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.

Each Gospel has an account were Jesus references Isaiah 6:9-10. Paul also references those verses in Acts 28:26. >*9 And he replied: Go! Say to these people: Keep listening, but do not understand; keep looking, but do not perceive. 10 Make the minds[c] of these people dull; deafen their ears and blind their eyes; otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears, understand with their minds, turn back, and be healed.* John 12:40 appears to be the only account that clearly says that God does the hardening (Every Bible on BibleGateway has translated it in this manner). >*He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts….* But I noticed that the original Greek does not have “God”, or the pronoun “He”.….they’ve been added in translation. The translation of Acts 28:27 does not attribute the hardening to God….it says that “they” have shut their eyes. >*For the hearts of these people have grown callous, their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes* Again, the original Greek does not have a pronoun “they”, yet every Bible translates it in that manner. It doesn’t even appear that Isaiah Ch 6 clearly attributes the hardening to God. Verse 10 says *“make the minds of these people dull”*. Who/What makes them dull? Verse 9 could answer that question. It says people that listen, but do not understand….and people that look, but do not perceive. (Makes me think of fellow Christians that just go through the motions. I know….I used to be one). So I guess it’s a 2-part question. I do not study or understand Greek, beyond clicking on a verse and viewing the word for word translation. So, what is it about the original Greek that translators unanimously agree to add “God” or “He” to John 12:40, and add “they” to Acts 28:27? What is causing the hardening, God….or our own actions? The above translations imply both, yet they both reference the same verses in Isaiah. Shouldn’t the understanding be one or the other, based upon the understanding of the verses in Isaiah?

I'm curious how, in the context of spiritual teaching and leveraging scripture, religious leaders are balancing the value of the text with questions that scholarship has raised as to the authenticity and originality of various texts such as the Johannine comma, the woman caught in adultery, the end of Mark, etc. Thank you in advance for your thoughts!

In Acts 1:20 we read: > "For it is written in the Book of Psalms: > > > ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ > > And: > > > ‘May another take his office.’" But Psalm 69:26 is actually uses plural: > "Make their camp desolate, with none to dwell in their tents." Psalm 109:8 has singular: > "May his days be few; may another take his office." (All translations can be found from the [USCCB website](https://bible.usccb.org/bible).) So it seems to me that St. Peter is changing the plural of Psalm 69:26 into singular in order to make a point. Then he quotes Psalm 109:8 in order to make a point. He seems to be just picking Psalm texts or changing the plural into singular in order to make a point. This is just confusing. I have been searching commentaries on this but have not been able to found one. This could be because people just take for granted that changing the plural into singular is a natural thing that people can just do. **What is going on in Acts 1:20?**

How can the following verses be reconciled? Matthew 5:18-20: >“Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 23:1-3: >”Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice” Matthew 12:1-4: >”At that time Jesus was going through a field of grain on the sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “See, your disciples are doing what is unlawful to do on the sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry, how he went into the house of God and ate the bread of offering, which neither he nor his companions but only the priests could lawfully eat?”

Jesus and His disciples follow Jesus' interpretation of the Mosaic law rather than that of the Pharisees on several occasions. How does this fit with Matthew 23:2-3?

Matthew 22:7-9 seems to teach that the gospel was only preached to the Gentiles after the destruction of the temple, interpreting verse 7 as the metaphorical destruction of the temple, and verse 8 as the preaching to the Gentiles happening *after* the destruction of the temple. But this seems to contradict history as described in the Book of Acts where the gospel is preached to the gentiles *long before* the destruction of the temple.

Paul wrote a letter and said that the Gentiles do some things which are godly because they have the law of Christ written on their hearts through their conscience and thoughts. *Romans 2:15* >They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them. If the law of Christ is already written in their hearts, why then spread the gospel and not just wait to judge them at the end of the age since they have the knowledge of God in their conscience and thoughts?

I also first published this question in BHSE, but it’s relevant to historical investigations into Christianity, can anyone help me to understand this below? Mark’s Gospel is often considered the earliest gospel written by scholars. We read: > “Immediately the king[*Herod*] sent a soldier of the guard with orders > to bring John's head. He went and beheaded him in the prison,” ‭‭Mark‬ > ‭6‬:‭27‬ ‭NRSV‬‬ But British scholar F.F. Bruce records this information: (A Baraitha from the period of 70A.D.-200A.D. named "TJ Sanhedrin 1.1" says:) > "forty years before the destruction of the temple the right to inflict > the death penalty was taken away from Israel." > -Source: "Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament" by F.F. Bruce (page 56, footnote 5). **Question:** How is Mark 6:27 historically reliable given that Herod killed John the Baptist in Prison but likely didn’t have authority to execute capital punishment given the information in the Baraitha?

