There are historic records of Egyptian women using a pessary (a vaginal suppository) made of various acidic substances (crocodile dung is alleged) and lubricated with honey or oil, which may have been somewhat effective at killing sperm. However, it is important to note that the sperm cell was not discovered until Anton van Leeuwenhoek invented the microscope in the late 17th century, so barrier methods employed prior to that time could not know of the details of conception. Oriental women may have used oiled paper as a cervical cap, and Europeans may have used beeswax for this purpose. The condom appeared sometime in the 17th century, initially made of a length of animal intestine. It was not particularly popular, nor as effective as modern latex condoms, but was employed both as a means of contraception and in the hopes of avoiding syphilis, which was greatly feared and devastating prior to the discovery of antibiotic drugs.
Various abortifacients have been used throughout human history. Some of these were effective, some were not; those that were most effective also had major side effects. The ingestion of certain poisons by the female can disrupt the reproductive system; women have drunk solutions containing mercury, arsenic, or other toxic substances for this purpose. The Greek gynaecologist Soranus in the 2nd century AD suggested that women drink water that blacksmiths had used to cool metal. The herbs tansy and pennyroyal are well-known in folklore as abortive agents, but these also "work" by poisoning the woman. Levels of the active chemicals in these herbs that will induce a miscarriage are high enough to damage the liver, kidneys, and other organs, making them very dangerous. However, in those times where risk of maternal death from postpartum complications was high, the risks and side effects of toxic medicines may have seemed less onerous. It is also believed that black cohosh tea will also be effective in certain cases as an abortifacient.
There are references in Arabic history to traders inserting a small stone into the uterus of a camel in order to prevent it from conceiving, a concept very similar to the modern IUD, but it seems unlikely that this was used as a contraceptive method for humans since knowledge of the female reproductive tract was very limited until the 20th century, and surgical techniques were poor.
Oral contraceptives did not appear until the mid-20th century, when scientists better understood the process of conception and advances in biochemistry allowed for the isolation (and later synthesis) of the hormones controlling the cycle.
http://www.armyofgod.com/contraception2.html
Ancient Egyptian papyruses have
been discovered with references to chemical contraceptives. The
IUD was used by ancient Arabic caravan traders. Infanticide has
always been widespread in pagan cultures either through
sacrifices to appease spirits or through abandonment (i.e. Oedipus Rex).
God's people, Israel, did not practice B.C. They WANTED all the
children they could get and considered them an unqualified
blessing. The one man mentioned as practicing B.C., Onan, was
struck dead for it. (Onan's judgment was not due to a simple
refusal to raise up offspring for the widow. If he wanted to refuse
that duty, he could have followed the teaching of Deuteronomy
25:5-10, as Ruth's nearest-of-kin did, removed his sandal, and passed
on the responsibility to the next-nearest-of-kin--which, in
Ruth's case was Boaz. See Ruth 4:1-12. No, the issue was that Onan
practiced birth control by spilling his seed.)
Christians have also historically not practiced B.C. This is not a
Roman Catholic church issue--their practice is a carry-over from a
time when ALL Christians did not practice B.C. The Protestant
Synod of Dort equated contraception with abortion. Martin Luther,
John Calvin, John Wesley, and many other founders of Protestantism
linked B.C. with murder.
Google, hakusana: "birth control history" ja "birth control is sin". Varokaa moraalittomia linkkejä !!!
Various abortifacients have been used throughout human history. Some of these were effective, some were not; those that were most effective also had major side effects. The ingestion of certain poisons by the female can disrupt the reproductive system; women have drunk solutions containing mercury, arsenic, or other toxic substances for this purpose. The Greek gynaecologist Soranus in the 2nd century AD suggested that women drink water that blacksmiths had used to cool metal. The herbs tansy and pennyroyal are well-known in folklore as abortive agents, but these also "work" by poisoning the woman. Levels of the active chemicals in these herbs that will induce a miscarriage are high enough to damage the liver, kidneys, and other organs, making them very dangerous. However, in those times where risk of maternal death from postpartum complications was high, the risks and side effects of toxic medicines may have seemed less onerous. It is also believed that black cohosh tea will also be effective in certain cases as an abortifacient.
There are references in Arabic history to traders inserting a small stone into the uterus of a camel in order to prevent it from conceiving, a concept very similar to the modern IUD, but it seems unlikely that this was used as a contraceptive method for humans since knowledge of the female reproductive tract was very limited until the 20th century, and surgical techniques were poor.
