Lots of questions on this site are asking how some text from the old testament fits to a contradictory one from the new testament or a passage of one book to the other. Why do people expect to find this kind of coherence in the bible? Clearly the different text passages are written several hundred years apart, by different people with different interpretations of the exisiting scriptures in mind and with a varying set of personal beliefs and values.

In Exodus 3, God speaks to Moses from the burning bush and says, “*I AM WHO I AM”* (Exodus 3:14). According to Trinitarian theology, which Person of the Trinity is understood to be speaking here—the Father, the Son (as a pre-incarnate appearance), or the Holy Spirit? What biblical or theological arguments support this interpretation?

After the death of Solomon the nation of Israel divided into two: the northern kingdom ruled by Jeroboam, which was called Israel, and the southern kingdom ruled by Rehoboam, which was called Judah. The reign lengths and regnal data in I and II Kings seemed and seem entirely confused. No Bible student could arrive at a credible explanation of the data until the 20th century. The first one was Valerius Coucke: in the 1920s he came up with a solution to the problems of what appeared conflicting data in the reign lengths of the kings. Unfortunately, because he published in French, his work went largely unnoticed in the English speaking world. In the 1950s Dr Edwin Thiele published the fruits of his doctorate, "Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings". Later, Rodger Young slightly modified Edwin Thiele's results, in consequence of which the work of Valerius Coucke and ET/RY are in agreement, and both now place the Exodus from Egypt in 1446 BC. It is this consensus chronology which is used in Andrew Steinmann's "From Abraham to Paul - a Biblical Chronology". Both systems rely on interpretting some of the data so that reign-lengths are measured using years starting in Tishri, while other reign-lengths are measured from Nisan. My question is, what is the evidence that the recorders of the reigns in I and II Kings are sometimes using years beginning in Tishri? Does this evidence exist, or can the data be interpretted without needing to use years starting in Tishri?

I understand that the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that there are few of their members today who are part of the 144,000 mentioned in the book of Revelations. This implies that most of their members are *not* included in that number. What, then, is the status of these people? Are they just believers who will go to heaven when Christ returns? Will they live on earth at that time? What are they called, and what will happen to them according to the teaching of the Jehovah's Witnesses?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the number of the 144,000 (those who will rule with Christ from heaven) is a literal number. >14 Interestingly, Charles T. Russell recognized the 144,000 to be a literal number of individuals making up a spiritual Israel. In The New Creation, Volume VI of his Studies in the Scriptures, published in 1904, he wrote: “We have every reason to believe that the definite, fixed number of the elect [chosen anointed ones] is that several times stated in Revelation (7:4; 14:1); namely, 144,000 ‘redeemed from amongst men.’” In Light, Book One, published in 1930 by the Bible Students, it was likewise stated: “The 144,000 members of the body of Christ are thus in the assembly shown as selected and anointed, or sealed.” Jehovah’s Witnesses have consistently held to the view that literally 144,000 anointed Christians make up spiritual Israel. Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200274226/11/0 In 1935 the number of Jehovah’s Witnesses who believed they were part of the anointed 144,000 was 52,465. Then, in 1938 they were told that the number of the 144,000 had been sealed and from that point, the number of Witnesses partaking of the bread and wine decreased rapidly. I had relatives who became Witnesses in the mid 1930's and they were told they could not be part of the heavenly anointed class. Instead, they were led to believe they would be part of the earthly class. The lowest number of partakers this century was 8,524 (in 2005) but that number went up to 19,521 (in 2018). However the 2019 Yearbook is not available on the official JW.org website. Has the number of Witnesses gone up this year? Has the Governing Body received increased light to suggest that the number of the 144,000 is now perceived as being symbolic rather than literal? If that is not the case, and the number is still literal, why is that number increasing rather than decreasing?

The Jews (Israelites) were God's chosen people for nearly all of Biblical history. But, they reject Christ as the Messiah. If the only path to the Father is through the Son, and Jews reject the Son, how do they still reach the Father? If they never accept Christ as their savior, how are they saved? Are they "grandfathered" in because they were chosen before the arrival of Christ? Lets say from the protestant denominations. It's really just a general question and I'd be interested in reading several perspectives

My research has thus far turned up only one (seemingly small) detail: The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic Churches believe that **Mary died a regular, albeit peaceful earthly death** and shortly thereafter her body was glorified and taken up into heaven. This is the Dormition of Mary; she died and was taken up. Roman Catholicism emphasizes that Mary was taken bodily into heaven **without definitively saying whether she died first** and Roman Catholics are free to believe either that she died or did not. This is the Assumption of Mary; she may or may not have died prior to being taken up. Both traditions are based upon extra biblical writings and tradition with no direct basis in Scripture, both traditions held to the Dormition view until late in the middle ages, and both still ultimately affirm that Mary was taken bodily into heaven. Is this really the only difference between the two; that the East insists that Mary died and that the West is unsure whether she died? What are the theological and (if any) practical implications of this difference?

Satan and God have a conversation in which Satan says he wants to bring harm to Job’s family and then God provides Satan with permission to do so. And then Satan kills Job’s children. That appears to be a clear example of conspiracy to commit murder. Is God conspiring to commit murder with Satan the correct interpretation?

