Rather than busting out a KJV and a JST and comparing them verse by verse I am lazily hoping that there is, somewhere, a list which has already been generated providing all of the verses from the Bible which the JST has modified or allegedly 'restored'?

James Fodor released a new video on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ saying that the disciple hallucinated and the hallucinations were part of a shared social process that has been shown among faith and non-faith contexts, Jesus's body was reburied, the disciples were biased to believing His Resurrection and socialisation factors may explain the existence of belief despite counter evidence. From a Christian perspective how would you respond to his claims?

Mainstream Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God the Father and Mary, a virgin. So my question is, have any Christian theologians discussed whether Jesus only resemble his mother Mary, or whether he also resembled his adopted father Joseph? God could easily have arranged it so that Jesus resembled Joseph, even if Joseph played no role in the conception of Jesus.

I came across a blog post by a platonist in which he critiqued the traditional Christian understanding of God and evil given God's omnibenevolence and omniscience, saying: > Augustine's claim that evil is not a substance but a privation of good > was designed to absolve God of direct responsibility for evil's > existence. However, this position does not escape the more profound > paradox that God created beings who could lapse into privation and did > so with full foreknowledge of the consequences. The free will defense > only complicates the issue: if God grants free will knowing it will be > misused, the divine act of creation becomes entangled with the > emergence of moral evil. Moreover, if the will can remain oriented > toward the good only through divine grace, then free will itself seems > limited or dependent in a way that undermines its explanatory value. > The paradox intensifies when considering the role of Satan, whose > rebellious agency destabilizes the coherence of monotheistic > sovereignty. If Satan undermines God's purposes, divine omnipotence is > weakened; if Satan acts only with God's permission, then divine > benevolence is compromised. Either interpretation raises problems that > the privation theory cannot reconcile. These tensions reveal a more > profound structural paradox at the heart of Christian theodicy. In a > cosmos created ex nihilo by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, > nothing can exist independently of divine will or permission. > Consequently, all conditions that make evil possible, creaturely > freedom, vulnerability, corruptibility, and the existence of tempters > are ultimately grounded in God's creative act. Christian theodicy thus > attempts to balance divine goodness with divine sovereignty, but the > metaphysical architecture of monotheism forces a contradiction: either > God is powerful enough to prevent evil but chooses not to, or God > wills a world in which evil inevitably emerges, making evil indirectly > a by-product of divine creative intention. Augustine's partial > incorporation of Neoplatonic ideas helps articulate evil as a > metaphysical deficiency. Yet, even this philosophical refinement > cannot compensate for a more fundamental issue: Christian theology's > consolidation of causality in a single omnipotent agent ensures that > God remains tied to every aspect of cosmic order and disorder alike. > The result is a system in which the existence of evil perpetually > threatens either the goodness or the sovereignty of the creator, and > the tradition's attempts to resolve this tension never entirely > eliminate its underlying contradictions. > > (Flavius Julianus Mithridaticus, *Evil as Shadow, Heroism as Form: An > Indo-European View of Theodicy*, The New Platonic Academy) To restate his critiques: - God created people with the ability to be evil and knew of the consequences because of his foreknowledge. He created people knowing they would use their free will for evil which makes evil a by-product of his creation. This seems to bring his omnibenevolence into question. If I created a simulation with the parameters allowing for characters in it to be evil then I'm responsible, at least partly, for evil existing in my simulation. - If Satan can thwart God's purposes [such as his desire for everyone to have faith in Him and live according to His moral law (my comment)], then it calls his omnipotence into question. And if Satan only acts with God's permission, then God's benevolence is compromised. If someone is stealing something or hurting someone and I allow it to happen when I have the ability to stop it, then I'm being evil. In Catholicism, being able to prevent or stop something evil and not doing it is the sin of omission. A more accurate allegory with regards to Satan's acts that are permitted by God: I'm standing in the way of an assailant and their victim and when the assailant asks if they can attack their victim, I nod and step aside, allowing the evil to take place. Maybe my allegory is off, but I'm having difficulty seeing his omnibenevolence given this. My allegory somewhat reminded me of the book of Job where Job, who is a holy man has his life and loved ones destroyed after God gives Satan permission and if I'm remembering correctly, God didn't give Job an explanation and instead told him about the world He created. - In a world created by God as understood by Christians, nothing exists apart from God's will or permission. Either God is powerful enough to prevent evil, but chooses not to or God willed a world where evil would inevitably exist, making evil a by-product of his creation. He presents a sound critique of the traditional Christian understanding of God and evil and it completely stumped me so if you have any thoughts, please share them because I don't know how to rebut him. Thank you in advance to anyone who tries to tackle this.