Oral contraceptives did not appear until the mid-20th century, when scientists better understood the process of conception and advances in biochemistry allowed for the isolation (and later synthesis) of the hormones controlling the cycle.
http://www.armyofgod.com/contraception2.html
Ancient Egyptian papyruses have
been discovered with references to chemical contraceptives. The
IUD was used by ancient Arabic caravan traders. Infanticide has
always been widespread in pagan cultures either through
sacrifices to appease spirits or through abandonment (i.e. Oedipus Rex).
God's people, Israel, did not practice B.C. They WANTED all the
children they could get and considered them an unqualified
blessing. The one man mentioned as practicing B.C., Onan, was
struck dead for it. (Onan's judgment was not due to a simple
refusal to raise up offspring for the widow. If he wanted to refuse
that duty, he could have followed the teaching of Deuteronomy
25:5-10, as Ruth's nearest-of-kin did, removed his sandal, and passed
on the responsibility to the next-nearest-of-kin--which, in
Ruth's case was Boaz. See Ruth 4:1-12. No, the issue was that Onan
practiced birth control by spilling his seed.)
Christians have also historically not practiced B.C. This is not a
Roman Catholic church issue--their practice is a carry-over from a
time when ALL Christians did not practice B.C. The Protestant
Synod of Dort equated contraception with abortion. Martin Luther,
John Calvin, John Wesley, and many other founders of Protestantism
linked B.C. with murder.
Google, hakusana: "birth control history" ja "birth control is sin". Varokaa moraalittomia linkkejä !!!
Vastaukset 5
Vanhimmat
od is Sovereign in birth. He opens & shuts the womb; He blesses
with children. (The following verses are NOT an exhaustive list.)
It is GOD Who opens and shuts the womb: Genesis 20:17-18;
29:31-33; 30:1-2,6,17-18, 20, 22, 23; I Samuel 1:6, 11, 19, 20;
God helps and participates in the process of bringing forth children:
Genesis 4:1, 25; 21:1-2; Ruth 4:13; I Samuel 2:20-21; Psalm 139:13, 16;
Luke 1:21-25, 57-58
God multiplies children: Genesis 16:10; 17: 2,20; 22:17; 26:4, 24;
28:3; 41:52; 48:4; Exodus 32:13; Deuteronomy 1:10,11; 28:63; 30:5,
Joshua 24:3; I Chronicles 27: 23; Psalm 105:24; 107:38; Isaiah 26:15; 51:2; Jeremiah 30: 19; 33:22; Ezra 36:10-11, 37; 37:26
The Bible nowhere encourages B.C., but everywhere condones fertility!
Pro-child verses: Psalm 127:3-5; 128; I Chronicles 20:4-5; Exodus 23:25-26; Proverbs 17:6
Children are a blessing that comes from obeying God: Leviticus 26:9; Deuteronomy 28:1-4; 6:3; 7:13; 13:17 ff
Pro-Fertility verses: Leviticus 20:18 (abstaining during monthly periods increases chance of fertilization after period);
Genesis 1:27-28 (The command to be fruitful has never been revoked); I Cor 7:3-5 (Not compatible with "Natural Family Planning")
Anti-Infertility Verses: Infertile manners of intercourse were condemned: Beastiality (Leviticus 20:15, 16), Homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), Withdrawal (Genesis 38:6-10, Deuteronomy 25:5-10). In fact, all of these things incurred
the death penalty. There was no death penalty for improper manners of intercourse which were yet fertile (Fornication and polygamy).
Semen is referred to as offspring even before it joins the egg: Hebrews 7:9-10; Job 10:8-11
Childlessness is a curse: Leviticus 20:20-21; Hosea 9:10-17
Having children is part of the whole picture of a family:
The Father is to provide for his family--I Timothy 5:8; Ephesians 6:4
The Mother is to work at home and have children: I Timothy 2:15; Titus 2:3-5, Malachi 2:15, I Timothy 5:9,10, 14
Children are a blessing to parents: Proverbs 10:1; 23:24-25; Mark 7: 10-13
Parents are to teach children: Deuteronomy 6:7; 11:19
Apostolic Tradition
The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation.
In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).
Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that "on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).
Around 307 Lactantius explained that some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20).
The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, "If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1).
Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).
The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him."
John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring."
John Wesley warned, "Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.)
Historical Teaching
For too long birth control has been looked upon as a "Catholic issue". It is fast becoming a "Protestant issue" however, as Protestant ministers like myself protest the heretical teaching of birth control that is being propagated in Protestant churches. We must understand that the Church had spoken consistently for 1900 years against birth control. Only in the last 80 years have Protestant churches begun to peddle this belief that God thinks it's okay or wise for us to use birth control.
