) and ὀργή-orge (or-gay). Orgia refers to secret rites and worship; usually referring to sacrifices in a worshipful or celebratory manner. Webster gives the meanings of orgao-ὀργάω as “to swell” and ὀργή-orge as “fury.” He indicates an orgy is a boisterous, uninhibited, passionate, celebratory swelling of human fervor. I will say that the Greek words Webster cites have more in-depth meanings, but he chose those particular aspects to describe the word’s significance in his day. There is another Greek word that has some bearing on this discussion and the intertwining of thoughts.
That word is ὀργάς-orgas. ὀργάς-orgas is defined as a well-watered, fertile piece of land. This land is often thought of as sacred to the gods; thus, a place for revelrous parties to hold a party honoring a god. From ὀργάς and ὀργάω, we get ὀργασμός – orgasm. Hold on a minute! Not what you are thinking! Orgasm, as defined by Scott & Liddell’s (1843) contemporary, Noah Webster (1828), defines “orgasm” as “to swell” or “immoderate excitement or action.” So, an “orgasm” was a first-century event of unrestrained or excessive actions/indulgences; a swelling of revelry to the point of an obnoxious clamoring; likely a clamorous event peaking with a crescendo of foolishness. (Anyone ever been there? Has anyone ever seen the “Burning Man”?) So, we should think of a loud, boisterous drinking party where indulgent revelry replaces self-control.
So, the weight of the evidence defines orgy as a revelrous, indulgent, boisterous, unrestrained, excessive event that would have occurred in the first century with the stated reason of worshipping a god. We can assume that the “worship” was just a front for the loud alcohol party that ensued or, at least, that such sacred ceremonies facilitated wild partying. As Jimmy Buffet says, “It’s five o’clock somewhere!” While ὀργάω-orgao does have a sexual component in its list of uses in Koine Greek, all of the other words speak simply of excessive indulgent behavior. And that sexual component did not carry over in Noah Webster’s diligent work.
So, what is my point? Our reactions upon reading “orgy” (and many other words in the New Testament) is not the same as our English forefathers thought process about the same topics or words. After surveying the various definitions, we can conclude that when our ancestors said something about an orgy, they were referring to a boisterous party. Picture what we might have experienced at someone’s house when their parents were out of town, with the liquor cabinet key in plain view and AC/DC album rattling the windows. Or maybe in someone’s farm field with our pick-up trucks circled around a big fire and sub-woofers blaring. Or a Rave where bottles and/or blunts are freely circulating. When translators use these ancient Greek dictionaries/lexicons, we sometimes fail to realize that the words from the 1800s didn’t mean the same thing that they do today.
Sexual trysts of varying sorts may have been a part of wine parties, whether in honor of Bacchus or for whatever reason. However, there is no indication from the 19th-century usage that such is the case by definition. Noah Webster does not even hint at the sexual connotation that is listed in Scott & Liddell’s Greek Lexicon concerning the Greek word ὀργάω-orgao. In our usage today, the sexual aspect has come to the forefront, and the overwhelming use of yesteryear has faded. But we should not replace the original definitions with our modern usages. When we do, we miss the whole message that the original author intended.
Now, I will comment on the various words in the passages listed by Stag-on-a-hill with specific reference to the first-century words and the original definitions attached to those words. Let us allow the Word to speak to us with unambiguous terms. I will literally translate and add additional thought in parentheses for added clarity.
Romans 13:13-14: This passage literally states, “As in the day becomingly let us walk, not revellings (boisterous party mode), not drunken bouts, not beds, and licentiousness (rude manners, indulging in excesses, exceeding limits of law), not strife and jealousy; but put on the Lord Jesus Christ and of the flesh, forethought make not for its cravings”.
The only thing I see here is the mention of “not beds” and “cravings”. Some translations use the word “lusts” where the word is rightfully defined as cravings. We typically assign the thought of sexual/sensual to the English word “lust” and fail to recognize its broader reaching meanings. The Greek word there is not specific to sexual connotation. It was also used for politics, pregnant women’s cravings, material things, innocent affections and, generally, anything desired; righteous or not.
