Well, let’s see if we can deal with a couple of issues here quickly.
Continuing on, the context itself isn’t about sexuality. In the 31 verses of Exodus 22, there are 3 that have to do with sex. Two are one command (vv. 16-17); the other has to do with beastiality (v. 19). So less than 10% of that context is “sexuality.” And if you want to widen the context, the percentage becomes less and less.
But even given your (wrong, IMO) interpretation, why doesn’t it mean using drugs such as alcohol to get him loose and unthinking. That is one of the most common uses of alcohol, even in our modern society. It doesn’t have to have anything to do with pregnancy or abortive drugs. You have read that into it to try to make your point.
Did you look at the Hebrew word underlying this Greek translation? It is the word casaph, and means witchcraft, or diviners, such as pagan religions used. I have quickly checked BDB, NIDOTTE, TDOT, and TWOT. None of these standard lexicons give any indication of potions being involved. They all say it is about magic and divining and sorcery. The only major lexicon I haven’t checked is HALOT because I don’t have it here at my office. I am fairly sure it says the same thing.
Continuing on, the context itself isn’t about sexuality. In the 31 verses of Exodus 22, there are 3 that have to do with sex. Two are one command (vv. 16-17); the other has to do with beastiality (v. 19). So less than 10% of that context is “sexuality.” And if you want to widen the context, the percentage becomes less and less.
The context is not one of sexuality, but rather of spiritual harlotry, of false worship … which is exactly what I have said all along. The word here again is casaph, and a quick look at the Hebrew Lexica show no great indication of potions. But even if you grant that a potion is involved, there is no indication that the potion is to prevent pregnancy or to induce abortion. I am skeptical that the science was available back then for that.
But even given your (wrong, IMO) interpretation, why doesn’t it mean using drugs such as alcohol to get him loose and unthinking. That is one of the most common uses of alcohol, even in our modern society. It doesn’t have to have anything to do with pregnancy or abortive drugs. You have read that into it to try to make your point.
Clearly it is figurative, but then you turn around and try to make it literal. You deny your own conclusion in so doing. The passage is figurative; the Hebrew word has no indication of potion; it has rather to do with diviners or magicians, such as we see in Pharaoh’s court, Babylon’s court, Nineveh’s court, and other false religions. They were to be put to death because they were false worshippers who influenced others to worship falsely. It did not have to do with potions.
Again, however, the word is casaph and you have the same problems as before: Not what it means.
Yes, but you have connected them sequentially which is not in the text. And you have chosen to connect just these three, without respect for the fact that the lists contain others that you have no connected. You have, in an attempt to support your point, selectively used the list. That is not good exegesis.
That is clearly not the picture. The picture is that Babylon the harlot has led people astray into false worship … spiritual adultery. It is a figurative use of harlotry and does not need potions to make it work.
Rev 18:6 doesn’t even use the words. The pay back has to do with judgment for sin.
Actually, none of them do. It is much easier just to take the lexical definition. Why do you think no translation and no major commentator that I can find believes what you do? I think it is obvious why … It is not what it means.
