This question is NOT: * what does John Bunyan believe about predestination * is predestination biblically accurate? This question is: * Does "Pilgrim's Progress" take a position on predestination? * And if so, which chapter / section? Thanks!

In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul give forbids women from speaking in church. 1 Corinthians 14 NIV > 34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to > speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to > inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; > for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. ... later > 39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do > not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But everything should be done in a > fitting and orderly way. I am assuming the word in Greek Paul is using here for church is Ecclesia, and that he wasn't, in fact, referring to a physical meeting place, or house, but rather a Christian gathering in general (but perhaps I am mistaken in this). I wonder how it is that he explicitly forbids them to speak "They are not allowed to speak", but then a mere four verses later he is instructing 'brothers and sisters' to be eager to prophesy, and *speak* in tongues. If not at Christian gatherings, then where else were they prophesying and speaking in tongues? I understand that context is probably the key here, and that things in the Corinthian church had probably gotten very much out of hand, however, It just seems strange to me that if he meant women to speak in tongues and prophesy, he would have said "They are not allowed to speak *out of turn*", or something to that effect.

I recently took the time to re-read the prelusive words of William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith. This quote stuck with me:

When a person refuses to come to Christ, it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God’s Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God.

A decade after first reading this, I remember I was struggling to understand who he intends the book to be for, and Craig's motivations. If we are not to assume that Craig is not serious or that he is lying about his sincerity, it could be that he is sincere but wrong: in the sense that he genuinely cannot make sense of atheism as an intellectual position. But then it seems to me that he is so caught up in his own religious convictions he cannot fathom the possibility someone could sincerely disagree with his position. An unfortunate position, in my view. The disagreement is also shifted from the intellectual realm of evidence to the moral realm of personal integrity, effectively *faulting the non-believer* for an emotional or spiritual deficiency. It appeals to notions of spiritual deficiency rather than engaging directly with intellectual critiques. The quote makes apologetics seem like its whole purpose is to convince those who already are convinced. I also think this type of argumentation renders the argument difficult to empirically verify or falsify. If non-belief is attributed to an internal disposition (such as a preference for "darkness" over "light"), it becomes impossible to test or refute through evidence. Thus I am curious if Craig has revised these position in recent times, if he has matured as he has gotten older. Questions: 1. Has Craig changed his view or added nuance to his stance? Does he still attribute unbelief primarily to the willful rejection of God rather than to intellectual or evidential challenges? 2. Is evidence still something that, for him, acts only insofar as a dual warrant of one’s Christian beliefs alongside the inner witness of the Spirit? 3. Has he acknowledged intellectual or evidential factors as genuine obstacles to faith? 4. What role does he currently assign to evidence and objective methods in relation to the work of the Holy Spirit?

### Isaiah 7 Background Isaiah 7:14 is famously quoted by the Gospel of Matthew (Matt 1:23) as a prophecy about Jesus’s birth: > She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “**Look, the virgin shall become pregnant and give birth to a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel**,” which means, “God is with us.” - Matthew 1:22-23 (NRSV) Many Christian apologists recognize that the events of Isaiah 7 and the prophecy of the birth of the child had an application in the time of Isaiah during the Syro-Ephraimite war , with the maturation of the child marking the victory of Judah over Syria: > Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. **For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted**. The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.” - Isaiah 7:14-17 (NRSV) Those who believe that there was an immediate context and fulfillment of this prophecy believe that it was later re-fulfilled in the birth of Jesus as a “dual-fulfillment ”, such as Dr. Michael Brown . ### Two Virgin Births? Do Christians who believe in a dual-fulfillment of Isaiah 7 believe that there were two virgin births? If so, do they believe that the first virgin born child was some kind of divine figure like Jesus? If there were not two virgin births, how was this prophecy fulfilled twice?

