It seems that [various famous reformers venerated Mary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_views_on_Mary) but in my experience there is a general disregard of Mary in modern Protestant denominations. When did this sentiment historically wane? I'm excluding the Lutheran church, which still uses the title "Mother of God" here.

The translation to Chinese by Union Version of Bible at [this website](https://www.o-bible.com/cgibin/ob.cgi?version=hgb&book=1ti&chapter=1) says: > **提 摩 太 前 书 1 Timothy** > > 1:10 行 淫 和 亲 男 色 的 ， 抢 人 口 和 说 谎 话 的 ， 并 起 假 誓 的 ， 或 是 为 别 样 敌 正 道 > 的 事 设 立 的 。 The corresponding part in KJV at [this website](https://www.o-bible.com/cgibin/ob.cgi?version=kjv&book=1ti&chapter=1) says > **1 Timothy** > > 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; If I am correct, "whoremongers" isn't gender specific. Where did "亲 男 色 的" originate? Is the Union Version not a direct translation of KJV?

I am currently working on a religious drama and outsmarted myself. I come to you for help. Growing up Jewish, I did not hear the term Yahweh until I was 14 in Western Civilization. "Well, you know, right? It's, you know, God." And my reply, "I have no idea what you're talking about, and seriously, there isn't even a *w* in Hebrew so try again." Nor in Ancient Greek! Although, some would say the Hebrew letter *vav* can behave like a *w*. Next, my Torah portion included Exodus 3:14 (and I gotta tell you, reading off an animal skin scroll is cool!). It says *Eh-yeh asher Eh-yeh*. Even among Jews, there is some controversy because of limitations within Hebrew of future tense. However, "I shall be what I shall be" is without fault as an English translation of the Hebrew. Certainly the Christian Bible "I am who [what] I am" is a very different statement. The Torah has been meticulously transcribed letter by letter for 2600 years So I asked a (Conservative) rabbi. We agreed the line from Exodus 3:14 contained neither a *Yah* nor a *weh*. "So, Rabbi, where does this word come from?" She says, "Well it really has nothing to do with Exodus 3:14. Here read this." And I read, "*Barukh atah Adonai--*" "You can stop there," she says. "The third word does not state 'Adonai.' Why do you say that?" And my response is "Because that [what I read] is how we spell our Lord's name on paper--probably to prevent us from being insulting." And she says "And what does it actually read?" My Hebrew is not so great but I manage "*Yeh-vah?*" She says, "That's the best I can do." Although I might benefit from seeing a Protestant minister, I wound up with a visit at a nearby Catholic Church. Although we came to no further conclusion on the matter, we agreed that Yeshua was an awfully nice Hebrew name. I've read quite a bit over the years on the subject. Most of the commentary is either too mystical or too one-sided to be useful to my project or me. Specifically, how did "Yahweh" become a word of such prominence in Western literature and lexicon? I've redacted the latter part of my question, and thank you for your information thus far. For clarification, I'll add: YHVH, or whatever you want to call it, is little more than a placeholder in modern Hebrew prayers; it is simply not said, and has been further redacted to YY. I've seen it a million times, but I just say Lord ("Adonai"). The idea that the placeholder held any real significance was lost on me until much later in life. I do not know what was spoken in biblical times, but that doesn't matter. The discussion of Jehovah below is helpful, but as long as I'm still open for business ... Edit: I recently asked an Orthodox rabbi. Orthodox Judaism tends to be more mystical, if you will (Chabad.org). The response: "It is actually one of many names for the Divine. ... It was not used in general prayers during the times of the Temple [Kings]. ... It is unknown what was spoken during the time of Moses."

Does Bible in Basic English correspond to some popular version of bibles? Is it dynamic like NLT? Same questions about Union Version (和合本) ? Thanks.

**Royal Regulations** When God reluctantly gave permission for Israel to have kings, He laid down several stipulations: (1) Only a fellow "brother" Israelite could be chosen; no foreigner, (2) He shall not multiply horses, nor purchase horses from Egypt, (3) Neither is a king to "multiply wives" lest his heart be seduced by them, and (4) He shall not amass silver and gold in abundance, and (5) The king is to write out a copy of the Book of the Law, and read it continually! (Deuteronomy 17:15-20) David seemed to comply with these requirements...except for one! He multiplied wives and concubines. Abigail, Ahinoam, 1 Samuel 25:42-43
Maacah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah, 2 Samuel 3:3
Concubines and more wives, 2 Samuel 5:13. To these women were born over a dozen sons, as well as daughters. (And then, of course, there was Bathsheba and Solomon, with her other children.) **Flaunting and Flouting** Was this flaunting and flouting of the Royal Code an example in the conduct of David that indelibly impressed the thought life of his son Solomon so that he could not resist the same temptation? A Temptation that became the Fatal Flaw and downfall of the vast Solomonic Empire? What could have been done different by Solomon, in spite of David's example, that would have kept him on the straight and narrow? Maybe #5 in the Royal Code? Or was the stigma of being the son of an illegitimate marriage by his father too much for his psyche to handle? Solomon grew up, no doubt, knowing his mother's husband was murdered. And he gave up on ever being a holy person himself? Does Christian psychology have anything to speak into this situation? What could have broken this "cycle of abuse" and put Solomon back on to a righteous trajectory?