Their 15 March 2005 *Watchtower* said that on pages 5 to 6, and I fully agree with that point, so this question is not meant to stir up any ‘for’ or ‘against’ answers. Let us please all take it as understood that only those in the New Covenant Jesus inaugurated the night before he died are invited by him to eat bread and drink wine every time they “do this in remembrance of me” – Mark 14:2-24 & Luke 22:19. Nor is this question questioning how often this act of remembrance should be done. The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe it should be no more than once a year, with 2025 seeing their global event on 12 April, after sunset. Please be assured, I am not questioning that either. **It is the number of people attending their annual memorial event this year who partook that I am interested in learning about**. Granted, it may be a couple of months before the world-wide total of partakers is collated, so I will keep this question open. However, it would likely be possible for every Jehovah’s Witness reading this, and who attended themselves, to say if a single person partook, or two, three or four, etc, as ***in the vast majority of congregations nobody partakes. Or has this changed in recent years?*** The tiny percentage of all memorial attenders who do partake is tied up with the belief that only 144,000 people will ever have ‘the heavenly calling’, to be part of the kingdom of heaven. As stated here: > “The same spirit is operating on Jesus’ ‘other sheep,’ but it is not > arousing in them the hope and desire for heavenly life.” *The > Watchtower*, 15 February 1998 page 19 para. 6 Again, I’m not wanting any answers disputing that. I understand that to be the reason why less than 1% of attenders partake, but ***if the numbers have gone up somewhat, I would like to know why.*** **Hence the request to first obtain the number of those partaking this year**.

It's a common trope among craedobaptists that the purpose of baptism is in order to make a public commitment to the Christian faith. For example, here's an excerpt from a *GotQuestions.org* article on baptism: > Christian baptism is the means by which a person makes a public profession of faith and discipleship. In the waters of baptism, a person says, wordlessly, “I confess faith in Christ; Jesus has cleansed my soul from sin, and I now have a new life of sanctification.” It's the only paragraph on the article without a Biblical citation (other than the summary paragraph at the end). I'm curious what the Biblical basis for the idea of "public profession" being associated with Baptism. *Please note I am specifically asking about the association of **public** profession with baptism, not about craedobaptism generally.* (As context, I recently returned to Lutheranism after several years as a Baptist. Even while I was a Baptist, I never felt like I understood the basis for connection of public profession of faith to baptism.)

[Alien abductions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction) , [close encounters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_encounter) and [UFO sightings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings) have been widely reported by many individuals around the world. Many self-proclaimed alien abductees and first-hand eyewitnesses of close encounters have testified to this effect. For instance, the YouTube Channel [UFO HUB](https://www.youtube.com/c/UFOHub/videos) hosts multiple interviews with such people. But beyond eyewitness accounts and anecdotes, on a more serious note, the UFO phenomenon in particular has been deemed worthy of a more rigorous evaluation, as evidenced by the [Pentagon UFO videos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos) and the [U.S. Intelligence UFO Report](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_Report_(U.S._Intelligence)) . What is an overview of Christian views on alien appearances and abductions? Do most Christian denominations and organizations tend to take an official position on this issue?

Does a Christian apologist aiming to uphold the accuracy and reliability of modern Bibles require a strong understanding of textual criticism? Put differently, when making a comprehensive argument supporting the truthfulness of various claims within the Bible—such as the Genesis creation story or the historical account of Jesus's resurrection in the Gospels and Acts—would the Christian apologist need to rely on arguments from textual criticism to substantiate the claim that the content in our contemporary Bibles is indeed accurate and reliable, despite thousands of years of transcription, translation, and potential manipulation since the writing of the original manuscripts? If possible, I would appreciate answers referencing books that have been published at the intersection of Christian apologetics and textual criticism. --- *Food for thought for those who think apologetics is an irrelevant or unnecessary discipline* These are some of my previous questions on this topic. Some of the answers are quite insightful and worth the read: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/99924/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100436/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100928/61679

