Someone made a comment a while back that the Bible mentions that in the latter days, things will be discovered, eg. archeology etc, that prove many of things in the Bible as being true. I am pretty sure I have ran across this as well, but can't find it now. It's **not** Daniel 12:4 that I was thinking of, but I really can't recall now, maybe it was. Any suggestions?

On the cross, when the Romans pierced Christ with the spear, the scriptures say that water poured out: > But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith > came there out blood and **water**. (John 19:34) The Greek word used is ὕδωρ (hydōr) so it's unlikely that they meant, "fluids" or anything else, it's apparent that it was literally *water* that came out. Why did water come out of Christ when he was speared?

One I know of were the Levitical singers reciting the Psalms. What other methods were used by the Israelites that preserved the Old Testament - whether oral or written?

So I’m looking for a Bible in German that is like the NKJV in accuracy. I specifically was looking at the verse [‭‭Revelation‬ ‭21‬:‭8‬ ‭NKJV‬‬](https://bible.com/bible/114/rev.21.8.NKJV) >But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. But the German translations I’ve seen recommended seem to be not as accurate like for sexual immoral they put, whores or Huren, or indecent (Unzüchtigen). ‭‭[Offenbarung‬ ‭21‬:‭8‬ ‭DELUT‬‬](https://bible.com/bible/51/rev.21.8.DELUT) >Der Verzagten aber und Ungläubigen und Greulichen und Totschläger und Hurer und Zauberer und Abgöttischen und aller Lügner, deren Teil wird sein in dem Pfuhl, der mit Feuer und Schwefel brennt; das ist der andere Tod. ‭‭[Offenbarung‬ ‭21‬:‭8‬ ‭SCH2000‬‬](https://bible.com/bible/157/rev.21.8.SCH2000) >Die Feiglinge aber und die Ungläubigen und mit Gräueln Befleckten und Mörder und Unzüchtigen und Zauberer und Götzendiener und alle Lügner — ihr Teil wird in dem See sein, der von Feuer und Schwefel brennt; das ist der zweite Tod. Does anyone know a German Bible version that translates these things well? I only know a little German so to understand which words are which I’m using Google Translate. I want to send some German verses but from & a good translation. I saw the Hoffnung für alle “Hope for all” translation does say sexually immoral in German but people said that it was a translation that isn’t as clear doctrinally. Can someone help me?

Does "gospel-preaching church" have a shared meaning among Christians? What is it supposed to mean, and what are the signs of this "gospel-preaching church"? Is the term a tautology? Or is the negation of the term a way to criticize and slight other types of Christians or denominations that one group of Christians may disapprove of or dislike? If possible, where did this phrase come from, and by whom is this phrase typically used?

William Golding wrote about a group of Boy Scouts who were stranded on an island, and who tried to set up a society among themselves. At first they were quite civil and logical in their social interactions. But as time went on they became less civil, and eventually barbaric in their treatment of each other...even setting up a pig's head for worship! The story ended with a rescue, before they annihilated each other completely...by a warship! Showing the need of society at large in the world. Does this represent faithfully what Protestants teach about the Fallen Nature of Man as presented in the Bible? (Romans 3:23, 6:23) And does it lead to the incisive conclusion that Fallenness directs us to: the need of a Transcendent Savior? Note that the troop of boys had no outside, cultural influences. They only acted according to their inherent instincts. Which instincts gradually manifested themselves in evil conduct, growing worse and worse by the days. Is this an accurate illustration, by the novelist, of Paul's thesis in Romans 1-2 (wittingly or unwittingly on the part of Mr. Goldman)? >What then? Are we better than they? No, in no wise, for we have proven before both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. As it is written, *There is none righteous, no, not one...* (Psalm 14:1; Romans 3:9-10)
*For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.* (Romans 3:23) Did Golding have any connection with Christianity in his personal life? Was there any knowable influence that theology had in forming his motifs in writing his novels?

The singer Madonna Louise Ciccone has stated in various interviews that she's been excommunicated by the Catholic Church *multiple times*. > The best-selling female recording artist then revealed that she had > been excommunicated from the church three times. Corden, in disbelief, > questioned whether or not she was serious but she assured him that it > was true. > > **"The Vatican has excommunicated me,"** she said before the two of them > started belting out her hit song, "Papa Dont Preach" off of her third > studio album released in 1986, True Blue. > > Madonna Talks Being Excommunicated by Church, Desire to Be Nun on James Corden's 'Carpool Karaoke' and > “I’ve been excommunicated from the Catholic Church three times,” > Madonna joked to the crowd in Philadelphia. “It shows the Vatican > cares – deeply.” > > Watch Madonna Dedicate a Song to the 'Popey-Wopey' (A.K.A. Pope Francis) **Has she formally ever been excommunicated on *multiple* occasions (or if not, why does she think she has)?**

