I can't find a text in the OT that specifically comdemns premarital sex
Neither can I. Like I said before certain laws cast serious questions to such a notion all together.
at least not on the level that adultery is condemned.
You have already stated for a fact that it wasn't condemned on the same level. All it would take is to show it condemned at all.
The fact that property sanctions were attached to fornication, however, at least shows that God did not approve of it.
It does nothing of the sort. Property is property. The violation of someone's property is what God does not approve of in those verses.
Argument to authority. The fact that one other person, even a learned Rabbi, agrees with you proves nothing.
The fact that he agrees with me for the same reasons proves something.
I suspect that you are looking at a text where he is trying to tell us not to marry at all, if we can avoid it
So you are saying we shouldn't marry if we can avoid it. Is it a sin to marry if we can avoid it?
In fact, unlike the Greek porneia, the English word "fornication" is generally restricted to that meaning
The english word fornication was in the Greek texts?
that is exactly what we mean by the term, "fornication."
What we white man? I already know that you consider is sexual immorality, Im not trying to prove what you believe.
If, as you assert, the case of the two sixteen-year-olds is not included in the meaning of porneia, then Bible translators have done us a grave disservice over the years by translating porneia as "fornication."
So the bible translators translating a non-specific word to a word with one specific meaning proves more than when I claim a Rabbi agrees with my take on OT law? I wouldn't call it a grave disservice for several reasons, unless that is you feel you have been severly injured by thinking it is a sin to have premarital sex. In addition there is no reason to conclude they intentionally mistranslated the word.
It would be a gross mistranslation.
Still, not neccessarily. It could be that we have in our minds and speech modified the meaning of "fornication" through its usage. This is an imperfect example but terrific used to mean horrifying, now it means fantastic. Of course fantastic originally meant something seemed ficticious.
It isn't a question of what the Mosaic Law prohibited, since, as we have seen, Christianity expands upon the Mosaic Law in several areas.
I don't know about several areas but the ones that are, I'm sure are clearly noted. You are at this point playing the Simpson defense. That is using multiple theories that are in contradiction to make the same defense. On the one hand you say that in the OT, though you can't find it, pre-marital sex is condemned as sin. Then on the other hand you say that the NT has expanded the law so therefore pre-marital sex is now a sin whereas it wasn't before.
Your reasoning is that sexual immorality has been translated into an English word that makes people think of pre-marital sex. You know it covers a multitude of things and is a vague refference. Both of your assertions can't be correct and you have yet to prove either one.
I am simply arguing that in the OT pre-marital sex by itself is not condemned as a sin. Furthermore, the laws stated in the NT cover the laws that remain in existence, and if something was added or modified it is specifically noted. The word you translate as fornication, you have already admitted means more than just one thing. Most things it refers to aren't in the NT. So I say, go to the OT and find out what it covers.
You really can't say that sexually immorality means xyz in the OT, if the bible only specifically forbids xy in the OT.
IMO it is ethical to discourage behavior such as pre-marital sex under the wisdom that not all things permissable are profitable.
Of course not all things permissable are profitable. But then if that is true some things that are not profitable are, as much as you might not like it, permissable.
Who is shouting you down? Certainly not me.
I may have been worked up over another post while I was responding to yours. I still welcome you to prove my assertions wrong. I don't have a persectution complex. I have in the past recieved some very harsh words for questioning far less concerning OT law even though I was right then too.
All you have to do is find the scripture in the OT that says pre-marital sex by itself is a sin. You must admit that pre-marital sex is vastly more common than beastiality, homosexuality, incest, adultery, prostitution, orgies, rape..... but this thing that is so common is never called a sin by itself in the OT. All those other things are specifically condemned in the bible.
- whereas divorce for any reason had previously been allowed, now the only grounds were to be porneia.
no, that is wrong. Divorce is still allowed for any reason. It is the re-marriage for any other reason that is prohibited. Be careful you are actually getting into an area which adds further support to my argument.