Bible Sex Stories
April 30, 2003 4:08 AM   Subscribe

Bible Sex Stories: The Good Book's dirty bits explained. Pssst, wanna snack while you read? [From the always entertaining Jewsweek; Definitely NSFW or for those still with one foot still out of their handbasket to Hell.]
posted by MiguelCardoso (17 comments total)

FAR more scandalous than anything in there - to the point where they really ought to be ashamed for not covering it - is Genesis Chapter 38, which I used to read very, very, verrrrry often during those long and boring sermons as a 15-year-old . . .


Note that this encompasses the Onan story, but the greater tale is far nastier . . .

Judah had three sons, and got a wife named Tamar for his first son. The Lord struck him down, so it was the second son's duty to impregnate him - but he pulled out prematurely, and thus we have the sin of 'Onanism.' Finally, Judah realized he was running out of heirs himself and told Tamar to wait until the third son grew up. Eventually, Tamar figures out that she's never getting the third son, poses as a whore so that Judah himself sleeps with her, and demands some of his personal crap as collateral for payment. Judah is informed that his daughter-in-law was pregnant by prostitution, at which point she whips out the personal crap and says, "these belong to the father of my baby." Check. Mate.
posted by Ryvar at 4:48 AM on April 30, 2003

Also the lack of David and and Bathsheba - his great affair - surprises me. Or the story of Absalom (David's firstborn son) rebelling against his father and raping his four concubines in front of a huge crowd. Some pictures of Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines offers all kinds of possibilities - the entire book of Song of Solomon with its long-running descriptions of breasts and such is a treasure trove as well.

posted by Ryvar at 4:52 AM on April 30, 2003

While we're at it, Genesis 34, when Dinah, sister of Judah was raped by a local prince, the prince loved her so much that he swore he would do anything for her hand in marriage - so Jacob's sons suggested that they follow the covenant God had with Abraham, and thereby themselves - and circumcise the whole male population of the city.

The prince actually went ahead with this, whereupon Simeon and Levi, two of Dinah's brothers - walked right into the city and slew the entire male population. Genesis 34.
posted by Ryvar at 5:18 AM on April 30, 2003

I am reminded of the Residents' Wormwood:Curious Stories from the Bible.

Here's the lyrics for their take on the Onan story.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:37 AM on April 30, 2003

9. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

10. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

Let us rejoice this day that God does not exist!
posted by Pretty_Generic at 7:50 AM on April 30, 2003

Proverbs 21:24
The proud and arrogant man-"Mocker" is his name; he behaves with overweening pride.
posted by aaronshaf at 8:22 AM on April 30, 2003

Let us rejoice this day that God does not exist!

I don't think that comments like this serve to do anything but derail an otherwise very interesting thread, PG.
posted by MrBaliHai at 8:38 AM on April 30, 2003

...or for those still with one foot still out of their handbasket to Hell

Well, I wind up in Level 8 - Malebolge on this Dante's Inferno test, so I think I can plunge ahead. (I hope to make it to Level 9, but I have to work on my Satan exercises.)

MrBaliHai, I think PG's main point was about the syntactic ambiguity of "wherefore he slew him also" rather than about the existence or otherwise of a Higher Being. PG can correct me if I'm wrong and he was indeed working on his Satan exercises.
posted by languagehat at 9:38 AM on April 30, 2003

(Thanks for the Inferno test!)
posted by win_k at 9:57 AM on April 30, 2003

Let us rejoice this day that God does not exist!

Naaahh, let's wait till tomorrow.
posted by soyjoy at 10:07 AM on April 30, 2003

Massive derail ahead. Please skip unless you're languagehat or enjoy this sort of minutiae.

or for those still with one foot still out of their handbasket to Hell

LH, save the planet from another MeTa thread, because this has bothered me for some time:

When you quote a fellow member, should you correct evident mistakes (such as the repetition of still in mine or obvious typos) or just leave it/copy&paste as it is? I never know if it's disrespectful, patronising or somehow document-falsifying to make even small changes and heaven knows (sic) is not the answer.

Just now, in another thread, Uncle Fes corrected a typo so, when I quoted him back, I could spell a word correctly. That's an easy one.

But time after time, it also seems rude to reprint an obvious mistake...

Oh what shall I do?

posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:31 AM on April 30, 2003

Miguel, I'm not LH by any means. But I think the answer's pretty straightforward, so I'll have a go.

If the typo remains uncorrected by the user, just quote them exactly without making reference to it. There's a general understanding that mistakes of punctuation, grammar, or keyboarding are irrelevant to the discussion except in those cases where someone's getting all high-and-mighty about someone else's communication style.

But if they have a typo and then subsequently correct it, go the extra mile and incorporate the correction in your quote. Just as you did. Just as you already knew the answer to be. But knowing wouldn't have satisfied that urge to MeTa, would it? (If I used smileys, there'd be one here now.)

posted by soyjoy at 11:15 AM on April 30, 2003

The prince actually went ahead with this, whereupon Simeon and Levi, two of Dinah's brothers - walked right into the city and slew the entire male population. Genesis 34.

One of my favorite tales in the Bible and it also explains how Joseph, the 12th son out 13, was given his father's blessing. The father's blessing was reserved for the first born unless he dishonored his father then it would go to the next son in line. Not all of Joseph's brothers threw him in a pit to be sold into slavery. That use to bother me that people assumed all 11 brothers threw Joseph in the pit because they were jealous of his colorful robe. I as an older brtoher could never phantom all 11 brothers picking on just one and found this tale when following the blessings for this family which is passed on from one generation to another. The blessings will lead you from start to finish in The Old Testament, I might add.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:52 PM on April 30, 2003

Isn't "Know thyself" a plea for everyone to masturbate more often?
posted by hellinskira at 2:10 PM on April 30, 2003

Miguel, I am LH, so I'll have a go too. I agree it's a quandary, and I tend to clean up obvious misspellings and the like, unless of course I'm drawing attention to them—or, as in this case, I didn't even notice them. Yes, this professional editor read right over the repetition of "still." Please don't tell my boss.

hellinskira, that's pretty damn funny. I can't believe I've never heard it before.
posted by languagehat at 2:59 PM on April 30, 2003

Great post, Miguel. I always like the funny and informative Jewsweek insights.

And the mere name seems designed for glee and mirth.
posted by hama7 at 6:00 AM on May 1, 2003

Ken Smith's Guide to the Bible is worth checking out if you like this stuff.
posted by Vidiot at 8:01 AM on May 1, 2003

« Older Poke Smot, or not?   |   Marc Dutroux ordered to stand trial in Belgium Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments