I found that there are several NIV study bibles, which are all published by Zondervan: - NIV Archaeological Study Bible, by Walter C. Kaiser Jr. - NIV Study Bible, Fully Revised, by Kenneth L. Barker - NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible, by D. A. Carson - NIV Halleys Study Bible - NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible Bringing to Life the Ancient World of Scripture, by Keener, Craig S.Walton, John H - The NIV Zondervan Study Bible, Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message - NIV Essentials Study Bible (eISBN: 9780310442417) - NIV Study Bible (eISBN: 9780310437420) - NIV Bible Study Commentary, by John H. Sailhamer David A. Frees What differences are between them? (That will be helpful for me to choose which one to read). Do they target readers of different interest groups? Thanks.

In LDS theology, what makes us forget our premortal existence is called the "veil of forgetfulness". Is there any indication in LDS doctrine when, if ever, this veil is lifted again? - It doesn't seem to be at death, since the purpose it has still continues on for as long as people need to decide whether they want to follow Jesus. - Is it at the resurrection then? I see no indication that "simply" being resurrected lifts the veil, I am not aware of any messenger referencing their own premortal existence. Apart from Jesus and God himself revealing it. - There also doesn't seem to be a point in NEVER lifting it. Its purpose is fulfilled after the Judgement. Also, the celestial world is described as having knowledge of all things, past, present and future. So, I would expect the veil to be lifted at SOME point. So, has there been so far any indication as to when the veil is lifted? Is it at/after the judgement?

I have heard that students of Christian Theology study Latin for a better understanding the religion. I haven't heard about them learning Greek. Is it the same case for both Catholics and Protestants? Does it have something to do with the fact that the only country that still uses Latin is the Vatican? When reading the Bible on my own, I met more words originated from ancient Greek than from Latin. Is it my bias, because a lot of words from Latin have been absorbed into English? **Did Greek weigh more heavily on Bible study than Latin historically, while it is the opposite today?**

What is the allegorical sense of "deep" in Lk. 5:4 : "Launch out into the deep."?

My question(s) relates to how the soul fits in with the existence "equation" and I have 2 main questions: Is the human soul part of your person or your essence, if essence then do humans each have a unique essence and essence =/= nature? If person, does that mean your person is essentially your personality + soul? Does God have a soul and is the soul part of God's essence or is it his essence (and would this mean divine nature =/= divine essence?)

I've read in the internet which say : *Jesus crucified on Wednesday, not Friday * But then the explanation paragraph in that page confused me. > the Passover meal was eaten on Tuesday night and Wednesday sundown > marked the beginning of the "high day" Next paragraph on the page : > Jesus, then, was crucified and entombed on a Wednesday afternoon, not > on Friday. I break those two paragraphs into like this :
- (A) the Passover meal was eaten on Tuesday night - (B) Wednesday sundown marked the beginning of the "high day" - (C) Jesus was crucified and entombed on a Wednesday afternoon Another quote from the same page : > Genesis 1:5 tells us quite plainly that God counts a day as beginning > with the evening So I make a chart about the days mentioned in A, B and C according to what the article say, something like this : So, the thing which confused me, the article say that The High Day is on Wednesday and Jesus was crucified also in Wednesday. But from the chart, I thought the article should say that Jesus was crucified on Tuesday afternoon, around a few hours before Wednesday (where Wednesday is the High Day / High Sabbath). Am I missing something here ? So I hope there is someone here from The United Church of God (or anyone who happen to know The UCD teaching) who can explain it to me. ---------- After seeing the chart from Ray.... On the 2nd day of the week:
Last Supper. To make it easier, say that the Last Supper happen at 8pm, not long after the 2nd day of the week begin. Around 3pm on the 3rd day of the week, Jesus died. My conclusion : According to the UCG, the time span from the Last Supper to the death of Christ is more than 24 hours (as seen in the chart). Please CMIIW. ---------- I just found out that the UCG's chart from Ray is from 2021 article , which say the Last Supper happen at Tuesday evening. This chart led me to get a conclusion like above. Coincidently, I've found another UCG's chart which is from 2013 article , which say that the Last Supper happen at Wednesday evening. This chart show that the Last Supper, the trial, crucifixion and time of death, all happen in the same day, which is Wednesday where Wednesday begin at sunset.