I was listening on (**audio**) to Wayne Grudem’s systematic theology and in the chapter on biblical inerrancy.. he mentioned some people dispute Gamaliel's historical accuracy on certain uprisings, and they thus dispute biblical reliability & inspiration on such a text. The text at hand: > “But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all > the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men > outside for a short time. > > And he said to them, “Men of Israel, be careful as to what you are > about to do with these men. > > > For, some time ago **Theudas** appeared, claiming to be somebody, and a > group of about four hundred men joined him. > > But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came > to nothing. ***After this*** man, **Judas** of Galilee appeared in the days of > the census and drew away some people after him; he also perished, and > all those who followed him were scattered. > > > And so in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and > leave them alone, for if the source of this plan or movement is men, > it will be overthrown; but if the source is God, you will not be able > to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against > God.”” ‭‭**Acts‬ ‭5:34-39‬** ‭ Wayne Grudem said that Judas & Theudas were spoken by Gamaliel in the wrong order according to Josephus in his antiquities, in terms of historical chronology. Wayne Grudem was still in defense of biblical inerrancy and gave some reasons for certain views on Acts 5 with Gamaliel, but what can we interpret here for historical accuracy?? Who made the error here? The Holy Spirit cannot err, so what’s going on? This is my main question below: **Q: According to Protestant NT scholars/historians did Gamaliel get the chronology & history wrong in Acts 5?**

In the book HOLY ABANDONMENT by Rt. Rev. Dom Vitalis Lehodey, O.C.R. we read: ""The signified will comprises a fourfold object: the commandments of God and of His Church, the evangelical counsels, Divine inspirations, our particular rules and constitutions." and "With regard to the counsels, He certainly would like us to observe them also, yet He rather desires this than wills it absolutely. Hence we do not forfeit His friendship by failing in courage to undertake the practice of the counsels, provided we do not treat them with contempt. We are not even permitted to take upon us the observance of them all, but of such of them only as are conformable to our state of life, some of the counsels being opposed to others. . . . " https://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/abandonment2.htm The evangelical counsels are poverty, chastity and obedience. A Carmelite website has the following text: "They are called the ‘evangelical’ counsels because we find them lived and therefore recommended (counselled) by Jesus in the four accounts of the Gospel (‘evangelium’ in Latin). Jesus Christ was poor in spirit, chaste in heart, and obedient in love to the will of his Father." https://carmelite.org/spirituality/evangelical-counsels/ That text seems to say that chastity and obiendience is not something that is required for a good life. For some unchastity and disobedience are ok. Rt. Rev. Dom Vitalis Lehodey, O.C.R. says: "With regard to the counsels, He certainly would like us to observe them also, yet He rather desires this than wills it absolutely." He also seems to say the exact thing. The Catechism (CCC 2349) states "People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life." This text seems to say that chastity is for everyone and even required for a good life. Rt. Rev. Dom Vitalis Lehodey, O.C.R. says: "We are not even permitted to take upon us the observance of them all, but of such of them only as are conformable to our state of life, some of the counsels being opposed to others. . . . " He seems to say that the evangelical counsels can be opposed to each other. What is he actually saying? Does he use "counsels" to refer to something else than the evangelical counsels? Why do some Catholic writers say, or seem to say, that chastity and obedience are not for required for a good life?

From [*Lumen Gentium*](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html) chapter II, paragraph 16: > (126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. I find this really confusing on two levels. Firstly, this seems to imply that Muslims worship the same God as the Christian God; secondly, perhaps a corollary of the first point, it suggests that Muslims are also given salvation. What does the Vatican actually mean by this?

Does Psalm 51 imply that an unborn child will have no sin? Assuming that is true, are there any denominations that support that all unborn children have salvation? Is there newer scripture (in the NT) that reverses this? **Psalm 51:3-5 ESV** > For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. > > Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. > >Behold, (K)I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. **Psalm 51:3-5 CEV** > I know about my sins, and I cannot forget my terrible guilt. > > You are really the one I have sinned against; I have disobeyed you and have done wrong. So it is right and fair for you to correct and punish me. > > I have sinned and done wrong since the day I was born.

The following has been quoted from a Biblical Unitarian Source >Contrary to the assumption that Christ must be God for redemption to be accomplished, we find, upon a closer scrutiny, that the opposite must be the case—that unless he was a man, Jesus could not have redeemed mankind. God’s “infinite” (we prefer a less mathematical and more biblical term like “immortal”) nature actually precluded Him from being our redeemer, because God cannot die. He therefore sent a man equipped for the task, one who could die for our sins and then be raised from the dead to vanquish death forever. This is the clear testimony of Scripture. >Romans 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one MAN [Adam], how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one MAN, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! >If it were a major tenet of Christianity that redemption had to be accomplished by God Himself, then this section of Romans would have been the perfect place to say it. But just when Scripture could settle the argument once and for all, it says that redemption had to be accomplished by a man. The theological imaginings of “learned men” that only God could redeem mankind are rendered null and void by the clear voice of God Himself speaking through Scripture: a man had to do the job. Not just any man, but a sinless man, a man born of a virgin—THE MAN, Jesus, now The Man exalted to the position of “Lord” at God’s right hand. How would Trinitarians counter this argument ? ------------------------------------------------------------ >πολλω μαλλον η χαρις του θεου και η δωρεα εν χαριτι τη του ενος ανθρωπου ιησου χριστου εις τους πολλους επερισσευσεν [Romans 5:15 TR Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir and Scrivener all identical] ------------------------------