Galatians 5:21: This passage does not have any Greek words associated explicitly with sexual terms or thoughts. The only word that is remotely a candidate to be misunderstood is the Greek word κῶμοι-komoi, which is defined as a boisterous merry-making, either a planned or impromptu event, like the procession of a sports victor. There is a celebratory moment with the winning goal, and then the victors sometimes have a parade in their honor at their home city. But the word does not indicate a sexual event. Some Bibles present this Greek word as “orgies”. We can rightly call it an orgy if we accept the definition of “orgy” as “a revelrous, indulgent, boisterous, unrestrained, excessive event that would have occurred in the first century with stated reasons of worshipping a god or making-merry” without any sexual connotations since κῶμοι-komoi does not have any sexual inferences. However, it is wrong to translate it as “orgies” and put forth the idea that Paul is talking about sexual situations. κῶμοι-komoi should be translated as “revelrous acts” (like boisterous excessive, rude-mannered party mode).
Ephesians 4:17-19: The Greek word translated as sensuality in verse 19 is ἀσέλγεια-aselgeia. The word translates to licentious in English. In Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary, licentious indicates excessive indulgent behavior by way of loose morals. However, Webster does not explicitly indicate sexuality or sensuality by a specific name. Certainly, unrestrained sexual actions would fall under the umbrella of licentious behavior; however, the word licentious is not specifically sexual. So, to accurately translate this word with a sexual connotation, one must observe other paragraphical evidence for that choice. I do not find specific reasons to translate this word beyond the general understanding of licentious (i.e., indulging in excesses or exceeding the limits of established law).
Colossians 3:5 The Greek word at verse 5 is πορνεία-porneia. This word was used to indicate prostitution and fornication with a general sense of unrestrained sexual appetite. So, to be more exacting, Colossians 3:5 would serve us better if we take away the very general “sexual immorality” thought and insert “unrestrained desire for physical, sexual gratification with another person.”
1 Peter 4:3-4 Here there are 4 Greek words with a variety of thoughts offered by Peter. The first word is 1) to behave licentiously. At the time Liddell and Scott compiled their Greek Lexicon, the word licentious meant to engage in excesses or to exceed the limits of the law. While sexual things can be licentious, not all things that are licentious are sexual. Our modern dictionary includes sexual indulgences under licentious; however, it was not so when this lexicon was developed, and this lexicon reflected the Greek understandings in the first century. So, we should refrain from adding a sexual connotation to this particular word unless there exists other empirical evidence that the ancient Greeks used this word this way.
2) The second word is cravings — eager for something (right or wrong) — general desires and sexual desire. So, Peter may be referring to sexual lusts, or he may be referring to the general thought of eagerly desiring something that is not yours (for example, someone else’s money, boat, house, etc.) like we see in Psalm 73. Or, we can take the understanding to guide us in all of those potential problem areas
3) The third is defined as drunkenness, and 4) The fourth word is revelrous carousing. I cannot find any reason to translate this word as “orgy” if we are using the definition of “sexual parties, whereby multiple people are engaged in multiple acts of sex with multiple people”. If we are using the word “orgy” as understood in the 1800s when Scott & Liddell compiled their lexicon, then yes.
When our definitions evolve into a new and different understanding, our translations must also be changed to reflect the definition at the time the words were written. It is improper translation work to use a translation guide (Greek to English) from the 1800s and a dictionary from the 2000s to figure out what folks were saying in the first century. If we translated a word as licentious in 1843, then we need to know what licentious meant in 1843, not today.
You can view another “comment” post of mine here, where I give some insight into the evolving of languages.
Unfortunately, some English translations of the Holy Scriptures are in blatant error– poorly written, unwarrantedly misleading, or innocently skewed. I can give examples of such things for at least the NIV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, and ESV. I personally use the NASB as my first choice, but I can show you a grave error in that translation that was specific and intentional. The above passages seem to be some of those places where translators have only gotten it marginally correct. There is, at least, room for disagreement. Try reading the passages with the definitions I have offered and see what they, in their respective contexts and paragraphs, say to you. I hope the above thoughts are helpful as folks consider what is and is not sexually improper in their lives.
Thanks for this. Amazing amount of work. Lots to process. I guess one question is – to what extent are our cravings (sexual or otherwise) inappropriately unwithstrained? How would we know that?