Was the split caused by political, doctrinal, different canons, linguistic differences, or other? And what was the name of the Church before the split, if there was any? Or were there many loosely organized churches instead? Bishopries independent of each other were scattered throughout the Mediterranean region in the early centuries. What determined whether they aligned with the Greek Orthodox, or the Roman Catholic church? And was the choosing to go one direction or the other amicable, or traumatic? Note that some of the ancient Councils of bishops were very hostile with bishops bringing their own Body Guards!. Is the splitting of denominations as simple, as some suppose, merely attributed to the difference in language: the Latins congregating in the west, and the Greek-speaking ones joining the East?

Are prophetic revelations (e.g., "I am Who am. " to Moses or private revelations ) that involuntary come to mind when praying distractions to prayer? St. Thomas writes (*Summa Theologica* II-II q. 83 a. 13 ad 3) that "to wander in mind unintentionally [during prayer] does not deprive prayer of its fruit."

Why are discalced Carmelites discalced (don't wear shoes)? I think there are other religious orders that don't wear shoes, too.

Prior to the First Council of Nicea was there any single meeting or ongoing group that attempted organization of the faith and its followers in any similar way ?

In classes earlier on in my life I was taught that Nestorius was a false teacher since he taught what some have called the "two board" theory. In this theory, There's two Jesuses *(what's the Plural of Jesus in English?)* glued together. These two Jesuses (one human and the other divine) do not interact with each other. Instead, they take turns. Before I continue on, please let me apologize if that illustration is somewhat crass. I'm just simply handing down what was handed down to me. In Nestorius, The Bazaar of Heracleides , it seems as if the issue was far more that he was very vague in his explanations than that his Christology was heretical. In one of the final quotes (of the earlier cited book) there is this assessment: > “The difference between Nestorius and Cyril is that whereas Nestorius is throughout perfectly consistent, and his theory a brilliant attempt to solve the problem on the basis of a principle which renders a solution impossible, Cyril's greatness lies in the very fact of his inconsistency. He would no more question the antithesis between godhead and manhood than would Nestorius, but where the truth was too much for his system, he preferred the truth to the system, and by his self-contradiction (which Nestorius exposes again and again) left room for further development of Christological doctrine in the future. What, then, will be our judgement on Nestorius? If the above interpretation of his teaching be true, he surely represents a very gallant and ingenious attempt to explain the Incarnation without giving up the belief that in Christ is to be found a complete human person as well as a complete divine person. He could not think of humanity except as existing in a distinct human person; for him, to deny the human ⲩⲡⲟⲥⲧⲁⲥⲓⲥ of Christ was to teach an Apollinarian maimed humanity.' Cyril boldly gave up belief in a distinct human ⲩⲡⲟⲥⲧⲁⲥⲓⲥ in Christ. Nestorius saw at once that this was inconsistent with the belief of both as to the relation between God and man, but in Cyril's inconsistency we have still a challenge to thought and to the search for a perfect Christology which is not to be found in the barren coherence of Nestorius.” (Appendix IV) My question is this, then: Did Nestorius *deny* key aspects of Christology? Or was he just sloppy in his treatment of it? Or is there some other explanation? As a gentle reminder, I'd appreciate citations from credible sources, especially from primary sources. I do read Greek, Hebrew, some Latin, and some Syriac. So those sources are welcome, in case the sources are only present in the original languages.

We all suffer death for Adam's sin, so why is that and is it fair for us to suffer death for his sin?

I have been reading what St. Thomas has to say on resurrection and how the human body will be changed afterwards. St. Thomas talks about how all people, the damned and the saints alike, will become immortals. He says the soul will communicate its natural immortality to the body. Summa Contra Gentiles, CHAPTER LXXXIX--Of the quality of Risen Bodies in the Lost:   > Now the human body, after the resurrection, will not be transmutable > from form to form, either in the good or in the wicked; because in > both it will be entirely perfected by the soul in respect of its > natural being. Summa Contra Gentiles, CHAPTER LXXXVI--Of the Qualities of Glorified Bodies:   > The bodies of all men alike will be organised as befits the soul, so > that the soul shall be an imperishable form giving imperishable being > to the body, because to this effect the power of God will entirely > subject the matter of the human body to the human soul.   Summa Theologiae, (This is from my notes and I forgot where exactly in the Summa this is):   > But in the final state, after the resurrection, the soul will, to a > certain extent, communicate to the body what properly belongs to > itself as a spirit; immortality to everyone; impassibility, glory, and > power to the good, whose bodies will be called "spiritual." If this is the case, then why can't the soul keep the body from corruption now so that humans become naturally immortal without the need of any preternatural gift to keep us immortals? I wish to get an answer from a metaphysical and Catholic perspective.

