But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul. (Proverbs 6:32)
The following distortion of Psalm 6:32 by Mitchell Dahood is a product of the age of decadence and immorality in which he lived.
“Who commits adultery with a woman is lacking in sense, But a destroyer of his own soul is he who violates her.”1
This is quite a serious change from the Hebrew and King James versions of the proverb. At first glance it may appear that he is saying basically the same thing, but he is not. What Dahood suggests is that the second clause is referring to rape, and not to adultery.
Dahood, like so many modern academics, apparently did not think that adultery was too terrible of a sin. Dahood’s lack of moral fortitude is expressed in his explanation for his change of the cause of the destruction of the soul.
“Since masit napsô “the destroyer of his own soul” is a much stronger expression than *’asar leb “one lacking in understanding,” ya’annâ should refer to a crime more heinous than no’ep issâ.”2
Apparently this Jesuit was unaware that not committing adultery is one of the 10 commandments, along with murder.
Exodus 20:14 “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
Leviticus 20:10 “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”
Deuteronomy 5:18 “Neither shalt thou commit adultery.”
Jeremiah 7:9 “Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not;”
Jeremiah 23:14 “I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.”
Jeremiah 29:23 “Because they have committed villany in Israel, and have committed adultery with their neighbours’ wives, and have spoken lying words in my name, which I have not commanded them; even I know, and am a witness, saith the LORD.”
Hosea 4:2 “By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood.”
It is clear that the Old Testament sees adultery as being quite heinous. The New Testament also has numerous passages that condemn adultery and they are found in all four Gospels, the Book of Acts, many of the Epistles and the Book of Revelation. In Galatians adultery is mentioned alongside of many other sins that modern reprobates do not consider to be very heinous. The New Testament, like the Old Testament, has very different ideas of what sinful behavior is.
Galatians 5:19-21 “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”
While rape is indeed a very heinous sin, it should be noted that rape is not explicitly included among the Ten Commandments (it is in included in the ninth) as is adultery, and, although it is explicitly condemned in the Bible, it is discussed far less than adultery. A Bible “expert” like Dahood should surely have noticed that before he inserted his morally corrupt ideals into the text. What Ugaritic evidence does Dahood offer to destroy this verse? He uses a hypothetical meaning of ‘sy, which is found in the Ugaritic myth of Aqhat 2:1:30, which he hopes to abuse, to support a theory based on the Arabic root ‘sy II meaning to Press or squeeze. So in order to minimalize adultery, we must first change an Old Testament verb ‘sy, meaning “to do”, which is one of the most common verbs in Hebrew to another verb that does not actually exist, except perhaps in another language. That is supposed to be scholarship! There is nothing at all confusing about the grammar of this verse, so, not only does it not make sense to change this verse on textual grounds, it makes no sense on philological grounds. As the modern deconstructionists take over theological we will start to see more and more nonsense like this.
1 ibid, p. 13.
2 ibid, p. 14.
John Hinton, Ph.D.
Bible Restoration Ministry
A ministry seeking the translating and reprinting of KJV equivalent
Bibles in all the languages of the world.