I Corinthian 7:36 "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry."
Your version is definitely perverted. This means towards his own virgin wife to be.(It does not state that it is his own virgin or his daughter ; it could easily mean women unmarried slaves back then) That before a man acts on his thoughts, he should do the right thing and propose marriage to her. You also omitted the valuable passage about being at the right age before he should think of marrying the virgin he is attracted to.
Please stop perverting the Bible, if you do not understand it, pray for understanding. You took it out context and did not take into account how Paul defined a wife and a virgin. You are entitled to your own opinion but Chapter 7:1-10 clearly explains what marriage is about, a divine union between a man and a woman or husband and wife.
If you don't like what the 233 English versions of the Bible say then take it up with the translators. Don't bother me with your dog and pony show.
You pathetic apologists always claim "out of context, out of context" but you never show how the meaning is changed being put back into context, in context or out of context the meaning is the same.
All you are offering is your opinion as to which version or versions to select from. ALL of them claim to be the word of God and all of them contradict one another.
MARK 1:1 ("The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ"--NI, LB, JB, TEV, NWT) versus ("The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ"--KJ, RS, ML, AS, BBE, NEB, NAB, NAS, LV). The former does not say Jesus wrote the Book of Mark while the latter all but says he did.
MARK 15:39 ("...Truly this man was the son of God"--KJ, RS, NI, AS, NAB, TEV, NAS, LV) versus ("...In truth this man was a son of God"--JB, BBE, NEB). "A" son clearly means there could be other sons of God while "the" son does not.
LUKE 1:27 ("To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph...."--KJ, ML, LB, RS, JB, NI, AS, BBE, NAB, NWT, NAS, LV) versus ("...with a message for a girl betrothed to a man named Joseph...."--NEB, TEV). The latter translation does not support the idea of a virgin birth.
LUKE 2:33 ("Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken"--KJ, LB, LV) versus ("his father and his mother marveled at what was said...."--RS, ML, JB, NI, AS, BBE, NEB, NAB, TEV, NWT, NAS). Except for the Living Bible and the LV no modern version in our list supports the KJ. They all imply there was no virgin birth because Joseph is equated with his mother by being called his father. The second group clearly implies that Joseph was as much his father as Mary was his mother.
LUKE 2:43 ("...and Joseph and his mother knew not of it"--KJ, LV) versus ("His parents did not know of it"--RS, LB, ML, JB, NI, AS, NEB, NAB, TEV, NWT, NAS). Again every one of our versions says Joseph was the father of Jesus except the KJ and LV. Only the latter imply Joseph was not his father and there was a virgin birth.
LUKE 17:21 ("...the Kingdom of God is within you"--KJ, LB, AS, TEV, NWT, NI, LV) versus ("...the Kingdom of God is among you"--RS, ML, JB, BBE, NEB, NAB, NAS). Whether or not the Kingdom of God is within you or outside is of theological importance.
JOHN 1:26, 31, 33 ("...I baptize with water"--KJ, ML, RS, LB, JB, BBE, NAB, TEV, NI, LV) versus ("...I baptize in water...."--AS, NEB, NWT, NAS). No wonder some support baptism by sprinkling ("with water") while others believe in baptism by immersion ("in water").
JOHN 10:29 ("My Father who has given them to me <Jesus> is greater than all...."--KJ, ML, LB, RS, JB, AS, NEB, NAB, NAS, NI, LV) versus ("What my Father has given me is greater than anything...."--BBE, TEV, NWT). Which is greater than all? God or what God has given to Jesus?