Biblical doctrines are teachings explicitly taught in the Bible. For example, the inspiration of Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares that God is the author of Scripture: >16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. [The doctrine of biblical inerrancy]( https://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-inerrancy.html) reflects on the character of God and is foundational to our understanding of everything the Bible teaches. It is worth pointing out that only the original autographs (the original manuscripts written by the apostles, prophets, etc.) are under the divine promise of inspiration and inerrancy. There is no biblical promise that copies of the original manuscripts would be equally inerrant or free from errors. As the Bible has been copied thousands of times over thousands of years, some copyist errors have likely occurred. I found an article about the 1978 International Council on Biblical Inerrancy where several hundred Christians representing forty-one churches and thirty-eight Christian denominations met to study, pray, and deliberate over an essential doctrinal issue: the inerrancy of Scripture. Over 300 Evangelicals, including John F. MacArthur, J. I. Packer, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and Josh D. McDowell, signed the document. [Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy](https://www.gotquestions.org/Chicago-Statement-Biblical-Inerrancy.html) Surely this is not the first “official” approval of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy within Protestantism? Did this doctrine exist prior to 1978? I fully acknowledge and understand that Augustine wrote to Jerome to express the meaning of this doctrine and the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is without error. However, I am looking for sources from Reformed Protestantism to indicate when the doctrine of biblical inerrancy was first defined and documented.

Sometimes my friends call me Father as a joke. It is funny because I am a woman and not a priest. We are wondering if this is a sin of irreverence.

In the aftermath of the attack on Israel by Hamas, I've been listening to Ben Shapiro saying some things that I would like to know if are in-line with Catholic morality. It doesn't much matter what my opinion on the Israeli response to the attack is, but is the moral tone that Ben Shapiro is setting where he has repeatedly said that people who appear indoctrinated to value what they consider martyrdom over any other good are fundamentally on a different plane and not possible to reason with or treat in any other way than as if they were inhuman in accord with Catholic morality. Or does the Natural Law say that objective morality (i.e. not murdering - which is always wrong according to the Catechism) is accessible to even people who are brought up in a disordered value system?

In days of yore, tradesman and guilds had patron saints. These days patrons seem to only be attributed to profession in vague ways via papal declaration (i.e. St. John Vianney is the Patron of all priests as of 2010), not from the ground up. As a computer programmer, I'd like to have a patron, but Catholic programmers seem few and far between. I'm not specifically asking as a programmer, but as a person who has a noble trade, how can I get Rome to acknowledge that me and my cohort say a particular saint should be the patron of our work?

What is the family tree diagram explaining how Sarah was Abraham's half sister (same father different mothers)? > She is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and so she became my wife. - Gen 20:12 I tried googling it and I found this [link](https://stone-kingdom.net/index.php?cID=398) which had the following diagram: But that doesn't work as sister, because she's Terach's grandaughter. Abraham's niece.

For some time now I have been trying to get a patron saint for railroad workers, but I have had little success with various dioceses. I think my next step should be getting co-signatures, but how many do I need? World-wide, or would USA suffice? Hard copy? Phone numbers? Addresses? When the signatures have been gathered, where exactly at the Vatican should I send the letter of intent to? Should it be addressed to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints?

Human beings are trichromats meaning that they have three color receptors in the eye which enable them to see all seven colours of sunlight. Animals are dichromats meaning that they have only two colour receptors, which restrict their color vision. For instance a human being can easily see a tiger with bright orange colour fur lurking at a distance against green foliage in daylight. On the other hand, deer and other animals which are blind to red-green , can hardly spot the same tiger. Evolutionists fail to explain why nature has given colors to the animals if most of them are sensitive only to a limited spectrum of colors. My question is: How do Creationists interpret the faculty of color perception available to human beings vis- a- vis that available to other living beings.