### Introduction Christian Trinitarians believe "that there is one eternal being of God – indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit". The Hebrew bible book of Deuteronomy makes a few statements about the oneness of God: > **Deuteronomy 6:4** - "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, **the Lord is one**." > **Deuteronomy 4:35** - "To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; **there is no other besides Him**." These statements do not make distinctions between *being* and *personhood* and seem to point to a divine simplicity. ### "Gods you did not know" Deuteronomy later contains a stark warning for the Israelites about false gods and prophets, saying: > **Deuteronomy 13:1-3** - If prophets or those who divine by dreams appear among you and show you omens or portents, and the omens or the portents declared by them take place, and they say, **‘Let us follow other gods’ (whom you have not known) ‘and let us serve them,’** you must not heed the words of those prophets or those who divine by dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you... The key injunction being against *other gods whom you [the Israelites] did not know*. ### Question - Do Trinitarian Christians believe the audience of Deuteronomy 13 (Israelites) knew of a triune god? - If Israelites did not know a triune god, why do Trinitarians believe Deuteronomy 13 doesn't prohibit following after a trinity? *This question is not suggesting that the trinity added new gods, but potentially that a triune god is different ontologically from a unitary god such that they cannot have the same identity (example: Trinitarians likely believe that the Mormon god is not the same god as the trinitarian god because the Mormon god is a created man who was exalted to godhood, therefore the Mormon god's fundamental nature is different from the trinitarian god)*

In Genesis 1, we observe that God the Father appears to be the one speaking creation into existence (“God said…”) and the Spirit of God is described as “hovering over the waters” (Genesis 1:2). However, the Son is not seen engaging in any form of activity in the narrative. This seems puzzling in light of John 1:1–3, which identifies the Word (the Son) as being present in the beginning and as the agent through whom all things were made, and Colossians 1:16, which states that all things were created through Him and for Him. Why doesn't Genesis include any mention or visible action of the Son in the creation account? How do Christian theologians reconcile this apparent absence with New Testament claims about the Son's role in creation?

I've heard Christians claim that at the Second Coming Christ will return with a physical human body, what is the Bible basis for this belief? It is clear that he has a physical flesh body once: > And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us > > John 1:14 I'm interested in an answer from any mainstream Christian belief that believes Christ will have a physical body at the Second Coming.

