Acts 15:29 and 21:25 carry over four requirements from the old testament to apply to gentile Christians - one of which is abstaining from sexual immorality. In Leviticus 20:18, it makes a big deal about having sex with a woman while she's on her period. > If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from among their people. (ESV) However, Leviticus 15:24 makes it sound more like a ceremonial issue than a sexual immorality issue (which in that case may be a requirement which has passed away under the new covenant). > And if any man lies with her and her menstrual impurity comes upon him, he shall be unclean seven days, and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean (ESV) So the question is, what is the Biblical basis for claiming that a Christian husband is/is not permitted to have sex with his wife when she's on her period?

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?

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?

Most Christians and leaders seem to quote inspirational verses out of the prophetic books consistently. The issue is that they are taking lots of verses out of context. Recently, I've been wondering how we correctly read the 17 prophetic books. These books seem to only be written for 1. the people at the time 2. descriptions of the Messiah 3. descriptions of The New Heaven and New Earth Outside of this, I have also seen that these prophecies include 1. Double References (Isaiah 14 talking about Satan and a king) 2. Insight into God's Creation (Jeremiah 4) [the Book of Job also does this, but that would of course be poetry and not prophecy] 3. Showing the character and demonstrations of God But what exactly does someone do when they want to read through the Book of Ezekiel or any other book? I have oftentimes been led of the Holy Spirit to see new things in the Prophetic Books, but for the most part, if I have to be honest, it seems like the entire Body of Christ just steers away from these books because of the level of confusion that comes from reading them. Why are they in the Bible? What do they do for New Testament Believers? How does it bring us into the full stature of Christ (2 Timothy 3:16-17)? I understand that there is historical evidence for the prophecies and that we can see what makes God angry, but there has got to be more reasoning behind having 17 books written in this style than just those things. What should I be able to pick up from these books that is beyond what my eyes can see? I cannot find a single answer online, so please know that I did my research before posting here. Thank you.

There is a religious group that believes that angels were pre-existent as humans. While researching the Scriptures to examine that, I found this quote, which confirms what I personally found in my own study: >Though the doctrine of angels holds an important place in the Word of God, it is often viewed as a difficult subject because, while there is abundant mention of angels in the Bible, the nature of this revelation is without the same kind of explicit description we often find with other subjects developed in the Bible: Every reference to angels is incidental to some other topic. They are not treated in themselves. God’s revelation never aims at informing us regarding the nature of angels. https://bible.org/article/angelology-doctrine-angels I didn't find anything of usefulness to this topic in the OT. This is what I found so far in the NT, which is why I think the verses address the nature of angels. - Matt. 13:38-39: > "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels." That verse is about the final judgement, of all the men on earth. How can the angels, then, be the reapers? - Matt. 16:27 > "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." This implies that the angels are a separate class of creation than man. - Matt. 22:30 > "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." This says they are as the angels in heaven: that is, *like* them, not that they *become* them. - Matt. 24:36 > "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." This is saying no man knows, no angel knows, only the Father knows, differentiating the beings. - Luke 12:9 > "But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God." Luke 20:36 > "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." equal unto - become *like* angels, not *become* angels. - 1 Cor. 4:9 > "For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men." 1 Cor. 6:3 > "Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?" Indeed, many believe that man will ultimately be higher than the angels. Two separate orders of creation. - Heb. 2:16: > "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." 2 different natures. - Jude 1:6 > "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." Kept not their first estate. Not their second estate. **Now my question**: since the OT really didn't address, as far as I could see (and I welcome anyone else's findings), I wondered if, and what, the ancient Jewish scholars wrote about concerning the nature of angels. They might have been privy to lost documents, or just understood the Hebrew differently than we do today. I am not looking for denominational positions, just really information that any OT or ancient religious history scholars on this site might have. Thanks.

