Birth control and Christian colleges.

Larry:

Nothing can be more clear than the fact that the Spirit of God placed these words together in our Bible in the exact manner in which He wanted them.

The crystal clear examination of The Word that our brother Paul has written here is beyond refute by any Man of the Word.

Please, stop and consider these things, before our Lord in prayer. The Bible surely is His Word. Sometimes we all have to stop and consider that, perhaps, I may not be correct in my position and allow the Lord to lead.

 

Which being interpreted is, you got caught misrepresenting my words and now want to try to save face. BTW, snakes aren't slippery. You should pick on up some time. Very wierd ... I hate handling snakes ...

It isn't a hollow victory. It wasn't a victory. I simply showed where you were wrong. Paul, you would do well to follow my example ... admit it when you don't know what the truth is. I said I didn't know something. It is obvious that there are some things you don't know. It is better to admit it than to keep bluffing.

YOu have taken a very hard line here, and I have constantly and concretely refuted it. YOu have yet to show any biblical scholar that agrees with you about your position that these "pharmakeion" were abortive birth control. That should cause you to back off your argument. You do not know it all. I do not know it all. But men who have made their lives about the study of Greek and God's word say you are wrong. YOu would do well to listen.

Apparently you cannot read or are unwilling to read. Listen to me again. The commentators and translations (even the ones you cite) do not connect the drugs with abortion. They are connected with the occult. Surprisingly (or not if you have actually read my words), that is what I have been saying all along. Please stop this foolishness.

I already pointed this out on page 14. But thanks for repeating it. I never argued that idolatry always had to do with actual idols. You seem to not be following the conversation here.

How can you not understand that this is a completely illegitimate exegetical jump? This would not pass muster in any seminary worth its salt. The passage in question does not connect idolatry with sexual immorality, not does it speak anything of abortive drugs. You are way off base here and you do not seem to be listening. Are you even understanding what is going on?

Well what? The "term in question" was the word as used in Rev 22:15. The use in Rev 22:15 clearly has nothing to do wwith medical drugs or birth control. The term elsewhere may indeed by used that way. If you would quit misrepresenting what I say, you would see very easily what I am saying.

The fact remains that there is no exegetical or theological reason to suggest that pharmakeia and related words in Rev have anything to do with abortive birth control. THat is a misuse of Scripture and that position should be abandoned. We do not need to misuse Scripture to prove something wrong. You are trying to read your own beliefs back into Scripture.

This conversation has degenerated unfortunately. I am sorry you were offended at the language I used to point out your misuse of Scripture. Please understand that my words were not directed at you, but rather at the misuse of Scripture.

You must understand that I agree with you about abortive drugs. They are covered clearly under the commandment to not kill. We do not need to misuse Scripture to try to make a point about something that is expressly clear in Scripture. Rev 22:15 has absolutely nothing to do with abortive birth control. Let's dispense with that notion and argue that God's word clearly condemns murder. That is all we need.

 

I absolutely agreed, which is why I have responded as I have. If God had wanted to talk about abortive birth control, he most certainly could have done that. We should not misuse the words of the Spirit of God to fit our own notions, no matter how right those notions might be.

Actually, there does not seem to be a single man of the word that agrees with him. I have asked him for sources, and everything he has given agrees with me, against himself. He cites the lexicons ... all the lexicons agree that these usages have to do with magic arts. He cites John Calvin who expressly says that which the word can mean drugs/remedies/potions, the REvelation usages are clearly dealing with magic. So far, I do not remember him giving even one "man of the word" who agrees with him. I would love to see it.

I absolutely agree. Our disagreement is not about whether the Bible is God's word or whether it is authoritative. Our disagreement is about the meanign and usage of a particular word in a particular context.

I fully agree ... If you remember, you previously attacked me for saying "I think" and similar things. When I said that, I was fully admitting that my statements were my own, and they were not infallible. In another case that Paul attacked me for, I said I did not know certain things. Again, it was a clear admission of my own limited knowledge and understanding.