Listen to this quote, "The purpose of marriage is not to have pleasure and to be idle but to procreate and bring up children, to support a household. Those who have no love for children are swine, stocks, and logs unworthy of being called men or women; for they despise the blessings of God, the Creator and Author of marriage." some Protestants would say, "This quote is obviously the mad drivelings of some medieval Pope." It is not. Rather, it is the founder of the Reformation, Martin Luther who said this. Protestant Christians need to realize that their leaders consistently spoke against birth control up until about 80 years ago.
Who are some of the leaders besides Luther? John Calvin, John Wesley just to name a few, spoke against the use of birth control.
ugustine, 354-430, Against Faustus
"You [Manicheans] make your Auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the Apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1-4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps"
and
"For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny"
Augustine, 354-430, The Good of Marriage
"For what gratification is there (except perhaps for lascivious persons, and those who, as the apostle says with prohibition, "possess their vessel in the lust of concupiscence") in the mere shedding of seed as the ultimate pleasure of sexual union, unless it is followed by the true and proper fruit of marriage--conception and birth?"
and
"[We] also assert, that God forms man of human seed."
and
"[They must] not turn away from them the mercy of God . . . by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting, is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of a harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of creation, that . . . when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman."
Augustine, 354-430, The Morals of the Manichees
"In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion."
Augustine, 354-430, On Concupiscence and Marriage
"[This] is God's own work--the human being which is born of marriage."
and
"For thus says the Scripture: 'Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other; except it be with consent for a time, that ye may have leisure for prayer; and then come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.' ...the cohabitation for the purpose of procreating children, which must be admitted to be the proper end of marriage, is not sinful, what is it which the apostle allows to be permissible, but that married persons, when they have not the gift of continence, may require one from the other the due of the flesh--and that not from a wish for procreation, but for the pleasure of concupiscence? This gratification incurs not the imputation of guilt on account of marriage, but receives permission on account of marriage. This, therefore, must be reckoned among the praises of matrimony; that, on its own account, it makes pardonable that which does not essentially appertain to itself. For the nuptial embrace, which subserves the demands of concupiscence, is so effected as not to impede the child-bearing, which is the end and aim of marriage."
and
"For although propagation of offspring is not the motive of the [particular] intercourse, there is still no attempt to prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil appliance. They who resort to these, although called by the name of spouses, are really not such; they retain no vestige of true matrimony, but pretend the honourable designation as a cloak for criminal conduct.... Sometimes, indeed, this lustful cruelty, or; if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness.... Well, if both parties alike are so flagitious, they are not husband and wife; and if such were their character from the beginning, they have not come together by wedlock but by debauchery. But if the two are not alike in such sin, I boldly declare either that the woman is, so to say, the husband's harlot; or the man the wife's adulterer."
Calvin, John Commentary on Genesis
"[The] blessing of God may be regarded as the source from which the human race has flowed. And we must so consider it not only with reference to the whole, but also, as they say, in every particular instance. For we are fruitful or barren in respect of offspring, as God imparts his power to some and withholds it from others....The question, however, is proposed, whether fornicators and adulterers become fruitful by the power of God; which, if it be true, then whether the blessing of God is in like manner extended to them? I answer, this is a corruption of the Divine institute; and whereas God produces offspring from this muddy pool, as well as from the pure fountain of marriage, this will tend to their greater destruction. Still that pure and lawful method of increase, which God ordained from the beginning, remains firm; this is that law of nature which common sense declares to be inviolable."
and
"Besides [Onan] not only defrauded his brother of the right due him, but also preferred his semen to putrify on the ground, rather than to beget a son in his brother's name.... I will contend myself with briefly mentioning [Onan's act], as far as the sense of shame allows to discuss it. It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime, by defiling the earth with his seed, so that Tamar would not receive a future inheritor."
Calvin, John, Calvin's Commentary on the Psalms
"The majority of mankind dream, that after God had once ordained this at the beginning, children were thenceforth begotten solely by a secret instinct of nature, God ceasing to interfere in the matter; and even those who are endued with some sense of piety, although they may not deny that He is the Father and Creator of the human race, yet do not acknowledge that his providential care descends to this particular case, but rather think that men are created by a certain universal motion. With the view of correcting this preposterous error, Solomon calls children the heritage of God, and the fruit of the womb his gift; for the Hebrew word rks, sachar, translated reward, signifies whatever benefits God bestows upon men, as is plainly manifest from many passages of Scripture. The meaning then is, that, children are not the fruit of chance, but that God, as it seems good to him, distributes to every man his share of them. Moreover, as the Prophet repeats the same thing twice, heritage and reward are to be understood as equivalent; for both these terms are set in opposition to fortune, or the strength of men. The stronger a man is he seems so much the better fitted for procreation. Solomon declares on the contrary, that those become fathers to whom God vouchsafes that honor."
