Hi my friends, I asked myself this and got some answers from my own mind, first one is that Adam and Eve trusted God so much that they didn't asked themselves why it was bad, pretty much how a kid thrust their parents and what they say, the second is pretty much how both of them remembered non existence, I know its confusing, but from what I think, the way they could have remembered non existence is like how I person sees the concept of being asleep, where you can't remember or feel anything that happens to you while asleep, while being alive is like when you wake up, ready to experience the world, they saw that death meant returning to be asleep and didn't want it, to me this seems like a satisfying answer but I would like to know your views on this.

If it is true that Jesus created the world, how does this get read back into the creation account. Is Jesus Elohim? Or the light? Etc.

Where does the Logos fit into the Old Testament?

Just a blurb about theology - highly religious background with extensive theological studies into the KJV, as well as arguements for all of it's points of use compared to other translations.

I really enjoy looking at theology from a non-religious worldview now (as opposed to a christian worldview) as it wasn't something I was afforded in my educational experiences.

However, when I sit and attempt to study the theology of the contents of the scriptures - I'm constantly brought back to my current belief's that while it is "inspired", it was written by biased, opinioned men - some of them never having interacted with a higher divinity.

So I find these credibility issues take out the fun from studying it from my current worldview. From the non-religious (or non specific) folks on here, any advice on how to approach it with a fresh set of eyes? Where might I start off to possibly looking at it as more of a historical document? Is there any more of an interesting perspective to look at it besides just a historical document?

I am well aware of the NT historical background (from a christian worldview of course), but would appreciate some insight.

Religious folks are welcome to comment; however keep in mind I'm not looking for conversion material or information and will promptly ignore such comments.

People know what the Bible says regarding such things as abortion, homosexuality, sexual immorality and drug abuse. Yet there are some groups of Christians who willingly ignore all these Bible verses and instead twist them so that they can follow their own desires. And not surprisingly these groups are gaining popularity in the world. Peter foretold that such people would exist in 2 Peter 3 ( i forgot the Bible verse but it is close to the end). All i have to say is that we as people should stop that. Just because we do not agree with something in the Bible doesn't mean we have to fit it and twist it so that it seems to agree with our own beliefs. We must accelt the Bible as it is instead of as we want it to be.

I'm in a college choir. Our director told us we have to put up worship hands even if it's fake. This idea makes me uncomfortable, and I want to confront him, but I want to have scripture to back me up. Thoughts??

Religious people say we have free will in that god has knowledge of whatever will happen but he doesn't make us do sin. I did an act of sin out of my own choice; god was just already aware of the choice I will make. I think that totally makes god not really omnipotent. Here's why. When I make the choice of committing a sin,I am creating my own will, I am creating something god didn't create. My act of sin was my own creation which was totally in my control, not in god's control. Then it follows that there exist atleast one thing in the universe which is not gods creation and is not controlled by him. If that is the case, god ceases to be the creator of everything. He ceases to be "the God".

This is a controversial topic so try to keep it respectful.

From what I’ve seen, Calvinism and Arminianism seem to contain the two central viewpoints on the predestination of human salvation. I haven’t heard of any other mainline viewpoints, so I’m wondering a few things:

1. Are there any other main interpretations?
2. If so, why do you believe in it? (If you do)
3. In general, why do you believe in your interpretation?

I’ve been talking with my friend about this recently and I wanted to learn more about it. Any helpful answers would be much appreciated 👍

Hey everyone, I’ve been wrestling with a perspective about God’s grace that I think is worth sharing and discussing. It seems to me that we often talk about grace as this unconditional gift that God gives us, but what if we consider it more as an act of justice? Here’s my analogy: imagine God wants us to fish without a rod but then graciously gives us a fishing rod. Is it really grace if we couldn’t fish without that rod in the first place?

This leads me to wonder if God’s grace is actually about providing us with the means to fulfill His commands, rather than just an unearned favor. It raises questions about the nature of our existence as created sinners and how grace fits into that narrative. I’m curious if others have thought about this idea or if it’s something that’s been discussed in theological circles.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.

What do you guys think of IFB Theology? Have you experienced discussing theology with someone out of this movement? I’ve listed their major and most common doctrines listed below:

1. KJV Only
2. Baptist Succession (rejection of Protestant Heritage and Baptist succession of churches that trace back to Christ)
3. Young Earth Creation (With some old earth Gap creationists)
4. Rapture theology
5. Anti-Secularism
6. Strict modesty standards

Just really seeing what comments you guys may have with this movement of believers and initial thoughts on their core doctrine.

This is a question that has bothered me for quite some time because of how important it is when it comes to spiritually explaining the presence and effect of evil on this world, plus man's contribution to evil.

I am looking for an educated perspective on the nature and meaning of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil and also from those gifted with revelation, I ask that you share what God reveals to you about this questions.

When we look at what is said of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, we can draw the following characteristics that might give clues into what it actually means.