Related Holy Ghost revealing truth privately and personally in an absolute and unmistakable manner In recent posts I have seen many statements that seem to indicate spiritual experience as secondary/lesser/untrusted sources of truth: >Truth must be determined by something not so much apart from a personal subjective experience but in addition to it. That brings us to the realm of empirical evidence and rational thought.1 >the Bible warns against emotional 'feelings' and 'spiritual experiences' that are not utterly rooted in following the Jesus of the Bible ... I am a sceptic when it comes to people enthusing about an experience they had after prayer...Especially if it ... does not square with what my Bible tells me Jesus Christ is.2 >any personal private revelation which contradicts something that has already been written or does not deepen understanding of who Jesus is and what Jesus does (according to what is already written) is to be held as highly suspect at best.3 >However, they may acknowledge varying degrees of clarity in these revelations, and the possibility of deception (as in false dreams, false visions, or false prophecies), which is why discernment of spirits is an important subject matter.4 From Wikipedia of discerning spirits 5: >Judgment of discernment can be made in two ways. The first is by a charism or spiritual gift, held as divinely granted to certain individuals for the discerning of spirits by intuition (1 Corinthians 12:10). The second way to discern spirits is by reflection and **theological study. This second method is by acquired human knowledge** While my own opinions are closer to the fourth statement, what is the biblical basis that spiritual experiences are the first step in conversion (are to be trusted)? Is anything else necessary in knowing Jesus is the Christ (Savior of man), is theological study necessary? Is anything else more important to conversion/following Jesus than feelings/heart/faith (is data, reasoning, evidence, etc)? Bonus: How does one discern that which is good/evil (deceiving spirits and false prophets vs truth)? ***** I do realize these statements include caveats such as ...are not utterly rooted in following the Jesus of the Bible and ...which contradicts something that has already been written or does not deepen understanding of who Jesus..(according to what is already written) but both of these emphasize relying on one's understanding of the written word of which there are many interpretations. We know the bible doesn't contain everything (Jesus' teenage years, John 20:30 to quickly name a few as this is laying quick basis). As many parts of the bible were written after they happened things could have been missed or changed in the mind (not nefariously/purpose). This isn't to say the bible isn't important or doesn't contain truth (I am asking for biblical basis to answer this question), just that relying on it as singular/primary source has inherent flaws 1 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/100625/22319 2 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/100617/22319 3 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/100652/22319 4 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/100647/22319 5 Gen 3:22 , 1 king 3:9 , Isa 5:20 , Eze 44:23 , John 1:9 , 1 Cor 2:14 , 1 Cor 12:10 , 1 John 4:2,6

It's my understanding that most Christians have never had an overtly spectacular, extraordinary, supernatural experience themselves, yet they find no problem in holding very specific supernatural beliefs (e.g. the resurrection of Jesus) based on the eyewitness accounts of others (e.g. the apostles, as recorded in the gospels). However, doctrines such Continuationism can find support on the basis of eyewitness accounts as well, [yet Cessationists would object to those as unreliable](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/83141/50422) . Latter-day Saints also appeal to the first-hand accounts of 3 & 8 witnesses as supportive evidence for the supernatural origin of the book of Mormon (see [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/83978/50422) for an eloquent presentation of this argument), [yet non-LDS Christians would object to those as unreliable](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84581/50422) as well. When it comes to assessing the reliability of eyewitness accounts as supportive evidence for specific supernatural beliefs, is there anything close to a consensus on how to make these kinds of judgments? Has any denomination or Christian scholar published a set of principles on how to judge the credibility of eyewitness accounts and applied them to concrete cases, such as the apostles (in the case of the resurrection of Jesus) or the eyewitnesses to the golden plates (in the case of Joseph Smith and the book of Mormon)?

Since the restoration, the LDS Church has taught that certain dark skinned people were cursed to be cut off from the presence of the Lord: > 20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto > me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they > shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, **they > were cut off from his presence**. And that their darks skins were a sign of the curse so that they could be recognized as being cursed: > 21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore > cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened > their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; > wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, > that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause > a skin of blackness to come upon them. > > 22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be > loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. > > 23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; > for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord > spake it, and it was done. (2 Nephi 5:21-23) Today, the official stance of the church is this: > "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that > black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects > unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are > a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are > inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally > condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." (Race and the Priesthood) Does this mean that the Church is disavowing that people of African descent were ever cursed and bore the sign of the curse? Or does this mean that since the curse was lifted, and in 1978 when the Preisthood was officially offered to all worthy males, that the "sign of the curse" was no longer a sign of anything except mortal heritage, and that those spirits being born with those phenotypes today are no longer born to those lines based on premortal favour?

