Birth control and Christian colleges.

[foxrev]

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Larry, you are more slippery than a snake in a pit of olive oil.

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 ...

So I didn't prove you wrong because you are ignorant. That is a rather hollow victory, but if that is where you want to stand, so be it.

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.

Here are references from the Complete Jewish Bible (since again you show your ignorance, still maintaining that there are no lexicons or translations that understand pharmakon to be drugs in Revelation or Galatians):

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.

And then, to show you that idolatry does not always have to refer to pagan rituals and the worship of false deities, Col. 3:5 says in the NIV:

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.

So pharmakon linked together with eidololatres would indicate potions/drugs/poisons to take care of the problem created by eidololatres (sexually immoral persons). In other words, ABORTIFACIENT DRUGS!

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?

I am not disputing that the pharmakon word group does have the meaning of drugs, remedies, and potions. When you say I deny that, you are simply not telling the truth. I have not denied that. I never have.

Larry saying that pharmakon has nothing to do with drugs:

"The term in question has to do with magic arts. It has absolutely nothing to do with medical drugs or birth control. This is so far from reality, you have to be joking."

Well Larry?

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.

 

[Pastor 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.

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.

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

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.

Please, stop and consider these things, before our Lord in prayer. The Bible surely is His Word.

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.

Sometimes we all have to stop and consider that, perhaps, I may not be correct in my position and allow the Lord to lead.

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.

 

[superdave]

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

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.

 

[Paul33]

Superdave,

You got it exactly backwards! Larry is the one arguing that pharmakon can only mean magic arts. I am arguing that pharmakon can mean drugs/potions/poisons both within the concept of magic arts and without. In other words, I'm the one saying that there is more than one way to interpret these passages.

I have shown conclusively that the early church did have an awareness of poisons/remedies (pharmakon) to take care of the problem of sexual immorality and idololatres. From the ancient Egyptians to Greco-Roman prescriptions to the early church fathers and councils, pharmakon has been linked to drugs/potions/poisons. The early church didn't live in a vacuum. They were aware of abortion-inducing poisons and drugs, and their availability.

Can you imagine someone making that claim for us today? That we didn't have any awareness of abortifacient drugs in our society, and that if we did, they wouldn't have been available to us. That's just ludicrous. But that is Larry's position.

To then turn around and say that when pharmakon is used in the NT it only refers to magic arts is simply wrong. Larry is restricting the meaning of the word based on a misreading and misapplication of the lexicons, or for personal reasons, or because he fails to understand the history of pharmakon.

My arguement is that the full range of meaning attributed to pharmakon would have been in view when a NT saint read the book of Revelation or Galatians, including the idea of abortifacient herbal remedies when the context points him in that direction.

The Complete Jewish Bible understands the range of meaning of pharmakon and the context of the first century and appropriately translates pharmakon as "those involved with the occult and with drugs." I think that is an excellent translation of the word pharmakon.

 

[Paul33]

Now that I have conclusively shown that the first century Christian would have understood pharmakon in Revelation and Galatians to include the idea of herbal remedies, drugs, and poisons, as well as potions and draughts used in magic arts, let's move on to the last days.

The texts in Revelation all deal with the last days. John is describing conditions that may be a description of our own world today!

What do we find?

Rev. 9:20-21 - "The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood - idols that cannot see or hear or walk. Nor did they repent of their murders, their pharmakon, their sexual immorality or their thefts."

In the last days mankind won't repent of:
1) The work of their hands - look what I've done?
2) worship of demons - find the god within?
3) idols - any material thing that we worship?
4) murders - taking of innocent human life

How many murderers do you know? Those who take the life of a living person.
How many people do you know who have had an abortion?
They won't repent of their murders. World-wide, what do you think this word applies to?

5)of their pharmakon - drugs/poisons/remedies/magic potions
How many users of magic potions do you know? How many witches are your neighbors? We all know people who use illicit drugs. We all know people who use drugs as remedies for self-caused problems. We all know persons who use abortifacient birth control pills, or the patch, or RU-486, or even herbal remedies.
They won't repent of their remedies! World-wide, what do you think this word applies to?

6) of their sexual immorality - sex outside of marriage
How many adulterers or fornicators do you know? It is a mantra today that sexual behavior should be expressed in any combination. Our world is completely obsessed with sexual immorality. And to make sex safe, society advocates the use of birth control pills to keep from getting pregant, and condoms to keep from spreading disease. And of course, other avenues if you do get pregnant. And this is taught to children beginning in kindergarden.

