Childlessness is rebellion against God

Who is doing the filling?

 

So... of the 42 uses of the word there are at least two possible definitions according to you.

1. To increase in number

2. Reward.

However, my original question about a married couple having one child and no more fits the first definition that you offer here because the two have now increased their number to three. However, in your previous post you suggested that multiply had to mean something more than having just one child because the biblical definition:

So in this definition you have put extra parameters causing it to mean that it must sustain and increase the population. Thus, there is a contradiction between the first definition you offered and the second definition you demonstrated with biblical references. In the definition offered in this quoted post multiply simply means to increase in number.

Are there other passage where multiply is used and other meanings are derived from the text? There must be because you offered a second definition meaning "reward." However, according to my Strong's Concordance there are multiple definitions for multiply including: "to increase (in whatever respect), abundance, be in authority, bring up, continue, enlarge, excel, exceeding(ly), be full of, (be, make) great, grow up, heap, increase, be long, (be, give, have, make, use) many (a time), (any, be, give, give the, have) more (in number), ask, be, be so, gather, over, take, yield) much (greater, more), (make to) multiply, nourish, plenty, process [of time], sore, store, thoroughly, very."

So the answer to my question is not as simple as you have suggested in two previous posts. I don't want to go into a whole big debate about hermeneutics and proper biblical interpretation here. Suffice it to say that according to the basic definition of multiply that you offered above (to increase in number) a married couple that has one child and no more has met the requirement to increase in number.

Sorry, but it seems that the "biblical definition" that you initially offered was/is indeed an interpretation of what someone said multiply means (based on your second offering to two possible definitions and what Strong's reveals regarding the full range of possible definitions for the word).

The better question for us to be considering here is what did God intend when He first told Adam and Eve to multiply and fill the earth? What was His purpose in commanding them to do this? I would argue that God had way more in mind than simply populating the earth. I would argue that His ultimate goal was for Adam and Eve (and their descendants) to make His name famous among all the peoples of the earth so that He would receive the worship of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation for His own glory (Rev. 5). Now if this idea has any merit then my wife and I can multiply ourselves infinitely more times over by making disciples who in turn make other disciples, who in turn make other disciples, and so on and so on; rather than by trying to accomplish this by simple procreation no matter how many children we have.

 

Who WAS doing the filling when that statement by God was made? A handful of people: Noah and his family.

 

That was written to a single family...not 60 billion people.

 

You don't believe the earth is "filled" yet?

 

Who is doing it today? Do you suppose God desired for Muslims (a religion with birthrates exceeding replacement levels) to be fruitful, multiply and take dominion over the earth and did He intend for Christians to commit demographic suicide (a religion that currently is birthing at a rate less than replacement levels) because they think "be fruitful and multiply" only applied to Noah?

 

This is a ridiculous thread. Nothing in the scripture says to drive a car either. Just because there is not an example of something doesn't mean it is wrong. Having children or not is between a married couple, and not all are in a position to, or should, have children.

 

We could try to solve the problem Rufus and you are talking about by having bigger families. However, it would be vastly more effective and efficient for us to multiply ourselves by making disciples and teaching them to make disciples who would make disciples and teach them to make more disciples and so on and so on as I pointed out at the bottom of my last post. Likewise, just because Christians have children it does not always mean that those kids will become Christians and reproduce more kids that will become Christians etc. The making of disciples and training them to go out and make disciples who in turn will make more disciples is a far better answer to the problem you are discussing here.

 

I'm sorry, but I can't even follow the logic behind this post. There were no muslims when that was said by God. Only Noah and his family.

 

Sorry, but the scripture doesn't say, "Have more babies than muslims." And to rephrase a couple of other folks, Why not evangelize Muslims, rather than trying to out-procreate them?

Further thoughts, less related to Rufus' comments and more in general...

• I get the same feeling about Al that I do Pat Robertson. He seems to have a need to be in the public eye...and if you need an expert's opinion on anything, ask Al. He is an expert. On all of it. Once again... my opinion.
• Why are our seminary presidents beginning more and more to act like Catholic cardinals/bishops/popes...offering "fatherly advice" on any/every area of human existence? Why can't they just run the seminaries and let local church pastors handle what is their business? Or better yet, let the leaders of our homes handle these things?

Sorry...I know I have to say 3 hail Mary's for questioning one of our popes. I'll confess later. :laugh:

 

three thoughts:

1. Right on with your thoughts here.

2. If we evangelicals have proven anything in the past fifty years it is that the generations that follow seem to be fairly disenfranchised with our version of Christianity. Therefore if this line of thinking (a false one) of out procreating the Muslims is to be upheld we need to really be birthing four children to their one.

3. Whatever happened to the gates of Hell never prevailing against the Church?

For his defense, since he is not here I suppose, he is extremely well read. I just happen to find myself disagreeing with him more and more as he writes.

Well at least these cardinals and bishops have a proper background to lecture us on these topics I suppose...thankfully we can disagree with them and not worry about our salvation. I've always found it distressing that a celibate priest is to lecture me on sexual ethics.

Anyhoo, I agree with you on all points. A grand post!

 

I agree, MP, as one half of one of the 'childless' couples.

Ed

 

Frankly, I wanted to be married to my wife more than I wanted kids. I did want kids, my wife did not when we first got married, already at the ages of 50 and 37. I fugured if it was the will of the Lord, it would hapen anyway, as He can certainly override the pill, which my wife was on for medical reasons, to begin with. Shortly after marriage, I found out two things - one was I was a diabetic, which we did not know when we first married, and second, my wife was genetically disposed to also become a diabetic, which we did not already know at that time, and which has fortunately not happened as yet. Were she to become pregnant, she would have a twenty percent chance of becoming diabetic and not ever being able to overcome it. I have since been found to have both heart disease and cancer (and have now had already effectively three surgeries) as well. My life expectancy has already been cut by at least ten years, merely due to these disaeases, and I have no desire to have my wife have to rear a child, alone for ten to fifteen years, and with the added fact of her health as well, so frankly, I am not, in the least, interested in Dr. Mohler or anyone else 'judging' us for having no children.

Ed

 

Its not a ridiculous thread, it is just that one side of the argument is pretty rediculous...:smilewinkgrin:

 

What did that young chic want with an old dude like you?:laugh: :laugh:

My husband will be 51 next month. I'll be .........ok, 48 next month. We have one child, age 21. I can't imagine having children
in my 40's.

Seriously, I think it's a personal decision.