I would suggest the golden rule which I believe trumps all others. If you are not harming others, doing something against their will, it’s not wrong.
And yes thanks for all the great research. Such research would change many religious views on many topics.
Um, the Golden Rule isn't "Do unto others what they would have you do," but "what you would have them do unto you." But I get your point. Not many of us would have others do things to us (including watch us) or in front of us against our will.
Yes agreed. We don’t intentionally harm others. We do things to and with them they would like to do with us. It pretty much dismisses the hard line of the Old Testament.
I'd say rather than dismiss the hard line, it simplifies the rule (LOVE) and makes it stricter (intentions of the heart vs. actual commission). Though in this case, "don't covet," it started out as a heart issue.
Thanks for all the research. I believe so much of the Bible is misunderstood or purposely misleading by those who translated it.
For example the word virgin which we see as not having had sex, simply meant a young women, an unmarried woman, or maiden. Needless to say this became an issue with the mother of Jesus who was pregnant before marriage.
Song of Songs 6:8
Sixty queens there may be, and eighty concubines, and virgins beyond number;
More accurately
Even among sixty queens and eighty concubines and countless young women,
So the sexy book of the Bible is the tale of a recruiting effort of a middle aged man to get a young woman to join his harem. He certainly was not what we today call a virgin since he had sixty some wives. No indication she had not had sex yet, nor that it would have been important to him. It goes on to say all the other women will see her as beautiful. Which is important in a harem because one man can not satisfy over a hundred women. So they are expected to “entertain” each other.
A great example that times were different and that we have to adjust our understanding of how things were very different then and we don’t live by the same rules. Today people attack historical figures for having owned slave. We also must wonder why instead of worrying about “coveting” [God] didn’t simply say people should not own slaves?
Deuteronomy 5:21 (NCV) "You must not want to take your neighbor's wife. You must not want to take your neighbor's house or land, his male or female slaves, his ox or his donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
The word covet does not mean simply to like, crave, want, desire, lust for. It means to take for your own. Not a sin to see your neighbors property and think you like it and want one for yourself.
So many misconceptions so little time.
You probably won’t publish any of this. But maybe you will include some of these in your next research.
[From MH: We are publishing it, edited for clarity, not because we agree but to allow for peaceful discourse. Bible scholars?]
Armchair scholar here, but I would like to address Marge's comments.
Virgins: The Greek word absolutely did mean an unmarried young woman, except in Revelation 14 where it is applied to men.
But Christians don't get our concept of abstention from sex before marriage from the word itself. We take our concept of virginity from what is said *about* the people to whom it is applied – bethula in the Hebrew, parthenon in the Greek.
A girl past puberty (Hebrew naarah) was her father's until she was betrothed, then belonged to her husband but was expected to remain chaste (bethula) until the wedding ceremony. In Deuteronomy 22, God sets a clear expectation that a woman married as a virgin (not remarried as a widow, obviously) protected herself and her family from shame by having proof of her virginity on her wedding night. If she (her parents, actually) had no such proof, she was to be stoned for fornicating in her father's house.
Also, a man who violated an unengaged virgin was to be stoned (both of them, in fact, if it occurred in the city) or pay the brideprice for a virgin to her father and marry her for life (if in the field). If he seduced her, no death but he owed the brideprice and lifelong marriage.
Even in NT times, easily 1500 years later, Paul still makes it clear in 1 Cor. 7 that it is better to *marry* – not just have sex – than to burn with passion and that to do so is no sin. Seems a clear teaching of abstinance before marriage. So when Paul then says in 2 Cor. 11 that he wants to present his audience like virgins to Christ as His bride, he refers to that same concept of purity and faithfulness.
David's virgins: The passage in SoS uses a different word – almah in the Hebrew, neanis in the Greek – which means a young woman but may or may not refer to one sexually ignorant. As sex was part of the Israelite marriage ceremony, it is unlikely they were bethulim. However, it is possible that these were women to whom he was betrothed and who were under his care, but whom he had not yet married. But if so, it would seem the word bethulim would have been used instead.
To say that because women recognize and praise the beauty of another woman they will have sexual relations seems presumptive. How they did deal with sexual frustration, if any, is not addressed but clearly masturbation would be another possible way.