Is it true that demons are the spirits of the giant breed that was brought forth when angels intermarried with the daughters of men while fallen angels remain to be angels in a fallen state? Is there any authoritative verse in the Bible that exposes the difference?

We see Jesus being referred to as the Lamb of God, on many occasions. John the Baptist calls him the Lamb of God who takes away of the sins of the world (Jn 1:29). St. Paul refers to him as the lamb whose blood saved Israel from Egypt: >Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch - as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. (I Cor 5:7) In Ex 12: 6-13 we see how Israel is asked to slaughter the Passover lamb and sprinkle its blood on the door-frames as as sign of their presence inside. Besides the Passover Lamb, we see references to two lambs in the Old Testament which would get Israel reprieve for their sins, in Leviticus 16: > He (Aaron) shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering..........He shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the curtain, and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it upon the mercy seat and before the mercy seat...... When he has finished atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat. Then Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness by means of someone designated for the task. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness. The phraseology used by John the Baptist points to the second lamb that was left to the wilderness loaded with the sins of Israel. In the prayer *Agnus Dei*, we call Jesus the Lamb of God "who takes away " the sins of the world. In brief, the three lambs in the Old Testament bore three different missions. My question therefore, is: **According to Catholic scholars, which lamb in the Old Testament is Jesus equated to?**

We read in 2 Maccab 12:42-44: > Then, Judas, that great man, urged the people to keep away from sin, because they had seen for themselves what had happened to those men who had sinned. He also took up a collection from all his men, totaling about four pounds of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. Judas did this noble thing because he believed in the resurrection of the dead. If he had not believed that the dead would be raised, it would have been foolish and useless to pray for them. Denominations like Catholicism that believe in the existence of purgatory quote this OT reference in support of this belief. One would be interested to know how the other denominations interpret these verses.

I've always heard "God must have a sense of humor because he created X". Usually X is "the platypus" or "me". Also, it should be evident that Jesus, being human, had a sense of humor. It's part of the human experience. But, is there anywhere in the Bible where humor on the part of God is actually recorded? Furthermore, is there any doctrinal stance supported by extra-biblical (yet inspired) text that indicates God's sense of humor? I'm interested in both humor from Jesus (as I don't know of any) as well as humor from the heavens (either God while Jesus was here on Earth or anything before or after that point).

It's accepted by most Christians nowadays that only the original documents are inerrant, therefore the modern Bibles are bound to have contradictions because of copyist errors and translation errors. And we can see that in numerous verses with at least numerical discrepancies. So we can never compare them with the original. So, I have two main questions: - Why did God allow that? We do not have the original texts anymore, so we can never see this supposed inerrancy, and that can put heavy discredit on the Bibles we have today, one can wonder what else there is wrong without us being able to know, isn't that counter-productive to Christianity? He supposedly intervened on the writing and canonization, but didn't on the copies and translations, He could at least make someone lock up the original documents in secure vaults (even an angel), but chose not to, and as a result we ended up with only the fallible texts at the end, why? That goes against God's nature of being the most responsible being who is deeply concerned with having his message understood. - How can this be reconciled with [Matthew 24:35](https://www.bibleref.com/Matthew/24/Matthew-24-35.html) ? My reasoning goes like this, since we don't have the autographs, we don't have the inerrant words of Jesus written down to us, so they don't exist anymore, they "passed away" at least barely. Or, we can accept that in regard to Jesus' words, at the bare minimum, are written down to us without error (this requires a strong dose of faith, but that's what religion is supposed to look like either way). God simply wanted His infallible words to be lost forever, and I want to know why.

If only humans are "created in His own image" (Genesis 1:27), then why are we so close in DNA to primates - why have we proved that dogs and primates have a theory of mind - among other important things we thought distinguished us from animals? Could this be evidence for theistic evolution?

I've been engaged in a thought-provoking [chat discussion](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/151245/2024/2/2) with an atheist on the philosophy site. In our conversation, I've been advocating for the idea that there is evidence supporting the existence of miracles as a separate piece of data pointing toward the existence of God. This conversation has sparked my contemplation on the Christian perspective concerning the rationality behind interpreting an anomalous event as a miracle, rather than dismissing it as a peculiar anomaly of nature destined for future scientific understanding and explanation, which would be the typical response of someone who is committed to [methodological naturalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism) . According to Christians, when is it rationally justified to consider an anomalous event as a miracle, as opposed to an anomaly of nature that science will eventually explain? Are there specific criteria or perspectives within Christian theology or philosophy that guide believers in determining when an occurrence transcends the boundaries of natural explanation and aligns with divine intervention?