Many Jews claim that if God wanted them to stop observing the Old Law He would have made it more obvious that this was the case, in fact they assume that He would have to give them some kind of deductive knowledge that this was the case because otherwise they would allegedly be left in grave uncertainty as to how to obey God. As you can see, they are not just being skeptics, for example, they might admit that the argument for the resurrection is pretty substantial, but they would refuse to accept it because it is merely inductive, saying maybe it would be a good reason to reject Deism but not Judaism. How do Christian apologists respond to this argument? For example, could they point out that arguably there is progressive revelation even within the Old Covenant?

This will be my first post on the Christianity Exchange. My question involves people who confront me on the basis that they were told by secular causes that certain Koine words like "arsenkoitoi", which historically has referred to a male-male coital relationship and also transliterates to "man-bedder", are now being told that the original meaning is misunderstood to mean things like "pedophile" or "sodomy" but not to same-sex attraction. I see the same attention to the Hebrew word "zakhur", which I've seen translated as "male", but others are trying to tie it to "boy", again to refer to Jewish teachings to prohibit only pedophilia and not homosexuality. Based on the translations I've seen and examples of these words in other texts, the context suggests that the original translations indicate the case that same-sex relations are not allowed. How do I better support the truth about this when people are tugging at doubt to allow for sin?

Are there degrees of punishment in hell as there are apparently degrees of reward in heaven? 2 Corinthians 3:12-15 seems to point pretty clearly to reward in heaven, but I find no parallel degree of punishment in hell, as described, for example, in Dante's *The Inferno*.

I'm reading the Bible through properly for the first time and I'm at the book of Nehemiah. So far there's been a few times were the Israelites repent and put effort into living according to the laws in the Book of Moses. That includes divorcing and sending away the non-Israel women that they've married and the children they had with these women. How is it that we're all the children of God? It seems a bit more of either you're born an Israelite or not and if you're not then you're not a part of it. It feels a bit more like there's a clear line between being an insider and being an outsider. And casting out their children because they're not pure born Israelites doesn't align with the message that we are all God's children. I guess I am just trying to understand how a religion that has this far into the Bible done a lot of effort to distinguish between the Israelites and everyone else link to us (everyone else). How are we, non-Israelites on the opposite of the world a part of it?

I have come across statements (including from some Orthodox clergy and theologians) suggesting that the Eastern Orthodox Church leaves open the possibility that even the devil could eventually repent and be restored. However, I struggle to reconcile this with passages that describe: The devil being “*tormented day and night forever and ever*” (Revelation 20:10) Some angels being *“kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness”* (Jude 1:6) Christ saying everlasting fire is “*prepared for the devil and his angels”* (Matthew 25:41) My questions are: 1. Is belief in the possible repentance/salvation of Satan an official teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church, or only a theological opinion held by some within the tradition? 2. If it is a theological opinion within Orthodoxy, how do its proponents interpret the above biblical passages regarding eternal condemnation and chains of darkness?

In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus Christ says: >“But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 24 : 13) Many evangelical Christians believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, meaning believers will be caught up before the Great Tribulation begins and will thus avoid the persecution associated with the Mark of the Beast (Revelation 13). If that view is correct, then believers would not need to “endure” to the end of the Tribulation (or until the Mark is enforced) in order to be saved. If believers are raptured prior to the appearance of the Mark and the Tribulation, how is the “enduring” part satisfied in their theology?

Do souls in hell have any hope for the forgiveness of their sins? According to Catholic teachings, once a person died, there are 3 places where a soul can be placed: hell, purgatory and heaven. At the time of death, if a soul will be judged and damned to hell, is it possible to be in friendship or be reconciled with God again? What about the Final Judgement where there could be repentance and prayers for these souls in hell?

I have read in Christianity.SE where some say that "YHWH" refers only to Jesus. Are there groups with this belief or only individuals? Which Christian groups believe that "YHWH" refers only to the Father and never to the Word?

Many individuals die never having heard the Gospel. Some illustrative examples are: pretty much everyone who was born before Jesus, individuals contemporary to Jesus but who were too far away at the time to hear about him (e.g. Native Americans and all tribes from the Pre-Columbian era during the first and many subsequent centuries), isolated jungle tribes in Africa and the Amazon, and [uncontacted peoples](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples) in general. How do different denominations across Christianity view the problem of individuals dying without ever having heard the Gospel's salvation message? What is the biblical basis in each case? *Note that this is an overview question: answers must summarise the positions of several different major Christian branches, and if possible even some of the smaller ones as well.* EDIT: I recently realized there is a decent overview of Christian viewpoints in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_of_the_unlearned . Just linking this to complement the already excellent answers to this question.

"Crossing the Tiber" / "Swimming the Tiber" have come to be the shorthand term for converting to Roman Catholicism, as well as "Swimming/Crossing the Thames" for converting to Anglicanism. (source [*Wikipedia*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiber#History)) I wonder whether there are swimming/crossing bodies of water related terms for conversion between other branches of Christianity, especially to/from Eastern Orthodoxy? How about for conversion among Protestant branches?

We hear that we are no longer under the law. It even says so in Galatians: >[Galatians 3:23-25](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galations%203:23-25&version=NIV)
> Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. It seems [1 Corinthians 10:23](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:23&version=NIV) also supports this. But yet, Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law: >[Matthew 5:17-18](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17-18&version=NIV)
>“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." **What did Jesus mean that he did not come to abolish the law, but fulfill it**, especially since it seems from later in the Bible that he *did* abolish the law.

My friend is a Progressive Christian who says that the bible doesn't condemn or even mention sex outside of marriage in the bible. Is this true? If not, what is the Biblical basis for condemning sex outside of marriage?