7)of their thefts - taking something that doesn't belong to you. How many theives do you know? The kind that steal cars, tv's, etc.
How many people do you know that take things that don't belong to them, including sexual activity outside of marriage? Material theft is rampant, but so is the theft that results from immoral sexual behavior.

So John, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, reveals to us what the last days are going to look like! He reveals to us what nonbeleivers will not repent from.

As you consider what human life is being destroyed today, what pharmakon people are using, the full range of sexual immorality and thefts that are taking place in society, what kind of picture do you see?

[ November 02, 2004, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Paul33 ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Larry is the one arguing that pharmakon can only mean magic arts.

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.

Can you imagine someone making that claim for us today? That we didn't have any awareness of abortifacient drugs in our society, and that if we did, they wouldn't have been available to us. That's just ludicrous. But that is Larry's position.

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.

To then turn around and say that when pharmakon is used in the NT it only refers to magic arts is simply wrong. Larry is restricting the meaning of the word based on a misreading and misapplication of the lexicons, or for personal reasons, or because he fails to understand the history of pharmakon.

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.

My arguement is that the full range of meaning attributed to pharmakon would have been in view when a NT saint read the book of Revelation or Galatians, including the idea of abortifacient herbal remedies when the context points him in that direction.

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

So John, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, reveals to us what the last days are going to look like! He reveals to us what nonbeleivers will not repent from.

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.

 

[Paul33]

Larry,

Is it your position that pharmakon can only mean magic arts in the NT references?

 

[Paul33]

The reason why Larry is so slippery is because he takes phrases out of context, and then accuses others of lying.

The context of the quote that Larry sites from me, to claim that I am lying, is "these passages" taken from Superdave's post.

So I ask him forthright: "Is it your position that pharmakon can only mean magic arts in the NT references?"

We already knew and understood that the context was "in the NT references." But because I failed to state the obvious, he calls me a liar.

Larry believes that in the text of Scripture, namely Revelation, pharmakon must mean magic arts.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Is it your position that pharmakon can only mean magic arts in the NT references?

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.

 

[Marcia]

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.

 

[superdave]

Larry believes that in the text of Scripture, namely Revelation, pharmakon must mean magic arts

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"

 

[Paul33]

I have sited so much evidence that it makes my head spin.

This is what you have to prove, that:

Despite the fact that pharmakon in general useage in the first century meant drugs/remedies/potions/poisons (we all agree that the Lexicons teach this)

and despite the fact that first century catalogues of drugs existed called pharmakon

and despite the fact that poisons were used to cause abortion in the first century

and despite the fact that the early church fathers knew about these uses

and despite the fact that the early church was accused of committing abortion and infanticide in their worship and had to defend themselves against this charge

and despite the statements of the council of Ancyra

and despite the fact that pharmakon in the texts is contextually linked with murder, sexual immorality, and idololatres

and despite the fact that idololatres is defined twice in Scripture to be sexually immoral, lustful, persons without reference to idol worship

and despite the fact that every reference of idololatres is contextually linked to gross sexual immorality (numerous terms in each list are sexual in nature, speaking of impurity, debauchery, orgies, etc.)

Despite the pervasive cultural use of pharmakon in the first century and the evidence sited above, both the Apostle John and his readers would have limited their understanding of pharmakon to "magic arts and drugs used in magic arts" (Larry's phrase).

And we know to do this because commentaries and translations refer to pharmakon as sorcery. (That's all you have! You put up commentaries against first century sources!)

What happened to thinking for yourself, and using wisdom to discern?

Did the writers of the commentaries take into consideration the above evidence? Did they even know about the above evidence? We have access today to information that others just a generation ago could only have dreamed of.

I maintain that "pharmakon" in the mind of John and his readers would have been understood to be drugs/potions/poisons/remedies. They would also have understood that these phamakoi were pervasive in society, not just in pagan temple worship. They would also have understood the blatant misuse of these pharmakoi in sexual immorality, altered states, ritualistic worship, recreational activities, etc.

The very same way we understand the word "drugs" today.

And if I said to someone today that you need to repent of your murders, drugs, sexual immorality, and thefts, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out what I was talking about.

[ November 02, 2004, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Paul33 ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

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

And if I said to someone today that you need to repent of your murders, drugs, sexual immorality, and thefts, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out what I was talking about.

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.

 

[Paul33]

Larry,

Prove your point.

Your only evidence is commentaries. Which ones? We don't know. Commentaries written, no doubt, without the benefit of recent research.

Despite strong first century source materials to the contrary, you are convinced that the biblical writer could not have meant "drugs" when writing pharmakon. You exclude the general meaning of the word that a first century audience would have thought of, for a restricted sense of the word, but you give no evidence or rationale as to why you did that.