(Still, a husband was commanded to give a wife her marital rights, so David must have been a busy man – presuming each wife/concubine desired to claim those rights. Many may have been happy just to enjoy the lavish lifestyle a husband of such means could afford them, especially once they gained the social validation of childbirth. After all, there is no reason to assume low libido is a modern occurance only.)
Slaves/coveting: While this may at first seem like a political issue, I can see the application to the question of "relative morality". There are different ways of becoming a slave. In today's world, we really only talk about the one primarily employed in the slave trade – selling people who have been kidnapped. God does condemn to death anyone who kidnaps in Exodus 21, whether the stolen person has been sold or found still in their possession.
The same chapter also talks about not abusing slaves. These might have been taken in war rather than killed or their services exchanged as payment for debt. Those who had earned their freedom could choose to remain bondservants to their masters out of love, an advantage to the slaveowner of fair treatment. While our current sensibilities don't see these as acceptable options, God didn't condemn them.
In application to this post and the one that inspired it, the meanings of the words in the original language are important. But it is the Spirit who leads us into all truth. And we believe it is the Spirit who has led the authors – and the translators – who have brought us the Bible as we have it today.
I – and most Christians, I think – believe that the Bible retains authority, regardless of our societies' malleable standards. Can we collectively decide not to do what God has allowed? Sure. But that doesn't make doing it a sin, only a crime or social disgrace. Can we be personally convicted that God doesn't want *us* to do something? Yes, but that doesn't make it a sin for someone else. But can we say that because society's mores have changed, the Bible has lost its authority to say what we should and should not do? I would answer with an emphatic no.
How about the topic of women being the property of their father then her husband.
A reason why adultery was only if a married man slept with a married woman. If she wasn’t another man’s property it was not adultery despite the man having a wife.
Different rules for different times.
As above, the "ownership" or more rightly protection of and responsibility for a woman granted retribution rights against those who would take her unlawfully.
Adultery included wives and betrothed, but any other sex outside marriage still had consequences, usually for both parties. And yet there were still prostitutes. I assume they were those who didn't belong to anyone.
But your point, I think, is that we don't still hold to that law. And in truth, all condemnation under the OT law was nailed to the cross. We are now under the law of Love, which as you said above can be summarized by the Golden Rule – or more fully by the Shema: Love God with all that you are and your neighbor as yourself. But loving Him means obeying Him, even if our society doesn't. Not because we will be punished, but to show our love for and trust in Him.
More directly to seeing others, or being seen having sex
“Families, sometimes including several generations, tended to live under one roof and had little or no privacy.”
Of course they saw each other having sex. But they had not been told yet it was wrong. That happened hundreds of years later when some old men declared war on sex.
Nothing wrong with being a voyeur.
One could argue that most of the rehtoric against enjoying what we see these days comes from us women, who seem to take it as a personal affront if our husbands get excited – even if only for us – by any visual stimulation besides our own form.
But anything can become a stumbling block or idol, if not held subject to God's will.
It's kind of a viscious cylce though, I think. We are told looking and enjoying is lusting – or as Marge puts it "wanting to take" – so we get hurt and turned off to the desires *for us* that the sights, sounds, words of sex can excite. Then our husbands have nothing *but* those sources and their own actions to relieve those desires. And I'm sure it could go the other way too, a man's insecurities causing him to be hurt by and reject advances from his wife. Not what God had in mind for marriage, per Paul. "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1 Cor 7:2) Kinda makes it clear that only sex outside marriage is fornication, doesn't it? To say looking and enjoying *is* sex outside marriage is a stretch.
Looking and desiring for oneself what cannot rightfully be your own, though… I believe Jesus cleared that up for us.
Can you tell this is close to my heart? ?
One nice thing about the Bible is you can argue almost anything and find an interpretation that supports your point. My point is that not only were words used differently then but no refrigerators, no penicillin, no pill, no hospitals with modern medicine, no adoption centers, no understanding of astronomy, biology, DNA or physics. So what the people had to be told had to be what they could understand. They had to be prevented from doing things that would have harmed them or prevented procreation. We now have knowledge and rational thought. In many ways the enemy of belief. The Bible no longer is literal but stories some of which no longer apply, many of which our God-given intellect he knew we would adjust by the changes in the world. We accept the world is a sphere in an huge universe that happened not over 6 days but billions of years. We know man evolved over millions of years wasn’t just made of clay a few thousand years ago. But the people of that time could never have understood. Not even the men writing the Bible would have been able to write it.
