Birth control and Christian colleges.

[Marcia]

Paul33, I couldn't disagree more. Using "poisons" and "poisoners" in those verses now leaves out God's condemnation those who practice the magic and occult arts (which would include those who use poisons in the sense of sorcery and spirit contact) and messes up the context. Your substitution of "poisons" for "sorceries" makes less sense and narrows the meaning of the word pharmakon such that God is not condemning the pagan occult practices here.

I'm going with the way that word has been translated by virtually all Bible translators over your preference.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Paul33:

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.

. . .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!

BTW, it might interest you to know that the witches and Wiccans would be very pleased with your translation. This is how they say it should be translated!

 

[Pastor Larry]

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

And both put the verses in question under a different definition. In other words, you cite them for support, but they don't support you.

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

If that is obvious, then why does every single lexicon, and virtually every commentator miss it? The fact is that it is not obvious. In fact, the evidence points the other way. All the lexicons you cite list the Revelation verses under the meanings traditionally given, the meanings that I have supported here.

 

[Johnv]

Still waiting for scriptural support condemning birth control. This conversation is becoming very KJVO-esque.

 

[manchester]

Paul,

The verse clearly refers to poison. It means people who poison scripture by interpreting verses to refer to birth control when they clearly do not. Those who use religious poison to push their personal doctrines in God's name are shown as a sign of the end times. Beware!

 

[manchester]

I can go with pharmakon meaning drugs or poison. I have long heard that "suffer not a witch to live" refers to poisoners, not sorcerors. But how you take that verse to refer to people using birth control is just laughable. I could just as easily say that the verse condemns those who use aspirin because aspirin is "falsehood" (no pain instead of pain), "murder" (it can result in death in certain situations, and when you think of "sexual immorality" you think of women saying "I have a headache" in violation of God's command to let the woman's body be her husband's.

 

[manchester]

Paul33 and Foxrev, you guys are a riot. I'm not sure if you are Roman Catholics or just Baptists having some fun, but it's been fun reading your posts.

 

[Paul33]

Glad I could be of service!

Seriously, Manchester, once we understand the text, we begin the process of application.

These texts in Revelation apply to the tribulation period.
1)Understand what they say in the original language.
2)Understand how the first century audience would have understood the text.
3)Then apply it to the age in which you live.

Murders = certainly applicable to abortion today.
Pharmakon = certainly applicable to abortifacient drugs today.
Sexual immorality = certainly applicable to sexual behavior today.
Thefts = certainly applicable to taking what doesn't belong to you in the sexual arena.

This is application. It's not the only application, but it is certainly justifiable.

 

[Benfranklin403]

Well if birth control is never used, the family size will return to what it was 100 or 200 years ago. Typical family size then was 5 to 12 children for healthy parents. How many people do you know with the financial resources to raise a family of 12? Don't say "the lord will provide" because that is avoidance of responsibility. We are all responsible for our own actions and it is not responsible to create a large family. The ones who have many children are usually those least able to provide the financial support necessary to raise children.

In addition to putting a strain on the resources of the family, that sort of rapid population growth would put a severe strain on the resources of the nation. When I was a child the population of the U.S. was 140 million. Now it is twice that with a population of 280 million. There are many things that were available back then that have been lost now due to increased population. I think that anyone who supports a general return to large families ought to have their head examined.

 

[Paul33]

Rev. 9:21
"and they would not repent . . .

 

[joyfulkeeperathome]

Well, since God makes babies (psalm 139), I suppose that it is extremely reasonable to say that as a Christian family, any babies he makes for us, He WILL provide for!!!!! As simple as that. I know two families personally who have 9 and 11 children and God has never forsaken them or not provided their needs. One is a missionary family and God takes care of their needs day by day.....

 

[Paul33]

I have eight children, and we have never gone hungry. I have made $50,000 in there months; I have made $6.18 an hour for 12 months. My family has lived all over the US. We have moved so many times I can't keep track. We have owned beautiful houses, land in the country, lived in parsonages, lived in apartments. We have gone wherever God has sent us! Our "trust relationship" with God has been quite a ride!

 

[foxrev]

Ben:

The same God of 100 years ago is the same God today. He is not any weaker or less able to provide. In fact, people are FAR better off today in living standards than 100 years ago. 100 years ago there was no running water, electricity, sewerage, indoor plumbing. They made it, most of them farming, and made it just fine. And 5-12 was not the average 100 years ago -50 to be more accurate. How could they even survive, let alone exist without all of our "modern" amenities?

Current Humanistic thinking would have you to limit the size of God's blessing upon your family.

[ November 07, 2004, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: foxrev ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

The average family size 50 years ago was 3.6. Today it is 3.1. Do your homework foxrev. We have all seen too many cases of your overstating a case to try to make a point.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/research/casden/research/data_folder/us_faincsize.pdf

 

[foxrev]

I stand corrected. Thank you Larry and took your advice to do some investigating. However, what was the average family size 100 years ago then? When we, as human beings, had far less "modern amenities" we had larger families. We should be far more able to have larger families with better living standards and health care.

But! Above and beyond the human side. The FACT remains, GOD has not changed and surely can provide for what ever size family HE makes.

Check out who is really behind the birth control movement in the US and what the average size of a family was in 1900:

http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4847a1.htm

Where is God, the Bible in all of it? No where to be found!

[ November 08, 2004, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: foxrev ]

 

[Dr. Bob]

With this, we have reached 20 pages, the limit for all threads.

This discussion is over. Thanks to all for participating.