Calvin, John Calvin's Commentary
She shall be saved through childbearing: "To censorious men it might appear absurd, for an Apostle of Christ not only to exhort women to give attention to the birth of offspring, but to press this work as religious and holy to such an exent as to represent it in the light of the means of procuring salvation....whatever hypocrites or wise men of the world may think of it, when a woman, considering to what she has been called, submits to the condition which God has assigned to her, and does not refuse to endure the pains, or rather the fearful anguish of parturition, or anxiety about her offspring, or anything else that belongs to her duty, God values this obedience more highly than if, in some other manner, she made a great display of heroic virtues, while she refused to obey the calling of God. To this must be added, that no consolation could be more appropriate or more efficacious than to shew that the very means (so to speak) of procuring salvation are found in the punishment itself."
Luther, Martin Commentary on Genesis
"Then Judah urged his son Onan to take Tamar for his wife to raise up seed to his brother. Moses here uses the Hebrew word 'jabam,' which we find also in Deuteronomy 25:5 and which properly means 'to marry in order to beget children for the deceased brother.' This was a very disagreeable duty and many sought to escape it, as we read in Ruth 4:1 ff., for it is indeed hard to live with a woman whom one does not love, to continue the inheritance of the brother, and to submit onesself to ceaseless toil and labor in his interest. Therefore Onan, unwilling to perform his obligation, spilled his seed. That was a sin far greater than adultery or incest, and it provoked God to such fierce wrath that he destroyed him immediately."
Luther, Martin Luther's Works, Volume Three
"...saintly women have always regarded childbirth as a great sign of grace. Rachel is rude and exceedingly irksome to her husband when she says (Gen. 30:1): 'Give me children, or I shall die!' She makes it clear that she will die of grief because she sees barrenness is a sign of wrath. And in Ps. 127:3 there is a glorious eulogy of offspring: 'Lo, sons are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward (that is, a gift of God).' Surely it is a magnificent name that children are the gift of God! Therefore Hannah laments so pitiably (I Sam. 1:10), and John's aged mother Elizabeth leaps for joy and exults (Luke 1:25), 'The Lord has taken away my reproach.' Thus when the world was still in a better state, barrenness was considered a sign of wrath; but childbirth was considered a sign of grace. Because of the abuses of lust, however, this remnant of divine blessing gradually began to be obscured even among the Jews, just as today you could find many greedy men who regard numerous offspring as a punishment. Saintly mothers, however, have always regarded this gift--when they were prolific--as a great honor, just as, conversely, they have regarded barrenness as a sign of wrath and as a reproach."
Luther, Martin Luther's Works, Volume Five
"...fertility was regarded as an extraordinary blessing and special gift of God, as is clear from Deuteronomy 28:4, where Moses numbers fertility among the blessings. 'There will not be a barren woman among you,' he says (cf. Ex. 23:26). We do not regard this so highly today. Although we like and desire it in cattle, yet in the human race there are few who regard a woman's fertility as a blessing. Indeed, there are many who have an aversion for it and regard sterility as a special blessing. Surely this is also contrary to nature. Much less is it pious and saintly. For this affection has been implanted by God in man's naure, so that it desires its increase and multiplication. Accordingly, it is inhuman and godless to have a loathing for offspring. Thus someone recently called his wife a sow, since she gave birth rather often. The good for nothing and impure fellow! The saintly fathers did not feel like this at all, for they acknowledged a fruitful wife as a special blessing of God and, on the other hand, regarded sterility as a curse. And this judgement flowed from the Word of God in Gen. 1:28, where He said: 'Be fruitful and multiply.' From this they understood that children are a gift of God."
and
"...from this [the account of Rachel] it is clear that the very saintly women were not lustful but were desirous of offspring and the blessing. For this was the cause of envy in Rachel, who, if she had been like other women whom our age has produced in large numbers, would have said: 'What is it to me whether I bear children or not? Provided that I remain the mother of the household and have an abundance of all other things, I have enough.' But Rachel demands offspring so much that she prefers death to remaining sterile. I do not remember reading a similar statement in any history. Therefore she is an example of a very pious and continent woman whose only zeal and burning desire is for offspring, even if it means death. Thus above (Gen. 16:2) Sarah also showed a similar desire for offspring. And in both this feeling is decidedly praiseworthy. 'If I do not have children, I shall die' says Rachel. 'I prefer being without life to being without children.' ...Consequently, she determines either to bear children or die. Thus later she dies in childbirth. This desire and feeling of a godly woman is good and saintly."