In Gen 1, the "wildlife of the earth" were created on the 6th day (Gen 1:24-25) *after* the vegetations (3rd day) and the "first couple" last. But in Gen 2, Adam was created in v. 7 *before* the "wild animal" (v. 19-20) while Adam named them, before Eve was created. Those who use the [Framework view](https://biologos.org/series/science-and-the-bible/articles/the-framework-view-history-and-beliefs) to interpret Gen 1 doesn't have a problem because they see Gen 2:4-25 as *another* creation story that is functionally different (more in terms of man's and woman's role in creation as caretaker of Earth [symbolized as the Garden of Eden in its pre-Fall state](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/104562/10672)) . But how would strict 6 day Creationists (especially those who interpret Genesis 1-12 historically) interpret the 2nd creation account where there seems to be a contradiction in the sequence of events?

> Remember and do not forget how you provoked the Lord your God to wrath > in the wilderness (Deuteronomy 9:7 ESV). It seems like this passage describes God being provoked (changed) by the people of Israel. This is a problem, because it contradicts the doctrine of divine immutability, that is often inferred from Malachi 3:6. > For I the Lord do not change... (Malachi 3:6 ESV) Is there a way to resolve this apparent contradiction?

John 1:14 is generally used to say that "God" became "flesh" based on the understanding that "the Word" addressed in John 1:1 refers to God. However, other texts of Scripture appear at variance with this interpretation. The texts which help clarify the basis of this question are shown below. I seek a non-Trinitarian explanations for how these texts might be shown to agree with each other and not be found in contradiction. | Text (KJV) | Typical Assumption | Opposed by? | |---|---|---| | In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1) | "the Word" = God | And the Word was made flesh . . . and we beheld his glory . . . . (vs. 14) **VERSUS** No man hath seen God at any time . . . . (vs. 18) | | And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14) | God became a man (Jesus) | God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: . . . . (Numbers 23:19; cf. 1 Samuel 15:29) **AND** For I am the LORD, I change not;. . . . (Malachi 3:6)| How do various Christian faith traditions (Unitarians, Jehovahs Witnesses, etc.) that believe in Jesus, reverence sacred scriptures, but don't believe the in Trinity as understood by the various Ecumenical Councils refute the syllogism: - If the Word is God and the Word became Flesh (in Jesus), why is the Jesus not God? using scripture?

Jude 6 (ESV) says: > "And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day" Is this saying that demons are all in jail, and we're free from them currently? I thought the consensus is that the devil and his demons are running rampant on earth doing evil things, as it says in 1 Peter 5:8 (ESV): > Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Which is it? Are the devil and demons currently chained in hell or are they roaming around on earth? Thanks all.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is God's only direct creation, and that it was Jesus who created all other things: > Since all created things had a beginning, there was a time when God was alone. Countless ages ago, however, God became a Creator. Who was his first creation? The last book of the Bible identifies Jesus as “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Revelation 3:14) Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation.” That is so “because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible.” (Colossians 1:15, 16) **Yes, Jesus was the only one directly created by God himself.** ([Who Is Jesus Christ? on wol.jw.org](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2005681)) We see this most clearly in the Jehovah's Witnesses translation of Colossians 1:15-16: > Colossians 1:15-16 (NWT) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. **All other things have been created through him and for him.** But Isaiah 44:24 says that it was Jehovah who created all things by himself: note the last line of Isaiah 44:24 which says that no one else was with Jehovah, probably speaking primarily about humans, but also angels and other spiritual beings, which would seem to preclude God co-creating with Jesus. > Isaiah 44:24 (NWT): This is what Jehovah says, your Repurchaser, Who formed you since you were in the womb: “**I am Jehovah, who made everything.** I stretched out the heavens **by myself**, And I spread out the earth. **Who was with me?** How do the Jehovah's Witnesses reconcile Isaiah 44:24 with their belief that Jesus is the only direct creation of God and it was Jesus who created all other things? Question based on various revisions of [this now deleted question by Mr. Bond](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/75286/6071) .