I understand that this is how some Christians see the Bible – just stories. And it is understandable why those with that viewpoint would question its authority to define right and wrong.
But if one believes (and I do) that God, through the inbreathing of the Holy Spirit, wrote the Bible for all Christians in all times, knowing the end from the beginning, and that he orchestrated and is orchestrating the transmission of its truth in many languages throughout the world – then it is so much more. It comes down to one's faith. Some of us take God's word to be truth and man's understandings to be in error where they conflict with that truth.
Not to negate the benefits of the growth of technology, one of which is us being able to engage in this conversation. ?
Deuteronomy 5:21 (NCV) "You must not want to take your neighbor's wife. You must not want to take your neighbor's house or land, his male or female slaves, his ox or his donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
Notice the difference the more accurate modern word “take” makes in the meaning. This was meant as a law to help maintain peace. Nothing to do with lust in the heart.
I would say that "want to take" equals "lust in your heart" equals "covet". And I think that's what Jesus said about looking with lust in Matthew 5:28: that to do so was just as unloving as actual adultery. But what he *didn't* say was "look and find lovely or even exciting". I think He was calling for a heart check.
Take in this case means steal, as in take for your own. No sexual association. Same word take being used for all possessions eliminating the sexual. Remember the primary purpose here is keeping the peace. Governing and religion are intertwined.
But even today we say that a person takes or steals another person's spouse just as we would say they took or stole a car, despite no law of ownership. Rather its a concept of rightful possession in any sense. Not to imply women weren't considered possessions, just that the principle holds true and the guidance is good. And even if it didn't, even if group ownership became the norm in a society, say, God's command is still good.
Yes CHL we are mostly on the same page. My point is that it has nothing to with sex. If I think the neighbor is a good looking man but too skinny and cook him a great meal and he moves in with me I have taken him. Same as if I ripped his clothes off give him great oral and he moves in with me. Either way it’s wrong. I can look at him all day with lust in my heart to cook for him or have sex with him and it’s not a sin or crime.
Per Strong's concordance, NT "lust" means focused desire [epi – on or upon and thumos – passion], and is used to convey either lawful or unlawful desire. The Ninth Commandment, do not covet, refers only to wanting something not rightfully mine. So to "epithumeo" to cook for a person isn't coveting. Neither is to focus my desire on having a relationship with them that only their spouse should have, specifically sex – *if* the two of us are single. No problem; we could get married. But if I lust for – desire to have – a married man or am myself married, then there is a problem: I'm coveting, which Jesus says is missing the bullseye on the target of God's will for me and is adultery of the heart. (Though Jesus only addressed this from the male point of view, most understand it to work both ways. And Proverbs warns against being taken in by such women.)
But sin (hamartia – missing the mark) should not be just a word we use to condemn others who don't agree with us. Sin is a heart condition that we all share. And any honest Christian knows that and has admitted it, at least to himself and God. It's why we need a Savior, why we can't ever be good enough.
What we can be is forgiven (in as much as we forgive.) We can enter the most loving relationship there is, with the one Who laid down his life to pay the price of death that we earned by putting what *we* wanted or thought was best ahead of what our loving Creator told us to do or not do.
Our *response* to that love is our trust in Him and obedience to as much as we understand of His truth today, and seeking to understand more – loving Him with our whole selves: mind, heart, soul and body.
Interesting. I wasn't a greek major.
Such confusion of what is OK….and what is not…..
Is it OK, if couple A, watches couple B, with their permission, if when doing so, they only have plans to do what they are watching to each other, and not thinking about doing something with or together with couple B?
Thin line of what is acceptable, and what is not…..not to mention acceptable in biblical terms…..
St. Paul lays to rest the relationship of lust and coveting in Romans 7:7 when he says that he would not have known what lust was except for the law telling him, "thou shall not covet."
If you covet your neighbor's wife or husband in your heart, to paraphrase Jesus, then you have committed a sin.
There is a fine line that one can cross between simple excitement and lusting, which are two different things. Simply seeing and getting excited sexually or otherwise isn't the same thing as getting excited and wanting her or him.