**”I am who am!”** What does this expression mean? God expressed Himself like so in the Bible. But what I want to know is what does it mean? What is its intrinsic meaning?

Is it frowned upon to alternate between churches? Especially churches of different denominations? The intention is to explore the differences and find a better fit.

Does it include all of the following? A. Sharing and caring (e.g., Matthew 25: 35,36) B. Gentle and peaceful (e.g., Commandments 5 - 10; also Leviticus 19) C. Lifetime, monogamous marriages between men and women. (e.g., Genesis 2:24); Or is there more?

It is correct that there are different English translations of the Bible; And different publishers, different editions, or prints. So, what facts would determine which translation one should consider in choosing a Bible to read and study? Is the title of such a book usually "Holy Bible", or can a legitimate Bible go by another name, as well? Are they free online and downloadable, or do they need purchase?

I used to think nothing of it until someone said, *"it makes you wonder what he was saying the rest of the time"*. Now I don't believe for one moment Jesus was a liar, but why did He use that strange expression? One of [26 examples](https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=%22very+truly+I+tell+you%22&qs_version=NIV) exists here: >[John 16:7 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+16%3A7&version=NIV1984)
> But **very truly I tell you**, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

Are there recommendations for a (concise) introductory book for learning about the customs and rules of a Christian life? For example, what principles to live by, what to eat and fast during special days in a year, and what activities to be expected at weekly church gatherings. If location is helpful, I live in the United States. It doesn't matter whether Catholic or not.

From a Fundamentalist Church standpoint, what is its equivalent of a catechumen? In many denominations (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopalian), there is a concept called a *catechumen*, who takes religious education course called a *catechumenate*, that is taught by a *catechist*. So, what is the equivalent of such a role in a Fundamentalist/Bible Church? How do Fundamentalist Christians deal with prospective Christians (i.e. teaching church history, official doctrine and practices, etc.)? For Fundamentalist Christians, does that include teaching prospective Christians about the Scopes trial?

Growing up in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I'm very familiar with the LDS Church's teachings of a premortal existence. I'm interested in the development of that teaching though. For example, in 1833 Joseph Smith received a revelation that intelligences have always existed with God. In part of the King Follett discourse, mentioned in the comments, Joseph taught about the eternal existence of matter. Then, in 1835, Joseph translated ancient Eqyptian writings that told the story of our pre-existence and the grand council in heaven. I know all these teachings and stories, but I'm wondering if there exists any deep dive into the history and development of this teaching, as Latter-day Saints have it today. I'd be interested in perhaps a book or a BYU research paper or something. It doesn't even have to be sourced from a Latter-day Saint scholar.

Dante's Divine Comedy , the 14th century epic poem describing a journey through the various levels of Hell, Purgatory and Heaven and the persons or types of persons who inhabit each level (including some of Dante's living contemporaries). How much of Dante's description describes explicit Church doctrine as of his era, and to what extent, if any, did Dante influence Christian theology going forward?

In contrast to the doctrine of Eternal Security, many denominations believe that a person can, in fact, lose his or her salvation. So, what is the biblical basis or biblical argument for the doctrine of the Loss of Salvation? Put another way, what is the biblical argument against Eternal Security?

Christian Scientists claim that disease is not caused by physical abnormality, but by a mental error. Skeptics sometimes use this argument against that: "Suppose somebody drinks a glass of water that contains a poison, but nobody knows that it is poisonous. If Christian Science is right, then that poison could not kill that person. If medical science is right, then it can kill that person. And it is obvious which is true.". How do Christian Scientists respond to that argument? Such things, although very rare, do happen in reality. Maria Curie died because of radiation which nobody back then knew was harmful. So did the Chinese emperor Qin Shi Huang die because of mercury poisoning which nobody back then knew was harmful.

Given that both the humans who actually penned the Bible and the later humans who translated it all had free will, the issue of Biblical inerrancy is a tricky one. See also: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3384/by-what-mechanism-could-the-bible-be-inerrant It is usually claimed that those transcribing and translating the text were working under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. While this may be true of some, it is also clear that not every translation project has even approached the work in good faith, much less under supernatural guidance. Some 'translations' are clearly contradictory with others, and others show obvious signs of a specific agenda being brought to the text. Others specifically state having a political bias going into the project (e.g. the Conservative Bible Project). Of course nearly every group or individual that produces a translation then goes on to claim that theirs is the "true" rendition of the text or meaning. Since clearly not _everyone_ that works on the Bible is guided by the Holy Spirit, **how are we to know which translations _are_ reliable?** Are modern and ancient mainstream translations considered to be free from political agendas and personal bias? If so, how do we know?