In Ezekiel chapter 4 the prophet was instructed to lie on his left side for 390 days, a day for each year of the sin of Israel, and then to lie on his right side for 40 days for the sin of Judah. What historical period is being referred to here? When did the 390 years begin and end? Also for the 40 year period, when did it begin and end?

I was going through the Bible and came across Daniel 4 which is about a vision King Nebuchadnezzar gets and as a result he calls Daniel to interpret. The dream ends up being a prophecy about how God is going to humble King Nebuchadnezzar which eventually comes to pass 12 months later. However, the way King Nebuchadnezzar acts towards the end is what makes me think he received salvation. He says this: > *34 At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my sanity was restored. Then I praised the Most High; I > honored and glorified him who lives forever. > > His dominion is an eternal dominion; > his kingdom endures from generation to generation. 35 All the peoples of the earth > are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases > with the powers of heaven > and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand > or say to him: “What have you done?” > > 36 At the same time that my sanity was restored, my honor and splendor > were returned to me for the glory of my kingdom. My advisers and > nobles sought me out, and I was restored to my throne and became even > greater than before. 37 Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and > glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and > all his ways are just. And those who walk in pride he is able to > humble.* From this we see that in the end, Nebuchadnezzar believed in God and acknowledged him as the most high. Not only this, but also he says: > Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is always right and his ways are just Here, he shows conversion and faith in God. However, the bible repeatedly emphasizes that we are saved BY grace THROUGH faith and that it is faith that justifies us.(Ephesians 2:8-9 , [Galatians 3:11]). It is also seen that following the law is not what saved people in the Old Covenant but it was faith in God that saves people and the function of the law was to let us acknowledge our sin and guide people until Jesus came (Romans 3:20 , Galatians 3:24 , Isaiah 45:22-24 . The Bible then goes on to use Abraham as an example in Romans 4:3 saying that Abraham was justified by his faith and he clarifies in Romans 3:23-24 and Galatians 3:8-9 where it says that this extends to anyone who has faith in God. So with all this in mind, is it a possibility that King Nebuchadnezzar ended up receiving salvation after acquiring his faith in God as sovereign and the one above all, including what he describes as *powers of heaven*, which could maybe be understood as him exalting God above all other known lesser gods?

Job 26:10 (KJV) says: >"He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end." This verse has also been translated as: >"He hath set a compass upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." (alternative rendering from some KJV printings) The phrase "compassed the waters with bounds" or “set a compass” seems to describe God establishing a limit or boundary over the waters. I’m trying to understand what this means. What is the Hebrew word translated as “bounds” or “limit” in this verse, and what are its possible interpretations?

### Introduction The NT presents Jesus of Nazareth as the **unique Son of God** in John 3:16: > For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son (**μονογενης υιος, monogenēs huios**), that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. The concept of a single 'son of God' is seemingly not found in the Hebrew bible. The phrase **bene-elohim/בְּנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים** (sons of God) are referenced several times in different contexts. Several named characters such as Satan are called **bene-elohim**, such as in Job 1:6: > "One day the **sons of God** (**בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים, bene-elohim**) came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them." ### Question What is the Old Testament basis for believing that God has a single, unique son?

In Exodus 4:22, God tells Pharaoh: >“Israel is my firstborn son.” Later, in the New Testament, believers in Christ (the Church) are described as being adopted into God’s family and as the bride of Christ (Romans 8:15–17, Ephesians 5:25–27). My question is: if Israel is explicitly called God’s firstborn, how should Christians understand the place of the Church? Does the term “firstborn” imply that the Church is “another child” of God, perhaps a “later-born,”? How do different traditions reconcile Israel’s “firstborn” status with the identity of the Church in salvation history?