Is it normal for the biblical writers to use words in common usage differently than the rest of their society? Prove it.

I've given proof. You've given this forum nothing but your opinion that it can't mean what I've shown it to mean.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

 

[Paul33]

Taken directly from the lexicons:

Liddell-Scott Lexicon:
pharmakos, a poisoner, sorcerer, magician

[Poison is the first meaning given.]

Colin Brown, Dictionary of NT Theology, II, 558:
pharmakeus, mixer of potions, magician (Rev. 21:8)
The basic word pharmakon does not occur in the NT, but its meaning of medicine, magic potion, poison gives the underlying idea of the words.

[Mixer of potions is the first meaning given. Then Brown tells us what underlies the word pharmakon. And what is it? Medicine, magic potion, poison.]

A Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich, p. 854
pharmakon, 1. poison, 2. magic potion, charm, 3. medicine, remedy, drug
pharmakeo, mix poison, make potions, practice magic
pharmakeus, mixer of poisons, magician Rev. 21:8

[Notice again the first definition given - poison. I would think that the first definition should be used in all of the references in Revelation unless it doesn't make sense. Does it make sense? "They would not repent of their murders, poisons, sexual immorality, thefts." That makes sense to me.]

And now I will add to this list:

Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words,

SORCERY
A. Nouns.
1. PHARMAKIA (Eng., pharmacy etc.) primarily signified the use of medicine, drugs, spells; then, poisoning; then, sorcery, Gal. 5:20, R.V., "sorcery" (A.V. "witchcraft"), mentioned as one of "the works of the flesh."

[Of course it references Gal. 5:20 with the word sorcery, because that is the word used in the A.V. translation. But what is sorcery? It is the use of drugs.]

Vines continues:

In sorcery, the use of drugs, whether simple or potent, was generally accompanied by incantations and appeals to occult powers, with the provision of various charms, amulets, etc., professedly designed to keep the applicant or patient from the attention and power of demons, but actually to impress the applicant with the mysterious resources and powers of the sorcerer.

[The powers of the sorcerer came not from himself but from the effects of the drugs being used. That's why they were often refered to as magicians. They were pretenders.]

2. MAGIA, the magic art, is used in the plural in Acts 8:11, "sorceries."

[Gene pointed out that magia is the more restricted use of the synonyms.]

B. Verb.
MAGEUO, akin to A, No. 2, to practice magic, Acts 8:9, "used sorcery," is used as in A, No. 2, of Simon Magnus.

SORCERER
1. MAGOS (a) one of a Median caste, a magician: see WISE; (b) a wizard, sorcerer, a pretender to magic powers, a professor of the arts of witchcraft.

[They were pretenders. It was the drugs that caused the "magic." A sorcerer is one who mixes potions/remedies/medicines/poisons]

2. PHARMAKOS, an adjective signifying 'devoted to magical arts,' is used as a noun, a sorcerer, especially one who uses drugs, potions, spells, enchantments, Rev. 21:8, in the best texts (some have pharmakeus), and 22:15.

[Again, the emphasis is that sorcerers use drugs, potions, spells, enchantments. It is the drugs that make the difference.]

Listen up folks. There is no other word in Greek for John to use to convey the meaning of drugs. Pharmakon means drugs. The only reason why the lexicons reference sorcery is because the older translations use the word sorcery. But what is sorcery? It is drug use under the guise of magic.

[ November 02, 2004, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: Paul33 ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

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

 

[Paul33]

There is an old addage that says, "If the literal sense makes plain sense seek no other sense."

Having looked over the lexicons again, let's apply the first meaning of pharmakon to the texts in Revelation.

Liddell-Scott and BAG give the first meaning of pharmakon to be poison.

Revelation 9:21 - "They would not repent of their murders, poisons, sexual immorality, thefts."

Revelation 22:15 - "Outside are the dogs, those who use poisons, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the eidololatres (hedonistic), and everyone who loves and practices falsehood."

Revelation 21:8 - "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, the users of poisons, the eidololatres (hedonistic) and all liars - their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur."

Revelation 18:23 - "Your merchants were the world's great men. By your poisons all the nations were led astray. In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints and of all who have been killed on the earth."

In every case, poison makes sense in the texts of Revelation.

And in Galatians 5:19-21 - "The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, sexual impurity and debauchery; hedonism (idololatres) and poisons; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."

It is obvious that the first meaning of the word pharmakon that would come to a first century reader's mind is poison.

And this understanding makes perfect sense in all of the NT texts!