From what I can tell the majority of Protestants use and prefer the Masoretic Text, believing it to be a trustworthy representation of the original Hebrew text of Scripture. I see this based on the Bible translations they tend to use. These translations use the Masoretic Text primarily. - King James Version (KJV) - Revised Version (RV) - 1885 - American Standard Version (ASV) - 1901 - Revised Standard Version (RSV) - 1952 - New American Standard Bible (NASB) - 1971, updated 1995, 2020 - English Standard Version (ESV) - 2001 - New King James Version (NKJV) - 1982 - New International Version (NIV) - 1978, updated 1984, 2011 - Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) - 2004 - Jewish Publication Society Tanakh (JPS) - 1917, updated 1985 - Christian Standard Bible (CSB) - 2017 - Luther Bible (German) - 1534 - ... At the same time, most Protestants reject Orthodox Church Tradition as being untrustworthy. Here are 5 clear examples. 1. Veneration of Icons: The Eastern Orthodox practice of venerating icons—honoring images of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and saints through bowing, kissing, or lighting candles—is rooted in an oral tradition emphasizing their role as "windows to heaven." This practice, developed and defended during the Iconoclastic Controversies (8th-9th centuries), holds that icons facilitate a connection to the divine prototype they represent. Mainstream Protestants, particularly those from Reformed and Baptist traditions, reject this as idolatry, citing the Second Commandment (Exodus 20:4-5) against making graven images. They argue it lacks biblical mandate and reflects a later human tradition, not an apostolic one, despite Orthodox claims of its roots in early Christian art and the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787 AD). 2. Theosis (Divinization): The Orthodox doctrine of theosis, the process of becoming partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), is an oral tradition elaborated through the teachings of the Fathers (e.g., Athanasius: "God became man so that man might become god"). It emphasizes sanctification and union with God through participation in the sacraments and ascetic life. Many Protestants reject this as unbiblical or semi-Pelagian, asserting it overemphasizes human effort over divine grace alone. While some Protestant theologians acknowledge sanctification, they distance themselves from the Orthodox framing, seeing it as a development beyond scriptural boundaries. 3. Prayer for the Dead and Intercession of Saints: The Orthodox practice of praying for the departed and seeking the intercession of saints is an oral tradition traced to early Christian commemorations and the belief in a "communion of saints." This is evident in liturgical texts and the writings of figures like John Chrysostom. Mainstream Protestants, especially Evangelicals and Reformed churches, reject this, arguing it lacks explicit biblical support (e.g., Hebrews 9:27) and introduces mediators beyond Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). They view it as a later accretion, despite Orthodox assertions of its apostolic origin. 4. The Role of Tradition as Equal to Scripture: The Orthodox belief that oral tradition, including unwritten apostolic teachings (e.g., on worship practices or sacramental theology), holds equal authority with Scripture—based on 2 Thessalonians 2:15—is a foundational oral tradition. Protestants counter that this contradicts sola scriptura, insisting that only what is written in the Bible is authoritative. They see the Orthodox reliance on tradition as unverifiable and prone to human error, challenging the claim that it preserves an unbroken apostolic witness, especially given historical variations in practice. 5. Liturgical Practices and Sacramental Theology: Specific unwritten traditions, such as the detailed structure of the Divine Liturgy (e.g., the use of incense, specific chants, and the Epiclesis in the Eucharist), are considered apostolic by the Orthodox, passed down orally and refined over centuries. Mainstream Protestants, particularly low-church denominations like Baptists, reject these as non-essential or extra-biblical, favoring simpler worship forms aligned with their interpretation of New Testament gatherings (e.g., Acts 2:42). They question the apostolicity of these practices, suggesting they evolved post-apostolically. To my understanding, and based on other interactions on this website. They believe that the Church’s oral tradition could not possibly preserve Truth over a long period of time. (That is, it was affected by the additions of man, it was corrupted over time) But at the same time we know that the Masoretic text added Vowel points to Hebrew. The original text was all consonants, **the reader of the text had to remember from oral tradition the proper vowels**. This means since the Time of Moses until the 5th century AD when the Masorites added the vowels to every word in the Old Testament the proper understanding of the text was preserved through oral tradition alone. (See my answer here ) So my confusion is based on this apparent contradiction. 1. the Masoretic vowels are trustworthy, the Jews successfully preserved the vowels of Scripture for thousands of years, **through oral tradition alone**, until the Masoretes finally invented the vowel points hundreds of years after Christ. 2. But things like the oral traditions I listed above are untrustworthy, despite the oral tradition claim that these are directly from the Apostles. My question is simply if we cannot trust the early church to maintain oral tradition for a few hundred years, why do we trust the Jews to maintain oral tradition **inerrantly for millennia?** --- I looked at this other question, but it doesn't really answer my question. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/40843/how-are-emendations-to-the-masoretic-text-viewed-within-the-doctrine-of-inerranc *P.S. I do not see how the catholic church would be relevant, I'm referring to the oral traditions of the Eastern Orthodox Church.*

According to dispensationalist theology, sin is not directly caused by Satan - though he plays a significant role in temptation and deception - but rather originates from humanity's free will. However, if Adam and Eve were created with free will and declared "very good" by God (Genesis 1:31), does this imply an inherent flaw in their design that free will itself be a vessel for sin? If so, how does Dispensationalism reconcile God's perfect creation with the capacity for rebellion embedded in it?