Luther, Martin Luthers Works, Volume Seven
"[The] exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches follows [Genesis 38:9, 10]. Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, Yes a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates; and, when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime to produce semen and excite the woman, and to frustrate her at that very moment. He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred. Therefore he did not allow himself to bear that intolerable slavery. Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him....That worthless fellow...preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother."
Luther, Martin Lectures on Genesis
" Today you find many people who do not want to have children. Moreover, this callousness and inhuman attitude, which is worse than barbarous, is met with chiefly among the nobility and princes, who often refrain from marriage for this one single reason, that they might have no offspring. It is even more disgraceful that you find princes who allow themselves to be forced not to marry, for fear that the members of their house would increase beyond a definite limit. Surely such men deserve that their memory be blotted out from the land of the living. Who is there who would not detest these swinish monsters? But these facts, too, serve to emphasize original sin. Otherwise we would marvel at procreation as the greatest work of God, and as a most outstanding gift we would honor it with the praises it deserves."
http://www.valerieslivingbooks.com/history.htm
Ja Jumala siunasi heidät, ja Jumala sanoi heille: "Olkaa hedelmälliset ja lisääntykää ja täyttäkää maa
Ja te olkaa hedelmälliset ja lisääntykää, enentykää maassa ja lisääntykää siinä
Ottakaa itsellenne vaimoja ja siittäkää poikia ja tyttäriä; ottakaa pojillenne vaimoja ja naittakaa tyttärenne, että he synnyttäisivät poikia ja tyttäriä. Lisääntykää siellä älkääkä vähentykö.
Katso, lapset ovat Herran lahja
Mutta nainen on pelastuva lastensynnyttämisen kautta, jos hän pysyy uskossa ja rakkaudessa ja pyhityksessä ynnä siveydessä.
Mutta kun Oonan tiesi, ettei jälkeläinen olisi oleva hänen, niin hän antoi, aina kun yhtyi veljensä vaimoon, siemenensä mennä maahan, ettei hankkisi jälkeläistä veljelleen. Mutta se, minkä hän teki, oli paha Herran silmissä; sentähden hän antoi hänenkin kuolla.
Niin Jeesus kääntyi heihin ja sanoi: "Jerusalemin tyttäret, älkää minua itkekö, vaan itkekää itseänne ja lapsianne. Sillä katso, päivät tulevat, jolloin sanotaan: 'Autuaita ovat hedelmättömät ja ne kohdut, jotka eivät ole synnyttäneet, ja rinnat, jotka eivät ole imettäneet.' Silloin ruvetaan sanomaan vuorille: 'Langetkaa meidän päällemme', ja kukkuloille: 'Peittäkää meidät.' Sillä jos tämä tehdään tuoreelle puulle, mitä sitten kuivalle tapahtuu?"
He syövät, mutta eivät tule ravituiksi, he harjoittavat haureutta, mutta eivät lisäänny, sillä he eivät ole tahtoneet ottaa vaaria Herrasta.
Niinkuin hedelmällinen viiniköynnös on sinun emäntäsi sinun huoneesi perällä, niinkuin öljypuun vesat ovat sinun lapsesi sinun pöytäsi ympärillä. Sillä katso, näin siunataan mies, joka Herraa pelkää.
Niinkuin nuolet sankarin kädessä, niin ovat nuoruudessa synnytetyt pojat. Onnellinen se mies, jonka viini on niitä täynnä! Eivät he joudu häpeään, kun portissa puhuttelevat vihamiehiänsä.
minä siunaan häntä ja teen hänet hedelmälliseksi ja annan hänen lisääntyä ylen runsaasti
Ja Jumala, Kaikkivaltias, siunatkoon sinua ja antakoon sinun tulla hedelmälliseksi ja lisääntyä, niin että sinusta tulee suuri kansojen joukko.
Mutta israelilaiset olivat hedelmälliset ja sikisivät, lisääntyivät ja enenivät hyvin suurilukuisiksi, niin että maa tuli heitä täyteen
Hän siunasi heitä, ja he lisääntyivät suuresti
http://www.koivuniemi.com/cgi-bin/raamattuhaku?kirjat=kr&hakuehto=