The God described in the Old Testament can be violent and vindictive and seems to hold to a different set of moral rules than the God we see in the New Testament. How does the Catholic church explain these differences? A few of the better known examples of the more violent nature of the Old Testament's God are: 1. God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son (Genesis 22:2 ) > 2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. This is then revealed to have been a "test" of Abraham's faith (Genesis 22:12 ) > 12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. Since, by definition, the God of the Judeo-Christian faith is omniscient, this is not a test that could have provided Him with new information. It seems like a particularly horrible thing to do to a father. It is also at odds with the loving God of the later Christian faith. 2. The story of Lot (Genesis 19 ). Two angels have visited Lot's house and he treats them as honored guests. The men of Sodom ask him to let them "know" them: >5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. Lot wants to protect his guests and so, instead, offers up his virgin daughters: > 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. This is treated as a perfectly natural offer. Any father who would offer up his daughters for rape today would be considered the lowest of degenerate criminals, yet Lot is portrayed as the only righteous man in Sodom and the only one, along with his family, who is spared by God. The story of Lot also has two other examples of the extreme violence that the Old Testament God was capable of. The very smiting of the, presumably, hundreds or even thousands of inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the turning of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for the rather innocuous sin of looking back at her home while it was being destroyed: > 24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven; > 25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. > 26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. > 24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven; > 25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. > 28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace. 3. As a final example, the scourges of the Pharaoh. Each and every one of them is an action that does not square with the forgiving, loving and fundamentally good nature of the Christian God, but the following is particularly cruel (Exodus: 11 ): > 5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts. This is a kind and loving God who will kill innocent babies. What's more, His wrath is not restricted to the children of those, like the Pharaoh, who oppressed his people but extends to ay and all Egyptians and even goes so far as to include their animals. Clearly, a sheepherder living out in the middle of nowhere who has never seen any of the Jews living in Egypt cannot be blamed for their oppression under the Pharaoh. Yet, even this innocent shepherd is not spared God's wrath. Now, I imagine that all of these examples has been extensively debated and there will be various interpretations and apologetics for each. My question, however, is whether Catholics believe that the _nature_ of God has changed between the Old and New testaments. Jehova seems to be a very different God from the one described in the New Testament, how is that dealt with in the Catholic faith? PS. I have restricted the question to the Catholic church so it is not too broad bu welcome answers that also mention the positions of other denominations.

In the book of Genesis, Adam speaks directly with God—receiving commands, instructions, and even judgments. This kind of divine communication is often associated with the role of a prophet throughout the Bible. Yet, Adam is not explicitly called a prophet in Scripture, nor is he commonly regarded as one in most Christian traditions. Why is that the case? Does the biblical or theological definition of a prophet involve more than just direct communication with God—such as delivering God's message to others, foretelling future events, or leading a covenant community? I’d appreciate perspectives from Scripture, early Church Fathers, and major Christian traditions.

UPDATE and Final question: **Genesis 17:13**: > He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. **Isaiah 56:6-7**: > Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; > > Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. NEW................................................. The question - After trying to understand all this I figured out the question what it should be - Are strangers / sojourners that are serving the Lord in the Old Testament saved by not being circumcisioned and only obeying the rules dedicated for the sojourners and not the children of Israel. If someone knows the answer let me know. Thanks in advance. OLD ------------------------------------------------------------ The question: Does the rules for the sojourners in the Old Testament - save the pagan sojourners and if yes or no - does this make them part of the Old covenant? Is was thinking if the Isaiah 56:6-7 is relevant for the pagan sojourners? - I don't think that it necessarily mean that the pagan sojourners have chosed to serve God and without circumcision they can be saved. More then one "?" but related to one question. **Background:** How are the rules for the sojourners in the Old Testament? They are not necessarily servants of God right? They could be pagan sojourners? - uncircumcised without being part of the Old Covenant? If they are pagan sojourners that are not serving God as contrary to Isaiah 56:6-7 (where strangers have chosed to serve God and I believe they are circumcised? Genesis 17:13), but the sojourners that are just passing the land of the Jews, according to the Old Covenant would they be saved by the rules for the sojourners back in the Old Covenant without them being circumcised? In the Old Covenant could there be servants of God without being circumcised and be saved? Could a person back in the days of the Old Covenant be part of the Old Covenant without being circumcised? I am asking this questions since there is a person that is applying to himself the rules for the sojourners from the Old Covenant probably without him being circumcised, but observing the sabbath - probably saying that this saves a person when part of the New Covenant. These rules for the sojourners were they not rules for pagan sojourners too that did not serve God, and how could they be saved in the Old Testament days, if they did not serve God, and how possibly these rules could help a person to be saved in the New Testament since these rules did not save the sojourners in the Old Testament? I am not sure if you understand what I mean. I am not familiar so much with the Old Testament this is why I ask here this question. I am not sure if I am wrong somewhere please let me know if I have wrongly understood the rules for the sojourners or anything else. With my current understanding and knowledge this above sounds strange to me. I think that if a person even not a Jew wanted to be saved in the days of the Old Testament must have been under the Old Covenant circumcised observing all the customs, not only the rules for the sojourners? Thanks in advance.

