Given that many conflate evangelicals and fundamentalists and there are significant overlaps, how have evangelical thinkers responded to James Barr's claim in his 1978 Fundamentalism book that: "For fundamentalists the Bible is more than the source of verity for their religion... It is part of the religion itself, indeed it is practically the centre of the religion, the essential nuclear point from which lines of light radiate into every particular aspect." These excerpts came from someone else's review of that book, instead of from an available copy such as on the Internet Archive. My question has been rephrased from my initial attempt, which was closed, and is edited here in hopes of avoiding the identified issues.

Christian theology generally teaches that only God is omnipresent, while Satan is a created being with limited power and presence. Yet, believers around the world often experience temptations or trials that they attribute to Satan’s influence. How do Christian theologians explain Satan’s ability to seemingly affect or test many people in different locations at once, if he cannot be everywhere? - Does Scripture suggest he works through a network of demons? I’m asking specifically from a biblical and theological standpoint, not from personal opinion.

I'm going to give an example. If my parents only met because of Hitler, would I not exist if not for the actions of Hitler. Or does God give the same souls life regardless of our parents? There are different verses in which some would say we have existed before birth (Jeremiah 1:5), and others claiming that we are created from nothing (Genesis 2:7).

I've heard that the Bible's division into verses was made later than the division into chapters. So, whose translation firstly came up with this system of chapter divisions that we have today?

Regarding the passage Mt 2:13-18. Joseph flees to Egypt with Jesus and Mary after being warned by an angel that Jesus’ life is in danger. Herod then kills all the male children less than 2 years old in and around Bethlehem (8 miles *south* of Jerusalem). Matthew calls this tragic event the fulfillment of Je 31:15: > A cry is heard in Ramah… Rachel weeps for her children… for her children are gone. However, OT verses and sources from bibleatlas.org point to Ramah being 8+ miles *north* of Jerusalem. How can the verses in Matthew and Jeremiah refer to the same place if they are 16+ miles apart? What am I missing?

The Orthodox Study Bible's OT translation (produced by the St. Athanasius Academy) is based on the Septuagint, instead of being primarily based on the Masoretic text like most English translations of the Bible. The text of 1 Samuel 17:4 in the Septuagint lists Goliath's height as "four cubits and a span" (roughly 6'9''), contrasting with "six cubits and a span" (roughly 9'9'') in the Masoretic text. The OSB follows the Septuagint in its translation, but the footnote says: > Goliath is over nine feet tall. This is accurate regarding the Masoretic text, but not the Septuagint. Is it a mistake? Or are they following St. Augustine's interpretation of differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text? I.e. that the Hebrew text is historically accurate, but that the Greek is also divinely inspired and contains symbolical significance (*City of God* Book 18, chapter 43-44 ). There could also be another explanation I've not thought of.

Virtually all resources published these days make Biblical citations in the same way: "John 3:16" with the chapter and verse numbers in Arabic numerals, separated by a colon and with no other punctuation. However, when I read books printed a long time ago (maybe from 100 years ago or so), I find many other ways of referencing Biblical passages. As some examples: > "John iii. 16" - used in this 1885 translation of 1st Clement and throughout that collection of the Ante-Nicene fathers. > > "John 3. 16" - used in the 1917 printing of the Scofield Reference Bible . > > "John, iii, 16" - used in the 1912 printing of the Catholic Encyclopedia . When and why did the modern convention become standard?

The International Committee on Biblical Inerrancy has set out two magisterial documents related to an understanding of inerrancy: the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (1981). Earlier (1959), the Christian Reformed Church of North America settled on a definition and understanding of Biblical infallibility . According to one member of the Council on Infallibility: > The committee discussed at some length the usefulness of the word *inerrant* to describe the Bible. We concluded that it is not the most felicitous term to express the unique character of the Scriptures. We agreed that *infallible* and *trustworthy* fit the nature of the Bible more appropriately. The rest of his article speaks in general terms on why they rejected the term, but I'm looking for more than that. I'd like to understand specifically what about the reliability and authority of the Bible the ICBI affirms and denies that the CRCNA would not affirm and deny, and vice-versa.

It is my impression that across denominations that [compatibilism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism) is the dominant position and answer to the question of divine sovereignty and human free will. The main alternative is [libertarian free will](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)) , which states that humans have totally free wills with no control (or maybe even no influence) by God. (The other alternative to compatibilism is total determinism, but that is not generally considered compatible with Christianity.) When it comes to the Bible, Christians have historically believed that God [inspired the writing of the scriptures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration) , but in a way that left the human author utilising their full creative capabilities. This has been called the "dual authorship" of the scriptures: when we ask who wrote the Bible, we can truly say both its human authors and God. This doctrine fits perfectly with compatibilism; it can be seen as just one particular application of how divine and human wills coexist. So how do those who reject compatibilism explain the inspiration of scripture? Can they also uphold the dual authorship of scripture? Can they uphold the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy/infallibility, or do they say that only when the Biblical authors wrote down a direct divine revelation (such as Habakkuk 2) is the text without flaw?

If someone quotes e.g. Leviticus 6:7, will this be the correct position no matter the language or translation?

One version I have says "The Gospel According to St. John." Another says "The Gospel of John." Is there not a history of the earliest titles given?

Jesus said in Matthew 7:16, "You will know them by their fruits." This verse is often cited to identify genuine believers based on their actions and character. However, a recent incident in Minnesota where a self-professed evangelical Christian—who had even received an appointment—was involved in the shooting of a congresswoman raises questions. How should this verse be understood in light of such events? Can we truly and reliably know a believer by their fruits, especially when someone outwardly identified with Christianity ends up acting in a way that seems so contrary to Christ’s teachings? How do different theological traditions interpret this principle when actions contradict profession of faith?