Notable examples include: - [Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](https://youtu.be/0tYm41hb48o) - [The God Debate II: Harris vs. Craig](https://youtu.be/yqaHXKLRKzg) - [Does Math Point to God? William Lane Craig + Graham Oppy](https://youtu.be/8WE1y00bwCU) - [Is the Kalam Sound? Graham Oppy vs. Andrew Loke](https://youtu.be/a8NrTv-Durc) - [Are There Any Good Arguments for God? Ed Feser vs Graham Oppy](https://youtu.be/m-80lQOlNOs) - [William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll | "God and Cosmology" | 2014 Greer Heard Forum](https://youtu.be/X0qKZqPy9T8) - [DEBATE: Theism vs Atheism | Jonathan McLatchie vs Alex O’Connor](https://youtu.be/rnIQFI1pYLM) - [DEBATE Matt Dillahunty Vs Cliffe Knechtle | Is Christianity True? | Podcast](https://youtu.be/aAg3H1LU1Yw) - [Is Belief in the Resurrection Unreasonable? Mike Winger vs. Matt Dillahunty](https://youtu.be/Z2FGgkubhZM) - [Is belief in the Resurrection reasonable? Trent Horn Vs Matt Dillahunty Debate](https://youtu.be/7V6UNSvHVDM) Given the well-established practice among (some) Christians of engaging in formal intellectual debates with atheists and skeptics to defend core tenets of the Christian faith, such as the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus, through philosophical arguments, reason, and evidence (as the examples above illustrate), what is the biblical basis for this? The New Testament enumerates various spiritual gifts and ministries (1 Corinthians 12:4-11, Ephesians 4:11-13, Romans 12:6-8), but I am unaware of any ministry fitting the role of a "professional intellectual debater." --- **Note**: there is some overlap with my previous question *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/100436/61679* , although the focus here is on the debate aspect, and the scope is broader in terms of what can be defended (resurrection of Jesus, miracles, etc.)

The first mention in the Bible of the devil or Satan being judged is in Genesis 3, on the occasion of the fall of Adam and Eve, with the serpent generally accepted as either being Satan or being controlled by him. This Genesis 3 judgment may be eternal condemnation and imprisonment in hell or lesser punishment. What is the earliest prophecy (chronologically, according to traditional dating) in the Bible that states unequivocally that Satan will be cast into hell for eternity with no chance of repentance and forgiveness? I ask this so as to get closer to the answer to a larger question: was deceiving Adam and Eve or a prior rebellion in heaven the occasion of Satan's prison sentence without possibility of parole, or is it something that Satan did or will do later in history?

**Luke 2:34–35**: > (KJV) **34**And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; > **35**(Yea, **a sword shall pierce through thy own soul** also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. > > (NLT) **34**Then Simeon blessed them, and he said to Mary, the baby’s mother, “This child is destined to cause many in Israel to fall, but he will be a joy to many others. He has been sent as a sign from God, but many will oppose him. > **35**As a result, the deepest thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And **a sword will pierce your very soul**.” Do any *non-Catholic* denominations (i.e. those that don't venerate Mary) attach any special significance to Luke 2:35, "a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also"?
(Other than of course the trivial obvious fact of having to watch one's son's being tortured and executed.)

>Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet by the same providence he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently. - Westminster Confession of Faith 5.2 Please give an example of a secondary cause that is contingent and tell on what it is contingent.

Acts 15:19-21 (NIV, Emph mine) > 19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. **21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.**” This verse is used for and against observing law. Seems like this could mean either, "There are enough people following Moses and observing the law, so no need for more people to follow the law." or "The law is repeated in synagogues and new believers will go to synagogues, so they'll learn and follow them later."

Joshua 24:31 (ESV) states: > Israel served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua and had known all the work that the LORD did for Israel. However, based on evidence from Judges 18 (where the tribe of Dan took up Micah's idolatry), events in the previously mentioned chapter may have occurred during Joshua’s lifetime (Judges 18:1/Joshua 18:2, Judges 18:27/Joshua 19:47, and Judges 18:31/Joshua 19:51). Is it possible that these events occurred after Joshua’s death, and before Dan took possession of their inheritance? Or does the parallel explanation of the Laish takeover rule that out? How can the two, seemingly contradictory, passages be reconciled?

How do the references to ‘son’ or ‘sons of God(s)’ in Job 1–2, Job 38:4–7, Psalm 29:1, Psalm 89:6–7, and Daniel 3:25, 28 interrelate to convey angels, heavenly assembly, or hierarchy?