In his 33 years of life, He never sinned. I know I didn’t make it that far before sinning; nobody but Him could or can. So how did He do it? he was probably tempted to sin, but He didn’t.

I have some but not much idea about the differences between Mainline and Evangelical. I looked up the two words in dictionary, but I am wondering what relations are between their general non-religious meanings to their religious usages? For example, I can't tell how the meanings in https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mainline relate to its religious usage.

I have found it difficult to understand precisely what Reformed circles mean in the "doctrine of Limited/Definite Atonement / Particular Redemption". Descriptions or statements of the doctrine are often a bit vague, and can vary to some extent among those who identify as proponents of the doctrine; and I think the lack of clarity is not helped when theologians seemingly employ the Fallacy of Equivocation when attempting to logically justify their positions. The "doctrine of Limited Atonement" is typically expressed/summarised something like as follows: "Christ **did not die for everyone**, but only for the elect; and this death for His elect purchased for them actual redemption as opposed to the mere potential for redemption." My main question is how this vague preposition "*for*" is meant to be interpreted in the sentence "Christ did not die **for** everyone". I can think of several senses in which this could reasonably be intended, and I am wondering if it is intended to be interpreted in all of these senses. If not, then surely those who use this phrasing need to add caveats that preclude reasonable but unintended interpretations. In other words, they surely have to be willing to say that, *in some senses*, Christ *did* die for everyone. **Question:** Is the statement that "Christ did not die *for* everyone" in the typical Reformed doctrine of Particular Redemption intended to include all of the following aspects of how His death could be regarded as not being "dying *for* everyone"? In other words: How many of the following five statements would a typical self-identifying adherent of Particular Redemption be willing to affirm? **Regarding the pre-eternal plan of atonement:** 1. [Particularity in underlying motivation] The motivation behind God giving Christ as an atonement for sin (as in, e.g., John 3:16) did not include: (a) salvation-desiring love *directed to humanity as a whole*, i.e. a corporate love upon the race of descendants of Adam leading to a general desire for salvation of its members; nor (b) salvation-desiring love *directed personally to each and every sinner* that would ever live. Rather, the salvation-desiring love that motivated God's plan of atonement was exclusively in connection with His elect people throughout the world (both corporately and individually). 2. [Particularity in intended purpose] The aims that were in view in the plan of atonement did not include opening any kind of *potential* to every person to have their sins propitiated in the atonement. The aim did, however, include ensuring that all the elect would have their sins propitiated in the atonement. **Regarding the substance of the atonement:** 3. [Particularity in the actual exchange] Christ's sacrifice was of infinite value, sufficiently great to be able to pay for all the sins ever committed. Nonetheless, the wrath under which Christ suffered was not wrath against the collective sin of the human race, nor did it include God's wrath against all sin ever committed by humans. It consisted exclusively of God's wrath against all sin that was against the account of elect people. 4. [Particularity in those to whom a channel of redemption was opened] Just as Christ's atoning sacrifice did not create any means of redemption open to angels that have sinned, so likewise Christ's atoning sacrifice did not create any means of redemption open to unelected people. The only *legal possibility of justification* that was created by the atoning work is that which was also *guaranteed* by the atoning work to be realised. **Regarding the command to trust Christ for salvation:** 5. God has placed a moral obligation on all people, elect and unelect alike, to trust in Christ for forgiveness and redemption from their sins through His death. This moral obligation does not contradict the unavailability in actual substance of a channel of redemption to unelect people, since in God's design only elect people will be brought to obedience to this moral obligation. Of course, I recognise that the answer to my question will not necessarily be uniform among all those who profess to hold to Particular Redemption, or even among all those who are willing to use the phrasing "Christ did not die for everyone but only for the elect". But perhaps there is a general trend/most common position among self-identifying adherents of the doctrine? Or not? **Some additional context:** Another possible view, which I suspect that some self-identifying "five-point Calvinists" hold to, would be something like as follows. - *One major and central facet* of the atonement is that, by God's design arising from His love for the race of descendants of Adam, **Christ, in His death as a Man, died sacrificially as a Representative of mankind before God, thereby legally purchasing the availability to all men and women of having their sins exchanged for Christ's righteousness**, if they will only repent and trust in Christ. - *Another important facet* of the atonement is that **when God in eternity past set affection on all those whom He would in due course call to Himself, He designed that Christ would die as a propitiation to "buy their forgiveness" in the sense of buying for them the actuality that their sins are no longer held against them**—this forgiveness coming into effect through the repentance and faith in Christ that God in due course grants them. I suspect (but am not sure) that John Piper holds to a view approximating the above pair of points, and that he regards the earliest 'Calvinists' of the Reformation as also having held to something approximating the above pair of points. But in opposition to this, it seems that many Reformed theologians find objectional *any* concept of "payment for sin" whereby the availability of forgiveness can be purchased for people who will not ultimately be forgiven.