But I have yet to see you take such a position. You speak dogmatically and without any hint of acknowledgement that you might be wrong. And when you have been shown concretly to be wrong, you blame the messenger. I would encourage you to prayerfully consider that you and Paul might be wrong on this issue. I indeed firmly believe that you are, and have shown evidence and support for my position. Paul seems to have yet to offer anything other than his own opinion, coupled with sources that agree with me.

Consider that you may not be correct in your position and allow the Lord to lead. We can firmly stand against abortion without misusing the word to do so.

 

Your ideas are very intriguing to me, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Larry has very clearly shown there to be other possible interpretation and exegesis of these passages, that is the only thing that is crystal clear here, there could be more than one intent in the use of that word. I like to use the one that can be justified by the context wherever possible, and many a bad theology has resulted from exactly this kind of out of context grasping at straws to find some Biblical justification for a rather odd belief system.

We are well beyond the scope of the text in dealing with this issue, and many Godly individuals differ on this. We are probably all wrong.

 

Paul, in the past, I would have granted you the possibility that you might be misunderstanding or reading quickly and missing something. However, your persistence in saying this leaves me no option but to say you are lying. In my post from November 01, 2004 08:29 PM (on this page, near the top) I say this: It is not under dispute that the pharmakeia word set can mean drugs, rememdy, or medicine. That was a quote from previous pages. In fact, it is what I have constantly said. I even cited the definitions of various lexicons that say that pharmakeia means drugs, medicines, or potions. For you to know this evidence and yet continue to say that I say pharmekeia can only mean magic arts is a flat out lie. I have purposely reserved that word and refrained from using it to give you the benefit of the doubt. But now, you have seen me say that several times in black and white and you continue to ignore what I have said and attribute a position to me that I do not hold. That is a lie; it is unethical, and unacceptable.

Again, this is simply untrue. I said I did not know whether they had knowledge. My point is that it was irrelevant, because the context so clearly seems to mitigate against that understanding for various exegetical reasons already shown. I said it was highly unlikely that anyone read of Revelation would have thought of abortive drugs in that context. I stand by that statement because it is the virtually unanimous position of the lexicons and commentators.

When you say this, you must realize that you are a maverick. There is no one I can find that agrees with you. I have constantly asked you to provide commentary or lexical support that the uses in Revelation mean abortive drugs. You are either refusing or are unable to provide that evidence, or I have missed it. So far, the most you came up with was Calvin, who actually agreed with me. I have not misapplied the lexicons at all. They disagree with you. All you need to do is look at them and see under what definitino they list the verses in question. You will see that they all agree with me. Why is that so hard for you to admit? I know you have staked yourself here on 18 pages and are now finding out that you have no support that you are willing to put forth. But man, right now, I would be seriously backing away from my position, having been refuted as soundly as yours has been, and having been able to find no support for it.

And basic hermeneutics shows you wrong. You are practicing the illegitimate totality transfer (I think from Carson's Exegetical Fallacies[/i]). YOu are trying to shoehorn every meaning into one usage. But as Terry and others have so aptly pointed out, a word only has meaning in one and the same context. In other words, it doesn't mean all three things. It means one thing. That is what all the lexicons recognize. And that is why they put the verses under the appropriate meanings. And no lexicon puts the Rev verses under "drugs, medicines, or potions." Why? Because the experts do not believe that is what it means. And now you come along with some new insight that you think valid to contradict hundreds of years of biblical study and understanding. I certainly do not think that much of my own opinion; neither should you.

The fact remains that you still have no exegetical reason to include "abortive drugs" in the meaning of "pharmakeia" in that context. You have a present day need (to find biblical support for the prohibition of certain kinds of birth control). That biblical support is found in many passages that do not require the kind of lexical faux pas that you are making here.

But above all else, do not continue to lie about what I said. If you are having a difficult time reading or understanding, just say so. Don't make stuff up.

 

Paul, no one disagrees with that. But you are making this huge jump from that to abortive drugs in the meaning of pharmakeia. The fact that people kill babies through abortion is included under "murders." It is not included under "drugs" or "magic arts." There is no linking such as "murder by use of drugs," or "abortion through abortive drugs." If you were making an exegetical sentence diagram, murder and pharmakeia would be parallel to each other. They are not genitive or dative constructions. They are not causally related in the exegesis.