1. It was in the middle of the Garden with the tree of life.(Gen 2:9)

What could be the significance of its location? And it's shared proximity with the tree of life, because that doesn't seem random, or simply poetic.

If one said it was poetic, then what is the interpretation of this poetry.

1. Every creature seems to have access to the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil.

In Gen 2:16-17, God gives man the first commandment, that man is allowed to eat of every tree in the garden except the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil meaning for man, we had access to this tree.

Then later in Gen 3, we see the serpent living on the tree(only implied) and talking to the woman God had made from Adam.

So the access to the tree is not forbidden but eating of its fruit certainly results into death.

1. It is pleasing to sight and good for food.

Like all trees God caused to grow out of the ground, the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, was pleasing to sight and good for food. This is going to also be important in understanding the nature of which sight and which kind of food is being talked about here and which kind of trees are growing in the garden.

Are all of them in the nature of the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil? It seems like they are different from apple, mango and oak trees that we know of.

1. When one eats of this fruit they become like God.

First mentioned by the serpent(Gen 3:4-5) when it was deceiving the woman and then later affirmed by God when He(they) blocked man from accessing the tree of life.

God says, "Now that man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil..." Gen 3:22

So there's certainly a difference between the nature of man before and after eating the forbidden fruit, and one outstanding difference is to become like one of those in the creator God.

1. The woman adds a new clause to the Law God gave, that the tree should not be touched. (Gen 3:3)

God didn't mention anything about touching the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, interesting as to why the woman mentions it and a good example to show how man sometimes adds things to God's commandments even when it is for good intentions.

And if God didn't want man to eat or touch the tree, why did He allow it to grow from the ground?

1. The tree looks good for making one wise.

This was the testimony of the woman who saw the tree just before she went ahead to eat of the fruit. Interesting how before the serpent spoke to the woman, she didn't see the tree as good for gaining wisdom and why does one desire wisdom in a perfect world?

Because isn't wisdom a tool we use to navigate an imperfect world?

And which kind of tree looks good to make one wise? What do all these things mean?

1. The effect of eating the fruit only kicked in after both man and woman ate of the fruit.

What does this show about this fruit. Is it a manifestation of God's justice that, "If the law was given to Adam, until Adam eats of the fruit, man shall live." That seems to be implied.

And then the first effect literally says, their eyes were opened(where they closed before?). If it is the metaphor for realizing something, was it the fruit or the awareness that they had broken God's law that caused their eyes to open?

And when their eyes were open, they realised that they were naked. Is this shame or is it just the fear of being caught manifesting as nakedness or is it how you know that you will die, if you can tell that you are naked.

Kindly share what you think, I would love to hear any opinions on this subject.

So I just watched a video called Satan's guide to the Bible. In this video, he says the Israelis were never inslaved in Egypt. He says that the Canonires became the Israelis over time. His evidence is very compelling.

He also says we have no idea who wrote the gospels, which I agree with.

I wonder what you think here of these claims?

As we know the Tower of Babel and when different languages ​​began. Apparently, it dates back to between the beginning of the 6th and the beginning of the 5th century BC. AD

So, logically, there must be one and the same language spoken throughout the earth before this specific period, no slang, or anything like that. I would then like to know if before this, this event, there is manuscript evidence of the language spoken and what was this language?

Hi, I'm really struggling with Matthew 22:30, " For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." Genesis tells the story of Eve being created for Adam because it was not good for man to be alone. Could we still have unique, and perhaps even romantic, relationships with our partners in the Christian afterlife? Even if sex and earthly marriage vows are not involved, could I still love my partner as my partner, (not only as a fellow child of God)? Surely, romantic relationships can exist without sex.

I'm just not sure if that passage means that we won't have partners anymore, or just that the earthly laws, labels, and procreation that govern marriage will no longer be necessary. Thoughts?

I want to be Christian but it makes me anxious to think about my partner just being a fellow child of God one day, no longer my true partner, and no longer able to do the loving things with me like cuddling or something. I don't want our unique relationship to disappear. Please help.

In theology conversations, God's timelessness is often assumed, but should it be? I know for many here there might be other sources of authority on the topic, but biblically speaking, can it be argued?

I see the phrase "with the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are as a day." [2 Peter 3:8], but that implies either immense patience or immense perspective, not timelessness.

• Can God change the past?
• Do any bible passages state or imply God is "outside of time?"
• Is the concept necessary for any biblical idea or quality of God?

Thanks for your ideas.

I'm referring to the difference of interpretation from "In the beginning" (God started creation) to "In a Beginning" (God was at the start and organized creation) in the story of Genesis.

Could referring to the earth as "ha-aretz" (geographic properties) Instead of "Adamah" (physical properties) point to the creation story referring to the location of things instead of the essence of things? Which would then be an argument for God organizing and not starting creation.

Or am I completely off? I'm a newbie to theology so I'd love to know.