In 2 Samuel 12:23, David says about his deceased infant son: >*"But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." (ESV)* Many Christians interpret this as David expressing confidence that he would see his child again in the afterlife. This is often cited as evidence that infants who die are in God’s care and go to heaven. - Does it imply that children who die before reaching an age of moral accountability are saved? - Is David speaking about the afterlife or merely about joining his son in the grave? I'd appreciate perspectives from different theological traditions, especially Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox interpretations.

I understand that from the perspective of those who take the Bible literally, the global flood took place about 2400 B.C. and that the world began about 4000 B.C., giving 1600 years of human population growth. So, what was the estimated population at the time of the flood? In other words, how many people incurred the judgment of God in the flood? Please answer according to the perspective of those who take the Bible literally and historically.

The final words of the Book of Haggai are: > The word of the Lord came a second time to Haggai on the twenty-fourth > day of the month, “Speak to Zerub′babel, governor of Judah, saying, I > am about to shake the heavens and the earth, and to overthrow the > throne of kingdoms; I am about to destroy the strength of the kingdoms > of the nations, and overthrow the chariots and their riders; and the > horses and their riders shall go down, every one by the sword of his > fellow. On that day, says the Lord of hosts, I will take you, O > Zerub′babel my servant, the son of She-al′ti-el, says the Lord, and > make you like a signet ring; for I have chosen you, says the Lord of > hosts.” The reference to being chosen as God's "signet ring" at least evokes a sense that the prophet predicted a restoration of royal authority approved by God (see Jeremiah 22:24). Zerubbabel was a descendant of King David and the grandson of one of Judah's last kings. Given his lineage and the powerful words of promise above, is Haggai expressing a messianic hope in Zerubbabel? (Note: I mean this in the sense of the Jewish messiah, who restores the throne of David, not the Christian sense, in which the messiah dies for the sins of mankind.) Related questions: whether or not this is a messianic prophecy, why does it seem it was not fulfilled. Were there events in Zerubbabel's time that fulfilled the prophecy? In what sense did he become God's "signet ring?"

In the Old Testament, we can see several places that portray God as the most gracious and the most merciful. However, when God accompanied the Israelites to their promised land, he said that he would destroy the seven nations of that area (Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Hivites, and Jebusites) so that the Israelites could take their place. Why does God love the Israelites so much that he can also show his mercy and love to all the other nations and people he created? Are only Israelites entitled to his love, and not modern-day Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? If not, then why did Jesus say he came to fulfill the laws of Moses? (In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says, "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.") Are other people not worthy of God's love?

A week ago I was reading Matthew, and at Mt 2:15 and 2:17 he write about Old Testament prophecies. Searching for it, maybe in Jeremiah, I read something like *'**we must be cautious reading the Holy Scriptures because prophets can make mistakes**'*. I found it a beautiful message, but at the time, when I was searching for the prophecy referenced by Matthew, I don't pay too much attention to it, and today I'm not able to find it again. Can someone point me the location of some versicle that could be that?

What does teaching morality result in?