In an article on "Authorship of Luke-Acts " in Wikipedia, it states the following: > According to a Church tradition, first attested by Irenaeus (c. 130 – > c. 202 AD), he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of > the Pauline letters, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the > countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic > Pauline letters... The editors of Wikipedia appeal to the following reference for a "critical consensus" for a list of contradictions: > Theissen, Gerd; Merz, Annette (1998) . The historical Jesus: a > comprehensive guide. Translated by Bowden, John. Fortress Press. ISBN > 9780800631239. What are the strongest arguments contained in that source, translated by John Bowden, and what are the responses by critics (i.e. Christian apologists) holding to a traditional view of the unity of canonical Scripture?

I have been thinking lately how odd it is for God to give a Commandment to not kill, but then demand his followers to slay both animals and people, innocents even. It did not have any exceptions like "Thou shall not kill unless commanded to by me to.", just "Thou shall not kill". So I feel this is contradiction. Is this correct?

Jesus said in Mat 5:17-18 (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**. If we stop reading the paragraph at the first bolded sentence, we'll get the impression that the law is eternal (well... until heaven and earth disappear). But if we keep reading until reaching the second bolded text, we'll get a different understanding: somehow the law will end after "everything is accomplished" (i.e. when Christ's earthly duties are done?). So it's not eternal, after all. Isn't this a contradiction? I'm still having a hard time understanding this passage.

Judas Iscariot committed suicide when he realized the evil that he had done. > Matthew 27:3-5 (KJV) > > **3** Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, >
**4** Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. >
**5** And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. The passage in Matthew shows that Judas hanged himself, but Acts 1 says something else: > Acts 1:18-19 (KJV) > > **18** Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. >
**19** And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. Are these two passages contradictory? How did Judas die?

Related: Why does the author of Hebrews render their quotation of Jeremiah 31:33 differently in two places? ### Background The book of Hebrews uses the Hebrew Bible as support for its arguments many times. The author cites Jeremiah 31:33 in two different places and chooses to render the verse curiously differently each time. The first citation occurs in Hebrews 8:10: > ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διαθήσομαι **τῷ οἴκῳ Ἰσραὴλ** μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, λέγει Κύριος, διδοὺς νόμους μου εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς, καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς Θεόν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν. (NA27) > > For this is the covenant that I will make with the **house of Israel** after that time, declares the Lord: I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. The second citation is in Hebrews 10:16: > Αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διαθήσομαι **πρὸς αὐτοὺς** μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, λέγει Κύριος· διδοὺς νόμους μου ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς (NA27) > > This is the covenant I will make **with them** after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws on their hearts and write them on their minds For reference, Jeremiah 31:33 reads > כִּי זֹאת הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר אֶכְרֹת **אֶת־בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל** אַחֲרֵי > הַיָּמִים הָהֵם נְאֻם־יְהֹוָה נָתַתִּי אֶת־תּוֹרָתִי בְּקִרְבָּם > וְעַל־לִבָּם אֶכְתְּבֶנָּה וְהָיִיתִי לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים וְהֵמָּה > יִהְיוּ־לִי לְעָם׃ (MT) > > But such is the covenant I will make with the **House of Israel** after these days—declares Hashem: I will put My Torah into their inmost being and inscribe it upon their hearts. Then I will be their G-d, and they shall be My people. ### Definitions The definition of misquoting is to repeat something someone has said in a way that is not accurate . ### Question Which of the two citations is the accurate one? Is this an example of misquoting the Hebrew bible? Why does the author of Hebrews use "**house of Israel**" the first time and "**them**" the second time?

In Matthew when Jesus and Satan interacted, in one of the temptations given by Satan we get the sense that he has authority over all nations : > Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭4‬:‭8‬-‭9‬ ‭ESV‬ However, it is mentioned in the Old Testament that wars and conflicts do exist between nations, such as Babylon coming to destroy Egypt. > Thus says the Lord God: “I will put an end to the wealth of Egypt, by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. He and his people with him, the most ruthless of nations, shall be brought in to destroy the land, and they shall draw their swords against Egypt and fill the land with the slain.” ‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭30‬:‭10‬-‭11‬ ‭ESV‬‬ But later in Matthew, Jesus uses the argument that Satan's kingdom can’t be divided. > “Knowing their thoughts,” he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭12‬:‭25‬-‭26‬ ‭ESV‬‬ My question is: given that Satan has/had authority over the nations in the past as well as these satanic nations then conquering one another as shown in Ezekiel, how does Jesus’s argument hold up that Satan's kingdom can’t be divided? Is he speaking only spiritually or something else?