Let's imagine for a moment that Christianity (we can also use Islam) is the only true religion, meaning that when we die, we face the God of the Bible ready to judge us for our actions, which will determine whether we go to heaven or hell. Let's take Gandhi as an example, a Hindu, a teacher of love, kindness, and non-violence, BUT A HINDU. (In the comments, someone will surely say that Gandhi wasn't as good as history books paint him, I honestly don't care, you can take someone else as an example.)

Well, does Gandhi go to heaven or hell? Because if despite his good deeds he is sent to hell because he's Hindu, then that God is definitely not one I want to believe in. If he's sent to heaven for his good deeds despite being Hindu, it means that the whole concept of religion as a team to cheer for would become futile and would reinforce the idea that there is only one God and that no religion is the right one but all are right.

I'm exploring the onslaught of disparaging information about the Bible in this internet age and looking for scholarly perspectives. Bart Ehrman is on my list but I've heard of Wright and his work and decided that I want to start there. Any recommendations?

Perhaps this has been asked but I couldn't find it. During seminary (MA Theological Studies), I took one course on the problem of evil. It was the only one offered. Never did get to take a course on Job, which I find one of the most interesting books of Scripture.

Ive been studying Job lately and I've ran into some questions that I cannot find answers for, I'm hoping some here can help.

The conversation between Satan and God goes from Satan explaining where he came from before God immediately changes to asking him about Job.

Q1: Does this make God responsible, and therefore the cause, of Jobs suffering since Satan never brought him up?

Q2. Is the passage stating that God didn't know where Satan was, implying he isn't all knowing?

After Satan essentially issues a challenge to God saying, basically, if you take all of this man's stuff away, I'll bet he drops his faith. God accepts and off we go.

Q2. Why would God take a bet from Satan, particularly, if he is all knowing and knows the outcome of the calamity that Job goes through?

Q3. Does this challenge the idea of an all loving God? Yes, God can use terrible events and bring a positive out of them, but why cause needless suffering for such a faithful man?

As a note, I am in know way an expert or anything close it, in regard to the OT. I also wasn't required to take Hebrew during my coursework, so I may be missing something from not being able to read it in original text. I'm also not a pastor, this is just a personal quest. I'm having trouble with the overall problem of evil.

If any of you know a solid commentary on Job (I am looking at purchasing the NICO) or any books on the problem of evil (other than John Fineberg's) I'd greatly appreciate it.

What’s your thoughts on the authenticity of the gospel of Judas? It was determined to be written about 150 ad and with the life spans of common biblical people, 159 years as isn’t out of possibility that maybe Judas had some sort of note taker that carried his project after his death or even just copied his original gospel he created before he died. Also what do you think about the being he mentions as saklas the old testament god? In the end do you think that Judas really was Jesus’s most trusted apostle? The only one who completly understood the big picture of his plans?

Let me know what you guys think any input is greatly welcome

Context: I've heard many times that when Jesus wept, He was showing that He's capable of emotions and felt for all mankind.

Does this "mankind" envolves those who He knew at the time as a human, or was He thinking about the mankind in the future also?

As a human being, was He capable of knowing all the suffering and sin in the future? Did He weep for us, for example?

I'm sorry if this post is out of place or in the wrong sub, if so please point me to the right place

Hey all,

I have a friend who has in recent years got really into healing and deliverance, which as someone raised somewhat Pentecostal, I'm not exactly opposed to, but do think needs to be approached with caution and reserve. Recently he's got to a point in believing that, in his own words, "if I knew what I knew now, my mother wouldn't have died from cancer". She passed away a few years ago. He also was saying to another friend that based off Mark 16:18; he could drink bleach and not die or get sick from it, because his faith in Jesus (and a belief that Jesus wants people to not come to harm), would be sufficient that he wouldn't get sick. He also has a belief that due to the Lords prayer and the line "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven", this means that Jesus doesn't desire that people on earth suffer because there is no suffering in heaven. So to him, all healing is possible "with enough faith"

Now I know there is a lot of red flags there and a lot of health and wellness, prosperity stuff. But I'm specifically interested in people's views of Mark 16:18. I know that it's accepted that this portion of scripture isn't in the original gospels and is added by a scribe, but I want to hear opinions on why this is seen as different to the other parts in the original gospels. Because some people thought it was good enough to make it into the biblical cannon. Why does a different author make it different?

Thanks!

6 months left to finish my dissertation. Getting into the meat now.

A Christian professor was challenged to a debate by an agnostic. The agnostic believed that agnosticism and atheism could improve people's lives. The professor said that agnosticism has ruined lives not fixed them and the agnostic asked him to prove it. The professor gathered some people who used to sin before they learned about God. He gathered former prostitutes, racists, drug addicts and people who went through depression. He took them to the agnostic and told him that all these people changed because of their hope in the future and their faith in Christ. The professor then asked the agnostic to show him anyone who used to be bad and yet, after adopting atheism or agnosticism, changed their behaviour. The agnostic failed to do so and gave up the argument.

P.S. Faith in God has been shown to improve people's lives while agnosticism and atheism is known to lead to existential crises and amoral, hedonistic behaviour.