Old Testament/New Testament rules for sexuality vary significantly?

I am referring to "premarital sex" in particular. I think that there is only a concept of that as a sin in parts of the New Testament, but it was not a sin at all as far as the Old Testament was concerned. The Bible seems to vary a lot throughout on what was & wasn’t ok to do as far as sex goes.

The New Testament in the Bible makes mention at times in certain apostolic letters of "sexual immorality". (Jesus had little, if anything at all to say on the subject, however.)

But as a "sin", "premarital sex" does not exist in the Old Testament at all, as far as I can see.

In the O.T., there is only a concept of "adultery" (cheating on a spouse) being a sin. But not premarital sex. Like within the ten commandments, most O.T. sexual rules are either about adultery, or jealousy of the "property" of others- ("Do not covet your neighbor’s wife"). There was also an O.T. concept of women (ONLY women) being of a higher worth to a suitor if she had remained a virgin, same as if she were attractive. But again, it only applied to women & seemed to have little to do with sin or lack thereof, just a woman’s appeal to a suitor, I think.

Men in the Old Testament seemed to be able to have sex with anyone they wanted, so long as it wasn’t another man’s wife. Concubines were perfectly acceptable, and there was never any mention in the O.T. of that being any kind of sin. Concubines and wives were completely separate things. A concubine was simply a woman that a man could have sex with who was "his", not someone else’s, (presumably if he could afford to house her?). She wasn’t one of his wives at all, the bible differentiates between the two. King David is just one of the "godly" men of the O.T. with many concubines. So, the men were completely free to have unlimited premarital sex, so long as it wasn’t another man’s wife.

Kinda makes me think O.T. sexuality rules were ALL about ownership of "property" and in no way about the Christian concepts of "sexual purity" that we have today.

The whole concept of sexual sin in the bible is a completely and entirely different one from book to book, (ONLY adultery remaining a constant). So, how is any Christian so sure that his modern day Christian approach to sexuality is the correct one? There is any number of approaches to premarital sex in the Bible to choose from. Some say that the New Testament gives us less "law", meaning fewer strict rules to follow, and therefore is the new law of "grace" for us to follow. But with sex this time it’s the the inverse: the O.T. being far less strict than the N.T. in this case. How do you know that the rules for sexuality that Christians embrace today is the right set of rules, when there are so many extremely different sets of sexual rules in the bible to choose from?
to "hairypotto"- lol, that’s always been my theory of the apostle paul as well. was he not a total repressed gay fellow?
"ikd"- ok now give me a verse from the old testament saying a MAN can’t have premarital sex. Oh wait, there isn’t one. That would be because women were considered back then to be property, and men preferred a virgin. We all know that the only way to be 100% sure you’re the biggest your wife’s ever been with, is to marry a virgin
"caligula"- still, this one’s about a woman, too. There is scriptural proof that the O.T. men got to have premarital sex. Wow, that’s a weird verse though. Never even knew that one was in there. kinda helps my point I made above tho, about why they wanted the girls to all stay virgins till married…. clearly there were some fellows back then with size issues.

Copyright © How To Catch a Cheater