**John 6:38** >For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me Surely this implies they have separate wills?

Scripture says that Jesus will make war on the enemies of God from a horse and his sword will be the word of his mouth. It looks like the devil will lead an army of men into a war against Jesus' headquarters here on earth after the 1000 year reign in the air. **NB** It's **not the devil who leads**, **it's the beast**. The beast is the one who attempts to lead an invasion against Jesus' camp of Saints. This is because during this time the devil is imprisoned in the abyss, and that's why later he is freed ## The Rider on a White Horse ## **Revelation 19:11-15** >Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. Heaven has an army and Jesus is the leader. ## Birds get ready to feed on the flesh of fallen men ## **Revelation 19:17** >Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great.” The size of fallen men is going to be so huge that the birds are called to feast on the remains. ## The Beast and the nations get ready for war against Jesus and his armies ## **Revelation 19:19** >And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. Both sides get ready to attack ## Jesus Defeats the Beast and captures him ## **Revelation 19:20** >And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. The beast loses the war to Jesus, he is captured and thrown alive into the lake of fire. Since this beast is alive and thrown alongside the false prophet into the lake of fire, does it follow that the beast is a **human king** and the false prophet his priest? Using the **principal of duality** like truth and lies, angels and demons, God and devil then it follows that the beast is the opposite of Christ in form in that Christ has a physical body and the Spirit of God so does this beast has a physical body and the Spirit of Satan over his head? ## Close Examination of the Throwing into the Lake of Fire Verse ## I have also examined the verse that describes the act of throwing and the Bible says as if these were two men being thrown alive into the lake of fire **Revelation 19:20** >...These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. **These two were thrown** sounds as if the false prophet and the beast are both equal in form and other attributes

One presentation of this argument is put forward by Carl Sagan: > "If the general picture, however, of a Big Bang followed by an expanding universe is correct - what happened before that? Was the universe devoid of all matter and then the matter suddenly somehow created? How did that happen? In many cultures, a customary answer is that a "God" or "Gods" created the universe out of nothing, but if we wish to pursue this question courageously we must, of course, ask the next question - where did God come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, **why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question**? Or if we say that God always existed, **why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed**? There's no need for a creation, it was always here. These are not easy questions. Cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries, with questions that were once treated only in religion and myth." > > Source: https://genius.com/Carl-sagan-on-god-and-gods-annotated > Or watch: [The uncertainty of God (Carl Sagan in cosmos series) - YouTube](https://youtu.be/KNzlfYJaaCg) Richard Dawkins makes similar arguments: > "If we want to postulate a deity capable of engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution, that deity must have been vastly complex in the first place. The creationist, whether a naive Bible-thumper or an educated bishop, simply *postulates* an already existing being of prodigious intelligence and complexity. If we are going to allow ourselves the luxury of postulating organized complexity without offering an explanation, we might as well make a job of it and simply postulate the existence of life as we know it! ***The Blind Watchmaker*, Chapter 11 “Doomed Rivals”" (p. 316)** > >"A God capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe *cannot* be simple. His existence is going to need a mammoth explanation in its own right." ***The God Delusion* (p. 178)** > > "God, if he exists, would have to be a very, very, very complicated thing indeed. So to postulate a God as the beginning of the universe, as the answer to the riddle of the first cause, is to shoot yourself in the conceptual foot because you are immediately postulating something far far more complicated than that which you are trying to explain. [...] If you have problems seeing how matter could just come into existence - try thinking about how complex intelligent matter, or complex intelligent entities of any kind, could suddenly spring into existence, it's many many orders of magnitude harder to understand." **Lynchburg, Virginia, 23/10/2006** > > "In the case of the cosmos, [...] even if we don't understand how it came about, it's not helpful to postulate a creator, because the creator is the very kind of thing that needs an explanation - and although it's difficult enough to explain how a very simple origin of the universe came into being - how matter and energy, how one or two physical constants came into existence - although it's difficult enough to think how *simplicity* came into existence, it's a hell of a lot harder to think how something as complicated as a God comes into existence" ***"Has Science Buried God?"* Debate, Richard Dawkins vs. John Lennox, 21/10/2008** > > Source: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins How do Christians respond to the atheistic argument that postulating a God introduces an unnecessary and overly complicated extra step? --- **Note**: there is an ongoing related discussion taking place on Philosophy Stack Exchange right now, [Is God’s very existence the ultimate miracle?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/110945/66156)