Perhaps that will help you to better understand ... Perhaps not.

 

It is not about what it "can" mean, nor about what it "must" mean. It is about what it "does" mean. The NT authors used it in respect to magic arts and drug use in the magic arts. EVery single lexicon agrees on that. No lexicon attributes to it the meaning of general drug use, medicine, or remedies. And no lexicon attributes it to abortion. No commentator that I can find attributes to it the meaning of general drug use, medicine, or remedies. All attribute to it the meaning of magic arts.

I have repeatedly asked Paul for references and citations in support of his position. So far, the only thing I have seen is the citation of Calvin, who agreed with me, as footnote one clearly states.

I didn't take anything out of context. I actually placed back in context, the quotations that Paul took out of context.

In the future, I hope that my comments will not be misrepresented and that the Scripture will be rightly used. If you are going to take a novel interpretation, it is up to you to support it. So far, that has not been done.

 

I agree with Pastor Larry. To take the meaning of a drug causing abortion from this passage goes way beyond what the term in context means in all NT passages. Even if the case is that one of the uses of some of these herbs was to produce abortions, it seems clear from the context of the passages, the context of the NT, and the larger context of the OT (OT passages condemning magic arts, incantations, etc. such as Deut 18.10-12) that God has something bigger in mind. The use of drugs in magical workings (potions) would imply the worship of false gods since these practices coincided with that, whereas using a drug for abortion would not. There is no indication from these passages that one can get the meaning of causing abortion from them. I think if God had meant that, it would be so stated (and perhaps the use of some of these drugs as abortifacients is implied in the overrall use for other purposes).

There's a reason the translators have translated the way they have -- sometimes as witchcraft and sometimes as sorcery (both of which involved various occult practices such as spells, magical workings, incantations, divination, and possibly the use of drugs to go into altered states in order to contact spirits or give oracles). In fact, I've read that the Oracle at Delphi was suspended over gaseous substances that sent her into a drugged state in which she made her murmurings and prophecies.

Even today, the use of herbs (drugs) is used widely for spirit contact, altered states, and to formulate magical potions.

 

Not true,
He indicated that in the passages in question, the context would seem to indicate the most likely intended meaning. the Bible cannot mean what it never meant.

If John was intentionally using it in reference to Drugs used in conjunction with magic arts, that we cannot use the verse to support a modern philosophy that he had no intention of addressing. The principle does not distill out of thin air, you have to be consistent in your exegesis to analyze what it is that John intended when that phrase was written, can we do that always? No, but that is the purpose of interpretation, not "lets see if I can make this fit"

 

You certainly cited a bunch of evidence. But none of what you cited proved your point. You argued that pharmakon in Rev includes abortive drugs. You cited no support for that.

I am sorry you are bent out of shape about this. You shouldn't be. You have spent 19 pages now defending this position, and you have yet to make your point with valid support

Go try it and see how many people think that you are tellign them to repent of RU-486 or Plan B. Not one person in a hundred will come up with that conclusion.

I hope this can be put to rest now. Let's dispense with this nonsense.

 

Paul ... have you read??? I have cited lexicons which are widely recognized as authoritative sources. I have cited the most recent, up to date commenatry on the book of Revelation (RL Thomas).

I am convinced that the first century reader would not have understand pharmakon to mean abortive birth control drugs because that is not what any sources says. You have not cited one piece of evidence in support of your position about that point. You have cited that abortive drugs were available, that the church condemned them, etc. None of that is the issue. The issue is the meaning of a very particular word in Rev 22.

BTW, biblical writers often use a word with a specific meaning unique to Christianity, such as ecclesia. Others could be attested.

If you want to change the historically accepted interpretation, it is up to you to make the case. You have not done that. BTW, there is someone who offers some support for your position. It goes back to 1881 apparently. But it is definitely outside the mainstream, and certianly does not fit the context very well.

I have given very little of my opinion here. Mostly, I have cited the lexicons. That is not my opinion in the least. That is their opinion.

 

Thanks, Paul ... Once again, everything you cite agrees with me.