If we define perfection as ["complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement"](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/perfect) then the answer may that God is not yet perfect because humans have not always responded as God intended. There seems to be some scriptural basis for this. For example, 2 Peter 3:9 says: > The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is > patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come > to repentance. Logically, if God wishes all to come to repentance but all do not respond, then God's wish is unfulfilled. Proverbs 13:12 says "Hope deferred makes the heart sick, But desire fulfilled is a tree of life." If we apply this to the situation described in 2 Peter, then God's heart is sick, because His desire has not been fulfilled (that all come to repentance). We also get a sense of God's heart being broken elsewhere in scripture, as the prophets speak of Him as feeling like a husband whose wife has betrayed him, or as a father whose children have gone astray. The argument for God not being perfect boils down the idea that God desires a relationship with His children and that He suffers when we do not respond to His love. Is this idea heretical, or may Christians accept it without falling into serious error? (Note: the question does not seek arguments in favor of God's perfection/completeness, but is concerned primarily with the issue of whether or not belief in God's perfection is necessary to Christian faith.) ---------- Addendum: I hope readers will understand the question as I have defined it (the issue of God's "completeness" as opposed to the issue of His moral perfection). I've edited the title accordingly.

In Matthew 11, Jesus is questioned about whether he is the messiah. Instead of answering directly, in Matthew 11:45 Jesus points to his deeds. The deeds he lists are messianic signs according to passages in Isaiah 26:19, 35:5-6 and 61:1. However, one evidence that Jesus offers is not named in Isaiah or in any other prophet as a messianic sign (as far as I can tell). That miracle is the cleansing of lepers. In my research, I found sources that say that it was a Rabbinical tradition of that time that only the messiah could cleanse a leper. Yet in studying one messianic passage more closely, I wonder if I have found indirect Biblical evidence for that being a messianic sign. > And a highway shall be there, and it shall be called the Way of > Holiness; **the unclean shall not pass over it**. It shall belong to those > who walk on the way; even if they are fools, they shall not go astray. > > - Isaiah 35:8 The “unclean” above could mean only the morally wicked, but in the Old Testament it would seem to also include anyone who was ritually unclean. If the promise of a safe highway, a safe passage through the terrors of life, was denied the ritually unclean like lepers, then they would be excluded from the blessings of the messianic age. To fully participate, they would need to be cleansed. Have any theologians proposed Isaiah 35:8 as supplying the prophetic basis to Jesus’ statement in Matthew 11 concerning the cleansing of lepers, making it a messianic sign?

**Some preliminary notes:** 1. No, this is not a hermeneutical question, as what I’m interested in are answers from theological perspectives who advance/defend the notion which states that the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis 6:4 are in fact the offspring of the sons of God mentioned in the same verse. 2. Separate is the question of the identity of the aforementioned “sons of God.” Instead, my inquiry is strictly about how the ancestry and origin of the Nephilim have been deduced from scripture according to any and every denomination who espouses such knowledge. **The verse** Here is the verse in question, from various English translations: > The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when > the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children > to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. > **ESV** > The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when > the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by > them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. **NIV** > The Nephilim were on the earth in those days (and also after this) > when the sons of God were having sexual relations with the daughters > of humankind, who gave birth to their children. They were the mighty > heroes of old, the famous men. **NET** > There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, > when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare > children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of > renown. **KJV** **The question** It seems clear to me from a plain, common sense reading of the verse that the Nephilim preexist the event in which the sons of God have offspring with the daughters of men. How can anyone claim that they originate from said relations? Simple question, hoping for a simple answer. God bless!

>God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure. - Westminster Confession of Faith 5.3. I have three related questions - 1. What does it mean that "God...maketh use of means"? 2. What is meant by "without, above, and against them"? 3. What does it mean for God to "work...above" means? **Conclusions** A sick person prays and then goes to the doctor. If the doctor provides the correct treatment and the patient recovers, the doctor is the "means". If the doctor is clueless, but the patient recovers anyway, this is "without means". If the doctor applies an incorrect treatment that should make the condition worse, but the patient recovers anyway, this is "against the means". If the doctor applies a treatment that should not cure the condition but only alleviate the symptoms, but the patient recovers anyway, this is "above the means".

Expressing this idea is difficult to relate. And I don’t understand the true significance of it. It seems that if Jesus destroyed his temple and which was “put back together” in three days. And to borrow a science quote from astronomer Carl Sagan: > If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. Did God/Jesus create/recreate the universe through the crucifixion and resurrection? Just thinking about it seems way to deep and over my head.