Wikipedia says the following: > The patriarchs and matriarchs were either real individuals or believable composites of people who **lived in the "patriarchal age", the 2nd millennium BCE**. But, in the 1970s, new arguments concerning Israel's past and the biblical texts **challenged these views;** What is the most current favoured date?

"3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him." (Ephesians 1:3-4) In the above verse the Apostle Paul writing to the believers at the church in Ephesus is declaring that God the Father chose 'us' i.e. the believers, before the foundation of the world. If that were the case all the believers whoever was and is and will be believing in Jesus and thus become believers only those people were chosen to become believers much before their creation. That's basically predestination of certain individuals to become believers. However, that effectively leaves out all those who are not chosen by God to go to hell. In other words, it is God who creates certain individuals meant to go to heaven and others to hell. If the above statements were to be true, then, God will be unjust and unloving. Furthermore, it will be unfair for God to command his people to preach the gospel to all creation. In the light of the above conundrum how to understand "God chose us before the foundation of the world?"

I live in Nepal. I have no background in any of the Abrahamic religions. I want to study the Bible in simple language with the aid of a book that provides context and spiritual meanings. By "simple" I do not mean simple English. My English is very good. I want a proper explanation of the use of metaphors, myths, etc. in the Bible The book also needs to be suitable for self study. I already have the [Thomas Nelson KJV Study Bible](https://www.thomasnelsonbibles.com/product/the-king-james-study-bible-full-color-kjv/) . **Example**: I am right now on the book of Genesis. I was reading the passage about the fight between the Serpent and Eve. There is a verse (Gen 3:15) that says something like he will strike heels and she his head. I want to know if there is any spiritual metaphor here, or whether I am missing something. These are the kind of questions I have that I hope the study aid can answer.

Is committing adultery the same thing as having a concubine? Is having a concubine a form of adultery?

Rather than busting out a KJV and a JST and comparing them verse by verse I am lazily hoping that there is, somewhere, a list which has already been generated providing all of the verses from the Bible which the JST has modified or allegedly 'restored'?

According to the Bible 'sin' by definition is anything that is against God! Which is why God cannot commit sin [Hebrews 6:18; Titus 1:2], not that He doesn't choose to commit sin. This is because God cannot do anything against Himself [2Tim.2:13]. In other words, it is impossible for God to sin. However, when we think of the creation we sin because we have the freedom to choose between good and bad. Adam and Eve committed sin because of that freedom. If we assume that they sinned because of the tempter then this is not the case when Satan sinned while being in the very presence of God! Therefore, a free being/entity can commit sin even when that being/entity has no sinful nature internally or a sinful tempter externally. All those who enter into Heaven or the presence of God and enjoy eternal life will have free-will. But the question is what makes them not to sin again like Satan or other angels that were sent out from God's presence because of their sin?

### Background Latter Day Saints believe that "plain and precious truths" were lost from the Bible : > Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that **there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book**, which is the book of the Lamb of God. - (**1 Nephi 13:28**) LDS/Non-LDS Christian disputations often center on apparent discrepancies between the Christian Bible vs Mormon scriptures. ### Question If LDS believe important information that corroborates the Book of Mormon and Mormon beliefs were lost from the Christian Bible, are LDS and non-LDS Christian disputes always talking past one another? Can scriptural arguments ever be employed against a belief system like Latter Day Saint theology which always has the "escape hatch" of 1 Nephi 13:28?

**Do you know any prophecies in the books between Malachi 400s BC, and the New Testament?** > Matthew 11 13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. > 14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to > come. 15 Whoever has ears, let them hear. Malachi 4 is the last book, and last chapter of the protestant canon > 5 “See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and > dreadful day of the Lord comes. 6 He will turn the hearts of the > parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their > parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total > destruction.” Matthew could be saying the last prophecy in the Old Testament is about Elijah/John the Baptist which is correct. The only books written between Malachi, and the New Testament is 1,2,3,4 Maccabees, and Wisdom of Ben Sira none have (original) prophecies. 2 Maccabees has a prophecy but he is quoting something Jeremiah said (it was about Pentecost, and Rev 11). The other "deuterocanon" books were written before Malachi. The great terrible day of the lord part in Malachi was about 70 AD as John the Baptist was just before that. I have never heard that argument before. Does someone agree it is saying there was no prophecy between Malachi, and the New Testament? Zechariah 13 prophecies a period of time with no prophets. The banishing idols from the land would be Maccabees where the Israelites destroyed all the Greek idols that had been set up. > 2 “On that day, I will banish the names of the idols from the land, > and they will be remembered no more,” declares the Lord Almighty. “I > will remove both the prophets and the spirit of impurity from the > land. 3 And if anyone still prophesies, their father and mother, to > whom they were born, will say to them, ‘You must die, because you have > told lies in the Lord’s name.’ Then their own parents will stab the > one who prophesies. > > 4 “On that day every prophet will be ashamed of their prophetic > vision. They will not put on a prophet’s garment of hair in order to > deceive. 5 Each will say, ‘I am not a prophet. I am a farmer; the land > has been my livelihood since my youth.[a]’ 6 If someone asks, ‘What > are these wounds on your body[b]?’ they will answer, ‘The wounds I was > given at the house of my friends.’ Although other parts of Zechariah 13 are about Jesus that part could have been Maccabees. Or it could be about the Judean Zealots 66-73 AD. They killed each other. They could have been saying that kind of stuff in the temple complex during their wars. The 2/3 1/3 fits Maccabees though where a lot were killed but the ones that survived were faithful to God, and won the battles. Or it could be 70 AD but 1 million died 70 ad (Josephus) which means 500,000 Judean Christians would have had to survive which sounds like too much. Where do you think those Zechariah prophecies happened?