Claims of unexpected and spontaneous fillings or full restorations of teeth with gold are not unheard of in many faith healing services and other religious gatherings. For example, in a [video](https://youtu.be/j09HsDbjLPg?t=28) recorded at the [Demonstrate Conference](https://www.facebook.com/events/living-faith-church/demonstrate-conference/390125865229060/) (an event hosted by [Jennifer Eivaz](https://www.jennifereivaz.com/)) , a woman testifies (*): > [...] I was, you know, asking God ... Holy Spirit to come ... and the miracle started happening ... **and then I got a gold tooth**! And it's so crazy, because you open your mouth, and everyone has their cameras looking at your mouth ... so I can't wait to brush my teeth and look at my gold tooth. Similarly, in [this thread](https://www.christianforums.com/threads/its-a-miracle-i-got-a-gold-tooth.3262453/) a woman shares (*): > [...] I attended a healing/revival meeting tonight, put on by Jeff Jansen, of Global Fire Ministries, and **the Lord gave many people gold teeth**!!! I had been praying and fasting all week for the Lord to show Himself big and make Himself soooo real to me !!! And guess what? **I got one, too**!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [...] > **Many people got gold teeth tonight** and NO ONE can tell me that it wasn't real because I saw it with my own eyes....one lady first noticed that **God turned 3 of hers gold on the top and I looked and saw them**. A few minutes later, **two of hers on the bottom had turned and I saw them**. **A few minutes later, 8 had turned gold and I saw them all--before and after**!!!! (*) Emphasis mine. In fact, the phenomenon seems to be relatively widespread, as many more examples recorded in different places and countries can be found with a quick YouTube search: [A](https://youtu.be/Y8GK_I5aiHc) , [B](https://youtu.be/yS4zzVCpXG0?t=35) , [C](https://youtu.be/ojyo_P5FBA4?t=35) , [D](https://youtu.be/wXu96t8ar4g) , [E](https://youtu.be/b402eJ3TdUc) , [F](https://youtu.be/1nNc6_Ycg_o) , [G](https://youtu.be/y7YaOdFlSqY?t=162) , [H](https://youtu.be/_0Iqk2YREyM) , [I](https://youtu.be/WW-dUYjVJwg) , [J](https://youtu.be/UItU6qlKvvA) , [K](https://youtu.be/nS6w5qAw7XY) , [L](https://youtu.be/5Qwn9JA8HU4) , etc. What are the oldest records of this phenomenon? Is it a relatively recent phenomenon in Church History (a few decades old) or can we find older records?

It seems like the overwhelming majority of Dispensationalist theologians today are Young Earth Creationists. However, this has not been the case historically as there have been many famous Old Earth Creationists in the Dispensationalist camp, including C.I. Scofield, author of the *Scofield Reference Bible*, who believed in the gap theory himself but expressly allowed for the day-age theory as a legitimate interpretation in the Reference Bible. More recently, I know that Norman Geisler was dispensationalist and Old Earth Creationist while opposing theistic evolution. **I am wondering whether there are any notable Dispensational theologians, pastors, or apologists, who would embrace theistic evolution instead of YEC or OEC.** I have not been able to find any. This makes sense given modern dispensationalism's emphasis on the plain reading of Scripture, but given that this wasn't always a principle of dispensationalism, it isn't categorically impossible for a dispensationalist to be a theistic evolutionist.

During Paul's second missionary journey, he meets Timothy and wants to take him along on the rest of his journey. The Bible makes a special point about Timothy being circumcised to avoid offending the Jews: > **Acts 16:1-3 (NASB) **
1 Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2 and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. I understand that the Jews who knew Timothy would assume that he wasn't circumcised because his father wasn't Jewish. How would they know that he had been circumcised? Would Paul and Timothy just announce it? Would the Jews insist on verifying it?

I am wondering if there are any buildings that are still standing that Jesus visited. Thanks.

Relative to research I'm doing, I wanted to pick the brains of the community at large and see if anyone had an answer to a question. Josephus states that Pompey took Jerusalem in the third month (Sivan) of 63 BCE during the solemn fast. He then later states that Herod captured Jerusalem in the third month, on the same day, also on the solemn fast, in 37 BCE. >**Taken by Pompey:** [...] the city was taken on the third month, on the day of the fast, upon the hundred and seventy-ninth olympiad, when Caius Antonius and Marcus Tullius Cicero were consuls [...]. (Joseph. *AJ* 14.66) >**Taken by Herod:** This destruction befell the city of Jerusalem when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls at Rome, on the hundred and eighty-fifth olympiad, on the third month, on the solemnity of the fast, as if a periodical revolution of calamities had returned since that which befell the Jews under Pompey; for the Jews were taken by him on the same day [...]. (Joseph. *AJ* 14.487-88) To head certain responses off at the pass, Josephus did not say that it was the Day of Atonement (Joseph. *AJ* 14.66, 487) as some are wont to suggest. In a careful examination of both instances, that of Pompey and Herod, you will find, first, that Pompey started his war with the Jews in the spring (Joseph. *AJ* 14.38). It was a three-month siege that ended in the “third month,” on a day of fasting (Joseph. *AJ* 14.66; *BJ* 1.149). In the case of Herod, he started his siege toward the end of winter (Joseph. *BJ* 1.343; *AJ* 14.465). It was a five-month siege that ended in the “third month,” on a day of solemn fasting (Joseph. *BJ* 1.351; *AJ* 14.487-8). In the case of Pompey, a three-month siege beginning around the “beginning of the spring” would have had its conclusion in late spring, coincident with the third month of the Jewish ecclesiastical calendar. In the case of Herod, a five-month siege, which he began in winter, puts the fifth month likewise in the vicinity of late spring. So, to be clear on the subject, by context, neither instance can be even remotely construed to have occurred in autumn, which is where Tishri and the Day of Atonement fall. Concerning the third month, Sivan, I can find no record in any of the Jewish literature to pinpoint what fast this might have been. Nor can I definitively establish a day of the week. For the fast, the 23rd of Sivan is the closest example I could find, observed in modern times as the fast for omitting the offering of the first fruits in Jerusalem during the days of Jeroboam (*Shulchan Arukh*, Orach Chayim 580.2). However, it is suspect, since the circumstances surrounding the incident of Jeroboam interfering with the sacrifice of the people in Jerusalem looks to be coincident to Tabernacles rather than anything occurring in Sivan (1 Kgs. 12:25-33; Joseph. *AJ* 8.225-230). The earliest reference I could find to corroborate such a fast was the *Shulchan Arukh*, by Joseph Karo, 1563, as noted. Meanwhile, his most significant predecessor, Maimonides, made no mention of this fast in his *Misneh Torah*, c. 1168-1178. Nor are there any such references in the Talmud. I did find another reference to weekly fasts on Mondays and Thursdays (Tosef. to Ta'an. 2:4), but I couldn't determine their origin in terms of date, whether this was a regular practice in the first century BCE, or if it was something that came in vogue much later, as so many other observances did. For the day, there is an inference that Pompey took the city on the sabbath (Joseph. *AJ* 14.64), but regular, ritual fasting is prohibited on the sabbath (bErub. 41a, bTa’an 27b), so this inference is likely just a coincidence of wording. Dio Cassius also tells us that Jerusalem was taken on the Day of Saturn, or Saturday, in the instances of both Pompey and Herod (Dio Cass. 37.16.1-4, 49.22.2-5). However, I suspect, because of the prohibition against fasting on the sabbath (apart from occasional exceptions), that he merely inferred the Day of Saturn because of Pompey's tactics. Soooooo, I'm at a bit of an impasse. I can live with the conclusion that there was some unnamed fast in the month of Sivan if I can't find an answer. That Josephus says there was one is proof enough for me that a ritual fast in the third month existed in the first century BCE. The lack of a specific answer will neither make nor break the conclusions of my research. However, I've seen some intelligent people on here already. I'm hoping someone might be able to point me in the right direction to discover the identify of this enigmatic fast. It would be nice icing on the cake. And I would be much obliged if responses were confined to the question. I know the temptation is great to expound upon the various death of Herod hypotheses. But I just want to know about the fast if anyone can provide me with some useful information. The relevance of this question concerns the birth and life of Christ. It is part of a greater study on the death of Herod, which has a direct impact on the nativity, and by extension the ministry of Jesus Christ.

Do Greek speaking Christians still use the Septuagint and original New Testament text? Or do they have a "modern Greek translation"? I ask because the New Testament is 2000 years old, presumably the Greek language has changed and evolved a lot in that time and so the original NT might not even be understandable to a modern Greek speaker. I'm interested in what Greek speaking Christians use in general (Catholics, Orthodox, Protestant), but I'm also very interested in the Greek Orthodox church in particular. I'm curious what version of the scriptures they draw upon in their liturgy: the originals? or a modern paraphrase/translation?