Married and Looking: Thank God for Polygamy in Canada

March 11, 2010

Drugs in the New Testiment

Filed under: Bible commentary — prariepolyguy @ 1:13 pm
Tags: , ,

I’ve seen quite a bit of honest debate among Christians about Marijuana use. In so far as the argument is about medical use I have no dog in the fight, if it treats an ailment its a good thing, and probably better than most pharmaceuticals today. Recreational use is another thing, and something I’d like to add a bit of information too.

Much of the case for recreational drug use comes from lack of prohibition, and I believe said lack is more important than the opposition gives it credit for.

I would like to bring up Galatians. It’s one of the epistles that has a list of things which will indicate you are someone who will not inherit the Kingdom. Important lists, very much a don’t do this ever list. The Galatians list includes witchcraft. The witchcraft in Galatians is a specific sort that is only mentioned here and in Revelation. Its hyperliteral translation is medication, its application is the use of pharmaceuticals to alter consciousness. It’s witchcraft in that both then and now drugs are used to induce a ‘spiritual state’ in pagan rituals. I can’t find anything that would limit Paul’s prohibition against mind altering drugs to mystical use. It very much appears that recreational drug use period gets you lumped in following works of the flesh.

There are many cases where witchcraft and sorcery mean essentially what they mean to us, but in this case something different is meant. I don’t know if there where substance abuse issues in the 1600’s, perhaps the translators couldn’t relate, but there where such issues at the time of Christ and there are again today, we could use a little more clarity in our translation so earnest students of the Bible are not mislead.

One of my translation pet peeves is when several words with different meanings are all translated several different, overlapping, ways so as to obscure the meanings of all of them. Is it really too much to render pharmacia one thing and mageou another? They’re not even common words why do they have to share terms?

Either way, there is a case from scripture against recreational drug use that doesn’t lean on general principles or peoples opinions on whats acceptable. I said earlier that if there was a medical argument then I don’t care to oppose it, but if any substance is used for hallucinogenic effects its wrong.


March 5, 2010

It is Not good for a man not to touch a woman.

Filed under: Bible commentary — prariepolyguy @ 8:24 pm
Tags: , , , , ,

St. Paul has been railed against on many sides in the past and recently even by those who believe in Jesus. The forefront of the assault against him, so far as I’ve seen, deals with the perception that Paul was some way anti-marriage. This comes from various groups of Old Testiment thumpers who correctly see marriage and family as being crucially important to God’s plan, thus if Paul is against it, he is against God.

There are many points of Paul’s writings to consider, but for now I want to address 1 Corinthians 7. First I’d like to remind people that chapter and verse breaks (while ancient) are not original and thus for all intents and purposes arbitrary. They break mid topic or thought on a regular basis and are ultimately distracting. Anyway, Paul started talking about Fornication in 6:13 and finishes talking about it in 7:2 or 7:6 depending on how you look at it, and either way the chapter break tends to mess up both interpretation and translation.

Lets have a look at it, Verse 7:1 finishes “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” where the italics, like in a Bible, are words inserted for English readability with no original language parallels in original manuscripts. Those readability words are nice, in in the overwhelming majority of scripture they don’t change the meaning of the verse one bit. As they shouldn’t since they are not actually in the verse.  By itself it really doesn’t look good when compared Gods own statement “It is not good that Man should be alone.” and his solution to that problem, creating women.  Add Gods general command that mankind should leave their father and mother and cleave to their wife, and that one of the most basic marital duties (on both sides, as Paul himself elaborates on imminently after this subject) requires a great deal of touching.

Now, 7:2  “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” Why let everyone have their own spouse? To avoid. The reason here is in italics, the very focus of this verse is added by the translators. Now, I’m not saying they did a bad job, translation is very difficult and has to be done bit by bit then contextualized. 7:2 appears to be a rough translation done by verse rather than by subject and never properly reconciled (for it was properly reconciled to the context, the translator would not have had to create its focus from scratch). Normally you can cut out the italics and make good sense of the verse, “good for a man not to touch a woman” may not be exactly coherent, but anyone who reads on the internet regularly can see what the intent was.  “Nevertheless fornication” makes it sound like fornication is a positive here.  Now, I think we all know Paul is anti-fornication and the rest of the verse only makes sense in an anti-fornication light, so inserting to avoid is fair game if you only have the words in verse 2 to create a sentence.

Now, lets try ignoring the verse division, and cutting things off in our own way, lets start with “It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication” Next, lets cut out the non-original stuff, the italics and punctuation. “good for a man not to touch a woman nevertheless fornication” and the astute will already see what I’m getting at. Now, we have another oddity in this verse, an unexpressed Greek word. If you use something like Strongs you can see that there is a number in parentheses over it, meaning there is a word there but it doesn’t mean what they said. I can scarcely express the word better than Strong did, it is “A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act”*.  Remember I said fornication looks like a positive here? Well that’s because Paul is talking about a case where someone commits fornication, not avoiding it. So, now if we re add the appropriate italics we have

It is good for a man not to touch a woman and** cause fornications***”

Now that is a passage that harmonized perfectly with reason and scripture. It  doesn’t cause a problem with what come before it, and it harmonizes with what comes after, we now have.

It is good for a man not to touch a woman and cause fornications. Let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband.” Beautiful. Harmonious.

*He does include to avoid on the list of things this has been translated to for his own reasons.

** Nevertheless can be more accuratly translated ‘but’ here, though rendering it ‘and’ lets me explain the passage much faster in English. ‘and’ is a valid rendering anyway

***This is plural in the Greek. I believe the reason is can be deduced from Matt 5:32 where both the divorced wife and whoever marries her are caused to commit adultery. Fornication is like adultery in that it takes at least two,  causing one act of fornication invariable causes at least one other. The ramifications of that may cause others as well.

Create a free website or blog at