For myself, the line becomes easier to cross when one is watching another couple in real time. Not impossible to watch without getting burned, but it is playing with fire. Both couples need a strong sense of morals and a security in their marriage. Many a couple found out after the fact that they were not as secure in their marriage as they first imagined. St Paul's warning to be careful of what you approve of comes into play, even amidst your freedom in Christ.
I agree with MaxLoving, fine line for sure. To pose a question though if a married couple went to a swingers club and agreed they would just watch and then have sex, is this a sin? Most churches I have been to would say yes. Biblically it is not forbidden to watch, but it could lead to swinging, maybe or not. Just a difficult place and the temptation is high.
My wife and I would love to watch another couple but do not want to swap, so it is a slippery slope.
This one, for me, comes down to 1 Cor 13:6: "Love… does not take pleasure (chairo: also translated rejoice, enjoy, to be glad) in wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth." Since, in a swinger's club, I would be enjoying (assumably) the unrighteousness of the others, I won't go there – though I admit that the decision is also influenced by a past that included swinging.
Wow! There are lots of great discussion going on here! Unfortunately, the comment discussions have invited many “rabbit trails”. And, there are a number of comments that offer personal thoughts devoid of actual imperial evidence. It was suggested by one participant that past civilizations were not very well educated and they needed someone to tell them “what they could understand”. Allow me to elucidate the truth about past civilizations and their levels of intelligence. Perfect holes bored through solid granite 1000’s of years old, cataract surgical instruments used by the Egyptians of the Pharaoh era, Archimedes of Syracuse who documented his discovery of PI (200’s B.C.), etc. So, the Scripture was not necessarily a tool to prevent worldly issues of health and well-being. God’s word was to reconcile all men to Him through a narrow way. Religion is defined from its etiology as re-ligature. A stitching back to the Creator or a rebinding back to a Holy relationship.
It was also said of the Bible “you can argue almost anything and find an interpretation that supports your point”. I should draw everyone’s attention to God’s word. Please read 2 Peter 1:20 to learn about interpretation. Amongst Kingdom people today there is way too much arguing over party-line doctrines where folks throw around their favorite passages without the full weight of ALL of the passages concerning such topics. They like to "interpret" one or two sentences a certain way because it satisfies their preconceived errant notions. This is rampant among the denominations and the various "talking-heads" that are in full public view. You know the guys and gals. You see them on TV and hear them on various audio sources.
There is also the statement “We know man evolved over millions of years wasn’t just made of clay a few thousand years ago”. God’s word and His word choices directly nullify such statements. Also, the overwhelming scientific facts that exist, that aren’t being taught in public education, succinctly sequester evolution and all of its theoretical suppositions to the category of absurd. Please consider the teachings of Dr. Jason Lisle and Spike Psarris for a solid understanding to guide you in the topic of our origin.
Lots of banter about “lust”. Lust is defined by Noah Webster as “To desire eagerly”. So, lust can be used for sexual and non-sexual issues. It is not a sex-only word. Context is very important. There is usually way too much “one-liners” or “proof-texting” going on in Kingdom discussions. One-liners: one verse here or there taken out of context to prove a point. Such behavior is called “proof-texting”. I can do that. Consider the following passages and think about how foolish proof-texting really is. Read Matthew 27:5 and the read Luke 10:37, in that order! See how injurious proof-texting is!
Someone made mention of παρθένος/parthenos. To clarify the definition, parthenos in Koine Greek was understood as a virgin or unmarried women who were not virgins. Noah Webster, or the English language in the 1800’s, had the same understanding for the word “maiden”. So, maiden and virgin were sometimes synonymous while context sometimes would not hold to the strict thought of being devoid of previous sexual occurrences. Matthew seems to quote the Septuagint when he speaks of the "virgin", but his word choice could have been indicating a young woman without delineating sexual history if the context was different.
My last thought here, so as to not make this a huge comment. Be careful using today’s “Strong’s Concordance”. I have found it to be tainted with denominational bias from modern editors. I have viewed obvious errors that were no more than denominational doctrinal party-line thoughts versus clear, concise and well supported, through historical evidence of usage, definitions. You will be best served to use Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon.